English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

he essay “Archaeology and Humanism: An Incongruent Foucault” argues, among other things, that Foucault “endorses a kind of humanism.” Moreover, Calvert-Minor attempts to show that without such an endorsement then the curative aspects regarding Foucault’s genealogy of subjectivity would be nonsensical. To be sure, the author seems to demonstrate that there is a clear tension in Foucault’s oeuvre regarding the Frenchman’s changing stance towards, and at times unconscious embracement of, philosophical humanism. Such a claim, if true, would certainly be damaging to Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical projects as he stridently rejected humanism in all of its myriad forms. What makes this paper interesting is that it claims that Foucault backslides into two different humanistic positions with respect to at least two of the three principal periods of his work. In this respect, the paper seems to be on the other side of the fence with regard to some recent work in the secondary literature which has also sought to show Foucault’s conscious avowal of humanism. For example, Eric Paras argues in his seminal work, Foucault 2.0: Beyond Power Knowledge, that Foucault comes to embrace, quite consciously, many key elements of humanism in his late work. Paras, however, seems to suggest that such humanistic leanings are the direct result of the epistemic and ontological aporias Foucault found himself in at the conclusion of his power/knowledge period and, as such, these leanings were conscious admissions by Foucault that his power/knowledge period explanation of subject formation was in drastic need of revision.1 Calvert-Minor however, unlike Paras, does not let Foucault off the hook, as it were, and charges Foucault with epistemic and ontological incongruency; a charge that, in my view, is off the mark. Rather, the true problem is much deeper: it is the charge of incoherency that is more appropriate. For the purposes of space, I shall limit my essay to the third section of Calvert-Minor’s work as I think this part is the most interesting and fecund. But, before examining Calvert-Minor’s arguments in any further detail, I would like to flesh out why, precisely, Foucault’s seemingly clandestine humanism is

Genealogy and Subjectivity: An Incoherent Foucault (A Response to Calvert-Minor)