Ali
These comments will be somewhat curtailed. I am off for about a week from
today, and will have access to email only occasionally. So I can't respond
in the detail I've been attempting recently. And I don't have access to the
texts in order to do your post justice.
I am interested and intrigued by your distinction between "the level of the
formation of subject and object", which you suggest is savoir and the realm
of genealogy; and "the total set of relations that unite, at a given period,
the discursive practices that give rise to epistemological figures,
sciences, and possibly formalized systems", which is the episteme, and you
suggest this is the level of archaeology, and relational ontology.
I am far from convinced however. I am uncertain that the level of the
formation of connaissance is the realm of archaeology and the movement of
savoir that of genealogy. Why then is Foucault concerned with the
archaeology of knowledge [savoir]? The formation of knowledge is what
happens within a science or a savoir, it is the production of connaissance
type knowledge. But as for what allows that, that is the other level. I
don't think that is the genealogical level - at least, not if that is
distinguished from archaeology. It is the archaeological level, which
relates through analysis of power to genealogy.
I still think this is Foucault's best summation of the difference and
links:-
Archaeology looks at truth as "a system of ordered procedures for the
production, regulation, distribution, circulation, and operation of
énoncés", whilst genealogy sees truth as "linked in a circular relation with
systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which
it induces and which extends it" (Dits et ecrits Vol III, 160; Foucault
Reader 74).
I would read the History of Sexuality series as archaeological as much as
genealogical. I don't think that the distinction is valid. I worry that your
characterisation of archaeology through the metaphor of the table buys into
what Foucault was analysing, rather than how he was analysing.
I suggested that
>I think the publication of his lecture courses is going to ...
> radically alter our view of Foucault.
You replied
> It all depends on what our view is and I would like to hear more about you
as I am not much aware of lecture courses and my sense is that Foucault had
ironical awareness of the limitation of transformation notwithstanding his
obsession with transformation and change.
Sure. My point was that just as most of the books on Heidegger's work from
the 70s and 80s seem outdated now i think the same will happen with
Foucault. The collation of Dits et ecrits, bringing together loads of pieces
that hadn't even been available in French was stage 1. And i think the
lecture courses, which seem to be being published every 2 years and will
therefore take another couple of decades to come out (unless they speed up
of course) will keep the interpretation fresh. So far the following courses
have come out:-
'Il faut defendre la societe' (1975-76) - on war, race, nationalism,
population, Nazism, etc. Treats several of the themes of the projected sixth
volume of History of Sexuality original plan, and illuminates the final
chapter of Vol I.
Les Anormaux (1974-75) - on abnormality, monstrosity, perversion, confession
and masturbation. Covers loads of the original plan of HS. To my mind the
weakness of the material on confession shows why the original plan was
transformed.
L'hermeneutique du sujet (1981-82) - links to the later volumes, practices
of the self in Greece and Rome. Some material on Christianity. I'm currently
working through this course in some detail.
None are currently in English, but I think at least the first and third are
projected.
And my feeling is that we will cease to think of archaeological vs
genealogical periods; early/middle/late Foucault, etc. in the same way when
the other courses are published. In other words, far from seeing
transformation in any radical sense, we will have a much better view of a
mind at work - trying things out, backtracking, rethinking concepts and
tools.
I'll leave it there for now.
Stuart
These comments will be somewhat curtailed. I am off for about a week from
today, and will have access to email only occasionally. So I can't respond
in the detail I've been attempting recently. And I don't have access to the
texts in order to do your post justice.
I am interested and intrigued by your distinction between "the level of the
formation of subject and object", which you suggest is savoir and the realm
of genealogy; and "the total set of relations that unite, at a given period,
the discursive practices that give rise to epistemological figures,
sciences, and possibly formalized systems", which is the episteme, and you
suggest this is the level of archaeology, and relational ontology.
I am far from convinced however. I am uncertain that the level of the
formation of connaissance is the realm of archaeology and the movement of
savoir that of genealogy. Why then is Foucault concerned with the
archaeology of knowledge [savoir]? The formation of knowledge is what
happens within a science or a savoir, it is the production of connaissance
type knowledge. But as for what allows that, that is the other level. I
don't think that is the genealogical level - at least, not if that is
distinguished from archaeology. It is the archaeological level, which
relates through analysis of power to genealogy.
I still think this is Foucault's best summation of the difference and
links:-
Archaeology looks at truth as "a system of ordered procedures for the
production, regulation, distribution, circulation, and operation of
énoncés", whilst genealogy sees truth as "linked in a circular relation with
systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which
it induces and which extends it" (Dits et ecrits Vol III, 160; Foucault
Reader 74).
I would read the History of Sexuality series as archaeological as much as
genealogical. I don't think that the distinction is valid. I worry that your
characterisation of archaeology through the metaphor of the table buys into
what Foucault was analysing, rather than how he was analysing.
I suggested that
>I think the publication of his lecture courses is going to ...
> radically alter our view of Foucault.
You replied
> It all depends on what our view is and I would like to hear more about you
as I am not much aware of lecture courses and my sense is that Foucault had
ironical awareness of the limitation of transformation notwithstanding his
obsession with transformation and change.
Sure. My point was that just as most of the books on Heidegger's work from
the 70s and 80s seem outdated now i think the same will happen with
Foucault. The collation of Dits et ecrits, bringing together loads of pieces
that hadn't even been available in French was stage 1. And i think the
lecture courses, which seem to be being published every 2 years and will
therefore take another couple of decades to come out (unless they speed up
of course) will keep the interpretation fresh. So far the following courses
have come out:-
'Il faut defendre la societe' (1975-76) - on war, race, nationalism,
population, Nazism, etc. Treats several of the themes of the projected sixth
volume of History of Sexuality original plan, and illuminates the final
chapter of Vol I.
Les Anormaux (1974-75) - on abnormality, monstrosity, perversion, confession
and masturbation. Covers loads of the original plan of HS. To my mind the
weakness of the material on confession shows why the original plan was
transformed.
L'hermeneutique du sujet (1981-82) - links to the later volumes, practices
of the self in Greece and Rome. Some material on Christianity. I'm currently
working through this course in some detail.
None are currently in English, but I think at least the first and third are
projected.
And my feeling is that we will cease to think of archaeological vs
genealogical periods; early/middle/late Foucault, etc. in the same way when
the other courses are published. In other words, far from seeing
transformation in any radical sense, we will have a much better view of a
mind at work - trying things out, backtracking, rethinking concepts and
tools.
I'll leave it there for now.
Stuart