Forgive me if this simplifies this ever-interesting issue too much. My
reading is that archaeology shares genealogy's project of understanding
the constraints on human behavior by showing the limits imposed in the
project of knowing man. But archaeology is a methodology that limits
itself to texts and discourses, and genealogy, not a methodology, while
pertaining at many points to the uses of what appears as knowledge (such
as "knowledge" of our sexuality), allows us to understand all of those
non-discursive phenomena that occur along side and sometimes through
discourse. Genealogy gets at all of those practices that have not or
cannot be related to any particular rules of formation (at least not at
first) in order to understand how man is constrained not only by the
knowledges about him (because the archaeology can only speak of power to
the extent that they originate in discourses) but also by the institutions
and practices that emerged during the Enlightenment.
Through the archaeology one seeks to understand how man is a product of
knowledge events in a given epoch (and therefore is non-reciprocal to
himself), and through genealogy one seeks to determine where practices
emerged from to understand how these events (in any given epoch, but
especially in our own time) took shape across time. So then as
techniques and practices are formalized in knowledge events--as with, for
example, modern practices of sexuality--the work becomes once again more
like an archaeology.
And this also explains, I think, why Foucault never speaks of the
"genealogy of power." Yes, power is the ever present background, the tain
of the mirror, that allows us to see ourselves in Foucault's world
picture. But it would not be coherent to do a "genealogy of power"
because power itself is nothing but ever-changing techniques.
_____________________
Ed Comstock
College Writing Program
Department of Literature
American University
------------------------------------
The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/25/2008 05:51 AM
Please respond to
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the references; the last of which was most informative.
The reason I have asked this question concerning Foucault's use of the
phrase "genealogy of power" is because I trying to come to grips with
archaeology, genealogy, and the relation between them.
I know that this relation has been discussed many time on this list, and
so I wanted to pose the question in another way. I find this relation to
be the most perplexing aspect of Foucault's critical project, and as
Claire has noted in a previous discussion of this relation, Foucault's
comment on it at best confusing and ambiguous.
Foucault is actually very consistent in his discussions of archaeology: it
is the 'material and methodological framework' (The Culture of the Self,
Discussion) of his critical project, and always refer to an analysis of
knowledge (savoir - formation of subject and object), even when, in "The
Use of Pleasure," he talks of doing a 'archaeology of problematisations'
(UP: 11-12, 13).
When it comes to genealogy things become a little more complicated:
Foucault describes it as being the 'theoretical justification' for
archaeology (EW1: 12), or, as mentioned, as addressing itself to knowledge
(connaissance), as addressing itself to technologies of power (STP: 36),
as being the 'design' of an historical ontology of ourselves (EW1: 315),
and as being both the 'reason and target of archaeology' or the 'aim of
the analysis (The Culture of the Self, Discussion -
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/VideoTest/foucault-cult2.ram), finally, in UP,
Foucault talks of doing a 'genealogy of practices' (UP: 11-12, 13).
If archaeology is the material and method, and genealogy the design, what
does it mean to do a genealogy of knowledge (connaissance), of power, or
of practices? Doesn't doing genealogy necessarily imply doing archaeology?
If not, then isn't genealogy also material and method?
This is precisely what seems to be implied in the quote from STP, where
Foucault goes on to say that 'we could reconstruct the function of the
text, not according to the rules of formation of its concepts [i.e.
archaeologically], but according to its objectives, the strategies that
govern it, and the program of political action it proposes [i.e.
genealogically]' (STP: 36).
These are just some of the questions I'm working through in my attempt to
come to grips with this most perplexing aspect of Foucault's method.
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:10:35 -0400
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
>
> Dear Kevin,
>
> Here are some places where Foucault comes close to saying "genealogy of
> power." The first e.g., actually, is not that close at all, since it
> concerns not a genealogy of power but of knowledge (from which a certain
> kind of power derives).
>
> But each of the succeeding examples get progressively closer and closer
> to
> "genealogy of power," though none are precisely what you are looking
for.
> (And I suspect you are entirely right that the popularity of the phrase
> "genealogy of power" derives from its repetition in the commentarial
> literature rather than from Foucault himself. Also, strictly speaking,
> your
> hunch could still be correct *even if* it should turn out that Foucault
> himself used the phrase "genealogy of power" once or twice in passing;
> that
> is to say, the question of whether or not Foucault ever used the phrase
> himself is logically independent of the question of its popularity
> deriving
> from the commentarial literature.)
>
> Here are some examples of Foucault's usage:
>
> Genealogy of the... scientifico-legal complex from which the power to
> punish
> derives:
> "This book is intended as a correlative history of the modern soul and
of
> a
> new power to judge; a genealogy of the present scientifico-legal complex
> from which the power to punish derives its bases, justifications and
> rules,
> from which it extends its effects and by which it masks its exorbitant
> singularity." (D&P p. 23)
>
> Genealogy as the history of the micro-physics of punitive power:
> "The history of this 'micro-physics' of the punitive power would then be
> a
> genealogy or an element in a genealogy of the modern 'soul'." (D&P p.
29)
>
> Genealogy of struggle:
> "...something one might call a genealogy, or rather a multiplicity of
> genealogical researches, a painstaking rediscovery of struggles together
> with the rude memory of their conflicts." ("Two Lectures" in
> Power/Knowledge, p. 83)
>
> Genealogy of relations of force, strategic developments, and tactics:
> "a refusal of analyses couched in terms of the symbolic field or the
> domain
> of signifying structures, and a recourse to analyses in terms of the
> genealogy of relations of force, strategic developments, and tactics."
> ("Truth and Power" n Power/Knowledge, p. 114)
>
> Genealogy of technologies of power:
> "...instead of considering it in terms of an archeology of knowledge, I
> would like to consider it from the perspective of a genealogy of
> technologies of power." (Security, Territory, Population, p. 36)
>
> All best wishes,
> Nate
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:06 AM, M. Karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> The most close to <genealogy of power> comes the
>> January 7 1976 lecture: "l'enjeu de toutes cettes
>> généalogies, ... est celui ci: qu'est-ce que ce
>> pouvoir " (French edition p.13 below; I think
>> this will be p.12 of the Englis translation):
>> the second place is mentioned by you, it is the
>> interview with Trombadori of June 1976: "ed il
>> ricorso ad analisi che si farebbero in termini di
>> genealogie, di rapporti di forza, di sviluppi
>> strategici, di tattitiche" see, Microfisica del
>> Potere p.8 = Dits et Ecrits III page 145
>>
>> yours
>> machiel karskens
>>
>>
>> At 09:34 24-10-2008, Kevin Turner wrote:
>> >Hi Clare, and thanks for the references. Having
>> >scanned through them very quickly, I was
>> >reasonably surprised to come across no instances
>> >of the phrase "genealogy of power." The closest
>> >Foucault come to saying this is in 'Truth and
>> >Power' where he refers to â??the genealogy of
>> >relations of forceâ?? (P/K: 114; EW3: 116). What
>> >is interesting is that I have found many more
>> >instances in which Foucault talks about doing a
>> >"genealogy of knowledge (connaissance)," which
>> >would be the "indispensable other side" to the
>> >"archaeology of knowledge (savoir): see, for
>> >example, "Psychiatric Power:" 238ff, 346;
>> >"Society Must Be Defended:" 8-12; and in "Penal
>> >Theories and Institutions," which has yet to be
>> >translated into English, Foucault makes a
>> >distinction between what he calls "an
>> >archaeology of knowledge" and a "dynastics of
>> >knowledge," cf. PP: 256n13; see also, EW1:
>> >17ff). What's even more interesting is that I
>> >think I have only come across one instance in
>> >which a "genealogy of connaissance" is discussed
>> >in the secondary literature. I cannot remember
>> >the exact reference, but I think it was
>> >something written by Stuart Elden. If anyone
>> >knows of other instances of this, could I please
>> >have references. Regards, Kevin. > -----Original
>> >Message----- > From: c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx >
>> >Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:43:37 +1000 > To:
>> >foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re:
>> >[Foucault-L] genealogy of power > > Kevin > > I
>> >don't have my books with me but try The Order of
>> >Discourse, 'Truth > and power' and 'Two
>> >lectures'. If Foucault does use the term these >
>> >are the most likely places. > > You raise a
>> >useful point about secondary commentary
>> >inventing terms > which then get attributed to
>> >the primary source and the necessity to >
>> >carefully check. I won't even begin to mention
>> >the problems of > translation... > > At 10:48 AM
>> >-0800 23/10/08, Kevin Turner wrote: > >I cannot
>> >find this phrase in the text you mention - do
>> >you have a > >reference to the page on which
>> >Foucault uses "genealogy of power"? >> > >The
>> >reason I am asking the question is that I don't
>> >remember ever > >reading this phrase in any of
>> >Foucault's texts, and so I'm
>> >wondering > >whether is actually a product of
>> >secondary commentary which,
>> >through > >reiteration, has somehow become
>> >attributed to Foucault himself. > > -- >
>> >regards > Clare >
>> >************************************************
>>>> Clare O'Farrell > email:
>> >c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx > website:
>> >http://www.michel-foucault.com >
>> >************************************************
>>>>
>> >_______________________________________________ >
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>> >_______________________________________________ Foucault-L mailing
list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Prof. Machiel Karskens
>> social and political philosophy
>> Faculty of Philosophy
>> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nathaniel Roberts
> Adjunct Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> Columbia University
> -and-
> Part Time Faculty Member
> Department of Anthropology
> The New School for Social Research
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
reading is that archaeology shares genealogy's project of understanding
the constraints on human behavior by showing the limits imposed in the
project of knowing man. But archaeology is a methodology that limits
itself to texts and discourses, and genealogy, not a methodology, while
pertaining at many points to the uses of what appears as knowledge (such
as "knowledge" of our sexuality), allows us to understand all of those
non-discursive phenomena that occur along side and sometimes through
discourse. Genealogy gets at all of those practices that have not or
cannot be related to any particular rules of formation (at least not at
first) in order to understand how man is constrained not only by the
knowledges about him (because the archaeology can only speak of power to
the extent that they originate in discourses) but also by the institutions
and practices that emerged during the Enlightenment.
