Foucault’s core break with Marx is epistemic containment, not method.
Evidence
Foucault certainly knew how to be allusive, but underneath all his multiple enunciations one knows exactly what his agreements and disagreements with Marxism actually have been. His first and irreconcilable difference is that he locates Marx firmly within the boundaries of what he calls the ‘Western episteme’; in its epistemic construction, he says, Marx’s thought is framed entirely by the discourse of … From this purported philosophical difference, then, follows his equally clear disagreement with Marx over the principle that might govern histOrical narrativization; he radically denies that narratives of history can be assembled at the twin sites of the state and economic production, which he deems to be the exclusive originating sites of Marx’s historical narrative. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 655
Categorization
- XREF: This clarifies Foucault’s relation to Marx as epistemic containment within the ‘Western episteme’—relevant to how Society Must Be Defended’s counter-history does or doesn’t escape class analysis. — connects to: Foucault’s lectures were not a neo-Marxist critique of neoliberalism — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s…, 94; Scientific theories are superstructures explained by history, not causes of it. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1652
- DEFINE: Pinpoints Foucault’s two precise disagreements with Marx: epistemic framing and the sites of historical narrative.
Broader Connections
- Foucault’s lectures were not a neo-Marxist critique of neoliberalism
#expands(0.75) — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 94 - Scientific theories are superstructures explained by history, not causes of it.
#expands(0.70) — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1652