>
> Hey out there - can some one help me out? I am seeking a
> solution here---does Foucault have a coneotion of historical
> change? I am inclined to think he does, and that it hinges
> on his analysis of "events"; What is his coneption of
> events? Are they singular, local, and specific? Or can we
> speak of events as being general, or generalizable?
> In The Archeology of Knowledge, he speaks of statements as
> events, and they seem to have soem kind of causal impact on
> discursive formations; on the other hand, he speaks of
> archives as "events" of discourse. In Nietzsche, Genalogy,
> History events are supposed to have some larger,
> transformational capacity. Is there a distinciton to be
> made between his (late) archeological and his (early -1970)
> genealogical coneption of historical change? Am i missing
> something - should I be looking "beyond the event"? Does he
> not care what factors contribute to the historiocal shifts
> in discursive practices which he so often describes?
>
>
Events do indeed have 'origins' for Foucualt, but such origins are caused by
such a diverse confluence of social factors that Foucualt finds the term
causality quite problematic. Causality brings to mind the readily
identifiable source of a complex historical event (such as the development of the prison), where the causal elements are believed to exhaust, or at least
mostly explain, the origin of an event. In a book about Foucault and Govern-
menatality (I forget the title), Foucault explains, in an essay, his view of
historical
causality quite clearly. Foucualt, in D & P, offers a partial list of causal
factors- the monarchy, the capitalists, and the penal reformers-, yet he
admits that this list can only be partial and suggestive, but not definitive,
since the more one investigates causal factors, the ever expanding becomes the
web of interconnected factors resulting in the birth of the prison. For
an historian to suggest the he/she has found 'the' source for the origin and
development of a complex social event (product), is, for Foucault, the height
of historical delusion. Foucault is quite Nietzschean in this regard (refer
to N's discussion of historical development and methodology in 'The Geneology
of Morals'. It is where N discusses the origin of punishemnt in the Western
world). To paraphrase; 'history is a motley collection of haphazzrd events,
acts of cunning, approriation, atack, and counter-attack".
> Hey out there - can some one help me out? I am seeking a
> solution here---does Foucault have a coneotion of historical
> change? I am inclined to think he does, and that it hinges
> on his analysis of "events"; What is his coneption of
> events? Are they singular, local, and specific? Or can we
> speak of events as being general, or generalizable?
> In The Archeology of Knowledge, he speaks of statements as
> events, and they seem to have soem kind of causal impact on
> discursive formations; on the other hand, he speaks of
> archives as "events" of discourse. In Nietzsche, Genalogy,
> History events are supposed to have some larger,
> transformational capacity. Is there a distinciton to be
> made between his (late) archeological and his (early -1970)
> genealogical coneption of historical change? Am i missing
> something - should I be looking "beyond the event"? Does he
> not care what factors contribute to the historiocal shifts
> in discursive practices which he so often describes?
>
>
Events do indeed have 'origins' for Foucualt, but such origins are caused by
such a diverse confluence of social factors that Foucualt finds the term
causality quite problematic. Causality brings to mind the readily
identifiable source of a complex historical event (such as the development of the prison), where the causal elements are believed to exhaust, or at least
mostly explain, the origin of an event. In a book about Foucault and Govern-
menatality (I forget the title), Foucault explains, in an essay, his view of
historical
causality quite clearly. Foucualt, in D & P, offers a partial list of causal
factors- the monarchy, the capitalists, and the penal reformers-, yet he
admits that this list can only be partial and suggestive, but not definitive,
since the more one investigates causal factors, the ever expanding becomes the
web of interconnected factors resulting in the birth of the prison. For
an historian to suggest the he/she has found 'the' source for the origin and
development of a complex social event (product), is, for Foucault, the height
of historical delusion. Foucault is quite Nietzschean in this regard (refer
to N's discussion of historical development and methodology in 'The Geneology
of Morals'. It is where N discusses the origin of punishemnt in the Western
world). To paraphrase; 'history is a motley collection of haphazzrd events,
acts of cunning, approriation, atack, and counter-attack".