Joyce Oshyer wrote:
>
> Can anyone explain what is meant by Foucault's "type of archeological
> analysis" in Dreyfus and Rabinow's "Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics"
> (preface xii) where they state that
>
> "This new method combines a type of archaeological analysis which preserves
> the distancing effect of structuralism ..."
>
> In what way does it differ from historical analysis?
>
> Also
> Is there any similarity/connection between the "Deconstructionist" movement
> credited to Derrida, and Foucault's work on power?
>
> Cheers
> Joyce
Dear Joyce,
Yes, the archeology is a historical method and Jeff is right in his
answer when he says that the archeology concentrates on texts (or text
corpora) without referring to the intentio n of the author;
it is concernced with the rising of a -scientific- object at a certain
time and what somebody says where about something. By using this method
certain structures of a historical period can be discovered, cognitive
structures, >episteme<, as Foucault calls it(s.f. The order of Things
which is discussed in this electronic forum). The method allows to
reconstruct the cultural formations of a period.
The assumption which is made by Foucault is that there is a kind of law,
a kind of regulative principle of what can be said (in a text) or not.
And the archeology is the specific historical method of the description
of local and historical limited discourse types or discoursive
formations (s.f. Foucault, The archeology of knowledge)
The counterpart to the archeologist method is genealogy which is
concerned with the historical conditions of a discourse formation, more
exactly with the historical struggles from which discourses arise.
So far for now
Hanna
>
> Can anyone explain what is meant by Foucault's "type of archeological
> analysis" in Dreyfus and Rabinow's "Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics"
> (preface xii) where they state that
>
> "This new method combines a type of archaeological analysis which preserves
> the distancing effect of structuralism ..."
>
> In what way does it differ from historical analysis?
>
> Also
> Is there any similarity/connection between the "Deconstructionist" movement
> credited to Derrida, and Foucault's work on power?
>
> Cheers
> Joyce
Dear Joyce,
Yes, the archeology is a historical method and Jeff is right in his
answer when he says that the archeology concentrates on texts (or text
corpora) without referring to the intentio n of the author;
it is concernced with the rising of a -scientific- object at a certain
time and what somebody says where about something. By using this method
certain structures of a historical period can be discovered, cognitive
structures, >episteme<, as Foucault calls it(s.f. The order of Things
which is discussed in this electronic forum). The method allows to
reconstruct the cultural formations of a period.
The assumption which is made by Foucault is that there is a kind of law,
a kind of regulative principle of what can be said (in a text) or not.
And the archeology is the specific historical method of the description
of local and historical limited discourse types or discoursive
formations (s.f. Foucault, The archeology of knowledge)
The counterpart to the archeologist method is genealogy which is
concerned with the historical conditions of a discourse formation, more
exactly with the historical struggles from which discourses arise.
So far for now
Hanna