Canguilhem himself actually strongly praised the originality of The Order of Things and The History of Madness and felt sad that they got, in his view, "unfairly" overshadowed by later classics like Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality volume 1.
I agree with you 100% man
________________________________________
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Comstock [ecomst@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:45 PM
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Order of Things - relevance for today
I agree with this (and I'd love to know more about how you think Rabinow
misinterprets Foucault on the "death of Man"). I really don't understand
how OT has fallen out of favor--if indeed this is what has happened--and
it makes me suspect that people simply find it too difficult to read?
Although I do understand that Foucault, and others, moved on from the
project of describing discourse because this poses obvious restrictions on
"the project," I still think the archaeology has obvious ramifications to
those who work within the scholarly discourses. And while it's probably
true that OT reflects insights that are not uniquely "Foucault,"
especially perhaps Canguilhem, I also can't imagine understanding what the
rest of his works are doing without it.
In any event, I read Foucault on the death of Man as presaging many of
those events and techniques that we now label "post-modern" in culture and
politics, and as a kind of inevitability rather than a completed process.
_____________________
Ed Comstock
College Writing Program
Department of Literature
American University
------------------------------------
The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
"Vemuri, Chathan V" <chathan-vemuri@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/01/2008 04:29 AM
Please respond to
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[Foucault-L] The Order of Things - relevance for today
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Some people are of the opinion that The Order of Things is an outdated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)
t!
hus 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
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
I agree with you 100% man
________________________________________
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Comstock [ecomst@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:45 PM
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Order of Things - relevance for today
I agree with this (and I'd love to know more about how you think Rabinow
misinterprets Foucault on the "death of Man"). I really don't understand
how OT has fallen out of favor--if indeed this is what has happened--and
it makes me suspect that people simply find it too difficult to read?
Although I do understand that Foucault, and others, moved on from the
project of describing discourse because this poses obvious restrictions on
"the project," I still think the archaeology has obvious ramifications to
those who work within the scholarly discourses. And while it's probably
true that OT reflects insights that are not uniquely "Foucault,"
especially perhaps Canguilhem, I also can't imagine understanding what the
rest of his works are doing without it.
In any event, I read Foucault on the death of Man as presaging many of
those events and techniques that we now label "post-modern" in culture and
politics, and as a kind of inevitability rather than a completed process.
_____________________
Ed Comstock
College Writing Program
Department of Literature
American University
------------------------------------
The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
"Vemuri, Chathan V" <chathan-vemuri@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/01/2008 04:29 AM
Please respond to
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[Foucault-L] The Order of Things - relevance for today
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)
t!
hus 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
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list