Foucault, Michel - The Archaeology of Knowledge: Part II

9/12/12
Part II The Discursive Regularities
Ch 1 The Unities of Discourse
(21f) We must rid ourselves of the notions over-arching systems which tie events, people, and ideas together: tradition, "spirit", influence, and evolution/progress. We must at least question them. Further, we must question/discard divisions of disciplines: politics, religion, literature, etc. The unity of works themselves becomes problematic, since texts pull from any number of previous sources. We must also be willing to allow events to occur without (knowable) causation.
(25f) Not all of these needs be rejected out of hand. Rather, must be questioned and their assumed nature challenged. Must start with a group of descriptions of discursive events and build out of it any such structure that might be within it. Even with all the questioning and discarding above, we may end up with a very similar set of unities built out of our set.
Must be willing to disregard preconceived ideas of how things are related. In biblical studies, perhaps we need to question the unity of the books themselves along with the traditions which hold them together. We might even push further and question the existence of the traditions themselves. Thus, to claim a "priestly" source, we would need to examine the evidence of a priestly caste and look for its presence. This could be done purely textually, but we would need to establish the nature of the texts themselves. We often assume a priesthood which performed acts at holy sites, but what evidence that it was unified (as presented in the Torah) is there?
Ch 2 Discursive Formations
(31f) Two questions arise: what are these "statements" (which he will deal with later) and what is the nature of the relationships between two (or more) statements? Are these relationships completely socially constructed or are they something which was formally set down in the past, evolving into their present status?
(32f) First hypothesis: statements are related if they are about the same thing. However, this ends up too narrow, or with so broadly defined an "object" as to be useless.
(33f) Second hypothesis: connect statements based upon form and kind. This one breaks down because style is constantly changing; the nuances of making statements and tools used to do so constantly change, making forging a unity out of them difficult.
(34f) Third hypothesis: base the relations on definitions. The problem here is that definitions are adapted, discarded, and created as a field progresses.
(35f) Fourth hypothesis: identify persistent themes between statements. This leads to multiple kinds of discourse on the same theme: a discourse based on unity to and one based on disjunction from. Rather than work with themes, one might work with possibilities over persistence.
(37f) None of these hypotheses are sufficient to describe disciplines enough to project a history of them. Rather, are going to look for a "system of dispersion" among elements in a group, calling this a "discursive formation". This approach does not promise to provide us with the clean unities we are holding in abeyance.
Here we will have to disregard the Bible as we have it, along with the "Traditional" understanding of methodology. We might be able to define the text by showing a history of what is included (in a particular book, in a particular canon, etc.). What would need follow would be a construction of a system of study, followed by application.
Ch 3 The Formation of Objects
(40f) Looking at the objects which fall into an (admittedly arbitrary) system of distribution, can we find similarities between them? He explores psychopathology beginning in the 19th century as an example. In the example, psychopathology is not defined by a group of objects in a clear dispersion, but rather from disparate objects which have been linked together to create a system. The objects exist under a complex system of connections. These relationships are extrinsic to the objects themselves. Further, there are kinds of relations: primary (clearly evident ones), secondary (ones which are produced in talking about the primary ones) and discursive ones (as yet undefined but dealing with the links between primary and secondary). Discursive relations exist at the boundaries: they define the areas in which the discourse is to take place.
(46f) Returning to the idea of disciplines, are they simply linked attempts of discourse? Rather, they are bound by a set of rules. This leaves us discussing not objects themselves, but analyzing them based on rules and the evolution of those rules through time. Definitions of specific objects are beyond the scope of historical discussion, to some extent. One can state what a term means, but not if that was accurate. (?)
What do we do here with regards biblical studies? Do we avoid debates on what a "priest" is (or should be) and rather attempt to present how they were described? Is this not particularly helpful? What "rules" would be extant for biblicists?
Ch 4 The Formation of Enuciative Modalities
(50f)
09/24/12
What is a physician and why are they allowed to make such statements as they are? These statements are built from 1) the social construct of what the title "Doctor" confers on the speaker, 2) the location(s) in which they are made, 3) The position within the wider range of the medical field (specialty, sub-specialty, plotical/social rank, etc.)
The act of discourse does not involve encoding an existing thought into language. Rather, language itself is required for the thought. Thoughts are discursive even when they are still in our head..
Ch 5 The Formation of Concepts
(56f) Knowledge structures (fields) are not built stone-by-stone as a building is. There is construction going on, but it is far more fluid than material building is. 1) Knowledge statements are successive (That is A leads to B, for varying definitions of the phrase "leads to") 2) statements coexist within a field (differing theories to the same problem), between fields (physics can impact biology), and in memory (old, discarded ideas still hold influence) 3) Fields have methods of interacting with their statements.
All of these parts are going on simultaneously and also form knowledge statements within the field themselves that can be shared between fields. They also shape the work that is (and can) be done within a particular field.
You do not state pre-extant "facts" through discourse, but rather discourse is producing a description of the relationships between elements within a field based on the realities of the field.
The structures of a field were not consciously constructed by a group/individual. Rather, they emerged over time from the relationships between discourses. Concepts are not formed from some concept of Platonic Forms nor through empirically finding ideas.

Ch 6. The Formation of Strategies
(64f) Strategies (themes/theories) within a field - do these emerge out of necessity? randomness? Is there an underlying structure to how theory is developed? How can we tell? 1) Identify where 2 (or more) ideas which coexist in some fashion are mutually exclusive, but one can present how these options arose in parallel, despite the positions themselves being mutually exclusive 2) Some possibilities are not realized -> explore the why of this 3) the function of a field of study is determined to soem degree by non-academic endeavors (capitalism drives the study of economics)
Can show a field extant if one can describe how its various strategies and discourses arose, even if those elements have some level of antagonism to one another.

Ch 7 Remarks and Consequences
(71f) How helpful is this current analysis over against other forms of defining field? - answered later in the book
Can we speak of unities (given this established method of defining them)?
1) Fields are not just discrete elements of knowledge, but also the relationships between them
2) The systems of a field (and discourse in general) arise from discourse itself. They are not imposed upon it from outside by participants nor are they pre-ordained (divine) structures which are necessary. Thus, systems are organic and complex, altering over time.
3) These systems are not the final part of the field. They are not the produced texts. They are where analysis occurs
"Discourse and system produce each other - and conjointly - only at the crest of this immense reserve" [of development and analysis].


Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Harper Colophon Books: New York, NY, 1972.