Daniel,
It seems that now we are in agreement (what a state of affairs!). You have
now written that 'the rest of the Archeology discusses discursive
formations in and of themselves'. This was my point, however, earlier you
had written that 'F does acknowledge a distinction b/w discursive and
non-discursive dimensions of social reality, but then clearly focusses only
on the latter'. I think that in your first message you may have your
'formers and latters' out of joint, and this, in turn, confused me. Sorry
to be pedantic.
-------------------
Campbell Jones
University of Otago
New Zealand
-------------------
It seems that now we are in agreement (what a state of affairs!). You have
now written that 'the rest of the Archeology discusses discursive
formations in and of themselves'. This was my point, however, earlier you
had written that 'F does acknowledge a distinction b/w discursive and
non-discursive dimensions of social reality, but then clearly focusses only
on the latter'. I think that in your first message you may have your
'formers and latters' out of joint, and this, in turn, confused me. Sorry
to be pedantic.
-------------------
Campbell Jones
University of Otago
New Zealand
-------------------