On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 08:35:57 +0000, malcolmt@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>I guess my point is that it's perhaps not necessary to choose between
>one and the other - i.e. whether Foucault analyses social formations
>or formations of the social. Approaching Foucault from one
>perspective permits observations not possible from the other, and
>vice versa. So perhaps it's more a question of "both/and" rather than
>"either/or".
>
>Hmm. Any thoughts?
I guess this is just right. And it applies more generally. Perhaps an earlier
and important example of this kind of thing-process duality is Durkheim's
'social fact' which is 'fait social' - both a fact and a past perfect of the verb
to do. that which has been done.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------
>
>I guess my point is that it's perhaps not necessary to choose between
>one and the other - i.e. whether Foucault analyses social formations
>or formations of the social. Approaching Foucault from one
>perspective permits observations not possible from the other, and
>vice versa. So perhaps it's more a question of "both/and" rather than
>"either/or".
>
>Hmm. Any thoughts?
I guess this is just right. And it applies more generally. Perhaps an earlier
and important example of this kind of thing-process duality is Durkheim's
'social fact' which is 'fait social' - both a fact and a past perfect of the verb
to do. that which has been done.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------