At 02:55 16/08/1999 -0300, you wrote:
> >I'm interesting in discuss the problem of methodology in Foucult's
>works > especially the abandom of phenomenology and estructuralism, and
>the >decision of make his own method, callled archeology.
><<
Hi Mr/Ms Anonymous!
I share your interest in Foucault's methods despite prevailing contestation
over the appropriateness of imputing a methodology to Foucault's critical
and historical analyses! Perhaps, however, you might be a little more
specific in your queries. You've drawn attention to a broad area here and
I'm sure any number of good secondary texts exist covering such problems;
Dreyfus and Rabinow's Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics is probably the
best place to start.
I have my own query vis-a-vis Foucault and methods and that's the extent to
which genealogy might be understood as a method applicable to different
historical work. Foucault is very good on describing the attitude or
critical imperatives one might bring to genealogical inquiry but the
specific features of such work appear more elusive to me! Perhaps others
might have some comments/advice?
cheers,
cameron duff
brisbane
> >I'm interesting in discuss the problem of methodology in Foucult's
>works > especially the abandom of phenomenology and estructuralism, and
>the >decision of make his own method, callled archeology.
><<
Hi Mr/Ms Anonymous!
I share your interest in Foucault's methods despite prevailing contestation
over the appropriateness of imputing a methodology to Foucault's critical
and historical analyses! Perhaps, however, you might be a little more
specific in your queries. You've drawn attention to a broad area here and
I'm sure any number of good secondary texts exist covering such problems;
Dreyfus and Rabinow's Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics is probably the
best place to start.
I have my own query vis-a-vis Foucault and methods and that's the extent to
which genealogy might be understood as a method applicable to different
historical work. Foucault is very good on describing the attitude or
critical imperatives one might bring to genealogical inquiry but the
specific features of such work appear more elusive to me! Perhaps others
might have some comments/advice?
cheers,
cameron duff
brisbane