So I read the recent Cambridge Introduction to Foucault that came out
recently and while I think its concise, I found myself with some
reservations about it.
I have the feeling it unjustly avoids talking about the discussions Foucault
gave of his ideas in his rich lecture courses, and seems to provide some
pointed criticisms (those of Rabinow and Dreyfus and Gutting) of his
archaeological works without answering them, leaving the reader with the
impression that these are incorrigible flaws that his archaeological works
flawed but interesting, which I don't agree with at all.
Yet I don't know if I'm right at all and maybe I'm being a bit naive to take
issue with these criticisms of archaeology.
Any thoughts?
--
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"
recently and while I think its concise, I found myself with some
reservations about it.
I have the feeling it unjustly avoids talking about the discussions Foucault
gave of his ideas in his rich lecture courses, and seems to provide some
pointed criticisms (those of Rabinow and Dreyfus and Gutting) of his
archaeological works without answering them, leaving the reader with the
impression that these are incorrigible flaws that his archaeological works
flawed but interesting, which I don't agree with at all.
Yet I don't know if I'm right at all and maybe I'm being a bit naive to take
issue with these criticisms of archaeology.
Any thoughts?
--
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"