In the secondary commentary on Foucault, a lot of emphasis seems to be placed on the distinction between the discursive and the non-discursive, with archaeology being tied exclusively to the former and genealogy to the latter. But I’m wondering how accurate, or perhaps how useful, such a distinction is.
For example, in talking about archaeology, not only does Foucault not make a strong distinction between the two, he in fact states that he deals with them ‘on the same plane and according to the same isomorphism’ (EW2: 262).
And when clarifying what he means by an apparatus he states that by this term he means ‘a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions – in short, the said as much as the unsaid’ (P/K: 194).
But perhaps most importantly, in the same interview from which the above quote is taken Foucault states that ‘[i]t doesn’t much matter for my notion of the apparatus to be able to say that this is discursive and that isn’t...I don’t think it’s very important to be able to make the distinction, given that my problem isn’t a linguistic one’ (P/K: 198).
>From the above, it would seem that both archaeology and genealogy deal with discursive and non-discursive practices, which would seem to suggest a slightly different picture to that common in the secondary literature.
I’m wondering if we need to make a distinction between the discourses analysed by way of archaeology, and the discursive and non-discursive practices evidenced in those discourses.
I just wondered what people thought of this.
Regards,
Kevin.
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
For example, in talking about archaeology, not only does Foucault not make a strong distinction between the two, he in fact states that he deals with them ‘on the same plane and according to the same isomorphism’ (EW2: 262).
And when clarifying what he means by an apparatus he states that by this term he means ‘a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions – in short, the said as much as the unsaid’ (P/K: 194).
But perhaps most importantly, in the same interview from which the above quote is taken Foucault states that ‘[i]t doesn’t much matter for my notion of the apparatus to be able to say that this is discursive and that isn’t...I don’t think it’s very important to be able to make the distinction, given that my problem isn’t a linguistic one’ (P/K: 198).
>From the above, it would seem that both archaeology and genealogy deal with discursive and non-discursive practices, which would seem to suggest a slightly different picture to that common in the secondary literature.
I’m wondering if we need to make a distinction between the discourses analysed by way of archaeology, and the discursive and non-discursive practices evidenced in those discourses.
I just wondered what people thought of this.
Regards,
Kevin.
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium