Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 10:14:00 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hearn <jeffreyhearn-AT-compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Historians And yet, Foucault should _not_ be thought of as simply another Annales school historian. "I have tried to get out of the philosophy of the subject through a genealogy of the subject, by studying the constitution of the subject across history which has led us up to the modern concept of the subject. This has not been an easy task, since most historians prefer a history of social processes [in which society plays the role of subject] and most philosophers prefer a subject without history. This has neither prevented me from using the same material that certain social historians used, nor from recognizing my theoretical debt to those philosophers who, like Nietzsche, have posed the question of the historicity of the subject." M.F., "Subjectivity and Truth" (p. 176) in _The Politics of Truth_ (Semiotext(e), 1997). For historians that influenced Foucault, historians of science such as Canguilhem must be kept in mind. For historians influenced by Foucault, see the bibliographies at The Untimely Past website <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeffreyhearn/home~1.htm>. But one might also want to look for work that is labeled "genealogy" or "nomadology", rather than "history". The question I keep asking myself is whether or not traditional/conventional/professional/modern historiography and Foucault-influenced/postmodern/poststructuralist/genealogical (call it what you will) historiography can coexist within the same discourse, or are they necessarily going to talk past each other? What I see going on these days is a reactionary attempt by the former to define the latter as an excessive phase that has now passed (see _Encounters: Philosopy of History after Postmodernism_, Domanska, Ed., or _Beyond the Cultural Turn_, Bonnell and Hunt, Eds.). Is it, perhaps, no coincidence that the latter sort of work is rarely done within the discipline of history? If a historian's practice is more closely related to Nietzsche than positivism, can they find a place within the discipline of history (without having first obtained tenure doing more or less conventional work)? Is the former necessarily founded upon theoretical assumptions that the latter so radically calls into question that they can't really be considered to be doing the same thing? Might not the relation of the practice of Braudel & Co. to the practice of Foucault & Co. be something akin to what the practice of alchemy was to the practice of chemistry? Jeffrey Hearn The Untimely Past ----------------------- Internet Header -------------------------------- Sender: owner-foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu From: Andrew Collins <anar_schizo-AT-hotmail.com> To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Subject: Re: Historians Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:43:44 PDT Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu In an interview entitled, 'the Discourse of History' (1967), which can be found in 'Foucault Live,' Foucault mentions the names of Fernand Braudel, Francois Furet, Denis Richet, and Emmanuel Leroy-Ladurie. These French historians all belong to the Annales school. They are mentioned by Foucault in reference to 'The Order of Things.' Foucault claims that these historians, among others, have contributed greatly to a new understanding of historical knowledge. I believe also that Foucault was influenced by the medieval historian, Georges Duby. >From: tennis <praxiszine-AT-yahoo.com> >To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: Historians >Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:51:21 -0700 (PDT) > >Can anyone provide me with a list of historians >inspired by Foucault or historians that inspired >Foucault himself? > >Any help is greatly appreciated. > >Travis Ennis
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005