That's true
I liked The Archaeology more than OT partly due to its not having that same
theoretical phenomenological gestalt undertone that OT has.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:54 PM, David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No, historicist in the sense that the historical a priori tends to
> function like a 'spirit of the age', producing a periodization as an
> 'essential section' (see Althusser's critique of historicism in
> Reading Capital). I don't mean simply that it refers to the
> historical context in which the works were produced; all worthwhile
> analysis must take that into account at some level. Jameson and
> Lyotard are both historicist in different ways - they just oppose
> each other - see for Warren Montag's analysis 'What's at Stake in the
> Debate on Postmodernism' (1988) for a useful, if somewhat polemical,
> critique
>
>
> On 21/04/2009, at 10:14 AM, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree
> > Foucault did later say that he found Order of Things to be a
> > marginal work
> > to his enterprise no? Or was that some interpreter?
> > Parts of it are still useful for understanding both the earlier and
> > the
> > following work like Archaeology of Knowledge, Discipline and
> > Punish, etc. A
> > comparative lit professor of mine also related a similar opinion.
> >
> > "Personally I find the Order of Things to be historicist to a quite
> > objectionable degree"
> > How so? Too focused on history? Pardon my ignorance at
> > interpretation lol
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM, David McInerney
> > <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> I think you need to read The Order of Things more carefully, but you
> >> will notice that Smith is positioned as a transitional figure whereas
> >> David Ricardo is pretty much centred on a concept of man. Whether
> >> the empirico-transcendental doublet idea (which relates predominantly
> >> to Kant) is valid for Ricardo is a good question, but undoubtedly
> >> Ricardo's work is centred on a notion of human nature. As far as
> >> J.S. Mill is concerned, well there is a shift there in terms of how
> >> value is explained but in abstract terms he is just as theoretical
> >> humanist as Ricardo.
> >>
> >> I suggest reading Keith Tribe's Land, Labour and Economic Discourse
> >> (1978). It's old, but still valuable. You won't find adequate
> >> answers to this on an email list, sorry.
> >>
> >> You might also try the chapter on Foucault in Lecourt's Marxism and
> >> Epistemology for a critical view of Foucault's work of this period,
> >> especially regarding the Ricardo/Marx question.
> >>
> >> Personally I find the Order of Things to be historicist to a quite
> >> objectionable degree, and even Hegelian. Foucault went on to provide
> >> an implicit critique of it in subsequent work, and didn't return to
> >> certain of its formulations regarding historical a prioris etc, which
> >> posed in such an abstract way were perhaps poorly formulated.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'm sure there are people here who would see Foucault's work
> >> as some kind of unity and would be appalled by what I have just
> >> stated!
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21/04/2009, at 2:35 AM, Emmanoel B wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hello, Chetan,
> >>>
> >>> It is true, the "Birth of Biopolitics" is useful as well. To be more
> >>> precise, I would like to verify if "man" understood as an
> >>> empirico-transcendental doublet is found in the economic works of
> >>> J. S. Mil,
> >>> A. Smith and W.S. Jevons, despite Foucault's definition of
> >>> economics as an
> >>> empirical science. I am trying to better qualify Foucault's
> >>> statements in
> >>> the works of those three economists.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Emmanoel
> >>>
> >>> 2009/4/20 Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>>> You might want to complement that with Foucault's 1979 course, The
> >>>> Birth of
> >>>> Biopolitics, which, unlike those two (fine book as they are),
> >>>> actually
> >>>> deals
> >>>> with economics and the figure of man in neoliberal economy, "homo
> >>>> oeconomicus".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Emmanoel B <emmanoelb@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi, all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am doing research on the history of economics from a foucauldian
> >>>>> perspective (mainly from "The Order of Things" and "Archaeology of
> >>>>> Knowledge"). I try to verify if Foucault's figure of Man appears
> >>>>> in the
> >>>>> works of some economists of the nineteenth century. If anyone
> >>>>> has a
> >>>> similar
> >>>>> kind of research or would like to exchange ideas about Foucault
> >>>>> and
> >>>> history
> >>>>> economics, please, feel free to contact me!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Emmanoel
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Chetan Vemuri
> >>>> West Des Moines, IA
> >>>> aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> (319)-512-9318
> >>>> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to
> >>>> change the
> >>>> world"
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chetan Vemuri
> > West Des Moines, IA
> > aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> > (319)-512-9318
> > "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
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
I liked The Archaeology more than OT partly due to its not having that same
theoretical phenomenological gestalt undertone that OT has.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:54 PM, David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No, historicist in the sense that the historical a priori tends to
> function like a 'spirit of the age', producing a periodization as an
> 'essential section' (see Althusser's critique of historicism in
> Reading Capital). I don't mean simply that it refers to the
> historical context in which the works were produced; all worthwhile
> analysis must take that into account at some level. Jameson and
> Lyotard are both historicist in different ways - they just oppose
> each other - see for Warren Montag's analysis 'What's at Stake in the
> Debate on Postmodernism' (1988) for a useful, if somewhat polemical,
> critique
>
>
> On 21/04/2009, at 10:14 AM, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree
> > Foucault did later say that he found Order of Things to be a
> > marginal work
> > to his enterprise no? Or was that some interpreter?
