man, 17 09 2007 kl. 21:52 -0400, skrev François Gagnon:
> Indeed. And could it have been otherwise? The study of discursive
> practices was a way to get to how «realities» are informed, how they
> are produced through historically constituted practices.
Yes, but Foucault distinguished between le dehors and l'extériorté.
Whereas l'extériorté is the phenomena as they are produced for us by our
discourses and technologies, le dehors is the reality (an sich) which we
have no access to except through our technologies and discourses (Cf. La
Pense du dehors). But, that is not the same as saying that le dehors has
no consequences for us, indeed it has, but we cannot perceive it as
anything but exteriority. In l'dehors, there is no objects, it is our
discourses and techniques (which basically belong l'dehors) that
transform l'dehors to a field of exteriority (l'archeologie p. 61-63).
This was my reason for saying that it would be strange to suppose that
the enonce automatically "vanished" in the present. Could be, we cannot
perceive it fully in its present context, but that is not the same as
saying it has existence in the past only. Therefore, it is relevant to
discuss the implications of Foucault's enonce concept for the analysis
of present discourses - and the formation of future discourses.
Flemming
> Indeed. And could it have been otherwise? The study of discursive
> practices was a way to get to how «realities» are informed, how they
> are produced through historically constituted practices.
Yes, but Foucault distinguished between le dehors and l'extériorté.
Whereas l'extériorté is the phenomena as they are produced for us by our
discourses and technologies, le dehors is the reality (an sich) which we
have no access to except through our technologies and discourses (Cf. La
Pense du dehors). But, that is not the same as saying that le dehors has
no consequences for us, indeed it has, but we cannot perceive it as
anything but exteriority. In l'dehors, there is no objects, it is our
discourses and techniques (which basically belong l'dehors) that
transform l'dehors to a field of exteriority (l'archeologie p. 61-63).
This was my reason for saying that it would be strange to suppose that
the enonce automatically "vanished" in the present. Could be, we cannot
perceive it fully in its present context, but that is not the same as
saying it has existence in the past only. Therefore, it is relevant to
discuss the implications of Foucault's enonce concept for the analysis
of present discourses - and the formation of future discourses.
Flemming