The archaeology of knowledge Essay Example

episteme is not a form of knowledge (connaissance) or type of reason that manifests autonomous integrity across various scientific disciplines; rather it is the entirety of relations between scientific disciplines when analyzed at diachronic regularities level (Archaeology 191). At this point, he focuses on statements as the primary analytical component of archaeology (Lindgren 2000:298).In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault explores the concept of archaeology, focusing on discourse and the examination of statements. There is a discussion surrounding what Foucault's statement entails. Dreyfus and Rabinow argue that Foucault is concerned with autonomous statements that include real assertions. Unlike simple lettering, Foucault's 'statement' differs in nature. According to Barrett, these statements are not propositions or sentences but function as entities. An example used to understand the concept is AZERT, which represents the formation of letters on a French typewriter. However, Foucault contends that this alphabetical order is not merely a statement but instead showcases regulations and rules that determine which statements are produced. Employing archaeological methods, he defines these statements as patterns shaped by historical and cultural regulations. According to Foucault, the statement itself does not possess inherent meaning; rather it establishes a network of regulations that attribute significance to groups of marks and reveal rules or forms.The construction of truth claims is revealed by the conditions of a statement, and Foucault's interest lies in the concept of "truth production" rather than essential truth. This perspective can be seen in works such as Madness and Civilization, The Birth of the Clinic, and The Order of Things. Through his exploration, Foucault aims to differentiate his work from traditional historical understanding by presenting a strategy of discontinuity. Instead of

seeking uniformity in a conceptual entity, Foucault examines breaks and interruptions to comprehend how meaning and knowledge are created. Thus, he argues that subjects like grammar, medicine, and gender lack inherent unity; what unites them are the "rules of formation," which determine how new statements can be constructed. This analysis of fragmented discourse does not align with traditional histories of ideas or science; instead, it seeks to rediscover the foundation on which knowledge and theory emerged – understanding how cognition is established within a specific framework. This endeavor could be described as an "archeology" rather than a history. To emphasize this point, Foucault employs a fitting metaphor: documents are no longer merely reliable tools for recording historical events and memories; instead, history now revolves around transforming documents into relics in our current era.The text suggests that while history used to focus on deciphering clues left by individuals, it now deals with multiple elements that need to be organized and connected in order to form meaningful entities. This is similar to archeology, which aims to provide an intrinsic description of a memorial. The main purpose is to analyze papers rather than what they represent. Archeological analysis has three objectives: demonstrating discontinuities in the history of ideas, viewing these discontinuities as normal rather than stigmatized, and uncovering the subject and possibility of a fundamentally different complete history called general history. A complete history's task is to restructure the overall form of a civilization. The challenge for general history is determining the lawful relationship between different series, not only within one series but also among "series of series" or represented as "tables". In other words, a complete description

encompasses all phenomena centered around one point, while general history explores the scattered nature of phenomena. Therefore, the objective is to find rules operating within different series, observing not just uninterrupted continuity but dispersion as well.The text emphasizes the importance of studying objects, statements, and subject matter. It discusses the exploration of constructs, subjects, and paradigms at all levels of discourse, which are referred to as "dianoetic regularities." These regularities are considered dianoetic information. The goal of archeology is to analyze these regularities, with history being responsible for this task rather than the author. According to Foucault, archeology does not aim to rediscover the continuous transition between discourses and what preceded or followed them. Instead, it focuses on defining discourses in their specific characteristics and demonstrating how their rules cannot be reduced to any other. It involves a differential analysis of discourse modes rather than a celebration of beliefs (139). To understand a dianoetic formation, one must question the speaker. This analysis examines conventional discourses and established institutions like medicine. Identifying the speaker helps determine who they are speaking on behalf of. Another rule for dianoetic formation relates to the development of constructs. Defining regularity in construct emergence is not about describing chronological or hierarchical processes.Instead, these rules would describe the organization of the domain where these statements appear and circulate. According to Foucault, this organization involves "forms of sequence", "forms of coexistence", and "procedures of intervention" (56-58). The book The Archaeology of Knowledge presents the methodology used in Madness and Civilization, The Birth of the Clinic, and The Order of Things. For example, in Madness and Civilization, Foucault examines the emergence of psychopathology discourse

