Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:00:12.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Keeping It Implicit: A Defense of Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2015

TUOMO TIISALA
TUOMO TIISALA*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOtiisala@uchicago.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This paper defends Michel Foucault's notion of archaeology of knowledge against the influential and putatively devastating criticism by Dreyfus and Rabinow that Foucault's archaeological project is based on an incoherent conception of the rules of the discursive practices it purports to study. I argue first that Foucault's considered view of these rules as simultaneously implicit and historically efficacious corresponds to a general requirement for the normative structure of a discursive practice. Then I argue that Foucault is entitled to that view despite the charges to the contrary by Dreyfus and Rabinow. I also explain in detail how the argument by Dreyfus and Rabinow arises from a misunderstanding of Foucault's archaeological project as transcendental inquiry, while archaeology of knowledge is, in fact, a diagnostic project. The result is a novel understanding of the notion of archaeology of knowledge that enables a reassessment of Foucault's philosophical work in connection with current debates regarding the relationship between reflection and practice in the structure of thought.

Keywords

Foucaultrule-followingtheories of knowledge and justificationunconsciousknowledge-howtwentieth-century philosophy
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Winter 2015 , pp. 653 - 673
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brandom, Robert. (1994) Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. (2011) Perspectives on Pragmatism: Classical, Recent, and Contemporary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Arnold I. (1986) ‘Archaeology, Genealogy, Ethics’. In Hoy, David Couzens (ed.), Foucault: A Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell), 221–34.Google Scholar
Davidson, Arnold I. (2001) The Emergence of Sexuality: Historical Epistemology and the Formation of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Djaballah, Marc. (2008) Kant, Foucault, and Forms of Experience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert L. (1972) What Computers Can't Do: The Limits of Artificial Intelligence. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert L. (1991) Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert L. (2007) ‘Return of the Myth of the Mental’. Inquiry, 50, 352–65.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert L., and Rabinow, Paul. (1982) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Falzon, Christopher, O'Leary, Timothy, and Sawicki, Jana, eds. (2013) A Companion to Foucault. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. (1975) The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1966a) Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1966b) ‘Michel Foucault : “Les mots et les choses”’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:526–32.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1966c) ‘Entretien avec Madeleine Chapsal’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:541–46.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1966d) ‘L'homme, est-il mort?’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:568–72.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1966e) ‘Qu'est-ce qu'un philosophe?’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:580-81.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1967a) ‘Philosophie structuraliste permet de diagnostiquer ce qu'est “aujourd'hui”’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:608-12.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1967b) ‘Sur les façons d’écrire l'histoire’. In Dits et écrits, (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:613–28.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1967c) ‘“Qui êtes-vous, professeur Foucault?”’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:629–48.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1967d) ‘L'archéologie du savoir’. NAF 28284 (1), Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1968) ‘Foucault répond à Sartre’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:690–96.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1969a) L'archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1969b) ‘‘La naissance d'un monde’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:814–17.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1969c) ‘Titres et travaux’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:870–74.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1970) ‘Préface à l'édition anglaise’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:875–81.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1971a) ‘Entretien avec Michel Foucault’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:1025–42.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1971b) ‘Un problème m'intéresse depuis longtemps, c'est celui du système pénal’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:1073–77.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1973) ‘Le monde est un grand asile’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 1:1301–02.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1976) ‘Le discours ne doit pas être pris comme. . .’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:123–24.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1977) ‘Le jeu de Michel Foucault’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:298–329.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1980) ‘Table ronde du 20 mai 1978’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:839–53.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1981) ‘Est-il donc important de penser?’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:997–1001.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1982) ‘L'âge d'or de la lettre de cachet’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:1170–71.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1984a) Histoire de la sexualité 2: L'usage des plaisirs. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1984b) ‘Qu'est-ce que les Lumières ?’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:1381–97.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1984c) ‘Préface à l’ “Histoire de la sexualité”’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:1397–1403.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1984d) ‘Foucault’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:1450–54.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1984e) ‘Le style de l'histoire’. In Dits et écrits (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 2:1468–74.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (2001) Dits et écrits, 1954–1988. Edited by Daniel Defert and François Ewald. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (1999) Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gutting, Gary. (1989) Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Scientific Reason. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. (1979) ‘Michel Foucault's Immature Science’. Noûs, 13, 39–51.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. (1986) ‘The Archaeology of Foucault’. In Couzens Hoy, David (ed.), Foucault: A Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell), 27–40.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. ([1927] 1962) Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Han, Béatrice. (1998) L'ontologie manquée de Michel Foucault. Grenoble: Jêrome Millon.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. ([1781/87] 1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. ([1785] 1996) Groundwork of The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. In Gregor, Mary J. (ed.), Practical Philosophy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 41–108.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. ([1788] 1996) Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. In Mary J. Gregor (ed.), Practical Philosophy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 137–271.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. ([1793] 1996) ‘On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, But It Is of No Use in Practice’. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. In Mary J. Gregor (ed.), Practical Philosophy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 277–309.Google Scholar
Koopman, Colin, ed. (2011) Special issue on Foucault and Pragmatism, Foucault Studies, 11.Google Scholar
Kusch, Martin. (1991) Foucault's Strata and Fields: An Investigation into Archaeological and Genealogical Science Studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. (2007) ‘What Myth?’. Inquiry, 50, 338–51.Google Scholar
Noë, Alva. (2005) ‘Against Intellectualism’. Analysis, 65, 278–90.Google Scholar
O'Leary, Timothy, and Falzon, Christopher, eds. (2010) Foucault and Philosophy. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. (1949) The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. (1954) ‘Some Reflections on Language Games’. Philosophy of Science, 21, 204–28.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. (2013) ‘Kant, Moral Obligation, and the Holy Will’. In Timmons, Mark and Baiasu, Sorin (eds.), Kant on Practical Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 125–52.Google Scholar
Stump, David J. (2015) Conceptual Change and the Philosophy of Science: Alternative Interpretations of the A Priori. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Veyne, Paul. ([1978] 1997) ‘Foucault Revolutionizes History’. Translated by Catherine Porter. In Davidson, Arnold I. (ed.), Foucault and His Interlocutors (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 146–82.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. (1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953) Philosophische Untersuchungen / Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wright, Crispin. (2007) ‘Rule-Following Without Reasons: Wittgenstein's Quietism and the Constitutive Question’. Ratio, 20, 481–502.Google Scholar