To my mind, one of the most interesting things about this debate is the
difference between textual and contextual readings. Foucault's reading of
Descartes, whilst seeking to be accurate to the text, is also aware of the
context, and the treatment of the 'mad' at the time. Indeed, i think this is
part of his point - Descartes can help to illuminate the context, and the
context helps contextualise Descartes. Derrida suggests Foucault's reading
of Descartes is misplaced, and therefore looks closely at Descartes' text
with little reference to anything outside it.
This textual/contextual difference can be seen in other places - both
writers appropriations of Heidegger's Ge-stell, Derrida's wonderful, but i
think misplaced, reading of Nietzsche in Eperons/Spurs, etc. Many of the
articles i listed a few days back make reference to the text/context issue
in the reading of Descartes - it's the obvious place to do it.
what I think is most amusing about the Foucault/Derrida exchange is that
Foucault criticises - in his reply - Derrida's textual reading of the
Meditations. This was written first in Latin, _then_ translated into French.
Derrida reads it in the French, and Foucault, quite rightly suggests this
admits of a different interpretation. Derrida, the writer who forces us to
look at the smallest of details, fails at the basic level, that of reading
the original text.
None of this should detract from Derrida, who I think is a generally
fantastic reader of texts. But on this point I have to side with Foucault.
As a note to the issue others are discussing, Foucault mentions wanting to
write the 'archaeology of that silence'. Foucault is writing the archaeology
of silence [i.e. the excluded mad], not the history of the language [i.e.
the logos, the reason] of psychiatry. This is interesting, given that it
appears in the original preface of Folie et deraison, but not in the 1972
reissue of the book as Histoire de la folie. We might want to ask why.
The English translation, which is a heavily edited version of the original
text, includes part of this original preface. But only part. Foucault
suggests he wants to write a history 'not of psychiatry, but of madness
itself'. He then quickly suggests this is a 'doubly impossible task'. What
he actually writes a history of is 'that other form of madness', the one
which has lead us to confine our neighbours.
This whole Foucault/Derrida debate is characterised - in English at least -
by the problem that Foucault's text (or the parts of it that matter in this
instance) is not available in English, whilst Derrida's critique is. It was
this that in part spurred me to work with French texts in all instances. In
fact, Histoire de la folie (1972) version, along with the original preface
(in Dits et ecrits, vol 1) were the first texts i read wholly in French.
Best
Stuart
difference between textual and contextual readings. Foucault's reading of
Descartes, whilst seeking to be accurate to the text, is also aware of the
context, and the treatment of the 'mad' at the time. Indeed, i think this is
part of his point - Descartes can help to illuminate the context, and the
context helps contextualise Descartes. Derrida suggests Foucault's reading
of Descartes is misplaced, and therefore looks closely at Descartes' text
with little reference to anything outside it.
This textual/contextual difference can be seen in other places - both
writers appropriations of Heidegger's Ge-stell, Derrida's wonderful, but i
think misplaced, reading of Nietzsche in Eperons/Spurs, etc. Many of the
articles i listed a few days back make reference to the text/context issue
in the reading of Descartes - it's the obvious place to do it.
what I think is most amusing about the Foucault/Derrida exchange is that
Foucault criticises - in his reply - Derrida's textual reading of the
Meditations. This was written first in Latin, _then_ translated into French.
Derrida reads it in the French, and Foucault, quite rightly suggests this
admits of a different interpretation. Derrida, the writer who forces us to
look at the smallest of details, fails at the basic level, that of reading
the original text.
None of this should detract from Derrida, who I think is a generally
fantastic reader of texts. But on this point I have to side with Foucault.
As a note to the issue others are discussing, Foucault mentions wanting to
write the 'archaeology of that silence'. Foucault is writing the archaeology
of silence [i.e. the excluded mad], not the history of the language [i.e.
the logos, the reason] of psychiatry. This is interesting, given that it
appears in the original preface of Folie et deraison, but not in the 1972
reissue of the book as Histoire de la folie. We might want to ask why.
The English translation, which is a heavily edited version of the original
text, includes part of this original preface. But only part. Foucault
suggests he wants to write a history 'not of psychiatry, but of madness
itself'. He then quickly suggests this is a 'doubly impossible task'. What
he actually writes a history of is 'that other form of madness', the one
which has lead us to confine our neighbours.
This whole Foucault/Derrida debate is characterised - in English at least -
by the problem that Foucault's text (or the parts of it that matter in this
instance) is not available in English, whilst Derrida's critique is. It was
this that in part spurred me to work with French texts in all instances. In
fact, Histoire de la folie (1972) version, along with the original preface
(in Dits et ecrits, vol 1) were the first texts i read wholly in French.
Best
Stuart