So there's a debate over the usefulness of The Archaeology of Knowledge in
Foucault's oeuvre. Some feel its the black sheep of his work, a failed
attempt at defining his methodology, others feel its a rich, fascinating set
of studies of discursive practices. Some feel it is flawed, others think
not. This has been one of my favorite Foucault books yet many find it dull
and uninteresting.
Is there anyone else that defends its strong merits and value for
understanding Foucault's work in general?
--
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"
Foucault's oeuvre. Some feel its the black sheep of his work, a failed
attempt at defining his methodology, others feel its a rich, fascinating set
of studies of discursive practices. Some feel it is flawed, others think
not. This has been one of my favorite Foucault books yet many find it dull
and uninteresting.
Is there anyone else that defends its strong merits and value for
understanding Foucault's work in general?
--
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"