Re: [Foucault-L] Genealogy Archaeology Divide

the question is posed to foucault in the recorded lectures he gave at
berkerley on 'culture of the self'. i believe it was the first question in
the q&a no. 1. i doubt his answer will give you any satisfaction, but it is
interesting none the less.


(here <> for link to
that q&a session) and
this<>is the
site for all the three recordings.

On 9/23/07, Jared Kennard <jaredkennard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list

[Foucault-L] Genealogy Archaeology Divide, Jared Kennard
Partial thread listing: