Hello everybody!
I am working on a paper about Foucault´s use of Nietzsche´s genealogy as a
historical/critical "method". If my readings are correct, he more or less
broke with his strict archaeological project after "The Archaeology of
Knowledge" and concentrated more on how relations of power construct
different configurations of knowledge about objects/subjects etc. In that
case I´m especially interestested in
1) if anybody know of any articles/books which treats Nietzsches own use of
his genealogy, or if there are papers on the differences between Foucault´s
and Nietzsche´s use of it.
2) Does anybody have a comment, or know any articles, about Foucault´s
stand against hermeneutics (maybe some interviews) after his turning to
genealogy/power. I know Dreyfus & Rabinow calls Foucault´s later work a kind
of interpretation, but I still wonder what is the main difference between
this kind of interpretation and regular hermeneutics. (All hermeneutics
doesn´t need to be "deep" hermeneutics which reveals some hidden truth, but
doesn´t all interpretation necessarily say somthing about what a text
conceals or implies in addition to what it reveals at "face value"? And
similarly: can one say that Nietzsches reading of history is a kind of
interpretation/hermeneutics?)
If anyone have a comment on these problems, I would be very greatful.
Morten Lyngeng
I am working on a paper about Foucault´s use of Nietzsche´s genealogy as a
historical/critical "method". If my readings are correct, he more or less
broke with his strict archaeological project after "The Archaeology of
Knowledge" and concentrated more on how relations of power construct
different configurations of knowledge about objects/subjects etc. In that
case I´m especially interestested in
1) if anybody know of any articles/books which treats Nietzsches own use of
his genealogy, or if there are papers on the differences between Foucault´s
and Nietzsche´s use of it.
2) Does anybody have a comment, or know any articles, about Foucault´s
stand against hermeneutics (maybe some interviews) after his turning to
genealogy/power. I know Dreyfus & Rabinow calls Foucault´s later work a kind
of interpretation, but I still wonder what is the main difference between
this kind of interpretation and regular hermeneutics. (All hermeneutics
doesn´t need to be "deep" hermeneutics which reveals some hidden truth, but
doesn´t all interpretation necessarily say somthing about what a text
conceals or implies in addition to what it reveals at "face value"? And
similarly: can one say that Nietzsches reading of history is a kind of
interpretation/hermeneutics?)
If anyone have a comment on these problems, I would be very greatful.
Morten Lyngeng