On Mon, 20 May 1996 ccw94@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Why would he be interested in marginal discouses ?
>
> Pardon?
>
what i meant is that F is bracketing marginal discourses (if there is
something like a "marginal" discourse; discursive formations according to F
cannot be composed by any statement uttered by anyone; it has to belong
to an episteme and in some way (try to ) establish scientific "truth")
and is looking at discourse of a particular field.
De Certeau critiques F for something he clearly states (in Arch. of K) that
doesn't intend to do. Is that a valid critique ? that's what the
sentence that you've quoted was trying to convey.
divakar
> Why would he be interested in marginal discouses ?
>
> Pardon?
>
what i meant is that F is bracketing marginal discourses (if there is
something like a "marginal" discourse; discursive formations according to F
cannot be composed by any statement uttered by anyone; it has to belong
to an episteme and in some way (try to ) establish scientific "truth")
and is looking at discourse of a particular field.
De Certeau critiques F for something he clearly states (in Arch. of K) that
doesn't intend to do. Is that a valid critique ? that's what the
sentence that you've quoted was trying to convey.
divakar