Henry
-
>Stuart, what do you think of the great influence of structuralism on F?
>How do you see it transforming, mutating, disappearing-if so?
>
That's a good question. I think that structuralism was an influence on
Foucault, and that F's critique of the 'certain half-witted "commentators"
[who] persist in labelling me a structuralist' in Order of Things is
protesting too much. However he does quite early on suggest that archaeology
owed more to Nietzschean genealogy than structuralism properly called.
The points of common interest: interest in Bachelard and Canguilhem (like
Althusser); de Saussure (like many); critique of Sartre, critique of agency,
anti-humanism; praise of Levi-Strauss and Lacan in OT
Points of difference: Foucault historical from day one, whilst structuralism
tended to neglect this (though F did once say that structuralism was
properly a different way of dealing with history); whilst structuralists
regularly used spatial language, F alone made spatial analyses in tandem.
The Birth of the Clinic is a good place to look. The original is full of
'structuralist' language, the 1972 revision is purged of this. Foucault
covering his tracks I think. James Miller suggests the use of the jargon was
largely cosmetic, as the buzzwords could be jettisoned without touching the
argument. My take is that if the argument was untouched then it was only the
words that were jettisoned, i.e. the structuralist argument remained. James
Bernauer, MF's Force of Flight has an appendix on these changes.
A really useful 1967 interview 'La philosophie structuraliste permet de
diagnistiquer ce qu'est <<aujourd'hui>>' (Dits et ecrits, Vol I, pp.
580-4)discusses some of these points. I don't think this is available in
English, but happy to stand corrected.
A rough translation of a key quotation:
"What I have tried to do, is to introduce the analyses of a structuralist
style into those areas where they haven't penetrated until now, that is to
say into the domain of the history of ideas, the history of connaissances,
the history of theory. In this way, I have been brought to analyse in terms
of structure the birth of structuralism itself" (DE I, 583)
I think the original subtitle of Les mots et les choses was an archaeology
of structuralism rather than of the human sciences.
Hope this opens discussion
Best
Stuart
-
>Stuart, what do you think of the great influence of structuralism on F?
>How do you see it transforming, mutating, disappearing-if so?
>
That's a good question. I think that structuralism was an influence on
Foucault, and that F's critique of the 'certain half-witted "commentators"
[who] persist in labelling me a structuralist' in Order of Things is
protesting too much. However he does quite early on suggest that archaeology
owed more to Nietzschean genealogy than structuralism properly called.
The points of common interest: interest in Bachelard and Canguilhem (like
Althusser); de Saussure (like many); critique of Sartre, critique of agency,
anti-humanism; praise of Levi-Strauss and Lacan in OT
Points of difference: Foucault historical from day one, whilst structuralism
tended to neglect this (though F did once say that structuralism was
properly a different way of dealing with history); whilst structuralists
regularly used spatial language, F alone made spatial analyses in tandem.
The Birth of the Clinic is a good place to look. The original is full of
'structuralist' language, the 1972 revision is purged of this. Foucault
covering his tracks I think. James Miller suggests the use of the jargon was
largely cosmetic, as the buzzwords could be jettisoned without touching the
argument. My take is that if the argument was untouched then it was only the
words that were jettisoned, i.e. the structuralist argument remained. James
Bernauer, MF's Force of Flight has an appendix on these changes.
A really useful 1967 interview 'La philosophie structuraliste permet de
diagnistiquer ce qu'est <<aujourd'hui>>' (Dits et ecrits, Vol I, pp.
580-4)discusses some of these points. I don't think this is available in
English, but happy to stand corrected.
A rough translation of a key quotation:
"What I have tried to do, is to introduce the analyses of a structuralist
style into those areas where they haven't penetrated until now, that is to
say into the domain of the history of ideas, the history of connaissances,
the history of theory. In this way, I have been brought to analyse in terms
of structure the birth of structuralism itself" (DE I, 583)
I think the original subtitle of Les mots et les choses was an archaeology
of structuralism rather than of the human sciences.
Hope this opens discussion
Best
Stuart