What I find interesting about Foucault is that he takes words like discourse, genealogy, archeology and uses them in ways that are different from the usual understanding. I think that is exactly what he tries to do, tries to challenge the way we see, think and interpret knowledge. He never provides us with clear definitions and it is my opinion that he does not believe in such things. He just tries to point out to things that are taken for granted and writes:
"The object, in short, is to define the regime of power-knowledge-pleasure that sustains the discourse on human sexuality in our part of the world." (Foucault, "The history of sexuality" Volume 1, An introduction (1976), p.11)
Discourse is used differently by Foucault, it the production of knowledge by language, it is a way of speaking about social practises, objects etc., that makes the other ways of speaking as unacceptable and untruthful. He also wrote that nothing exists outside of discourse and called people "docile bodies" that are ruled by discourse. In his later writings he changed this perspective somewhat but I will not go into that here.
"Discourse constructs, defines, and produces the objects of knowledge in an intelligible way while at the same time excluding other ways of reasoning as unintelligible. Foucault attempts to identify the historical conditions and determining rules of formation of regulated ways of speaking about objects, that is discursive practice and discursive formations.”
(Chris Barker “Cultural studies” (2008), p. 20)
No comments:
Post a Comment