You might try Theories of Discourse, by Diane MacDowell. For
literary analyses, you could try Tony Bennett's Outside Literature.
Philip GOldstein
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 GMCMILLAN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know where I can find any works about a comparison between the
> conceptions of =E9pist=E9m=E8 or "savoir" in Foucault and the marxist concep=
> tion
> of ideology and especially the one developed by Althusser?
>
> Maybe someone can help me to understand clearly the own conception of
> Ideology developed in AK, as a limit, a frontier, between science and
> savoir?
>
> Glo> In reading _The History of Sexuality_, I got the impression that
> F. favors the subjective over the objective.
>
> My analogy would be that he finds the lens of more interest than
> the star or microbe at which it is pointed.
>
> In so elevating the social and human aspect of knowledge (knowledge
> is produced by DISCOURSE rather than DISCOVERY), doesn't F.
> make peace with "the powers that be"? In other words, he concedes
> that something may be true and yet not be "the truth" because it
> gets said by someone who is outside the official organs of
> discourse and is a personage of no rank.
>
> I applied Mendel and his peas to this. Mendel was ignored for a time
> because his ideas and discoveries did not fit the framwrok of theory
> of his day. Also, Louis Pasteur only succeeded in convincing the
> medical officals of the efficacy of his anthrax vaccine due to
> a staged trial, wherein he made a public controlled 2-group
> experiment. In that instance the officals were totally wrong. If
> F. is saying that knowledge is ALWAYS a prouct of discourse and not
> discovery, is he not being a bit reductionist in his analysis?
> Just that example shows that DISCOVERY can move DISCOURSE in a
> different direction. That is, the French medical academicians had
> absolutely no intention to accomodate Pasteur's theories into
> their discourse, but were forced to do so by the reality of
> Pasteur's sheep being healthy and the other sheep being dead.
>
> I don't know if this answers anything about the relation of
> "savoir" to science. Perhaps there are some areas where DISCOURSE
> must yield itself to discovery and others where it need not.
>
> Gloria
>
>
>
>
>
> Would Foucault agree with the opinion of Althusser that "ideology
> has no history"? Then, is there here a kind of "eternal" and then why not
> "universal" point in the analysis of Foucault? MAybe, the beginning of a
> real theory of knowledge? That's a big problem for me, because I always
> thought that Foucault always refused such theoretical, or universal, point
> of view.
>
> MAybe that's all silly, so...
>
> Thanx anyway,
>
> Ludovic ARMAND
> Etudiant en th=E8se de Science politique
>
literary analyses, you could try Tony Bennett's Outside Literature.
Philip GOldstein
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 GMCMILLAN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know where I can find any works about a comparison between the
> conceptions of =E9pist=E9m=E8 or "savoir" in Foucault and the marxist concep=
> tion
> of ideology and especially the one developed by Althusser?
>
> Maybe someone can help me to understand clearly the own conception of
> Ideology developed in AK, as a limit, a frontier, between science and
> savoir?
>
> Glo> In reading _The History of Sexuality_, I got the impression that
> F. favors the subjective over the objective.
>
> My analogy would be that he finds the lens of more interest than
> the star or microbe at which it is pointed.
>
> In so elevating the social and human aspect of knowledge (knowledge
> is produced by DISCOURSE rather than DISCOVERY), doesn't F.
> make peace with "the powers that be"? In other words, he concedes
> that something may be true and yet not be "the truth" because it
> gets said by someone who is outside the official organs of
> discourse and is a personage of no rank.
>
> I applied Mendel and his peas to this. Mendel was ignored for a time
> because his ideas and discoveries did not fit the framwrok of theory
> of his day. Also, Louis Pasteur only succeeded in convincing the
> medical officals of the efficacy of his anthrax vaccine due to
> a staged trial, wherein he made a public controlled 2-group
> experiment. In that instance the officals were totally wrong. If
> F. is saying that knowledge is ALWAYS a prouct of discourse and not
> discovery, is he not being a bit reductionist in his analysis?
> Just that example shows that DISCOVERY can move DISCOURSE in a
> different direction. That is, the French medical academicians had
> absolutely no intention to accomodate Pasteur's theories into
> their discourse, but were forced to do so by the reality of
> Pasteur's sheep being healthy and the other sheep being dead.
>
> I don't know if this answers anything about the relation of
> "savoir" to science. Perhaps there are some areas where DISCOURSE
> must yield itself to discovery and others where it need not.
>
> Gloria
>
>
>
>
>
> Would Foucault agree with the opinion of Althusser that "ideology
> has no history"? Then, is there here a kind of "eternal" and then why not
> "universal" point in the analysis of Foucault? MAybe, the beginning of a
> real theory of knowledge? That's a big problem for me, because I always
> thought that Foucault always refused such theoretical, or universal, point
> of view.
>
> MAybe that's all silly, so...
>
> Thanx anyway,
>
> Ludovic ARMAND
> Etudiant en th=E8se de Science politique
>