Re: [Foucault-L] discursive and non-discursive practices

I think generally discursive practices were important in both archaeology
and genealogy but the implications and the utility of both differed per each
method. But they existed in both practices, with the latter work on care of
the self gradually moving on to how a subject is formed from these variety
of influences, both external and internal to the self.

I think some of the problems have their roots in misunderstandings present
in commentary that has gained strong favor in academia since the 80's, such
as the work of Dreyfus-Rabinow and Gutting, both responsible for much of the
current popular and general scholarly interpretations of Foucault, much of
which have been found to be wrong or unrepresentative of Foucault's work and
what he was trying to say. Dreyfus-Rabinow's characterization of archaeology
in particular was filled to the brim with these mistakes, to the point of
leading the reader to believe it to be a failed enterprise Foucault
abandoned in favor of Nietzschean genealogy.

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"

Replies
[Foucault-L] Episteme, Simon Rolston
Re: [Foucault-L] Episteme, Kevin Turner
[Foucault-L] discursive and non-discursive practices, Kevin Turner
Partial thread listing: