Well, with regards to the third question, that was not even an issue until
way after the time of A&K so it might be a bit anachronistic to ask that of
this book.
I have to rush quickly so I'll respond to the previous two later tongiht,
but are you positing those as weaknesses of the book?
On 10/15/08, Frieder Vogelmann <f.vogelmann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> no, not in the sense that it's hard to read - I don't consider it to be
> more difficult than "The Order of Things" or "Madness and Civiliization"
> What I mean is that it requires a lot of work on questions like:
> - How specific must rules of formation be? They should delimit one
> discourse from another, though must be broad enough to allow for all the
> variance possible within one discourse. What is the criterion used?
> - How do these rules exactly work (if we presume that Dreyfus &
> Rabinow got it wrong)?
> - What exactly is the relationship between power (as in Foucaults
> later texts, that is, a restructuring of the field of possible actions)
> and discursive practices?
>
> Answering these question and "working" with the archeological method on
> the material I try to analyze is the hard part - at least for me, as I
> am trying to use the Archeology of Knowledge as a reearch tool.
> What do you think? What's your approach on the Archeology?
>
>
>
> Chetan Vemuri schrieb:
>
> > hard to work with in what way?
> > In that its difficult to read?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Frieder Vogelmann <f.vogelmann@xxxxxxx
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I do! I do like the book's style, but more important is the impact
> >> of archeology as a method on Foucault's later texts. I'm thinking
> >> especially on the two lectures on the History of Governementalité
> >> (1978-1979), which is often misread as a piece of history of political
> >> ideas. If one instead takes it to use archeology, the term "population"
> >> acquires the importance it is given by Foucault when he claims it being
> >> the operator that drove the transformation described in "The order of
> >> things" (see the end of Lecture 3 on January 25th, 1978).
> >>
> >> Bringing archeology back in also helps, I think, in giving up the
> >> strange trend of breaking up "governementalité" in "gouverner" and
> >> "mentalité" (at least this was a trend in the German and English
> >> literature, ignoring the editor of the lectures, M.Senellart, who
> >> explains it to be derived from "governemental"), which in turn makes the
> >> study of Governementalités into a study of mentalities. Acknowledging
> >> the archeological method, studying forms of governementalité means first
> >> of all determining the "form of problematization" a specific political
> >> rationality reacts to.
> >>
> >> These are just two reasons I would put some emphasis on the Archeology
> >> of Knowledge, though I admit that it is a book that is hard to work
> with.
> >>
> >> Frieder
> >>
> >> Chetan Vemuri schrieb:
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
way after the time of A&K so it might be a bit anachronistic to ask that of
this book.
I have to rush quickly so I'll respond to the previous two later tongiht,
but are you positing those as weaknesses of the book?
On 10/15/08, Frieder Vogelmann <f.vogelmann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> no, not in the sense that it's hard to read - I don't consider it to be
> more difficult than "The Order of Things" or "Madness and Civiliization"
> What I mean is that it requires a lot of work on questions like:
> - How specific must rules of formation be? They should delimit one
> discourse from another, though must be broad enough to allow for all the
> variance possible within one discourse. What is the criterion used?
> - How do these rules exactly work (if we presume that Dreyfus &
> Rabinow got it wrong)?
> - What exactly is the relationship between power (as in Foucaults
> later texts, that is, a restructuring of the field of possible actions)
> and discursive practices?
>
> Answering these question and "working" with the archeological method on
> the material I try to analyze is the hard part - at least for me, as I
> am trying to use the Archeology of Knowledge as a reearch tool.
> What do you think? What's your approach on the Archeology?
>
>
>
> Chetan Vemuri schrieb:
>
> > hard to work with in what way?
> > In that its difficult to read?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Frieder Vogelmann <f.vogelmann@xxxxxxx
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I do! I do like the book's style, but more important is the impact
> >> of archeology as a method on Foucault's later texts. I'm thinking
> >> especially on the two lectures on the History of Governementalité
> >> (1978-1979), which is often misread as a piece of history of political
> >> ideas. If one instead takes it to use archeology, the term "population"
> >> acquires the importance it is given by Foucault when he claims it being
> >> the operator that drove the transformation described in "The order of
> >> things" (see the end of Lecture 3 on January 25th, 1978).
> >>
> >> Bringing archeology back in also helps, I think, in giving up the
> >> strange trend of breaking up "governementalité" in "gouverner" and
> >> "mentalité" (at least this was a trend in the German and English
> >> literature, ignoring the editor of the lectures, M.Senellart, who
> >> explains it to be derived from "governemental"), which in turn makes the
> >> study of Governementalités into a study of mentalities. Acknowledging
> >> the archeological method, studying forms of governementalité means first
> >> of all determining the "form of problematization" a specific political
> >> rationality reacts to.
> >>
> >> These are just two reasons I would put some emphasis on the Archeology
> >> of Knowledge, though I admit that it is a book that is hard to work
> with.
> >>
> >> Frieder
> >>
> >> Chetan Vemuri schrieb:
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"