foucault, michel (2002) archaeology of knowledge - london;routledge

8/11/2019 Foucault, Michel (2002) Archaeology of Knowledge - London;Routledge

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foucault-michel-2002-archaeology-of-knowledge-londonroutledge 1/119

The Archeology of Knowledge

Michel Foucault

CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................2

Part I Introduction................................................................................................................

INT!O"#CTION............................................................................................................Part II The "i$cur$i%e !egularitie$.....................................................................................&2

1. T'E #NITIES OF "ISCO#!SE.............................................................................&22. "ISC#!SI(E FO!MATIONS.................................................................................&)

3. T'E FO!MATION OF O*+ECTS...........................................................................2&

4. T'E FO!MATION OF EN#NCIATI(E MO"A,ITIES.........................................2-

5 T'E FO!MATION OF CONCEPTS........................................................................2

6. T'E FO!MATION OF ST!ATE/IES......................................................................0

7. !EMA!KS AN" CONSE1#ENCES.....................................................................Part III The State3ent and the Archi%e..............................................................................4

2. T'E EN#NCIATI(E F#NCTION............................................................................4

3. T'E "ESC!IPTION OF STATEMENTS................................................................0)4. !A!IT56 E7TE!IO!IT56 ACC#M#,ATION........................................................-0

5 T'E 'ISTO!ICA, A P!IO!I AN" T'E A!C'I(E.............................................)2

Part IVArchaeological "e$cri8tion.................................................................................)-

1. A!C'AEO,O/5 AN" T'E 'ISTO!5 OF I"EAS.............................................)-

2. T'E O!I/INA, And T'E !E/#,A! ....................................................................9

3. CONT!A"ICTIONS................................................................................................04. T'E COMPA!ATI(E FACTS..................................................................................

5. C'AN/E And T!ANSFO!MATIONS...................................................................

-. SCIENCE AN" KNO:,E"/E..............................................................................&92Part Conclu$ion.................................................................................................................&&&

CONC,#SION.............................................................................................................&&&IN"E7..........................................................................................................................&&

Note o3 layout

; /an$<e rett fra3 layout6 ingen $tore <o38li$erte greir her. Sidetall neder$t 8= h%er $ide

http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/HYPERLINK%23_Toc83738039
































































































.

Archaeology of Knowledge`Michel Foucault is a very brilliant writer ... he has a remark-able angle of vision, a highlydisciplined and coherent one, that informs his work to such a high degree as to make the work sui generis original.'

Edward W. Said

`The Archaeology of Know/edge ... provides an unusually sharp outline of Foucault's! theoretical

stance as well as a focused criti"ue of the history of ideas.'

Jean Claude Guedon

'# necessary guide to Foucault's often difficult ideas ... and to his overall historical ambition, whichis to define the $soil$ out of which contemporary events in a given period grow.'

The Times Literary Supplement

`%o other thinker in recent history had so dynamically influenced the fields of history, philosophy,literature and literary theory, the social sciences, even medicine.'

Lawrence D. Kritzman

`%e&t to artre's Search fora Method, and in direct opposition to it, Foucault's work is the mostnoteworthy effort at a theory of history in the last () years.'

Library Journal

L'Archeologie du a!oir first published 1969 by Editions Gallimard

English edition first published in the United Kingdom in 1972 by Tavistoc !ublications "imited #irst published by

$outledge in 19%9

#irst published in $outledge &lassics 2''2 by $outledge

11 (e) #etter "ane* "ondon E&+! +EE

$eprinted 2'',* 2''+

"outledge i an imprint of the Taylor e- #ranci Group . 1969 Editions Gallimard

Translation . 1972 Tavistoc !ublications "imited

Typeset in /oanna by $efine&atch "imited* 0ungay* uffol !rinted and bound in Great 0ritain by T/ nternational "td*

!adsto)* &orn)all

3ll rights reserved4 (o part of this boo may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic*mechanical* or other means* no) no)n or hereafter invented* including photocopying and recording* or in any

information storage or retrieval system* )ithout permission in )riting from the publishers4

$ritih Library Cataloguing in %ublication Data

3 catalogue record for this boo is available from the 0ritish "ibrary

Library of &ongress Cataloging in %ublication Data

3 catalog record for this boo has been applied for

0( '5+152%7259 hb8 0( '5+152%7,57 pb8

CONTENTS

PART Introduction

ntroduction ,88

PART

188

The Discursive Regularities

The Unities of iscourse 2,88

288 iscursive #ormations ,+88

,88 The #ormation of :b;ects ++88

+88 The #ormation of Enunciative <odalities 88

88 The #ormation of &oncepts 6288



688 The #ormation of trategies 71788 $emars and &onse=uences 7988

PART The Statement and the Archive

efining the tatement %988

288 The Enunciative #unction 9988,88 The escription of tatements 1198

+88 $arity* E>teriority* 3ccumulation 1,,8

88 The ?istorical a priori and the 3rchive 1+28

PART IV Archaeological Description

3rchaeology and the ?istory of deas

The :riginal and the $egular &ontradictions 11

The &omparative #acts&hange and Transformationscience and Kno)ledge

PART V Conclusion

&onclusion

(E@

Part I Introduction

INTRODUCTION

For many years now historians have preferred to turn their attention to long periods, as if, beneath the shifts and

changes of political events, they were trying to reveal the stable, almost indestructible system of checks and

balances, the irreversible processes, the constant readjustments, the underlying tendencies that gather force, and

are then suddenly reversed after centuries of continuity, the movements of accumulation and slow saturation, the

great silent, motionless bases that traditional history has covered with a thick layer of events. The tools that

enable historians to carry out this work of analysis are partly inherited and partly of their own making: models of

economic growth, quantitative analysis of market movements, accounts of demographic expansion and

contraction, the study of climate and its long-term changes, the fixing of sociological constants, the description of

technological adjustments and of their spread and continuity. These tools have enabled workers in the historical

field to distinguish various sedimentary strata; linear successions, which for so long had been the object of

research, have given way to discoveries in depth. From the political mobility at the surface down to the slow

movements of`material civilization

', ever more levels of analysis have been established: each has its own peculiar

discontinuities and patterns; and as one descends to the deepest levels, the rhythms become broader. Beneath the

rapidly

>>4??



changing hi$tory of go%ern3ent$6 war$6 and fa3ine$6 there e3erge other6 a88arently un3o%ing hi$torie$@ the hi$tory of $ea

route$6 the hi$tory of corn or of gold;3ining6 the hi$tory of drought and of irrigation6 the hi$tory of cro8 rotation6 the hi$tory

of the alance achie%ed y the hu3an $8ecie$ etween hunger and aundance. The old Bue$tion$ of the traditional analy$i$>:hat lin< $hould e 3ade etween di$8arate e%ent$ 'ow can a cau$al $ucce$$ion e e$tali$hed etween the3 :hat

continuity or o%erall $ignificance do they 8o$$e$$ I$ it 8o$$ile to define a totality6 or 3u$t one e content with

recon$tituting conneDion$? are now eing re8laced y Bue$tion$ of another ty8e@ which $trata $hould e i$olated fro3other$ :hat ty8e$ of $erie$ $hould e e$tali$hed :hat criteria of 8eriodiation $hould e ado8ted for each of the3 :hat

$y$te3 of relation$ >hierarchy6 do3inance6 $tratification6 uni%ocal deter3ination6 circular cau$ality? 3ay e e$tali$hed etween the3 :hat $erie$ of $erie$ 3ay e e$tali$hed And in what large;$cale chronological tale 3ay di$tinct $erie$ of e%ent$ e deter3ined

At aout the $a3e ti3e6 in the di$ci8line$ that we call the hi$tory of idea$6 the hi$tory of $cience6 the hi$tory of

8hilo$o8hy6 the hi$tory of thought6 and the hi$tory of literature >we can ignore their $8ecificity for the 3o3ent?6 in tho$e

di$ci8line$ which6 de$8ite their na3e$6 e%ade %ery largely the wor< and 3ethod$ of the hi$torian6 attention ha$ een turned6

on the contrary6 away fro3 %a$t unitie$ li<e 8eriod$G or centurie$G to the 8heno3ena of ru8ture6 of di$continuity. *eneath

the great continuitie$ of thought6 eneath the $olid6 ho3ogeneou$ 3anife$tation$ of a $ingle 3ind or of a collecti%e

3entality6 eneath the $tuorn de%elo83ent of a $cience $tri%ing to eDi$t and to reach co38letion at the %ery out$et6

eneath the 8er$i$tence of a 8articular genre6 for36 di$ci8line6 or theoretical acti%ity6 one i$ now trying to detect the

incidence of interru8tion$. Interru8tion$ who$e $tatu$ and nature %ary con$ideraly. There are the e8i$te3ological act$ and

thre$hold$ de$cried y *achelard@ they $u$8end the continuou$ accu3ulation of <nowledge6 interru8t it$ $low de%elo83ent6

and force it to enter a new ti3e6 cut it off fro3 it$ e38irical origin and it$ original 3oti%ation$6 clean$e it of it$ i3aginary

co38licitie$H they direct hi$torical analy$i$ away fro3 the $earch for $ilent eginning$6 and the ne%er;ending tracing;ac< tothe original 8recur$or$6 toward$ the $earch for a new ty8e of rationality

>>0??and it$ %ariou$ effect$. There are the di$8lace3ent$ and tran$for3ation$ of conce8t$@ the analy$e$ of /. Canguilhe3 3ay

$er%e a$ 3odel$H they $how that the hi$tory of a conce8t i$ not wholly and entirely that of it$ 8rogre$$i%e refine3ent6 it$

continuou$ly increa$ing rationality6 it$ a$traction gradient6 ut that of it$ %ariou$ field$ of con$titution and %alidity6 that of it$$ucce$$i%e rule$ of u$e6 that of the 3any theoretical conteDt$ in which it de%elo8ed and 3atured. There i$ the di$tinction6

which we al$o owe to Canguilhe36 etween the 3icro$co8ic and 3acro$co8ic $cale$ of the hi$tory of the $cience$6 in which

e%ent$ and their con$eBuence$ are not arranged in the $a3e way@ thu$ a di$co%ery6 the de%elo83ent of a 3ethod6 theachie%e3ent$6 and the failure$6 of a 8articular $cienti$t6 do not ha%e the $a3e incidence6 and cannot e de$cried in the $a3e

way at oth le%el$H on each of the two le%el$6 a different hi$tory i$ eing written. !ecurrent redi$triution$ re%eal $e%eral

8a$t$6 $e%eral for3$ of conneDion6 $e%eral hierarchie$ of i38ortance6 $e%eral networ<$ of deter3ination6 $e%eral teleologie$6

for one and the $a3e $cience6 a$ it$ 8re$ent undergoe$ change@ thu$ hi$torical de$cri8tion$ are nece$$arily ordered y the 8re$ent $tate of <nowledge6 they increa$e with e%ery tran$for3ation and ne%er cea$e6 in turn6 to rea< with the3$el%e$ >in the

field of 3athe3atic$6 M. Serre$ ha$ 8ro%ided the theory of thi$ 8heno3enon?. There are the architectonic unitie$ of $y$te3$of the <ind analy$ed y M. /ueroult6 which are concerned not with the de$cri8tion of cultural influence$6 tradition$6 and

continuitie$6 ut with internal coherence$6 aDio3$6 deducti%e conneDion$6 co38atiilitie$. ,a$tly6 the 3o$t radicaldi$continuitie$ are the rea<$ effected y a wor< of theoretical tran$for3ation Gwhich e$tali$he$ a $cience y detaching it

fro3 the ideology of it$ 8a$t and y re%ealing thi$ 8a$t a$ ideological G.G To thi$ $hould e added6 of cour$e6 literary analy$i$6

which now ta<e$ a$ it$ unity6 not the $8irit or $en$iility of a 8eriod6 nor Ggrou8$G6 G$chool$G6 Ggeneration$G6 or G3o%e3ent$G6 nor

e%en the 8er$onality of the author6 in the inter8lay of hi$ life and hi$ GcreationG6 ut the 8articular $tructure of a gi%en au%re6 oo<6 or teDt.

And the great 8role3 8re$ented y $uch hi$torical analy$e$ i$ not how continuitie$ are e$tali$hed6 how a $ingle 8attern i$

for3ed and 8re$er%ed6 how for $o 3any different6 $ucce$$i%e 3ind$ there i$ a $ingle

>>footnote??

,. Althu$$er6 For MarD6 ,ondon6 Allen ,aneH New 5or<6 Pantheon6 &-6 8. &-.

>>-??

horion6 what 3ode of action and what $u$tructure i$ i38lied y the inter8lay of tran$3i$$ion$6 re$u38tion$6di$a88earance$6 and re8etition$6 how the origin 3ay eDtend it$ $way well eyond it$elf to that conclu$ion that i$ ne%er gi%en

the 8role3 i$ no longer one of tradition6 of tracing a line6 ut one of di%i$ion6 of li3it$H it i$ no longer one of la$ting

foundation$6 ut one of tran$for3ation$ that $er%e a$ new foundation$6 the reuilding of foundation$. :hat one i$ $eeing6



then6 i$ the e3ergence of a whole field of Bue$tion$6 $o3e of which are already fa3iliar6 y which thi$ new for3 of hi$tory

i$ trying to de%elo8 it$ own theory@ how i$ one to $8ecify the different conce8t$ that enale u$ to concei%e of di$continuity

>thre$hold6 ru8ture6 rea<6 3utation6 tran$for3ation? *y what criteria i$ one to i$olate the unitie$ with which one i$dealingH what i$ a $cience :hat i$ an oeu%re :hat i$ a theory :hat i$ a conce8t :hat i$ a teDt 'ow i$ one to di%er$ify

the le%el$ at which one 3ay 8lace one$elf6 each of which 8o$$e$$e$ it$ own di%i$ion$ and for3 of analy$i$ :hat i$ the

legiti3ate le%el of for3aliation :hat i$ that of inter8retation Of $tructural analy$i$ Of attriution$ of cau$alityIn $hort6 the hi$tory of thought6 of <nowledge6 of 8hilo$o8hy6 of literature $ee3$ to e $ee<ing6 and di$co%ering6 3ore and

3ore di$continuitie$6 wherea$ hi$tory it$elf a88ear$ to e aandoning the irru8tion of e%ent$ in fa%our of $tale $tructure$.

*ut we 3u$t not e ta<en in y thi$ a88arent interchange. "e$8ite a88earance$6 we 3u$t not i3agine that certain of the

hi$torical di$ci8line$ ha%e 3o%ed fro3 the continuou$ to the di$continuou$6 while other$ ha%e 3o%ed fro3 the tangled 3a$$of di$continuitie$ to the great6 uninterru8ted unitie$H we 3u$t not i3agine that in the analy$i$ of 8olitic$6 in$titution$6 or

econo3ic$6 we ha%e eco3e 3ore and 3ore $en$iti%e to o%erall deter3ination$6 while in the analy$i$ of idea$ and of

<nowledge6 we are 8aying 3ore and 3ore attention to the 8lay of differenceH we 3u$t not i3agine that the$e two great for3$of de$cri8tion ha%e cro$$ed without recogniing one another.

In fact6 the $a3e 8role3$ are eing 8o$ed in either ca$e6 ut they ha%e 8ro%o<ed o88o$ite effect$ on the $urface. The$e

8role3$ 3ay e $u33ed u8 in a word@ the Bue$tioning of the docu3ent. Of cour$e6 it i$ o%iou$ enough that e%er $ince adi$ci8line $uch a$ hi$tory ha$ eDi$ted6

>>)??docu3ent$ ha%e een u$ed6 Bue$tioned6 and ha%e gi%en ri$e to Bue$tion$H $cholar$ ha%e a$<ed not only what the$e docu3ent$

3eant6 ut al$o whether they were telling the truth6 and y what right they could clai3 to e doing $o6 whether they were

$incere or delierately 3i$leading6 well infor3ed or ignorant6 authentic or ta38ered with. *ut each of the$e Bue$tion$6 and

all thi$ critical concern6 8ointed to one and the $a3e end@ the recon$titution6 on the a$i$ of what the docu3ent$ $ay6 and$o3eti3e$ 3erely hint at6 of the 8a$t fro3 which they e3anate and which ha$ now di$a88eared far ehind the3H the

docu3ent wa$ alway$ treated a$ the language of a %oice $ince reduced to $ilence6 it$ fragile6 ut 8o$$ily deci8herale trace. Now6 through a 3utation that i$ not of %ery recent origin6 ut which ha$ $till not co3e to an end6 hi$tory ha$ altered it$

8o$ition in relation to the docu3ent@ it ha$ ta<en a$ it$ 8ri3ary ta$<6 not the inter8retation of the docu3ent6 nor the atte38t

to decide whether it i$ telling the truth or what i$ it$ eD8re$$i%e %alue6 ut to wor< on it fro3 within and to de%elo8 it@ hi$torynow organie$ the docu3ent6 di%ide$ it u86 di$triute$ it6 order$ it6 arrange$ it in le%el$6 e$tali$he$ $erie$6 di$tingui$he$

etween what i$ rele%ant and what i$ not6 di$co%er$ ele3ent$6 define$ unitie$6 de$crie$ relation$. The docu3ent6 then6 i$ nolonger for hi$tory an inert 3aterial through which it trie$ to recon$titute what 3en ha%e done or $aid6 the e%ent$ of which

only the trace re3ain$H hi$tory i$ now trying to define within the docu3entary 3aterial it$elf unitie$6 totalitie$6 $erie$6

relation$. 'i$;tory 3u$t e detached fro3 the i3age that $ati$fied it for $o long6 and through which it found it$anthro8ological Ju$tification@ that of an age;old collecti%e con$ciou$ne$$ that 3ade u$e of 3aterial docu3ent$ to refre$h it$

3e3oryH hi$tory i$ the wor< eD8ended on 3aterial docu3entation >oo<$6 teDt$6 account$6 regi$ter$6 act$6 uilding$6 in$titu;

tion$6 law$6 techniBue$6 oJect$6 cu$to3$6 etc.? that eDi$t$6 in e%ery ti3e and 8lace6 in e%ery $ociety6 either in a $8ontaneou$or in a con$ciou$ly organied for3. The docu3ent i$ not the fortunate tool of a hi$tory that i$ 8ri3arily and funda3entally

3e3oryH hi$tory i$ one way in which a $ociety recognie$ and de%elo8$ a 3a$$ of docu3entation with which it i$

ineDtricaly lin<ed.

To e rief6 then6 let u$ $ay that hi$tory6 in it$ traditional for36 undertoo< to 3e3orieG the 3onu3ent$ of the 8a$t6

tran$for3 the3 into docu3ent$6 and lend $8eech to tho$e trace$ which6 in the3$el%e$6 are

((8))

often not %eral6 or which $ay in $ilence $o3ething other than what they actually $ayH in our ti3e6 hi$tory i$ that which

tran$for3$ docu3ent$ into 3onu3ent$. In that area where6 in the 8a$t6 hi$tory deci8hered the trace$ left y 3en6 it now

de8loy$ a 3a$$ of ele3ent$ that ha%e to e grou8ed6 3ade rele%ant6 8laced in relation to one another to for3 totalitie$. Therewa$ a ti3e when archaeology6 a$ a di$ci8line de%oted to $ilent 3onu3ent$6 inert trace$6 oJect$ without conteDt6 and thing$

left y the 8a$t6 a$8ired to the condition of hi$tory6 and attained 3eaning only through the re$titution of a hi$torical di$cour$eH

it 3ight e $aid6 to 8lay on word$ a little6 that in our ti3e hi$tory a$8ire$ to the condition of archaeology6 to the intrin$icde$cri8tion of the 3onu3ent.

Thi$ ha$ $e%eral con$eBuence$. Fir$t of all6 there i$ the $urface effect already 3entioned@ the 8roliferation of di$continuitie$ in the hi$tory of idea$6 and the e3ergence of long 8eriod$ in hi$tory 8ro8er. In fact6 in it$ traditional for36

hi$tory 8ro8er wa$ concerned to define relation$ >of $i38le cau$ality6 of circular deter3ination6 of antagoni$36 of eD8re$$ion?

etween fact$ or dated e%ent$@ the $erie$ eing <nown6 it wa$ $i38ly a Bue$tion of defining the 8o$ition of each ele3ent inrelation to the other ele3ent$ in the $erie$. The 8role3 now i$ to con$titute $erie$@ to define the ele3ent$ 8ro8er to each

$erie$6 to fiD it$ oundarie$6 to re%eal it$ own $8ecific ty8e of relation$6 to for3ulate it$ law$6

and6 eyond thi$6 to de$crie the relation$ etween different $erie$6 thu$ con$tituting $erie$ of $erie$6 or tale$G@ hence thee%er;increa$ing nu3er of $trata6 and the need to di$tingui$h the36 the $8ecificity of their ti3e and chronologie$H hence the

need to di$tingui$h not only i38ortant e%ent$ >with a long chain of con$eBuence$? and le$$ i38ortant one$6 ut ty8e$ of

e%ent$ at Buite different le%el$ >$o3e %ery rief6 other$ of a%erage duration6 li<e the de%elo83ent of a 8articular techniBue6 or



a $carcity of 3oney6 and other$ of a long;ter3 nature6 li<e a de3ogra8hic eBuiliriu3 or the gradual adJu$t3ent of an

econo3y to cli3atic change?H hence the 8o$$iility of re%ealing $erie$ with widely $8aced inter%al$ for3ed y rare or

re8etiti%e e%ent$. The a88earance of long 8eriod$ in the hi$tory of today i$ not a return to the 8hilo$o8her$ of hi$tory6 to thegreat age$ of the world6 or to the 8eriodiation dictated y the ri$e and fall of ci%iliation$H it i$ the effect of the

3ethodologically concerted de%elo83ent

>>??

of $erie$. In the hi$tory of idea$6 of thought and of the $cience$6 the $a3e 3utation ha$ rought aout the o88o$ite effectH it

ha$ ro<en u8 the long $erie$ for3ed y the 8rogre$$ of con$ciou$ne$$6 or the teleology of rea$on6 or the e%olution of hu3an

thoughtH it ha$ Bue$tioned the the3e$ of con%ergence and cul3inationH it ha$ douted the 8o$$iility of creating totalitie$. Itha$ led to the indi%idualiation of different $erie$6 which are JuDta8o$ed to one another6 follow one another6 o%erla8 and

inter$ect6 without one eing ale to reduce the3 to a liner $che3a. Thu$6 in 8lace of the continuou$ chronology of rea$on6which wa$ in%arialy traced ac< to $o3e inacce$$ile origin6 there ha%e a88eared $cale$ that are $o3eti3e$ %ery rief6

di$tinct fro3 one another6 irreducile to a $ingle law6 $cale$ that ear a ty8e of hi$tory 8eculiar to each one6 and which

cannot e reduced to the general 3odel of a con$ciou$ne$$ that acBuire$6 8rogre$$e$6 and re3e3er$.Second con$eBuence@ the notion of di$continuity a$$u3e$ a 3aJor role in the hi$torical di$ci8line$. For hi$tory in it$

cla$$ical for36 the di$continuou$ wa$ oth the gi%en and the unthin<ale@ the raw 3aterial of hi$tory6 which 8re$ented it$elf

in the for3 of di$8er$ed e%ent$ deci$ion$6 accident$6 initiati%e$6 di$co%erie$H the 3aterial6 which6 through analy$i$6 had to e rearranged6 reduced6 effaced in order to re%eal the continuity of e%ent$. "i$continuity wa$ the $tig3a of te38oral

di$location that it wa$ the hi$torianG$ ta$< to re3o%e fro3 hi$tory. It ha$ now eco3e one of the a$ic ele3ent$ of hi$torical

analy$i$. It$ role i$ threefold. Fir$t6 it con$titute$ a delierate o8eration on the 8art of the hi$torian >and not a Buality of the3aterial with which he ha$ to deal?@ for the 3u$t6 at lea$t a$ a $y$te3atic hy8othe$i$6 di$tingui$h the 8o$$ile le%el$ of

analy$i$6 the 3ethod$ 8ro8er to each6 and the 8eriodiation that e$t $uit$ the3. Secondly6 it i$ the re$ult of hi$ de$cri8tion

>and not $o3ething that 3u$t e eli3inated y 3ean$ of hi$ analy$i$? @ for he i$ trying to di$co%er the li3it$ of a 8roce$$6 the 8oint of infleDion of a cur%e6 the in%er$ion of a regulatory 3o%e3ent6 the oundarie$ of an o$cillation6 the thre$hold of a

function6 the in$tant at which a circular cau$ality rea<$ down. Thirdly6 it i$ the conce8t that the hi$torian G$ wor< ne%er

cea$e$ to $8ecify >in$tead of neglecting it a$ a unifor36 indifferent lan< etween two 8o$iti%e figure$? H it a$$u3e$ a$8ecific for3 and function according to the field and the le%el to which it i$ a$$igned@ one doe$ not $8ea< of the $a3e

di$continuity when

>>&9??

de$criing an e8i$te3ological thre$hold6 the 8oint of refleDion in a 8o8ulation cur%e6 or the re8lace3ent of one techniBue yanother. The notion of di$continuity i$ a 8aradoDical one@ ecau$e it i$ oth an in$tru3ent and an oJect of re$earchH ecau$eit di%ide$ u8 the field of which it i$ the effectH ecau$e it enale$ the hi$torian to indi%idualie different do3ain$ ut can e

e$tali$hed only y co38aring tho$e do3ain$. And ecau$e6 in the final analy$i$6 8erha8$6 it i$ not $i38ly a conce8t 8re$entin the di$cour$e of the hi$torian6 ut $o3ething that the hi$torian $ecretly $u88o$e$ to e 8re$ent@ on what a$i$6 in fact6

could he $8ea< without thi$ di$continuity that offer$ hi3 hi$tory and hi$ own hi$tory a$ an oJect One of the 3o$t

e$$ential feature$ of the new hi$tory i$ 8roaly thi$ di$8lace3ent of the di$continuou$@ it$ tran$ference fro3 the o$tacle tothe wor< it$elfH it$ integration into the di$cour$e of the hi$torian6 where it no longer 8lay$ the role of an eDternal condition

that 3u$t e reduced6 ut that of a wor<ing conce8tH and therefore the in%er$ion of $ign$ y which it i$ no longer the nega;

ti%e of the hi$torical reading >it$ under$ide6 it$ failure6 the li3it of it$ 8ower?6 ut the 8o$iti%e ele3ent that deter3ine$ it$oJect and %alidate$ it$ analy$i$.

Third con$eBuence@ the the3e and the 8o$$iility of a total hi$tory egin to di$a88ear6 and we $ee the e3ergence of

$o3ething %ery different that 3ight e called a general hi$tory. The 8roJect of a total hi$tory i$ one that $ee<$ to recon$titutethe o%erall for3 of a ci%iliation6 the 8rinci8le 3aterial or $8iritual of a $ociety6 the $ignificance co33on to all the

8heno3ena of a 8eriod6 the law that account$ for their cohe$ion what i$ called 3eta8horically the faceG of a 8eriod. Such

a 8roJect i$ lin<ed to two or three hy8othe$e$H it i$ $u88o$ed that etween all the e%ent$ of a well;defined $8atio;te38oralarea6 etween all the 8heno3ena of which trace$ ha%e een found6 it 3u$t e 8o$$ile to e$tali$h a $y$te3 of ho3ogeneou$

relation$@ a networ< of cau$ality that 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to deri%e each of the36 relation$ of analogy that $how how they

$y3olie one another6 or how they all eD8re$$ one and the $a3e central coreH it i$ al$o $u88o$ed that one and the $a3e for3of hi$toricity o8erate$ u8on econo3ic $tructure$6 $ocial in$titution$ and cu$to3$6 the inertia of 3ental attitude$6

technological 8ractice6 8olitical eha%iour6 and $uJect$ the3 all to the $a3e ty8e of tran$for3ationH la$tly6 it i$ $u88o$edthat hi$tory it$elf 3ay e articulated into

>>&&??



great unit$ $tage$ or 8ha$e$ which contain within the3$el%e$ their own 8rinci8le of cohe$ion. The$e are the 8o$tulate$

that are challenged y the new hi$tory when it $8ea<$ of $erie$6 di%i$ion$6 li3it$6 difference$ of le%el6 $hift$6 chronological

$8ecificitie$6 8articular for3$ of rehandling6 8o$$ile ty8e$ of relation. Thi$ i$ not ecau$e it i$ trying to otain a 8lurality of hi$torie$ JuDta8o$ed and inde8endent of one another@ that of the econo3y e$ide that of in$titution$6 and e$ide the$e two

tho$e of $cience6 religion6 or literatureH nor i$ it ecau$e it i$ 3erely trying to di$co%er etween the$e different hi$torie$

coincidence$ of date$6 or analogie$ of for3 and 3eaning. The 8role3 that now 8re$ent$ it$elf and which define$ the ta$< of a general hi$tory i$ to deter3ine what for3 of relation 3ay e legiti3ately de$cried etween the$e different $erie$H

what %ertical $y$te3 they are ca8ale of for3ingH what inter8lay of correlation and do3inance eDi$t$ etween the3H what3ay e the effect of $hift$6 different te38oralitie$6 and %ariou$ rehandling$H in what di$tinct totalitie$ certain ele3ent$ 3ay

figure $i3ultaneou$lyH in $hort6 not only what $erie$6 ut al$o what G$erie$ of $erie$G or6 in other word$6 what Gtale$G it i$

8o$$ile to draw u8. A total de$cri8tion draw$ all 8heno3ena around a $ingle centre a 8rinci8le6 a 3eaning6 a $8irit6 a

world;%iew6 an o%erall $ha8eH a general hi$tory6 on the contrary6 would de8loy the $8ace of a di$8er$ion.Fourth and la$t con$eBuence@ the new hi$tory i$ confronted y a nu3er of 3ethodological 8role3$6 $e%eral of which6

no dout6 eDi$ted long efore the e3ergence of the new hi$tory6 ut which6 ta<en together6 characterie it. The$e include@ the

uilding;u8 of coherent and ho3ogeneou$ cor8ora of docu3ent$ >o8en or clo$ed6 eDhau$ted or ineDhau$tile cor8ora?6 thee$tali$h3ent of a 8rinci8le of choice >according to whether one wi$he$ to treat the docu3entation eDhau$t i%ely6 or ado8t a

$a38ling 3ethod a$ in $tati$tic$6 or try to deter3ine in ad%ance which are the 3o$t re8re$entati%e ele3ent$? H the definitionof the le%el of analy$i$ and of the rele%ant ele3ent$ >in the 3aterial $tud;ied6 one 3ay eDtract nu3erical indication$H

reference$ eD8licit or not to e%ent$6 in$titution$6 8ractice$H the word$ u$ed6 with their gra33atical rule$ and the

$e3antic field$ that they indicate6 or again the for3al $tructure of the 8ro8o$ition$ and the ty8e$ of conneDion that unitethe3?H the $8ecification of a 3ethod of analy$i$ >the Buantitati%e treat3ent of data6 the rea<ing;down of the 3aterial

according to a

>>&2??

nu3er of a$$ignale feature$ who$e correlation$ are then $tudied6 inter8retati%e deci8her3ent6 analy$i$ of freBuency and

di$triution?H the deli3itation of grou8$ and $u;grou8$ that articulate the 3aterial >region$6 8eriod$6 unitary 8roce$$e$? H the

deter3ination of relation$ that 3a<e it 8o$$ile to characterie a grou8 >the$e 3ay e nu3erical or logical relation$H

functional6 cau$al6 or analogical relation$H or it 3ay e the relation of the G$ignifierG >$ignifiant? to the G$ignifiedG >$ignifie?.All the$e 8role3$ are now 8art of the 3ethodological field of hi$;tory. Thi$ field de$er%e$ attention6 and for two rea$on$.

Fir$t6 ecau$e one can $ee to what eDtent it ha$ freed it$elf fro3 what con$tituted6 not $o long ago6 the 8hilo$o8hy of hi$tory6

and fro3 the Bue$tion$ that it 8o$ed >on the rationality or teleology of hi$torical de%elo83ent >de%enir?6 on the relati%ity of hi$torical <nowledge6 and on the 8o$$iility of di$co%ering or con$tituting a 3eaning in the inertia of the 8a$t and in the

unfini$hed totality of the 8re$ent?. Secondly6 ecau$e it inter$ect$ at certain 8oint$ 8role3$ that are 3et with in other field$ in lingui$tic$6 ethnology6 econo3ic$6 literary analy$i$6 and 3ythology6 for eDa38le. The$e 8role3$ 3ay6 if one $o wi$he$6

e laelled $tructurali$3. *ut only under certain condition$@ they do not6 of the3$el%e$6 co%er the entire 3ethodological field

of hi$tory6 they occu8y only one 8art of that field a 8art that %arie$ in i38ortance with the area and le%el of analy$i$H a8artfro3 a nu3er of relati%ely li3ited ca$e$6 they ha%e not een i38orted fro3 lingui$tic$ or ethnology >a$ i$ often the ca$e

today?6 ut they originated in the field of hi$tory it$elf 3ore 8articularly6 in that of econo3ic hi$tory and a$ a re$ult of the

Bue$tion$ 8o$ed y that di$ci8lineH la$tly6 in no way do they authorie u$ to $8ea< of a $tructurali$3 of hi$tory6 or at lea$t of

an atte38t to o%erco3e a GconflictG or Go88o$itionG etween $tructure and hi$torical de%elo8;3ent@ it i$ a long ti3e now $ince

hi$torian$ unco%ered6 de$cried6 and analy$ed $tructure$6 without e%er ha%ing occa$ion to wonder whether they were not

allowing the li%ing6 fragile6 8ul$ating Ghi$toryG to $li8 through their finger$. The $tructurede%elo83ent o88o$ition i$ rele%antneither to the definition of the hi$torical field6 nor6 in all 8roaility6 to the definition of a $tructural 3ethod.

Thi$ e8i$te3ological 3utation of hi$tory i$ not yet co38lete. *ut it i$

not of recent origin either6 $ince it$ fir$t 8ha$e can no dout e traced

>>&??

ac< to MarD. *ut it too< a long ti3e to ha%e 3uch effect. E%en now and thi$ i$ e$8ecially true in the ca$e of the hi$tory of

thought it ha$ een neither regi$tered nor reflected u8on6 while other6 3ore recent tran$for3ation$ tho$e of lingui$tic$6for eDa38le ha%e een. It i$ a$ if it wa$ 8articularly difficult6 in the hi$tory in which 3en retrace their own idea$ and their

own <nowledge6 to for3ulate a general theory of di$continuity6 of $erie$6 of li3it$6 unitie$6 $8ecific order$6 and differentiated

autono3ie$ and de8endence$. A$ if6 in that field where we had eco3e u$ed to $ee<ing origin$6 to 8u$hing ac< further andfurther the line of antecedent$6 to recon$tituting tradition$6 to following e%oluti%e cur%e$6 to 8roJecting teleologie$6 and to

ha%ing con$tant recour$e to 3eta8hor$ of life6 we felt a 8articular re8ugnance to concei%ing of difference6 to de$criing$e8aration$ and di$8er$ion$6 to di$$ociating the rea$$uring for3 of the identical. Or6 to e 3ore 8reci$e6 a$ if we found it



difficult to con$truct a theory6 to draw general conclu$ion$6 and e%en to deri%e all the 8o$$ile i38lication$ of the$e conce8t$

of thre$hold$6 3utation$6 inde8endent $y$te3$6 and li3ited $erie$ in the way in which they had een u$ed in fact y

hi$torian$. A$ if we were afraid to concei%e of the Other in the ti3e of our own thought.There i$ a rea$on for thi$. If the hi$tory of thought could re3ain the locu$ of uninterru8ted continuitie$6 if it could

endle$$ly forge conneDion$ that no analy$i$ could undo without a$traction6 if it could wea%e6 around e%erything that 3en $ay

and do6 o$cure $ynthe$i$ that antici8ate for hi36 8re8are hi36 and lead hi3 endle$$ly toward$ hi$ future6 it would 8ro%ide a 8ri%ileged $helter for the $o%ereignty of con$ciou$ne$$. Continuou$ hi$tory i$ the indi$8en$ale correlati%e of the founding

function of the $uJect@ the guarantee that e%erything that ha$ eluded hi3 3ay e re$tored to hi3H the certainty that ti3e willdi$8er$e nothing without re$toring it in a recon$tituted unityH the 8ro3i$e that one day the $uJect in the for3 of hi$toricalcon$ciou$ne$$ will once again e ale to a88ro8riate6 to ring ac< under hi$ $way6 all tho$e thing$ that are <e8t at a

di$tance y difference6 and find in the3 what 3ight e called hi$ aode. Ma<ing hi$torical analy$i$ the di$cour$e of the

continuou$ and 3a<ing hu3an con$ciou$ne$$ the original $uJect of all hi$torical de%elo83ent and all action are the two$ide$ of the $a3e $y$te3 of thought. In thi$ $y$te36 ti3e i$ concei%ed

in ter3$ of totaliation and re%olution$ are ne%er 3ore than 3o3ent$ of con$ciou$ne$$.

>>&4??

