>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 there response?
That problem (if it is one) has had quite a few solutions proposed for
it. I'd advise seeing Gary Gutting's "Michael Foucault's Archeology of
Scientific Reason", who is generally a good introduction to Foucault,and
discusses your question at some length.
-- David Wachtfogel
-- Hebrew University
-- Jerusalem, Israel
>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 there response?
That problem (if it is one) has had quite a few solutions proposed for
it. I'd advise seeing Gary Gutting's "Michael Foucault's Archeology of
Scientific Reason", who is generally a good introduction to Foucault,and
discusses your question at some length.
-- David Wachtfogel
-- Hebrew University
-- Jerusalem, Israel