Hey guys,
Some people are of the opinion that The Order of Things is an outdated work with a misleading premise of the death of man via language that they discard in favor of his other writings on prisons and sexuality, etc. I think The Order of Things still has much relevance for modern understanding of the social sciences and that the ending is far too misunderstood, especially by Ian Hacking (who pushes a Kantian interpretation of Foucault). To me, it seems his proclamation of the "death of Man" is not so much a proclamation that man has already died but a future warning or hypothesis that our current notion of Man as a Cartesian subject which originated in the 17th century or so is a recent invention that will have its end eventually like all other meta concepts. Yet many view this as Foucault already proclaiming that man has already disappeared via the configuration of language, and that this prediction is miscast (notably Foucault interpreters such as Rabinow and even Hacking) thus the reason why I think this book has been downplayed in favor of Discipline and Punish, History of Sexuality and other works (though those are my favorites). I was wondering what you guys thought about the relevance of The Order of Things and your interpretation of his prediction at the end. I feel the work is very much essential to understanding the general logic behind Foucault's work, as well as The Archaeology of Knowledge, thus why I recommended it to someone who was beginning to read Foucault for the first time.
I would love to hear from you guys as soon as possible.
Chathan Vemuri
Some people are of the opinion that The Order of Things is an outdated work with a misleading premise of the death of man via language that they discard in favor of his other writings on prisons and sexuality, etc. I think The Order of Things still has much relevance for modern understanding of the social sciences and that the ending is far too misunderstood, especially by Ian Hacking (who pushes a Kantian interpretation of Foucault). To me, it seems his proclamation of the "death of Man" is not so much a proclamation that man has already died but a future warning or hypothesis that our current notion of Man as a Cartesian subject which originated in the 17th century or so is a recent invention that will have its end eventually like all other meta concepts. Yet many view this as Foucault already proclaiming that man has already disappeared via the configuration of language, and that this prediction is miscast (notably Foucault interpreters such as Rabinow and even Hacking) thus the reason why I think this book has been downplayed in favor of Discipline and Punish, History of Sexuality and other works (though those are my favorites). I was wondering what you guys thought about the relevance of The Order of Things and your interpretation of his prediction at the end. I feel the work is very much essential to understanding the general logic behind Foucault's work, as well as The Archaeology of Knowledge, thus why I recommended it to someone who was beginning to read Foucault for the first time.
I would love to hear from you guys as soon as possible.
Chathan Vemuri