In %ariou$ for3$6 thi$ the3e ha$ 8layed a con$tant role $ince the nineteenth century@ to 8re$er%e6 again$t all decentring$6

the $o%ereignty of the $uJect6 and the twin figure$ of anthro8ology and hu3ani$3. Again$t the decentring o8erated y MarD

y the hi$torical analy$i$ of the relation$ of 8roduction6 econo3ic deter3ination$6 and the cla$$ $truggle it ga%e 8lace6

toward$ the end of the nineteenth century6 to the $earch for a total hi$tory6 in which all the difference$ of a $ociety 3ight e

reduced to a $ingle for36 to the organiation of a world;%iew6 to the e$tali$h3ent of a $y$te3 of %alue$6 to a coherent ty8e of

ci%iliation. To the decentring o8erated y the Niet$chean genealogy6 it o88o$ed the $earch for an original foundation that

would 3a<e rationality the telo$ of 3an<ind6 and lin< the whole hi$tory of thought to the 8re$er%ation of thi$ rationality6 to the

3aintenance of thi$ teleology6 and to the e%er nece$$ary return to thi$ foundation. ,a$tly6 3ore recently6 when the re$earche$

of 8$ychoanaly$i$6 lingui$tic$6 and ethnology ha%e decentred the $uJect in relation to the law$ of hi$ de$ire6 the for3$ of hi$

language6 the rule$ of hi$ action6 or the ga3e$ of hi$ 3ythical or faulou$ di$cour$e6 when it eca3e clear that 3an hi3$elf6

Bue$tioned a$ to what he wa$6 could not account for hi$ $eDuality and hi$ uncon$ciou$6 the $y$te3atic for3$ of hi$ language6

or the regularitie$ of hi$ fiction$6 the the3e of a continuity of hi$tory ha$ een reacti%ated once againH a hi$tory that would e

not di%i$ion6 ut de%elo83ent >de%enir?H not an inter8lay of relation$6 ut an internal dyna3icH not a $y$te36 ut the hard

wor< of freedo3H not for36 ut the uncea$ing effort of a con$ciou$ne$$ turned u8on it$elf6 trying to gra$8 it$elf in it$ dee8e$t

condition$@ a hi$tory that would e oth an act of long6 uninterru8ted 8atience and the %i%acity of a 3o%e3ent6 which6 in the

end6 rea<$ all ound$. If one i$ to a$$ert thi$ the3e6 which6 to the i33oilityG of $tructure$6 to their clo$edG $y$te36 to their

nece$$ary$ynchrony

G6 o88o$e$ the li%ing o8enne$$ of hi$tory6 one 3u$t o%iou$ly deny in the hi$torical analy$e$ the3$el%e$

the u$e of di$continuity6 the definition of le%el$ and li3it$6 the de$cri8tion of $8ecific $erie$6 the unco%ering of the whole

inter8lay of difference$. One i$ led there;fore to anthro8ologie MarD6 to 3a<e of hi3 a hi$torian of totalitie$6 and to

redi$co%er in hi3 the 3e$$age of hu3ani$3H one i$ led therefore

>>&0??to inter8ret Niet$che in the ter3$ of tran$cendental 8hilo$o8hy6 and to reduce hi$ genealogy to the le%el of a $earch for

origin$H la$tly6 one i$ led to lea%e to one $ide6 a$ if it had ne%er ari$en6 that whole field of 3ethodological 8role3$ that the

new hi$tory i$ now 8re$enting. For6 if it i$ a$$erted that the Bue$tion of di$continuitie$6 $y$te3$ and tran$;for3ation$6 $erie$and thre$hold$6 ari$e$ in all the hi$torical di$ci8line$ >and in tho$e concerned with idea$ or the $cience$ no le$$ than tho$e

concerned with econo3ic$ and $ociety?6 how could one o88o$e with any $e3lance of legiti3acy Gde%elo83entG and G$y$te3G6

3o%e;3ent and circular regulation$6 or6 a$ it i$ $o3eti3e$ 8ut crudely and unthin<ingly6 Ghi$toryG and G$tructureG

The $a3e con$er%ati%e function i$ at wor< in the the3e of cultural totalitie$ >for which MarD ha$ een criticied6 thentra%e$tied?6 in the the3e of a $earch for origin$ >which wa$ o88o$ed to Niet$che6 efore an atte38t wa$ 3ade to tran$8o$e

hi3 into it?6 and in the the3e of a li%ing6 continuou$6 o8en hi$tory. The cry goe$ u8 that one i$ 3urder;ing hi$tory whene%er6

in a hi$torical analy$i$ and e$8ecially if it i$ concerned with thought6 idea$6 or <nowledge one i$ $een to e u$ing in too

o%iou$ a way the categorie$ of di$continuity and difference6 the notion$ of thre$hold6 ru8ture and tran$for3ation6 the

de$cri8tion of $erie$ and li3it$. One will e denounced for attac<ing the inalienale right$ of hi$tory and the %ery foundation$

of any 8o$$ile hi$toricity. *ut one 3u$t not e decei%ed@ what i$ eing ewailed with $uch %ehe3ence i$ not the

di$a88earance of hi$tory6 ut the ecli8$e of that for3 of hi$tory that wa$ $ecretly6 ut entirely related to the $ynthetic acti%ity

of the $uJectH what i$ eing ewailed i$ the Gde%elo83entG >de%enir? that wa$ to 8ro%ide the $o%ereignty of the con$ciou$ne$$



with a $afer6 le$$ eD8o$ed $helter than 3yth$6 <in$hi8 $y$te3$6 language$6 $eDuality6 or de$ireH what i$ eing ewailed i$ the

8o$$iility of reani3ating through the 8roJect6 the wor< of 3eaning6 or the 3o%e;3ent of totaliation6 the inter8lay of

3aterial deter3ination$6 rule$ of 8ractice6 uncon$ciou$ $y$te3$6 rigorou$ ut unreflected relation$6 correlation$ that elude all

li%ed eD8erienceH what i$ eing ewailed6 i$ that ideological u$e of hi$tory y which one trie$ to re$tore to 3an e%ery;thing

that ha$ uncea$ingly eluded hi3 for o%er a hundred year$. All the trea$ure of ygone day$ wa$ cra33ed into the old citadel

of thi$ hi$;toryH it wa$ thought to e $ecureH it wa$ $acraliedH it wa$ 3ade the la$t

>>&-??re$ting;8lace of anthro8ological thoughtH it wa$ e%en thought that it$ 3o$t in%eterate ene3ie$ could e ca8tured and turned

into %igilant guardian$. *ut the hi$torian$ had long ago de$erted the old fortre$$ and gone to wor< el$ewhereH it wa$ realied

that neither MarD nor Niet$che were carrying out the guard dutie$ that had een entru$ted to the3. They could not e

de8ended on to 8re$er%e 8ri%ilegeH nor to affir3 once and for all and /od <now$ it i$ needed in the di$tre$$ of today

that hi$tory6 at lea$t6 i$ li%ing and continuou$6 that it i$6 for the $uJect in Bue$tion6 a 8lace of re$t6 certainty6 reconciliation6 a

8lace of tranBuillied $lee8.

At thi$ 8oint there e3erge$ an enter8ri$e of which 3y earlier hoo<$ 'i$toire de la folie >Madne$$ and Ci%iliation?6 Nai$$ance

de la cliniBue6 and ,e$ Mot$ et le$ cho$e$ >The Order of Thing$?G were a %ery i38erfect $<etch. An enter8ri$e y which one

trie$ to 3ea$ure the 3utation$ that o8erate in general in the field of hi$toryH an enter8ri$e in which the 3ethod$6 li3it$6 andthe3e$ 8ro8er to the hi$tory of idea$ are Bue$tionedH an enter8ri$e y which one trie$ to throw off the la$t anthro8ological

con$traint$H an enter8ri$e that wi$he$6 in return6 to re%eal how the$e con$traint$ could co3e aout. The$e ta$<$ were outlined

in a rather di$ordered way6 and their general articulation wa$ ne%er clearly defined. It wa$ ti3e that they were gi%en greater

coherence or6 at lea$t6 that an atte38t wa$ 3ade to do $o. Thi$ oo< i$ the re$ult.In order to a%oid 3i$under$tanding6 I $hould li<e to egin with a few o$er%ation$.

My ai3 i$ not to tran$fer to the field of hi$tory6 and 3ore 8articularly to the hi$tory of <nowledge >connai$$ance$?6 a

$tructurali$t

>>footnote??

G Madne$$ and Ci%iliation6 New 5or<6 !ando3 'ou$e6 &-0H ,ondon6 Ta%i$toc<6 &-)H The Order of Thing$6 ,ondon6 Ta%i$toc<H New 5or<6 Pantheon6 &)9. A

tran$lation of Naissance de la cliniBue wa$ 8uli$hed in &) >Ta%i$toc<Pantheon?.

G The Engli$h G<nowledgeG tran$late$ the French 'connaissance'and 'savoir'. Connaissancerefer$ here to a 8articular cor8u$ of <nowledge6 a 8articular di$ci8line

iology or econo3ic$6 for eDa38le. Savoir, which i$ u$ually defined a$ <nowledge in general6 the totality of connaissnnces, i s u$ed y Foucault in an underlying6

rather than an o%erall6 way. 'e ha$ hi3$elf offered the following co33ent on hi$ u$age of the ter3$@'By connai$$ance I 3ean the relation of the $uJect to the oJect and the for3al rule$ that go%ern it. Savoir refer$ to the condition$ that are nece$$ary in a

8articular 8eriod for thi$

>>&)??

3ethod that ha$ 8ro%ed %aluale in other field$ of analy$i$. My ai3 i$ to unco%er the 8rinci8le$ and con$eBuence$ of an

autochthonou$ tran$;for3ation that i$ ta<ing 8lace in the field of hi$torical <nowledge. It 3ay well e that thi$

tran$for3ation6 the 8role3$ that it rai$e$6 the tool$ that it u$e$6 the conce8t$ that e3erge fro3 it6 and the re$ult$ that it

otain$ are not entirely foreign to what i$ called $tructural analy$i$. *ut thi$ <ind of analy$i$ i$ not $8ecifically u$edH

3y ai3 i$ 3o$t decidedly not to u$e the categorie$ of cultural totalitie$ >whether world;%iew$6 ideal ty8e$6 the 8articular

$8irit of an age? in order to i38o$e on hi$tory6 de$8ite it$elf6 the for3$ of $tructural analy$i$. The $erie$ de$cried6 the li3it$fiDed6 the co38ari$on$ and correlation$ 3ade are a$ed not on the old 8hilo$o8hie$ of hi$tory6 ut are intended to Bue$tion

teleologien and totaliation$H

in $o far a$ 3y ai3 i$ to define a 3ethod of hi$torical analy$i$ freed fro3 the anthro8ological the3e6 it i$ clear that thetheory that I a3 aout to outline ha$ a dual relation with the 8re%iou$ $tudie$. It i$ an atte38t to for3ulate6 in general ter3$>and not without a great deal of rectification and elaoration?6 the tool$ that the$e $tudie$ ha%e u$ed or forged for the3$el%e$

in the cour$e of their wor<. *ut6 on the other hand6 it u$e$ the re$ult$ already otained to define a 3ethod of analy$i$ 8urged

of all anthro8ologi$3. The ground on which it re$t$ i$ the one that it ha$ it$elf di$co%ered. The $tudie$ of 3adne$$ and the eginning$ of 8$ychology6 of illne$$ and the eginning$ of a clinical 3edicine6 of the $cience$ of life6 language6 and

econo3ic$ were atte38t$ that were carried out6 to $o3e eDtent6 in the dar<@ ut they gradually eca3e clear6 not only ecau$e

little y little their 3ethod eca3e 3ore 8reci$e6 ut al$o ecau$e they di$co%ered in thi$ deate on hu3ani$3 andanthro8ology the 8oint of it$ hi$torical 8o$$iility.



In $hort6 thi$ oo<6 li<e tho$e that 8receded it6 doe$ not elong at lea$t directly6 or in the fir$t in$tance to the deate on

$tructure >a$

>>footnote??

or that ty8e of oJect to he gi%en to connai$$ance and for thi$ or that enunciation to he for3ulated.G

Throughout thi$ tran$lation I ha%e u$ed the Engli$h word6 followed6 where the 3ean;ing reBuired it6 y the a88ro8riate French word in 8arenthe$e$ >Tr.?.

>>&??

o88o$ed to gene$i$6 hi$tory6 de%elo83ent?H it elong$ to that field in which the Bue$tion$ of the hu3an eing6 con$ciou$ne$$6 origin6 and the $uJect e3erge6 inter$ect6 3ingle6 and $e8arate off. *ut it would

8roaly not e incorrect to $ay that the 8role3 of $tructure aro$e there too.

Thi$ wor< i$ not an eDact de$cri8tion of what can e read in Madne$$ and Ci%iliation6 Nai$$ance dela cliniBue6 or The Order of Thing$. It i$ different on a great 3any 8oint$. It al$o include$ a nu3er of

correction$ and internal critici$3$. /enerally $8ea<ing6 Madne$$ and Ci%iliation accorded far too great

a 8lace6 and a %ery enig3atic one too6 to what I called an eD8eri3entG6 thu$ $howing to what eDtent onewa$ $till clo$e to ad3itting an anony3ou$ and general $uJect of hi$toryH in Nai$$ance de la cliniBue6 the

freBuent recour$e to $tructural analy$i$ threatened to y8a$$ the $8ecificity of the 8role3 8re$ented6and the le%el 8ro8er to archaeologyH la$tly6 in The Order of Thing$6 the a$ence of 3ethodological

$ign8o$ting 3ay ha%e gi%en the i38re$$ion that 3y analy$e$ were eing conducted in ter3$ of cultural

totality. It i$ 3ortifying that I wa$ unale to a%oid the$e danger$@ I con$ole 3y$elf with the thought thatthey were intrin$ic to the enter8ri$e it$elf6 $ince6 in order to carry out it$ ta$<6 it had fir$t to free it$elf

fro3 the$e %ariou$ 3ethod$ and for3$ of hi$toryH 3oreo%er6 without the Bue$tion$ that I wa$ a$<ed6G

without the difficultie$ that aro$e6 without the oJection$ that were 3ade6 I 3ay ne%er ha%e gained $oclear a %iew of the enter8ri$e to which I a3 now ineDtricaly lin<ed. 'ence the cautiou$6 $tu3ling

3anner of thi$ teDt@ at e%ery turn6 it $tand$ ac<6 3ea$ure$ u8 what i$ efore it6 gro8e$ toward$ it$ li3it$6

$tu3le$ again$t what it doe$ not 3ean6 and dig$ 8it$ to 3ar< out it$ own 8ath. At e%ery turn6 itdenounce$ any 8o$$ile confu$ion. It reJect$ it$ identity6 without 8re%iou$ly $tat;ing@ I a3 neither thi$

nor that. It i$ not critical6 3o$t of the ti3eH it i$ not a way of $aying that e%eryone el$e i$ wrong. It i$ an

atte38t to define a 8articular $ite y the eDteriority of it$ %icinityH rather than trying to reduce other$ to$ilence6 y clai3ing that what they $ay i$ worthle$$6 I ha%e tried to define thi$ lan< $8ace fro3 which I

$8ea<6

>>footnote??

L In 8articular6 the fir$t 8age$ of thi$ introduction are a$ed on a re8ly to Bue$tion$ 8re$ented y the Cercle dGE8i$te3ologic of the

E.N.S. >cf. Cahier$ 8our >Ganaly$e6 no. ?. A $<etch of certain de%elo83ent$ wa$ al$o gi%en in re8ly to reader$ of the re%iew E$8rit

>A8ril &-?.

((19))



and which is slowly taking shape in a discourse that I still feel to be so precarious and so unsure.

' Aren

't you sure of what you

're saying? Are you going to change yet again, shift your position according to the

questions that are put to you, and say that the objections are not really directed at the place from which you are

speaking? Are you going to declare yet again that you have never been what you have been reproached with being?

Are you already preparing the way out that will enable you in your next book to spring up somewhere else and

declare as you're now doing: no, no, I'm not where you are lying in wait for me, but over here, laughing at you?'' What, do you imagine that I would take so much trouble and so much pleasure in writing, do you think that I

would keep so persistently to my task, if I were not preparing — with a rather shaky hand — a labyrinth into which

I can venture, in which I can move my discourse, opening up underground passages, forcing it to go far from itself,

finding overhangs that reduce and deform its itinerary, in which I can lose myself and appear at last to eyes that I

will never have to meet again. I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask who I

am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in

order. At least spare us their morality when we write.'

Part II The Discursive Regularities>>2??

1. THE UNITIES OF DISCOURSE

The u$e of conce8t$ of di$continuity6 ru8ture6 thre$hold6 li3it6 $erie$6 and tran$for3ation 8re$ent all hi$torical analy$i$ not

only with Bue$tion$ of 8rocedure6 ut with theoretical 8role3$. It i$ the$e 8role3$ that will e $tudied here >the Bue$tion$

of 8rocedure will e eDa3ined in later e38irical $tudie$ if the o88ortunity6 the de$ire6 and the courage to underta<e the3 do

not de$ert 3e?. The$e theoretical 8role3$ too will e eDa3ined only in a 8articular field@ in tho$e di$ci8line$ $o un$ure of

their frontier$6 and $o %ague in content that we call the hi$tory of idea$6 or of thought6 or of $cience6 or of <nowledge.

*ut there i$ a negati%e wor< to e carried out fir$t@ we 3u$t rid our$el%e$ of a whole 3a$$ of notion$6 each of which6 in it$

own way6 di%er$ifie$ the the3e of continuity. They 3ay not ha%e a %ery rigorou$ conce8tual $tructure6 ut they ha%e a %ery

8reci$e function. Ta<e the notion of tradition@ it i$ intended to gi%e a $8ecial te38oral $tatu$ to a grou8 of 8heno3ena that are oth $ucce$$i%e and identical >or at lea$t $i3ilar?H it 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to rethin< the di$8er$ion of hi$tory in the for3 of the

$a3eH it allow$ a reduction of the difference 8ro8er to e%ery eginning6 in order to 8ur$ue without di$continuity the endle$$$earch for the originH tradition enale$ u$ to i$olate the new again$t a ac<;ground of 8er3anence6 and to tran$fer it$ 3erit to

originality6 to geniu$6 to the deci$ion$ 8ro8er to indi%idual$. Then there i$ the notion

>>24??

of influence6 which 8ro%ide$ a $u88ort of too 3agical a <ind to e %ery a3enale to analy$i$ for the fact$ of

tran$3i$$ion and co33unicationH which refer$ to an a88arently cau$al 8roce$$ >ut with neither rigorou$ deli3itation nor

theoretical definition? the 8heno3ena of re$e3lance or re8etitionH which lin<$6 at a di$tance and through ti3e a$ if through the 3ediation of a 3ediu3 of 8ro8agation $uch defined unitie$ a$ indi%idual$6 oeu%re$6 notion$6 or theorie$.

There are the notion$ of de%elo83ent and e%olution@ they 3a<e it 8o$$ile to grou8 a $ucce$$ion of di$8er$ed e%ent$6 to lin<

the3 to one and the $a3e organiing 8rinci8le6 to $uJect the3 to the eDe38lary 8ower of life >with it$ ada8tation$6 it$ca8acity for inno%ation the ince$$ant correlation of it$ different ele3ent$6 it$ $y$te3$ of a$$i3ilation and eDchange?6 to di$;

co%er6 already at wor< in each eginning6 a 8rinci8le of coherence and the outline of a future unity6 to 3a$ter ti3e through a 8er8etually re%er$ile relation etween an origin and a ter3 that are ne%er gi%en6 ut are alway$ at wor<. There i$ the notion

of G$8iritG6 which enale$ u$ to e$tali$h etween the $i3ultaneou$ or $ucce$$i%e 8heno3ena of a gi%en 8eriod a co33unity

of 3eaning$6 $y3olic lin<$6 an inter8lay of re$e3lance and refleDion6 or which allow$ the $o%ereignty of collecti%e

con$ciou$ne$$ to e3erge a$ the 8rinci8le of unity and eD8lanation. :e 3u$t Bue$tion tho$e ready;3ade $ynthe$e$6 tho$egrou8ing$ that we nor3ally acce8t efore any eDa3ination6 tho$e lin<$ who$e %alidity i$ recognied fro3 the out$etH we

3u$t ou$t tho$e for3$ and o$cure force$ y which we u$ually lin< the di$cour$e of one 3an with that of anotherH they 3u$t e dri%en out fro3 the dar<ne$$ in which they reign. And in$tead of according the3 unBualified6 $8ontaneou$ %alue6 we

3u$t acce8t6 in the na3e of 3ethodological rigour6 that6 in the fir$t in$tance6 they concern only a 8o8ulation of di$8er$ed

e%ent$.:e 3u$t al$o Bue$tion tho$e di%i$ion$ or grou8ing$ with which we ha%e eco3e $o fa3iliar. Can one acce8t6 a$ $uch6 the



di$tinction etween the 3aJor ty8e$ of di$cour$e6 or that etween $uch for3$ or genre$ a$ $cience6 literature6 8hilo$o8hy6

religion6 hi$tory6 fiction6 etc.6 and which tend to create certain great hi$torical indi%idualitie$ :e are not e%en $ure of

our$el%e$ when we u$e the$e di$tinction$ in our own world of di$cour$e6 let alone when we are analy$ing grou8$ of $tate ;

3ent$ which6 when fir$t for3ulated6 were di$triuted6 di%ided6 and characteried in a Buite different way@ after all6 GliteratureG

and G8olitic$G

((25))

are recent categories, which can be applied to medieval culture, or even classical culture, only by a retrospective

hypothesis, and by an interplay of formal analogies or semantic resemblances; but neither literature, nor politics,

nor philosophy and the sciences articulated the field of discourse, in the seventeenth or eighteenth century, as they

did in the nineteenth century. In any case, these divisions — whether our own, or those contemporary with the

discourse under examination — are always themselves reflexive categories, principles of classification, normative

rules, institutionalized types: they, in turn., are facts of discourse that deserve to be analysed beside others; of

course, they also have complex relations with. each other, but they are not intrinsic, autochthonous, and.

universally recognizable characteristics.

But the unities that must be suspended above all are those that emerge in the most immediate way: those of the

book and the oeuvre. At first sight, it would seem that one could not abandon these unities without extreme

artificiality. Are they not given in the most definite way? There is the material individualization of the book, which

occupies a determined space, which has an. economic value, and which itself indicates, by a number of signs, the

limits of its beginning and its end; and there is the establishment of an oeuvre, which we recognize and delimit by

attributing a certain number of texts to an author. And yet as soon as one looks at the matter a little more closely

the difficulties begin. The material unity of the book? Is this the same in the case of an anthology of poems, a

collection of posthumous fragments, Desargues' Traite des Coniques, or a volume of Michelet

's Histoire de France?

Is it the same in the case of Mallarme's#nCoup de des, the trial of Gilles de Rais, Butor

's San Marco, or a Catholic

missal? In other words, is not the material unity of the volume a weak, accessory unity in relation to the discursive

unity of which it is the support? But is this discursive unity itself homogeneous and uniformly applicable? A novel

by Stendhal and a novel by Dostoevsky do not have the same relation. of individuality as that between two novels

belonging to Balzac's cycle La Comedic humaine; and the relation between Balzac

's novels is not the same as that

existing between Joyce's Ulysses and the Odyssey. The frontiers of a book are never clear-cut: beyond the title, the

first lines, and the last full stop, beyond its internal configuration and its autonomous form, it is caught up in a

system of references to other books, other texts, other sentences: it is a

>>2-??node within a networ<. And thi$ networ< of reference$ i$ not the $a3e in the ca$e of a 3athe3atical treati$e6 a teDtual

co33entary6 a hi$torical account6 and an e8i$ode in a no%el cycleH the unity of the oo<6 e%en in the $en$e of a grou8 of

relation$6 cannot e regarded a$ identical in each ca$e. The oo< i$ not $i38ly the oJect that one hold$ in oneG$ hand$H and itcannot re3ain within the little 8arallele8i8ed that contain$ it@ it$ unity i$ %ariale and relati%e. A$ $oon a$ one Bue$tion$ that

unity6 it lo$e$ it$ $elf;e%idenceH it indicate$ it$elf6 con$truct$ it$elf6 only on the a$i$ of a co38leD field of di$cour$e.

The 8role3$ rai$ed y the oeu%re are e%en 3ore difficult. 5et6 at fir$t $ight6 what could e 3ore $i38le A collection of teDt$ that can e de$ignated y the $ign of a 8ro8er na3e. *ut thi$ de$ignation >e%en lea%ing to one $ide 8role3$ of

attriution? i$ not a ho3ogeneou$ function@ doe$ the na3e of an author de$ignate in the $a3e way a teDt that he ha$ 8uli$hed under hi$ na3e6 a teDt that he ha$ 8re$ented under a 8$eudony36 another found after hi$ death in the for3 of an

unfini$hed draft6 and another that i$ 3erely a collection of Jotting$6 a noteoo< The e$tali$h3ent of a co38lete oeu%re

8re$u88o$e$ a nu3er of choice$ that are difficult to Ju$tify or e%en to for3ulate@ i$ it enough to add to the teDt$ 8uli$hed y the author tho$e that he intended for 8ulication ut which re3ained unfini$hed y the fact of hi$ death Should one al$o

include all hi$ $<etche$ and fir$t draft$6 with all their correction$ and cro$$ing$ out Should one add $<etche$ that he hi3$elf aandoned And what $tatu$ $hould e gi%en to letter$6 note$6 re8orted con%er$ation$6 tran$cri8tion$ of what he $aid 3ade ytho$e 8re$ent at the ti3e6 in $hort6 to that %a$t 3a$$ of %eral trace$ left y an indi%idual at hi$ death6 and which $8ea< in an

endle$$ confu$ion $o 3any different language$ >Iangage$?G In any ca$e6 the na3e Mallar3eG doe$ not refer in the $a3e way

to hi$ the3e$ >tran$lation eDerci$e$ fro3 French into Engli$h?6 hi$ tran$lation$ of Edgar Allan Poe6 hi$ 8oe3$6 and hi$ re8lie$to Bue$tionnaire$H $i3ilarly6 the $a3e relation doe$ not eDi$t etween the na3e Niet$che on the one hand and the youthful

>>footnote??



G The Engli$h word GlanguageG tran$late$ the French GlangueG >3eaning the GnaturalG language$@ French6 Engli$h6 etc.? and GlangageG >3eaning either Glanguage in

generalG or G<ind$ of languageG@ 8hilo$o8hical6 3edical language6 etc.?. :here the 3eaning would otherwi$e e unclear6 I ha%e added the original French word in

rac<et$.(Te)

>>2)??

autoiogra8hie$6 the $chola$tic di$$ertation$6 the 8hilological article$6 arathu$tra6 Ecce 'o3o6 the letter$6 the la$t 8o$tcard$

$igned G"iony$o$G or GKai$er Niet$cheG6 and the innu3erale noteoo<$ with their Ju3le of laundry ill$ and $<etche$ for

a8hori$3$. In fact6 if one $8ea<$ $o undi$cri3inately and unreflectingly of an author G$ oeu%re6 it i$ ecau$e one i3agine$ it to

e defined y a certain eD8re$$i%e function. One i$ ad3itting that there 3u$t e a le%el >a$ dee8 a$ it i$ nece$$ary to i3agine

it? at which the oeu%re e3erge$6 in all it$ frag3ent$6 e%en the $3alle$t6 3o$t ine$$ential one$6 a$ the eD8re$$ion of the

thought6 the eD8erience6 the i3agination6 or the uncon$ciou$ of the author6 or6 indeed6 of the hi$torical deter3ination$ that

o8erated u8on hi3. *ut it i$ at once a88arent that $uch a unity6 far fro3 eing gi%en i33ediately6 i$ the re$ult of an

o8erationH that thi$ o8eration i$ inter8retati%e >$ince it deci8her$6 in the teDt6 the tran$cri8tion of $o3ething that it oth

conceal$ and 3anife$t$?H and that the o8eration that deter3ine$ the o8u$6 in it$ unity6 and con$eBuently the oeu%re it$elf6 will

not e the $a3e in the ca$e of the author of ,e Theatre et $on "oule >Artaud? and the author of the Tractatu$ >:ittgen$tein?6

and therefore when one $8ea<$ of an oeu%re in each ca$e one i$ u$ing the word in a different $en$e. The oeu%re can e

regarded neither a$ an i33ediate unity6 nor a$ a certain unity6 nor a$ a ho3ogeneou$ unity.

One la$t 8recaution 3u$t e ta<en to di$connect the unBue$tioned continuitie$ y which we organie6 in ad%ance6 the

di$cour$e that we are to analy$e@ we 3u$t renounce two lin<ed6 ut o88o$ite the3e$. The fir$t in%ol%e$ a wi$h that it $houldne%er e 8o$$ile to a$$ign6 in the order of di$cour$e6 the irru8tion of a real e%entH that eyond any a88arent eginning6 there

i$ alway$ a $ecret origin $o $ecret and $o funda3ental that it can ne%er e Buite gra$8ed in it$elf. Thu$ one i$ led

ine%italy6 through the nai%ety of chronologie$6 toward$ an e%er;receding 8oint that i$ ne%er it$elf 8re$ent in any hi$toryH thi$ 8oint i$ 3erely it$ own %oidH and fro3 that 8oint all eginning$ can ne%er e 3ore than reco33ence3ent$ or occultation >in

one and the $a3e ge$ture6 thi$ and that?. To thi$ the3e i$ connected another according to which all 3anife$t di$cour$e i$

$ecretly a$ed on an Galready;$aidGH and that thi$ Galready;$aidG i$ not 3erely a 8hra$e that ha$ already een $8o<en6 or a teDt

that ha$ already een written6 ut a Gne%er;$aidG6 an incor8oreal di$cour$e6 a %oice a$ $ilent a$ a reath6 a writing that i$

>>2??

3erely the hollow of it$ own 3ar<. It i$ $u88o$ed therefore that e%ery;thing that i$ for3ulated in di$cour$e wa$ alreadyarticulated in that $e3i;$ilence that 8recede$ it6 which continue$ to run o$tinately eneath it6 ut which it co%er$ and

$ilence$. The 3anife$t di$cour$e6 therefore6 i$ really no 3ore than the re8re$$i%e 8re$ence of what it doe$ not $ayH and thi$Gnot;$aidG i$ a hollow that under3ine$ fro3 within all that i$ $aid. The fir$t the3e $ee$ the hi$torical analy$i$ of di$cour$e a$the Bue$t for and the re8etition of an origin that elude$ all hi$torical deter3inationH the $econd $ee$ it a$ the inter8retation of GhearingG of an Galready;$aidG that i$ at the $a3e ti3e a Gnot;$aidG. :e 3u$t renounce all tho$e the3e$ who$e function i$ to

en$ure the infinite continuity of di$cour$e and it$ $ecret 8re$ence to it$elf in the inter8lay of a con$tantly recurring a$ence.

:e 3u$t e ready to recei%e e%ery 3o3ent of di$cour$e in it$ $udden irru8tionH in that 8unctuality in which it a88ear$6 and inthat te38oral di$8er$ion that enale$ it to e re8eated6 <nown6 forgotten6 tran$for3ed6 utterly era$ed6 and hidden6 far fro3 all%iew6 in the du$t of oo<$. "i$cour$e 3u$t not e referred to the di$tant 8re$ence of the origin6 ut treated a$ and when it

occur$.

The$e 8re;eDi$ting for3$ of continuity6 all the$e $ynthe$e$ that are acce8ted without Bue$tion6 3u$t re3ain in $u$8en$e.They 3u$t not e reJected definiti%ely of cour$e6 ut the tranBuillity with which they are acce8ted 3u$t e di$turedH we 3u$t

$how that they do not co3e aout of the3$el%e$6 ut are alway$ the re$ult of a con$truction the rule$ of which 3u$t e

<nown6 and the Ju$tification$ of which 3u$t e $crutinied@ we 3u$t define in what condition$ and in %iew of which analy$e$certain of the3 are legiti3ateH and we 3u$t indicate which of the3 can ne%er e acce8ted in any circu3$tance$. It 3ay e6

for eDa38le6 that the notion$ of GinfluenceG or Ge%olutionG elong to a critici$3 that 8ut$ the3 for the fore$eeale future

out of u$e. *ut need we di$8en$e for e%er with the Goeu%reG6 the G oo< G6 or e%en $uch unitie$ a$ G$cienceG or GliteratureG Shouldwe regard the3 a$ illu$ion$6 illegiti3ate con$truction$6 or ill;acBuired re$ult$ Should we ne%er 3a<e u$e of the36 e%en a$ a

te38orary $u88ort6 and ne%er 8ro%ide the3 with a definition :hat we 3u$t do6 in fact6 i$ to tear away fro3 the3 their

%irtual $elf;e%idence6 and to free the 8role3$ that they 8o$eH to recognie that they are not the tranBuil locu$ on the

>>2??



a$i$ of which other Bue$tion$ >concerning their $tructure6 coherence6 $y$te3aticity6 tran$for3ation$? 3ay e 8o$ed6 ut that

they the3$el%e$ 8o$e a whole clu$ter of Bue$tion$ >:hat are they 'ow can they e defined or li3ited :hat di$tinct ty8e$

of law$ can they oey :hat articulation are they ca8ale of :hat $u;grou8$ can they gi%e ri$e to :hat $8ecific 8heno3ena do they re%eal in the field of di$cour$e? :e 3u$t recognie that they 3ay not6 in the la$t re$ort6 e what they

$ee3 at fir$t $ight. In $hort6 that they reBuire a theory6 and that thi$ theory can;not e con$tructed unle$$ the field of the fact$

of di$cour$e on the a$i$ of which tho$e fact$ are uilt u8 a88ear$ in it$ non;$ynthetic 8urity.And I6 in turn6 will do no 3ore than thi$@ of cour$e6 I $hall ta<e a$ 3y $tarting;8oint whate%er unitie$ are already gi%en

>$uch a$ 8$ycho;8athology6 3edicine6 or 8olitical econo3y? H ut I $hall not 8lace 3y$elf in$ide the$e duiou$ unitie$ in order to $tudy their internal configuration or their $ecret contradiction$. I $hall 3a<e u$e of the3 Ju$t long enough to a$< 3y$elf what unitie$ they for3H y what right they can clai3 a field that $8ecifie$ the3 in $8ace and a continuity that indi %idualie$

the3 in ti3eH according to what law$ they are for3edH again$t the ac<ground of which di$cur$i%e e%ent$ they $tand outH and

whether they are not6 in their acce8ted and Bua$i;in$titutional indi%iduality6 ulti3ately the $urface effect of 3ore fir3lygrounded unitie$. I $hall acce8t the grou8ing$ that hi$tory $ugge$t$ only to $uJect the3 at once to interrogationH to rea<

the3 u8 and then to $ee whether they can e legiti3ately refor3edH or whether other grou8ing$ $hould e 3adeH to re8lacethe3 in a 3ore general $8ace which6 while di$$i8ating their a88arent fa3iliarity6 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to con$truct a theory of

the3.

Once the$e i33ediate for3$ of continuity are $u$8ended6 an entire field i$ $et free. A %a$t field6 ut one that can edefined nonethele$$@ thi$ field i$ 3ade u8 of the totality of all effecti%e $tate3ent$ >whether $8o<en or written?6 in their

di$8er$ion a$ e%ent$ and in the occurrence that i$ 8ro8er to the3. *efore a88roaching6 with any degree of certainty6 a $cience6

or no%el$6 or 8olitical $8eeche$6 or the oeu%re of an author6 or e%en a $ingle oo<6 the 3aterial with which one i$ dealing i$6 init$ raw6 neutral $tate6 a 8o8ulation of e%ent$ in the $8ace of di$cour$e in general. One i$ led therefore to the 8roJect of a 8ure

de$cri8tion of di$cur$i%e e%ent$ a$ the horion for the $earch for the unitie$ that for3

>>9??within it. Thi$ de$cri8tion i$ ea$ily di$tingui$hale fro3 an analy$i$ of the language. Of cour$e6 a lingui$tic $y$te3 can e

e$tali$hed >unle$$ it i$ con$tructed artificially? only y u$ing a cor8u$ of $tate3ent$6 or a collection of di$cur$i%e fact$H ut

we 3u$t then define6 on the a$i$ of thi$ grou8ing6 which ha$ %alue a$ a $a38le6 rule$ that 3ay 3a<e it 8o$$ile to con$tructother $tate3ent$ than the$e@ e%en if it ha$ long $ince di$a88eared6 e%en if it i$ no longer $8o<en6 and can e recon$tructed

only on the a$i$ of rare frag3ent$6 a language >longue? i$ $till a $y$te3 for 8o$$ile $tate3ent$6 a finite ody of rule$ thatauthorie$ an infinite nu3er of 8erfor3ance$. The field of di$cur$i%e e%ent$6 on the other hand6 i$ a grou8ing that i$ alway$

finite and li3ited at any 3o3ent to the lingui$tic $eBuence$ that ha%e een for3ulatedH they 3ay e innu3erale6 they 3ay6

in $heer $ie6 eDceed the ca8acitie$ of recording6 3e3ory6 or reading@ ne%erthele$$ they for3 a finite grou8;ing. The Bue$tion 8o$ed y language analy$i$ of $o3e di$cur$i%e fact or other i$ alway$@ according to what rule$ ha$ a 8articular $tate3ent een

3ade6 and con$eBuently according to what rule$ could other $i3ilar $tate3ent$ e 3ade The de$cri8tion of the e%ent$ of

di$cour$e 8o$e$ a Buite different Bue$tion@ how i$ it that one 8articular $tate3ent a88eared rather than anotherIt i$ al$o clear that thi$ de$cri8tion of di$cour$e$ i$ in o88o$ition to the hi$tory of thought. There too a $y$te3 of thought

can e recon$tituted only on the a$i$ of a definite di$cur$i%e totality. *ut thi$ totality i$ treated in $uch a way that one trie$ to

redi$co%er eyond the $tate3ent$ the3$el%e$ the intention of the $8ea<ing $uJect6 hi$ con$ciou$ acti%ity6 what he 3eant6 or6again6 the uncon$ciou$ acti%ity that too< 8lace6 de$8ite hi3$elf6 in what he $aid or in the al3o$t i38erce8tile fracture of hi$

actual word$H in any ca$e6 we 3u$t recon$titute another di$cour$e6 redi$co%er the $ilent 3ur3uring6 the ineDhau$tile $8eech

that ani3ate$ fro3 within the %oice that one hear$6 re;e$tali$h the tiny6 in%i$ile teDt that run$ etween and $o3eti3e$collide$ with the3. The analy$i$ of thought i$ alway$ allegorical in relation to the di$cour$e that it e38loy$. It$ Bue$tion i$

unfailingly@ what wa$ eing $aid in what wa$ $aid The analy$i$ of the di$cur$i%e field i$ orientated in a Buite different wayHwe 3u$t gra$8 the $tate3ent in the eDact $8ecificity of it$ occurrenceH deter3ine it$ condition$ of eDi$tence6 fiD at lea$t it$

li3it$6 e$tali$h it$ correlation$ with other $tate3ent$ that

>>&??

