(after several failed attempts to forward on this
message I belatedly try once again...)
Message in 2 parts.
---part 1 (of 2)----
Quoting François Gagnon: "as a methodological tool,
the archive should be read in [its] relations [to]
Foucault's project of developping, through discourse
analysis, an "analytique' of power-knowledge
relations. And an archive is then what has been
constituted by and through such an analysis."
Precisely. This is exactly what I had in mind.
Throughout 'the Archaeology of Knowledge' Foucault
describes analytic practices as teleological (I
quote bordieu, for his efficacy in rendering this
point): "Embedded in, or taken by, the object
that it takes as its object, science reveals something
of the object, but something which is not really
objectivized since it consists of the very principles
of apprehension [here we may speak of the 'formulation
of the law of division'] of the object." It is
easy enough to see that this and these claim are
themselves open to disputation and contestation, which
brings me back to the other point I wanted to render
(again, I quote Bordieu): "truth is the stake of
struggles." But perhaps I need only quote foucault:
"power produces ...: it produces
domains of objects and rituals of truth."
-----part 2 (of 2)-------
Quoting François Gagnon, who wrote: "Note: Foucault
was not the only one, and probably not the first one
to take up this enterprise."
Which, I take it, is contradistinquished from that
of the 'search for lost origins'.
You continue: "Derrida was arguably the first to
attack this domination by submitting that this way
of thinking posed a great theoretical difficulty. In
essence, he remarked that this structuralist
thinking had reduced the «structurality of the
structure» by bringing it back to an originary centre
whose founction was to orient and organize it. Indeed,
for him a structure with no center had been thus far
something 'unthought' or, rather, 'unthinkable'
Indeed, he goes on, the claasic conceptualisation in
terms of structure opens a space in which elements
can vary or be substituted, the center of this space
is
always itself substracted to these variations..."
Foucault talks of such a 'decentering'- in the form
of 'system of dispersion'. Perhaps you, or someone
else, would like to comment more on this in more
detail- I think this acorn could bear some ripe
fruit... (i.e, in relation to the dethroning of the
sovereign subject from its privaliged position in
discourse through the questioning of such unities,
provisional groupings, as the ouvre, and the
investigation into the establishment and maintainence
of subject poisitions and object relations in
language, sites of perception-enunciation, ways of
talking which are also ways of seeing and patterns of
interaction).
> --- François Gagnon <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > I think your post is going right to the heart of
> the
> > matter: as a
> > methodological tool, the archive should be read in
> > lits relations
> > Foucault's project of developping, through
> discourse
> > analysis, an
> > "analytique' of power-knowledge relations. And an
> > archive is then what
> > has been constituted by and through such an
> > analysis.
> >
> > I would supplement it by a remark. While a
> > willingness to get out of
> > exegesis (the practice of trying to find the truth
> > of a text in it's
> > concealed origin - a good representative of this
> > form of analysis being,
> > in France, Paul Ricoeur), I think a similar will
> to
> > do away with
> > "formalism" or "structuralism" in the analysis of
> > "things said and
> > written' is equally at stake in the development of
> > this discourse
> > analysis project. At the time when Foucault
> > pronounces is inaugural
> > lesson at the College de France (significantly
> > intitled L'ordre du
> > discours), this 'domain' of research was widely
> > dominated by the works
> > of Saussure (linguistic), Levi-Straus (mythology),
> > Barthes (semiology -
> > not to be confused with semiotics), Freud and
> Lacan
> > (pyschoanalysis) and
> > Kristeva (textual analysis grounded in the marxist
> > base/superstructure
> > metaphor) - to name but a few of he most prominent
> > and to forget all of
> > those who took up their work.
> >
> > Note: Foucault was not the only one, and probably
> > not the first one to
> > take up this enterprise. Derrida was arguably the
> > first to attack this
> > domination by submitting that this way of thinking
> > posed a great
> > theoretical difficulty. In essence, he remarked
> that
> > this structuralist
> > thinking had reduced the «structurality of the
> > structure» by bringing it
> > back to an originary centre whose founction was to
> > orient and organize
> > it. Indeed, for him a structure with no center had
> > been thus far
> > something 'unthought' or, rather, 'unthinkable'
> > Indeed, he goes on, the
> > claasic conceptualisation in terms of structure
> > opens a space in which
> > elements can vary or be substituted, the center of
> > this space is always
> > itself substracted to these variations:
> >
> > > «On a donc toujours pensé que le centre, qui par
> > définition est
> > > unique, constituait, dans une structure, cela
> même
> > qui, commandant la
> > > structure, échappe à la structuralité. C?est
> > pourquoi, pour une pensée
> > > classique de la structure,le centre peut être
> dit,
> > paradoxalement,
> > > dans la structure et hors de la structure (?) Le
> > centre n?est pas le
> > > centre.» (Derrida, La structure, le signe et le
> > jeu dans le discours
> > > des sciences humaines,1967, p.410)
> >
> >
> >
> > michael bibby a écrit :
> >
> > >The concept of the Archive is linked closely with
> > the
> > >methods & practices of Archaeological
> description;
> > its
> > >formation with their formation, its development
> > with
> > >their development. To delineate the Archive would
> > be
> > >to carry out an archaeological description- a
> point
> > >which is, evidently, not lost on Foucault,
> judgeing
> > by
> > >his concluding remarks which draw out the
> > implications
> > >Archaeological analysis has for itself (and its
> > >self-understanding).
