Is it me, or does anyone here find Gary Gutting's comments on The Order of
Things way too critical?! Even though he sympathizes with archaeology as a
whole.
I don't think its as historically inaccurate and gapped in argumentation as
Gutting shows it to be.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Do the 1980s presentations tend more in the direction of his Jan 25th
> > comments, or is it more about examining the conditions of knowledge?
> > (Although perhaps these are not two different directions after all!) Are
> > there any particular pieces from the 80s that you'd recommend above
> > others?
>
> I think that these two point actually do move in the same direction.
>
> Having quickly re-read the lecture in question, I would say that there is
> an interesting continuity between OT and what Foucault does here. Simply
> put, it all revolves around the question concerning the formation of subject
> and objects which are then given to knowledge (connaissance) (cf. AK: 15n2).
> The difference is that in OT, Foucault thinks about this in terms of
> discursive formations, whereas in STP, he think of this in term of power:
>
> 'A whole series of objects were made visible for possible forms of
> knowledge on the basis of the constitution of the population as the
> correlate of techniques of power. In turn, because these forms of knowledge
> constantly carve out new objects, the population could be formed, continue,
> and remain as the privileged correlate of modern mechanisms of power. Hence
> the theme of man, and the "human sciences" that analyze him as a living
> being, working individual, and speaking subject, should be understood on the
> basis of the emergence of population as the correlate of power and the
> object of knowledge' (STP: 79).
>
> Thus wheras in OT Foucault was concerned with the formation of the
> speaking, labouring, and living subject, in STP, he was concerned with the
> emergence of population as the 'subject-object' (77) which gave rise to or
> became the 'operator' for the 'the transition from natural history to
> biology, from the analysis of wealth to political economy, and from general
> grammar to
> historical philology' (78; 85n37).
>
> As it say in a endnote to the ninth lecture from the 1976 course, in which
> Foucault presented another, very brief, re-reading of OT: 'This is obviously
> a reworking and genealogical reformulation of the field of knowledge and
> forms of discursivity that Foucault discussed in "archaeological" terms in
> Les Mots at les choses' (SMBD: 190, 213n1).
>
> Perhaps the best presentation that addresses this from the 80's is
> 'Foucault' by Maurice Florence (a pseudonym) in EW2: 459-463; but see also,
> EW1: 199ff, amongst others.
>
> > Also, I seem to recall that there have been lots of complaints about the
> > English translation of the Trombadori interview.
>
> As far as I know, the complaints are directed towards the semiotext version
> of this. I don't know whether the version in EW3 has been radically revised,
> so cannot comment upon the quality of the translation.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
Things way too critical?! Even though he sympathizes with archaeology as a
whole.
I don't think its as historically inaccurate and gapped in argumentation as
Gutting shows it to be.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Do the 1980s presentations tend more in the direction of his Jan 25th
> > comments, or is it more about examining the conditions of knowledge?
> > (Although perhaps these are not two different directions after all!) Are
> > there any particular pieces from the 80s that you'd recommend above
> > others?
>
> I think that these two point actually do move in the same direction.
>
> Having quickly re-read the lecture in question, I would say that there is
> an interesting continuity between OT and what Foucault does here. Simply
> put, it all revolves around the question concerning the formation of subject
> and objects which are then given to knowledge (connaissance) (cf. AK: 15n2).
> The difference is that in OT, Foucault thinks about this in terms of
> discursive formations, whereas in STP, he think of this in term of power:
>
> 'A whole series of objects were made visible for possible forms of
> knowledge on the basis of the constitution of the population as the
> correlate of techniques of power. In turn, because these forms of knowledge
> constantly carve out new objects, the population could be formed, continue,
> and remain as the privileged correlate of modern mechanisms of power. Hence
> the theme of man, and the "human sciences" that analyze him as a living
> being, working individual, and speaking subject, should be understood on the
> basis of the emergence of population as the correlate of power and the
> object of knowledge' (STP: 79).
>
> Thus wheras in OT Foucault was concerned with the formation of the
> speaking, labouring, and living subject, in STP, he was concerned with the
> emergence of population as the 'subject-object' (77) which gave rise to or
> became the 'operator' for the 'the transition from natural history to
> biology, from the analysis of wealth to political economy, and from general
> grammar to
> historical philology' (78; 85n37).
>
> As it say in a endnote to the ninth lecture from the 1976 course, in which
> Foucault presented another, very brief, re-reading of OT: 'This is obviously
> a reworking and genealogical reformulation of the field of knowledge and
> forms of discursivity that Foucault discussed in "archaeological" terms in
> Les Mots at les choses' (SMBD: 190, 213n1).
>
> Perhaps the best presentation that addresses this from the 80's is
> 'Foucault' by Maurice Florence (a pseudonym) in EW2: 459-463; but see also,
> EW1: 199ff, amongst others.
>
> > Also, I seem to recall that there have been lots of complaints about the
> > English translation of the Trombadori interview.
>
> As far as I know, the complaints are directed towards the semiotext version
> of this. I don't know whether the version in EW3 has been radically revised,
> so cannot comment upon the quality of the translation.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"