O discurso como um elemento de articulação entre a arqueologia e a genealogia de Michel Foucault
| Ano de defesa: | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Autor(a) principal: |
Vandresen, Daniel Salésio
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Craia, Eladio Constantino Pablo
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Martínez, Horácio Luján
,
Candiotto, Cesar
|
| Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
| Tipo de acesso: | Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: | por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná
Toledo |
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Mestrado em Filosofia
|
| Departamento: |
Centro de Mestrado em Filosofia
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: | |
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: | |
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: | |
| Link de acesso: | http://tede.unioeste.br:8080/tede/handle/tede/2093 |
Resumo: | This paper aims to examine and make some form of discourse analysis proposed by Michael Foucault, as a means able to articulate the archaeological projects and pedigree. This approach enables ask the two moments of philosophy foucaultiana not as independent periods, in which a arises in terms of opposition or exceeded the previous, but, by contrast, show how two ventures that complement. To perform this task if you want to investigate the path of configuring the archaeological analysis, showing that this project is an instrument of Foucault alternative for the anthropological conceptions of modernity. In the description of archaeology, first moved to their remoteness regarding epistemological approach, then presents the analysis of the speech as fundamental to understand the discontinuity that make up the orders of knowledge. Finally, it is understood that the enterprise herd must be understood as a draft analysis that gives rise to what was already present in archaeology, but still had not emerged as a particular area of analysis: the relationship of power. Foucault says in the work Microfísica of Power (1979) but that did not use the word power as a field of analysis in the works prior to 1968, he was in the know. This assertion can be inferred that the movements of thought of Foucault not involve a division between a static phase dominated the know (archaeology) and one where the predominant power (genealogical). What unites and differentiates its analysis is not a subject to which they relate, but, rather, the area where they are located. While the archaeology want to describe the speech to reveal how knowing it appears regulated, the pedigree or show how the discursive practices are a know-power that allows the exercise of power. Thus, the description of the regularity of archaeological speeches allows the pedigree locate the points of struggle in which the intellectual must exercise their criticism. For Foucault the speech is presented as a complex reality and that, therefore, we must analyze it in different levels. First, the speech appears as a regulated, on the other hand, it is controversial and strategic. My criticism of archaeology and genealogy are the modern constituent of the subject can only take place where there knowledge and power have been housing: in the speech. Finally it is shown that both the archaeology as the pedigree are part of the proposed Foucault's philosophy of doing a critical task of this through the problematization of thought as an event. |