what I also should have said is that if we take this notion of theoretical displacement seriously then what we get is a move from questions of ideology-repression-individuals, to questions concerning knowledge-power-subject, to questions concerning veridiction-government-self; but what is important here is that all three axes are present in each: truth, power, subject.
In a lecture from 1980, Foucault informed his audience that the trajectory of his analyses of the history of thought:
was more or less organized, or revolved around, the notion of dominant ideology. If you like, there are in general two successive displacements: then, from the notion of dominant ideology to that of power-knowledge and now, a second displacement from the notion of knowledge-power to the notion of government by the truth (The quote is from an unpublished lecture given by Foucault on the 9th of January 1980 entitled On the Government of the Living. It is cited by Clare O’Farrell on the “Foucault Resources” website; the entry is for April 2004. URL: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au/2004q.html).
Furthermore, in a seminar connected to a lecture given at Berkeley in 1983 on the theme of "The Culture of the Self" Foucault stated that 'I never stopped doing archaeology' which would suggest that genealogy was not a replacement for archaeology but a complementary addition:
In the introduction to The Use of Pleasure Foucault formulated this relation between archaeology and genealogy of follows:
It was a matter of analysing not behaviours or ideas, nor societies and their "ideologies," but the problematisations through which being offers itself to be, necessarily thought - and the practices on the basis of which these problematisations are formed. The archaeological dimension of the analysis made it possible to examine the forms [of problematisations] themselves; its genealogical dimension enables me to analyse their formation out of practices and the modifications undergone by the later (HS2: 11-12).
Which results in an archaeology of problematisations and a genealogy of practices (HS2: 13).
Again, hope this is of some help - K
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jaredkennard@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:36:05 -0600
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Foucault-L] Genealogy Archaeology Divide
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
In a lecture from 1980, Foucault informed his audience that the trajectory of his analyses of the history of thought:
was more or less organized, or revolved around, the notion of dominant ideology. If you like, there are in general two successive displacements: then, from the notion of dominant ideology to that of power-knowledge and now, a second displacement from the notion of knowledge-power to the notion of government by the truth (The quote is from an unpublished lecture given by Foucault on the 9th of January 1980 entitled On the Government of the Living. It is cited by Clare O’Farrell on the “Foucault Resources” website; the entry is for April 2004. URL: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au/2004q.html).
Furthermore, in a seminar connected to a lecture given at Berkeley in 1983 on the theme of "The Culture of the Self" Foucault stated that 'I never stopped doing archaeology' which would suggest that genealogy was not a replacement for archaeology but a complementary addition:
In the introduction to The Use of Pleasure Foucault formulated this relation between archaeology and genealogy of follows:
It was a matter of analysing not behaviours or ideas, nor societies and their "ideologies," but the problematisations through which being offers itself to be, necessarily thought - and the practices on the basis of which these problematisations are formed. The archaeological dimension of the analysis made it possible to examine the forms [of problematisations] themselves; its genealogical dimension enables me to analyse their formation out of practices and the modifications undergone by the later (HS2: 11-12).
Which results in an archaeology of problematisations and a genealogy of practices (HS2: 13).
Again, hope this is of some help - K
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jaredkennard@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:36:05 -0600
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Foucault-L] Genealogy Archaeology Divide
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list