From: "Gregory A. Coolidge" <gcoolidg-AT-wizard.ucr.edu> Subject: Re: Re[4]: Reading Order of Things - prefaces Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:49:34 -0800 (PST) I have always found the explanation of methodology in the preface to be more a matter of theoretical/methodological stance, rather than a description of subjects and discourse to be taken literally. I believe Foucualt is suggesting, that in order to understand discourses, and how such discourses represent and define certain conceptual boundaries, one must suspend the belief that every speaker says something unique in his or her discourse. That is, we must imagine that subjects speak in certain discursive formations (boundaries), representative as such discursive conceptions as madness, illness, order, to be found in certain historical periods. Not that every subject in such discursive areas speak of exactly the same things (differences of degree, rather than of kind), but that such differences can be bracketed, in order to analyze the conceptual similarities of a time and place. Foucault's theory of the subject supports such an enterprise, by suggesting that subjects are constructed within myriad discursive/power formations. As such, as a matter of methodology, we can imagine that individuals speaking in certain discursive formations are constructed within similar formations, and thus, speak of the same things (share the same conceptions), by and large. Foucualt's political project suggests that he really does not believe that subjects are entirely constructed (he holds out hope for self-creation), suggesting that he knew this was a methodological/theoretical device to ground his critiques of liberal society, rather than a comleterly accurate depiction of subjects and discourse (necessary abstraction to prove a larger philosophical point about liberal societies). What do you all think? Greg Coolidge University of Calif., Riverside gcoolidg-AT-wizard.ucr.edu ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005