Obviously, Nietzsche, Genealogy, History is the most difficult reading we've done so far. Here are a few attempted definitions:
Herkunft: a kind of broken family tree of an idea and its “inscription on the body.” (84) This is a difficult concept to grasp; perhaps the moment at which an identifiable religious or cultural tradition coalesces would be an example?
Entstehung: when an idea crystallized in the midst of struggle (“Emergence is thus the entry of forces; it is the eruption, the leap from the wings to center stage…” [84]) Much easier to grasp - Foucault's whole idea of the disciplinary society coming together around the time of the French Revolution is an example.
Also, a nicely concise summary of his idea of the function of law: “humanity installs each of its violences in a system of rules and thus proceeds from domination to domination.” (85)
Obviously, the most fruitful discussion for us is going to be his idea of the proper (or, at least, useful) role of the historian. What strikes me re-reading that part is that what he describes, the restless historian eschewing metanarratives and being suspicious of lofty concepts, is precisely what we see in a lot of contemporary history. These kind of ideas have taken root among practicing historians. Given when Foucault died, I doubt he really got to see that come to fruition; I wonder what he would have to say at this point.
-Chris
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment