Hi Michel.
Oh, hi.
Are you ready for dealing with another key
concept of your theory? This time, it is “Archaeology.”
Ah, that one. Yeah, ok, but it is almost the
same as with “discourse.” My use of the
term “discourse” was often misunderstood.
The same problem unfortunatly occured with “archaeology”.
Actually, I thought it was rather easy and
straight forward. Originally, archaeology
means something like the study of human history
and prehistory, in particular the study of
human activity through the excavation and
analysis of material culture. At least in
my eyes, archaeology has to do with the digging
out of all human things, or with excavating
these things, laying them bare, like in Pompeii
or Troy. And, since you did a lot of historical
work, I always thought you would use the term
archaeology in order to describe your own
work with historical sources as a kind of
digging out or excavating stuff.
This, precisely, is the misunderstanding.
I have nothing to do with archaeology in this
sense. In fact, I don’t like the metaphor
of digging out. I am more the surface guy.
But I also did not expect that almost all
of my readership was lacking any sense of
humor.
What you mean?
Well, how about thinking archaeology from its verso!?
Ever heard of “anarchy”?
Sure, means something like lawlessness or
misrule...
Exactly. And now back to archaeology. This
then would be standing for the science of
regularity and order. And if you then combine
this with “discourse,” you almost got it. Archaeology
turns out to be nothing else than describing
“all the rules which at a given period and
for a specific society define (...) the limits
and the forms of expressibility:
what is it possible to speak of?“ (History, Discourse
and Discontinuity, 1972, p.234)
Sounds familiar.
Archaeology, as I understand it, investigates
the regularities or the implicit rules of
discursive practices at a specific time or
in a given culture. “Archaeology defines
the rules of formation of a group of statements“
(Archaeology of Knowledge, p.167) – which
precisely means a discourse.
Can you give an example?
Sure, but they are always the same: the rules
that determine the discourse about madness,
or the discourse about illness, guilt, sexuality,
and so on and so forth.
I see. But in order to find these rules or
regularities you did often go into the archives.
Actually, you were somebody who did excavate
things: the case of Herculine Barbin for example,
or the case of Pierre Rivière, or the Lettres
de cachet…
Oh no, not again! I am so fed up with this imagery
of digging out, going into the depth or entering
the underground. To my mind all things, at
least discursive things, are basically flat,
literally superficial. And this is also why
the rules of a given discourse are not secrets
that can be excavated on site by means of
a spar or discovered and unveiled in an archive,
like some unpublished letter. The rules are
not lying under or behind the discourse, they
simply co-exist with it. They are in the way
a given terminology is handled, how words
are used.
Wittgenstein.
What?
Sounds like Wittgenstein, pretty much so.
What do you mean?
That any given language, or rather speech,
is determined by the way we are using words.
This is something Wittgenstein writes about
in his „Philosophical Investigations“
– a book that was translated into French
by your friend Pierre Klossowski in 1961.
It’s possible that there is some resonance.
And it was Wittgenstein who came up with the
notion that philosophy should be a kind of
tool-box, addressing users rather than readers.
You promoted very similar ideas...
OK, OK, I got it. What’s next?
Will you be drawing a parallel between Wittgenstein’s
“language games” and my “games of truth”?
Is that where you’re heading? I think you
are pretty much stuck with the idea of digging
out. Right now you are excavating Wittgenstein
in a rather desparate attempt to understand
what I mean by “archaeology.” Well, then,
go ahead. Why don’t you come up with Abel
Rey who, as early as 1930, described “history
of science as an “archaeology of scientific
ideas”?
Abel Rey? Never heard of him...
Abel Rey was the first director of the Sorbonne
Institute for history of science and technology
that, in later times, would be headed by Bachelard
and then Canguilhem.
In other words, Rey has contributed to defining
the discourse that you also adopted and developed?
He was subjected to the same forms of expressibility
as you…
Well, gradually you seem to be leaving the imagery
of excavation…
But only because a puppet helped me digging
out stuff. Thank you very much, Michel.
You’re welcome.
