Learn more Download now Browse your favorite restaurants Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more

Customer reviews

4.8 out of 5 stars

on 15 April 2018
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 18 January 2017
Fantastic book. Opened my mind to new ways of thinking.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 30 July 2017
Just buy it.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 20 July 2016
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 15 February 2015
Very good
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 7 March 2015
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 30 June 2014
This bookis is another classic in intellectual terms.
I am very pleased with the timely dispatch of the book and with the careful packaging by the sender to prevent any book damage.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 20 August 2013
Foucault was always rather different to other 1960s French intellectual big guns - while the others tended to build a rarefied abstract conceptual edifice (often inclined to collapse like a house of cards), Foucault wrote descriptive accounts of society and reality - or at least the way reality is socially constructed.
For his major books, his four or five 'greatest hits', he selected real issues like madness, illness, criminality and sexuality and then presented his amassed research via illuminating events or motifs (panoptican, great confinement etc), in order to tell an interesting story - some might say fable - and make provocative arguments about how power and institutions work.
Whatever you think of his methods, Foucault's big ideas like the surveillance society, the disciplinary society, the delinquent society and so on seem to become more and more relevant to our contemporary world.

Foucault's success may have been down to a combination of talent, fearsome learning and intuition, but back in mid 60s Paris he came under enormous pressure to justify himself, to explain his methodology. Archaeology of Knowledge was the result - Foucault's attempt to outline his method in rigorous theoretical terms. Although the book was published in France in 1969 it is definitely pre-May 68 in its remit and tone - engaging with the then dominant theories of structuralism and Saussurian linguistics (signs and signifiers)
The main argument is fairly straightforward - Foucault is against the idea that history is a grand linear narrative driven by great men and great events, instead he sees history as a network of documents in an archive and the historian's task is to trace how these documents function as 'objects of discourse'. Foucault spends most of the book performing the obligatory 'defining of terms': object, discourse, archive, statement, description etc. But many of these definitions, even that of 'archaeology', remain decidedly sketchy.
The book almost takes it for granted that conventional `bourgeois history' is bunk, but the real targets are closer to home - against existentialism / phenomenology (history as authenticity of lived experience and individual agency) and against Hegel / Marx (history as teleology driven by progress and primary processes like class struggle, class consciousness). Foucault also seems to be fighting a rear-guard action against psychoanalysis (universality of Freudian complexes and drives, repression) and even against the new rival on the block - Derrida / deconstruction (documents as a purely `textual' reality).
Archaeology of Knowledge is, therefore, Foucault's tortuous attempt to both engage with and yet distance himself from all these competing theories.
Yet did Foucault actually write any of his books in line with the method outlined here? Having got this book out of his system he went back to his usual idiosyncratic style and approach with Discipline & Punish (archaeology giving way to Nietzschean genealogy) - rendering a lot of the discussion in Archaeology irrelevant.

As should be evident from the preceding comments, this is by far Foucault's most dense and challenging book to read. Anyone interested should read his other major books before tackling this. If you are studying Foucault, maybe read the (well known) introduction and conclusion. On the other hand, if you are really into Foucault and / or 1960s post-structuralist theory then you will want to get around to reading the whole book at some point.
0Comment| 21 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 29 November 2001
The Archaeology of Knowledge is a very heavy going but very stimulating read. As ever Foucault's analysis is groundbreaking, as it is a completely new way of deciphering the subject of discourse.
Instead of embarking on a history of ideas he dismisses this concept and instead gives an archaeological account of knowledge, which he believes breaks up the teleological version of progressive knowledge put forward by (Whig) historians. He suggests that there is no ideal discourse and thus treats all discourses as products of their own time without trying to pass moral or intellectual judgement on their nature or content.
Foucault postulates that because all discourses are products of their own epochs 'our' discourse, the liberal discourse of Man (as the focal point of the universe), will one day die too. Reinforcing the conclusion he made at the end of probably his greatest work 'The Order of things'.
One thing is for sure, as with all his works, Foucault will make you, stop, think, and reanalyse the way you look at things. He is truly the master at doing that.
0Comment| 70 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 17 August 2007
In spite of its relatively modest size and the neglect it has suffered, 'The Archeology of Knowledge' is one of Foucault's most rewarding texts. Not only is it a brilliant exploration of the our current understanding of the concept of knowledge and its relationship to power, but it also captures a unique moment in modern intellectual history, when Foucault broke with the traditions of Structuralism, to begin the researches which were to lead to his 'late' period works. A must!!!
0Comment| 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)