Michel Foucault : Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics

Rating:
Summary: I wouldnt go that far...
Review: Indeed, Dreyfus and Rabinow have "cleared up" much of Foucaults difficult methods. I would say that reading this does not excuse anyone from Foucaults works; it could be read alongside them to help clarify themes and connect seemingly useless portions that most people would like to skip through. Besides, without actually reading Foucault you are missing out on some of the most profound, stylistic, and original philosophy of the twentieth century. An excellent introduction and guide, but comprehensive enough to warrant FIVE stars. Trust me. Dreyfus and Rabinow have written a surprisingly original book here; their view and support of Foucault as "beyond structuralism and hermeneutics" is brilliantly explained.

Rating:
Summary: I wouldnt go that far...
Review: Indeed, Dreyfus and Rabinow have "cleared up" much of Foucaults difficult methods. I would say that reading this does not excuse anyone from Foucaults works; it could be read alongside them to help clarify themes and connect seemingly useless portions that most people would like to skip through. Besides, without actually reading Foucault you are missing out on some of the most profound, stylistic, and original philosophy of the twentieth century. An excellent introduction and guide, but comprehensive enough to warrant FIVE stars. Trust me. Dreyfus and Rabinow have written a surprisingly original book here; their view and support of Foucault as "beyond structuralism and hermeneutics" is brilliantly explained.

Rating:
Summary: Better than Foucault
Review: Like the interviews and lectures this book clears up any misunderstanding in Foucault. It is really better than Foucault's own works for insight.

Rating:
Summary: A little dated but still valuable
Review: Like the other viewer said, I think this is a useful book for anyone looking to understand Foucault particularly the Order of Things but I should warn you before you buy it that this book is slightly dated as you may have guessed by the title. The interview in the back of my edition is also helpful but in all of his interviews Foucault tries to redo parts of his work so read it closely and in relation to his other interviews.

Rating:
Summary: Stuck in middle
Review: This book has been numbered as the most authoritative interpretation of Foucault. The main question of the book is how to classify Foucault¡¯s thought. Foucault has been characterized as a typical structuralist. But as the subtitle of this book implies, he is not a structuralist, authors argue. He attempted to overcome the dichotomy of structuralism and hermeneutics. Early works like ¡®The Order of Things¡¯ and ¡®The Archaeology of Knowledge¡¯ might be seen as a breakthrough in structuralist line. But late works like ¡®Discipline and Punishment¡¯ and ¡®The History of Sexuality¡¯ have some flavor of hermeneutics. In this regard, Foucault could not be classified as structuralist or hermeneutist. Then Foucault¡¯s thought, one might guess, seemed to shift from structuralism to hermeneutics. To clear the confusion, we should visit Foucault¡¯s conception of discourse. The discourse is actually how the human-being understand and construct its world. Then the question of ¡®what is discourse?¡¯ is translated into ¡®what is understanding the world?¡¯ the most dominant approaches to that question are phenomenology, hermeneutics and structuralism. But they hasn¡¯t presented satisfactory solution. In Husserlian approach, the world is understood by meaning-giving transcendental subject. In structuralist approach, both meaning and subject give way to objective law (structure). Structure governs the subject. Hermeneutics is a bit subtler than them. Human-being is a meaning-giving subject, but meaning is located in the social practices like tradition or convetion, routine. (for more details, see my review on Eagleton¡¯s ¡®Literary Theory: An Introduction) Foucault gyrates along those three positions, which makes Foucault hard to be pinpointed. The trajectory Foucault traced reveals how he attempted to set up his own solution.
The questions raised by hermeneutics and structuralism converges into the question, ¡®What lies beyond discourse?¡¯ structuralism answers ¡®it¡¯s the structure.¡¯ In the world of structuralism, the concept of meaning is altogether eliminated. Hermeneutics, according to Gadamer, answers ¡®it¡¯s the profound understanding of Being embedded in traditional linguistic practices.¡¯ They all focus on linguistic practices, the discourse. It seems that in the early works, ¡®The Archaeology of Knowledge¡¯ and ¡®The Order of things¡¯, Foucault followed the structuralist doctrines: the discourse appears as self-regulating and autonomous. The methodology he hired, archaeology is indifferent to the meaning in the discourse, just as ethnologists methodically distantiate themselves both from one¡¯s own culture and from the culture under investigation. With the method of structuralist archaeology, Foucault could achieve such a distanciation. Discourse in mere object to be dissected. But the influences from social institution, which is the essential to Foucualt¡¯s conception of discourse, couldn¡¯t be seen. According to Giddens, discourse has always some intended effect to bring about. So it plays some role in social life. As demonstrated in vivid manner on ¡®Madness and Civilization¡¯, discourse not only talks about object-being-there, but also makes it. Madness emerged as the effect of discourse. It was not naturally there. Here comes the conception of power. Early method of archaeology serves to isolate and analyze discourse. But it doesn¡¯t mean that Foucault turned to hermeneutics. Actually, he denied the meaning-giving subject with advocating the disappearance of the subject. Unlike Wittgenstein or Giddens, power is the attribute not of individual social actors but of dominating system. So discourse is not the business of individuals. In the ¡®History of Sexuality¡¯, he showed how the deep meaning like identity is related to social dominance, in other word practices of power. The subject speaking deep truth or meaning is actually the product of power. But it makes it the elusive question, where the power resides in or what the power is at all. The authors are right when saying Foucault is neither structuralist nor hermeneutist. But Foucault¡¯s position is inherently ambiguous: he seems stuck in middle, I think.

