Re: [Foucault-L] RE?: Translation of ?nonc? to English

>Poulson, in the bottom-quoted stuff below, gives an example
>of what weirds me out and Mograin just takes it right up:
>He introduces the noun phrase "the archeologist". That's an
>ontological concept of deep consequence and I don't think it
>is found anywhere in Foucault (but, again: amateur here).
>I don't mean to negate the possiblity of a "close reading"
>of Foucault and I think it was the pursuit of such a possibility
>that sparked this thread but.... "the archeologist"??!? wtf
>is that?

Poulsen, the name is Poulsen and not Poulson. Please write my name
correctly, I am Danish not Swedish. Moreover, you may call me either Mr
Poulsen or just Frank, but not with my family name without title (this is
only for citations and authors who passed away).

It is also the least one can do to write politely and with respect. We are
not discussing at the local pub after pints and pints of beers have achieved
evaporating all good manners and civilised behaviour. So no endless
exclamation and question marks and no "wtf". Besides, showing a lack of good
manners is also disrespecting yourself.

When I wrote "the archaeologist", I just meant the person who is doing an
"archaeology", understood as the "science" (Deleuze, Gilles. Foucault.
Paris: Minuit, 1986) that Foucault intended to set up in the history of
ideas as opposed to classical epistemology, structuralism, and
anthropological interpretations - i.e. analysing the enunciative level of
discourses. You do not even elaborate on why you think it is "an ontological
concept of deep consequence", nor on what this consequence is. You can be an
amateur, but it does not tether you to throwing vague statements without
elaboration. And no it is nowhere to be found in Foucault. But Foucault
wrote The Archaeology of Knowledge so that other people could make their own
archaeology of other sciences (see Foucault, Michel. "Questions à Michel
Foucault sur la géographie." In *Dits et écrits par Michel Foucault
1954-1988. Vol. III: 1976-1979*, edited by Daniel Defert and François Ewald,
28-40. Paris: NRF Gallimard, 1994 [1976]. English version: Foucault, Michel.
"Questions of Geography." In *Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings 1972-1977*, by Colin Gordon, 63-77. Harlow: The Harvester Press,
1980.). If a person doing history is called a historian, I just assume that
someone doing an "archaeology" may be called an "archaeologist" because
archaeology is a way of making history (see Veyne, Paul. "Foucault
révolutionne l'histoire." In *Comment on écrit l'histoire*, by Paul Veyne,
383-429. Paris: Seuil: Points, 1978.).

I have the impression that many commentators emphasise too much on the
philosophical side of Foucault, or other sides, and tend to forget that he
was nominated at the chair of the "history of systems of thoughts" (the name
he chose) at the College de France. Even if historians did not always accept
him well as such, that is primarily what he was doing, history. Granted, he
used his large erudition in philosophy and especially on the philosophy of
history, as well as contemporary discussions on language and literary
criticism, but he was a historian who wrote histories with his own methods
or "tools" as he called them ("Questions of Geography").

Someone else you should pay respect to, beside me and you, is Foucault
himself. You can disagree with him, but calling him "a professional "trouble
maker"" is showing disrespect to a deceased person. They also deserve
respect when commenting their thoughts, no matter how insignificant these
may seem to you.

I disagree with the "imprecise" character. Doesn't he seem "imprecise" to
you simply because you are not reading him with all due precision to his
work? I confess that I thought a bit the same before. However, now, I am
trying myself to do an archaeology, and I find his writings surprisingly
precise, once one has passed his endless negative sentences.

Otherwise, concerning mathematics and precision, your comment smells a lot
like some good old Sokal warmed up. To which I won't answer.

Amateur comments are more than welcomed anywhere, I am myself an amateur,
and in a way we all are always, but I do think that the moderator of this
list should do something to filtrate comments of that nature. Your tone is
absolutely inappropriate!

Frank Ejby Poulsen (MA candidate in political science University of

  • Re: [Foucault-L] RE?: Translation of ?nonc? to English
    • From: Thomas Lord
  • Re: [Foucault-L] RE?: Translation of ?nonc? to English
    • From: Flemming Bjerke
  • [Foucault-L] Foucault: philosopher or historian?
    • From: Kevin Turner
  • Partial thread listing: