Question: Given the analysis of discourse that Foucault presents over Parts I, II, and III of his Archaeology of Knowledge, how does it make sense, within this analysis, that Foucault sees discourse as requiring authoritative “subjects” and a “material existence” for the production of knowledge, understanding, and truth in what he refers to as “discursive formation”? ****essay should be written as a direct response and answer to this question, with consideration to the theoretical context outlined above it. Please write the thesis statement as a direct response and answer to the question written in bold. And please write the body of your essay as a series of discussions and arguments to show how your answer and response to this question is sound. In writing these arguments, please be sure to ground your observations, analyses, and contentions with frequent and substantial reference to textual evidence in Foucault’s book, properly referencing citations throughout. **** NO additional reading or research, and please ONLY work from these EXACT sources below *** Critique of Discourses of Universals and Particulars readings: – from Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (Routledge, 2002): – “Part I. Introduction,” pp. 3–19 – “Part II. The Discursive Regularities,” pp. 23–85 Analysing the Relationality of Discourse readings: – from Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (Routledge, 2002): – “Part III. The Statement and the Archive,” pp. 89–148
The post Question: Given the analysis of discourse that Foucault presents over Parts I, I appeared first on Essaybrook.