Discussion Questions:
(1) How do we reconcile Foucault’s “historico-philosophical” practice as fabrication/fiction vs. as empirical? (p. 36)
(2) Is critique productive or deconstructive?
(3) Could the critical attitude itself operate as a technique of power or domination?
(4) How do archaeology, genealogy, and strategy methodologically related? Are they simultaneous? Distinct? (p. 46)
(5) How does historico-philosophical practice treat causality? (p. 44)
(6) What happens to strategy? (p. 46)
(7) What is the shift between counter-government as “not like this, for this, by them” (specificity) and counter-government as “not quite so much” (extent)? (p. 24)
It makes sense to believe that historical accounts are, to various extents, constructed. But doesn’t Foucault’s use of the term “fabricating” and “fiction” undercut his genealogical project? Perhaps we’re too caught up with the negative connotations that accompany these terms? Perhaps we should understand fiction as a literary modality that says something about our world? Maybe this passage is sort of a claim to empirical nominalism? That is, we construct a conceptual product through observation of empirics. Does his concept of “fiction” have a criterion for realism? What is the standard we should hold genealogy between, on the one hand, brute positivism on the one hand, and radical constructionism on the other? Bringing in Sadiya Hartmann, what if there is an instance where there is no archive to relate to? Foucault seems to give equal weight to what’s not in the archive as much as he does to what’s in it -- positivity through absence if you will. Philosopher is one who produces concepts (a la Deleuze). A genealogy is supposed to capture some sense of the present in order to make some sort of political intervention in the future. Foucault wants to have a concept of effects that isn’t unilateral. What are the methodological benefits of genealogy’s concept of effects over “origin-based” histories? Well, the latter already has a set of answers worked out, whereas a genealogical method, as a form of inquiry, is seeking answers that can’t be countenanced by an originary method.