Through the archaeology one seeks to understand how man is a product of
knowledge events in a given epoch (and therefore is non-reciprocal to
himself), and through genealogy one seeks to determine where practices
emerged from to understand how these events (in any given epoch, but
especially in our own time) took shape across time. So then as
techniques and practices are formalized in knowledge events--as with, for
example, modern practices of sexuality--the work becomes once again more
like an archaeology.
And this also explains, I think, why Foucault never speaks of the
"genealogy of power." Yes, power is the ever present background, the tain
of the mirror, that allows us to see ourselves in Foucault's world
picture. But it would not be coherent to do a "genealogy of power"
because power itself is nothing but ever-changing techniques.
_____________________
Ed Comstock
College Writing Program
Department of Literature
American University
------------------------------------
The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/25/2008 05:51 AM
Please respond to
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the references; the last of which was most informative.
The reason I have asked this question concerning Foucault's use of the
phrase "genealogy of power" is because I trying to come to grips with
archaeology, genealogy, and the relation between them.
I know that this relation has been discussed many time on this list, and
so I wanted to pose the question in another way. I find this relation to
be the most perplexing aspect of Foucault's critical project, and as
Claire has noted in a previous discussion of this relation, Foucault's
comment on it at best confusing and ambiguous.
Foucault is actually very consistent in his discussions of archaeology: it
is the 'material and methodological framework' (The Culture of the Self,
Discussion) of his critical project, and always refer to an analysis of
knowledge (savoir - formation of subject and object), even when, in "The
Use of Pleasure," he talks of doing a 'archaeology of problematisations'
(UP: 11-12, 13).
When it comes to genealogy things become a little more complicated:
Foucault describes it as being the 'theoretical justification' for
archaeology (EW1: 12), or, as mentioned, as addressing itself to knowledge
(connaissance), as addressing itself to technologies of power (STP: 36),
as being the 'design' of an historical ontology of ourselves (EW1: 315),
and as being both the 'reason and target of archaeology' or the 'aim of
the analysis (The Culture of the Self, Discussion -
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/VideoTest/foucault-cult2.ram), finally, in UP,
Foucault talks of doing a 'genealogy of practices' (UP: 11-12, 13).
If archaeology is the material and method, and genealogy the design, what
does it mean to do a genealogy of knowledge (connaissance), of power, or
of practices? Doesn't doing genealogy necessarily imply doing archaeology?
If not, then isn't genealogy also material and method?
This is precisely what seems to be implied in the quote from STP, where
Foucault goes on to say that 'we could reconstruct the function of the
text, not according to the rules of formation of its concepts [i.e.
archaeologically], but according to its objectives, the strategies that
govern it, and the program of political action it proposes [i.e.
genealogically]' (STP: 36).
These are just some of the questions I'm working through in my attempt to
come to grips with this most perplexing aspect of Foucault's method.
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:10:35 -0400
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
>
> Dear Kevin,
>
> Here are some places where Foucault comes close to saying "genealogy of
> power." The first e.g., actually, is not that close at all, since it
> concerns not a genealogy of power but of knowledge (from which a certain
> kind of power derives).
>
> But each of the succeeding examples get progressively closer and closer
> to
> "genealogy of power," though none are precisely what you are looking
for.
> (And I suspect you are entirely right that the popularity of the phrase
> "genealogy of power" derives from its repetition in the commentarial
> literature rather than from Foucault himself. Also, strictly speaking,
> your
> hunch could still be correct *even if* it should turn out that Foucault
> himself used the phrase "genealogy of power" once or twice in passing;
> that
> is to say, the question of whether or not Foucault ever used the phrase
> himself is logically independent of the question of its popularity
> deriving
> from the commentarial literature.)
>
> Here are some examples of Foucault's usage:
>
> Genealogy of the... scientifico-legal complex from which the power to
> punish
> derives:
> "This book is intended as a correlative history of the modern soul and
of
> a
> new power to judge; a genealogy of the present scientifico-legal complex
> from which the power to punish derives its bases, justifications and
> rules,
> from which it extends its effects and by which it masks its exorbitant
> singularity." (D&P p. 23)
>
> Genealogy as the history of the micro-physics of punitive power:
> "The history of this 'micro-physics' of the punitive power would then be
> a
> genealogy or an element in a genealogy of the modern 'soul'." (D&P p.
