p. 248: Why? 'Madeline's story allows the historian…' a little tidbit of why this is important to the historian, and then the narrative continues. This happens several other times
p. 229: Before introducing the case, she says there's a complexity in the way actors interact… credulity… 'it is possible to gain some idea of this complexity from…' Introduces this as a means by which we can understand the complexity of the rationalities of the crowd.
Is this sufficient? Are we reading generously enough? Are we missing something? She gives us stories to understand the complexity but leaves things at the level of the story. What is her goal? If her goal is to give a thread…
Intro, p. 6: "In this study of popular Parisian behavior…" giving us forgotten events to provide a different account of the history from dominant historical narratives. 'Reconstituting shapes and forms' to grapple with whole of social scene. This section relates to this goal - she's sketching the forms/rationalities through these stories. Historical project that's different than what we're used to reading. History as sketching forms/outlines.
If this is her project, what can we (as a group) get from this? Being unfamiliar in the first place with 18th century French history, it all seems new - the counterhistory written here doesn't pop as some other counterhistory might. So - method of archival work/historiography - how does that compare with Foucault?
Two places where she used the same argument from before:
- p. 251, women knew in their bodies that Madeline wasn't pregnant, similar to p. 189 discussing women's flesh knew more intimately
- p. 227, "What better way to… the spectacle of seeing oneself…" similar to p. 49, almost impossible quest to understand the intimate space the historian places between himself and the work (?)
- Farge seems more human-oriented - in D&P, you get practices, technologies, the panopticon… this is all about people and social interactions as interactions between humans.
- Farge assumes power without trying to account for power. The police/the sovereign can be understood as institutions of power, and goes no further (instead of those being an object of inquiry)
- Foucault seems to be interested in her skills as an archivist, the ability and skill required to sift through massive amounts of data and do something with it.
- Discussion of what is history, what is philosophy, what is analytic history, what do we look for in each…
- Foucault, What is Critique - I'm not a philosopher, I'm a critic. This could be the basic characteristic that distinguishes genealogy from history.
- Difference between being empirically responsible and doing philosophy. How to separate the empirical work of history from the analytic work of philosophy.
- Analytic history seems to blur these boundaries - a critical form of history.
- Is it critical like from a Kantian heritage, conditions of possibility, to history? Or something else, like an inquiry into a normatively/politically fraught practice (e.g. abortion)?
- History of the present - connections between these histories and now. Here, not sure if that's her project/if so, where it is.
- It's hard to see what constellation of present practices she would be referencing.
- Hint of this from Disorderly Families chapter on marriages when men become the authority within the family. This seems like description for description's sake, not description in service of a problematization. How is this a story of how we are made possible as contemporary subjects?
Next week: Foucault, The Lives of Infamous Men
Week 10: Foucault, Introduction to Herculine Barbine
No comments:
Post a Comment