On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 Palazareli@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Only recently have I begun to read Foucault and am confused on one point. Why
> can't one perform an archaeology on arch. to point to it existence only
> within a discursive formation. It makes me think that it is circular. What
> would be ther response?
>
The fact that Foucault's archaeology can be pointed to as an instance of
the archaeological method would not, I imagine, bother him at all. The
claim that 'discourse is discursive' (whatever that means; just using it
as an example) is itself discursive, but that does not undermine the
insight. It may be further evidence of the insight.
--John
> Only recently have I begun to read Foucault and am confused on one point. Why
> can't one perform an archaeology on arch. to point to it existence only
> within a discursive formation. It makes me think that it is circular. What
> would be ther response?
>
The fact that Foucault's archaeology can be pointed to as an instance of
the archaeological method would not, I imagine, bother him at all. The
claim that 'discourse is discursive' (whatever that means; just using it
as an example) is itself discursive, but that does not undermine the
insight. It may be further evidence of the insight.
--John