Delaporte, The History of Yellow Fever, Chs. 4 and 5

 (Meeting Date: April 8th)

We began with questions:

1. Page 67. “[T]he structure of the visible” is discussed that which grounds the principle of analogy. What does Delaporte mean by this?

2. Page 91. Delaporte makes the claim that the mosquito theory constituted an interpretive scheme for thinking about disease. The movement is from theory to observation and not the reverse. Can we talk a bit about the role of theory here?  

3. On page 89, he refers to history as chronological and as having a logic. What does he mean by this? 

4. What is the point of a chapter that is basically saying “and this is why they did not find the solution for 20 years.” Why write a 20 pages on this and not just a paragraph or 2 pages?

5. Page 79 [“The divergence of interpretations and … in reality the controversy took place because...”]. Addresses the distinction between something observed as a fact versus the reality of the thing. This links up with a notion in Foucault of mythmaking and storytelling.

6. Page 93 [“in order clarify the history, let us first set down the facts”]. Recall discussion last week about historians versus historical epistemologists. Shall we revisit some of this theme?

7. Page 65 [end of the first paragraph]. Delaporte talks about the transformation of scientific theory as a matter of salvation. What is behind this terminology? Can we relate some form of Christian theological understanding to his study of science? He also talks at some point about missionaries. Does he talk more about this connection elsewhere?

8. This may be a situation where he is moving away from early Foucault focusing on discourse etc. and looking instead at individual human beings…Or perhaps he is holding both individuals and discourse in relation to each other?

Then we discussed:

- People described the discovery as “fated” (89), but Delaporte says “history is not a story dictated by fate.” Everything did in fact come together in a rather remarkable way. It’s like he is telling a story of accidents. A bumbling detective story where the silly detective turns out to be right by chance/accident.

- In showing failure and error Delaporte undermines a teleological conception of history.

- Delaporte's history has a performative element, and this is something worth thinking about. Foucault’s and Nietzsche's genealogical writings are also performative. The latter two aim to take the reader to a new place. To change the reader, to bring them to a new place via literary style. But Delaporte’s story is not super impressive in this way…one’s consciousness is not revolutionized by it.

- Page 95 [“these are the facts”]. We see the return of this notion of history as having a chronology and logic. He refers to logic again on page 89.  

- In order to discuss the history we first have to get down the facts. But the ordering of facts on their own does not constitute or make a history. What matters is how we line them up?

- In his foreward Canguilhem mentions political context [“This history is the political history of the exploitation of the globe of international trade”], but we are now almost done reading the book and there is no clear political analysis from Delaporte.

- What function is Canguilhem’s intro supposed to have? What is the function of naming the text as a political tract when it doesn’t actually read that way? Is there some political element in Delaporte we are missing? Will it emerge in the last chapters of the book?