CIV 101-03 Class 2 january 23, 2015 Two approaches to analyzing cultural history Michel Foucault TS Kuhn Analyzing art
The Archeology and Genealogy Of Discursive Formations Michel Foucault The Archeology and Genealogy Of Discursive Formations
Discursive Formations The everyday structures that govern knowledge in a culture. Established by particular discourse practices. As archeology: One present at time; little overlap--not much transition between them. As genealogy: generations, with overlapping relationships
Discursive Formations as Archeology
Discursive Formations as Genealogy
Rules Governing Discursive Formations What can be said/written? Who can speak/write? Rules for theories/accepted knowledge
Rules which control the appearance of discourse: What can be said? Prohibitions for speaking of certain things. Rules which establish institutional bodies as proper authorities and spokespeople for the creation of an object of discourse.
Rules concerning who is allowed to speak/write Each culture listens to some and discredits others. Credibility is given based on the accomplishment of certain conditions. Certain ways of producing discourse enable credible listening. Rules for ritual production. Rules for particuarly acceptable sites.
Rules for proper forms concepts and theories must assume to be accepted as knowledge The proper arrangement of sayings. Stylistic rules Only certain people may participate in generating certain types of rules.
Searching Archeology/Genelogy for Discursive Formations Uncover regularities in discursive practices, particularly the everyday. Investigate contradictions and see how the current formation makes them fit. Make comparative descriptions of similar discursive practices in different formations. See change as a succession made possible by events, not merely as chronology. How do networks of power relations work in all this?
T.S. Kuhn Paradigms and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Challenges the usual historical take on “normal science” Opposes the idea that science is additive, chronological, and regular Anti-development-by-accumulation Instead, proposes that science happens within PARADIGMS
Nature of a scientific PARADIGM Answers currently available questions Using currently available language, theory, world view, methods. Doesn’t “see” questions that are outside the paradigm At all or As important Treats questions and people outside the paradigm as “fringe” or worse
Phases of Paradigm development Pre-paradigm (can only happen once in a given scientific field/discipline) no consensus on any particular theory several incompatible and incomplete theories one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on terms, methods, and questions. Phase 2- Normal Science On we go, until, Anomalies show up. Most get fixed; eventually, some don’t
Phases of Paradigm development Phase 3- Anomalies move to Crisis. Unresolved anomalies worry someone Those “lunatics”/”radicals” are noisy; they get sanctioned; sometimes they go away; other times, they make progress and win out. Phase 4- Scientific revolution: the underlying assumptions of the field are re-examined and a new paradigm is established. Phase 5- Post-Revolution, the new paradigm's dominance is established and back we go to what looks like Normal Science
Phases of Paradigm development Are incommensurable Elements of the old and the new paradigms don’t communicate/comport well with each other
Kuhn presented this for SCIENCE He did not envision applying these ideas to other cultural forces But other people have done so, with interesting results
Analyzing Art “A humanities primer: How to Understand the Arts” analyzing art (Art analysis standards)