3ay e connected with it6 and $how what other for3$ of $tate3ent it eDclude$. :e do not $ee< elow what i$ 3anife$t the

half $ilent 3ur3ur of another di$cour$eH we 3u$t $how why it could not e other than it wa$6 in what re$8ect it i$ eDclu$i%e of

any other6 how it a$$u3e$6 in the 3id$t of other$ and in relation to the36 a 8lace that no other could occu8y. The Bue$tion

8ro8er to $uch an analy$i$ 3ight e for3ulated in thi$ way@ what i$ thi$ $8ecific eDi$tence that e3erge$ fro3 what i$ $aid and

nowhere el$e:e 3u$t a$< our$el%e$ what 8ur8o$e i$ ulti3ately $er%ed y thi$ $u$8en$ion of all the acce8ted unitie$6 if6 in the end6 we

return to the unitie$ that we 8retended to Bue$tion at the out$et. In fact6 the $y$te3atic era$ure of all gi%en unitie$ enale$ u$fir$t of all to re$tore to the $tate3ent the $8ecificity of it$ occurrence6 and to $how that di$continuity i$ one of tho$e great

accident$ that create crac<$ not only in the geology of hi$tory6 ut al$o in the $i38le fact of the $tate3entH it e3erge$ in it$

hi$torical irru8tionH what we try to eDa3ine i$ the inci$ion that it 3a<e$6 that irreducile and %ery often tiny e3ergence.'owe%er anal it 3ay e6 howe%er uni38ortant it$ con$eBuence$ 3ay a88ear to e6 howe%er Buic<ly it 3ay e forgotten after

it$ a88earance6 howe%er little heard or howe%er adly deci8hered we 3ay $u88o$e it to e6 a $tate3ent i$ alway$ an e%ent that



neither the language >langue? nor the 3eaning can Buite eDhau$t. It i$ certainly a $trange e%ent@ fir$t6 ecau$e on the one hand

it i$ lin<ed to the ge$ture of writing or to the articulation of $8eech6 and al$o on the other hand it o8en$ u8 to it$elf a re$idual

eDi$tence in the field of a 3e3ory6 or in the 3ateriality of 3anu$cri8t$6 oo<$6 or any other for3 of recordingH $econdly6 ecau$e6 li<e e%ery e%ent6 it i$ uniBue6 yet $uJect to re8etition6 tran$for3ation6 and reacti%ationH thirdly6 ecau$e it i$ lin<ed

not only to the $ituation$ that 8ro%o<e it6 and to the con$eBuence$ that it gi%e$ ri$e to6 ut at the $a3e ti3e6 and in accordance

with a Buite different 3odality6 to the $tate3ent$ that 8recede and follow it.*ut if we i$olate6 in relation to the language and to thought6 the occurrence of the $tate3ente%ent6 it i$ not in order to

$8read o%er e%erything a du$t of fact$. It i$ in order to e $ure that thi$ occurrence i$ not lin<ed with $ynthe$iing o8eration$of a 8urely 8$ychological <ind >the intention of the author6 the for3 of hi$ 3ind6 the rigour of hi$ thought6 the the3e$ thato$e$$ hi36 the 8roJect that tra%er$e$ hi$

>>2??

eDi$tence and gi%e$ it 3eaning? and to e ale to gra$8 other for3$ of regularity6 other ty8e$ of relation$. !elation$ etween $tate3ent$ >e%en if the author i$ unaware of the3H e%en if the $tate3ent$ do not ha%e the $a3e authorH e%en if

the author$ were unaware of each otherG$ eDi$tence? H relation$ etween grou8$ of $tate3ent$ thu$ e$tali$hed >e%en if

the$e grou8$ do not concern the $a3e6 or e%en adJacent6 field$H e%en if they do not 8o$$e$$ the $a3e for3al le%elH e%enif they are not the locu$ of a$$ignale eDchange$?H relation$ etween $tate3ent$ and grou8$ of $tate3ent$ and e%ent$ of

a Buite different <ind >technical6 econo3ic6 $ocial6 8olitical?. To re%eal in all it$ 8urity the $8ace in which di$cur$i%e

e%ent$ are de8loyed i$ not to underta<e to re;e$tali$h it in an i$olation that nothing could o%erco3eH it i$ not to clo$e itu8on it$elfH it i$ to lea%e one$elf free to de$crie the inter8lay of relation$ within it and out$ide it.

The third 8ur8o$e of $uch a de$cri8tion of the fact$ of di$cour$e i$ that y freeing the3 of all the grou8ing$ that 8ur8ort to e natural6 i33ediate6 uni%er$al unitie$6 one i$ ale to de$crie other unitie$6 ut thi$ ti3e y 3ean$ of a

grou8 of controlled deci$ion$. Pro%iding one define$ the condition$ clearly6 it 3ight e legiti3ate to con$titute6 on the

a$i$ of correctly de$cried relation$6 di$cur$i%e grou8$ that are not aritrary6 and yet re3ain in%i$ile. Of cour$e6 the$erelation$ would ne%er e for3ulated for the3$el%e$ in the $tate3ent$ in Bue$tion >unli<e6 for eDa38le6 tho$e eD8licit

relation$ that are 8o$ed and $8o<en in di$cour$e it$elf6 a$ in the for3 of the no%el6 or a $erie$ of 3athe3atical

theore3$?. *ut in no way would they con$titute a $ort of $ecret di$cour$e6 ani3ating the 3anife$t di$cour$e fro3withinH it i$ not therefore an inter8retation of the fact$ of the $tate3ent that 3ight re%eal the36 ut the analy$i$ of their

coeDi$tence6 their $ucce$$ion6 their 3utual functioning6 their reci8rocal deter3ination6 and their inde8endent or

correlati%e tran$for3ation.'owe%er6 it i$ not 8o$$ile to de$crie all the relation$ that 3ay e3erge in thi$ way without $o3e guide;line$. A

8ro%i$ional di%i$ion 3u$t e ado8ted a$ an initial a88roDi3ation@ an initial region that analy$i$ will $u$eBuently

de3oli$h and6 if nece$$ary6 reorganie. *ut how i$ $uch a region to e circu3$cried On the one hand6 we 3u$tchoo$e6 e38irically6 a field in which the relation$ are li<ely to e nu3erou$6 den$e6 and relati%ely ea$y to de$crie@ and

in what other

>>??region do di$cur$i%e e%ent$ a88ear to e 3ore clo$ely lin<ed to one another6 to occur in accordance with 3ore ea$ily

deci8herale relation$6 than in the region u$ually <nown a$ $cience *ut6 on the other hand6 what etter way of gra$8ing in a$tate3ent6 not the 3o3ent of it$ for3al $tructure and law$ of con$truction6 ut that of it$ eDi$tence and the rule$ that go%ern

it$ a88earance6 if not y dealing with relati%ely unfor3alied grou8$ of di$cour$e$6 in which the $tate3ent$ do not $ee3

nece$$arily to e uilt on the rule$ of 8ure $yntaD 'ow can we e $ure of a%oiding $uch di%i$ion$ a$ the cru%re6 or $uch

categorie$ a$ GinfluenceG6 unle$$6 fro3 the %ery out$et6 we ado8t $ufficiently road field$ and $cale$ that are chronologically

%a$t enough ,a$tly6 how can we e $ure that we will not find our$el%e$ in the gri8 of all tho$e o%er;ha$ty unitie$ or

$ynthe$e$ concerning the $8ea<ing $uJect6 or the author of the teDt6 in $hort6 all anthro8ological categorie$ #nle$$6 8erha8$6we con$ider all the $tate3ent$ out of which the$e categorie$ are con$tituted all the $tate3ent$ that ha%e cho$en the $uJect

of di$cour$e >their own $uJect? a$ their GoJectG and ha%e underta<en to de8loy it a$ their field of <nowledge

Thi$ eD8lain$ the de facto 8ri%ilege that I ha%e accorded to tho$e di$;cour$e$ that6 to 8ut it %ery $che3atically6 define theG$cience$ of 3anG. *ut it i$ only a 8ro%i$ional 8ri%ilege. Two fact$ 3u$t e con$tantly orne in 3ind@ that the analy$i$ of

di$cur$i%e e%ent$ i$ in no way li3ited to $uch a fieldH and that the di%i$ion of thi$ field it$elf cannot e regarded either a$

definiti%e or a$ a$olutely %alidH it i$ no 3ore than an initial a88roDi3ation that 3u$t allow relation$ to a88ear that 3ayera$e the li3it$ of thi$ initial outline.

>>4??



2. DISCURSIVE FORMATIONS

I ha%e underta<en6 then6 to de$crie the relation$ etween $tate3ent$. I ha%e een careful to acce8t a$ %alid none of theunitie$ that would nor3ally 8re$ent the3$el%e$ to anyone e3ar<ing on $uch a ta$<. I ha%e decided to ignore no for3 of

di$continuity6 rea<6 thre$hold6 or li3it. I ha%e decided to de$crie $tate3ent$ in the field of di$cour$e and the relation$ of

which they are ca8ale. A$ I $ee it6 two $erie$ of 8role3$ ari$e at the out$et@ the fir$t6 which I $hall lea%e to one $ide for theti3e eing and $hall return to later6 concern$ the indi$cri3inate u$e that I ha%e 3ade of the ter3$ $tate3ent6 e%ent6 and

di$cour$eH the $econd concern$ the relation$ that 3ay legiti3ately he de$cried etween the $tate3ent$ that ha%e een left in

their 8ro%i$ional6 %i$ile grou8ing.There are $tate3ent$6 for eDa38le6 that are Buite o%iou$ly concerned and ha%e een fro3 a date that i$ ea$y enough to

deter3ine with 8olitical econo3y6 or iology6 or 8$ycho8athologyH there are other$ that eBually o%iou$ly elong to tho$e

age;old continuitie$ <nown a$ gra33ar or 3edicine. *ut what are the$e unitie$ 'ow can we $ay that the analy$i$ of

headache$ carried out y :illi$ or Charcot elong to the $a3e order of di$cour$e That Petty G$ in%ention$ are in continuity

with Neu3annG$ econo3etry That the analy$i$ of Judge;3ent y the Port;!oyal gra33arian$ elong$ to the $a3e do3ain a$

>>0??the di$co%ery of %owel gradation$ in the Indo;Euro8ean language$ :hat6 in fact6 are 3edicine6 gra33ar6 or 8olitical

econo3y Are they 3erely a retro$8ecti%e regrou8ing y which the conte38orary $cience$ decei%e the3$el%e$ a$ to their own 8a$t Are they for3$ that ha%e eco3e e$tali$hed once and for all and ha%e gone on de%elo8ing through ti3e "o they

conceal other unitie$ And what $ort of lin<$ can %alidly e recognied etween all the$e $tate3ent$ that for36 in $uch a

fa3iliar and in$i$tent way6 $uch an enig3atic 3a$$

Fir$t hy8othe$i$ and the one that6 at fir$t $ight6 $truc< 3e a$ eing the 3o$t li<ely and the 3o$t ea$ily 8ro%ed@

$tate3ent$ different in for36 and di$8er$ed in ti3e6 for3 a grou8 if they refer to one and the $a3e oJect. Thu$6 $tate3ent$

elonging to 8$ycho8athology all $ee3 to refer to an oJect that e3erge$ in %ariou$ way$ in indi%idual or $ocial eD8erience

and which 3ay e called 3adne$$. *ut I $oon realied that the unity of the oJect G3adne$$G doe$ not enale one to

indi%idualie a grou8 of $tate3ent$6 and to e$tali$h etween the3 a relation that i$ oth con$tant and de$criale. There are

two rea$on$ for thi$. It would certainly e a 3i$ta<e to try to di$co%er what could ha%e een $aid of 3adne$$ at a 8articular

ti3e y interrogating the eing of 3adne$$ it$elf6 it$ $ecret content6 it$ $ilent6 $elf;enclo$ed truthH 3ental illne$$ wa$

con$tituted y all that wa$ $aid in all the $tate3ent$ that na3ed it6 di%ided it u86 de$cried it6 eD8lained it6 traced it$

de%elo83ent$6 indicated it$ %ariou$ correlation$6 Judged it6 and 8o$$ily ga%e it $8eech y articulating6 in it$ na3e6 di$cour$e$

that were to e ta<en a$ it$ own. Moreo%er6 thi$ grou8 of $tate3ent$ i$ far fro3 referring to a $ingle oJect6 for3ed once and

for all6 and to 8re$er%ing it indefinitely a$ it$ horion of ineDhau$tile idealityH the oJect 8re$ented a$ their correlati%e y

3edical $tate3ent$ of the $e%enteenth or eighteenth century i$ not identical with the oJect that e3erge$ in legal $entence$ or

8olice actionH $i3ilarly6 all the oJect$ of 8$ycho8athological di$cour$e$ were 3odified fro3 Pinel or E$Buirol to *leuler@ it i$

not the $a3e illne$$e$ that are at i$$ue in each of the$e ca$e$H we are not dealing with the $a3e 3ad3en.One 3ight6 8erha8$ one $hould6 conclude fro3 thi$ 3ulti8licity of oJect$ that it i$ not 8o$$ile to acce8t6 a$ a %alid unity

for3ing a grou8 of $tate3ent$6 a Gdi$cour$e6 concerning 3adne$$G. Perha8$ one $hould confine oneG$ attention to tho$e grou8$

of $tate3ent$ that ha%e one and

>>-??the $a3e oJect@ the di$cour$e$ on 3elancholia6 or neuro$i$6 for eDa38le. *ut one would $oon realie that each of the$e

di$cour$e$ in turn con$tituted it$ oJect and wor<ed it to the 8oint of tran$for3ing it altogether. So that the 8role3 ari$e$ of <nowing whether the unity of a di$cour$e i$ a$ed not $o 3uch on the 8er3anence and uniBuene$$ of an oJect a$ on the$8ace in which %ariou$ oJect$ e3erge and are continuou$ly tran$for3ed. :ould not the ty8ical relation that would enale u$

to indi%idualie a grou8 of $tate3ent$ concerning 3adne$$ then e@ the rule of $i3ultaneou$ or $ucce$$i%e e3ergence of the

%ariou$ oJect$ that are na3ed6 de$cried6 analy$ed6 a88reciated6 or Judged in that relation The unity of di$cour$e$ on

3adne$$ would not e a$ed u8on the eDi$tence of the oJect G3adne$$G6 or the con$titution of a $ingle horion of oJecti%ityH

it would e the inter8lay of the rule$ that 3a<e 8o$$ile the a88earance of oJect$ during a gi%en 8eriod of ti3e@ oJect$ that

are $ha8ed y 3ea$ure$ of di$cri3ination and re8re$$ion6 oJect$ that are differentiated in daily 8ractice6 in law6 in religiou$ca$ui$try6 in 3edical diagno$i$6 oJect$ that are 3anife$ted in 8athological de$cri8tion$6 oJect$ that are circu3$cried y

3edical code$6 8ractice$6 treat3ent6 and care. Moreo%er6 the unity of the di$cour$e$ on 3adne$$ would e the inter8lay of the



rule$ that define the tran$for3ation$ of the$e different oJect$6 their non;identity through ti3e6 the rea< 8roduced in the36

the internal di$continuity that $u$8end$ their 8er3anence. ParadoDically6 to define a grou8 of $tate3ent$ in ter3$ of it$

indi%iduality would e to define the di$8er$ion of the$e oJect$6 to gra$8 all the inter$tice$ that $e8arate the36 to 3ea$ure thedi$tance$ that reign etween the3 in other word$6 to for3ulate their law of di%i$ion.

Second hy8othe$i$ to define a grou8 of relation$ etween $tate3ent$@ their for3 and ty8e of conneDion. It $ee3ed to 3e6

for eDa38le6 that fro3 the nineteenth century6 3edical $cience wa$ characteried not $o 3uch y it$ oJect$ or conce8t$ a$ ya certain $tyle6 a certain con$tant 3anner of $tate3ent. For the fir$t ti3e6 3edicine no longer con$i$ted of a grou8 of

tradition$6 o$er%ation$6 and heterogeneou$ 8ractice$6 ut of a cor8u$ of <nowledge that 8re$u88o$ed the $a3e way of loo<ing at thing$6 the $a3e di%i$ion of the 8erce8tual field6 the $a3e analy$i$ of the 8athological fact in accordance with the%i$ile $8ace of the ody6 the $a3e $y$te3 of tran$criing what one

>>)??



8ercei%ed in what one $aid >$a3e %ocaulary6 $a3e 8lay of 3eta8hor?H in $hort6 it $ee3ed to 3e that 3edicine wa$ organied

a$ a $erie$ of de$cri8ti%e $tate3ent$. *ut6 there again6 I had to aandon thi$ hy8othe$i$ at the out$et and recognie that

clinical di$cour$e wa$ Ju$t a$ 3uch a grou8 of hy8othe$e$ aout life and death6 of ethical choice$6 of thera8eutic deci$ion$6 of in$titutional regulation$6 of teaching 3odel$6 a$ a grou8 of de$cri8tion$H that the de$cri8tion$ could not6 in any ca$e6 e

a$tracted fro3 the hy8othe$e$6 and that the de$cri8ti%e $tate3ent wa$ only one of the for3ulation$ 8re$ent in 3edical

di$cour$e. I al$o had to recognie that thi$ de$cri8tion ha$ con$tantly een di$8laced@ either ecau$e6 fro3 *ichat to cell 8athology6 the $cale$ and guide;line$ ha%e een di$8lacedH or ecau$e fro3 %i$ual in$8ection6 au$cultation and 8al8ation to

the u$e of the 3icro$co8e and iological te$t$6 the infor3ation $y$te3 ha$ een 3odifiedH or6 again6 ecau$e6 fro3 $i38leanato3oclinical correlation to the delicate analy$i$ of 8hy$io8athological 8roce$$e$6 the leDicon of $ign$ and their deci8her3ent ha$ een entirely recon$titutedH or6 finally6 ecau$e the doctor ha$ gradually cea$ed to e hi3$elf the locu$ of

the regi$tering and inter8retation of infor3ation6 and ecau$e6 e$ide hi36 out$ide hi36 there ha%e a88eared 3a$$e$ of

docu3entation6 in$tru3ent$ of correlation6 and techniBue$ of analy$i$6 which6 of cour$e6 he 3a<e$ u$e of6 ut which 3odifyhi$ 8o$ition a$ an o$er%ing $uJect in relation to the 8atient.

All the$e alteration$6 which 3ay now lead to the thre$hold of a new 3edicine6 gradually a88eared in 3edical di$cour$ethroughout the nineteenth century. If one wi$hed to define thi$ di$cour$e y a codified and nor3ati%e $y$te3 of $tate3ent6

one would ha%e to recognie that thi$ 3edicine di$integrated a$ $oon a$ it a88eared and that it really found it$ for3ulation

only in *ichat and ,aennec. If there i$ a unity6 it$ 8rinci8le i$ not therefore a deter3ined for3 of $tate3ent$H i$ it not rather the grou8 of rule$6 which6 $i3ultaneou$ly or in turn6 ha%e 3ade 8o$$ile 8urely 8erce8tual de$cri8tion$6 together with

o$er%ation$ 3ediated through in$tru3ent$6 the 8rocedure$ u$ed in laoratory eD8eri3ent$6 $tati$tical calculation$6

e8ide3iological or de3ogra8hic o$er%ation$6 in$titutional regulation$6 and thera8eutic 8ractice :hat one 3u$t characterieand indi%idualie i$ the coeDi$tence of the$e di$8er$ed and heterogeneou$ $tate3ent$H the $y$te3 that go%ern$ their di%i$ion6

the degree to which they de8end u8on one another6 the way

>>??

in which they interloc< or eDclude one another6 the tran$for3ation that they undergo6 and the 8lay of their location6

arrange3ent6 and re8lace3ent.

Another direction of re$earch6 another hy8othe$i$@ 3ight it not e 8o$$ile to e$tali$h grou8$ of $tate3ent$6 ydeter3ining the $y$te3 of 8er3anent and coherent conce8t$ in%ol%ed For eDa38le6 doe$ not the Cla$$ical analy$i$ of

language and gra33atical fact$ >fro3 ,ancelot to the end of the eighteenth century? re$t on a definite nu3er of conce8t$

who$e content and u$age had een e$tali$hed once and for all@ the conce8t of Judge3ent defined a$ the general6 nor3ati%efor3 of any $entence6 the conce8t$ of $uJect and 8redicate regrou8ed under the 3ore general category of noun6 the conce8t

of %er u$ed a$ the eBui%alent of that of logical co8ula6 the conce8t of word defined a$ the $ign of a re8re$entation6 etc. In

thi$ way6 one 3ight recon$titute the conce8tual architecture of Cla$$ical gra33ar. *ut there too one would $oon co3e u8again$t li3itation$@ no $ooner would one ha%e $ucceeded in de$criing with $uch ele3ent$ the analy$e$ carried out y the

Port;!oyal author$ than one would no dout e forced to ac<nowledge the a88earance of new conce8t$H $o3e of the$e 3ay e deri%ed fro3 the fir$t6 ut the other$ are heterogeneou$ and a few e%en inco38atile with the3. The notion of natural or

in%erted $yntactical order6 that of co38le3ent >introduced in the eighteenth century y *eauee?6 3ay $till no dout e

integrated into the conce8tual $y$te3 of the Port;!oyal gra33ar. *ut neither the idea of an originally eD8re$$i%e %alue of $ound$6 nor that of a 8ri3iti%e ody of <nowledge en%elo8ed in word$ and con%eyed in $o3e o$cure way y the36 nor that

of regularity in the 3utation of con$onant$6 nor the notion of the %er a$ a 3ere na3e ca8ale of de$ignating an action or

o8eration6 i$ co38atile with the grou8 of conce8t$ u$ed y ,ancelot or "uclo$. Mu$t we ad3it therefore that gra33ar onlya88ear$ to for3 a coherent figureH and that thi$ grou8 of $tate3ent$6 analy$e$6 de$cri8tion$6 8rinci8le$ and con;$eBuence$6

deduction$ that ha$ een 8er8etrated under thi$ na3e for o%er a century i$ no 3ore than a fal$e unity *ut 8erha8$ one 3ight

di$co%er a di$cur$i%e unity if one $ought it not in the coherence of conce8t$6 ut in their $i3ultaneou$ or $ucce$$i%ee3ergence6 in the di$tance that $e8arate$ the3 and e%en in their inco38atiility. One would no longer $ee< an architecture of

conce8t$ $ufficiently general

>>??

and a$tract to e3race all other$ and to introduce the3 into the $a3e deducti%e $tructureH one would try to analy$e the

inter8lay of their a88earance$ and di$8er$ion.

,a$tly6 a fourth hy8othe$i$ to regrou8 the $tate3ent$6 de$crie their interconneDion and account for the unitary for3$

under which they are 8re$ented@ the identity and. 8er$i$tence of the3e$. In G$cience$G li<e econo3ic$ or iology6 which are $o

contro%er$ial in character6 $o o8en to 8hilo$o8hical or ethical o8tion$6 $o eD8o$ed in certain ca$e$ to 8olit ical 3ani8ulation6 it

i$ legiti3ate in the fir$t in$tance to $u88o$e that a certain the3atic i$ ca8ale of lin<ing6 and ani3ating a grou8 of di$;cour$e$6 li<e an organi$3 with it$ own need$6 it$ own internal force6 and it$ own ca8acity for $ur%i%al. Could one not6 for



eDa38le6 con$titute a$ a unity e%erything that ha$ con$tituted the e%olutioni$t the3e fro3 *uffon to "arwin A the3e that in

the fir$t in$tance wa$ 3ore 8hilo$o8hical6 clo$er to co$3ology than to iologyH a the3e that directed re$earch fro3 afar rather

than na3ed6 regrou8ed6 and eD8lained re$ult$H a the3e that alway$ 8re$u88o$ed 3ore than one wa$ aware of6 ut which6 onthe a$i$ of thi$ funda3ental choice6 forcily tran$;for3ed into di$cur$i%e <nowledge what had een outlined a$ a hy8othe$i$

or a$ a nece$$ity. Could one not $8ea< of the Phy$iocratic the3e in the $a3e way An idea that 8o$tulated6 eyond all

de3on$tration and 8rior to all analy$i$6 the natural character of the three ground rent$H which con$eBuently 8re$u88o$ed theecono3ic and 8olitical 8ri3acy of agrarian 8ro8ertyH which eDcluded all analy$i$ of the 3echani$3$ of indu$trial 8roductionH

which i38lied6 on the other hand6 the de$cri8tion of the circulation of 3oney within a $tate6 of it$ di$triu tion etweendifferent $ocial categorie$6 and of the channel$ y which it flowed ac< into 8roductionH which finally led !icardo to con$ider tho$e ca$e$ in which thi$ tri8le rent did not a88ear6 the condition$ in which it could for36 and con$eBuently to denounce the

aritrarine$$ of the Phy$iocratic the3e

*ut on the a$i$ of $uch an atte38t6 one i$ led to 3a<e two in%er$e and co38le3entary o$er%ation$. In one ca$e6 the$a3e the3atic i$ articulated on the a$i$ of two $et$ of conce8t$6 two ty8e$ of analy$i$6 two 8erfectly different field$ of

oJect$@ in it$ 3o$t general for3ula;tion6 the e%olutioni$t idea i$ 8erha8$ the $a3e in the wor< of *enoit de Maillet6 *ordenor "iderot6 and in that of "arwinH ut6 in fact6 what

>>49??

3a<e$ it 8o$$ile and coherent i$ not at all the $a3e thing in either ca$e. In the eighteenth century6 the e%olutioni$t idea i$

defined on the a$i$ of a <in$hi8 of $8ecie$ for3ing a continuu3 laid down at the out$et >interru8ted only y natural

cata$tro8he$? or gradually uilt u8 y the 8a$$ing of ti3e. In the nineteenth century the e%olutioni$t the3e con cern$ not $o3uch the con$titution of a continuou$ tale of $8ecie$6 a$ the de$cri8tion of di$continuou$ grou8$ and the analy$i$ of the

3ode$ of interaction etween an organi$3 who$e ele3ent$ are interde8endent and an en%iron3ent that 8ro%ide$ it$ realcondition$ of life. A $ingle the3e6 ut a$ed on two ty8e$ of di$cour$e. In the ca$e of Phy$iocracy6 on the other hand6

1ue$nayG$ choice re$t$ eDactly on the $a3e $y$te3 of conce8t$ a$ the o88o$ite o8inion held y tho$e that 3ight e called

utilitari$t$. At thi$ 8eriod the analy$i$ of wealth in%ol%ed a relati%ely li3ited $et of conce8t$ that wa$ acce8ted y all >coinagewa$ gi%en the $a3e definitionH 8rice$ were gi%en the $a3e eD8lanationH and laour co$t$ were calculated in the $a3e way?.

*ut6 on the a$i$ of thi$ $ingle $et of conce8t$6 there were two way$ of eD8laining the for3ation of %alue6 according to

whether it wa$ analy$ed on the a$i$ of eDchange6 or on that of re3uneration for the day G$ wor<. The$e two 8o$$iilitie$contained within econo3ic theory6 and in the rule$ of it$ $et of conce8t$6 re$ulted6 on the a$i$ of the $a3e ele3ent$6 in two

different o8tion$.

It would 8roaly e wrong therefore to $ee< in the eDi$tence of the$e the3e$ the 8rinci8le$ of the indi%idualiation of adi$cour$e. Should they not e $ought rather in the di$8er$ion of the 8oint$ of choice that the di$cour$e lea%e$ free In the

different 8o$$iilitie$ that it o8en$ of reani3ating already eDi$ting the3e$6 of arou$ing o88o$ed $trategie$6 of gi%ing way to

irreconcilale intere$t$6 of 3a<ing it 8o$$ile6 with a 8articular $et of conce8t$6 to 8lay different ga3e$ !ather than $ee<ingthe 8er3anence of the3e$6 i3age$6 and o8inion$ through ti3e6 rather than retracing the dialectic of their conflict$ in order to

indi%idualie grou8$ of $tate3ent$6 could one not rather 3ar< out the di$8er$ion of the 8oint$ of choice6 and define 8rior toany o8tion6 to any the3atic 8reference6 a field of $trategic 8o$$iilitie$

I a3 8re$ented therefore with four atte38t$6 four failure$ and four $ucce$$i%e hy8othe$e$. They 3u$t now e 8ut to the

te$t. Concerning tho$e large grou8$ of $tate3ent$ with which we are $o fa3iliar and

>>4&??

which we call 3edicine6 econo3ic$6 or gra33ar I ha%e a$<ed 3y$elf on what their unity could e a$ed. On a full6 tightly

8ac<ed6 continuou$6 geogra8hically well;defined field of oJect$ :hat a88eared to 3e were rather $erie$ full of ga8$6intertwined with one another6 inter8lay$ of difference$6 di$tance$6 $u$titution$6 tran$for3ation$. On a definite6 nor3ati%e

ty8e of $tate3ent I found for3ulation$ of le%el$ that were 3uch too different and function$ that were 3uch too

heterogeneou$ to e lin<ed together and arranged in a $ingle figure6 and to $i3ulate6 fro3 one 8eriod to another6 eyond

indi%idual oeu%re$6 a $ort of great uninterru8ted teDt. On a well;defined al8haet of notion$ One i$ con;fronted withconce8t$ that differ in $tructure and in the rule$ go%ern;ing their u$e6 which ignore or eDclude one another6 and which cannotenter the unity of a logical architecture. On the 8er3anence of a the3atic :hat one find$ are rather %ariou$ $trategic

8o$$iilitie$ that 8er3it the acti%ation of inco38atile the3e$6 or6 again6 the e$tali$h3ent of the $a3e the3e in different

grou8$ of $tate3ent. 'ence the idea of de$criing the$e di$8er$ion$ the3$el%e$H of di$co%ering whether6 etween the$eele3ent$6 which are certainly not organied a$ a 8rogre$$i%ely deducti%e $tructure6 nor a$ an enor3ou$ oo< that i$ eing

gradually and continuou$ly written6 nor a$ the oeu%re of a collecti%e $uJect6 one cannot di$cern a regularity@ an order in their

$ucce$$i%e a88earance6 correlation$ in their $i3ultaneity6 a$$ignale 8o$ition$ in a co33on $8ace6 a reci8rocal functioning6lin<ed and hierarchied tran$;for3ation$. Such an analy$i$ would not try to i$olate $3all i$land$ of coherence in order to

de$crie their internal $tructureH it would not try to $u$8ect and to re%eal latent conflict$H it would $tudy for3$ of di%;i$ion. Or

again.@ in$tead of recon$tituting chain$ of inference >a$ one often doe$ in the hi$tory of the $cience$ or of 8hilo$o8hy?6 in$tead



of draw;ing u8 tale$ of difference$ >a$ the lingui$t$ do?6 it would de$crie $y$te3$ of di$8er$ion.

:hene%er one can de$crie6 etween a nu3er of $tate3ent$6 $uch a $y$te3 of di$8er$ion6 whene%er6 etween oJect$6

ty8e$ of $tate3ent6 conce8t$6 or the3atic choice$6 one can define a regularity >an order6 correlation$6 8o$ition$ and

functioning$6 tran$for3ation$?6 we will $ay6 for the $a<e of con%enience6 that we are dealing with a di$cur$i%e for3ation

thu$ a%oiding word$ that are already o%erladen with condition$ and con$eBuence$6 and in any ca$e inadeBuate to the ta$< of

de$ignating

>>42??

$uch a di$8er$ion6 $uch a$ G$cienceG6 GideologyG6 GtheoryG6 or Gdo3ain of oJecti%ityG. The condition$ to which the ele3ent$ of thi$ di%i$ion >oJect$6 3ode of $tate3ent6 conce8t$6 the3atic choice$? are $uJected we $hall call the rule$ of for3ation. The

rule$ of for3ation are condition$ of eDi$tence >ut al$o of coeDi$tence6 3aintenance6 3odification6 and di$a88earance? in a

gi%en di$cur$i%e di%i$ion.

Thi$6 then6 i$ the field to e co%eredH the$e the notion$ that we 3u$t 8ut to the te$t and the analy$e$ that we 3u$t carry out.

I a3 well aware that the ri$<$ are con$iderale. For an initial 8roe6 I 3ade u$e of certain fairly loo$e6 ut fa3iliar6 grou8$ of

$tate3ent@ I ha%e no 8roof that I $hall find the3 again at the end of the analy$i$6 nor that I $hall di$co%er the 8rinci8le of their

deli3itation and indi%idualiationH I a3 not $ure that the di$cur$i%e for3ation$ that I $hall i$olate will define 3edicine in it$

o%erall unity6 or econo3ic$ and gra33ar in the o%erall cur%e of their hi$torical de$tinationH they 3ay e%en introduce

uneD8ected oundarie$ and di%i$ion$. Si3ilarly6 I ha%e no 8roof that $uch a de$cri8tion will e ale to ta<e account of the

$cientificity >or non;$cientificity? of the di$cur$i%e grou8$ that I ha%e ta<en a$ an attac< 8oint and which 8re$entedthe3$el%e$ at the out$et with a certain 8reten$ion to $cientific rationalityH I ha%e no 8roof that 3y analy$i$ will not e $ituated

at a Buite different le%el6 con$tituting a de$cri8tion that i$ irreducile to e8i$te3ology or to the hi$tory of the $cience$. More;

o%er6 at the end of $uch an enter8ri$e6 one 3ay not reco%er tho$e unitie$ that6 out of 3ethodological rigour6 one initially held

in $u$8en$e@ one 3ay e co38elled to di$$ociate certain eu%re$6 ignore influence$ and tradition$6 aandon definiti%ely the

Bue$tion of origin6 allow the co33anding 8re$ence of author$ to fade into the ac<groundH and thu$ e%erything that wa$

thought to e 8ro8er to the hi$tory of idea$ 3ay di$a88ear fro3 %iew. The danger6 in $hort6 i$ that in$tead of 8ro%iding a a$i$

for what already eDi$t$6 in$tead of going o%er with old $tro<e$ line$ that ha%e already een $<etched6 in$tead of finding

rea$$urance in thi$ return and final confir3ation6 in$tead of co38leting the le$$ed circle that announce$6 after innu3erale

$tratage3$ and a$ 3any night$6 that all i$ $a%ed6 one i$ forced to ad%ance eyond fa3iliar territory6 far fro3 the certaintie$ to

which one i$ accu$to3ed6 toward$ an a$ yet uncharted land and unfore$eeale conclu$ion. I$ there not a danger that

e%erything that ha$ $o far 8rotected the hi$torian in hi$ daily

>>4??

Journey and acco38anied hi3 until nightfall >the de$tiny of rationality and the teleology of the $cience$6 the long6 continuou$

laour of thought fro3 8eriod to 8eriod6 the awa<ening and the 8rogre$$ of con$ciou$ne$$6 it$ 8er8etual re$u38tion of it$elf6the unco38leted6 ut uninterru8ted 3o%e3ent of totaliation$6 the return to an e%er;o8en $ource6 and finally the hi$torico;

tran$cendental the3atic? 3ay di$a88ear6 lea%ing for analy$i$ a lan<6 indifferent $8ace6 lac<ing in oth interiority and

8ro3i$e

>>44??

3. THE FORMATION OF OBJECTS

:e 3u$t now li$t the %ariou$ direction$ that lie o8en to u$6 and $ee whether thi$ notion of rule$ of for3ationG of which

little 3ore than a rough $<etch ha$ $o far een 8ro%ided can e gi%en real content. ,et u$ loo< fir$t at the for3ation of

oJect$. And in order to facilitate our analy$i$6 let u$ ta<e a$ an eDa38le the di$cour$e of 8$ycho8athology fro3 thenineteenth century onward$ a chronological rea< that i$ ea$y enough to acce8t in a fir$t a88roach to the $uJect. There are

enough $ign$ to indicate it6 ut let u$ ta<e Ju$t two of the$e@ the e$tali$h3ent at the eginning of the century of a new 3ode

of eDclu$ion and confine3ent of the 3ad3an in a 8$ychiatric ho$8italH and the 8o$$iility of tracing certain 8re$ent;day



notion$ ac< to E$Buirol6 'einroth6 or Pinel >8aranoia can e traced ac< to 3ono3ania6 the intelligence Buotient to the

initial notion of i3ecility6 general 8araly$i$ to chronic ence8haliti$6 character neuro$i$ to non;deliriou$ 3adne$$?H wherea$ if

we try to trace the de%elo83ent of 8$ycho;8athology eyond the nineteenth century6 we $oon lo$e our way6 the 8ath eco3e$confu$ed6 and the 8roJection of "u ,auren$ or e%en (an Swieten on the 8athology of Krae8elin or *leuler 8ro%ide$ no 3ore

than chance coincidence$. The oJect$ with which 8$ycho8athology ha$ dealt $ince thi$ rea< in ti3e are %ery nu3erou$6

3o$tly %ery new6 ut al$o %ery 8recariou$6 $uJect to change and6 in $o3e ca$e$6 to ra8id

>>40??

di$a88earance@ in addition to 3otor di$turance$6 hallucination$6 and $8eech di$order$ >which were already regarded a$

3anife$tation$ of 3adne$$6 although they were recognied6 deli3ited6 de$cried6 and analy$ed in a different way?6 oJect$

a88eared that elonged to hitherto unu$ed regi$ter$@ 3inor eha%ioural di$order$6 $eDual aerration$ and di$turance$6 the

8heno3ena of $ugge$tion and hy8no$i$6 le$ion$ of the central ner%ou$ $y$te36 deficiencie$ of intellectual or 3otor ada8ta;

tion6 cri3inality. And on the a$i$ of each of the$e regi$ter$ a %ariety of oJect$ were na3ed6 circu3$tance$ $cried6

analy$ed6 then rectified6 re;defined6 challenged6 era$ed. I$ it 8o$$ile to lay down the rule to which their a88earance wa$

$uJect I$ it 8o$$ile to di$co%er according to which non;deducti%e $y$te3 the$e oJect$ could e JuDta8o$ed and 8laced in

$ucce$$ion to for3 the frag3ented field $howing at certain 8oint$ great ga8$6 at other$ a 8lethora of infor3ation of

8$ycho8athology :hat ha$ ruled their eDi$tence a$ oJect$ of di$cour$e

>a? Fir$t we 3u$t 3a8 the fir$t $urface$ of their e3ergence@ $how where the$e indi%idual difference$6 which6 according tothe degree$ of rationaliation6 conce8tual code$6 and ty8e$ of theory6 will e accorded the $tatu$ of di$ea$e6 alienation6

ano3aly6 de3entia6 neuro$i$ or 8$ycho$i$6 degeneration6 etc.6 3ay e3erge6 and then e de$ignated and analy$ed. The$e

$urface$ of e3ergence are not the $a3e for different $ocietie$6 at different 8eriod$6 and in different for3$ of di$cour$e. In theca$e of nineteenth;century 8$ycho8athology6 they were 8roaly con$tituted y the fa3ily6 the i33ediate $ocial grou86 the

wor< $ituation6 the religiou$ co33unity >which are all nor3ati%e6 which are all $u$ce8tile to de%iation6 which all ha%e a3argin of tolerance and a thre$hold eyond which eDclu$ion i$ de3anded6 which all ha%e a 3ode of de$ignation and a 3ode

of reJecting 3adne$$6 which all tran$fer to 3edicine if not the re$8on$iility for treat3ent and cure6 at lea$t the urden of

eD8lanation?H although organied according to a $8ecific 3ode6 the$e $urface$ of e3ergence were not new in the nineteenthcentury. On the other hand6 it wa$ no dout at thi$ 8eriod that new $urface$ of a88earance egan to function@ art with it$ own

nor3ati%ity6 $eDuality >it$ de%iation$ in relation to cu$to3ary 8rohiition$ eco3e for the fir$t ti3e an oJect of o$er%ation6

de$cri8tion6 and analy$i$ for 8$ychiatric

>>4-??

di$cour$e?6 8enality >wherea$ in 8re%iou$ 8eriod$ 3adne$$ wa$ care;fully di$tingui$hed fro3 cri3inal conduct and wa$

regarded a$ an eDcu$e6 cri3inality it$elf eco3e$ and $u$eBuent to the celerated ho3icidal 3ono3ania$G a for3 of

de%iance 3ore or le$$ related to 3adne$$?. In the$e field$ of initial differentiation6 in the di$tance$6 the di$continuitie$6 andthe thre$hold$ that a88ear within it6 8$ychiatric di$cour$e find$ a way of li3iting it$ do3ain6 of defining what it i$ tal<ing

aout6 of gi%ing it the $tatu$ of an oJect and therefore of 3a<ing it 3anife$t6 na3eale6 and de$criale.

b):e 3u$t al$o de$crie the authoritie$ of deli3itation@ in the nineteenth century6 3edicine >a$ an in$titution

8o$$e$$ing it$ own rule$6 a$ a grou8 of indi%idual$ con$tituting the 3edical 8rofe$$ion6 a$ a ody of <nowledge and 8ractice6 a$ an authority recognied y 8ulic o8inion6 the law6 and go%ern3ent? eca3e the 3aJor authority in $ociety

that deli3ited6 de$ignated6 na3ed6 and e$tali$hed 3adne$$ a$ an oJectH ut it wa$ not alone in thi$@ the law and 8enal

law in 8articular >with the definition$ of eDcu$e6 non;re$8on$iility6 eDtenuating circu3$tance$6 and with the a88licationof $uch. notion$ a$ the cri3e 8a$$ionel6 heredity6 danger to $ociety?6 the religiou$ authority >in $o far a$ it $et it$elf u8 a$

the authority that di%ided the 3y$tical fro3 the 8athological6 the $8iritual fro3 the cor8oreal6 the $u8ernatural fro3 the

anor3al6 and in $o far a$ it 8racti$ed the direction of con$cience with a %iew to under$tanding indi%idual$ rather than

carrying out a ca$ui$tical cla$$ification of action$ and circu3$tance$?6 literary and art critici$3 >which in the nineteenthcentury treated the wor< le$$ and le$$ a$ an oJect of ta$te that had to e Judged6 and 3ore and 3ore a$ a language that

had to e inter8reted and in which the author G$ tric<$ of eD8re$$ion had to e recognied?.

c),a$tly6 we 3u$t analy$e the grid$ of $8ecification@ the$e are the $y$te3$ according to which the different <ind$ of

3adne$$G are di%ided6 contra$ted6 related6 regrou8ed6 cla$$ified6 deri%ed fro3 one another a$ oJect$ of 8$ychiatric

di$cour$e >in the nineteenth century6 the$e grid$ of differentiation were@ the $oul6 a$ a grou8 of hierarchied6 related6 and

3ore or le$$ inter8enetrale facultie$H the ody6 a$ a three;di3en$ional %olu3e of organ$ lin<ed together y networ<$ of



>>4)??

de8endence and co33unicationH the life and hi$tory of indi%idual$6 a$ a linear $ucce$$ion of 8ha$e$6 a tangle of trace$6 a

grou8 of 8otential reacti%ation$6 cyclical re8etition$H the inter8lay$ of neuro8$ychological correlation$ a$ $y$te3$ of

reci8rocal 8roJection$6 and a$ a field of circular cau$ality?.

