Scan barcode
imogenesis's review
5.0
Love this book and The Order of Things, really helped me ground my understanding of Foucault.
chelsea_egg's review
5.0
I had to make a list of books that would serve me well in archival research; this one may be at the top of the list.
gellok's review
4.0
Nine out of every ten people - be it on Goodreads, in the University, or your corner cafe - who say they've read this book, have not. In part because this is not one of Foucault's more popular books (and was not when it was published), but also because this is essentially a tedious text on general methodology. It is poorly written when compared to most of Foucault's work (the French is, perhaps, a bit easier in parts than the English), it is openly exploratory (that is to say, Foucault acknowledges early in the book that he has only a rough idea of what he is doing), and the book acts as a 'technical' attempt for Foucault to find his footing in his own historical qua genealogical method.
None of this is to say the book is "bad". The text is a bit self-defeating if we were trying to be clever (see Foucault's essay "What is an Author?" - portions and echos of which can also found in this book), but it is interesting to see Foucault's method unfold and patiently reject the earlier methods of analysis employed in History of Madness. The notable issue with this expounding of method is that it is, at times, excessively complex and technical. Unless you read History of Madness, Birth of the Clinic, and maybe some Pinel - the first three or four chapters don't really make much sense. Are we really to assume that so many people have read those texts? Of course not. This is a purely academic work, not a fun accessible read like some of the College de France lectures, History of Sexuality Vol. 1 or portions of History of Madness. This is Foucault playing the role of the technical academic; prolixity and all. All of this is to say: the book is difficult in a specific way. Unlike some of his other writings in which the expository structure takes on a secondary role to the overarching theoretical dimension(s) of the text; Archaeology of Knowledge reverses that dynamic for no less than half the book. The subsequent result is, in numerous cases, a note-taker's dream but a theorists nightmare, at least so much as can be said for those readers of Foucault. A set of intricate directions rather than a topographical map, if you will.
The book is tremendously helpful for those who have already spent a considerable amount of time with Foucault and are still unclear on the more subtle nuances of his historical method. While it would be wrong to call this a book on Foucault's "theory of language"; attempts have been made to derive such information from this text. Ultimately, and I think this is clear through the middle portions of the book and the Appendix, Foucault's analysis of language is 'incidental' - if I can be permitted the loosest understanding of the term - to his overall methodological considerations. Another way of putting this and paraphrasing him at the same time would be to say that systems of language are consubstantial with discursive structures and under the ubiquitous of a spatio-temporal framework which we can refer to as "archaeology" and later "genealogy".
Well worth the read - certainly if you're a student, reader of Foucault, or working within the field of discourse analysis.
None of this is to say the book is "bad". The text is a bit self-defeating if we were trying to be clever (see Foucault's essay "What is an Author?" - portions and echos of which can also found in this book), but it is interesting to see Foucault's method unfold and patiently reject the earlier methods of analysis employed in History of Madness. The notable issue with this expounding of method is that it is, at times, excessively complex and technical. Unless you read History of Madness, Birth of the Clinic, and maybe some Pinel - the first three or four chapters don't really make much sense. Are we really to assume that so many people have read those texts? Of course not. This is a purely academic work, not a fun accessible read like some of the College de France lectures, History of Sexuality Vol. 1 or portions of History of Madness. This is Foucault playing the role of the technical academic; prolixity and all. All of this is to say: the book is difficult in a specific way. Unlike some of his other writings in which the expository structure takes on a secondary role to the overarching theoretical dimension(s) of the text; Archaeology of Knowledge reverses that dynamic for no less than half the book. The subsequent result is, in numerous cases, a note-taker's dream but a theorists nightmare, at least so much as can be said for those readers of Foucault. A set of intricate directions rather than a topographical map, if you will.
The book is tremendously helpful for those who have already spent a considerable amount of time with Foucault and are still unclear on the more subtle nuances of his historical method. While it would be wrong to call this a book on Foucault's "theory of language"; attempts have been made to derive such information from this text. Ultimately, and I think this is clear through the middle portions of the book and the Appendix, Foucault's analysis of language is 'incidental' - if I can be permitted the loosest understanding of the term - to his overall methodological considerations. Another way of putting this and paraphrasing him at the same time would be to say that systems of language are consubstantial with discursive structures and under the ubiquitous of a spatio-temporal framework which we can refer to as "archaeology" and later "genealogy".
Well worth the read - certainly if you're a student, reader of Foucault, or working within the field of discourse analysis.