Foucault and Derrida for dummies: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "==== Foucault ==== ===== Introduction ===== ===== The Historical a priori and the Archive ===== ==== Derrida ==== ===== Archive Fever =====") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==== Foucault ==== | ==== Foucault ==== | ||
===== Introduction ===== | ===== Introduction ===== | ||
Themes: continuity, discontinuity, paradox | |||
The establishment of the differences between two branches of historical method: the history of ideas and history proper. | |||
Questioning the document traditionally perceived as a "language of a voice [...] reduced to silence" has led to a shift of approach in both studies; old concerns of the historical field have moved from creating links between disparate events and constructing continuity to identifying and isolating strata as well as forming systems of relations. The history of ideas, on the other hand, has turned its attention from the unity and gradual development of theoretical activity to the cracks in its foundation, the disruptions that allow the free movement of ideological achievements. | |||
The above mentioned interruptions are of varying nature: | |||
-epistemological acts and thresholds | |||
-displacements and transformations of concepts | |||
-microscopic and macroscopic scales | |||
"The history of thought, of knowledge, of philosophy, of literature seems to be seeking, and discovering, more and more discontinuities, whereas history itself appears to be abandoning the irruption of events in favour of stable structures." | |||
===== The Historical a priori and the Archive ===== | ===== The Historical a priori and the Archive ===== | ||
==== Derrida ==== | ==== Derrida ==== | ||
===== Archive Fever ===== | ===== Archive Fever ===== | ||
Revision as of 04:50, 22 September 2014
Foucault
Introduction
Themes: continuity, discontinuity, paradox
The establishment of the differences between two branches of historical method: the history of ideas and history proper. Questioning the document traditionally perceived as a "language of a voice [...] reduced to silence" has led to a shift of approach in both studies; old concerns of the historical field have moved from creating links between disparate events and constructing continuity to identifying and isolating strata as well as forming systems of relations. The history of ideas, on the other hand, has turned its attention from the unity and gradual development of theoretical activity to the cracks in its foundation, the disruptions that allow the free movement of ideological achievements.
The above mentioned interruptions are of varying nature: -epistemological acts and thresholds -displacements and transformations of concepts -microscopic and macroscopic scales
"The history of thought, of knowledge, of philosophy, of literature seems to be seeking, and discovering, more and more discontinuities, whereas history itself appears to be abandoning the irruption of events in favour of stable structures."