1. Western Civilization to c. 1600 CIV 101-03 Professor Ed Lamoureux Day 2 January 22, 2016 Two approaches to analyzing cultural history Remember: I put these slides online, so you need to pay attention and ask questions more than write. Make notes only as highlights for you.

2. Michel Foucault The Discursive Formations via Archeology or Genealogy Find supporting information on reserve in the library: Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. “Michel Foucault,” in Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 3rd ed. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 2002. Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge (includes the "Discourse on Language"), 1972.

3. Discursive Formations Are made from the everyday structures of discourse (speaking, writing, and non- verbal communication) that govern knowledge in a culture. One dominant at time; varying amounts of overlap/transition between them. –In his archeological approach, NO transition and/or overlap –In his genealogical approach, some transition and/or overlap Conceptually similar to zeitgeists and paradigms.

4. Rules Governing Discursive Formations How do discursive formations get established? One looks for the rules people follow and/or break, rewards and/or punishments they get for following/breaking. How do networks of power relations work?

5. Rules that control the appearance of discourse: What can be said? Prohibitions for speaking of certain things.

6. Rules concerning who is allowed to speak/write Rules that establish institutional bodies as proper authorities and spokes-people for the creation of an object of discourse. Each culture listens to some and discredits others. Credibility is given based on the accomplishment of certain conditions. Only certain people may participate in generating certain types of rules.

7. Rules that concepts and theories must assume to be accepted as knowledge Certain ways of producing discourse enable credible listening. Rules for ritual production. Rules for particularly acceptable sites. The proper arrangement of sayings. Stylistic rules.

8. Archeology v. Genealogy The methods for analyzing discursive formations in terms of the possibilities that allow them to appear and that govern their knowledge and order. You will only use ONE of these approaches Archeology: “Layers” on “Layers” without much overlap. Genealogy: Generation Trees, with modest transitions and overlaps.

9. Searching Archeology/Genealogy for Discursive Formations Uncover regularities in discursive practices, particularly the everyday. Foucault stayed away from “BIG/public/political” pronouncements; looked at everyday practices instead. 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.

10. Uncover regularities in discursive practices, particularly the everyday. Foucault stayed away from “BIG/public/political” pronouncements; looked at everyday practices instead. HOWEVER: Getting ahold of everyday stuff, “WAY BACK,” is very difficult—sometimes not possible So for this project, you back look for and use the grand, middle, or everyday stuff… as best as you can. Searching Archeology/Genealogy for Discursive Formations

11. T.S. Kuhn Paradigms and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Supported by Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962. (online and on reserve).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Professor Frank Pajare's (Emory University) treatments of Kuhn's book: outline ; synopsis outlinesynopsis

12. 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 that are often “broken” and replaced via revolutions (rather than gradual change)

13. 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

14. 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 leads 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.

15. 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

16. Phases of Paradigm development Are incommensurable Elements of the old and the new paradigms don’t communicate/comport well with each other Revolutions do NOT always happen. Sometimes challenges to paradigms fail.

17. 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. Generally requires presenting the in-place paradigm (before), the challenge, and the results (after).

18. When using Kuhn You probably need to present 3 phases: The “normal” (in-place) paradigm The challenge(s) The outcome –Sometimes the challenge DOESN’T produce a revolution/paradigm shift. –Other times, it does –It’s ok to present either kind.