hi,
I think you maybe think about how will you 'use' foucault or
what is your theoretical intereat, then
it would be clear what to begin with.
For example, if you are interested in the study of body, I don't think
it will help to begin with AK. If I were you, I would read it later when I
finish
the BC, HS and DP.
As for general understanding, P/K would be fine, but you will risk missing
a lot of important context.
Jonathan Keesecker wrote:
> hello,
>
> i'm sorry to burst into your listserve uninvited, but i was hoping to find
> some help. when i stumbled across it some time ago i was impressed with
> everyone's knowledge of foucault and kept it as a bookmark for future
> reference. basically, i've read very little of foucault's writing, although
> i've read some secondary stuff as well as others' which has benifited from
> foucault. i'd like to break into reading foucault himself, but i'm not sure
> what i should begin with. i considered madness, but decided against it
> because it was early (i thought his writing might be more clear in later
> works). so i considered discipline, but was uncertain about that because it
> was so much later and might take for granted the reader's knowledge of his
> work. i began archaeology because i understood it to be the closest thing to
> an explanation of a methodology, but some portions were fairly difficult and
> i've heard that sheridan smith's english translation is pretty shady.
> finally, i considered rabinow's foucault reader, but while those who are
> familiar with foucault say that it is simple and good for a mere
> introduction, those who are not familiar with him already say that it is
> difficult.
>
> i was hoping someone could point me in the right direction.
>
> while i've read only portions of foucault's actual writing, i am somewhat
> familiar with the major themes of postmodernity. my background is
> philosophy, but i've also read on such foucault-influinced subjects as the
> New Historicism of literary theory. basically, i believe i have enough
> foundation to get into foucault, i'm just wondering where i should start.
>
> i'd appreciate any advice/response at all.
> thanks!
>
> jonathan f. keesecker
>
> ps. what about power/knowledge? i've read portions and it seemed not too
> unclear, but i've heard it can be difficult.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
I think you maybe think about how will you 'use' foucault or
what is your theoretical intereat, then
it would be clear what to begin with.
For example, if you are interested in the study of body, I don't think
it will help to begin with AK. If I were you, I would read it later when I
finish
the BC, HS and DP.
As for general understanding, P/K would be fine, but you will risk missing
a lot of important context.
Jonathan Keesecker wrote:
> hello,
>
> i'm sorry to burst into your listserve uninvited, but i was hoping to find
> some help. when i stumbled across it some time ago i was impressed with
> everyone's knowledge of foucault and kept it as a bookmark for future
> reference. basically, i've read very little of foucault's writing, although
> i've read some secondary stuff as well as others' which has benifited from
> foucault. i'd like to break into reading foucault himself, but i'm not sure
> what i should begin with. i considered madness, but decided against it
> because it was early (i thought his writing might be more clear in later
> works). so i considered discipline, but was uncertain about that because it
> was so much later and might take for granted the reader's knowledge of his
> work. i began archaeology because i understood it to be the closest thing to
> an explanation of a methodology, but some portions were fairly difficult and
> i've heard that sheridan smith's english translation is pretty shady.
> finally, i considered rabinow's foucault reader, but while those who are
> familiar with foucault say that it is simple and good for a mere
> introduction, those who are not familiar with him already say that it is
> difficult.
>
> i was hoping someone could point me in the right direction.
>
> while i've read only portions of foucault's actual writing, i am somewhat
> familiar with the major themes of postmodernity. my background is
> philosophy, but i've also read on such foucault-influinced subjects as the
> New Historicism of literary theory. basically, i believe i have enough
> foundation to get into foucault, i'm just wondering where i should start.
>
> i'd appreciate any advice/response at all.
> thanks!
>
> jonathan f. keesecker
>
> ps. what about power/knowledge? i've read portions and it seemed not too
> unclear, but i've heard it can be difficult.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com