>I agree that Foucault is doing a genealogy of sexuality. Yet it does
>not escape my attention that the title of the *series* is a "history".
>Foucault has told us of archaelogy and of genealogy, but hasn't he only
>referred to "history" in terms of the those two terms prior to this
>work? What is it to do a history of sexuality rather than a Genealogy
>of Sexuality, a name which he might have entitled it instead if he were
>so inclined.
I wouldn't attempt any sort of brief answer to this dense, complex, and
important question, but it seems to me that a crucial place to look for
the answer is "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History." I would want to suggest
that the conception of history that runs through Nietzsche--and that
Foucault synthesizes in a way in that essay--is a history of effects that
must be distinguished from antiquarianism, a Hegelian philosophy of
history, and historicism. This Nietzschean understanding of history can
only be carried out by the genealogist and the archeologist; thus, a
"history" of sexuality requires both genealogical and archeological
investigations. (To these two Nietzsche might have added etymological and
philological.)
Sam