> > >
> > >Archaeological analysis concerns itself with
> rules
> > of
> > >formulation: ?these rules [- fixed and determined
> > in,
> > >through, and by such an analysis-] define not the
> > dumb
> > >existence of a reality [- a pre/extra-linguistic
> > >reality, outside of time, a 'platonic realm'-]
> but
> > the
> > >ordering of objects?, that is, the analytic
> > >arrangement of space. ??Words and things? is the
> > >entirely serious title of the problem? which the
> > >enterprise of archaeological analysis addresses
> > >itself, ?a task that consists of not- of no
> longer-
> > >treating discourse as a group of signs
> (signifying
> > >elements referring to contents or
> representations)
> > but
> > >as practices that systematically form the objects
> > of
> > >which they speak.?
> > >
> > >Helpfully, Foucault provides us with an example
> > drawn
> > >from his own ?empirical investigations?, an
> example
> > >which is exemplary in that it is where the
> problem
> > of
> > >?unities of discourse? first takes shape: ?mental
> > >illness was constituted by all that was said in
> all
> > >the statements that named it, divided it up,
> > described
> > >it, explained it, traced its developments,
> > indicated
> > >its various correlations, judged it, and possibly
> > gave
> > >it speech by articulating, in its name,
> discourses
> > >that were to be taken as its own.?
> > >
> > >By writing a history of insanity, therefore,
> > Foucault
> > >was doing nothing less than rewriting history.
> And
> > if
> > >the fields of histiography themselves figure in
> an
> > >archaeological description, it is only to the
> > extent
> > >that it systematically forms the objects- in this
> > >case, subject-positions and object-relations set
> up
>
____________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Try Yahoo! Photomail Beta: Send up to 300 photos in one email!
http://au.photomail.mail.yahoo.com
message I belatedly try once again...)
Message in 2 parts.
---part 1 (of 2)----
Quoting François Gagnon: "as a methodological tool,
the archive should be read in [its] relations [to]
Foucault's project of developping, through discourse
analysis, an "analytique' of power-knowledge
relations. And an archive is then what has been
constituted by and through such an analysis."
Precisely. This is exactly what I had in mind.
Throughout 'the Archaeology of Knowledge' Foucault
describes analytic practices as teleological (I
quote bordieu, for his efficacy in rendering this
point): "Embedded in, or taken by, the object
that it takes as its object, science reveals something
of the object, but something which is not really
objectivized since it consists of the very principles
of apprehension [here we may speak of the 'formulation
of the law of division'] of the object." It is
easy enough to see that this and these claim are
themselves open to disputation and contestation, which
brings me back to the other point I wanted to render
(again, I quote Bordieu): "truth is the stake of
struggles." But perhaps I need only quote foucault:
"power produces ...: it produces
domains of objects and rituals of truth."
-----part 2 (of 2)-------
Quoting François Gagnon, who wrote: "Note: Foucault
was not the only one, and probably not the first one
to take up this enterprise."
Which, I take it, is contradistinquished from that
of the 'search for lost origins'.
You continue: "Derrida was arguably the first to
attack this domination by submitting that this way
of thinking posed a great theoretical difficulty. In
essence, he remarked that this structuralist
thinking had reduced the «structurality of the
structure» by bringing it back to an originary centre
whose founction was to orient and organize it. Indeed,
for him a structure with no center had been thus far
something 'unthought' or, rather, 'unthinkable'
Indeed, he goes on, the claasic conceptualisation in
terms of structure opens a space in which elements
can vary or be substituted, the center of this space
is
always itself substracted to these variations..."
Foucault talks of such a 'decentering'- in the form
of 'system of dispersion'. Perhaps you, or someone
else, would like to comment more on this in more
detail- I think this acorn could bear some ripe
fruit... (i.e, in relation to the dethroning of the
sovereign subject from its privaliged position in
discourse through the questioning of such unities,
provisional groupings, as the ouvre, and the
investigation into the establishment and maintainence
of subject poisitions and object relations in
language, sites of perception-enunciation, ways of
talking which are also ways of seeing and patterns of
interaction).
> --- François Gagnon <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > I think your post is going right to the heart of
> the
> > matter: as a
> > methodological tool, the archive should be read in
> > lits relations
> > Foucault's project of developping, through
> discourse
> > analysis, an
> > "analytique' of power-knowledge relations. And an
> > archive is then what
> > has been constituted by and through such an
> > analysis.
> >
> > I would supplement it by a remark. While a
> > willingness to get out of
> > exegesis (the practice of trying to find the truth
> > of a text in it's
> > concealed origin - a good representative of this
> > form of analysis being,
> > in France, Paul Ricoeur), I think a similar will
> to
> > do away with
> > "formalism" or "structuralism" in the analysis of
> > "things said and
> > written' is equally at stake in the development of
> > this discourse
> > analysis project. At the time when Foucault
> > pronounces is inaugural
> > lesson at the College de France (significantly
> > intitled L'ordre du
> > discours), this 'domain' of research was widely
> > dominated by the works
> > of Saussure (linguistic), Levi-Straus (mythology),
> > Barthes (semiology -
> > not to be confused with semiotics), Freud and
> Lacan
> > (pyschoanalysis) and
> > Kristeva (textual analysis grounded in the marxist
> > base/superstructure
> > metaphor) - to name but a few of he most prominent
> > and to forget all of
> > those who took up their work.
> >
> > Note: Foucault was not the only one, and probably
> > not the first one to
> > take up this enterprise. Derrida was arguably the
> > first to attack this
> > domination by submitting that this way of thinking
> > posed a great
> > theoretical difficulty. In essence, he remarked
> that
> > this structuralist
> > thinking had reduced the «structurality of the
> > structure» by bringing it
> > back to an originary centre whose founction was to
> > orient and organize
> > it. Indeed, for him a structure with no center had
> > been thus far
> > something 'unthought' or, rather, 'unthinkable'
> > Indeed, he goes on, the
> > claasic conceptualisation in terms of structure
> > opens a space in which
> > elements can vary or be substituted, the center of
> > this space is always
> > itself substracted to these variations:
> >
> > > «On a donc toujours pensé que le centre, qui par
> > définition est
> > > unique, constituait, dans une structure, cela
> même
> > qui, commandant la
> > > structure, échappe à la structuralité. C?est
> > pourquoi, pour une pensée
> > > classique de la structure,le centre peut être
> dit,
> > paradoxalement,
> > > dans la structure et hors de la structure (?) Le
> > centre n?est pas le
> > > centre.» (Derrida, La structure, le signe et le
> > jeu dans le discours
> > > des sciences humaines,1967, p.410)
> >
> >
> >
> > michael bibby a écrit :
> >
> > >The concept of the Archive is linked closely with
> > the
> > >methods & practices of Archaeological
> description;
> > its
> > >formation with their formation, its development
> > with
> > >their development. To delineate the Archive would
> > be
> > >to carry out an archaeological description- a
> point
> > >which is, evidently, not lost on Foucault,
> judgeing
> > by
> > >his concluding remarks which draw out the
> > implications
> > >Archaeological analysis has for itself (and its
> > >self-understanding).
> > >
> > >Archaeological analysis concerns itself with
> rules
> > of
> > >formulation: ?these rules [- fixed and determined
> > in,
> > >through, and by such an analysis-] define not the
> > dumb
> > >existence of a reality [- a pre/extra-linguistic
> > >reality, outside of time, a 'platonic realm'-]
> but
> > the
> > >ordering of objects?, that is, the analytic
> > >arrangement of space. ??Words and things? is the
> > >entirely serious title of the problem? which the
> > >enterprise of archaeological analysis addresses
> > >itself, ?a task that consists of not- of no
> longer-
> > >treating discourse as a group of signs
> (signifying
> > >elements referring to contents or
> representations)
> > but
> > >as practices that systematically form the objects
> > of
> > >which they speak.?
> > >
> > >Helpfully, Foucault provides us with an example
> > drawn
> > >from his own ?empirical investigations?, an
> example
> > >which is exemplary in that it is where the
> problem
> > of
> > >?unities of discourse? first takes shape: ?mental
> > >illness was constituted by all that was said in
> all
> > >the statements that named it, divided it up,
> > described
> > >it, explained it, traced its developments,
> > indicated
> > >its various correlations, judged it, and possibly
> > gave
> > >it speech by articulating, in its name,
> discourses
> > >that were to be taken as its own.?
> > >
> > >By writing a history of insanity, therefore,
> > Foucault
> > >was doing nothing less than rewriting history.
> And
> > if
> > >the fields of histiography themselves figure in
> an
> > >archaeological description, it is only to the
> > extent
> > >that it systematically forms the objects- in this
> > >case, subject-positions and object-relations set
> up
>
____________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Try Yahoo! Photomail Beta: Send up to 300 photos in one email!
http://au.photomail.mail.yahoo.com