and explores various relations that made this subject possible - hospitalization, internment, social exclusion conditions and procedures, laws, labor norms, and bourgeois morality. Essentially, he analyzes external relations that shaped its formation. The Order of Things focuses on the historical roots of "human sciences" with a particular interest in linguistics, biology, economics. It also includes a closing chapter on history, sociology psychology ethnology (O'Farrell 2005:39). Another archaeological analysis is found in The Order of Discourse which summarizes Foucault's analysis. This book contains treatment on processes regulations rules regulating controlling organizing effects discourse.Foucault's work in The History of Sexuality, volume 1: An Introduction centers on discourses about sex and challenges traditional impressions through analysis, statistics, categorization, and specification. He explores the truth about sex expressed through language based on power and knowledge. By referencing these works in archaeological analysis, Foucault's theoretical model articulated in The Archaeology of Knowledge can be extended. This methodology is characterized by uncertainties regarding continuity and the search for meaning in history. Dreyfus and Rabinow argue that archaeological analysis reveals interruptions in the seemingly continuous development of meaning due to discontinuous thought formations. Building upon The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault becomes increasingly interested in the relationship between knowledge and power and how it leads to the production of specific 'truths' about individuals. In other words, Archaeology does not study the history of ideas; instead, it focuses on how a particular topic like madness is perceived as an object of knowledge. The term "archeology" is used rather than "history" to emphasize the asynchronism between ideas about madness and its regulation. Power is no longer understood solely as conventional institutional or leadership power but

also as control over individuals' knowledge and actions.The role of discourse in identifying and understanding madness is crucial. The author challenges the humanist concepts of self and objectivity by rejecting the idea of an independent individual. According to Foucault, the focus should not be on the rational agent's autonomous thoughts and actions, but rather on societal constructions, epistemes, and discourses as seen in the discourse of madness. In his work "Discipline and Punish," he explores how society creates a new type of person - the criminal. Additionally, he questions an objectivist epistemology by arguing that our meanings, experiences, and truths are not predetermined fixed objects; instead, they are constructed by societal structures such as discourses that shape our identity including those related to madness or sexual orientation. The archaeology of knowledge aims to uncover the rules governing statements within specific discourses that shape us into particular subjects. However, this approach has limitations as it only allows for comparison across different time periods without providing insight into the causes behind transitions in thinking.Foucault's examination of the evolution of medical practice between 1760 and 1810 presents a new form of medical thought without revealing the driving factors behind the shift in thinking. He further utilizes the concept of a family tree to illustrate the significance of this passage, highlighting that he did not abandon archaeology but rather emphasized its importance. In essence, Foucault's words elucidate the crucial role of archaeological analysis in discourse analysis:

Archaeological analysis [of painting] serves another purpose by investigating whether various elements such as space, distance, depth, color, light, proportions, volumes, and outlines were considered and conceptualized within linguistic practices during the time

periods under study. It also explores whether knowledge resulting from these linguistic practices was not merely theoretical or speculative but instead present in educational forms and codes of practice as well as in techniques and even in the very movements employed by painters. The aim is not solely to demonstrate that paintings convey unique forms of "meaning" or "expression" that are distinct from verbal communication. Instead, it seeks to showcase how paintings embody a linguistic practice through their techniques and effects...The text aims to explain the emergence of a linguistic practice and collective knowledge through behaviors and strategies that generate a theory of society, shaping the treatment and mutual transformation of those behaviors and strategies (193-195). Foucault's method is important because it questions the relationships among statements in various intellectual fields such as literature, psychology, philosophy, and politics. By analyzing different subject positions, we can explore issues of suppression and distortion. Additionally, we can contemplate how we conceive intellectual integrities in any form at all.

• New York: Pantheon Books.
• Foucault, M. (1979 [1976]).The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction.London: Penguin Press.
• Hall, S. (Ed.).(1997).Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.London The Open University/Sage Publications.
• McHoul, A., & Grace, W. (1993). A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power, and the Subject.Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.