> > Parts of it are still useful for understanding both the earlier and
> > the
> > following work like Archaeology of Knowledge, Discipline and
> > Punish, etc. A
> > comparative lit professor of mine also related a similar opinion.
> >
> > "Personally I find the Order of Things to be historicist to a quite
> > objectionable degree"
> > How so? Too focused on history? Pardon my ignorance at
> > interpretation lol
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM, David McInerney
> > <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> I think you need to read The Order of Things more carefully, but you
> >> will notice that Smith is positioned as a transitional figure whereas
> >> David Ricardo is pretty much centred on a concept of man. Whether
> >> the empirico-transcendental doublet idea (which relates predominantly
> >> to Kant) is valid for Ricardo is a good question, but undoubtedly
> >> Ricardo's work is centred on a notion of human nature. As far as
> >> J.S. Mill is concerned, well there is a shift there in terms of how
> >> value is explained but in abstract terms he is just as theoretical
> >> humanist as Ricardo.
> >>
> >> I suggest reading Keith Tribe's Land, Labour and Economic Discourse
> >> (1978). It's old, but still valuable. You won't find adequate
> >> answers to this on an email list, sorry.
> >>
> >> You might also try the chapter on Foucault in Lecourt's Marxism and
> >> Epistemology for a critical view of Foucault's work of this period,
> >> especially regarding the Ricardo/Marx question.
> >>
> >> Personally I find the Order of Things to be historicist to a quite
> >> objectionable degree, and even Hegelian. Foucault went on to provide
> >> an implicit critique of it in subsequent work, and didn't return to
> >> certain of its formulations regarding historical a prioris etc, which
> >> posed in such an abstract way were perhaps poorly formulated.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'm sure there are people here who would see Foucault's work
> >> as some kind of unity and would be appalled by what I have just
> >> stated!
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21/04/2009, at 2:35 AM, Emmanoel B wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hello, Chetan,
> >>>
> >>> It is true, the "Birth of Biopolitics" is useful as well. To be more
> >>> precise, I would like to verify if "man" understood as an
> >>> empirico-transcendental doublet is found in the economic works of
> >>> J. S. Mil,
> >>> A. Smith and W.S. Jevons, despite Foucault's definition of
> >>> economics as an
> >>> empirical science. I am trying to better qualify Foucault's
> >>> statements in
> >>> the works of those three economists.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Emmanoel
> >>>
> >>> 2009/4/20 Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>>> You might want to complement that with Foucault's 1979 course, The
> >>>> Birth of
> >>>> Biopolitics, which, unlike those two (fine book as they are),
> >>>> actually
> >>>> deals
> >>>> with economics and the figure of man in neoliberal economy, "homo
> >>>> oeconomicus".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Emmanoel B <emmanoelb@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi, all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am doing research on the history of economics from a foucauldian
> >>>>> perspective (mainly from "The Order of Things" and "Archaeology of
> >>>>> Knowledge"). I try to verify if Foucault's figure of Man appears
> >>>>> in the
> >>>>> works of some economists of the nineteenth century. If anyone
> >>>>> has a
> >>>> similar
> >>>>> kind of research or would like to exchange ideas about Foucault
> >>>>> and
> >>>> history
> >>>>> economics, please, feel free to contact me!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Emmanoel
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Chetan Vemuri
> >>>> West Des Moines, IA
> >>>> aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> (319)-512-9318
> >>>> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to
> >>>> change the
> >>>> world"
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chetan Vemuri
> > West Des Moines, IA
> > aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> > (319)-512-9318
> > "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
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"