Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
Workshop.
http://www.jstor.org
106
INTELLECTUALFORMATION
In so far as the word 'knowledge'has any meaningat all, the worldis knowable:
but it can be interpreteddifferently;behindit liesno meaningbut rathercountless
meanings - 'Perspectivism'. Ii
FOUCAULTAS ARCHAEOLOGIST
It shouldbe obvious from what has been said so far that Foucault'shistoryis of a
curioussort. He rejectsthe claimsto a 'scientifichistory'offered by both Marxism,
and Rankeanpositivism:both makeclaimsto truthwhichareas dubiousas thoseof
otherformsof knowledge.Butthereis, nonetheless,a vitallyimportantpointof refer-
ence for Foucaultin a greattraditionof historiography,the FrenchAnnalesschool.
At the beginningof The Archaeologyof Knowledgehe evokes the work of
Annales,and particularlythatof FerdinandBraudel.14 Thisis an approachto history
whichhas stressedthe studyof changein materialcivilisationoverperiodsas longas a
millennium,as wellas thelayeredandoverlappingtimescalesof historicaltransforma-
tion. The Annales influenceis evidentin his advocacyof what he calls a 'general
history'as opposedto a 'totalhistory'."4Totalhistory,he observes,attemptsto draw
all phenomenarounda singlecausativecentreor spiritof a societyor civilisation.The
same form of historicalinfluence is then seen to be operatingon all levels, the
economic,the social,thepolitical,thereligious,withthe sametypesof transformation
and influencesplaying on all these levels. Generalhistory, on the other hand, is
concernedwith 'series,segmentations,limits, differencesof level, time lags, anach-
ronisticsurvivals,possibletypesof relation'.Theaimis not howeverto offer simplya
jumble of different histories, nor the investigationof analogies or coincidences
betweenthem. Nor is it a simplerevivalof crudepositivism,of 'one damnthingafter
another'.Thetaskproposedby generalhistoryis preciselyto determinewhatformsof
relationmaylegitimatelybe madebetweenthe variousformsof socialcategorisation,
but to do this withoutrecourseto any masterschema,any ultimatetheoryof causa-
tion. So thetaskof historicalinvestigationis not to fishfor the 'real'historythatglides
silentlyunderthe surface,or rulesbehaviourbehindmen'sbacks,butto addressitself
to thesesurfaces,whicharethe 'real'in thewaywelivesocialrelationsthroughthegrid
of meaning and language. This points to the importanceof questioningthe
'document'.Pasthistories,Foucaultargues,havebeenconcernedto readdocuments
for theirhiddenmeanings,to transformthemonumentsof the pastintodocuments.In
our own time, by contrast,historyis that whichtransformsdocumentsinto monu-
ments.Hencehistoryaspires'to the intrinsicdescriptionof the monument',to be, in
his terms, an 'archeology'.'5What he is doing here is distinguishinghimself from
attemptsto understandtheemergenceof ideasteleologicallyin termsof theiroriginsin
pre-existingideas, or in termsof theirmaterialroots, as simplereflectionsof some-
thingmorerealbehindthem. Inthe firstplace,whatFoucaultseeksis 'anarchaeology
of knowledge',an understandingof the conditionsfor the emergenceof particular
formsof knowledge,for thegrammarwhichallowsthoseusingtheconceptsto recog-
nisewhatthey are sayingas beingtrueor false. He is interestedindeedin the rulesof
formationof an objectof discourse.Therearethreetypesof rule:'surfacesof emerg-
ence' (thosesocial/culturalareas,suchas the family,socialor religiousgroup,work
situationin which a discoursemakes its appearance);'authoritiesof delimitation'
whichgovernswhatcanbe said,suchas themedicalprofession,law, thechurches;and
'gridsof specification',systemsaccordingto whichdifferenttypesof socialcategoris-
ation, suchas madness,could be specifiedand relatedto eachother.
If his first concernis with an archeologyof knowledge,his second is with the
'genealogy'of particulardisciplines,theirspecificformsof descent,emergenceand
transformation.Thereis no singlecausethat can explainwhat subsequentlyoccurs,
but thereare momentsof 'eruption'in the complexand 'endlesslyrepeated'playof
Foucaultfor Historians 111
A CRITIQUEOF ESSENTIALISM
POWER-KNOWLEDGE
The intellectual no longer has to play the role of an adviser. The project, tactics and
goals to be adopted are a matter for those who do the fighting. What the intellec-
tual can do is to provide instruments of analysis and at present this is the historian's
essential role ... In other words, a topological and geological survey of the battle-
field -that is the intellectual's role.34
This in turn derives from a perception of the changed political terrain of the past
twenty years, with the emergence of new struggles around gender and sexuality, the
rights of prisoners and mental patients, but also covering a gamut of other social activ-
ities. Foucault does not deny that a grand political strategy is possible or necessary
(although his own political commitments seem to be in the direction of a mild anarch-
ism). But what he does argue is that any such strategy cannot be the product of the
minds of specific intellectuals or leaders but has to be a product of the struggles them-
selves. Hegemony could only be the end product of a multitude of struggles not the
effect of central planning.
Politically, his recognition of the diversity of currentsocial strugglesis healthy. But
the relative political weight or potential of the various struggles - of class, sex, prison-
ers, mental patients and so on - and the nature of the necessary alliances between them
are left studiously vague. It has been left to more conventionally Marxist writers to
attempt to synthesise these insights of Foucault about the operations of power with
more traditional concerns of political mobilisation and strategy.
Similarly, any attempt to construct a Foucauldian social theory is fraught with
difficulties. Although there are a guiding series of concerns in his investigations, ulti-
mately what we are left with is a series of separate studies. And the unanswered ques-
tions are manifold. Is power ultimately irresistible? Are we all ultimately trapped
within a power that is all seeing yet unseen?
This brings us to another problem: Foucault's main concern is with the construc-
tion of subjectivities within discourse. But it is not clear why some individuals recog-
nise themselves within these discourses and others do not. This is a major issue in
trying to understand the historical emergence of sexual identities. Much of Foucault's
recent work has been preoccupied with the construction of sexual categories and their
impact on subjectivities, but it is clear that these discourses work differentially on
118 History WorkshopJournal