29)
>
> Genealogy of struggle:
> "...something one might call a genealogy, or rather a multiplicity of
> genealogical researches, a painstaking rediscovery of struggles together
> with the rude memory of their conflicts." ("Two Lectures" in
> Power/Knowledge, p. 83)
>
> Genealogy of relations of force, strategic developments, and tactics:
> "a refusal of analyses couched in terms of the symbolic field or the
> domain
> of signifying structures, and a recourse to analyses in terms of the
> genealogy of relations of force, strategic developments, and tactics."
> ("Truth and Power" n Power/Knowledge, p. 114)
>
> Genealogy of technologies of power:
> "...instead of considering it in terms of an archeology of knowledge, I
> would like to consider it from the perspective of a genealogy of
> technologies of power." (Security, Territory, Population, p. 36)
>
> All best wishes,
> Nate
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:06 AM, M. Karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> The most close to <genealogy of power> comes the
>> January 7 1976 lecture: "l'enjeu de toutes cettes
>> généalogies, ... est celui ci: qu'est-ce que ce
>> pouvoir " (French edition p.13 below; I think
>> this will be p.12 of the Englis translation):
>> the second place is mentioned by you, it is the
>> interview with Trombadori of June 1976: "ed il
>> ricorso ad analisi che si farebbero in termini di
>> genealogie, di rapporti di forza, di sviluppi
>> strategici, di tattitiche" see, Microfisica del
>> Potere p.8 = Dits et Ecrits III page 145
>>
>> yours
>> machiel karskens
>>
>>
>> At 09:34 24-10-2008, Kevin Turner wrote:
>> >Hi Clare, and thanks for the references. Having
>> >scanned through them very quickly, I was
>> >reasonably surprised to come across no instances
>> >of the phrase "genealogy of power." The closest
>> >Foucault come to saying this is in 'Truth and
>> >Power' where he refers to â??the genealogy of
>> >relations of forceâ?? (P/K: 114; EW3: 116). What
>> >is interesting is that I have found many more
>> >instances in which Foucault talks about doing a
>> >"genealogy of knowledge (connaissance)," which
>> >would be the "indispensable other side" to the
>> >"archaeology of knowledge (savoir): see, for
>> >example, "Psychiatric Power:" 238ff, 346;
>> >"Society Must Be Defended:" 8-12; and in "Penal
>> >Theories and Institutions," which has yet to be
>> >translated into English, Foucault makes a
>> >distinction between what he calls "an
>> >archaeology of knowledge" and a "dynastics of
>> >knowledge," cf. PP: 256n13; see also, EW1:
>> >17ff). What's even more interesting is that I
>> >think I have only come across one instance in
>> >which a "genealogy of connaissance" is discussed
>> >in the secondary literature. I cannot remember
>> >the exact reference, but I think it was
>> >something written by Stuart Elden. If anyone
>> >knows of other instances of this, could I please
>> >have references. Regards, Kevin. > -----Original
>> >Message----- > From: c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx >
>> >Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:43:37 +1000 > To:
>> >foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re:
>> >[Foucault-L] genealogy of power > > Kevin > > I
>> >don't have my books with me but try The Order of
>> >Discourse, 'Truth > and power' and 'Two
>> >lectures'. If Foucault does use the term these >
>> >are the most likely places. > > You raise a
>> >useful point about secondary commentary
>> >inventing terms > which then get attributed to
>> >the primary source and the necessity to >
>> >carefully check. I won't even begin to mention
>> >the problems of > translation... > > At 10:48 AM
>> >-0800 23/10/08, Kevin Turner wrote: > >I cannot
>> >find this phrase in the text you mention - do
>> >you have a > >reference to the page on which
>> >Foucault uses "genealogy of power"? >> > >The
>> >reason I am asking the question is that I don't
>> >remember ever > >reading this phrase in any of
>> >Foucault's texts, and so I'm
>> >wondering > >whether is actually a product of
>> >secondary commentary which,
>> >through > >reiteration, has somehow become
>> >attributed to Foucault himself. > > -- >
>> >regards > Clare >
>> >************************************************
>>>> Clare O'Farrell > email:
>> >c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx > website:
>> >http://www.michel-foucault.com >
>> >************************************************
>>>>
>> >_______________________________________________ >
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>> >_______________________________________________ Foucault-L mailing
list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Prof. Machiel Karskens
>> social and political philosophy
>> Faculty of Philosophy
>> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nathaniel Roberts
> Adjunct Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> Columbia University
> -and-
> Part Time Faculty Member
> Department of Anthropology
> The New School for Social Research
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list