Such a de$cri8tion i$ $till in it$elf inadeBuate. And for two rea$on$. The$e 8lane$ of e3ergence6 authoritie$ of deli3itation6

or for3$ of $8ecification do not 8ro%ide oJect$6 fully for3ed and ar3ed6 that the di$cour$e of 8$ycho8athology ha$ then3erely to li$t6 cla$$ify6 na3e6 $elect6 and co%er with a networ< of word$ and $entence$@ it i$ not the fa3ilie$ with their

nor3$6 their 8rohiition$6 their $en$iti%ity thre$h;old$ that decide who i$ 3ad6 and 8re$ent the G 8atient$G to the 8$ychiatri$t$

for analy$i$ and Judge3entH it i$ not the legal $y$te3 it$elf that hand$ o%er certain cri3inal$ to 8$ychiatry6 that $ee$ 8aranoia

eyond a 8articular 3urder6 or a neuro$i$ ehind a $eDual offence. It would e Buite wrong to $ee di$cour$e a$ a 8lace where 8re%iou$ly e$tali$hed oJect$ are laid one after another li<e word$ on a 8age. *ut the ao%e enu3eration i$ inadeBuate for a

$econd rea$on. It ha$ located6 one after another6 $e%eral 8lane$ of differentiation in which the oJect$ of di$;cour$e 3ay

a88ear. *ut what relation$ eDi$t etween the3 :hy thi$ enu3eration rather than another :hat defined and clo$ed grou8doe$ one i3agine one i$ circu3$criing in thi$ way And how can one $8ea< of a G$y$te3 of for3ationG if one <now$ only a

$erie$ of different6 heterogeneou$ deter3ination$6 lac<ing attriutale lin<$ and relation$

In fact6 the$e two $erie$ of Bue$tion$ refer ac< to the $a3e 8oint. In order to locate that 8oint6 let u$ re;eDa3ine the 8re%iou$ eDa38le. In the $8here with which 8$ycho8athology dealt in the nineteenth century6 one $ee$ the %ery early

a88earance >a$ early a$ E$Buirol? of a whole $erie$ of oJect$ elonging to the category of delinBuency@ ho3icide >and

$uicide?6 cri3e$ 8a$$ionel$6 $eDual offence$6 certain for3$ of theft6 %agrancy and then6 through the36 heredity6 the

neurogenic en%iron3ent6 aggre$$i%e or $elf;8uni$hing eha%iour6 8er%er$ion$6 cri3inal i38ul$e$6 $ugge$tiility6 etc. It would e inadeBuate to $ay that one wa$ dealing here with the con$eBuence$ of a di$co%ery@ of the $udden di$co%ery y a 8$ychiatri$t of a re$e3lance etween cri3inal and 8athological eha%iour6 a di$co%ery of the 8re$ence in certain

>>4??

delinBuent$ of the cla$$ical $ign$ of alienation6 or 3ental derange3ent. Such fact$ lie eyond the gra$8 of conte38orary

re$earch@ indeed6 the 8role3 i$ how to decide what 3ade the3 8o$$ile6 and how the$e Gdi$co%erie$G could lead to other$ thattoo< the3 u86 rectified the36 3odified the36 or e%en di$8ro%ed the3. Si3ilarly6 it would he irrele %ant to attriute the

a88earance of the$e new oJect$ to the nor3$ of nineteenth;century ourgeoi$ $ociety6 to a reinforced 8olice and 8enal

fra3ewor<6 to the e$tali$h3ent of a new code of cri3inal Ju$tice6 to the introduction and u$e of eDtenuating circu3$tance$6to the increa$e in cri3e. No dout6 all the$e 8roce$$e$ were at wor<H ut they could not of the3$el%e$ for3 oJect$ for

8$ychiatric di$cour$eH to 8ur$ue the de$cri8tion at thi$ le%el one would fall $hort of what one wa$ $ee<ing.

If6 in a 8articular 8eriod in the hi$tory of our $ociety6 the delinBuent wa$ 8$ychologied and 8athologied6 if cri3inal eha%iour could gi%e ri$e to a whole $erie$ of oJect$ of <nowledge6 thi$ wa$ ecau$e a grou8 of 8articular relation$ wa$

ado8ted for u$e in 8$ychiatric di$cour$e. The relation etween 8lane$ of $8ecification li<e 8enal categorie$ and degree$ of di3ini$hed re$8on$iility6 and 8lane$ of 8$ychological characteriation >facultie$6 a8titude$6 degree$ of de%elo83ent or

in%olution6 different way$ of reacting to the en%iron3ent6 character ty8e$6 whether acBuired6 innate6 or hereditary?. The

relation etween the authority of 3edical deci$ion and the authority of Judicial deci$ion >a really co38leD relation $ince3edical deci$ion recognie$ a$olutely the authority of the Judiciary to define cri3e6 to deter3ine the circu3 $tance$ in which

it i$ co33itted6 and the 8uni$h3ent that it de$er%e$H ut re$er%e$ the right to analy$e it$ origin and to deter3ine the degree of

re$8on$iility in%ol%ed?. The relation etween the filter for3ed y Judicial interrogation6 8olice infor3ation6 in%e$tigation6and the whole 3achinery of Judicial infor3ation6 and the filter for3ed y the 3edical Bue$tionnaire6 clinical eDa3ination$6

the $earch for antecedent$6 and iogra8hical account$. The relation etween the fa3ily6 $eDual and 8enal nor3$ of the

eha%iour of indi%idual$6 and the tale of 8athological $y38to3$ and di$ea$e$ of which they are the $ign$. The relation etween thera8eutic confine3ent in ho$8ital >with it$ own thre$hold$6 it$ criteria of cure6 it$ way of di$tingui$hing the nor3al

fro3 the 8athological? and 8uniti%e confine3ent in 8ri$on >with it$ $y$te3 of 8uni$h3ent and 8edagogy6 it$ criteria of good

conduct6 i38ro%e3ent6

((49))

and freedo3?. The$e are the relation$ that6 o8erating in 8$ychiatric di$cour$e6 ha%e 3ade 8o$$ile the for3ation of a whole

grou8 of %ariou$ oJect$.,et u$ generalie@ in. the nineteenth century6 8$ychiatric di$cour$e i$ characteried not y 8ri%ileged oJect$6 ut y the

way in which it for3$ oJect$ that are in fact highly di$8er$ed. Thi$ for3ation i$ 3ade 8o$$ile y a grou8 of relation$

e$tali$hed etween authoritie$ of e3ergence6 deli3itation6 and $8ecification. One 3ight $ay6 then6 that a di$cur$i%efor3ation i$ defined >a$ far a$ it$ oJect$ are concerned6 at lea$t? if one can e$tali$h $uch a grou8H if one can $how how any

8articular oJect of di$cour$e find$ in it it$ 8lace and law of e3ergenceH if one can $how that it 3ay gi%e irth

$i3ultaneou$ly or $ucce$$i%ely to 3utually eDclu$i%e oJect$6 without ha%ing to 3odify it$elf.'ence a certain nu3er of re3ar<$ and con$eBuence$.



1.The condition$ nece$$ary for the a88earance of an oJect of di$cour$e6 the hi$torical condition$ reBuired if one i$ to

G$ay anythingG aout it6 and if $e%eral 8eo8le are to $ay different thing$ aout it6 the condition$ nece$$ary if it i$ to eDi$t inrelation to other oJect$6 if it i$ to e$tali$h with the3 relation$ of re$e3lance6 8roDi3ity6 di$tance6 dif ference6

tran$for3ation a$ we can $ee6 the$e condition$ are 3any and i38o$ing. :hich 3ean$ that one cannot $8ea< of

anything at any ti3eH it i$ not ea$y to $ay $o3ething newH it i$ not enough for u$ to o8en our eye$6 to 8ay attention6 or to e aware6 for new oJect$ $uddenly to light u8 and e3erge out of the ground. *ut thi$ difficulty i$ not only a negati%e

oneH it 3u$t not e attached to $o3e o$tacle who$e 8ower a88ear$ to e6 eDclu$i%ely6 to lind6 to hinder6 to 8re%ent

di$co%ery6 to conceal the 8urity of the e%idence or the du3 o$tinacy of the thing$ the3$el%e$H the oJect doe$ not awaitin li3o the order that will free it and enale it to eco3e e3odied in a %i$ile and 8roliD oJecti%ityH it doe$ not 8re;

eDi$t it$elf6 held ac< y $o3e o$tacle at the fir$t edge$ of light. It eDi$t$ under the 8o$iti%e condition$ of a co38leDgrou8 of relation$.

2.The$e relation$ are e$tali$hed etween in$titution$6 econo3ic and $ocial 8roce$$e$6 eha%ioural 8attern$6 $y$te3$

of nor3$6 techniBue$6 ty8e$ of cla$$ification6 3ode$ of characteriationH and the$e

>>09??

relation$ are not 8re$ent in the oJectH it i$ not they that are de8loyed when the oJect i$ eing analy$edH they do not indicatethe we6 the i33anent rationality6 that ideal ner%ure that rea88ear$ totally or in 8art when one concei%e$ of the oJect in the

truth of it$ conce8t. They do not define it$ internal con$titution6 ut what enale$ it to a88ear6 to JuDta8o$e it$elf with other oJect$6 to $ituate it$elf in relation to the36 to define it$ difference6 it$ irreduciility6 and e%en 8erha8$ it$ heterogeneity6 in

$hort6 to e 8laced in a field of eDteriority.

3.The$e relation$ 3u$t e di$tingui$hed fir$t fro3 what we 3ight call G 8ri3aryG relation$6 and which6 inde8endently of

all di$cour$e or all oJect of di$cour$e6 3ay e de$cried etween in$titution$6 techniBue$6 $ocial for3$6 etc. After all6 we

<now %ery well that relation$ eDi$ted etween the ourgeoi$ fa3ily and the functioning of Judicial authoritie$ and

categorie$ in the nineteenth century that can he analy$ed in their own right. They cannot alway$ e $u8er8o$ed u8on therelation$ that go to for3 oJect$@ the relation$ of de8endence that 3ay e a$$igned to thi$ 8ri3ary le%el are not nece$$arily

eD8re$$ed in the for3ation of relation$ that 3a<e$ di$cur$i%e oJect$ 8o$$ile. *ut we 3u$t al$o di$tingui$h the $econdary

relation$ that are for3ulated in di$cour$e it$elf@ what6 for eDa38le6 the 8$ychiatri$t$ of the nineteenth century could $ayaout the relation$ etween the fa3ily and cri3inality doe$ not re8roduce6 a$ we <now6 the inter8lay of real de8endencie$H

ut neither doe$ it re8roduce the inter8lay of relation$ that 3a<e 8o$$ile and $u$tain the oJect$ of 8$ychiatric di$cour$e.Thu$ a $8ace unfold$ articulated with 8o$$ile di$cour$e$@ a $y$te3 of real or 8ri3ary relation$6 a $y$te3 of refleDi%e or

$econdary relation$6 and a $y$te3 of relation$ that 3ight 8ro8erly e called di$cur$i%e. The 8role3 i$ to re%eal the

$8ecificity of the$e di$cur$i%e relation$6 and their inter8lay with the other two <ind$.

4."i$cur$i%e relation$ are not6 a$ we can $ee6 internal to di$cour$e@ they do not connect conce8t$ or word$ with one

anotherH they do not e$tali$h a deducti%e or rhetorical $tructure etween 8ro8o$ition$ or $entence$. 5et they are not

relation$ eDterior to di$cour$e6 relation$ that 3ight li3it it6 or i38o$e certain for3$ u8on it6 or force it6 in certain

circu3$tance$6 to $tate certain thing$. They are6 in a $en$e6 at the li3it

>>0&??of di$cour$e@ they offer it oJect$ of which it can $8ea<6 or rather >for thi$ i3age of offering 8re$u88o$e$ that oJect$ are

for3ed inde8endently of di$cour$e?6 they deter3ine the grou8 of relation$ that di$;cour$e 3u$t e$tali$h in order to $8ea< of

thi$ or that oJect6 in order to deal with the36 na3e the36 analy$e the36 cla$$ify the36 eD8lain the36 etc. The$e relation$characterie not the language >langue? u$ed y di$;cour$e6 nor the circu3$tance$ in which it i$ de8loyed6 ut di$cour$e it$elf

a$ a 8ractice.

:e can now co38lete the analy$i$ and $ee to what eDtent it fulfil$6 and to what eDtent it 3odifie$6 the initial 8roJect.

Ta<ing tho$e grou8 figure$ which6 in an in$i$tent ut confu$ed way6 8re$ented the3$el%e$ a$ 8$ychology6 econo3ic$6

gra33ar6 3edicine6 we a$<ed on what <ind of unity they could e a$ed@ were they $i38ly a recon$truc tion after the e%ent6

a$ed on 8articular wor<$6 $ucce$$i%e theorie$6 notion$ and the3e$ $o3e of which had een aandoned6 other$ 3ain tained y

tradition6 and again other$ fated to fall into oli%ion only to e re%i%ed at a later date :ere they $i38ly a $erie$ of lin<ed

enter8ri$e$

:e $ought the unity of di$cour$e in the oJect$ the3$el%e$6 in their di$triution6 in the inter8lay of their difference$6 in

their 8roDi3ity or di$tance in $hort6 in what i$ gi%en to the $8ea<ing $uJectH and6 in the end6 we are $ent ac< to a $etting;



u8 of relation$ that characterie$ di$cur$i%e 8ractice it$elfH and what we di$co%er i$ neither a configuration6 nor a for36 ut a

grou8 of rule$ that are i33anent in a 8ractice6 and define it in it$ $8ecificity. :e al$o u$ed6 a$ a 8oint of reference6 a unity

li<e 8$ycho8athology@ if we had wanted to 8ro%ide it with a date of irth and 8reci$e li3it$6 it would no dout ha%e een

nece$$ary to di$co%er when the word wa$ fir$t u$ed6 to what <ind of analy$i$ it could e a88lied6 and how it achie%ed it$

$e8aration fro3 neurology on the one hand and 8$ychology on the other. :hat ha$ e3erged i$ a unity of another ty8e6 which

doe$ not a88ear to ha%e the $a3e date$6 or the $a3e $urface6 or the $a3e articulation$6 ut which 3ay ta<e account of a grou8

of oJect$ for which the ter3 8$ycho8athology wa$ 3erely a refleDi%e6 $econdary6 cla$$ificatory ruric. P$ycho8athologyfinally e3erged a$ a di$ci8line in a con$tant $tate of renewal6 $uJect to con$tant di$co%erie$6 critici$3$6 and corrected error$H

the $y$te3 of

>>02??for3ation that we ha%e defined re3ain$ $tale. *ut let there e no 3i$under$tanding@ it i$ not the oJect$ that re3ain

con$tant6 nor the do3ain that they for3H it i$ not e%en their 8oint of e3ergence or their 3ode of characteriationH ut the

relation etween the $urface$ on which they a88ear6 on which they can e deli3ited6 on which they can e analy$ed and$8ecified.

In the de$cri8tion$ for which I ha%e atte38ted to 8ro%ide a theory6 there can e no Bue$tion of inter8reting di$cour$e witha %iew to writing a hi$tory of the referent. In the eDa38le cho$en6 we are not trying to find out who wa$ 3ad at a 8articular

8eriod6 or in what hi$ 3adne$$ con$i$ted6 or whether hi$ di$turance$ were identical with tho$e <nown to u$ today. :e are not

a$<ing our$el%e$ whether witche$ were unrecognied and 8re$ecuted 3ad3en and 3adwo3en6 or whether6 at a different 8eriod6 a 3y$tical or ae$thetic eD8erience wa$ not unduly 3edicalied. :e are not trying to recon$titute what 3adne$$ it$elf

3ight e6 in the for3 in which it fir$t 8re$ented it$elf to $o3e 8ri3iti%e6 funda3ental6 deaf6 $carcely articulated G eD8erience6

and in the for3 in which it wa$ later organied >tran$lated6 defor3ed6 tra%e$tied6 8erha8$ e%en re8re$$ed? y di$cour$e$6 andthe oliBue6 often twi$ted 8lay of their o8eration$. Such a hi$tory of the referent i$ no dout 8o$$ileH and I ha%e no wi$h at

the out$et to eDclude any effort to unco%er and free the$e G8redi$cur$i%eG eD8erience$ fro3 the tyranny of the teDt. *ut what

we are concerned with here i$ not to neutralie di$cour$e6 to 3a<e it the $ign of $o3ething el$e6 and to 8ierce through it$den$ity in order to reach what re3ain$ $ilently anterior to it6 ut on the contrary to 3aintain it in it$ con$i$tency6 to 3a<e it

e3erge in it$ own co38leDity. :hat6 in $hort6 we wi$h to do i$ to di$8en$e with Gthing$G. To Gde8re$entifyG the3. To conJure u8

their rich6 hea%y6 i33ediate 8lenitude6 which we u$ually regard a$ the 8ri3iti%e law of a di$cour$e that ha$ eco3e di%orced.fro3 it through error6 oli%ion6 illu$ion6 ignorance6 or the inertia of elief$ and tradition$6 or e%en the 8erha8$ uncon$ciou$

de$ire not to $ee and not to $8ea<. To $u$titute for the enig3atic trea$ure of Gthing$G anterior to di$cour$e6 the regular

for3ation of oJect$ that e3erge only in

>>footnote??

G Thi$ i$ written again$t an eD8licit the3e of 3y oo< Madne$$ and Ci%iliation6 and one that recur$ 8articularly in the 8reface.

>>0??

di$cour$e. To define the$e oJect$ without reference to the ground6 the foundation of thing$6 ut y relating the3 to the ody

of rule$ that enale the3 to for3 a$ oJect$ of a di$cour$e and thu$ con$titute the condi tion$ of their hi$torical a88earance. To

write a hi$tory of di$cur$i%e oJect$ that doe$ not 8lunge the3 into the co33on de8th of a 8ri3al $oil6 ut de8loy$ the neDu$of regularitie$ that go%ern their di$8er$ion.

'owe%er6 to $u88re$$ the $tage of Gthing$ the3$el%e$G i$ not nece$$arily to return to the lingui$tic analy$i$ of 3eaning.

:hen one de$crie$ the for3ation of the oJect$ of a di$cour$e6 one trie$ to locate the relation$ that characterie a di$cur$i%e 8ractice6 one deter3ine$ neither a leDical organiation6 nor the $can$ion$ of a $e3antic field@ one doe$ not Bue$tion the

3eaning gi%en at a 8articular 8eriod to $uch word$ a$

G

3elancholia

G

or

G

3adne$$ without deliriu3

G

6 nor the o88o$ition of content etween G 8$ycho$i$G and Gneuro$i$G. Not6 I re8eat6 that $uch analy$e$ are regarded a$ illegiti3ate or i38o$$ileH utthey are not rele%ant when we are trying to di$co%er6 for eDa38le6 how cri3inality could eco3e an oJect of 3edical

eD8erti$e6 or $eDual de%iation a 8o$$ile oJect of 8$ychiatric di$cour$e. The analy$i$ of leDical content$ define$ either the

ele3ent$ of 3eaning at the di$8o$al of $8ea<ing $uJect$ in a gi%en 8eriod6 or the $e3antic $tructure that a88ear$ on the$urface of a di$cour$e that ha$ already een $8o<enH it doe$ not concern di$cur$i%e 8ractice a$ a 8lace in which a tangled

8lurality at once $u8er8o$ed and inco38lete of oJect$ i$ for3ed and defor3ed6 a88ear$ and di$a88ear$.

The $agacity of the co33entator$ i$ not 3i$ta<en@ fro3 the <ind of analy$i$ that I ha%e underta<en6 word$ are a$

delierately a$ent a$ thing$ the3$el%e$H any de$cri8tion of a %ocaulary i$ a$ lac<ing a$ any refer ence to the li%ing 8lenitude

of eD8erience. :e $hall not return to the $tate anterior to di$cour$e in which nothing ha$ yet een $aid6 and in which thing$



are only Ju$t eginning to e3erge out of the grey lightH and we $hall not 8a$$ eyond di$cour$e in order to redi$co%er the

for3$ that it ha$ created and left ehind itH we $hall re3ain6 or try to re3ain6 at the le%el of di$cour$e it$elf. Since it i$

$o3eti3e$ nece$$ary to dot the GiG$ of e%en the 3o$t o%iou$ a$ence$6 I will $ay that in all the$e $earche$6 in which I ha%e

$till 8rogre$$ed $o little6 I would li<e to $how that Gdi$cour$e$G6 in the for3 in which they can he heard or read6 are not6 a$ one

3ight eD8ect6 a 3ere inter$ection of thing$ and word$@ an

>>04??

o$cure we of thing$6 and a 3anife$t6 %i$ile6 coloured chain of word$H I would li<e to $how that di$cour$e i$ not a $lender

$urface of contact6 or confrontation6 etween a reality and a language >longue?6 the intrication of a leDicon and an eD8erienceH

I would li<e to $how with 8reci$e eDa38le$ that in analy$ing di$cour$e$ the3$el%e$6 one $ee$ the loo$ening of the e3race6a88arently $o tight6 of word$ and thing$6 and the e3ergence of a grou8 of rule$ 8ro8er to di$cur$i%e 8ractice. The$e rule$

define not the du3 eDi$tence of a reality6 nor the canonical u$e of a %ocaulary6 ut the ordering of oJect$. :ord$ and

thing$G i$ the entirely $eriou$ title of a 8role3H it i$ the ironic title of a wor< that 3odifie$ it$ own for36 di$8lace$ it$ owndata6 and re%eal$6 at the end of the day6 a Buite different ta$<. A ta$< that con$i$t$ of not of no longer treating di$cour$e$

a$ grou8$ of $ign$ >$ignifying ele3ent$ referring to content$ or re8re$entation$? ut a$ 8ractice$ that $y$te3atically for3 the

oJect$ of which they $8ea<. Of cour$e6 di$cour$e$ are co38o$ed of $ign$H ut what they do i$ 3ore than u$e the$e $ign$ to

de$ignate thing$. It i$ thi$ 3ore that render$ the3 irreducile to the language >longue? and to $8eech. It i$ thi$ 3oreG that we

3u$t re%eal and de$crie.

>>00??

4. THE FORMATION OF

ENUNCIATIVE MODALITIES

1ualitati%e de$cri8tion$6 iogra8hical account$6 the location6 inter8retation6 and cro$$;chec<ing of $ign$6 rea$oning$ y

analogy6 deduction6 $tati$tical calculation$6 eD8eri3ental %erification$6 and 3any other for3$ of $tate3ent are to e found in

the di$cour$e of nineteenth;century doctor$. :hat i$ it that lin<$ the3 together :hat nece$$ity ind$ the3 together :hy

the$e and not other$ *efore atte38ting an an$wer to $uch Bue$tion$6 we 3u$t fir$t di$co%er the law o8erating ehind all

the$e di%er$e $tate3ent$6 and the 8lace fro3 which they co3e.

>a? Fir$t Bue$tion@ who i$ $8ea<ing :ho6 a3ong the totality of $8ea<ing indi%idual$6 i$ accorded the right to u$e thi$ $ort

of language >langage? :ho i$ Bualified to do $o :ho deri%e$ fro3 it hi$ own $8ecial Buality6 hi$ 8re$tige6 and fro3 who36in return6 doe$ he recei%e if not the a$$urance6 at lea$t the 8re$u38tion that what he $ay$ i$ true :hat i$ the $tatu$ of the

indi%idual$ who alone ha%e the right6 $anctioned y law or tradition.6 Juridically defined or $8ontaneou$ly acce8ted6 to

8roffer $uch a di$cour$e The $tatu$ of doctor in%ol%e$ criteria of co38etence and <nowledgeH in$titution$6 $y$te3$6

>>0-??

8edagogic nor3$H legal condition$ that gi%e the right though not without laying down certain li3itation$ to 8racti$e and

to eDtend oneG$ <nowledge. It al$o in%ol%e$ a $y$te3 of differentiation and relation$ >the di%i$ion of attriution$6 hierarchical$uordination6 functional co38le3entarity6 the reBue$t for and the 8ro%i$ion and eDchange of infor3ation? with other

indi%idual$ or other grou8$ that al$o 8o$$e$$ their own $tatu$ >with the $tate and it$ re8re$entati%e$6 with the Judiciary6 with

different 8rofe$$ional odie$6 with religiou$ grou8$ and6 at ti3e$6 with 8rie$t$?. It al$o in%ol%e$ a nu3er of characteri$tic$that define it$ functioning in relation to $ociety a$ a whole >the role that i$ attriuted to the doctor according to whether he i$

con$ulted y a 8ri%ate 8er$on or $u33oned6 3ore or le$$ under co38ul$ion6 y $ociety6 according to whether he 8racti$e$ a

8rofe$$ion or carrie$ out a functionH the right to inter%ene or 3a<e deci$ion$ that i$ accorded hi3 in the$e different ca$e$H



what i$ reBuired of hi3 a$ the $u8er%i$or6 guardian6 and guarantor of the health of a 8o8ulation6 a grou86 a fa3ily6 an

indi%idualH the 8ay3ent that he recei%e$ fro3 the co33unity or fro3 indi%idual$H the for3 of contract6 eD8licit or i38licit6

that he negotiate$ either with the grou8 in which he 8racti$e$6 or with the authority that entru$t$ hi3 with a ta$<6 or with the 8atient who reBue$t$ ad%ice6 treat3ent6 or cure?. Thi$ $tatu$ of the doctor i$ generally a rather $8ecial one in all for3$ of

$ociety and ci%iliation@ he i$ hardly e%er an undifferentiated or interchangeale 8er$on. Medical $tate3ent$ cannot co3e

fro3 anyodyH their %alue6 efficacy6 e%en their thera8eutic 8ower$6 and6 generally $8ea<ing6 their eDi$tence a$ 3edical$tate3ent$ cannot e di$$ociated fro3 the $tatutorily defined 8er$on who ha$ the right to 3a<e the36 and to clai3 for the3

the 8ower to o%erco3e $uffering and death. *ut we al$o <now that thi$ $tatu$ in we$tern ci%iliation wa$ 8rofoundly 3odifiedat the end of the eighteenth century when the health of the 8o8ulation eca3e one of the econo3ic nor3$ reBuired yindu$trial $ocietie$.

>? :e 3u$t al$o de$crie the in$titutional $ite$ fro3 which the doctor 3a<e$ hi$ di$cour$e6 and fro3 which thi$ di$cour$e

deri%e$ it$ legiti3ate $ource and 8oint of a88lication >it$ $8ecific oJect$ and in$tru3ent$ of %erification?. In our $ocietie$6

the$e $ite$ are@ the ho$8ital6 a 8lace of con$tant6 coded6 $y$te3atic o$er%ation6 run y a

>>0)??

differentiated and hierarchied 3edical $taff6 thu$ con$tituting a Buantifiale field of freBuencie$H 8ri%ate 8ractice6 which

offer$ a field of le$$ $y$te3atic6 le$$ co38lete6 and far le$$ nu3erou$ o$er%ation$6 ut which $o3eti3e$ facilitate$

o$er%ation$ that are 3ore far;reaching in their effect$6 with a etter <nowledge of the ac<ground and en%iron 3entH thelaoratory6 an autono3ou$ 8lace6 long di$tinct fro3 the ho$8ital6 where certain truth$ of a general <ind6 concerning thehu3an ody6 life6 di$ea$e6 le$ion$6 etc.6 which 8ro%ide certain ele3ent$ of the diagno$i$6 certain $ign$ of the de%elo8ing

condition6 certain criteria of cure6 and which 3a<e$ thera8eutic eD8eri3ent 8o$$ileH la$tly6 what 3ight e called the GliraryG

or docu3entary field6 which include$ not only the hoo<$ and treati$e$ traditionally recognied a$ %alid6 ut al$o all theo$er%ation$ and ca$e;hi$torie$ 8uli$hed and tran$3itted6 and the 3a$$ of $tati$tical infor3ation >concerning the $ocial

en%iron3ent6 cli3ate6 e8ide3ic$6 3ortality rate$6 the incidence of di$ea$e$6 the centre$ of contagion6 occu8ational di$ea$e$?

that can e $u88lied to the doctor y 8ulic odie$6 y other doctor$6 y $ociologi$t$6 and y geogra8her$. In thi$ re$8ect6 too6

the$e %ariou$ G$ite$G of 3edical di$;cour$e were 8rofoundly 3odified in the nineteenth century@ the i38ortance of the

docu3ent continue$ to increa$e >8ro8ortionately di3ini$hing the authority of the oo< or tradition?H the ho$8ital6 which had

een 3erely a $u$idiary $ite for di$cour$e on di$ea$e$6 and which too< $econd 8lace in i38ortance and %alue to 8ri%ate 8ractice >in which di$ea$e$ left in their natural en%iron3ent were6 in the eighteenth century6 to re%eal the3$el%e$ in their

%egetal truth?6 then eco3e$ the $ite of $y$te3atic6 ho3ogeneou$ o$er%ation$6 large;$cale confrontation$6 the e$tali$h3ent

of freBuencie$ and 8roailitie$6 the annulation of indi%idual %ariant$6 in $hort6 the $ite of the a88earance of di$ea$e6 not a$ a

8articular $8ecie$6 de8loying it$ e$$ential feature$ eneath the doctor G$ gae6 ut a$ an a%erage 8roce$$6 with it$ $ignificant

guide;line$6 oundarie$6 and 8otential de%elo83ent. Si3ilarly6 it wa$ in the nineteenth century that daily 3edical 8ractice

integrated the laoratory a$ the $ite of a di$cour$e that ha$ the $a3e eD8eri3ental nor3$ a$ 8hy$ic$6 che3i$try6 or iology.

>c? The 8o$ition$ of the $uJect are al$o defined y the $ituation that it i$ 8o$$ile for hi3 to occu8y in relation to the

%ariou$ do3ain$ or

>>0??grou8$ of oJect$@ according to a certain grid of eD8licit or i38licit interrogation$6 he i$ the Bue$tioning $uJect and6

according to a certain 8rogra33e of infor3ation6 he i$ the li$tening $uJectH according to a tale of characteri$tic feature$6

he i$ the $eeing $uJect6 and6 according to a de$cri8ti%e ty8e6 the o$er%ing $uJectH he i$ $ituated at an o8ti3al 8erce8tualdi$tance who$e oundarie$ deli3it the wheat of rele%ant infor3ationH he u$e$ in$tru3ental inter3ediarie$ that 3odify the

$cale of the infor3ation6 $hift the $uJect in relation to the a%erage or i33ediate 8erce8tual le%el6 en$ure hi$ 3o%e3ent fro3

a $u8erficial to a dee8 le%el6 3a<e hi3 circulate in the interior $8ace of the ody fro3 3anife$t $y38to3$ to the organ$6fro3 the organ$ to the ti$$ue$6 and finally fro3 the ti$$ue$ to the cell$. To the$e 8erce8tual $ituation$ $hould e added the

8o$ition$ that the $uJect can occu8y in the infor3ation networ<$ >in theoretical teaching or in ho$8ital trainingH in the

$y$te3 of oral co33unication or of written docu3ent@ a$ e3itter and recei%er of o$er%ation$6 ca$e;hi$torie$6 $tati$ticaldata6 general theoretical 8ro8o$ition$6 8roJect$6 and deci$ion$?. The %ariou$ $ituation$ that the $uJect of 3edical di$cour$e

3ay occu8y were redefined at the eginning of the nineteenth century with the organiation of a Buite different 8erce8tual

field >arranged in de8th6 3anife$ted y $ucce$$i%e recour$e to in$tru3ent$6 de8loyed y $urgical techniBue$ or 3ethod$ of auto8$y6 centred u8on le$ional $ite$?6 and with the e$tali$h3ent of new $y$te3$ of regi$tration6 notation6 de$cri8tion6

cla$$ification6 integration in nu3erical $erie$ and in $tati$tic$6 with the introduction of new for3$ of teaching6 the circulation

of infor3ation6 relation$ with other theoretical do3ain$ >$cience$ or 8hilo$o8hy? and with other in$titution$ >whether



ad3ini$trati%e6 8olitical6 or econo3ic?.

If6 in clinical di$cour$e6 the doctor i$ in turn the $o%ereign6 direct Bue$tioner6 the o$er%ing eye6 the touching finger6 the

organ that deci8her$ $ign$6 the 8oint at which 8re%iou$ly for3ulated de$cri8tion$ are integrated6 the laoratory technician6 it

i$ ecau$e a whole grou8 of relation$ i$ in%ol%ed. !elation$ etween the ho$8ital $8ace a$ a 8lace of a$$i$tance6 of 8urified6

$y$te3atic o$er%ation6 and of 8artially 8ro%ed6 8artially eD8eri3ental thera8eutic$6 and a whole grou8 of 8erce8tual code$

of the hu3an ody a$ it i$ defined y 3orid anato3yH relation$ etween the field of i33ediate o$er%ation$ and thedo3ain

>>0??

of acBuired infor3ationH relation$ etween the doctor G$ thera8eutic role6 hi$ 8edagogic role6 hi$ role a$ an inter3ediary in the

diffu$ion of 3edical <nowledge6 and hi$ role a$ a re$8on$ile re8re$entati%e of 8ulic health in the $ocial $8ace. #nder$tooda$ a renewal of 8oint$ of %iew6 content$6 the for3$ and e%en the $tyle of de$cri8tion6 the u$e of inducti%e or 8roaili$tic

rea$oning6 ty8e$ of attriution of cau$ality6 i.n $hort6 a$ a renewal of the 3odalitie$ of enunciation6 clinical 3edicine 3u$t

not e regarded a$ the re$ult of a new techniBue of o$er%ation that of auto8$y6 which wa$ 8racti$ed long efore thead%ent of the nineteenth centuryH nor a$ the re$ult of the $earch for 8athogenic cau$e$ in the de8th$ of the organi$3

Morgagni wa$ engaged in $uch a $earch in the 3iddle of the eighteenth centuryH nor a$ the effect of that new in$titution6 the

teaching ho$8ital $uch in$titution$ had already een in eDi$tence for $o3e decade$ in Au$tria and ItalyH nor a$ the re$ult

of the introduction of the conce8t of ti$$ue in *ichat G$ Traite de$ 3e3rane$. *ut a$ the e$tali$h3ent of a relation6 in

3edical di$cour$e6 etween a nu3er of di$tinct ele3ent$6 $o3e of which concerned the $tatu$ of doctor$6 other$ thein$titutional and technical. $ite for3 which they $8o<e6 other$ their 8o$ition a$ $uJect$ 8ercei%ing6 o$er%ing6 de$criing6teaching6 etc. It can e $aid that thi$ relation etween different ele3ent$ >$o3e of which are new6 while other$ were already

in eDi$tence? i$ effected y clinical di$cour$e@ it i$ thi$6 a$ a 8ractice6 that e$tali$he$ etween the3 all. a $y$te3 of relation$

that i$ not reallyG gi%en. or con$tituted a 8rioriH and if there i$ a unity6 if the 3odalitie$ of enunciation that it u$e$6 or towhich it gi%e$ 8lace6 are not $i38ly JuDta8o$ed y a $erie$ of hi$torical contingencie$6 it i$ ecau$e it 3a<e$ con$tant u$e of

thi$ grou8 of relation$.One further re3ar<. 'a%ing noted the di$8arity of the ty8e$ of enunciation in clinical di$cour$e6 I ha%e not tried. to

reduce it y unco%ering the for3al $tructure$6 categorie$6 3ode$ of logical $ucce$$ion6 ty8e$ of rea$oning and induction6

for3$ of analy$i$ and $ynthe$i$ that 3ay ha%e o8erated in a di$cour$eH I did not wi$h. to re%eal the rational organiation that3ay 8ro%ide $tate3ent$ li<e tho$e of 3edicine with their ele3ent of intrin$ic nece$$ity. Nor did I wi$h to reduce to a $ingle

founding act6 or to a founding con$ciou$ne$$ the general horion of rationality again$t which the 8rogre$$ of 3edicine grad;

ually e3erged6 it$ effort$ to 3odel it$elf u8on the eDact $cience$6 the

>>-9??contraction of it$ 3ethod$ of o$er%ation6 the $low6 difficult eD8ul$ion of the i3age$ or fanta$ie$ that inhait it6 the

8urification of it$ $y$te3 of rea$oning. ,a$tly6 I ha%e not tried to de$crie the e38irical gene$i$6 nor the %ariou$ co38onent

ele3ent$ of the 3edical 3entality@ how thi$ $hift of intere$t on the 8art of the doctor$ ca3e aout6 y what theoretical or eD8eri3ental 3odel they were influenced6 what 8hilo$o8hy or 3oral the3atic$ defined the cli3ate of their refleDion6 to what

Bue$tion$6 to what de3and$6 they had to re8ly6 what effort$ were reBuired of the3 to free the3$el%e$ fro3 traditional 8reJudice$6 y what way$ they were led toward$ a unification and coherence that were ne%er achie%ed6 ne%er reached6 y their

<nowledge. In $hort6 I do not refer the %ariou$ enunciati%e 3odalitie$ to the unity of the $uJect whether it concern$ the

$uJect regarded a$ the 8ure founding authority of rationality6 or the $uJect regarded a$ an e38irical function of $ynthe$i$.

