Seems to me like you're splitting semantic hairs. I say _a_ history
... you say _the_ genealogy.
Does anyone still believe in "_the_ History, as one great narrative"?
And as for "historical truth" ....
>Maybe this has been discussed before, but anyway,
>I wonder if you see genealogy as a kind of "counter-history" to a more
>canonical/encyclopedic/traditional view on history; that is an alternative
>history to both _the_ History, as one great narrative, and more regional
>histories about the progress of a scientific discipline, an institution, a
>way of behavior etc.? Another way to put the question is, could we only
>operate with different kinds of genealogies, or is a genealogical inquiry
>dependent on (and maybe mutually interdependent with) an
>all-ready-taken-for-granted history which it can oppose?
> I myself regard genealogy as an history of problematizations, since it
>doesnt explain how historical changes appear (from one episteme or
>"dispositif" to another), and never emphasize itself as a kind of
>storytelling which tells what "actually happened" behind what we take as a
>truth. It rather stresses itself as a possible history behind a phenomenon
>(a practice, a belief, an institution etc.), a history which traces the
>descents (Herkunft) which constitutes an object of knowledge as we know it
>today. The object of knowledge (or a practice) investigated, is itself put
>forward as an diagnosis of a particular contemporary condition, not as an
>selfevidently fact. In that way genealogy can avoid establishing a
>historical truth behind a phenomeneon, but only make a fruitful
>problematization of a phenomenon taken for granted.
> Anybody got any comments?
>
>Morten Lyngeng
... you say _the_ genealogy.
Does anyone still believe in "_the_ History, as one great narrative"?
And as for "historical truth" ....
>Maybe this has been discussed before, but anyway,
>I wonder if you see genealogy as a kind of "counter-history" to a more
>canonical/encyclopedic/traditional view on history; that is an alternative
>history to both _the_ History, as one great narrative, and more regional
>histories about the progress of a scientific discipline, an institution, a
>way of behavior etc.? Another way to put the question is, could we only
>operate with different kinds of genealogies, or is a genealogical inquiry
>dependent on (and maybe mutually interdependent with) an
>all-ready-taken-for-granted history which it can oppose?
> I myself regard genealogy as an history of problematizations, since it
>doesnt explain how historical changes appear (from one episteme or
>"dispositif" to another), and never emphasize itself as a kind of
>storytelling which tells what "actually happened" behind what we take as a
>truth. It rather stresses itself as a possible history behind a phenomenon
>(a practice, a belief, an institution etc.), a history which traces the
>descents (Herkunft) which constitutes an object of knowledge as we know it
>today. The object of knowledge (or a practice) investigated, is itself put
>forward as an diagnosis of a particular contemporary condition, not as an
>selfevidently fact. In that way genealogy can avoid establishing a
>historical truth behind a phenomeneon, but only make a fruitful
>problematization of a phenomenon taken for granted.
> Anybody got any comments?
>
>Morten Lyngeng