I argue that Nietzschean geneology is used by F. to refine antihumanist tactics,
but that the framework Foucault employs stems from his search for a material
science of history in the structural Marxist tradition. Yes, F. adopts several
Heideggerian claims about the elimination of the subject, but it was Althusser
who imported an antihumanist apporach to history into a Marxist framework, one
that I see operating especially in F's geneologies.
Most commentators stress Foucault's "deconstructive" attempts to treat history
as a dispersion of events, as nominalist, and always local. Such a reading
completely ignores the claims f. makes to write a "general history." I realize
I'm oversimplifying, but it would take a long time to spell this out clearly.
But if you read the archeology of Knowledge, Foucault's comments on defraction
and localisation of events are attempts to weed out the metaphysics of humanist
historiography. F. does receognize that many of the phenomena he investigates
are "general," but in order to avoid a type of humanist reductionism, he
develops a bottom up approach to history, clearly visible in D&P and in his
lectures from Power/Knowledge where he discusses his "ascending analysis" of
discourse.
Foucault uses some Nietzschean tactics and techniques (in my book I have two
chapters on Nietzschean geneology) in his work from the 70's, but these tactics
occur within a structural Marxist framework. For instance, F's "history of
'truth'" appears to be a Nietzschean methodology; however, all F. has done is to
substitute 'truth', 'truth regimes', etc. for "ideologies" (because Foucault
thought the term "ideology" to be loaded with humanist baggage). Once you make
that substitution, you can look at Althusser's notion that ideologies produce
subjects (through the ISAs - that is, in teh 'superstructure' or 'culture' in
the Marxist classics) as being the starting point for Foucauldian geneology.
Why not Nietzschean, or Heideggerian? Maybe this is wishful thinking, but
aren't these two at best non-political, and at worst Fascist? Do they offer any
kind of political criticism that has revolutionary potential? Foucault seems to
me to be very interested in the old Marxist concern of developing a "praxis" -
but some kind of normative, critical framework has to be in place. The humanist
one, Althusser and F. hold, had become "conservative" if not in its politics
than in its historiography. I claim that from M&C to HS v.I Foucault continues
to struggle with a politically viable antihumanist historiography.
-- Joe Cronin
but that the framework Foucault employs stems from his search for a material
science of history in the structural Marxist tradition. Yes, F. adopts several
Heideggerian claims about the elimination of the subject, but it was Althusser
who imported an antihumanist apporach to history into a Marxist framework, one
that I see operating especially in F's geneologies.
Most commentators stress Foucault's "deconstructive" attempts to treat history
as a dispersion of events, as nominalist, and always local. Such a reading
completely ignores the claims f. makes to write a "general history." I realize
I'm oversimplifying, but it would take a long time to spell this out clearly.
But if you read the archeology of Knowledge, Foucault's comments on defraction
and localisation of events are attempts to weed out the metaphysics of humanist
historiography. F. does receognize that many of the phenomena he investigates
are "general," but in order to avoid a type of humanist reductionism, he
develops a bottom up approach to history, clearly visible in D&P and in his
lectures from Power/Knowledge where he discusses his "ascending analysis" of
discourse.
Foucault uses some Nietzschean tactics and techniques (in my book I have two
chapters on Nietzschean geneology) in his work from the 70's, but these tactics
occur within a structural Marxist framework. For instance, F's "history of
'truth'" appears to be a Nietzschean methodology; however, all F. has done is to
substitute 'truth', 'truth regimes', etc. for "ideologies" (because Foucault
thought the term "ideology" to be loaded with humanist baggage). Once you make
that substitution, you can look at Althusser's notion that ideologies produce
subjects (through the ISAs - that is, in teh 'superstructure' or 'culture' in
the Marxist classics) as being the starting point for Foucauldian geneology.
Why not Nietzschean, or Heideggerian? Maybe this is wishful thinking, but
aren't these two at best non-political, and at worst Fascist? Do they offer any
kind of political criticism that has revolutionary potential? Foucault seems to
me to be very interested in the old Marxist concern of developing a "praxis" -
but some kind of normative, critical framework has to be in place. The humanist
one, Althusser and F. hold, had become "conservative" if not in its politics
than in its historiography. I claim that from M&C to HS v.I Foucault continues
to struggle with a politically viable antihumanist historiography.
-- Joe Cronin