Neither the G<nowingG >le GconnaitreG?6 nor the G<nowledgeG (les Gconnai$$ance$G?.

In the 8ro8o$ed analy$i$6 in$tead of referring ac< to the $ynthe$i$ or the unifying function of a $uJect6 the %ariou$

enunciati%e 3odalitie$ 3anife$t hi$ di$8er$ion.G To the %ariou$ $tatu$e$6 the %ariou$ $ite$6 the %ariou$ $ite$6 the %ariou$ 8o$ition$ that he can occu8y or e gi%en when 3a<ing a di$cour$e. To th.e di$continuity of the 8lane$ fro3 which he $8ea<$.

And if the$e 8lane$ are lin<ed y a $y$te3 of relation$6 thi$ $y$te3 i$ not e$tali$hed y the $ynthetic acti%ity of a

con$ciou$ne$$ identical with it$elf6 du3 and anterior to all $8eech6 ut y the $8ecificity of a di$cur$i%e 8ractice. I $hallaandon any atte38t6 therefore6 to $ee di$cour$e a$ a 8heno3enon of eD8re$$ion the %eral tran$lation of a 8re%iou$ly

e$tali$hed $ynthe$i$H in$tead6 I $hall loo< for a field of regularity for %ariou$ 8o$ition$ of $uJecti%ity. Thu$ concei%ed6 di$;

cour$e i$ not the 3aJe$tically unfolding 3anife$tation of a thin<ing6 <nowing6 $8ea<ing $uJect6 ut6 on the contrary6 atotality6 in which the di$8er$ion of the $uJect and hi$ di$continuity with hi3$elf 3ay e deter3ined. It i$ a $8ace of

eDteriority in which a networ< of di$tinct $ite$ i$ de8loyed. I $howed earlier that it wa$ neither y Gword$G nor y Gthing$G that

the regulation of the oJect$ 8ro8er to a di$cur$i%e



>>footnote??

In thi$ re$8ect6 the ter3 Gregard 3edicalG u$ed in 3y Nai$$ance de In CliniBue wa$ not a %ery ha88y one.

>>-&??

for3ation $hould e definedH $i3ilarly6 it 3u$t now e recognied that it i$ neither y recour$e to a tran$cendental $uJect nor y recour$e to a 8$ychological $uJecti%ity that the regulation of it$ enunciation$ $hould e defined.

>>-2??

5 THE FORMATION OF CONCETS

Perha8$ the fa3ily of conce8t$ that e3erge$ in the wor< of ,innaeu$ >hut al$o in that of !icardo6 and in the /ra33aire de

Port;!oyal? 3ay e organied into a coherent whole. Perha8$ one 3ight e ale to re$tore the deducti%e architecture that itfor3$. In any ca$e6 the eD8eri3ent i$ worth atte38ting and it ha$ een atte38ted $e%eral ti3e$. On the other hand6 if one

ta<e$ a roader $cale6 and choo$e$ a$ guide;line$ $uch di$ci8line$ a$ gra33ar6 or econo3ic$6 or the $tudy of li%ing eing$6

the $et of conce8t$ that e3erge$ doe$ not oey $uch rigorou$ condition$H their hi$tory i$ not the $tone;y;$tone con$tructionof an edifice. Should thi$ di$8er$ion e left in it$ a88arent di$order Or $hould it e $een a$ a $ucce$$ion of conce8tual

$y$te3$6 each 8o$$e$$ing it$ own organiation6 and eing articulated only again$t the 8er3anence of 8role3$6 the

continuity of tradition6 or the 3echani$3 of influence$ Could a law not e found that would account for the $ucce$$i%e or $i3ultaneou$ e3ergence of di$8arate conce8t$ Could a $y$te3 of occurrence not e found etween the3 that wa$ not a

logical $y$te3aticity !ather than wi$hing to re8lace conce8t$ in a %irtual deducti%e edifice6 one would ha%e to de$crie theorganiation of the field of $tate3ent$ where they a88eared and circulated.

>>-??



>a? Thi$ organiation in%ol%e$ fir$tly for3$ of $ucce$$ion. And a3ong the36 the %ariou$ ordering$ of enunciati%e $erie$

>whether the order of inference$6 $ucce$$i%e i38lication$6 and de3on$trati%e rea$oning$H or the order of de$cri8tion$6 the

$che3ata of generaliation or 8rogre$$i%e $8ecification to which. they are $uJect6 the $8atial di$triution$ that they co%erH or the order of the de$cri8ti%e account$6 and the way in which the e%ent$ of the ti3e are di$triuted in the linear $ucce$$ion of

the $tate3ent$?H the %ariou$ ty8e$ of de8endence of the $tate3ent$ >which are not alway$ either identical or $u8er8o$ale on

the 3anife$t $ucce$$ion$ of the $erie$ of $tate3ent$@ thi$ i$ the ca$e in the de8endence$ of hy8othe$i$%erification6a$$ertioncritiBue6 general law8articular a88licationH the %ariou$ rhetorical $che3ata according to which grou8$ of $tate3ent$

3ay he co3ined6 >how de$cri8tion$6 deduction$6 definition$6 who$e $ucce$$ion characterie$ the architecture of a teDt6 arelin<ed together?. Ta<e6 for eDa38le6 the ca$e of Natural 'i$tory in the Cla$$ical 8eriod@ it doe$ not u$e the $a3e conce8t$ a$in the $iDteenth centuryH certain of the older conce8t$ >genu$6 $8ecie$6 $ign$? are u$ed in different way$H new conce8t$ >li<e

that of $tructure? a88earH and other$ >li<e that of organi$3? are for3ed later. *ut what wa$ altered in the $e%enteenth century6

and wa$ to go%ern the a88earance and recurrence of conce8t$6 for the whole of Natural 'i$tory6 wa$ the general arrange3entof the $tate3ent$6 their $ucce$$i%e arrange3ent in 8articular whole$H it wa$ the way in which one wrote down what one

o$er%ed and6 y 3ean$ of a $erie$ of $tate3ent$6 recreated a 8erce8tual 8roce$$H it wa$ the relation and inter8lay of $uordination$ etween de$criing6 articulating into di$tincti%e feature$6 characteriing6 and cla$$ifyingH it wa$ the reci8rocal

8o$ition of 8articular o$er%ation$ and general 8rinci8le$H it wa$ the $y$te3 of de8endence etween what one learnt6 what

one $aw6 what one deduced6 what one acce8ted a$ 8ro;ale6 and what one 8o$tulated. In the $e%enteenth and eighteenth cen;

turie$6 Natural 'i$tory wa$ not $i38ly a for3 of <nowledge that ga%e a new definition to conce8t$ li<e Ggenu$G or Gcharacter G6

and which introduced new conce8t$ li<e that of Gnatural cla$$ificationG or G3a33alGH ao%e all6 it wa$ a $et of rule$ for

arranging $tate3ent$ in $erie$6 an oligatory $et of $che3ata of de8endence6 of order6 and of $ucce$$ion$6 in which therecurrent ele3ent$ that 3ay ha%e %alue a$ conce8t$ were di$triuted.

>>-4??

>? The configuration of the enunciati%e field al$o in%ol%e$ for3$ of coeDi$tence. The$e outline fir$t a field of 8re$ence

>y which i$ under$tood all $tate3ent$ for3ulated el$ewhere and ta<en u8 in a di$cour$e6 ac<nowledged to e truthful6in%ol%ing eDact de$cri8tion6 well;founded rea$oning6 or nece$$ary 8re$u88o$ition?H we 3u$t al$o gi%e our attention to tho$ethat are criticied6 di$cu$$ed6 and Judged6 a$ well a$ tho$e that are reJected or eDcluded?H in thi$ field of 8re$ence6 the

relation$ e$tali$hed 3ay e of the order of eD8eri3ental %erification6 logical %alidation6 3ere re8etition6 acce8tance

Ju$tified y tradition and authority6 co33entary6 a $earch for hidden 3eaning$6 the analy$i$ of errorH the$e relation$ 3ay eeD8licit >and $o3eti3e$ for3ulated in ty8e$ of $8ecialied $tate3ent$@ reference$6 critical di$cu$$ion$?6 or i38licit and

8re$ent in ordinary $tate3ent$. Again6 it i$ ea$y to $ee that the field of 8re$ence of Natural 'i$tory in the Cla$$ical 8eriod

doe$ not oey the $a3e for3$6 or the $a3e criteria of choice6 or the $a3e 8rinci8le$ of eDclu$ion6 a$ in the 8eriod whenAldro%andi wa$ collecting in one and the $a3e teDt e%erything that had een $een6 o$er%ed6 recounted6 8a$$ed on

innu3erale ti3e$ y word of 3outh6 and e%en i3agined y the 8oet$6 on the $uJect of 3on$ter$. "i$tinct fro3 thi$ field of 8re$ence one 3ay al$o de$crie a field of conco3itance >thi$ include$ $tate3ent$ that concern Buite different do3ain$ of

oJect$6 and elong to Buite different do3ain$ of oJect$6 and elong to Buite different ty8e$ of di$cour$e6 ut which are

acti%e a3ong the $tate3ent$ $tudied here6 either ecau$e they $er%e a$ analogical confir3ation6 or ecau$e they $er%e a$ ageneral 8rinci8le and a$ 8re3i$e$ acce8ted y a rea$oning6 or ecau$e they $er%e a$ 3odel$ that can e tran$ferred to other

content$6 or ecau$e they function a$ a higher authority than that to which at lea$t certain 8ro8o$ition$ are 8re$ented and$uJected?@ thu$ the field of conco3itance of the Natural 'i$tory of the 8eriod of ,innaeu$ and *uffon i$ defined y anu3er of relation$ with co$3ology6 the hi$tory of the earth6 8hilo$o8hy6 theology6 $cri8ture and ilical eDege$i$6

3athe3atic$ >in the %ery general for3 of a $cience of order?H and all the$e relation$ di$tingui$h it fro3 oth the di$cour$e of

the $iDteenth;century naturali$t$ and that of the nineteenth;century iologi$t$. ,a$tly6 the enunciati%e field in%ol%e$ what3ight e called a field of 3e3ory >$tate3ent$ that are no longer acce8ted or di$cu$$ed6 and which con $eBuently no longer

define either a ody of truth or a do3ain of

>>-0??



%alidity6 ut in. relation to which relation$ of filiation6 gene$i$6 tran$;for3ation6 continuity6 and hi$torical di$continuity can e

e$tali$hed?@ thu$ the field of 3e3ory of Natural 'i$tory6 $ince Tournefort6 $ee3$ 8articularly re$tricted and i38o%eri$hed in

it$ for3$ when co38ared with the road6 cu3ulati%e6 and %ery $8ecific field of 3e3ory 8o$$e$$ed y nineteenth; andtwentieth;century iologyH on the other hand6 it $ee3$ 3uch etter defined and etter articulated than the field of 3e3ory

$urrounding the hi$tory of 8lant$ and ani3al$ in the !enai$$ance@ for at that ti3e it could $carcely e di$tingui$hed fro3 the

field of 8re$enceH they had the $a3e eDten$ion and the $a3e for36 and in%ol%ed the $a3e relation$.

>c? ,a$tly6 we 3ay define the 8rocedure$ of inter%ention that 3ay e legit i3ately a88lied to $tate3ent$. The$e 8rocedure$are not in fact the $a3e for all di$cur$i%e for3ation$H tho$e that are u$ed >to the eDclu$ion of all other$?6 the relation$ that lin<

the3 and the unity thu$ created 3a<e it 8o$$ile to $8ecify each one. The$e 8rocedure$ 3ay a88ear@ in techniBue$ of

rewriting >li<e tho$e6 for eDa38le6 that enaled the naturali$t$ of the Cla$$ical 8eriod to rewrite linear de$cri8tion$ in

cla$$ificatory tale$ that ha%e neither the $a3e law$ nor the $a3e configuration a$ the li$t$ and grou8$ of <in$hi8 e$tali$hed

in the Middle Age$ and during the !enai$$ance?H in 3ethod$ of tran$criing $tate3ent$ >articulated in the natural language?

according to a 3ore or le$$ for3alied and artificial language >the 8roJect6 and to a certain eDtent the realiation6 of $uch a

language i$ to e found in ,innaeu$ and Adan$on?H the 3ode$ of tran$lating Buantitati%e $tate3ent$ into Bualitati%e

for3ulation$ and %ice %er$a >the e$tali$h3ent of relation$ etween 8urely 8erce8tual 3ea$ure3ent$ and de$cri8tion$?H the

3ean$ u$ed to increa$e the a88roDi3ation of $tate3ent$ and to refine their eDactitude >$tructural analy$i$ according to the

for36 nu3er6 arrange3ent6 and $ie of the ele3ent$ ha$ 3ade it 8o$$ile6 $ince Tournefort6 to achie%e a clo$er and ao%e all

3ore con$tant a88roDi3ation of de$cri8ti%e $tate3ent$?H the way in which one deli3it$ once again y eDten$ion or

re$triction. the do3ain of %alidity of $tate3ent$ >the enunciation of $tructural character$ wa$ re$tricted in the 8eriod

etween Tournefort and ,innaeu$6 then enlarged in that etween *uffon and +u$$ieu?H the way in which one tran$fer$ a ty8e

of

((66))

$tate3ent fro3 one field of a88lication to another >li<e the tran$ference fro3 %egetal characteriation to ani3al taDono3yH or fro3 the de$cri8tion of $u8erficial character$ to the internal ele3ent$ of the organi$3?H the 3ethod$ of $y$te3atiing

8ro8o$ition$ that already eDi$t6 ecau$e they ha%e een 8re%iou$ly for3ulated6 ut in a $e8arated $tateH or again the 3ethod$

of redi$triuting $tate3ent$ that are already lin<ed together6 ut which one rearrange$ in a new $y$te3atic whole >a$ Adan$onta<e$ u8 the natural characteriation$ that had een 3ade efore6 either y hi3$elf or y other$6 and 8laced the3 in a grou8

of artificial de$cri8tion$6 the $che3a of which he had 8re%iou$ly wor<ed out on the a$i$ of $o3e a$tract co3inatory?.

The$e ele3ent$ that I a3 8ro8o$ing to analy$e are of rather different <ind$. So3e con$titute rule$ of for3al con$truction6

other$ rhetorical 8ractice$H $o3e define the internal configuration of a teDt6 other$ the 3ode$ of relation and interference etween different teDt$H $o3e are characteri$tic of a 8articular 8eriod6 other$ ha%e a di$tant origin and far;reaching

chronological i38ort. *ut what 8ro8erly elong$ to a di$cur$i%e for3ation and what 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to deli3it the grou8 of

conce8t$6 di$8arate a$ they 3ay e6 that are $8ecific to it6 i$ the way in which the$e different ele3ent$ are related to oneanother@ the way in which6 for eDa38le6 the ordering of de$cri8tion$ or account$ i$ lin<ed to the techniBue$ of rewritingH the

way in which the field of 3e3ory i$ lin<ed to the for3$ of hierarchy and $uordination that go%ern the $tate3ent$ of a teDtH

the way in which the 3ode$ of a88roDi3ation and de%elo83ent of the $tate3ent$ are lin<ed to the 3ode$ of critici$36co33entary and inter8retation of 8re%iou$ly for3ulated $tate3ent$6 etc. It i$ thi$ grou8 of relation$ that con$titute$ a $y$te3

of conce8tual for3ation.

The de$cri8tion of $uch a $y$te3 could not e %alid for a direct6 i33ediate de$cri8tion of the conce8t$ the3$el%e$. My

intention i$ not to carry out an eDhau$ti%e o$er%ation of the36 to e$tali$h the charac teri$tic$ that they 3ay ha%e in co33on6

to underta<e a cla$$ification of the36 to 3ea$ure their internal coherence6 or to te$t their 3utual co38atiilityH I do not wi$h

to ta<e a$ an oJect of analy$i$ the conce8tual architecture of an i$olated teDt6 an indi%idual oeu%re6 or a $cience at a 8articular

3o3ent in ti3e. One $tand$ ac< in relation to thi$ 3anife$t



>>-)??

$et of conce8t$H and one trie$ to deter3ine according to what $che3ata >of $erie$6 $i3ultaneou$ grou8ing$6 linear or reci8rocal3odification? the $tate3ent$ 3ay e lin<ed to one another in a ty8e of di$cour$eH one trie$ in thi$ way to di$co%er how the

recurrent ele3ent$ of $tate3ent$ can rea88ear6 di$$ociate6 reco38o$e6 gain in eDten$ion or deter3in ation6 e ta<en u8 into

new logical $tructure$6 acBuire6 on the other hand6 new $e3antic content$6 and con$titute 8artial organiation$ a3ongthe3$el%e$. The$e $che3ata 3a<e it 8o$$ile to de$crie not the law$ of the internal con$truction of conce8t$6 not their

8rogre$$i%e and indi%idual gene$i$ in the 3ind of 3an ut their anony3ou$ di$8er$ion through teDt$6 hoo<$6 and oeu%re$.A di$8er$ion that characterie$ a ty8e of di$cour$e6 and which define$6 etween conce8t$6 for3$ of deduction6 deri%ation6 and

coherence6 ut al$o of inco38atiility6 inter$ection6 $u$titution6 eDclu$ion6 3utual alteration6 di$8lace3ent6 etc. Such an



analy$i$6 then6 concern$6 at a <ind of 8reconce8tual le%el6 the field in which conce8t$ can coeDi$t and the rule$ to which thi$

field i$ $uJected.

In order to define 3ore 8reci$ely what I 3ean y G 8reconce8tualG6 I $hall ta<e the eDa38le of the four Gtheoretical

$che3ataG6 $tudied in 3y oo< The Order of Thing$6 and which characterie /eneral /ra33ar in the $e%enteenth andeighteenth centurie$. The$e four $che3ata attriution6 articulation6 de$ignation6 and der%ation do not de$ignate con;

ce8t$ that were in fact u$ed y the Cla$$ical gra33arian$H nor do they 3a<e it 8o$$ile to recon$titute6 o%er and ao%edifferent gra33atical wor<$6 a $ort of 3ore general6 3ore a$tract6 3ore i38o%eri$hed $y$te36 ut di$co%er6 y that %ery

fact6 the 8rofound co38atiility of the$e different6 a88arently o88o$ed $y$te3$. They 3a<e it 8o$$ile to de$crie@

&. 'ow the different gra33atical analy$e$ can e ordered and de8loyedH and what for3$ of $ucce$$ion are 8o$$ile

etween analy$e$ of the noun6 analy$e$ of the %er6 and analy$e$ of the adJecti%e6 tho$e that concern 8honetic$ and tho$e thatconcern $yntaD6 tho$e that concern the original language >longue?6 and tho$e that 8roJect an artificial language >longue?.

The$e different order$ are laid down y the relation$ of de8endence that 3ay e o$er%ed etween the theorie$ of attriution6

articulation6 de$ignation6 and deri%ation.

>>-??

2.'ow /eneral /ra33ar define$ a do3ain of %alidity for it$elf >according to what criteria one 3ay di$cu$$ the truth

or fal$ehood of a 8ro8o$ition?H how it con$titute$ a do3ain of nor3ati%ity for it$elf >according to what criteria one 3ayeDclude certain $tate3ent$ a$ eing irrele%ant to the di$cour$e6 or a$ ine$$ential and 3arginal6 or a$ non;$cientific?H how it

con$titute$ a do3ain of actuality for it$elf >co38ri$ing acBuired $olution$6 defining 8re$ent 8role3$6 $ituating conce8t$

and affir3ation$ that ha%e fallen into di$u$e?.

3.:hat relation$ /eneral /ra33ar ha$ with Mathe$i$ >with Carte$ian and 8o$t;Carte$ian algera6 with th.e 8roJect of

a general $cience of order?6 with the 8hilo$o8hical analy$i$ of re8re$entation and the theory of $ign$6 with Natural

'i$tory6 the 8role3$ of characteriation and taDono3y6 with the Analy$i$ of :ealth and the 8role3$ of the aritrary

$ign$ of 3ea$ure3.en.t and eDchange@ y 3ar<ing out the$e relation$ one 3ay deter3ine the way$ y which thecirculation6 the tran$fer and the 3odification of conce8t$6 the alteration of their for3 or change$ in their field of

a88lication6 are 3ade 8o$$ile etween one do3ain and another. The networ< for3ed y the four theoretical $eg3ent$doe$ not define the logical architecture of all the conce8t$ u$ed y gra33arian$H it outline$ the regular $8ace of their

for3ation.

4.'ow the %ariou$ conce8tion$ of the %er Gto eG6 of the co8ula6 of the %eral radical and the fleDional ending >for a

theoretical $che3a of attriution? were $i3ultaneou$ly or $ucce$$i%ely 8o$$ile >under the for3 of alternati%e choice6

3odification6 or $u$titution?H the %ariou$ conce8tion$ of the 8honetic ele3ent$6 of the al8haet6 of the na3e6 of

$u$tanti%e$ and adJecti%e$ >for a theoretical $che3a of articulation?H the %ariou$ conce8t$ of 8ro8er noun. and co33onnoun6 de3on$trati%e6 no3inal root6 $yllale or eD8re$$i%e $onority >for the theoretical $eg3ent of de$ignation?H the

%ariou$ conce8t$ of original and deri%ed language >langage?6 3eta8hor and figure6 8oetic language >langage? >for the

theoretical $eg3ent of deri%ation?.

The G 8reconce8tualG le%el that we ha%e unco%ered refer$ neither to a horion of ideality nor to an e38irical gene$i$ of

a$traction$. On the one hand6 it i$ not a horion of ideality6 8laced6 di$co%ered6 or

>>-??e$tali$hed y a founding ge$ture and one that i$ $o original that it elude$ all chronological in$ertionH it i$ not an

ineDhau$tile a 8riori at the confine$ of hi$tory6 $et ac< oth ecau$e it elude$ all eginning6 all genetic re$titution6 and ecau$e it could ne%er he conte38orary with it$elf in an eD8licit totality. In fact one doe$ not 8o$e the Bue$tion at the le%el of

di$cour$e it$elf6 which i$ not eDternal tran$lation6 ut the locu$ of e3ergence of conce8t$H one doe$ not attach the con$tant$ of

di$cour$e to the ideal $tructure$ of the conce8t6 ut one de$crie$ the conce8tual networ< on the a$i$ of the intrin$icregularitie$ of di$cour$eH one doe$ not $uJect the 3ulti8licity of $tate3ent$ to the coherence of conce8t$6 and thi$ coherence

to the $ilent recollection of a 3eta;hi$torical idealityH one e$tali$he$ the in%er$e $erie$@ one re8lace$ the 8ure ai3$ of non;



contradiction in a co38leD networ< of conce8tual co38atiility and inco38atiilityH and one relate$ thi$ co38leDity to the

rule$ that characterie a 8articular di$cur$i%e 8ractice. *y that %ery fact6 it i$ no longer nece$$ary to a88eal to the the3e$ of

an endle$$ly withdrawing origin and and ineDhau$tile horion@ the organiation of a grou8 of rule$ in the 8ractice of di$cour$e6 e%en if it doe$ not con$titute an e%ent $o ea$y to $ituate a$ a for3ulation or a di$co%ery6 3ay he deter3ined6

howe%er6 in the ele3ent of hi$toryH and if it i$ ineDhau$tile6 it i$ y that %ery fact that the 8erfectly de$criale $y$te3 that it

con$titute$ ta<e$ account of a %ery con$iderale $et of conce8t$ and a %ery large nu3er of tran$for3ation$ that affect oththe$e conce8t$ and their relation$. In$tead of outlining a horion that ri$e$ fro3 the de8th$ of hi$tory and 3aintain$ it$elf

through hi$tory6 the G 8reconce8tualG thu$ de$cried i$6 on the contrary6 at the 3o$t G$u8erficialG le%el >at the le%el of di$cour$e?6the grou8 of rule$ that in fact o8erate within it.

Nor i$ it a gene$i$ of a$traction$6 trying to redi$co%er the $erie$ of o8eration$ that ha%e 3ade it 8o$$ile to con$titute

the3@ o%erall intuition$6 di$co%erie$ of 8articular ca$e$6 the di$conneDion of i3aginary the3e$6 the encountering of

theoretical or technical o$tacle$6 $ucce$;$i%e orrowing$ fro3 traditional 3odel$6 definition of the adeBuate for3al $tructure6etc. In the analy$i$ 8ro8o$ed here6 the rule$ of for3a;tion o8erate not only in the 3ind or con$ciou$ne$$ of indi%idual$6 ut in

di$cour$e it$elfH they o8erate therefore6 according to a $ort of unifor3 anony3ity6 on all indi%idual$ who underta<e to $8ea<

in thi$

>>)9??

di$cur$i%e field. On the other hand6 one doe$ not $u88o$e the3 to e uni%er$ally %alid for e%ery do3ainH one alway$de$crie$ the3 in 8articular di$cur$i%e field$6 and one doe$ not accord the3 at the out$et indefinite 8o$$iilitie$ of eDten$ion.

The 3o$t one can do i$ to 3a<e a $y$te3atic co38ari$on6 fro3 one region to another6 of the rule$ for the for3ation of

conce8t$@ it i$ in thi$ way that I ha%e tried to unco%er the identitie$ and difference$ that 3ay e 8re$ented y the$e grou8$ of rule$ in the /eneral /ra33ar6 the Natural 'i$tory6 and the Analy$i$ of :ealth of the Cla$$ical 8eriod. The$e grou8$ of rule$

are $8ecific enough in each of the$e do3ain$ to characterie a 8articular6 well;indi%idualied di$cur$i%e for3ationH ut they

offer enough analogie$ for u$ to $ee the$e %ariou$ for3ation$ for3 a wider di$cur$i%e grou8ing at a higher le%el. In any ca$e6the rule$ go%erning the for3ation of conce8t$6 howe%er generalied the conce8t$ 3ay e6 are not the re$ult6 laid down in

hi$tory and de8o$ited in. the de8th of collecti%e cu$to3$6 of o8eration$ carried out y indi%idual$H they do not con$titute the are $che3a of a whole o$cure wor<6 in the cour$e of which conce8t$ would e 3ade to e3erge through illu$ion$6

8reJudice$6 error$6 and tradition$. The 8reconce8tual field allow$ the e3ergence of the di$;cur$i%e regularitie$ and

con$traint$ that ha%e 3ade 8o$$ile the heterogeneou$ 3ulti8licity of conce8t$6 and6 eyond the$e the 8rofu$ion of thethe3e$6 elief$6 and re8re$entation$ with which one u$ually deal$ when one i$ writing the hi$tory of idea$.

In order to analy$e the rule$ for the for3ation of oJect$6 one 3u$t neither6 a$ we ha%e $een6 e3ody the3 in thing$6 nor

relate the3 to the do3ain of word$H in order to analy$e the for3ation of enunciati%e ty8e$6 one 3u$t relate the3 neither tothe <nowing $uJect6 nor to a 8$ychological indi%iduality. Si3ilarly6 to analy$e the for3ation of conce8t$6 one 3u$t relate

the3 neither to the horion of ideality6 nor to the e38irical 8rogre$$ of idea$.

6. THE FORMATION OF STRATE!IES

Such di$cour$e$ a$ econo3ic$6 3edicine6 gra33ar6 the $cience of li%;ing eing$ gi%e ri$e to certain organiation$ of

conce8t$6 certain regrou8ing$ of oJect$6 certain ty8e$ of enunciation6 which for36 according to their degree of coherence6

rigour6 and $taility6 the3e$ or theorie$@ the the3e6 in eighteenth;century gra33ar6 of an original language >longue? fro3which all other$ deri%e6 and of which all other$ carry within the3$el%e$ a $o3eti3e$ deci8herale 3e3oryH a theory6 in

nineteenth;century 8hilology6 of a <in$hi8 etween all the Indo;Euro8ean language$6 and of an archaic idio3 that $er%ed a$ a

co33on $tarting;8ointH a the3e6 in the eighteenth century6 of an e%olution of the $8ecie$ de8loying in ti3e the continuity of nature6 and eD8laining the 8re$ent ga8$ in the taDono3ic taleH a theory6 8ro8ounded y the Phy$iocrat$6 of a circulation of

wealth on the a$i$ of agricultural 8roduction. :hate%er their for3al. le%el 3ay e6 I $hall call the$e the3e$ and theorie$



$trategie$G. The 8role3 i$ to di$co%er how they are di$triuted in hi$tory. I$ it nece$$ity that lin<$ the3 together6 3a<e$the3 in%i$ile6 call$ the3 to their right 8lace$ one after another6 and 3a<e$ of the3 $ucce$$i%e $olution$ to one and the $a3e

8role3 Or chance encounter$ etween idea$ of different origin6 influence$6 di$co%erie$6

>>)2??

$8eculati%e cli3ate$6 theoretical 3odel$ that the 8atience or geniu$ of indi%idual$ arrange$ into 3ore or le$$ well;con$tituted

whole$ Or can one find a regularity etween the3 and define the co33on $y$te3 of their for3ation

A$ for the analy$i$ of the$e $trategie$6 I can hardly enter into great detail. The rea$on i$ $i38le enough@ in the %ariou$

di$cur$i%e do3ain$6 which I ha%e tried to $<etch out rather he$itantly no dout6 and6 e$8ecially at the eginning6 withinadeBuate 3ethodological control the 8role3 wa$ to de$crie in each ca$e the di$cur$i%e for3ation in all it$

di3en$ion$6 and according to it$ own characteri$tic$@ it wa$ nece$$ary therefore to de$crie each ti3e the rule$ for the

for3ation of oJect$6 3odalitie$ of $tate3ent6 conce8t$6 and theoretical choice$. *ut it turned out that the difficult 8oint of the analy$i$6 and the one that de3anded greate$t attention6 wa$ not the $a3e in each ca$e. In Madne$$ and Ci%iliation6 I wa$

dealing with a di$cur$i%e for3ation who$e theoretical 8oint$ of choice were fairly ea$y to locate6 who$e conce8tual $y$te3$

were relati%ely unco38leD and few in nu3er6 and who$e enunciati%e rule$ were fairly ho3ogeneou$ and re8etiti%eH on theother hand6 the 8role3 lay in the e3ergence of a whole grou8 of highly co38leD6 interwo%en oJect$H it wa$ nece$$ary

ao%e all to de$crie the for3ation of the$e oJect$6 in order to locate in it$ $8ecificity the whole of 8$ychiatric di$cour$e. In Nai$$ance de la cliniBue6 the e$$ential 8oint of the re$earch wa$ the way in which6 at the end of the eighteenth and the

eginning of the nineteenth century6 the enunciati%e for3$ of 3edical di$cour$e had een 3odifiedH the analy$i$ wa$

concerned therefore le$$ with the for3ation of conce8tual $y$te3$6 or the for3ation of theoretical choice$6 than with the$tatu$6 the in$titutional $iting6 the $ituation6 and the 3ode$ of in$ertion u$ed y the di$cour$ing $uJect. ,a$tly6 in The Order

of Thing$6 3y attention wa$ concentrated 3ainly on the net;wor<$ of conce8t$ and their rule$ of for3ation >identical or

different? a$ they could e located in /eneral /ra33ar6 Natural 'i$tory6 and the Analy$i$ of :ealth. The 8lace6 and thei38lication$6 of the $trategic choice$ were indicated >whether6 for eDa38le6 in the ca$e of ,innaeu$ and *uffon6 or the

Phy$iocrat$ and the #tilitari$t$?H ut I did little 3ore than locate the36 and 3y analy$i$ $carcely touched on their for3ation.

,et u$ $ay that a fuller analy$i$ of theoretical choice$

>>)??

3u$t e left until a later $tudy6 in which I $hall e ale to gi%e it 3y whole attention.

For the 3o3ent6 the 3o$t that I can do i$ to indicate the direction$ in which the re$earch will 8roceed. The$e 3ight e

$u33aried thu$@

I . "eter3ine the 8o$$ile 8oint$ of diffraction of di$cour$e. The$e 8oint$ are characteried in the fir$t in$tance a$ 8oint$ of inco38atiility@ two oJect$6 or two ty8e$ of enunciation6 or two conce8t$ 3ay a88ear6 in the $a3e di$cur$i%e for3ation6without eing ale to enter under 8ain of 3anife$t contradiction or incon$eBuence the $a3e $erie$ of $tate3ent$. They

are then characteried a$ 8oint$ of eBui%alence@ the two inco38atile ele3ent$ are for3ed in the $a3e way and on the a$i$of the $a3e rule$H the condition$ of their a88earance are identicalH they are $ituated at the $a3e le%elH and in$tead of

con$tituting a 3ere defect of coherence6 they for3 an alternati%e@ e%en if6 chronologically $8ea<;ing6 they do not a88ear at

the $a3e ti3e6 e%en if they do not ha%e the $a3e i38ortance6 and if they were not eBually re8re$ented in the 8o8ulation of

effecti%e $tate3ent$6 they a88ear in the for3 of Geither . . . or G. ,a$tly6 they are characteried a$ lin< 8oint$ of $y$te3atiation@

on the a$i$ of each of the$e eBui%alent6 yet inco38atile ele3ent$6 a coherent $erie$ of oJect$6 for3$ of $tate3ent6 and

conce8t$ ha$ een deri%ed >with6 in each $erie$6 8o$$ile new 8oint$ of inco38atiility?. In other word$6 the di$8er$ion$$tudied at 8re%iou$ le%el$ do not $i38ly con$titute ga8$6 non;identitie$6 di$continuou$ $erie$H they co3e to for3 di$cur$i%e

$u;grou8$ tho$e %ery $u;grou8$ that are u$ually regarded a$ eing of 3aJor i38ortance6 a$ if they were the i33ediate

unity and raw 3aterial out of which larger di$cur$i%e grou8$ > Gtheorie$G6 Gconce8tion$G6 Gthe3e$G? are for3ed. For eDa38le6 onedoe$ not con$ider6 in an analy$i$ of thi$ <ind6 that the Analy$i$ of :ealth6 in the eighteenth century6 wa$ the re$ult >y way of

$i3ultaneou$ co38o$ition or chronological $ucce$$ion? of $e%eral different conce8tion$ of coinage6 of the eDchange of oJect$ of need6 of the for3ation of %alue and 8rice$6 or of ground rentH one doe$ not con$ider that it i$ 3ade u8 of the idea$

of Cantillon6 ta<ing u8 fro3 tho$e of Petty6 of ,awG$ eD8erience reflected y %ariou$ theoretician$ in turn6 and of the

Phy$iocratic $y$te3 o88o$ing #tilitari$t conce8tion$. One de$crie$ it rather a$ a unity of di$triution that o8en$ a field of

8o$$ile o8tion$6 and enale$

>>)4??

%ariou$ 3utually eDclu$i%e architecture$ to a88ear $ide y $ide or in turn.



2. *ut all the 8o$$ile alternati%e$ are not in fact realied@ there are a good 3any 8artial grou8$6 regional co38atiilitie$6

and coherent architecture$ that 3ight ha%e e3erged6 yet did not do $o. In order to account for the choice$ that were 3ade out

of all tho$e that could ha%e een 3ade >and tho$e alone?6 one 3u$t de$crie the $8ecific author itie$ that guided oneG$ choice.

:ell to the fore i$ the role 8layed y the di$cour$e eing $tudied in relation to tho$e that are conte38orary with it or related

to it. One 3u$t $tudy therefore the economy of the di$cur$i%e con$tellation to which it elong$. It 3ay in fact 8lay the role of a

for3al $y$te3 of which other di$cour$e$ are a88lication$ with %ariou$ $e3antic field$H it 3ay6 on the other hand6 he that of aconcrete 3odel that 3u$t e a88lied to other di$cour$e$ at a higher le%el of a$traction >thu$ /eneral /ra33ar6 in the

$e%enteenth and eighteenth centurie$6 a88ear$ a$ a 8articular 3odel of the general theory of $ign$ and re8re $entation?. The

di$cour$e under $tudy 3ay al$o e in a relation of analogy6 o88o$ition6 or co38le3entarity with certain other di$cour$e$

>there i$6 for eDa38le6 a relation of analogy6 in the Cla$$ical 8eriod6 etween the Analy$i$ of :ealth and Natural 'i$toryH the

fir$t i$ to the re8re$entation of need and de$ire what the $econd i$ to the re8re$entation of 8erce8tion$ and Judge3ent$H one

3ay al$o note that Natural 'i$tory and /eneral /ra33ar are o88o$ed to one another in the $a3e way a$ a theory of natural

character$ and a theory of con%entional $ign$H oth6 in turn6 are o88o$ed to the Analy$i$ of :ealth Ju$t a$ the $tudy of

Bualitati%e $ign$ i$ o88o$ed to that of the Buantitati%e $ign$ of 3ea$ure3entH each6 in fact6 de%elo8$ one of the three

co38le3entary role$ of the re8re$entati%e $ign@ de$ignation6 cla$$ification6 eDchange?. ,a$tly6 one 3ay de$crie etween

$e%eral di$cour$e$ relation$ of 3utual deli3itation6 each gi%ing the other the di$tincti%e 3ar<$ of it$ $ingularity y the

differentiation of it$ do3ain of a88lication >a$ in the ca$e of 8$ychiatry and organic 3edicine which were %irtually not di$ ;

tingui$hed fro3 one another efore the end of the eighteenth century6 and which e$tali$hed fro3 that 3o3ent a ga8 that ha$

$ince characteried the3?. Thi$ whole grou8 of relation$ for3$ a 8rinci8le of deter3ination that 8er3it$ or eDclude$6 within a

gi%en di$cour$e6 a

>>)0??

certain nu3er of $tate3ent$@ the$e are conce8tual $y$te3atiation$6 enunciati%e $erie$6 grou8$ and organiation$ of oJect$

that 3ight ha%e een 8o$$ile >and of which nothing can Ju$tify the a$ence at the le%el of their own rule$ of for3ation?6 utwhich are eDcluded y a di$;cur$i%e con$tellation at a higher le%el and in a roader $8ace. A di$;cur$i%e for3ation doe$ not

occu8y therefore all the 8o$$ile %olu3e that i$ o8ened u8 to it of right y the $y$te3$ of for3ation of it$ oJect$6 it$enunciation$6 and it$ conce8t$H it i$ e$$entially inco38lete6 owing to the $y$te3 of for3ation of it$ $trategic choice$. 'ence

the fact that6 ta<en u8 again6 8laced6 and inter8reted in a new con$tellation6 a gi%en di$cur$i%e for3ation 3ay re%eal new

8o$$iilitie$ >thu$ in the 8re$ent di$triution of $cientific di$cour$e$6 the /ra33ar of Port;!oyal or the taDono3y of ,innaeu$ 3ay free ele3ent$ that6 in relation to the36 are oth intrin$ic and new?H ut we are not dealing with a $ilent content

that ha$ re3ained i38licit6 that ha$ een $aid and yet not $aid6 and which con$titute$ eneath 3anife$t $tate3ent$ a $ort of

$u;di$cour$e that i$ 3ore funda3ental6 and which i$ now e3erging at la$t into the light of dayH what we are dealing with i$a 3odification in the 8rinci8le of eDclu$ion and the 8rinci8le of the 8o$$iility of choice$H a 3odification that i$ due to an

in$ertion in a new di$cur$i%e con$tellation.

