This question may seem a bit naive but I will ask it anyway. I have been
doing some research on Foucault's genealogy and archaeology and have come to
the conclusion that in the course of his work the latter is more or less
replaced by the former. I began my inquiry with the understanding that the
early works of Foucault were conducted under a sort of rubric of
archaeology, as he lays out in various places. It seems, however, that he
finds this method unsatisfactory and moves to the genealogical method
instead. My problem is that in stead of a clean break or clear
differentiation between the two methodologies he seems to simply recast his
works as works of genealogy instead of archaeology. In the interview he
gave with Rabinow and Dreyfus entitled "On the Genealogy of Ethics" he
states that: "three domains of genealogy are possible," and that "all three
were present...in Madness and Civilization." Furthermore, The Birth of the
Clinic and The Order of Things studied one of these three axis, while
Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality Studied the other two. With
out getting into the specifics of what these three possibilities are, since
that doesn't seem relevant to the problem at hand, it does seem quite
obvious that he is brushing over earlier statements he has made about his
early works being archaeology's; or perhaps he is attempting to apply a sort
of discursive eraser.
Ultimately my problem boils down to this: if what I have said above is
correct than where, if anywhere, does he talk about this move he has made?
Has archaeology been removed as an analytical tool due to the problems this
methodology creates? And if so in what ways does genealogy differ from its
predecessor? How is it that the genealogical form can simply replace the
archaeological one?
Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Jared
doing some research on Foucault's genealogy and archaeology and have come to
the conclusion that in the course of his work the latter is more or less
replaced by the former. I began my inquiry with the understanding that the
early works of Foucault were conducted under a sort of rubric of
archaeology, as he lays out in various places. It seems, however, that he
finds this method unsatisfactory and moves to the genealogical method
instead. My problem is that in stead of a clean break or clear
differentiation between the two methodologies he seems to simply recast his
works as works of genealogy instead of archaeology. In the interview he
gave with Rabinow and Dreyfus entitled "On the Genealogy of Ethics" he
states that: "three domains of genealogy are possible," and that "all three
were present...in Madness and Civilization." Furthermore, The Birth of the
Clinic and The Order of Things studied one of these three axis, while
Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality Studied the other two. With
out getting into the specifics of what these three possibilities are, since
that doesn't seem relevant to the problem at hand, it does seem quite
obvious that he is brushing over earlier statements he has made about his
early works being archaeology's; or perhaps he is attempting to apply a sort
of discursive eraser.
Ultimately my problem boils down to this: if what I have said above is
correct than where, if anywhere, does he talk about this move he has made?
Has archaeology been removed as an analytical tool due to the problems this
methodology creates? And if so in what ways does genealogy differ from its
predecessor? How is it that the genealogical form can simply replace the
archaeological one?
Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Jared