To select an example from the art world, Renaissance perspective was an example of the belief that perspective was a science that was capable of replicating three dimensional space. The more modern understanding of representation denies the possibility of transparency, and, for Foucault, as well as for those of his generation, language was actually opaque. Representation is a process of symbolization or of coding, and, even more, of language.
See a Problem?
But this artifice both conceals and indicates another vacancy which is, on the contrary, immediate: that of the painter and the spectator when they are looking at or composing the picture. It can never be present without some residuum, even in a representation that offers itself as a spectacle.
In the depth that traverses the picture, hollowing it into a fictitious recess and projecting it forward in front of itself, it is not possible for the pure felicity of the image ever to present in a full light both the master who is representing and the sovereign who is being represented. Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were, of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us.
And, indeed, representation undertakes to represent itself here in all its elements, with its images, the eyes to which it is offered, the faces it makes visible, the gestures that call it into being. This very subject — which is the same — has been elided. Representation was an act of ideology, implicated in a system of oppression, and never innocent, never transparent.
- The Paths of Civilization: Understanding the Currents of History?
- The Order of Things.
- Site Index.
- Water Wells and Boreholes!
As Foucault wrote,. The new arrangement brought about the appearance of a new problem unknown until then: in the sixteenth century, one asked oneself how it was possible to know that a sign did in fact designate what it signaled; from the seventeenth century, one began to ask how a sign could be linked to what it signified..
This involved an immense reorganization of culture, a reorganization of which the Classical age was the first and perhaps the most important stage, since it was responsible for the new arrangement in which we are still caught—since it is the Classical age that separates us from a culture in which the signification of signs did not exist, since it was reabsorbed into the sovereignty of the Like..
Resemblance, which for a long been the fundamental category of knowledge—both the form and the content of what we know—became dissociated in an analysis based on terms of identity and difference. The Classical episteme orders scientific knowledge along a system of contrast rather than similarities. But Foucault, ever alert to discontinuity, noted the change from the Classical episteme and its regime of positivity to the Modern episteme that emerged in the 18th century, one that is still not completely evolved.
Foucault wrote,. Until the end of the eighteenth century, this new analysis has its place in the search of the representative values of language. It is still a question of discourse.
But already through the inflection system, the dimension of the purely grammatical is appearing: language no longer consists only of representations and of sounds that in turn represent the representations and are ordered among them as the links of thought require; it consists also of formal elements, grouped into a system, which imposes upon the sounds,syllables, and roots of an organization that is not that or representation. Foucault, ever the anti-historian never explained why these changes took place, he just asserted, to the irritation of more traditional historians that one episteme broke from another.
To the traditionalist, the historian was a detective, who searched for clues through primary documents, but Foucault presented another way of doing history by presenting a new way to theorize history as a series of discontinuities and breaks. And it is also one of those that have passed most unperceived.
If you have found this material useful, please give credit to. Jeanne S. Thank you. Diego Velazquez. As Foucault wrote, The new arrangement brought about the appearance of a new problem unknown until then: in the sixteenth century, one asked oneself how it was possible to know that a sign did in fact designate what it signaled; from the seventeenth century, one began to ask how a sign could be linked to what it signified..
Alan Sheridan. Vintage, New York.
Foucault, Order of Things (Les Mots et les Choses)
Routledge, London. Many would argue that this book strongly uses Structuralist ideas, although at the same time pointing to the limits of Structuralism. Indeed, many in France regarded the work as a tour de force of Structuralism when it was published Flynn In The Order of Things , Foucault is concerned with epistemes : an episteme is a set of ordered but unconscious ideas that are foundational in determining what is regarded as accepted knowledge in particular periods and times. But the episteme is not a general body of known knowledge or natural science.
When one episteme is replaced by another, this process is by some irrational and cultural revolution akin to religious conversion or mass psychology, not by rational argument or evidence Merquior To give some examples, the ideas supposedly at the heart of the Classical era were already clearly in evidence in the pre-Classical period, especially in the realm of the emerging science of cosmology Merquior Taxonomy was already a fundamental part of the Aristotelian philosophy that was very influential in the Middle Ages Merquior Within alleged periods where one episteme supposedly ruled, one can find a great degree of pluralism in which it is difficult to see how some monolithic underlying episteme could really have existed Merquior 62— He had no interest in The Order of Things in whether there was a development of growing ideas that can rightly be regarded as objectively true Merquior But in any history of human knowledge or the epistemological ideas underlying the sciences this is a fundamentally important question.
If you are engaged in the history of knowledge as Foucault was, but are not willing to seriously address the question whether empirical truths and foundational epistemic principles can be rationally defended or are objectively true, then the whole project has missed the point. Links Gutting, Gary.
Foucault 2nd edn. Fontana, London. Flynn, Thomas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. Foucault, Michel.
Michel Foucault (1926–1984)
Vintage Books, New York. Posted by LK at AM. Labels: critique , episteme , Foucault , summary , The Order of Things. Phil March 6, at PM. LK March 6, at PM. Anonymous May 2, at AM. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom.