Sean
I won't repeat what John said, which I would agree with, though I'd be
careful in relating it to Kuhn. Foucault gives an interview with R. Bellour
(Dits et ecrits, Vol I, text 34; in English 'The Order of Things' in
Foucault: Live) which explains the book quite well, as I recall. Remember
too that the book was 'les mots et les choses' in French, literally 'words
and things'. Foucault decided on the English title because 1) there was
already at least one English book with 'words and things' as a title and 2)
because L'ordre des choses had been a considered title in the first place.
Key question: what is the relationship between language and the world? How
does classical representation become challenged in the modern age? How is
the modern age - the age of 'man' - challenged today (1966)?
The book is difficult, no doubt about that. Along with Birth of the Clinic
and Archaeology of Knowledge it is one of Foucault's toughest reads - not
least because you need to know the material he is dealing with in order to
fully appreciate it. I confess to finding the material on general
grammar/philology; natural history/biology and analysis of wealth/political
economy (not so much the last) somewhat outside of my interest and
knowledge. But the book can function in some ways without that detail. I
would suggest reading the preface and first three chapters, and then the
last two. This isn't ideal, but it should give you the key thrust of the
book in terms of its philosophical importance. Unless of course you are
interested in one of the particular aspects of the book.
Bear in mind also that the book developed in part from Foucault's secondary
thesis on Kant's anthropology, and that it is a critical response to Kant's
question 'what is man?', that it was a settling of accounts with Sartre
(though the direct refs were removed just before publication) and that it
engages with Heidegger, particularly Division II of Being and Time (annoying
unfootnoted). I'm sure there are other issues at play - the growth of
structuralism, the critique of contemporary historiography, etc. etc. - but
these are the ones I found most important.
This may be of help, or maybe not. Why are you reading it - a particular
reason/assignment/etc. or more general interest?
Writing this I've just glanced at the blurb on the back cover of the
translation I have: 'This book is not a "history" of the human sciences, but
an analysis of their foundations, their substrata, a reflection on what
makes them possible now, an archaeology of contemporary modes of thought'.
This seems a fairly clear summary of the book's purpose. Like the later
Heidegger I think Foucault is engaged in historical ontology - a
historicising of the Kantian question of the conditions of possibility of
knowledge.
Best wishes
Stuart
I won't repeat what John said, which I would agree with, though I'd be
careful in relating it to Kuhn. Foucault gives an interview with R. Bellour
(Dits et ecrits, Vol I, text 34; in English 'The Order of Things' in
Foucault: Live) which explains the book quite well, as I recall. Remember
too that the book was 'les mots et les choses' in French, literally 'words
and things'. Foucault decided on the English title because 1) there was
already at least one English book with 'words and things' as a title and 2)
because L'ordre des choses had been a considered title in the first place.
Key question: what is the relationship between language and the world? How
does classical representation become challenged in the modern age? How is
the modern age - the age of 'man' - challenged today (1966)?
The book is difficult, no doubt about that. Along with Birth of the Clinic
and Archaeology of Knowledge it is one of Foucault's toughest reads - not
least because you need to know the material he is dealing with in order to
fully appreciate it. I confess to finding the material on general
grammar/philology; natural history/biology and analysis of wealth/political
economy (not so much the last) somewhat outside of my interest and
knowledge. But the book can function in some ways without that detail. I
would suggest reading the preface and first three chapters, and then the
last two. This isn't ideal, but it should give you the key thrust of the
book in terms of its philosophical importance. Unless of course you are
interested in one of the particular aspects of the book.
Bear in mind also that the book developed in part from Foucault's secondary
thesis on Kant's anthropology, and that it is a critical response to Kant's
question 'what is man?', that it was a settling of accounts with Sartre
(though the direct refs were removed just before publication) and that it
engages with Heidegger, particularly Division II of Being and Time (annoying
unfootnoted). I'm sure there are other issues at play - the growth of
structuralism, the critique of contemporary historiography, etc. etc. - but
these are the ones I found most important.
This may be of help, or maybe not. Why are you reading it - a particular
reason/assignment/etc. or more general interest?
Writing this I've just glanced at the blurb on the back cover of the
translation I have: 'This book is not a "history" of the human sciences, but
an analysis of their foundations, their substrata, a reflection on what
makes them possible now, an archaeology of contemporary modes of thought'.
This seems a fairly clear summary of the book's purpose. Like the later
Heidegger I think Foucault is engaged in historical ontology - a
historicising of the Kantian question of the conditions of possibility of
knowledge.
Best wishes
Stuart