. The deter3ination of the theoretical choice$ that were actually 3ade i$ al$o de8endent u8on another authority. Thi$

authority i$ characteried fir$t y the function that the di$cour$e under $tudy 3u$t carry out in a field of non;di$cur$i%e 8ractice$. Thu$ /eneral /ra33ar 8layed a role in 8edagogic 8racticeH in a 3uch 3ore o%iou$6 and 3uch 3ore i38ortant

way6 the Analy$i$ of :ealth 8layed a role not only in the 8olitical and econo3ic deci$ion$ of go%ern3ent$6 ut in the

$carcely conce8tualied6 $carcely theoretied6 daily 8ractice of e3ergent ca8ital;i$36 and in the $ocial and 8olitical $truggle$that characteried the Cla$$ical 8eriod. Thi$ authority al$o in%ol%e$ the rule$ and 8roce$$e$ of a88ro8riation of di$cour$e@ for

in our $ocietie$ >and no dout in 3any other$? the 8ro8erty of di$cour$e in the $en$e of the right to $8ea<6 aility tounder$tand6 licit and i33ediate acce$$ to the cor8u$ of already for3ulated $tate3ent$6 and the ca8acity to in%e$t thi$

di$cour$e in deci$ion$6 in$titution$6 or 8ractice$ i$ in fact confined >$o3eti3e$

>>)-??

with the addition of legal $anction$? to a 8articular grou8 of indi%idual$H in the ourgeoi$ $ocietie$ that we ha%e <nown $incethe $iDteenth century6 econo3ic di$cour$e ha$ ne%er een a co33on di$;cour$e >no 3ore than 3edical or literary di$cour$e6

though in a different way?. ,a$tly6 thi$ authority i$ characteried y the 8o$$ile 8o$ition$ of de$ire in relation to di$cour$e@

di$cour$e 3ay in fact e the 8lace for a 8han ta$3atic re8re$entation6 an ele3ent of $y3oliation6 a for3 of the foridden6 anin$tru3ent of deri%ed $ati$faction >thi$ 8o$$iility of eing in relation with de$ire i$ not $i38ly the fact of the 8oetic6 fic ;

tional6 or i3aginary 8ractice of di$cour$e@ the di$cour$e$ on wealth6 on language >langage?6 on nature6 on 3adne$$6 on life

and death6 and 3any other$6 8erha8$6 that are 3uch 3ore a$tract6 3ay occu8y %ery $8ecific 8o$ition$ in relation to de$ire?.In any ca$e6 the analy$i$ of thi$ authority 3u$t $how that neither the relation of di$cour$e to de$ire6 nor the 8roce$$e$ of it$

a88ro8riation6 nor it$ role a3ong non;di$cur$i%e 8ractice$ i$ eDtrin$ic to it$ unity6 it$ characteriation6 and the law$ of it$



for3ation. They are not di$turing ele3ent$ which6 $u8er8o$ing the3$el%e$ u8on it$ 8ure6 neutral6 ate38oral6 $ilent for36

$u88re$$ it$ true %oice and e3it in it$ 8lace a tra%e$tied di$cour$e6 ut6 on the contrary6 it$ for3ati%e ele3ent$.

A di$cur$i%e for3ation will e indi%idualied if one can define the $y$te3 of for3ation of the different $trategie$ that are

de8loyed in itH in other word$6 if one can $how how they all deri%e >in $8ite of their $o3eti3e$ eDtre3e di%er$ity6 and in $8iteof their di$8er$ion in ti3e? fro3 the $a3e $et of relation$. For eDa38le6 the Analy$i$ of :ealth in the $e%enteenth and

eighteenth centurie$ i$ characteried y the $y$te3 that could for3 oth ColertG$ 3ercantili$3 and CantillonG$ Gneo;

3ercantili$3GH ,awG$ $trategy and that of Pari$;"u%erneyH the Phy$iocratic o8tion and the #tilitari$t o8tion. And one will

ha%e defined thi$ $y$te3 if one can de$crie how the 8oint$ of diffraction of econo3ic di$cour$e deri%e fro3 one another6regulate one another6 and are in%ol%ed with one another >how a 8oint of choice aout 8rice$ deri%e$ fro3 a deci$ion aout the

conce8t of %alue?H how the choice$ 3ade de8end on the general con$tellation in which econo3ic di$cour$e figure$ >the choicein fa%our of coinage;$ign i$ lin<ed to the 8lace occu8ied y the Analy$i$ of :ealth6 e$ide the theory of language >langage?6

the

>>))??

analy$i$ of re8re$entation$6 3athe$i$6 and the $cience of order? H how the$e choice$ are lin<ed to the function carried out yecono3ic di$;cour$e in the 8ractice of e3ergent ca8itali$36 the 8roce$$ of a88ro8riation of which it i$ the oJect on the 8art

of the ourgeoi$ie6 the role that it can 8lay in the realiation of intere$t$ and de$ire$. Econo3ic di$cour$e6 in the Cla$$ical

8eriod6 i$ defined y a certain con$tant way of relating 8o$$iilitie$ of $y$te3atiation interior to a di$cour$e6 other di$cour$e$that are eDterior to it6 and a whole non;di$cur$i%e field of 8ractice$6 a88ro8riation6 intere$t$6 and de$ire$.

It $hould e noted that the $trategie$ thu$ de$cried are not rooted6 anterior to di$cour$e6 in the $ilent de8th$ of a choicethat i$ oth 8reli3inary and funda3ental. All the$e grou8$ of di$cour$e$ that are to e de$cried are not the eD8re$$ion of a

world;%iew that ha$ een coined in the for3 of word$6 nor the hy8ocritical tran$lation of an intere$t 3a$Buerading under the

8reteDt of a theory@ the Natural 'i$;tory of the Cla$$ical 8eriod i$ 3ore than a confrontation6 in the li3o that 8recede$3anife$t hi$tory6 etween a >,innaean? %iew of a $tatic6 ordered6 co38art3ented uni%er$e that i$ $uJected fro3 it$ %ery

eginning$ to the cla$$ificatory tale6 and the $till confu$ed 8erce8tion of a nature that i$ the heir to ti3e6 with all the weight

of it$ accident$6 and o8en to the 8o$$iility of an e%olutionH $i3ilarly6 the Analy$i$ of :ealth i$ 3ore than. the conflict of intere$t etween a ourgeoi$ie that ha$ eco3e a land;owning cla$$6 eD8re$$ing it$ econo3ic or 8olitical de3and$ through

the Phy$iocrat$6 and a co33ercial ourgeoi$ie that de3and$ 8rotectioni$t or lieral 3ea$ure$ through the #tilitari$t$. Nei ther

the Analy$i$ of :ealth6 nor Natural 'i$tory6 if one Bue$tion$ the3 at the le%el of their eDi$tence6 their unity6 their 8er3anence6 an.d their tran$for3ation$6 3ay e regarded a$ the $u3 of the$e %ariou$ o8tion$. On the contrary6 the$e o8tion$

3u$t e de$cried a$ $y$te3atically different way$ of treating oJect$ of di$cour$e >of deli3iting the36 regrou8ing or

$e8arating the36 lin<ing the3 together and 3a<ing the3 deri%e fro3 one another?6 of arranging for3$ of enunciation >of choo$ing the36 8lacing the36 con$tituting $erie$6 co38o$ing the3 into great rhetorical unitie$?6 of 3ani8ulating conce8t$ >of

gi%ing the3 rule$ for their u$e6 in$erting the3 into regional coherence$6 and thu$ con$tituting conce8tual architecture$?. The$e

o8tion$ are not $eed$ of di$cour$e >in which di$cour$e$ are deter3ined in ad%ance and

>>)??

8refigured in a Bua$i;3icro$co8ic for3?H they are regulated way$ >and de$criale a$ $uch? of 8racti$ing the 8o$$iilitie$ of

di$cour$e.*ut the$e $trategie$ 3u$t not e analy$ed either a$ $econdary ele3ent$ that are $u8er8o$ed on a di$cur$i%e rationality that

i$6 of right6 inde8endent of the3.. There i$ not >or6 at lea$t6 a$ far a$ the hi$torical de$cri8tion who$e 8o$$iility we are tracing

here i$ concerned? a $ort of ideal di$cour$e that i$ oth ulti3ate and ti3ele$$6 and which choice$6 eDtrin$ic in origin6 ha%e 8er%erted6 di$tured6 $u88re$$ed6 or thru$t toward$ a 8o$$ily di$tant futureH one 3u$t not $u88o$e for eDa38le that it hold$

on nature or on the econo3y two $u8er8o$ed and inter3ingled di$cour$e$@ one that 8roceed$ $lowly6 accu3ulating it$acBui$ition$ and gradually achie%ing co38letion >a true di$cour$e6 ut one that eDi$t$ in it$ 8ure $tate only at the teleological

confine$ of hi$tory?H the other fore%er di$integrating6 reco33enced6 in 8er8etual ru8ture with it$elf6 co38o$ed of

heterogeneou$ frag3ent$ >a di$cour$e of o8inion that hi$tory6 in the cour$e of ti3e6 throw$ ac< into the 8a$t?. There i$ nonatural taDono3y that ha$ een eDact6 fiDi$3 eDce8tedH there i$ no econo3y of eDchange and u$e that ha$ een true6 without

the 8reference$ and illu$ion$ of a 3ercantile ourgeoi$ie. Cla$$ical taDono3y or the Analy$i$ of :ealth6 in the for3 in which

they actually eDi$ted6 and con$tituted hi$torical figure$6 in%ol%e6 in an articulated ut indi$$ociale $y$te36 oJect$6$tate3ent$6 conce8t$6 and theoretical choice$. And Ju$t a$ one 3u$t not relate the for3ation of oJect$ either to word$ or to

thing$6 nor that of $tate3ent$ either to the 8ure for3 of <nowledge or to the 8$ychological $uJect6 nor that of conce8t$ either

to the $tructure of ideality or to the $ucce$$ion of idea$6 one 3u$t not relate the for3ation of theoretical choice$ either to afunda3ental 8roJect or to the $econdary 8lay of o8inion$.



7. REMAR"S AND CONSE#UENCES

:e 3u$t now ta<e u8 once 3ore a nu3er of re3ar<$ to e found in the 8receding analy$e$6 re8ly to $o3e of the Bue$tion$that they ine%italy rai$e6 and ao%e all eDa3ine the oJection that threaten$ to 8re$ent it$elf6 for the 8aradoD of the enter8ri$e

i$ now a88arent.

At the out$et I Bue$tioned tho$e 8re;e$tali$hed unitie$ according to which one ha$ traditionally di%ided u8 the indefinite6re8etiti%e6 8rolific do3ain of di$cour$e. My intention. wa$ not to deny all %alue to the$e unitie$ or to try to forid their u$eH it

wa$ to $how that they reBuired6 in order to e defined eDactly6 a theoretical elaoration. 'ow;e%er and it i$ here that all the

8receding analy$e$ a88ear $o 8role3atic wa$ it nece$$ary to $u8er8o$e u8on the$e unitie$6 which 3ay in fact ha%e eenrather uncertain6 another category of le$$ %i$ile6 3ore a$tract6 and certainly far 3ore 8role3atical unitie$ *ut in ca$e$

when their hi$torical li3it$ and the $8ecificity of their organiation are fairly ea$y to 8ercei%e >witne$$ /eneral /ra33ar or

Natural 'i$tory?6 the$e di$cur$i%e for3ation$ 8re$ent far 3ore difficult 8role3$ of location than the oo<6 or the oeu%re.:hy6 then6 8roceed to $uch duiou$ regrou8ing$ at the %ery 3o3ent when one i$ challenging tho$e that once $ee3ed the

3o$t o%iou$ :hat new do3ain i$ one ho8ing to

>>9??

di$co%er :hat hitherto o$cure or i38licit relation$ :hat tran$for3ation$ that ha%e hitherto re3ained out$ide the reach of

hi$torian$ In $hort6 what de$cri8ti%e efficacy can one accord to the$e new analy$e$ I $hall try to an$wer all the$e Bue$tion$

later. *ut for the 3o3ent I 3u$t re8ly to a Bue$tion that i$ 8ri3ary in relation to the$e later analy$e$6 and ter3inal in relationto the 8receding one$@ on the Bue$tion of the di$cur$i%e for3ation$ that I ha%e tried to define6 can one really $8ea< of

unitie$ I$ the re;di%i$ion that I a3 8ro8o$ing ca8ale of indi%idualiing whole$ And what i$ the nature of the unity thu$

di$co%ered or con$tructed:e $et out with an o$er%ation@ with the unity of a di$cour$e li<e that of clinical 3edicine6 or 8olitical econo3y6 or

Natural 'i$tory6 we are dealing with a di$8er$ion of ele3ent$. Thi$ di$8er$ion it$elf with it$ ga8$6 it$ di$continuitie$6 it$

entangle3ent$6 it$ inco38atiilitie$6 it$ re8lace3ent$6 and it$ $u$titution$ can e de$cried in it$ uniBuene$$ if one i$ale to deter3ine the $8ecific rule$ in accordance with which it$ oJect$6 $tate3ent$6 conce8t$6 and theoretical o8tion$ ha%e

een for3ed@ if there really i$ a unity6 it doe$ not lie in the %i$ile6 horiontal coherence of the ele3ent$ for3edH it re$ide$6

well anterior to their for3ation6 in the $y$te3 that 3a<e$ 8o$$ile and go%ern$ that for3a;tion. *ut in what way can we$8ea< of unitie$ and $y$te3$ 'ow can we affir3 that we ha%e 8ro8erly indi%idualied certain di$cur$i%e grou8$ or whole$

:hen in a highly rando3 way we ha%e unco%ered6 ehind the a88arently irreducile 3ulti8licity of oJect$6 $tate3ent$6conce8t$6 and choice$6 a 3a$$ of ele3ent$ that were no le$$ nu3erou$ or di$8er$ed6 ut which were heterogeneou$ with one

another :hen we ha%e di%ided the$e ele3ent$ into four di$tinct grou8$ who$e 3ode of articulation ha$ $carcely een

defined And in what $en$e can one $ay that all the$e ele3ent$ that ha%e een unco%ered ehind the oJect$6 $tate3ent$6conce8t$6 and $trategie$ of di$cour$e$ guarantee the eDi$tence of no le$$ indi%idualiale whole$ $uch a$ oeu%re$ or oo<$

&. A$ we ha%e $een and there i$ 8roaly no need to reiterate it when one $8ea<$ of a $y$te3 of for3ation6 one doe$

not only 3ean the JuDta8o$ition6 coeDi$tence6 or interaction of heterogeneou$ ele3ent$ >in$titution$6 techniBue$6 $ocial

grou8$6 8erce8tual organiation$6 relation$ etween %ariou$ di$cour$e$?6 ut al$o the relation that i$



>>&??



e$tali$hed etween the3 and in a well deter3ined for3 y di$;cur$i%e 8ractice. *ut what i$ to he done with tho$e four

$y$te3$ or rather tho$e four grou8$ of relation$ 'ow can they all define a $ingle $y$te3 of for3ation

In fact6 the different le%el$ thu$ defined are not inde8endent of one another. I ha%e $hown that the $trategic choice$ do note3erge directly fro3 a world;%iew or fro3 a 8redo3inance of intere$t$ 8eculiar to thi$ or that $8ea<ing $uJectH ut that their

%ery 8o$$iility i$ deter3ined y 8oint$ of di%ergence in the grou8 of conce8t$H I ha%e al$o $hown that conce8t$ were not

for3ed directly again$t the a88roDi3ati%e6 confu$ed6 and li%ing ac<ground of idea$6 ut on the a$i$ of for3$ of coeDi$t ence etween $tate3ent$H and6 a$ we ha%e $een6 the 3odalitie$ of enunciation were de$cried on the a$i$ of the 8o$ition occu8ied

y the $uJect in relation to the do3ain of oJect$ of which he i$ $8ea<ing. In thi$ way6 there eDi$t$ a %ertical $y$te3 of de8endence$@ not all the 8o$ition$ of the $uJect6 all the ty8e$ of coeDi$tence etween $tate3ent$6 all the di$cur$i%e $trategie$6are eBually 8o$$ile6 ut only tho$e authoried y anterior le%el$H gi%en6 for eDa38le6 the $y$te3 of for3a;tion that go%erned6

in the eighteenth century6 the oJect$ of Natural 'i$tory >a$ indi%idualitie$ 8o$$e$$ing character$6 and therefore cla$$ifi aleH

a$ $tructural ele3ent$ ca8ale of %ariationH a$ %i$ile6 analy$ale $urface$H a$ a field of continuou$6 regular difference$?6certain 3odalitie$ of enunciation are eDcluded >for eDa38le6 the deci8her3ent of $ign$?6 other$ are i38lied >for eDa38le6

de$cri8tion according to a 8articular code?H gi%en6 too6 the different 8o$ition$ that the di$cour$ing $uJect 3ay occu8y >a$ ano$er%ing $uJect with in$tru3ental 3ediation6 a$ a $uJect $electing out of the 8erce8tual 8lurality only the ele3ent$ of the

$tructure6 a$ a $uJect tran$criing the$e ele3ent$ into a coded %ocaulary6 etc.?6 there are a nu3er of coeDi$tence$ etween

the $tate3ent$ that are eDcluded >a$6 for eDa38le6 the erudite reacti%ation of the already;$aid6 or the eDegetic co33entary of a$acralied teDt?6 other$ on the other hand that are 8o$$ile or reBuired >$uch a$ the integration of totally or 8artially analogou$

$tate3ent$ into a cla$$ificatory tale?. The le%el$ are not free fro3 one another therefore6 and are not de8loyed according to

an unli3ited autono3y@ etween the 8ri3ary differentiation of oJect$ and the for3ation of di$cur$i%e $trategie$ there eDi$t$a whole hierarchy of relation$.

>>2??

*ut relation$ are al$o e$tali$hed in a re%er$e direction. The lower le%el$ are not inde8endent of tho$e ao%e the3.

Theoretical choice$ eDclude or i38ly6 in the $tate3ent$ in which they are 3ade6 the for3a;tion of certain conce8t$6 that i$6

certain for3$ of coeDi$tence etween $tate3ent$@ thu$ in the teDt$ of the Phy$iocrat$6 one will not find the $a3e 3ode$ of integrating Buantitati%e data and 3ea$ure3ent$ a$ in the analy$e$ of the #tilitari$t$. It i$ not that the Phy$iocratic o8tion can

3odify the grou8 of rule$ that go%ern the for3ation of econo3ic conce8t$ in the eighteenth centuryH ut it can i38le3ent

$o3e of the$e rule$ and eDclude other$ and con$eBuently re%eal certain conce8t$ >li<e that6 for eDa38le6 of the net 8roduct?that a88ear nowhere el$e. It i$ not the theoretical choice that go%ern$ the for3ation of the conce8tH ut the choice ha$

8roduced the conce8t y the 3ediation of $8ecific rule$ for the for3ation of conce8t$6 and y the $et of relation$ that it hold$

with thi$ le%el.

2. The$e $y$te3$ of for3ation 3u$t not e ta<en a$ loc<$ of i33oility6 $tatic for3$ that are i38o$ed on di$cour$e fro3the out;$ide6 and that define once and for all it$ characteri$tic$ and 8o$$iilitie$. They are not con$traint$ who$e origin i$ to e

found in the thought$ of 3en6 or in the 8lay of their re8re$entation$H ut nor are they deter3ination$ which6 for3ed at the

le%el of in$titution$6 or $ocial or econo3ic relation$6 tran$crie the3$el%e$ y force on the $urface of di$cour$e$. The$e$y$te3$ I re8eat re$ide in di$cour$e it$elfH or rather >$ince we are concerned not with it$ interiority and what it 3ay

contain6 ut with it$ $8ecific eDi$tence and with it$ condition$? on it$ frontier6 at that li3it at which the $8ecific rule$ that

enale it to eDi$t a$ $uch are defined. *y $y$te3 of for3ation6 then6 I 3ean a co38leD grou8 of relation$ that function a$ arule@ it lay$ down what 3u$t e related6 in a 8articular di$cur$i%e 8ractice6 for $uch and $uch an enunciation to e 3ade6 for

$uch and $uch a conce8t to e u$ed6 for $uch and $uch a $trategy to e organied. To define a $y$te3 of for3ation in it$$8ecific indi%iduality i$ therefore to characterie a di$cour$e or a grou8 of $tate3ent$ y the regularity of a 8ractice.

A$ a grou8 of rule$ for a di$cur$i%e 8ractice6 the $y$te3 of for3ation i$ not a $tranger to ti3e. It doe$ not concentrate

e%erything that 3ay a88ear through an age;old $erie$ of $tate3ent$ into an initial 8oint that

((83))

i$6 at the $a3e ti3e6 eginning6 origin6 foundation6 $y$te3 of aDio3$6 and on the a$i$ of which the e%ent$ of real hi$toryha%e 3erely to unfold in a Buite nece$$ary way. :hat it outline$ i$ the $y$te3 of rule$ that 3u$t e 8ut into o8eration if $uch

and $uch an oJect i$ to e tran$for3ed6 $uch and $uch a new enu3eration a88ear6 $uch and $uch a conce8t he de%elo8ed6

whether 3eta3or8ho$ed or i38orted6 and $uch and $uch a $trategy he 3odified without e%er cea$ing to elong to thi$$a3e di$cour$eH and what it al$o outline$ i$ the $y$te3 of rule$ that ha$ to e 8ut into o8eration if a change in other di$cour$e$

>in other 8ractice$6 in in$titution$6 in $ocial relation$6 and in econo3ic 8roce$$e$? i$ to e tran$cried within a gi%en

di$cour$e6 thu$ con$tituting a new oJect6 gi%ing ri$e to a new $trategy6 gi%ing 8lace to new enunciation$ or new conce8t$. A



di$cur$i%e for3ation6 then6 doe$ not 8lay the role of a figure that arre$t$ ti3e and freee$ it for decade$ or centurie$H it

deter3ine$ a regularity 8ro8er to te38oral 8roce$$e$H it 8re$ent$ the 8rinci8le of articulation etween a $erie$ of di$cur$i%e

e%ent$ and other $erie$ of e%ent$6 tran$for3ation$6 3utation$6 and 8roce$$e$. It i$ not an ate38oral for36 ut a $che3a of corre$8ondence etween $e%eral te38oral $erie$.

Thi$ 3oility of the $y$te3 of for3ation a88ear$ in two way$. Fir$t at the le%el of the ele3ent$ that are eing related to

one another@ the$e in fact 3ay undergo a nu3er of intrin$ic 3utation$ that are integrated into di$cur$i%e 8ractice without thegeneral for3 of it$ regularity eing alteredH thu$6 throughout the nineteenth century6 cri3inal Juri$;8rudence6 de3ogra8hic

8re$$ure6 the de3and for laour6 the for3$ of 8ulic a$$i$tance6 the $tatu$ and Juridical condition$ of intern3ent6 werecontinually changingH yet the di$cur$i%e 8ractice of 8$ychiatry continued to e$tali$h the $a3e grou8 of relation$ etweenthe$e ele3ent$H in thi$ way6 the $y$te3 8re$er%ed the characteri$tic$ of it$ indi%idualityH through the $a3e law$ of for3ation6

new oJect$ a88ear >new ty8e$ of indi%idual$6 new cla$$e$ of eha%iour are characteried a$ 8athological?6 new 3odalitie$ of

enunciation are 8ut into o8eration >Buantitati%e notation$ and $tati$tical calculation$?6 new conce8t$ are outlined >$uch a$tho$e of degeneracy6 8er%er$ion6 neuro$i$?6 and of cour$e new theoretical $tructure$ can e uilt. *ut6 in%er$ely6 the di$;

cur$i%e 8ractice$ 3odify the do3ain$ that they relate to one another. It i$ no u$e e$tali$hing $8ecific relation$ that can eanaly$ed only at their

>>4??

own le%el the effect of the$e relation$ i$ not confined to di$cour$e alone@ it i$ al$o felt in the ele3ent$ that they articulate

u8on one another. The ho$8ital field6 for eDa38le6 did not re3ain unaffected when clinical di$cour$e wa$ 8ut into relationwith the laoratory@ the ody of rule$ that go%erned it$ wor<ing6 the $tatu$ accorded the ho$8ital doctor6 the function of hi$

o$er%ation6 the le%el of analy$i$ that can e carried out in it6 were nece$$arily 3odified.

. :hat are de$cried a$ G$y$te3$ of for3ationG do not con$titute the ter3inal $tage of di$cour$e6 if y that ter3 one 3ean$

the teDt$ >or word$? a$ they a88ear6 with their %ocaulary6 $yntaD6 logical $tructure6 or rhetorical organiation. Analy$i$re3ain$ anterior to thi$ 3anife$t le%el6 which i$ that of the co38leted con$truction@ in defining the 8rinci8le of di$triuting

oJect$ in a di$cour$e6 it doe$ not ta<e into account all their conneDion$6 their delicate $tructure6 or their internal $u;

di%i$ion$H in $ee<ing the law of the di$8er$ion of conce8t$6 it doe$ not ta<e into account all the 8roce$$e$ of elaoration6 or allthe deducti%e $erie$ in which they 3ay figureH if analy$i$ $tudie$ the 3odalitie$ of enunciation6 it Bue$tion$ neither the $tyle

nor the $ucce$$ion. of the $entence$H in $hort6 it lea%e$ the final 8lacing of the teDt in dotted out;line. *ut we 3u$t e clear on

one 8oint@ if analy$i$ $tand$ ac< in relation to thi$ final con$truction6 it i$ not to turn away fro3 the di$cour$e and to a88eal

to the $ilent wor< of thoughtH nor i$ it to turn away fro3 the $y$te3atic and to re%eal the Gli%ingG di$order of atte38t$6 trial$6

error$6 and new eginning$.

In thi$ re$8ect6 the analy$i$ of di$cur$i%e for3ation$ i$ o88o$ed to 3any cu$to3ary de$cri8tion$. One i$ u$ed6 in fact6 to

con$ider that di$cour$e$ and their $y$te3atic ordering are not only the ulti3ate $tate6 the final re$ult of a long and often

$inuou$ de%elo83ent in%ol%ing language >longue? and thought6 e38irical eD8erience and categorie$6 the li%ed and idealnece$$itie$6 the contingency of e%ent$ and the 8lay of for3al con$traint$. *ehind the %i$ile facade of the $y$te36 one 8o$it$

the rich uncertainty of di$orderH and eneath the thin $urface of di$cour$e6 the whole 3a$$ of a largely $ilent de%elo83ent

>de%enir?@ a G 8re$y$te3aticG that i$ not of the order of the $y$te3H a G 8redi$cur$i%eG that elong$ to an e$$ential $ilence.

"i$cour$e and $y$te3 8roduce each other and

((85))

conJointly only at the cre$t of thi$ i33en$e re$er%e. :hat are eing analy$ed here are certainly not

the ter3inal $tate$ of di$cour$eH they are the 8reter3inal regularitie$ in relation to which the ulti3ate $tate6far fro3 con$tituting the irth;8lace of a $y$te36 i$ defined y it$ %ariant$. *ehind the co38leted

$y$te36 what i$ di$co%ered y the analy$i$ of for3ation$ i$ not the uling $ource of life it$elf6 life inan a$ yet unca8tured $tateH it i$ an i33en$e den$ity of $y$te3aticitie$6 a tight grou8 of 3ulti8le

relation$. Moreo%er6 the$e relation$ cannot e the %ery we of the teDt they are not y nature foreignto di$cour$e. They can certainly e Bualified a$ G 8redi$cur$i%eG6 ut only if one ad3it$ that thi$

8redi$cur$i%e i$ $till di$cur$i%e6 that i$6 that they do not $8ecify a thought6 or a con$ciou$ne$$6 or a

grou8 of re8re$entation$ which6 a 8o$teriori6 and in a way that i$ ne%er Buite nece$$ary6 are tran$cried

into a di$cour$e6 ut that they characterie certain le%el$ of di$cour$e6 that they define rule$ that aree3odied a$ a 8articular 8ractice y di$;cour$e. One i$ not $ee<ing6 therefore6 to 8a$$ fro3 the teDt to

thought6 fro3 tal< to $ilence6 fro3 the eDterior to the interior6 fro3 $8atial di$8er$ion to the 8ure

recollection of the 3o3ent6 fro3 $u8erficial 3ulti8licity to 8rofound unity. One re3ain$ within thedi3en$ion of di$cour$e.



Part III The Statement and the Archive

>>??

*. DEFINING TE STATE!ENT

I $u88o$e that y now we ha%e acce8ted the ri$<H that we are now willing6 in order to articulate the great $urface of di$cour$e6

to 8o$it the eDi$tence of tho$e $o3ewhat $trange6 $o3ewhat di$tant figure$ that I ha%e called di$cur$i%e for3ation$H that weha%e 8ut to one $ide6 not in a definiti%e way6 ut for a ti3e and out of 3ethodological rigour6 the traditional unitie$ of the

oo< and the ceu%reH that we ha%e cea$ed to acce8t a$ a 8rinci8le of unity the law$ of con$tructing di$cour$e >wi.th the for3alorganiation that re$ult$?6 or the $ituation of the $8ea<ing $uJect >with the conteDt and the 8$ychological nucleu$ that

characterie it?H that we no longer relate di$cour$e to the 8ri3ary ground of eD8erience6 nor to the a 8riori authority of

<nowledgeH ut that we $ee< the rule$ of it$ for3ation in di$cour$e it$elf. I $u88o$e that we ha%e agreed to underta<e the$elong inBuirie$ into the $y$te3 of e3ergence of oJect$6 the $y$te3 of the a88earance and di$triution of enunciati%e 3ode$6

the $y$te3 of the 8lacing and di$8er$ion of conce8t$6 the $y$te3 of the de8loy3ent of $trategic choice$. I $u88o$e that we are

willing to con$truct $uch a$tract6 8role3atic unitie$6 in$tead of welco3ing tho$e that 8re$ented the3$el%e$ a$ eing 3oreor le$$ 8erce8tually fa3iliar6 if not a$ $elf;e%ident realitie$.

*ut what6 in fact6 ha%e I een $8ea<ing aout $o far :hat ha$ een the oJect of 3y inBuiry And what did I intend to

de$crie

>>9??GState3ent$G oth in that di$continuity that free$ the3 fro3 all the for3$ in which one wa$ $o ready to allow the3 to e

caught6 and in the general6 unli3ited6 a88arently for3le$$ field of di$cour$e. *ut I refrained fro3 8ro%iding a 8reli3inary

definition of the $tate3ent. Nor did I try to con$truct one a$ I 8roceeded in order to Ju$tify the nai%ety of 3y $tarting;8oint.Moreo%er and thi$ no dout i$ the rea$on for $o 3uch unconcern I wonder whether I ha%e not changed direction on

the wayH whether I ha%e not re8laced 3y fir$t Bue$t with anotherH whether6 while analy$ing GoJect$G or Gconce8t$G6 let aloneG$trategie$G6 I wa$ in fact $till $8ea<ing of $tate3ent$H whether the four grou8$ of rule$ y which I characteried a di$cur$i%efor3ation really did define grou8$ of $tate3ent$. ,a$tly6 in$tead of gradually reducing the rather fluctuating 3eaning of the

word Gdi$cour$eG6 I elie%e that I ha%e in fact added to it$ 3eaning$@ treating it $o3eti3e$ a$ the general do3ain of all

$tate3ent$6 $o3eti3e$ a$ an indi%idualiale grou8 of $tate3ent$6 and $o3eti3e$ a$ a regulated 8ractice that account$ for a

certain nu3er of $tate3ent$H and ha%e I not allowed thi$ $a3e word Gdi$cour$eG6 which $hould ha%e $er%ed a$ a oundary

around the ter3 G$tate3entG6 to %ary a$ I $hifted 3y analy$i$ or it$ 8oint of a88lication6 a$ the $tate3ent it$elf faded. fro3

%iewThi$6 then6 i$ the ta$< that now confront$ 3e@ to ta<e u8 the definition of the $tate3ent at it$ %ery root. And to $ee whether

that definition really wa$ 8re$ent in 3y earlier de$cri8tion$H to $ee whether I really wa$ dealing with the $tate3ent in 3y

analy$i$ of di$cur$i%e for3ation$.

On $e%eral occa$ion$ I ha%e u$ed the ter3 G$tate3entG6 either to $8ea< of a 8o8ulation of $tate3ent$ >a$ if I were dealing

with indi%idual$ or i$olated e%ent$?6 or in order to di$tingui$h it fro3 the grou8$ that I called Gdi$cour$e$G >a$ the 8art i$

di$tingui$hed fro3 the whole?. At fir$t $ight6 the $tate3ent a88ear$ a$ an ulti3ate6 undeco38o$ale ele3ent that can ei$olated and introduced into a $et of relation$ with other $i3ilar ele3ent$. A 8oint without a $urface6 ut a 8oint that can e

located in 8lane$ of di%i$ion and in $8ecific for3$ of grou8ing$. A $eed that a88ear$ on the $urface of a ti$$ue of which it i$

the con$tituent ele3ent. The ato3 of di$cour$e.



And the 8role3 $oon ari$e$@ if the $tate3ent really i$ the ele3entary unit of di$cour$e6 what doe$ it con$i$t of :hat are

it$ di$tincti%e

>>&??

feature$ :hat oundarie$ 3u$t one accord to it I$ thi$ unity identical with that to which logician$ ha%e gi%en the ter3G 8ro8o$itionG6 and that which gra33arian$ call a G$entenceG6 or that which Ganaly$t$G try to 3a8 y the ter3 G$8eech actG :hat

8lace doe$ it occu8y a3ong all tho$e unitie$ that the in%e$tigation of language >langage? ha$ already re%ealed >E%en thoughthe theory of the$e unitie$ i$ $o often inco38lete6 on account of the difficulty of the 8role3$ that they 8re$ent6 and thedifficulty in 3any ca$e$ of deli3iting the3 with any degree of rigour.?

I do not thin< that the nece$$ary and $ufficient condition of a $tate;3ent i$ the 8re$ence of a defined 8ro8o$itional

$tructure6 or that one can $8ea< of a $tate3ent only when there i$ a 8ro8o$ition. In fact6 one can ha%e two 8erfectly di$tinct$tate3ent$6 referring to Buite different di$cur$i%e grou8ing$6 when one find$ only one 8ro8o$ition6 8o$$e$$ing only one

%alue6 oeying only one grou8 of law$ for it$ con$truction6 and in%ol%ing the $a3e 8o$$iilitie$ of u$e. G No one heardG and GIt

i$ true that no one heardG are indi$tingui$hale fro3 a logical 8oint of %iew6 and cannot e regarded a$ two different 8ro8o$ition$. *ut in $o 3any $tate3ent$6 the$e two for3ation$ are not eBui%alent or inter;changeale. They cannot occu8y

the $a3e 8lace on the 8lane of di$;cour$e6 nor can they elong to eDactly the $a3e grou8 of $tate3ent$. If one find$ the

for3ulation G No one heardG in the fir$t line of a no%el6 we <now6 until a new order e3erge$6 that it i$ an o$er%ation 3adeeither y the author6 or y a character >aloud or in the for3 of an interior 3onologue?H if one find$ the $econd for3ulation6GIt i$ true that no one heardG6 one can only e in a grou8 of $tate3ent$ con$tituting an interior 3onologue6 a $ilent di$cu$$ion

with. one$elf6 or a frag3ent of dialogue6 a grou8 of Bue$tion$ and an$wer$. In each ca$e6 there i$ the $a3e 8ro8o$itional$tructure6 ut there are di$tinct enunciati%e characteri$tic$. There 3ay6 on the other hand6 e co38leD and douled

8ro8o$itional for3$6 or6 on the contrary6 frag3entary6 inco38lete 8ro8o$ition$6 when one i$ Buite o%iou$ly dealing with a

$i38le6 co38lete6 autono3ou$ $tate3ent >e%en if it i$ 8art of grou8 of other $tate3ent$?@ the eDa38le GThe 8re$ent <ing of

France i$ aldG i$ well <nown >it can e analy$ed fro3 a logical 8oint of %iew only if on.e acce8t$6 in the for3 of a $ingle

$tate3ent6 two di$tinct 8ro8o$ition$6 each of which 3ay e true or fal$e on it$ own account?6 or again there i$ a

>>2??

8ro8o$ition li<e GI a3 lyingG6 which can e true only in relation to an a$$ertion on a lower le%el. The criteria y which one candefine the identity of a 8ro8o$ition6 di$tingui$h $e%eral of the3 eneath the unity of a for3ulation6 characterie it$ autono3y

or it$ co38letion are not %alid when one co3e$ to de$crie the 8articular unity of a $tate3ent.

