Gutting's book is titled:
Foucault A Very Short Introduction
Oxford University Press
--- John narayan <thesignofthetimes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hey Jared,
>
> Tricky question that will no doubt get different
> answers.
>
> I am of the persuasion that there is a break in the
> two methodologies;
> mainly because I take archaeology to suffer from
> issues it never gets
> around. For example,
>
> 1) The relationship between the Discursive and
> Non-Discursive (something I
> think genealogy gets round via its focus on
> practises).
> 2) The generality of the archives Foucault describes
> and what could be
> argued to be a return of a quasi-transcendental in
> his own work.
> 3) The reflexivity and epistemological status of
> Foucault's own
> archaeologies.
>
> You can see Foucault grappling with some of these
> problems; for example, see
> the English preface to the Order of Things and the
> Archaeology of Knowledge.
>
> On the other hand, other authors don?t see the above
> problems in Archaeology
> (I?m thinking of Gutting?s book but can?t remember
> the title).
>
> Foucault is pretty patchy on highlighting the
> differences between the two
> methods but the book I found most helpful was by
> Todd May:
>
> (1993), Between Genealogy and Epistemology:
> Psychology, politics and
> Knowledge in the Thought of Michel Foucault
> (University Park, PA:
> Pennsylvania Press)
>
> I don?t know you familiarity level concerning
> Foucault?s work, but if not
> high, try reading May?s introduction to Foucault
> beforehand, which does a
> good job of introducing the differences whilst
> stressing the continuity
> between the two methods.
>
> BTW, I would not get too bogged down in Foucault's
> recasting of his own
> project, it happens at various times throughout his
> career. And roughly, the
> works do all address the historical ontology of
> ourselves that Foucault
> denotes in What is Enlightenment.
>
> John
>
>
> >From: "Jared Kennard" <jaredkennard@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [Foucault-L] Genealogy Archaeology Divide
> >Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:36:05 -0600
> >
> >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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Can you see your house from the sky? Try Live Search
> Maps
> http://maps.live.com
>
> > _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
Foucault A Very Short Introduction
Oxford University Press
--- John narayan <thesignofthetimes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hey Jared,
>
> Tricky question that will no doubt get different
> answers.
>
> I am of the persuasion that there is a break in the
> two methodologies;
> mainly because I take archaeology to suffer from
> issues it never gets
> around. For example,
>
> 1) The relationship between the Discursive and
> Non-Discursive (something I
> think genealogy gets round via its focus on
> practises).
> 2) The generality of the archives Foucault describes
> and what could be
> argued to be a return of a quasi-transcendental in
> his own work.
> 3) The reflexivity and epistemological status of
> Foucault's own
> archaeologies.
>
> You can see Foucault grappling with some of these
> problems; for example, see
> the English preface to the Order of Things and the
> Archaeology of Knowledge.
>
> On the other hand, other authors don?t see the above
> problems in Archaeology
> (I?m thinking of Gutting?s book but can?t remember
> the title).
>
> Foucault is pretty patchy on highlighting the
> differences between the two
> methods but the book I found most helpful was by
> Todd May:
>
> (1993), Between Genealogy and Epistemology:
> Psychology, politics and
> Knowledge in the Thought of Michel Foucault
> (University Park, PA:
> Pennsylvania Press)
>
> I don?t know you familiarity level concerning
> Foucault?s work, but if not
> high, try reading May?s introduction to Foucault
> beforehand, which does a
> good job of introducing the differences whilst
> stressing the continuity
> between the two methods.
>
> BTW, I would not get too bogged down in Foucault's
> recasting of his own
> project, it happens at various times throughout his
> career. And roughly, the
> works do all address the historical ontology of
> ourselves that Foucault
> denotes in What is Enlightenment.
>
> John
>
>
> >From: "Jared Kennard" <jaredkennard@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [Foucault-L] Genealogy Archaeology Divide
> >Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:36:05 -0600
> >
> >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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Can you see your house from the sky? Try Live Search
> Maps
> http://maps.live.com
>
> > _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list