I would definitely refer to Part 2, chapters 2-3 on "The Formation of
Objects" as they talk about what you ask in depth.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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"
>
--
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"
Objects" as they talk about what you ask in depth.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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"
>
--
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"