BibTex RIS Cite

The Derrida-Foucault Debate Revisited: The Problem of Periodization and Historicity in Foucault

Year 2017, Issue: 23, 17 - 35, 01.05.2017

Abstract

The Derrida-Foucault debate, which started as a disagreement between the two philosophers about the role of madness in Descartes’ methodological scepticism, has eventually evolved into one of the most complicated philosophical debates of the twentieth century. Rather than scrutunizing the two philosphers’ respective interpretations of Decsartes, this article refers to Derrida’s critical reading of LéviStrauss in an attempt to reframe the debate as a problem of interpretation of historical particularities from the general perspective of structure, thereby putting in a new dialogue Derrida’s criticism of Foucault’s periodization of history in his archeological works and Foucault’s response to Derrida. Deleuze’s conception of structuralism suggests the possibility of a third position in the debate, because, for Deleuze, the presumed tension between history and structure, which incidentally underpins the entire debate between Derrida and Foucault, becomes irrelevant when history is conceived as a product of the structure itself

References

  • Campillo, Antonio. “Foucault and Derrida: The History of a Debate on History”, çev. Constantin V. Boundas, Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities, 5(2), 2010, ss. 113-135.
  • Deleuze, Gilles. “How do we recognize structuralism?” Desert Islands and Other Texts. ed. David Lapoujade. çev. Michael Taormina. New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. ss. 170-196.
  • Derrida, Jacques. “Cogito and the History of Madness”. Writing and Difference. çev. Alan Bass. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978. ss. 31-63.
  • Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”. Writing and Difference. çev. Alan Bass. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978. 278-293.
  • Derrida, Jacques. “‘To Do Justice to Freud’: The History of Madness in the Age of Psychoanalysis”. Resistances of Psychoanalysis. çev. Peggy Kamuf, Pascale-Anne Brault ve Michael Naas. California: Stanford University Press, 1998. ss. 70-118.
  • De Ville, Jacques. “Madness and the Law: The Derrida/Foucault Debate Revisited”, Law and Critique, 21, 2010, ss. 17-37.
  • Foucault, Michel. “My Body, This Paper, This Fire”. Essential Works, Volume 2: Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology. çev. Geoffrey Bennington, ed. James D. Faubion. New York: The New Press, 1998. ss. 393-417.
  • Foucault, Michel. History of Madness. ed. Jean Khalfa. çev. Jonathan Murphy ve Jean Khalfa. New York: Routledge, 2006.
  • Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. çev. R. Howard. New York: Random House, 1965.
  • Harrison, Wendy Cealey. “Madness and Historicity: Foucault and Derrida, Artaud and Descartes”, History of the Human Sciences, 20, 2007, ss. 79- 105.
  • Lévi-Strauss, Claude. “The Scope of Anthropology”. Structural Anthropology Vol. 2, çev. Monique Layton. New York: Basic Books, 1976. ss. 3-32.
  • Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Tristes Tropiques, çev. John ve Doreen Weightman. New York: Penguin Books, 1992.

DERRİDA-FOUCAULT TARTIŞMASINI YENİDEN OKUMAK: FOUCAULT’DA DÖNEMLEŞTİRME VE TARİHSELLİK SORUNU

Year 2017, Issue: 23, 17 - 35, 01.05.2017

Abstract

Derrida-Foucault tartışması iki filozofun Descartes’ın yöntemsel şüpheciliğinde deliliğin oynadığı rol konusundaki görüş ayrılıklarıyla başlamış, zamanla yirminci yüzyılın en kompleks felsefi tartışmalarından biri haline gelmiştir. Bu makale, filozofların Descartes yorumlarını karşılaştırmaktan ziyade, Derrida’nın Lévi-Strauss eleştirisine müracaat ederek tartışmayı tarihsel tikellerin yapının genel bakış açısından yorumlanmasında düğümlenen, yapısalcılığa ilişkin bir problem olarak sunmakta ve böylece Derrida’nın Foucault’nun arkeolojik çalışmalarındaki dönemleştirme girişimlerine ilişkin eleştirileri ile Foucault’nun bu eleştirilere verdiği yanıtları yeni bir diyaloga sokmaktadır. Makale, son adımda, tartışmanın altında yatan problemleri değerlendirmek için müracaat ettiği Deleuze’ün yapısalcılık kavrayışını bu tartışmada alınabilecek üçünçü bir pozisyon olarak sunar, çünkü Deleuze’e göre, bu tartışmanın da üzerinde yükseldiğini söyleyebileceğimiz, yapısalcılıkta tarih ile yapı arasında bir gerilim olduğu varsayımı, tarih bizzat yapının bir ürünü olarak kavrandığında geçerliliğini yitirir.

References

  • Campillo, Antonio. “Foucault and Derrida: The History of a Debate on History”, çev. Constantin V. Boundas, Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities, 5(2), 2010, ss. 113-135.
  • Deleuze, Gilles. “How do we recognize structuralism?” Desert Islands and Other Texts. ed. David Lapoujade. çev. Michael Taormina. New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. ss. 170-196.
  • Derrida, Jacques. “Cogito and the History of Madness”. Writing and Difference. çev. Alan Bass. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978. ss. 31-63.
  • Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”. Writing and Difference. çev. Alan Bass. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978. 278-293.
  • Derrida, Jacques. “‘To Do Justice to Freud’: The History of Madness in the Age of Psychoanalysis”. Resistances of Psychoanalysis. çev. Peggy Kamuf, Pascale-Anne Brault ve Michael Naas. California: Stanford University Press, 1998. ss. 70-118.
  • De Ville, Jacques. “Madness and the Law: The Derrida/Foucault Debate Revisited”, Law and Critique, 21, 2010, ss. 17-37.
  • Foucault, Michel. “My Body, This Paper, This Fire”. Essential Works, Volume 2: Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology. çev. Geoffrey Bennington, ed. James D. Faubion. New York: The New Press, 1998. ss. 393-417.
  • Foucault, Michel. History of Madness. ed. Jean Khalfa. çev. Jonathan Murphy ve Jean Khalfa. New York: Routledge, 2006.
  • Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. çev. R. Howard. New York: Random House, 1965.
  • Harrison, Wendy Cealey. “Madness and Historicity: Foucault and Derrida, Artaud and Descartes”, History of the Human Sciences, 20, 2007, ss. 79- 105.
  • Lévi-Strauss, Claude. “The Scope of Anthropology”. Structural Anthropology Vol. 2, çev. Monique Layton. New York: Basic Books, 1976. ss. 3-32.
  • Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Tristes Tropiques, çev. John ve Doreen Weightman. New York: Penguin Books, 1992.
There are 12 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Emre Koyuncu This is me

Publication Date May 1, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Issue: 23

Cite

Chicago Koyuncu, Emre. “DERRİDA-FOUCAULT TARTIŞMASINI YENİDEN OKUMAK: FOUCAULT’DA DÖNEMLEŞTİRME VE TARİHSELLİK SORUNU”. FLSF Felsefe Ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 23 (May 2017): 17-35.

Starting from 2024, our journal will be published in 3 issues as two regular and one special issues. These issues will be published In May (regular issue), September (special issue) and December (regular issue).

Acceptance of articles for our special issue and our regular issue in December will begin on March 15.

Only articles within the scope of the file will be included in our special issue. 

Thank you for your attention.