File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_2001/foucault.0111, message 35


Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 01:02:51 +0100
Subject: Re: Archaeology/Genealogy


I assume Jivko refers to the third chapter of the third part of AK (_La
description des énoncés_), where Foucault, under subheading _B_ says:

" Mais on voit également que je ne développe pas ici une théorie, au sens
strict et fort du terme: la déduction, à partir d'un certain nombre
d'axiomes, d'un modèle abstrait applicable à un nombre indéfini de
descriptions empiriques. D'un tel édifice, s'il est jamais possible, le
temps n'est certainement pas venu. [...] Je ne procède pas par déduction
linéaire, mais plutôt par cercles concentriques, et je vais tantôt vers les
plus extérieurs tantôt vers les plus intérieurs. [...] Et je considérerai,
non pas que j'ai bâti un modèle théorique rigoureux, mais que j'ai libéré un
domaine cohérent de description [...] Plutôt que de fonder [italics] en
droit une théorie - et avant de pouvoir éventuellement le faire (je ne nie
pas que je regrette de n'y être pas encore parvenu) - il s'agit pour
l'instant d'établir [italics] une possibilité."

L'archéologie du savoir, pp. 149f.

Based on this paragraph, I think Stuart is right and you cannot construe
Foucault to be some enemy of theory. The opposition between archeology and
theory is in my view misplaced. True, Foucault does imply such an opposition
in the paragraph above, but his definition of theory here is an extremely
narrow one. Also, interestingly enough, he says, he regrets not being able
to _de iure_ found a theory.

regards, yves

On 16/11/01 19:06, "Stuart Elden" wrote:

> Jivko
> 
> You've lost me. I don't follow the logic of your last posts.
>>> but it is certain , that knowledge is not that kind of
> weapon in the world outside this one where they speak
> in english, and knowledgeis not only a weapon, we must
> addmit(and is not the only weapon).
> 
> Given that this was a discussion of a passage i referred back to the
> original French this makes no sense to me. The final two suggestions are
> fine, but don't really add or challenge anything.
> 
>> Well, lets see ...who didnt read the book:-)))
> In a place, which a cannot point right now, he sais
> that this book is not theory, i.e. it does not have
> deductive form, and in that moment the book is not
> grown enough to become theory. So, a friend of mine
> told me :"wait,this is archeaology, its not theory-
> because the archeologist have his hands dirty, and the
> theorist dont"
> 
> So, this rests on a particular definition of theory. First how you report
> Foucault frames it, then the model you take from your friend. I remember
> something similar to what you say F says, but i also could point to places
> where he does describe it as theory. Asking you for a reference to
> substantiate a claim is fair enough, surely?
> 
>> But there is a certain theory in that book:exactly,
> the theory of l'enonces, and another part, which is
> not exactly theory.
> 
> I'd like you to spell this out, with references if possible.
> 
> As I said, i don't have a problem with theory. I have problems with how some
> people define theory, like if theory had to be deductive, or theory means
> not having your hands dirty, then i probably wouldn't be doing theory.
> 
>> Derrida is here, as i mentioned - and is all the time
> logo(locu)centrism springing from everyone in the
> conference.
> So thats why i think that the west is logocentric, and
> the rest of the world is not so logocentric. For
> example we , Bulgarians, we are more musical.
> 
> I think others on the list have challenged these generalisations before...
> 
> Stuart
> 


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005