Rating:
Summary: Stuck in middle
Review: This book has been numbered as the most authoritative interpretation of Foucault. The main question of the book is how to classify Foucault¡¯s thought. Foucault has been characterized as a typical structuralist. But as the subtitle of this book implies, he is not a structuralist, authors argue. He attempted to overcome the dichotomy of structuralism and hermeneutics. Early works like ¡®The Order of Things¡¯ and ¡®The Archaeology of Knowledge¡¯ might be seen as a breakthrough in structuralist line. But late works like ¡®Discipline and Punishment¡¯ and ¡®The History of Sexuality¡¯ have some flavor of hermeneutics. In this regard, Foucault could not be classified as structuralist or hermeneutist. Then Foucault¡¯s thought, one might guess, seemed to shift from structuralism to hermeneutics. To clear the confusion, we should visit Foucault¡¯s conception of discourse. The discourse is actually how the human-being understand and construct its world. Then the question of ¡®what is discourse?¡¯ is translated into ¡®what is understanding the world?¡¯ the most dominant approaches to that question are phenomenology, hermeneutics and structuralism. But they hasn¡¯t presented satisfactory solution. In Husserlian approach, the world is understood by meaning-giving transcendental subject. In structuralist approach, both meaning and subject give way to objective law (structure). Structure governs the subject. Hermeneutics is a bit subtler than them. Human-being is a meaning-giving subject, but meaning is located in the social practices like tradition or convetion, routine. (for more details, see my review on Eagleton¡¯s ¡®Literary Theory: An Introduction) Foucault gyrates along those three positions, which makes Foucault hard to be pinpointed. The trajectory Foucault traced reveals how he attempted to set up his own solution.
The questions raised by hermeneutics and structuralism converges into the question, ¡®What lies beyond discourse?¡¯ structuralism answers ¡®it¡¯s the structure.¡¯ In the world of structuralism, the concept of meaning is altogether eliminated. Hermeneutics, according to Gadamer, answers ¡®it¡¯s the profound understanding of Being embedded in traditional linguistic practices.¡¯ They all focus on linguistic practices, the discourse. It seems that in the early works, ¡®The Archaeology of Knowledge¡¯ and ¡®The Order of things¡¯, Foucault followed the structuralist doctrines: the discourse appears as self-regulating and autonomous. The methodology he hired, archaeology is indifferent to the meaning in the discourse, just as ethnologists methodically distantiate themselves both from one¡¯s own culture and from the culture under investigation. With the method of structuralist archaeology, Foucault could achieve such a distanciation. Discourse in mere object to be dissected. But the influences from social institution, which is the essential to Foucualt¡¯s conception of discourse, couldn¡¯t be seen. According to Giddens, discourse has always some intended effect to bring about. So it plays some role in social life. As demonstrated in vivid manner on ¡®Madness and Civilization¡¯, discourse not only talks about object-being-there, but also makes it. Madness emerged as the effect of discourse. It was not naturally there. Here comes the conception of power. Early method of archaeology serves to isolate and analyze discourse. But it doesn¡¯t mean that Foucault turned to hermeneutics. Actually, he denied the meaning-giving subject with advocating the disappearance of the subject. Unlike Wittgenstein or Giddens, power is the attribute not of individual social actors but of dominating system. So discourse is not the business of individuals. In the ¡®History of Sexuality¡¯, he showed how the deep meaning like identity is related to social dominance, in other word practices of power. The subject speaking deep truth or meaning is actually the product of power. But it makes it the elusive question, where the power resides in or what the power is at all. The authors are right when saying Foucault is neither structuralist nor hermeneutist. But Foucault¡¯s position is inherently ambiguous: he seems stuck in middle, I think.