Hi,
I think you misinterpret this passage. Foucault is not saying the
archeologist is using intuition or analysis, but that the énoncé is the
ontological prerequisite to any analysis or intuition. He is refering the
works of grammar, logic, and speech-act theory which he criticized some
pages before the text you quote. The distinction here is to differentiate
énoncé from grammatical sentences (faire sens - Saussure, Bénéviste) logical
propositions (règles de sucessions et être signe de - Frege, Russell, etc.)
and speech-act (acte effectué par la prononciation - Austin, Searle)... he
is stating what archeology is not !
Regards
Jean-François Mongrain
2007/9/18, Frank Ejby Poulsen <frank.ejby.poulsen@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >I don't think Foucault is inconsistent on this point: The context that
> >the enouncement includes, is a social reality that you have to adopt if
> >you want to understand others and to be understood. Since the
> >enouncement context is abundant in historical texts too, you can - at
> >least to some extent - read yourself into the historical meaning of
> >historical texts without having to interpret them. The archeologist
> >does not decide if the signs make sense, but tries to understand how
> >they actually MADE sense in the past.
> >
> >Flemming
>
> I am quoting again the same passage from Foucault, as in my previous
> contribution, where he states explicitely what I wrote:
> « L'énoncé ... c'est une fonction d'existence qui appartient en propre aux
> signes et à partir de laquelle on peut décider, ensuite, par l'analyse ou
> l'intuition, s'ils « font sens » ou non, selon quelle règle ils se
> succèdent
> ou se juxtaposent, de quoi ils sont signe, et quelle sorte d'acte se
> trouve
> effectué par leur formulation (orale ou écrite). » (Foucault, Michel
> (1969).
> *L'archéologie du savoir*. Paris: Gallimard: page 115)
>
> I don't know what the exact English translation is, but he is stating
> something like that: "... one can decide, afterwards, through analysis or
> intuition, if they [the signs] "make sense" or not..."
>
> It sounds pretty much to me that Foucault is saying that it is the
> archeologist who decides if the signs make sense, through his/her
> intuition
> or analysis.
>
> Now, I haven't spend all my life studying Foucault, but only one year or
> so
> reading his works, and especially the Archaeology of knowledge, with the
> intention of making an actual archaeology of something myself. So I may be
> wrong. If you can show me some examples from Foucault to substantiate your
> statement, I would be happy to read them.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Frank.
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
I think you misinterpret this passage. Foucault is not saying the
archeologist is using intuition or analysis, but that the énoncé is the
ontological prerequisite to any analysis or intuition. He is refering the
works of grammar, logic, and speech-act theory which he criticized some
pages before the text you quote. The distinction here is to differentiate
énoncé from grammatical sentences (faire sens - Saussure, Bénéviste) logical
propositions (règles de sucessions et être signe de - Frege, Russell, etc.)
and speech-act (acte effectué par la prononciation - Austin, Searle)... he
is stating what archeology is not !
Regards
Jean-François Mongrain
2007/9/18, Frank Ejby Poulsen <frank.ejby.poulsen@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >I don't think Foucault is inconsistent on this point: The context that
> >the enouncement includes, is a social reality that you have to adopt if
> >you want to understand others and to be understood. Since the
> >enouncement context is abundant in historical texts too, you can - at
> >least to some extent - read yourself into the historical meaning of
> >historical texts without having to interpret them. The archeologist
> >does not decide if the signs make sense, but tries to understand how
> >they actually MADE sense in the past.
> >
> >Flemming
>
> I am quoting again the same passage from Foucault, as in my previous
> contribution, where he states explicitely what I wrote:
> « L'énoncé ... c'est une fonction d'existence qui appartient en propre aux
> signes et à partir de laquelle on peut décider, ensuite, par l'analyse ou
> l'intuition, s'ils « font sens » ou non, selon quelle règle ils se
> succèdent
> ou se juxtaposent, de quoi ils sont signe, et quelle sorte d'acte se
> trouve
> effectué par leur formulation (orale ou écrite). » (Foucault, Michel
> (1969).
> *L'archéologie du savoir*. Paris: Gallimard: page 115)
>
> I don't know what the exact English translation is, but he is stating
> something like that: "... one can decide, afterwards, through analysis or
> intuition, if they [the signs] "make sense" or not..."
>
> It sounds pretty much to me that Foucault is saying that it is the
> archeologist who decides if the signs make sense, through his/her
> intuition
> or analysis.
>
> Now, I haven't spend all my life studying Foucault, but only one year or
> so
> reading his works, and especially the Archaeology of knowledge, with the
> intention of making an actual archaeology of something myself. So I may be
> wrong. If you can show me some examples from Foucault to substantiate your
> statement, I would be happy to read them.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Frank.
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>