Foucault’s concept of discourse cannot legitimately span ancient and modern history
Evidence
Now, the idea that there could be a discourse - that is to say, an epistemic construction - traversing the whole breadth of ‘Western’ history and textualities, spanning not only the modern capitalist period but all the preceding pre-capitalist periods as well, is not only an un-Marxist but also a radically un-Foucauldian idea. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 665
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the reader’s core research question: Foucault’s own ‘discourse’ is period-bound to postmedieval rationalism, which directly bears on whether Spivak’s strategic essentialism or Said’s discursive transhistoricism can be defended within Foucault’s own framework. — connects to: Foucault’s ‘discourse’ cannot span pre-modern centuries and capitalist eras alike — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 665; Said’s era-spanning generalizations misuse Foucault’s historically bounded concept of discourse — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 57
- DEFINE: Clarifies that Foucault’s discourse presumes coextensive rationalism and modern state/institutional elaborations, so cannot be stretched transhistorically as Said stretches Orientalism.
Broader Connections
- Foucault’s ‘discourse’ cannot span pre-modern centuries and capitalist eras alike
#corroborates(1.00) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 665 - Said’s era-spanning generalizations misuse Foucault’s historically bounded concept of discourse
#corroborates(0.95) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 57