Professor,
you're absolutely right.
I just was disagreeing with the objections the above raised towards The
Archaeology of Knowledge.
Call it immaturity of a Foucault lover on my part, but I've always valued
The Archaeology of Knowledge as a favorite Foucault text of mine because I
find it to be an indispensible guide to understanding his notion of
discourse and a beautiful reflection on archaeology as a whole.
I find it to be unfairly criticized as weak and often dismissed for this
"weakness".
I actually preferred it in many ways to The Order of Things but that was
just me.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Nathan Widder <n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Well, power is not an explicit object of analysis in the later work, but it
> is not, in fact absent from AK
>
> "In this sense, discourse ceases to be what it is for the exegetic
> attitude:
> an inexhaustible treasure from which one can always draw new, and always
> unpredictable riches; a providence that has always spoken in advance, and
> which enables one to hear, when one knows how to listen, retrospective
> oracles; it appears as an asset – finite, limited, desirable, useful – that
> has its own rules of appearance, but also its own conditions of
> appropriation and operation; an asset that consequently, from the moment of
> its existence (and not only in its 'practical applications'), poses the
> question of power; an asset that is, by nature, the object of a struggle, a
> political struggle" (p. 120 of English translation)
>
> I think that the dynamic of power relations in the genealogical work is
> fundamentally taken from the idea of dispersion in the Archaeology,
> although
> the term really needs to be understood in its technical sense (viz. in
> chemistry, for example, a dispersion is a mixture of heterogeneous
> substances, such as an aerosol -- a liquid in a gas). If it's not too
> presumptuous to recommend some of my own work, this is something I argued
> in
> a piece, "Foucault and Power Revisited" published in 2004 in the European
> Journal of Political Theory.
>
> I think an interesting and illuminating way of approaching AK is to put it
> in conversation with Deleuze and Lacan's work from the same time. If you
> read it alongside Deleuze's Logic of Sense and Lacan's Seminar XI, you can
> see a lot of resonances and what is effectively a conversation going on
> among the three of them.
>
> Nathan
>
> Dr. Nathan Widder
> Senior Lecturer in Political Theory
> Royal Holloway, University of London
> Department of Politics and International Relations
> Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom
> Web page:
> http://www.rhul.ac.uk/politics-and-IR/About-Us/Widder/Index.html
> Genealogies of Difference: http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s02/widder.html
> Reflections on Time and Politics:
> http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03394-5.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chetan Vemuri
> Sent: 15 October 2008 21:19
> To: Mailing-list
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Archaeology of Knowledge
>
> 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"
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
you're absolutely right.
I just was disagreeing with the objections the above raised towards The
Archaeology of Knowledge.
Call it immaturity of a Foucault lover on my part, but I've always valued
The Archaeology of Knowledge as a favorite Foucault text of mine because I
find it to be an indispensible guide to understanding his notion of
discourse and a beautiful reflection on archaeology as a whole.
I find it to be unfairly criticized as weak and often dismissed for this
"weakness".
I actually preferred it in many ways to The Order of Things but that was
just me.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Nathan Widder <n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Well, power is not an explicit object of analysis in the later work, but it
> is not, in fact absent from AK
>
> "In this sense, discourse ceases to be what it is for the exegetic
> attitude:
> an inexhaustible treasure from which one can always draw new, and always
> unpredictable riches; a providence that has always spoken in advance, and
> which enables one to hear, when one knows how to listen, retrospective
> oracles; it appears as an asset – finite, limited, desirable, useful – that
> has its own rules of appearance, but also its own conditions of
> appropriation and operation; an asset that consequently, from the moment of
> its existence (and not only in its 'practical applications'), poses the
> question of power; an asset that is, by nature, the object of a struggle, a
> political struggle" (p. 120 of English translation)
>
> I think that the dynamic of power relations in the genealogical work is
> fundamentally taken from the idea of dispersion in the Archaeology,
> although
> the term really needs to be understood in its technical sense (viz. in
> chemistry, for example, a dispersion is a mixture of heterogeneous
> substances, such as an aerosol -- a liquid in a gas). If it's not too
> presumptuous to recommend some of my own work, this is something I argued
> in
> a piece, "Foucault and Power Revisited" published in 2004 in the European
> Journal of Political Theory.
>
> I think an interesting and illuminating way of approaching AK is to put it
> in conversation with Deleuze and Lacan's work from the same time. If you
> read it alongside Deleuze's Logic of Sense and Lacan's Seminar XI, you can
> see a lot of resonances and what is effectively a conversation going on
> among the three of them.
>
> Nathan
>
> Dr. Nathan Widder
> Senior Lecturer in Political Theory
> Royal Holloway, University of London
> Department of Politics and International Relations
> Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom
> Web page:
> http://www.rhul.ac.uk/politics-and-IR/About-Us/Widder/Index.html
> Genealogies of Difference: http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s02/widder.html
> Reflections on Time and Politics:
> http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03394-5.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chetan Vemuri
> Sent: 15 October 2008 21:19
> To: Mailing-list
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Archaeology of Knowledge
>
> 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"
> _______________________________________________
> 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"