Quite true (if one can use such a word). He went on to take up genealogical inquiries to find a way out of what he saw were the limitations of archaeology!
F.
________________________________
De: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx de la part de Kevin Turner
Date: mer. 2007-09-19 13:44
À: Foucault List
Objet : [Foucault-L] The Archaeology of Knowledge
To throw a cat amongst the pigeons - I think that the problem with "The Archaeology of Knowledge" (to the extent that there can said to be one) has less to do with questions of translation - either of specific words, or with the text in its entirety - than it has to do with they way the text is read.
>From reading the recent spate of post, it seems to me that most people read it as a prescriptive text; by which I mean as something that tells them how to do archaeology.
When I read the text, which was some time ago now, it read more like a descriptive piece, both describing what Foucault had done in "History of Madness," "The Birth of the Clinic," and "The Order of Things," and providing clarification of a number of things Foucault wasn't happy with in these texts. It also has something of the air of experimentation about it.
What I find most interesting about "The Archaeology of Knowledge," is the fact that having finished the text, Foucault immediately set of in another direction, not unrelated to his previous works, but not identical either.
Perhaps of all the books Foucault wrote, "The Archaeology of Knowledge" is the one which most resembles as tool box.
Just some thoughts - K
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
F.
________________________________
De: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx de la part de Kevin Turner
Date: mer. 2007-09-19 13:44
À: Foucault List
Objet : [Foucault-L] The Archaeology of Knowledge
To throw a cat amongst the pigeons - I think that the problem with "The Archaeology of Knowledge" (to the extent that there can said to be one) has less to do with questions of translation - either of specific words, or with the text in its entirety - than it has to do with they way the text is read.
>From reading the recent spate of post, it seems to me that most people read it as a prescriptive text; by which I mean as something that tells them how to do archaeology.
When I read the text, which was some time ago now, it read more like a descriptive piece, both describing what Foucault had done in "History of Madness," "The Birth of the Clinic," and "The Order of Things," and providing clarification of a number of things Foucault wasn't happy with in these texts. It also has something of the air of experimentation about it.
What I find most interesting about "The Archaeology of Knowledge," is the fact that having finished the text, Foucault immediately set of in another direction, not unrelated to his previous works, but not identical either.
Perhaps of all the books Foucault wrote, "The Archaeology of Knowledge" is the one which most resembles as tool box.
Just some thoughts - K
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list