And what of the $entence Should we not acce8t an eBui%alence etween $entence and $tate3ent :here%er there i$ a

gra33atically i$olale $entence6 one can recognie the eDi$tence of an inde8endent $tate3entH ut6 on the other hand6 one

cannot $8ea< of $tate3ent when6 eneath the $entence it$elf6 one reache$ the le%el of it$ con$titu ent$. It would he 8ointle$$ to

oJect6 again$t $uch an eBui%alence6 that $o3e $tate3ent$ 3ay e co38o$ed6 out$ide the canonical for3 of $uJect;co8ula;

8redicate6 of a $i38le no3inal $yntag3a > GThat 3anG? or an ad%er >GA$olutelyG?6 or a 8er$onal 8ronoun >G5ouG?. For the

gra33arian$ the3$el%e$ recognie $uch for3ulation$ a$ inde8endent $entence$6 e%en if tho$e for3ulation$ ha%e een

otained through a $erie$ of tran$for3ation$ on the a$i$ of the $uJect;8redicate $che3a. Moreo%er@ they recognie a$Gacce8taleG $entence$ grou8$ of lingui$tic ele3ent$ that ha%e not een correctly con$tructed6 8ro%iding they are inter8retaleH

on the other hand6 they accord the $tatu$ of gra33atical $entence$ to inter8retale grou8$ on condition howe%er that they are

correctly for3ed. :ith $o road an.d6 in a $en$e6 $o laD a definition of the $entence6 it i$ difficult to $ee how one i$ to

recognie $entence$ that are not $tate3ent$6 or $tate3ent$ that are not $entence$.

5et the eBui%alence i$ far fro3 eing a total oneH and it i$ relati%ely ea$y to cite $tate3ent$ that do not corre$8ond to the

lingui$tic $tructure of $entence$. :hen one find$ in a ,atin gra33ar a $erie$ of word$ arranged in a colu3n@ a3o6 a3a$6

a3at6 one i$ dealing not with a $entence6 ut with the $tate3ent of the different 8er$onal infleDion$ of the 8re$ent indicati%e

of the %er a3are. One 3ay find thi$ eDa38le deataleH one 3ay $ay that it i$ a 3ere artifice of 8re$entation6 that thi$$tate3ent i$ an elli8tical6 are%iated $entence6 $8atialied in a relati%ely unu$ual 3ode6 that $hould he read a$ the $entenceGThe 8re$ent indicati%e of the %er a3are i$ a3o for the fir$t 8er$on G6 etc. Other eDa38le$6 in any ca$e6 are le$$ a3iguou$@ a

cla$$ificatory tale of the otanical $8ecie$ i$ 3ade u8 of $tate3ent$6 not $entence$ >,innaeu$G$ /enera Plantaru3 i$ a whole

oo< of $tate3ent$6 in which one can recognie

>>??

only a $3all nu3er of $entence$?H a genealogical tree6 an account$ oo<6 the calculation$ of a trade alance are $tate3ent$Hwhere are the $entence$ One can go further@ an eBuation of the nth degree6 or the algeraic for3ula of the law of refraction



3u$t e regarded a$ $tate3ent$@ and although they 8o$$e$$ a highly rigorou$ gra33aticality >$ince they are 3ade u8 of

$y3ol$ who$e 3eaning i$ deter3ined y rule$ of u$age6 and who$e $ucce$$ion i$ go%erned y law$ of con$truction?6 thi$

gra33aticality cannot e Judged y the $a3e criteria that6 in a natural language >Iangue?6 3a<e it 8o$$ile to define anacce8tale6 or inter8retale $entence. ,a$tly6 a gra8h6 a growth cur%e6 an age 8yra3id6 a di$triution could are all $tate3ent$@

any $entence$ that 3ay acco38any the3 are 3erely inter8retation or co33entaryH they are in no way an eBui%alent@ thi$ i$

8ro%ed y the fact that6 in a great 3any ca$e$6 only an. infinite nu3er of $entence$ could eBual all the ele3ent$ that areeD8licitly for3ulated in thi$ $ort of $tate3ent. It would not a88ear to e 8o$$ile6 therefore6 to define a $tate3ent y the

gra33atical characteri$tic$ of the $entence.One la$t 8o$$iility re3ain$@ at fir$t $ight6 the 3o$t li<ely of all. Can one not $ay that there i$ a $tate3ent where%er one canrecognie and i$olate an act of for3ulation $o3ething li<e the $8eech act referred to y the Engli$h analy$t$ Thi$ ter3

doe$ not6 of cour$e6 refer to the 3aterial act of $8ea<ing >aloud or to one$elf? or of writing >y hand or ty8ewriter?H nor doe$ it

refer to the intention of the indi%idual who i$ $8ea<ing >the fact that he want$ to con%ince $o3eone el$e6 to e oeyed6 todi$co%er the $olution to a 8role36 or to co33unicate infor3ation? H nor doe$ it refer to the 8o$$ile re$ult of what he ha$

$aid >whether he ha$ con%inced $o3eone or arou$ed hi$ $u$8icionH whether he wa$ li$tened to and whether hi$ order$ werecarried outH whether hi$ 8rayer wa$ heard?H what one i$ referring to i$ the o8eration that ha$ een carried out y the for3ula

it$elf6 in it$ e3ergence@ 8ro3i$e6 order6 decree6 contract6 agree3ent6 o$er%ation. The $8eech act i$ not what too< 8lace Ju$t

8rior to the 3o3ent when the $tate3ent wa$ 3ade >in the author G$ thought or intention$?H it i$ not what 3ight ha%e ha88ened6after the e%ent it$elf6 in. it$ wa<e6 and the con$eBuence$ that it ga%e ri$e toH it i$ what occurred y the %ery fact that a

$tate3ent wa$ 3ade and 8reci$ely thi$ $tate3ent >and no other? in $8ecific circu3$tance$. Pre$u3aly6 therefore6 one

indi%idualiation of $tate3ent$

>>4??

refer$ to the $a3e criteria a$ the location of act$ of for3ulation@ each act i$ e3odied in a $tate3ent each $tate3ent contain$

one of tho$e act$. They eDi$t through one another in an eDact reci8rocal relation$hi8.

5et $uch a correlation doe$ not $tand u8 to eDa3ination. For one thing6 3ore than a $tate3ent i$ often reBuired to effect a$8eech act@ an oath6 a 8rayer6 a contract6 a 8ro3i$e6 or a de3on$tration u$ually reBuire a certain nu3er of di$tinct for3ula$

or $e8arate $entence$@ it would e difficult to challenge the right of each of the$e for3ula$ and $entence$ to e regarded a$ a

$tate3ent on the 8reteDt that they are all i3ued with one and the $a3e $8eech act. In that ca$e6 it 3ight e $aid that the actit$elf doe$ not re3ain the $a3e throughout the $erie$ of $tate3ent$H that in a 8rayer there are a$ 3any li3ited6 $ucce$$i%e6 and

JuDta8o$ed act$ of 8rayer a$ de3and$ for3ulated y di$tinct $tate3ent$H and that in a 8ro3i$e there are a$ 3any engage3ent$

a$ $eBuence$ that can e indi%idualied into $e8arate $tate3ent$. *ut one cannot e $ati$fied with thi$ an$wer@ fir$t ecau$ethe act of for3ulation would no longer $er%e to define the $tate3ent6 ut6 on the contrary6 the act of for3ula;tion would e

defined y the $tate3ent which rai$e$ 8role3$6 and reBuire$ criteria of indi%idualiation. Moreo%er6 certain $8eech act$can e regarded a$ co38lete in their 8articular unity only if $e%eral $tate3ent$ ha%e een 3ade6 each in it$ 8ro8er 8lace.

The$e act$ are not con$tituted6 therefore6 y the $erie$ or $u3 of the$e $tate3ent$6 y their nece$$ary JuDta8o$itionH theycannot e regarded a$ eing 8re$ent whole and entire in the lea$t of the36 and a$ renewing the3$el%e$ with each one. So onecannot e$tali$h a hi;uni%ocal relation etween the grou8 of $tate3ent$ and that of $8eech act$ either.

:hen one wi$he$ to indi%idualie $tate3ent$6 one cannot therefore acce8t unre$er%edly any of the 3odel$ orrowed fro3

gra33ar6 logic6 or Ganaly$i$G. In all three ca$e$6 one realie$ that the criteria 8ro8o$ed are too nu3erou$ and too hea%y6 thatthey li3it the eDtent of the $tate3ent6 and that although the $tate3ent $o3eti3e$ ta<e$ on the for3$ de$cried and adJu$t$

it$elf to the3 eDactly6 it doe$ not alway$ do $o@ one find$ $tate3ent$ lac<ing in legiti3ate 8ro8o$itional $tructureH one find$

$tate3ent$ where one cannot recognie a $entenceH one find$ 3ore $tate3ent$ that one can i$olate $8eech act$. A$ if the$tate3ent were 3ore tenuou$6 le$$ charged with deter3ination$6 le$$ $trongly $tructured6 3ore o3ni8re$ent6 too6 than all

the$e figure$H a$ if it had

>>0??

fewer feature$6 and one$ le$$ difficult to grou8 togetherH ut a$ if6 y that %ery fact6 it reJected all 8o$$iility of de$criinganything. And thi$ i$ all the 3ore $o6 in that it i$ difficult to $ee at what le%el it $hould e $ituated6 and y what 3ethod it

$hould e a88roached@ for all the analy$e$ 3entioned ao%e6 there i$ ne%er 3ore than a $u88ort6 or accidental $u$tance@ inlogical analy$i$6 it i$ what i$ left when the 8ro8o$itional $tructure ha$ een eDtracted and definedH for gra33atical analy$i$6 it

i$ the $erie$ of lingui$tic ele3ent$ in which one 3ay or 3ay not recognie the for3 of a $entenceH for the analy$i$ of $8eech

act$6 it a88ear$ a$ the %i$ile ody in which they 3anife$t the3$el%e$. In relation to all the$e de$cri8ti%e a88roache$6 it 8lay$



the role of a re$idual ele3ent6 of a 3ere fact6 of irrele%ant raw 3aterial.

Mu$t we ad3it in the end that the $tate3ent cannot 8o$$e$$ a character of it$ own and that it cannot e adeBuately defined6

in $o far a$ it i$6 for all analy$e$ of language >langage?6 the eDtrin$ic 3aterial on the a$i$ of which they deter3ine their ownoJect Mu$t we ad3it that any $erie$ of $ign$6 figure$6 3ar<$6 or trace$ whate%er their organiation or 8roaility 3ay e

i$ enough to con$titute a $tate3entH and that it i$ the role of gra33ar to $ay whether or not it i$ a $entence6 the role of

logic to decide whether or not it contain$ a 8ro8o$itional for36 the role of Analy$i$ to deter3ine what $8eech act it 3aye3ody In which ca$e6 we would ha%e to ad3it that there i$ a $tate3ent whene%er a nu3er of $ign$ are JuDta8o$ed or

e%en6 8erha8$ when there i$ a $ingle $ign. The thre$hold of the $tate3ent i$ the thre$hold of the eDi$tence of $ign$. 5ete%en here6 thing$ are not $o $i38le6 and the 3eaning of a ter3 li<e the eDi$tence of $ign$G reBuire$ elucidation. :hat doe$one 3ean when one $ay$ that there are $ign$6 and that it i$ enough for there to e $ign$ for there to he a $tate3ent :hat

$8ecial $tatu$ $hould e gi%en to that %er to e

For it i$ o%iou$ that $tate3ent$ do not eDi$t in the $a3e $en$e in which a language >longue? eDi$t$6 and6 with that

language6 a collection of $ign$ defined y their contra$ting characteri$tic$ and their rule$ of u$eH a language in fact i$ ne%er

gi%en in it$elf6 in it$ totalityH it could only he $o in a $econdary way6 in the oliBue for3 of a de$cri8tion that would ta<e it a$

it$ oJectH the $ign$ that 3a<e u8 it$ ele3ent$ are for3$ that are i38o$ed u8on $tate3ent$ and control the3 fro3 within. If

there were no $tate3ent$6 the language >longue? would not eDi$tH ut no

>>-??

$tate3ent i$ indi$8en$ale for a language to eDi$t >and one can alway$ 8o$it6 in 8lace of any $tate3ent6 another $tate3ent that

would in no way 3odify the language?. The language eDi$t$ only a$ a $y$te3 for con$tructing 8o$$ile $tate3ent$H ut inanother re$8ect6 it eDi$t$ only a$ a >3ore or le$$ eDhau$ti%e? de$cri8tion otained fro3 a collection of real $tate3ent$.,anguage >longue? and $tate3ent are not at the $a3e le%el of eDi$tenceH and one cannot $ay that there are $tate3ent in the

$a3e way a$ one $ay$ that there are language$ >longue$?. *ut i$ it enough6 then6 that the $ign$ of a language con$titute a$tate3ent6 if they were 8roduced >articulated6 drawn6 3ade6 traced? in one way or another6 if they a88eared in a 3o3ent of

ti3e and in a 8oint in $8ace6 if the %oice that $8o<e the3 or the ge$ture that for3ed the3 ga%e the3 the di3en $ion$ of a

3aterial eDi$tence Can the letter$ of the al8haet written y 3e ha8haardly on to a $heet of 8a8er6 a$ an eDa38le of what i$not a $tate3ent6 can the lead character$ u$ed for 8rinting oo<$ and one cannot deny their 3ateriality6 which ha$ $8ace and

%olu3e can the$e $ign$6 $8read out6 %i$ile6 3ani8ulale6 e rea$onaly regarded a$ $tate3ent$

:hen loo<ed at 3ore clo$ely6 howe%er6 the$e two eDa38le$ >the lead character$ and the $ign$ that I wrote down on the

$heet of 8a8er? are $een to e not Buite $u8er8o$ale. Thi$ 8ile of 8rinter G$ character$6 which I can hold in 3y hand6 or the

letter$ 3ar<ed on the <eyoard of a ty8ewriter are not $tate3ent$@ at 3o$t they are tool$ with which one can write $tate3ent$.

On the other hand6 what are the letter$ that I write down ha8haardly on to a $heet of 8a8er6 Ju$t a$ they co3e to 3ind6 and to$how that they cannot6 in their di$ordered $tate6 con$titute a $tate3ent :hat figure do they for3 Are they not a tale of

letter$ cho$en in a contingent way6 the $tate3ent of an al8haetical $erie$ go%erned y other law$ than tho$e of chanceSi3ilarly6 the tale of rando3 nu3er$ that $tati$tician$ $o3eti3e$ u$e i$ a $erie$ of nu3erical $y3ol$ that are not lin<edtogether y any $yntactical $tructureH and yet that $erie$ i$ a $tate3ent@ that of a grou8 of figure$ otained y 8rocedure$ that

eli3inate e%erything that 3ight increa$e the 8ro;aility of the $ucceeding i$$ue$. ,et u$ loo< at the eDa38le again@ the<eyoard of a ty8ewriter i$ not a $tate3entH ut the $a3e $erie$ of letter$6 A6 6 E6 !6 T6 li$ted in a ty8ewriting 3anual6 i$ the

$tate3ent of the al8haetical order ado8ted y French ty8ewriter$. So we are

>>)??

8re$ented with a nu3er of negati%e con$eBuence$@ a regular lingui$tic con$truction i$ not reBuired in order to for3 a$tate3ent >thi$ $tate;3ent 3ay e 3ade u8 of a $erie$ 8o$$e$$ing a 3ini3al 8roaility? H ut neither i$ it enough to ha%e any

3aterial effectuation of lingui$tic ele3ent$6 any e3ergence of $ign$ in ti3e and $8ace6 for a $tate3ent to a88ear and to egin

to eDi$t. The $tate3ent eDi$t$ therefore neither in the $a3e way a$ a language >longue? >although it i$ 3ade u8 of $ign$ thatare definale in their indi%iduality only within a natural or artificial lingui$tic $y$te3?6 nor in the $a3e way a$ the oJect

8re$ented to 8erce8tion >although it i$ alway$ endowed with a certain 3ateriality6 and can alway$ he $ituated in accordance

with $8atio;te38oral coordinate$?.Thi$ i$ not the 8lace to an$wer the general Bue$tion of the $tate3ent6 ut the 8role3 can e clarified@ the $tate3ent i$ not

the $a3e <ind of unit a$ the $entence6 the 8ro8o$ition6 or the $8eech actH it cannot e referred therefore to the $a3e criteriaH ut neither i$ it the $a3e <ind of unit a$ a 3aterial oJect6 with it$ li3it$ and inde8endence. In it$ way of eing uniBue

>neither entirely lingui$tic6 nor eDclu$i%ely 3aterial?6 it i$ indi$8en$ale if we want to $ay whether or not there i$ a $entence6

8ro8o$ition6 or $8eech actH and whether the $entence i$ correct >or acce8tale6 or inter8retale?6 whether the 8ro8o$ition i$legiti3ate and well con$tructed6 whether the $8eech act fulfil$ it$ reBuire3ent$6 and wa$ in fact carried out. :e 3u$t not $ee<



in the $tate3ent a unit that i$ either long or $hort6 $trongly and wea<ly $tructured6 ut one that i$ caught u86 li<e the other$6 in

a logical6 gra33atical6 locutory neDu$. It i$ not $o 3uch one ele3ent a3ong other$6 a di%i$ion that can he located at a certain

le%el of analy$i$6 a$ a function that o8erate$ %ertically in relation to the$e %ariou$ unit$6 and which enale$ one to $ay of a$erie$ of $ign$ whether or not they are 8re$ent in it. The $tate3ent i$ not therefore a $tructure >that i$6 a grou8 of relation$

etween %ariale ele3ent$6 thu$ authoriing a 8o$$ily infinite nu3er of concrete 3odel$?H it i$ a function of eDi$tence that

8ro8erly elong$ to $ign$ and on the a$i$ of which one 3ay then decide6 through analy$i$ or intu ition6 whether or not theyG3a<e $en$eG6 according to what rule they follow one another or are JuDta8o$ed6 of what they are the $ign6 and what $ort of act

i$ carried out y their for3ulation >oral or written?. One $hould not e $ur8ri$ed6 then6 if one ha$ failed to find $tructural

((98))

criteria of unity for the $tate3entH thi$ i$ ecau$e it i$ not in it$elf a unit6 ut a function that cut$ acro$$ a do3ain of $tructure$

and 8o$$ile unitie$6 and which re%eal$ the36 with concrete content$6 in ti3e and $8ace.

It i$ thi$ function that we 3u$t now de$crie a$ $uch6 that i$6 in it$ actual 8ractice6 it$ condition$6 the rule$ that go%ern it6and the field in which it o8erate$.

>>??



$. THE ENUNCIATIVE FUNCTION

It i$ u$ele$$ therefore to loo< for the $tate3ent a3ong unitary grou8$ of $ign$. The $tate3ent i$ neither a $yntag3a6 nor a rule

of con$truction6 nor a canonic for3 of $ucce$$ion and 8er3utationH it i$ that which enale$ $uch grou8$ of $ign$ to eDi$t6 and

enale$ the$e rule$ or for3$ to eco3e 3anife$t. *ut although it enale$ the3 to eDi$t6 it doe$ $o in a $8ecial way a waythat 3u$t not e confu$ed with the eDi$tence of $ign$ a$ ele3ent$ of a language >longue?6 or with the 3aterial eDi$tence of

tho$e 3ar<$ that occu8y a frag3ent of $8ace or la$t for a %ariale length of ti3e. It i$ thi$ $8ecial 3ode of eDi$tence6

characteri$tic of e%ery $erie$ of $ign$6 8ro%iding it i$ $tated6 that we 3u$t now eDa3ine.

>a? So let u$ ta<e once again the eDa38le of tho$e $ign$ 3ade or drawn in a defined 3ateriality6 and grou8ed in a

8articular way6 which 3ay or 3ay not e aritrary6 ut which6 in any ca$e6 i$ not gra33at ical@ the <eyoard of a ty8ewriter6

or a handful of 8rinter G$ character$. All that i$ reBuired i$ that the $ign$ e gi%en6 that I co8y the3 on to a $heet of 8a8er >in

the $a3e order in which they a88ear6 ut without 8roducing a word? for a $tate3ent to e3erge@ the $tate3ent of the letter$ of

the al8haet in an order that 3a<e$ the ty8ing of the3 ea$ier6 and the $tate3ent of a rando3 grou8 of letter$. :hat ha$

ha88ened6

>>&99??



then6 that a $tate3ent $hould ha%e een 3ade :hat can the $econd grou8 8o$$e$$ that i$ not 8o$$e$$ed y the fir$t

!edu8lication6 the fact that it i$ a co8y Certainly not6 $ince the <eyoard$ of ty8ewriter$ all co8y a certain 3odel and are

not6 y that %ery fact6 $tate3ent$. The inter%ention of a $uJect Thi$ an$wer i$ inadeBuate for two rea$on$@ it i$ not enoughthat the reiteration of a $erie$ e due to the initiati%e of an indi%idual for it to e tran$for3ed6 y that %ery fact6 into a $tate;

3entH and6 in any ca$e6 the 8role3 doe$ not lie in the cau$e or origin of the redu8lication6 ut in the $8ecial relation

etween the two identical $erie$. The $econd $erie$ i$ not a $tate3ent ecau$e and only ecau$e a hi;uni%ocal relation can ee$tali$hed etween each of it$ ele3ent$ in the fir$t $erie$ >thi$ relation characterie$ either the fact of du8lication if it i$

$i38ly a co8y6 or the eDactitude of the $tate3ent if one ha$ in fact cro$$ed the thre$hold of enunciationH ut it doe$ not allowu$ to define thi$ thre$hold and the %ery fact of the $tate3ent?. A $erie$ of $ign$ will eco3e a $tate3ent on condition that it

8o$$e$$e$ $o3ething el$eG >which 3ay e $trangely $i3ilar to it6 and al3o$t identical a$ in the eDa38le cho$en?6 a $8ecific

relation that concern$ it$elf and not it$ cau$e6 or it$ ele3ent$.

It 3ay e oJected that there i$ nothing enig3atic aout thi$ relationH that6 on the contrary6 it i$ a %ery fa3iliar one6 which

i$ con$tantly eing analy$ed@ that6 in fact6 it concern$ the relation of the $ignifier >$ignificant? to the $ignified >$ignifie?6 of

the na3e to what it de$ignate$H the relation of the $entence to it$ 3eaningH the relation of the 8ro8o$ition to it$ referent

>referent?. *ut I elie%e that one can $how that the relation of the $tate3ent to what it $tate$ i$ not $u8er8o$ale on any of

the$e relation$.

The $tate3ent6 e%en if reduced to a no3inal $yntag3a >GThe oat G?6 e%en if it i$ reduced to a 8ro8er noun >GPeterG?6 doe$not ha%e the $a3e relation with what it $tate$ a$ the na3e with what it de$ignate$ or $ignifie$. The na3e or noun i$ a

lingui$tic ele3ent that 3ay occu8y different 8lace$ in gra33atical grou8$@ it$ 3eaning i$ defined y it$ rule$ of u$e

>whether the$e concern indi%idual$ who 3ay e %alidly de$ignated y it6 or $yntactical $tructure$ in which it 3ay correctly 8artici8ate?H a noun i$ defined y it$ 8o$$iility of recurrence. A $tate;3ent eDi$t$ out$ide any 8o$$iility of rea88earingH and

the relation that it 8o$$e$$e$ with what it $tate$ i$ not identical with a grou8 of rule$ of

>>&9&??



u$e. It i$ a %ery $8ecial relation@ and if in the$e condition$ an identical for3ulation rea88ear$6 with the $a3e word$6

$u$tantially the $a3e na3e$ in fact6 eDactly the $a3e $entence it i$ not nece$$arily the $a3e $tate3ent.

Nor $hould the relation etween a $tate3ent and what it $tate$ e confu$ed with the relation etween a 8ro8o$ition and it$

referent. :e <now that logician$ $ay that a 8ro8o$ition li<e The golden 3ountain i$ in CaliforniaG cannot e %erified ecau$e

it ha$ no referent@ it$ negation i$ therefore neither 3ore nor le$$ true than it$ affir3ation. Should we $ay $i3ilarly that a

$tate3ent refer$ to nothing if the 8ro8o$ition6 to which it lend$ eDi$tence6 ha$ no referent !ather the re%er$e. :e $hould $aynot that the a$ence of a referent ring$ with it the a$ence of a correlate for the $tate3ent6 ut that it i$ the correlate of the

$tate3ent that to which it refer$6 not only what i$ $aid6 ut al$o what it $8ea<$ of6 it$ Gthe3eG which 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to$ay whether or not the 8ro8o$ition ha$ a referent@ it alone decide$ thi$ in a definiti%e way. ,et u$ $u88o$e in fact that the

for3ulation GThe golden 3ountain i$ in CaliforniaG i$ found not in a geogra8hy oo<6 nor in a tra%el oo<6 ut in a no%el6 or in

$o3e fictional conteDt or other6 one could $till accord it a %alue of truth or error >according to whether the i3aginary world to

which it refer$ doe$ or doe$ not authorie $uch a geological and geo;gra8hical fanta$y?. :e 3u$t <now to what the $tate3ent

refer$6 what i$ it$ $8ace of correlation$6 if we are to $ay whether a 8ro8o$ition ha$ or ha$ not a referent. GThe 8re$ent <ing of

France i$ aldG lac<$ a referent only if one $u88o$e$ that the $tate3ent refer$ to the world of con;te38orary hi$torical

infor3ation. The relation of the 8ro8o$ition to the referent cannot $er%e a$ a 3odel or a$ a law for the relation of the$tate3ent to what it $tate$. The latter relation not only doe$ not elong to the $a3e le%el a$ the for3er6 ut it i$ anterior to it.

Nor i$ it $u8er8o$ale to the relation that 3ay eDi$t etween a $entence and it$ 3eaning. The ga8 etween the$e two for3$

of relation a88ear$ clearly in the ca$e of two fa3ou$ $entence$ that are 3eaning;le$$6 in $8ite of their 8erfectly correct

gra33atical $tructure >a$ in the eDa38le@ GColourle$$ green idea$ $lee8 furiou$lyG?. In fact6 to $ay that a $entence li<e thi$ i$

3eaningle$$ 8re$u88o$e$ that one ha$ already eDcluded a nu3er of 8o$$iilitie$ that it de$crie$ a drea36 that it i$ 8art of

a 8oetic teDt6 that it i$ a coded 3e$$age6 that it i$ $8o<en y a

>>&92??drug addict and that one a$$u3e$ it to e a certain ty8e of $tate3ent$ that 3u$t refer6 in a %ery definite way6 to $o3e

%i$ile reality. The relation of a $entence with it$ 3eaning re$ide$ within a $8ecific6 well;$tailied enunciati%e relation.Moreo%er6 e%en if the$e $entence$ are ta<en at an enunciati%e le%el at which they are 3eaningle$$6 they are not6 a$ $tate3ent$6

de8ri%ed of correlation$@ there are tho$e that enale one to $ay6 for eDa38le6 that idea$ are ne%er either coloured or colour;

le$$6 and therefore that the $entence i$ 3eaningle$$ >and the$e correlation$ concern a le%el of reality in which idea$ arein%i$ile6 and in which colour$ can he $een6 etc.?H there are al$o tho$e correlation$ that %alidate the $entence in Bue$tion a$ a

3ention of a ty8e of correct $yntactical organiation that wa$ al$o 3eaningle$$ >and the$e correl ation$ concern the le%el of

the language >langue?6 with it$ law$ and 8ro8ertie$?. A $entence cannot e non;$ignificantH it refer$ to $o3ething6 y %irtue of the fact that it i$ a $tate3ent.

'ow6 then6 can we define thi$ relation that characterie$ the $tate;3ent a$ $tate3ent a relation that $ee3$ to e

i38licitly 8re$u88o$ed y the $entence or the 8ro8o$ition6 and which i$ anterior to it 'ow can we di$entangle it fro3 tho$erelation$ of 3eaning or tho$e %alue$ of truth6 with which it i$ u$ually confu$ed Any $tate3ent6 a$ $i38le a $tate3ent a$ one

can i3agine6 doe$ not ha%e a$ it$ correlate an indi%idual or a 8articular oJect that i$ de$ignated y thi$ or that word in the

$entence@ in the ca$e of a $tate3ent li<e The golden 3ountain i$ in CaliforniaG6 the correlate i$ not the for3ation6 real or i3aginary6 8o$$ile or a$urd6 that i$ de$ignated y the no3inal $yntag3a that $er%e$ a$ the $uJect. *ut nor i$ the correlate

of the $tate3ent a $tate of thing$ or a relation ca8ale of %erifying the 8ro8o$ition >in the eDa38le cho$en6 thi$ would e the$8atial inclu$ion of a 8articular 3ountain in a 8articular region?. On the other hand6 what 3ight he defined a$ the correlate of

the $tate3ent i$ a grou8 of do3ain$ in which $uch oJect$ 3ay a88ear and to which $uch relation$ 3ay e a$$igned@ it would6

for eDa38le6 e a do3ain of 3aterial oJect$ 8o$$e$$ing a certain nu3er of o$er%ale 8hy$ical 8ro8ertie$6 relation$ of 8erce8tile $ie or6 on the contrary6 it would he do3ain of fictitiou$ oJect$6 endowed with aritrary 8ro8ertie$ >e%en if

they ha%e a certain con$tancy and a certain coherence?6 without any authority of eD8eri3ental or 8erce8ti%e %eri ficationH it

would e a do3ain of $8atial and geogra8hical localiation$6

>>&9??with coordinate$6 di$tance$6 relation$ of 8roDi3ity and of inclu$ion or6 on the contrary6 a do3ain of $y3olic

a88urtenance$ and $ecret <in$hi8$H it would e a do3ain of oJect$ that eDi$t at the $a3e 3o3ent and on the $a3e ti3e;$cale

a$ the $tate3ent i$ for3ulated6 or it would e a do3ain of oJect$ that elong$ to a Buite different 8re$ent that indicatedand con$tituted y the $tate3ent it$elf6 and not that to which the $tate3ent al$o elong$. A $tate3ent i$ not confronted >face

to face6 a$ it were? y a correlate or the a$ence of a correlate a$ a 8ro8o$ition ha$ >or ha$ not? a referent6 or a$ a 8ro8er

noun de$ignate$ $o3eone >or no one?. It i$ lin<ed rather to a GreferentialG that i$ 3ade u8 not of Gthing$G6 Gfact$G6 Grealitie$G6 or G eing$G6 ut of law$ of 8o$$iility6 rule$ of eDi$tence for the oJect$ that are na3ed6 de$ignated6 or de$cried within it6 and for

the relation$ that are affir3ed or denied in it. The referential of the $tate3ent for3$ the 8lace6 the condition6 the field of e3ergence6 the authority to differentiate etween indi%idual$ or oJect$6 $tate$ of thing$ and relation$ that are rought into



8lay y the $tate3ent it$elfH it define$ the 8o$$iilitie$ of a88earance and deli3itation of that which gi%e$ 3eaning to the

$entence6 a %alue a$ truth to the 8ro8o$ition. It i$ thi$ grou8 that characterie$ the enunciati%e le%el of the for3ulation6 in

contra$t to it$ gra33atical and logical le%el$@ through the relation with the$e %ariou$ do3ain$ of 8o$$iility the $tate3ent3a<e$ of a $yntag3a6 or a $erie$ of $y3ol$6 a $entence to which one 3ay or 3ay not a$crie a 3eaning6 a 8ro8o$ition that

3ay or 3ay not e accorded a %alue a$ truth.

One can $ee in any ca$e that the de$cri8tion of thi$ enunciati%e le%el can e 8erfor3ed neither y a for3al analy$i$6 nor y

a $e3antic in%e$tigation6 nor y %erification6 ut y the analy$i$ of the relation$ etween the $tate3ent and the $8ace$ of

differentiation6 in which the $tate3ent it$elf re%eal$ the difference$.

>? A $tate3ent al$o differ$ fro3 any $erie$ of lingui$tic ele3ent$ y %irtue of the fact that it 8o$$e$$e$ a 8articular relation

with a $uJect. :e 3u$t now define the nature of thi$ relation6 and6 ao%e all6 di$tingui$h it fro3 other relation$ with which it

3ight e confu$ed.

:e 3u$t not6 in fact6 reduce the $uJect of the $tate3ent to the fir$t;8er$on gra33atical ele3ent$ that are 8re$ent within

the $entence. Fir$t ecau$e the $uJect of th.e $entence i$ not within the lingui$tic

>>&94??

$yntag3aH $econdly ecau$e a $tate3ent that doe$ not in%ol%e a fir$t 8er$on ne%erthele$$ ha$ a $uJectH la$tly and ao%e all6

all $tate3ent$ that ha%e a fiDed gra33atical for3 >whether in the fir$t or $econd 8er$on? do not ha%e the $a3e ty8e of

relation with the $uJect of the $tate3ent. It i$ ea$y to $ee that thi$ relation i$ not the $a3e in a $tate;3ent of the ty8e G Night

i$ fallingG6 and GE%ery effect ha$ a cau$eGH while in the ca$e of a $tate3ent of the ty8e G,ongte38$6 Je 3e *ui$ couche de

onne heureG >GFor a long ti3e I u$ed to go to ed earlyG?6 the relation to the enunciating $uJect i$ not the $a3e if one hear$ it

$8o<en in the cour$e of a con%er$ation6 and if one read$ it at the eginning of Prou$tG$ A la !echerche du te38$ 8erdu.I$ not thi$ $uJect eDterior to the $entence Buite $i38ly the indi%idual who $8o<e or wrote tho$e word$ A$ we <now6

there can e no $ign$ without $o3eone6 or at lea$t $o3ething6 to e3it the3. For a $erie$ of $ign$ to eDi$t6 there 3u$t in

accordance with the $y$te3 of cau$ality e an Gauthor G or a tran$3itting authority. *ut thi$ author G i$ not identical withthe $uJect of the $tate3entH and the relation of 8roduction that he ha$ with the for3ulation i$ not $u8er8o$ale to the

relation that unite$ the enunciating $uJect and what he $tate$. ,et u$ ignore the o%er;$i38le ca$e of a grou8 of $ign$ thatha%e een 3aterially fa$hioned or traced@ their 8roduction i38lie$ an author e%en though there i$ neither a $tate3ent nor a

$uJect of a $tate3ent. One 3ight al$o 3ention6 y way of $howing the di$$ociation etween the tran$3itter of $ign$ and the

$uJect of a $tate3ent6 the ca$e of a teDt read y a third 8er$on6 or that of an actor $8ea<ing hi$ 8art. *ut the$e are eDtre3eca$e$. /enerally $8ea<ing6 it would $ee36 at fir$t $ight at lea$t6 that the $uJect of the $tate3ent i$ 8reci$ely he who ha$

8roduced the %ariou$ ele3ent$6 with the intention of con%eying 3eaning. 5et thing$ are not $o $i38le. In a no%el6 we <now

that the author of the for3ulation i$ that real indi%idual who$e na3e a88ear$ on the title 8age of the oo< >we are $till faced

with the 8role3 of the dialogue6 and $entence$ 8ur8orting to eD8re$$ the thought$ of a characterH we are $till faced with the 8role3 of teDt$ 8uli$hed under a 8$eudony3@ and we <now all the difficultie$ that the$e du8lication$ rai$e for 8ractitioner$

of inter8retati%e analy$i$ when they wi$h to relate the$e for3ulation$6 en loc6 to the author of the teDt6 to what he wanted to say, to what he thought6 in $hort6 to that great $ilent6 hidden6 unifor3

>>&90??

di$cour$e on which they uild that whole 8yra3id of different le%el$?H ut6 e%en a8art fro3 tho$e authoritie$ of for3ulationthat are not identical with the indi%idualauthor6 the $tate3ent$ of the no%el do not ha%e the $a3e $uJect when they 8ro%ide6

a$ if fro3 the out$ide6 the hi$torical and $8atial $etting of th.e $tory6 when they de$crie thing$ a$ they would e $een y an

anony3ou$6 in%i$ile6 neutral indi%idual who 3o%e$ 3agically a3ong the character$ of the no%el6 or when they 8ro%ide6 a$ if y an i33ediate6 internal deci8her3ent6 the %eral %er$ion of what i$ $ilently eD8erienced y a character. Although the

author i$ the $a3e in each ca$e6 although he attriute$ the3 to no one other than hi3$elf6 although he doe$ not in%ent a

$u88le3entary lin< etween what he i$ hi3$elf and the teDt that one i$ reading6 the$e $tate3ent$ do not 8re$u88o$e the $a3echaracteri$tic$ for the enunciating $uJectH they do not i38ly the $a3e relation etween thi$ $uJect and what i$ eing $tated.

It 3ight e $aid that the often Buoted eDa38le of the fictional teDt ha$ no conclu$i%e %alidityH or rather that it Bue$tion$ the%ery e$$ence of literature6 and not the $tatu$ the $uJect of $tate3ent$ in general. According to thi$ %iew6 it i$ in the nature of literature that the author $hould a88ear to e a$ent6 conceal hi3$elf within it6 delegate hi$ authority6 or di%ide hi3$elf u8H

and one $hould not draw a general conclu$ion fro3 thi$ di$$ociation that the $uJect of the $tate3ent i$ di$tinct in e%erything in nature6 $tatu$6 function6 and identity fro3 the author of the for3ulation. 5et thi$ ga8 i$ not confined to literature

alone. It i$ a$olutely general in $o far a$ the $uJect of the $tate3ent i$ a 8articular function6 ut i$ not nece$$arily the $a3e

fro3 one $tate;3ent to anotherH in $o far a$ it i$ an e38ty function6 that can e filled y %irtually any indi%idual when hefor3ulate$ the $tate3entH and in $o far a$ one and the $a3e indi%idual 3ay occu8y in turn6 in the $a3e $erie$ of $tate3ent$6

different 8o$ition$6 and a$$u3e the role of different $uJect$. Ta<e the eDa38le of a 3athe3atical treati$e. In the $entence in

the 8reface in which one eD8lain$ why thi$ treati$e wa$ written6 in what circu3$tance$6 in re$8on$e to what un$ol%ed 8ro ;



le3$6 or with what 8edagogical ai3 in %iew6 u$ing what 3ethod$6 after what atte38t$ and failure$6 the 8o$ition of the

enunciati%e $uJect can e occu8ied only y the author6 or author$6 of the for3ulation@ the condition$ of indi%idualiation of

the $uJect are in fact %ery $trict6 %ery

>>&9-??nu3erou$6 and authorie in thi$ ca$e only one 8o$$ile $uJect. On the other hand6 if in the 3ain ody of the treati$e6 one

3eet$ a 8ro8o$ition li<e GTwo Buantitie$ eBual to a third Buantity are eBual to each other G6 the $uJect of the $tate3ent i$ thea$olutely neutral 8o$ition6 indifferent to ti3e6 $8ace6 and circu3$tance$6 identical in any lingui$tic $y$te36 and in any code

of writing or $y3oliation6 that any indi%idual 3ay occu8y when affir3ing $uch a 8ro8o$ition. Moreo%er6 $entence$ li<e G:e

ha%e already $hown that . . .G nece$$arily in%ol%e $tate3ent$ of 8reci$e conteDtual condition$ that were not i38lied y the

8receding for3ulation@ the 8o$ition i$ then fiDed within a do3ain con$tituted y a finite grou8 of $tate3ent$H it i$ localied ina $erie$ of enunciati%e e%ent$ that 3u$t already ha%e occurredH it i$ e$tali$hed in a de3on$trati%e ti3e who$e earlier $tage$

are ne%er lo$t6 and which do not need therefore to e egun again and re8eated identically to e 3ade 8re$ent once 3ore >a

3ention i$ enough to reacti%ate the3 in their original %alidity?H it i$ deter3ined y the 8rior eDi$tence of a nu3er of effecti%e o8eration$ that need not ha%e een 8erfor3ed y one and the $a3e indi%idual >he who i$ $8ea<ing now?6 ut which

rightfully elong to the enunciating $uJect6 which are at hi$ di$8o$al6 and of which he 3ay a%ail hi3$elf when nece$$ary.The $uJect of $uch a $tate3ent will e defined y the$e reBui$ite$ and 8o$$iilitie$ ta<en togetherH and he will not e

de$cried a$ an indi%idual who ha$ really carried out certain o8eration$6 who li%e$ in an unro<en6 ne%er forgot;ten ti3e6 who

ha$ interioried6 in the horion of hi$ con$ciou$ne$$6 a whole grou8 of true 8ro8o$ition$6 and who retain$6 in the li%ing 8re$ ent

of hi$ thought6 their 8otential rea88earance >thi$ i$ 3erely6 in the ca$e of indi%idual$6 the 8$ychological6 Gli%edG a$8ect of their

8o$ition a$ enunciating $uJect$?.Si3ilarly6 one 3ight de$crie the $8ecific 8o$ition of the enunciating $uJect in $entence$ li<e GI call $traight any $erie$ of

8oint$ that .. or G,et there e a finite $erie$ of any ele3ent$GH in each ca$e the 8o$ition of the $uJect i$ lin<ed to the eDi$tence

of an o8eration that i$ oth deter3ined and 8re$entH in each ca$e6 the $uJect of the $tate3ent i$ al$o the $uJect of the

o8eration >he who e$tali$he$ the definition of a $traight line i$ al$o he who $tate$ itH he who 8o$it$ the eDi$tence of a finite$erie$ i$ al$o6 and at the $a3e ti3e6 he who $tate$ it?H and in each ca$e6 the $uJect lin<$6 y 3ean$ of thi$ o8eration and the

$tate3ent in

>>&9)??

which it i$ e3odied6 hi$ $tate3ent a$ hi$ own law?. There i$ a difference howe%er@ in the fir$t ca$e6 what i$ $tated i$ acon%ention of language >langage? of that language that the enunciating $uJect 3u$t u$e6 and within. which he i$ defined@

the enunciating $uJect and what i$ $tated are therefore at the $a3e le%el >wherea$ for a for3al analy$i$ a $tate3ent li<e thi$one i38lie$ the difference of le%el 8ro8er to 3eta;language?H in the $econd ca$e6 on the other hand6 the enunciating $uJect

ring$ into eDi$tence out$ide hi3$elf an oJect that elong$ to a 8re%iou$ly defined do3ain6 who$e law$ of 8o$$iility ha%ealready een articulated6 and who$e characteri$tic$ 8recede the enunciation that 8o$it$ it. :e $aw ao%e that the 8o$ition of the enunciating $uJect i$ not alway$ identical in the affir3ation of a true 8ro8o$itionH we now $ee that it i$ al$o not identical

when an o8eration i$ carried out within the $tate3ent it$elf.

So the $uJect of the $tate3ent $hould not he regarded a$ identical with the author of the for3ulation either in$u$tance6 or in function. 'e i$ not in fact the cau$e6 origin6 or $tarting;8oint of the 8heno3enon of the written or $8o<en

articulation of a $entenceH nor i$ it that 3eaningful intention which6 $ilently antici8ating word$6 order$ the3 li<e the %i$ile

ody of it$ intuitionH it i$ not the con$tant6 3otionle$$6 unchanging focu$ of a $erie$ of o8eration$ that are 3anife$ted6 in turn6on the $urface of di$cour$e through the $tate3ent$. It i$ a 8articular6 %acant 8lace that 3ay in fact e filled y different

indi%idual$H ut6 in$tead of eing defined once and for all6 and 3aintaining it$elf a$ $uch throughout a teDt6 a oo<6 or an

oeu%re6 thi$ 8lace %arie$ or rather i.t i$ %ariale enough to he ale either to 8er$e%ere6 unchanging6 through $e%eral$entence$6 or to alter with each one. It i$ a di3en$ion that characterie$ a whole for3ulation Bua $tate3ent. It i$ one of the

characteri$tic$ 8ro8er to the enunciati%e function and enale$ one to de$crie it. If a 8ro8o$ition6 a $entence6 a grou8 of $ign$

can e called $tate;3entG6 it i$ not therefore ecau$e6 one day6 $o3eone ha88ened to $8ea< the3 or 8ut the3 into $o3econcrete for3 of writingH it i$ ecau$e the 8o$ition of the $uJect can e a$$igned. To de$crie a for3ulation Bua $tate3ent

doe$ not con$i$t in analy$ing the relation$ etween the author and what he $ay$ >or wanted to $ay6 or $aid without wantingto? H ut in deter3ining what 8o$ition can and 3u$t e occu8ied y any indi%idual if he i$ to e the $uJect of it.

>>&9??



>c? The third characteri$tic of the enunciati%e function@ it cannot o8erate without the eDi$tence of an a$$ociateddo3ain. Thi$ 3a<e$ the $tate3ent $o3ething other6 $o3ething 3ore6 than a 3ere collection of $ign$6 which6 in order to

eDi$t6 need only a 3aterial a$e a writing $urface6 $ound6 3alleale 3aterial6 the hollowed inci$ion of a trace. *utthi$ al$o6 and ao%e all6 di$tingui$he$ it fro3 the $entence and the 8ro8o$ition.

Ta<e a grou8 of word$ or $y3ol$. In order to decide whether they con$titute a gra33atical unit li<e the $entence or

a logical unit li<e the 8ro8o$ition6 it i$ nece$$ary6 and enough6 to deter3ine the rule$ accord;ing to which it wa$

con$tructed. GPeter arri%ed ye$terdayG for3$ a $entence6 ut G5e$terday arri%ed Peter G doe$ notH A * Q C " con$titute$

a 8ro8o$ition6 ut A*C Q " doe$ not. Only an eDa3ination of the ele3ent$ and of their di$triution6 in reference to

the $y$te3 natural or artificial of the language >longue? enale$ u$ to di$tingui$h etween what i$ and what i$ nota 8ro8o$ition6 etween what i$ a $entence and what i$ 3erely an accu3ulation of word$. Moreo%er6 thi$ eDa3ination i$

enough to deter3ine to what ty8e of gra33atical $tructure the $entence in Bue$tion elong$ >affir3ati%e $entence6 in

the 8a$t ten$e6 containing a no3inal $uJect6 etc.?6 or to what ty8e of 8ro8o$ition the $erie$ of $ign$ in Bue$tion elong$

>an eBui%alence etween two addition$?. One can e%en concei%e of a $entence or a 8ro8o$ition that i$ G$elf;deter3iningG6

that reBuire$ no other $entence or 8ro8o$ition to $er%e a$ a conteDt6 no other a$$ociated $entence$ or 8ro8o$ition$@ that

$uch a $entence or 8ro8o$ition would6 in $uch condition$6 e u$ele$$ and unu$ale6 doe$ not 3ean that one would not eale to recognie it6 e%en in it$ $ingularity.

One could no dout 3a<e a nu3er of oJection$ to thi$. One 3ight $ay6 for eDa38le6 that a 8ro8o$ition can e

e$tali$hed and indi%idualied a$ $uch only if one <now$ the $y$te3 of aDio3$ that it oey$H do not tho$e definition$6tho$e rule$6 tho$e con%ention$ of writing for3 an a$$ociated field in$e8arale fro3 the 8ro8o$ition >$i3ilarly6 the rule$

of gra33ar6 i38licitly at wor< in the co38etence of the $uJect6 are nece$$ary if one i$ to recognie a $entence6 and a$entence of a certain ty8e? It $hould e noted howe%er that thi$ grou8 actual or 8otential doe$ not elong to the

$a3e le%el a$ the 8ro8o$ition or the $entence@ ut that it ha$ a earing on their 8o$$ile ele3ent$6 $ucce$$ion6 and

>>&9??

di$triution. The grou8 i$ not a$$ociated with the3@ it i$ 8re$u88o$ed y the3. One 3ight al$o oJect that 3any >non;tautological.? 8ro8o$ition$ cannot e %erified on the a$i$ of their rule$ of con$truction alone6 and that recour$e to the referent

i$ needed if one i$ to decide whether they are true or fal$e@ ut true or fal$e6 a 8ro8o$ition. re3ain$ a 8ro8o$ition6 and it i$ notrecour$e to the referent that decide$ whether or not it i$ a 8ro8o$ition. The $a3e goe$ for $entence$H in 3any ca$e$6 they can

yield their 3eaning only in relation to the conteDt >whether they contain deicticG ele3ent$ that refer to a concrete $ituationH or

3a<e u$e of fir$t or $econd;8er$on 8ronoun$ that de$ignate the $8ea<ing $uJect and hi.$ interlocutor$H or 3a<e u$e of 8rono3inal ele3ent$ or connecting 8article$ that refer to earlier or later $entence$?H ut the fact that it$ 3eaning cannot e

co38leted doe$ not 8re%ent the $entence fro3 eing gra33atically co38lete and autono3ou$. Certainly6 one i$ not %ery $ure

what a grou8 of word$ li<e GIGll tell you that to3orrowG 3ean$H in any ca$e6 one can neither date thi$ Gto3orrowG6 nor na3e theinterlocutor$6 nor gue$$ what i$ to e $aid. Ne%erthele$$6 it i$ a 8erfectly deli3ited $entence6 oeying the rule$ of con$truction

of the language >longue? in which it i$ written. ,a$tly6 one 3ight oJect that6 without a conteDt6 it i$ $o3eti3e$ difficult to

define the $tructure of a $entence >GI $hall ne%er <now if h.e i$ deadG 3ay e con$trued@ GI $hall ne%er <now whether or n.ot he

i$ deadG or GI $hall ne%er e infor3ed of hi$ death when thi$ e%en occur$ G?. *ut thi$ a3iguity i$ 8erfectly definale6

$i3ultaneou$ 8o$$iilitie$ can e 8o$ited that elong to the $tructure 8ro8er of the $entence. /enerally $8ea<ing6 one can $ay

that a $entence or a 8ro8o$ition e%en when i$olated6 e%en di%orced fro3 the natural conteDt that could throw light on to it$3eaning6 e%en. freed or cut off fro3 all the ele3ent$ to which6 i38licitly or not6 it refer$ alway$ re3ain$ a $entence or a

8ro8o$ition and can. alway$ e recognied a$ $uch.On the other hand6 the enunciati%e function and thi$ $how$ that it i$ not $i38ly a con$truction of 8re%iou$ly eDi$ting

ele3ent$ cannot o8erate on a $entence or 8ro8o$ition in i$olation. It i$ not enough to $ay a $entence6 i.t i$ not e%en enough

to $ay it in a 8articular relation to a field of oJect$ or in a 8articular relation to a $uJect6 for a $tate3ent to eDi$t@ it 3u$t erelated to a whole adJacent field. Or rather6 $ince thi$ i$ not $o3e additional relation. that i$ $u8eri38o$ed on the other$6 one

>>&&9??



cannot $ay a $entence6 one cannot tran$for3 it into a $tate3ent6 unle$$ a collateral $8ace i$ rought into o8eration. A

$tate3ent alway$ ha$ order$ 8eo8led y other $tate3ent$. The$e order$ are not what i$ u$ually 3eant y GconteDtG real or

%eral that i$6 all the $ituational or lingui$tic ele3ent$6 ta<en together6 that 3oti%ate a for3ulation and deter3ine it$

3eaning. They are di$tinct fro3 $uch a GconteDtG 8reci$ely in $o far a$ they 3a<e it 8o$$ile@ the conteDtual relation etweenone $entence and tho$e efore an.d after it i$ not the $a3e in the ca$e of a no%el and in that of a treati$e in 8hy$ic$H the

conteDtual relation etween a for3ulation and the oJecti%e en%iron3ent i$ not the $a3e in a con%er$ation and in the accountof an eD8eri3ent. It i$ again$t the ac<ground of a 3ore general relation etween the for3ulation$6 again$t the ac<ground of

a whole %eral networ<6 that the effect of conteDt 3ay he deter3ined. Nor are the$e order$ identical with the %ariou$ teDt$and $entence$ that the $uJect 3ay e con$ciou$ of when he $8ea<$H again they are 3ore eDten$i%e than $uch a 8$ychological$ettingH and to a certain eDtent they deter3ine that $etting6 for accord;ing to the 8o$ition6 $tatu$6 and role of one for3ulation

a3ong other$ according to whether it elong$ to the field of literature or a$ an i$olated re3ar<6 whether it i$ 8art of a

narrati%e or the account of a de3on$tration the way in which other $tate3ent$ are 8re$ent in the 3ind of the $uJect willnot he the $a3e@ neither the $a3e le%el6 nor the $a3e for3 of lingui$tic eD8erience6 of %eral 3e3ory6 of reference to what

ha$ already een $aid6 i$ o8erating in each ca$e. The 8$ychological halo of a for3ulation i$ controlled fro3 afar y the

arrange3ent of the enunciati%e field.The a$$ociated field that turn$ a $entence or a $erie$ of $ign$ into a $tate3ent6 and which 8ro%ide$ the3 with a 8articular

conteDt6 a $8ecific re8re$entati%e content6 for3$ a co38leD we. It i$ 3ade u8 fir$t of all y the $erie$ of other for3ulation$within which the $tate3ent a88ear$ and for3$ one ele3ent >the networ< of $8o<en for3ulation$ that 3a<e u8 a con%er$ation6

the architecture of a de3on$tration6 hound on the one $ide y it$ 8re3i$e$ and on the other y it$ conclu$ion6 the $erie$ of

affir3ation$ that 3a<e u8 a narrati%e?. The a$$ociated field i$ al$o 3ade u8 of all the for3ulation$ to which the $tate3entrefer$ >i38licitly or not?6 either y re8eating the36 3odifying the36 or ada8ting the36 or y o88o$ing the36 or y

co33enting on the3H

>>&&&??

there can e no $tate3ent that in one way or another doe$ not reactualie other$ >ritual ele3ent$ in a narrati%eH 8re%iou$ly

acce8ted 8ro8o$ition$ in a de3on$trationH con%entional $entence$ in a con%er$ation?. The a$$ociated field i$ al$o 3ade u8 of

all the for3ulation$ who$e $u$eBuent 8o$$iility i$ deter3ined y the $tate3ent6 and which 3ay follow the $tate3ent a$ it$con$eBuence6 it$ natural $ucce$$or6 or it$ con%er$ational retort >an order doe$ not o8en u8 the $a3e enunciati%e 8o$$iilitie$

a$ the 8ro8o$ition$ of an aDio3atic or the eginning of a narrati%e?. ,a$tly6 the a$$ociated field i$ 3ade u8 of all the

for3ulation$ who$e $tatu$ the $tate3ent in Bue$tion $hare$6 a3ong which it ta<e$ it$ 8lace without regard to linear order6with which it will fade away6 or with which6 on the contrary6 it will e %alued6 8re$er%ed6 $acralied6 and offered6 a$ a

8o$$ile oJect6 to a future di$cour$e >a $tate3ent i$ not di$$ociale fro3 the $tatu$ that it 3ay recei%e a$ literatureG6 or a$ an

uni38ortant re3ar< that i$ arely worthy of eing forgotten6 or a$ a $cientific truth %alid for all ti3e6 or a$ 8ro8hetic word$6etc.?. /enerally $8ea<ing6 one can $ay that a $eBuence of lingui$tic ele3ent$ i$ a $tate;3ent only if it i$ i33er$ed in an

enunciati%e field6 in which it then a88ear$ a$ a uniBue ele3ent.The $tate3ent i$ not the direct 8roJection on to the 8lane of language >langage? of a 8articular $ituation or a grou8 of

re8re$entation$. It i$ not $i38ly the 3ani8ulation y a $8ea<ing $uJect of a nu3er of ele3ent$ and lingui$tic rule$. At the

%ery out$et6 fro3 the %ery root6 the $tate;3ent i$ di%ided u8 into an enunciati%e field in which it ha$ a 8lace and a $tatu$6which arrange$ for it$ 8o$$ile relation$ with the 8a$t6 and which o8en$ u8 for it a 8o$$ile future. E%ery $tate3ent i$

$8ecified in thi$ way@ there i$ no $tate3ent in general6 no free6 neutral6 inde8endent $tate3entH ut a $tate3ent alway$

elong$ to a $erie$ or a whole6 alway$ 8lay$ a role a3ong other $tate3ent$6 deri%ing $u88ort fro3 the3 and di$tingui$hingit$elf fro3 the3@ it i$ alway$ 8art of a networ< of $tate3ent$6 in which it ha$ a role6 howe%er 3ini3al it 3ay e6 to 8lay.

:herea$ gra33atical con$truction need$ only ele3ent$ and rule$ in order to o8erateH wherea$ one 3ight Ju$t concei%e of a

language >longue? an artificial one6 of cour$e who$e only 8ur8o$e i$ the con$truction of a $ingle $entenceH wherea$ theal8haet6 the rule$ of con$truction and tran$;for3ation of a for3al $y$te3 eing gi%en6 one can 8erfectly well

>>&&2??

define the fir$t 8ro8o$ition of thi$ language >langage?6 the $a3e can;not e $aid of the $tate3ent. There i$ no $tate3ent thatdoe$ not 8re$u88o$e other$H there i$ no $tate3ent that i$ not $urrounded y a field of coeDi$tence$6 effect$ of $erie$ and

$ucce$$ion6 a di$triution of function$ and role$. If one can $8ea< of a $tate3ent6 it i$ ecau$e a $entence >a 8ro8o$ition?

figure$ at a definite 8oint6 with a $8ecific 8o$ition6 in an enunciati%e networ< that eDtend$ eyond it.Again$t thi$ ac<ground of enunciati%e coeDi$tence6 there $tand out6 at an autono3ou$ and de$criale le%el6 the

gra33atical relation$ etween $entence$6 the logical relation$ etween 8ro8o$ition$6 the 3etalingui$tic relation$ etween an

oJect language and one that define$ the rule$6 the rhetorical relation$ etween grou8$ >or ele3ent$? of $entence$. It i$

8er3i$$ile6 of cour$e6 to analy$e all the$e relation$ without ta<ing a$ oneG$ the3e the enunciati%e field it$elf6 that i$6 the

do3ain of coeDi$tence in which the enunciati%e function o8erate$. *ut they can eDi$t and are analy$ale only to the eDtent



that the$e $entence$ ha%e een GenunciatedGH in other word$6 to the eDtent that they are de8loyed in an enunciati%e field thatallow$ the3 to follow one another6 order one another6 coeDi$t with one another6 and 8lay role$ in relation to one another. Far

fro3 eing the 8rinci8le of indi%idualiation of grou8$ of G$ignifier$G >the 3eaningful ato3G6 the 3ini3u3 on the a$i$ of

which there i$ 3eaning?6 the $tate3ent i$ that which $ituate$ the$e 3eaningful unit$ in a $8ace in which they reed and3ulti8ly.

>d? ,a$tly6 for a $eBuence of lingui$tic ele3ent$ to e regarded and analy$ed a$ a $tate3ent6 it 3u$t fulfil a fourth

condition@ it 3u$t ha%e a 3aterial eDi$tence. Could one $8ea< of a $tate3ent if a %oice had not articulated it6 if a $urface did

not ear it$ $ign$6 if it had not eco3e e3odied in a $en$e;8erce8tile ele3ent6 and if it had not left $o3e trace if only for an in$tant in $o3eoneG$ 3e3ory or in $o3e $8ace Could one $8ea< of a $tate3ent a$ an ideal6 $ilent figure The

$tate3ent i$ alway$ gi%en through $o3e 3aterial 3ediu36 e%en if that 3ediu3 i$ concealed6 e%en if it i$ doo3ed to %ani$h a$$oon a$ it a88ear$. And the $tate3ent not only need$ thi$ 3aterialityH it$ 3ateriality i$ not gi%en to it6 in addition6 once all it$

deter3ination$ ha%e een fiDed@ it i$ 8artly 3ade u8 of thi$ 3ateriality. E%en if a $entence i$ co38o$ed of the $a3e

>>&&??

word$6 ear$ eDactly the $a3e 3eaning6 and 8re$er%e$ the $a3e $yn;tactical and $e3antic identity6 it doe$ not con$titute the$a3e $tate3ent if it i$ $8o<en y $o3eone in the cour$e of a con%er$ation6 or 8rinted in a no%elH if it wa$ written one day

centurie$ ago6 and if it now rea88ear$ in an oral for3ulation. The coordinate$ and the 3aterial $tatu$ of the $tate3ent are 8art

of it$ intrin$ic characteri$tic$. That i$ an o%iou$ fact. Or al3o$t. For a$ $oon a$ one eDa3ine$ it a little 3ore clo$ely6 thing$ egin to lur and the 8role3$ increa$e.

Of cour$e6 it i$ te38ting to $ay that if a $tate3ent i$ characteried6 8artly at lea$t6 y it$ 3aterial $tatu$6 and if it$ identity i$$u$ce8tile to a 3odification of that $tatu$6 the $a3e can e $aid of $entence$ and 8ro8o$ition$@ the 3ateriality of $ign$ i$ not6

in fact6 entirely indifferent to gra33ar or e%en to logic. :e <now what theoretical 8role3$ are 8re$ented to logic y the

3aterial con$tancy of the $y3ol$ u$ed >how to define the identity of a $y3ol through the %ariou$ $u$tance$ in which it3ay e e3odied and the %ariation$ of for3 that it can tolerate 'ow to recognie it and 3a<e certain that it i$ the $a3e6 if it

3u$t e defined a$ Ga concrete 8hy$ical for3G?H we <now too what 8role3$ are 8re$ented to logic y the %ery notion of a

$erie$ of $y3;ol$ >what do G 8recedeG and GfollowG 3ean Co3e G eforeG and Gafter G In what $8ace i$ $uch an order $ituated?.Much etter <nown $till are the relation$ of 3ateriality and the language >longue? the role of writ;ing and the al8haet6 the

fact that neither the $a3e $yntaD6 nor the $a3e %ocaulary o8erate in a written teDt and in a con%er$ation6 in a new$;8a8er and

in a oo<6 in a letter and on a 8o$terH 3oreo%er6 there are $erie$ of word$ that for3 8erfectly indi%idualied and acce8tale$entence$ if they feature a$ new$8a8er headline$6 and which6 ne%erthele$$6 in the cour$e of a con%er$ation6 could ne%er $tand

a$ 3eaningful $entence$. 5et the 3ateriality 8lay$ a 3uch 3ore i38ortant role in the $tate3ent@ it i$ not $i38ly a 8rinci8le of

%ariation6 a 3odification of the criteria of recognition6 or a deter3ination of lingui$tic $u;grou8$. It i$ con$tituti%e of the$tate3ent it$elf@ a $tate3ent 3u$t ha%e a $u$tance6 a $u88ort6 a 8lace6 and a date. And when the$e reBui$ite$ change6 it too

change$ identity. At thi$ 8oint6 a ho$t of Bue$tion$ ari$e$@ "oe$ the $a3e $entence re8eated %ery loudly and %ery $oftly for3one or 3ore $tate3ent$ :hen one learn$ a teDt y heart6 doe$ each recitation con$titute a $tate3ent6 or $hould one regard ita$ a re8etition of the $a3e

>>&&4??

$tate3ent A $entence i$ faithfully tran$lated into a foreign language@ two di$tinct $tate3ent$ or one And in a collecti%e

recitation a 8rayer or a le$$on how 3any $tate3ent$ are 8roduced 'ow can one e$tali$h the identity of the $tate3entthrough all the$e %ariou$ for3$6 re8etition$6 and tran$cri8tion$

The 8role3 i$ no dout o$cured y the fact that there i$ often a confu$ion of different le%el$. To egin with6 we 3u$t

$et a$ide the 3ulti8licity of enunciation$. :e will $ay that an enunciation ta<e$ 8lace whene%er a grou8 of $ign$ i$ e3itted.Each of the$e articulation$ ha$ it$ $8atiote38oral indi%iduality. Two 8eo8le 3ay $ay the $a3e thing at the $a3e ti3e6 ut

$ince there are two 8eo8le there will he two di$tinct enunciation$. The $a3e 8er$on 3ay re8eat the $a3e $entence $e%eral

ti3e$H thi$ will 8roduce the $a3e nu3er of enunciation$ di$tinct in ti3e. The enunciation i$ an unre8eatale e%entH it ha$ a$ituated and dated uniBuene$$ that i$ irreducile. 5et thi$ uniBuene$$ allow$ of a nu3er of con$tant$ gra33atical6

$e3antic6 logical y which one can6 y neutraliing the 3o3ent of enunciation and the coordinate$ that indi%idualie it6recognie the general for3 of a $entence6 a 3ean;ing6 a 8ro8o$ition. The ti3e and 8lace of the enunciation6 and the 3aterial

$u88ort that it u$e$6 then eco3e6 %ery largely at lea$t6 indifferent@ and what $tand$ out i$ a for3 that i$ endle$$ly re8eatale6

and which 3ay gi%e ri$e to the 3o$t di$8er$ed enunciation$. *ut the $tate;3ent it$elf cannot e reduced to thi$ 8ure e%ent of enunciation6 for6 de$8ite it$ 3ateriality6 it cannot e re8eated@ it would not e difficult to $ay that the $a3e $entence $8o<en

y two 8eo8le in $lightly different circu3$tance$ con$titute only one $tate3ent. And yet the $tate3ent cannot he reduced to a

gra33atical or logical for3 ecau$e6 to a greater degree than that for36 and in a different way6 it i$ $u$ce8tile todifference$ of 3aterial6 $u$tance6 ti3e6 and 8lace. :hat6 then6 i$ that 3ateriality 8ro8er to the $tate3ent6 and which 8er3it$

certain $8ecial ty8e$ of re8etition 'ow i$ it that one can $8ea< of the $a3e $tate3ent when there are $e%eral di$tinct



enunciation$ of it6 yet 3u$t $8ea< of $e%eral $tate3ent$ when one can recognie identical for3$6 $tructure$6 rule$ of

con$truction6 and intention$ :hat6 then6 i$ thi$ rule of re8eatale 3ateriality that characterie$ the $tate3ent

Thi$ 3ay not he a 8erce8tile6 Bualitati%e 3ateriality6 eD8re$$ed in the for3 of colour6 $ound6 or $olidity6 and di%ided u8 y the $a3e

>>&&0??

$8atiote38oral o$er%ation a$ the 8erce8tual $8ace. ,et u$ ta<e a %ery $i38le eDa38le@ a teDt re8roduced $e%eral ti3e$6 the$ucce$$i%e edition$ of a oo<6 or6 etter $till6 the different co8ie$ of the $a3e 8rinting6 do not gi%e ri$e to the $a3e nu3er of di$tinct $tate3ent$@ in all the edition$ of ,e$ Fleur$ du mal >%ariant$ and reJected %er$ion$ a8art? 6 we find the $a3e $et of

$tate3ent$H yet neither the character$6 nor the in<6 nor the 8a8er6 nor e%en the 8lacing of the teDt and the 8o$ition$ of the

$ign$6 are the $a3e@ the whole teDture of the 3ateriality ha$ changed. *ut in thi$ ca$e the$e G$3allG difference$ are noti38ortant enough to alter the identity of the $tate3ent and to ring aout another@ they are all neutralied in the general

ele3ent 3aterial6 of cour$e6 ut al$o in$titutional and econo3ic of the G oo< G@ a oo<6 howe%er 3any co8ie$ or

edition$ are 3ade of it6 howe%er 3any different $u$tance$ it 3ay u$e6 i$ a locu$ of eDact eBui%alence for the $tate3ent$ for the3 it i$ an authority that 8er3it$ re8etition without any change of identity. :e $ee fro3 thi$ fir$t eDa38le that the

3ateriality of the $tate3ent i$ not defined y the $8ace occu8ied or the date of it$ for3ulationH ut rather y it$ $tatu$ a$ athing or oJect. A $tatu$ that i$ ne%er definiti%e6 ut 3odifiale6 relati%e6 and alway$ $u$ce8tile of eing Bue$tioned@ we

<now for eDa38le that6 for literary hi$torian$6 the edition of a oo< 8uli$hed with the agree3ent of the author doe$ not ha%e

the $a3e $tatu$ a$ 8o$thu3ou$ edition$6 that the $tate3ent$ in it ha%e a uniBue %alue6 that they are not one of the3anife$tation$ of one and the $a3e whole6 that they are that y relation to which there i$ and 3u$t e re8etition. Si3ilarly6

etween the teDt of a Con$titution6 or a will6 or a religiou$ re%elation6 and all the 3anu$cri8t$ or 8rinted co8ie$ thatre8roduce the3 eDactly6 with the $a3e writing6 in the $a3e character$6 and on $i3ilar $u$tance$6 one cannot $ay that therei$ an eBui%alence@ on the one hand there are the $tate3ent$ the3$el%e$6 and on the other their re8roduction. The $tate3ent

cannot e identified with a frag3ent of 3atterH ut it$ identity %arie$ with a co38leD $et of 3aterial in$titution$.

For a $tate3ent 3ay e the $a3e6 whether written on a $heet of 8a8er or 8uli$hed in a oo<H it 3ay e the $a3e $8o<en6 8rinted on a 8o$ter6 or re8roduced on a ta8e;recorderH on the other hand6 when a no%eli$t $8ea<$ a $entence in daily life6 then

re8roduce$ the $a3e $entence in the 3anu$cri8t that he i$ writing6 attriuting it to one of hi$

>>&&-??character$6 or e%en allowing it to e $8o<en y that anony3ou$ %oice that 8a$$e$ for that of the author6 one cannot $ay that it

i$ the $a3e $tate3ent in each ca$e. The rule of 3ateriality that $tate3ent$ nece$$arily oey i$ therefore of the order of the

in$titution rather than of the $8atio;te38oral localiationH it define$ 8o$$iilitie$ of rein$cri8tion and tran$cri8tion >hut al$othre$hold$ and li3it$?6 rather than li3ited and 8eri$hale indi%idualitie$.

The identity of a $tate3ent i$ $uJected to a $econd grou8 of condition$ and li3it$@ tho$e that are i38o$ed y all the other

$tate3ent$ a3ong which it figure$6 y the do3ain in which it can e u$ed or a88lied6 y the role and function$ that it can 8erfor3. The affir3ation that the earth i$ round or that $8ecie$ e%ol%e doe$ not con$titute the $a3e $tate3ent efore and after

Co8ernicu$6 efore and after "arwinH it i$ not6 for $uch $i38le for3ulation$6 that the 3eaning of the word$ ha$ changedH what

changed wa$ the relation of the$e affir3ation$ to other 8ro8o$ition$6 their condition$ of u$e and rein%e$t3ent6 the field of

eD8erience6 of 8o$$ile %erification$6 of 8role3$ to e re$ol%ed6 to which they can e referred. The $entence Gdrea3$ fulfil

de$ire$G 3ay ha%e een re8eated throughout the centurie$H it i$ not the $a3e $tate;3ent in Plato and in Freud. The $che3ata of

u$e6 the rule$ of a88lication6 the con$tellation$ in which. they can 8lay a 8art6 their $trategic 8otentialitie$ con$titute for $tate3ent$ a field of $tailiation that 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile6 de$8ite all the difference$ of enunciation6 to re8eat the3 in their

identityH ut thi$ $a3e field 3ay al$o6 eneath the 3o$t 3anife$t $e3antic6 gra33atical6 or for3al identitie$6 define a

thre$hold eyond which there can e no further eBui%alence6 and the a88earance of a new $tate3ent 3u$t e recognied. *utit i$ 8o$$ile6 no dout6 to go further@ there are ca$e$ in which one 3ay con$ider that there i$ only one $tate3ent6 e%en though

the word$6 the $yntaD6 and the language >langue? it$elf are not identical. Such ca$e$ are a $8eech and it$ $i3ultaneou$tran$lationH a $cientific teDt in Engli$h and it$ French %er$ionH a notice 8rinted in three colu3n$ in three different language$@

there are not6 in $uch ca$e$6 the $a3e nu3er of $tate3ent$ a$ there are language$ u$ed6 ut a $ingle grou8 of $tate3ent$ in

different lingui$tic for3$. *etter $till@ a gi%en 8iece of infor3ation 3ay e retran$3itted with other word$6 with a $i38lified$yntaD6 or in an agreed codeH if the infor3ation content and the u$e$ to which it

>>&&)??

could e 8ut are the $a3e6 one can $ay that it i$ the $a3e $tate3ent in each ca$e.'ere too6 we are concerned not with a criterion of indi%idualiation for the $tate3ent6 ut rather with it$ 8rinci8le of

%ariation@ it i$ $o3e;ti3e$ 3ore di%er$e than the $tructure of the $entence >and it$ identity i$ then finer6 3ore fragile6 3ore

ea$ily 3odifiale than that of a $e3antic or gra33atical whole?6 $o3eti3e$ 3ore con$tant than that $tructure >and it$ identityi$ then roader6 3ore $tale6 3ore $u$ce8tile to %ariation$?. Moreo%er6 not only can thi$ identity of the $tate3ent not e

$ituated once and for all in relation to that of the $entence6 ut it i$ it$elf relati%e and o$cillate$ according to the u$e that i$



3ade of the $tate3ent and the way in which it i$ handled. :hen one u$e$ a $tate3ent in $uch a way a$ to re%eal it$

gra33atical $tructure6 it$ rhetorical configuration6 or the connotation$ that it 3ay carry6 it i$ o%iou$ that one cannot regard it

a$ eing identical in it$ original language >longue? and in a tran$lation. On the other hand6 if it i$ intended a$ 8art of a 8rocedure of eD8eri3ental %erification6 then teDt and tran$lation con$titute a $ingle enunciati%e whole. Or again6 at a certain

$cale of 3acro;hi$tory6 one 3ay con$ider that an affir3ation li<e G$8ecie$ e%ol%eG for3$ the $a3e $tate3ent in "arwin and in

Si38$onH at a finer le%el6 and con$idering 3ore li3ited field$ of u$e > Gneo;"arwini$3G a$ o88o$ed to the "arwinian $y$te3it$elf?6 we are 8re$ented with two different $tate3ent$. The con$tancy of the $tate3ent6 the 8re$er%ation of it$ identity through

the uniBue e%ent$ of the enunciation$6 it$ du8lication$ through the identity of the for3$6 con$titute the function of the field of u$e in which it i$ 8laced.

The $tate3ent6 then6 3u$t not e treated a$ an e%ent that occurred in a 8articular ti3e and 8lace6 and that the 3o$t one can

do i$ recall it and celerate it fro3 afar off in an act of 3e3ory. *ut neither i$ it an ideal for3 that can e actualied in

any ody6 at any ti3e6 in any circu3$tance$6 and in any 3aterial condition$. Too re8eatale to e entirely identifiale with the$8atio;te38oral coordinate$ of it$ irth >it i$ 3ore than the 8lace and date of it$ a88earance?6 too ound u8 with what

$urround$ it and $u88ort$ it to e a$ free a$ a 8ure for3 >it i$ 3ore than a law of con$truction go%erning a grou8 of ele3ent$?6

it i$ endowed with a certain 3odifiale hea%ine$$6 a weight relati%e to the field in which it i$ 8laced6 a con$tancy that allow$of %ariou$ u$e$6 a

>>&&??te38oral 8er3anence that doe$ not ha%e the inertia of a 3ere trace or 3ar<6 and which doe$ not $lee8 on it$ own 8a$t.

:herea$ an enunciation 3ay e egun again or re;e%o<ed6 and a >lingui$tic or logical? for3 3ay e reactualied6 the

$tate3ent 3ay e re8eated ut alway$ in $trict condition$.

Thi$ re8eatale 3ateriality that characterie$ the enunciati%e function re%eal$ the $tate3ent a$ a $8ecific and 8aradoDicaloJect6 ut al$o a$ one of tho$e oJect$ that 3en 8roduce6 3ani8ulate6 u$e6 tran$for36 eDchange6 co3ine6 deco38o$e and

reco38o$e6 and 8o$$ily de$troy. In$tead of eing $o3ething $aid once and for all and lo$t in the 8a$t li<e the re$ult of a

attle6 a geological cata$tro8he6 or the death of a <ing the $tate3ent6 a$ it e3erge$ in it$ 3ateriality6 a88ear$ with a $tatu$6enter$ %ariou$ networ<$ and %ariou$ field$ of u$e6 i$ $uJected to tran$ference$ or 3odification$6 i$ integrated into o8eration$

and $trategie$ in which it$ identity i$ 3aintained or effaced. Thu$ the $tate3ent circulate$6 i$ u$ed6 di$a88ear$6 allow$ or

8re%ent$ the realiation of a de$ire6 $er%e$ or re$i$t$ %ariou$ intere$t$6 8artici8ate$ in challenge and $truggle6 and eco3e$ athe3e of a88ro8riation or ri%alry.

>>&&??

3. THE DESCRITION OF STATEMENTS

I now find that the analy$i$ ha$ $hifted it$ ground to a Buite con$ider;ale eDtentH it wa$ 3y intention to return to the

definition of the $tate3ent6 which6 at the out$et6 I had left in $u$8en$e. It wa$ a$ if I had regarded the $tate3ent a$ a unit thatcould e e$tali$hed without difficulty6 and that all I had to do wa$ de$crie it$ 8o$$iilitie$ and law$ of co3ination. I now

realie that I could not define the $tate3ent a$ a unit of a lingui$tic ty8e >$u8erior to the 8heno3enon of the word6 inferior tothe teDt?H ut that I wa$ dealing with an enunciati%e function that in%ol%ed %ariou$ unit$ >the$e 3ay $o3eti3e$ e $entence$6

$o3e;ti3e$ 8ro8o$ition$H ut they are $o3eti3e$ 3ade u8 of frag3ent$ of $entence$6 $erie$ or tale$ of $ign$6 a $et of

8ro8o$ition$ or eBui%alent for3ulation$?H and6 in$tead of gi%ing a G3eaningG to the$e unit$6 thi$ function relate$ the3 to a fieldof oJect$H in$tead of 8ro%iding the3 with a $uJect6 it o8en$ u8 for the3 a nu3er of 8o$$ile $uJecti%e 8o$ition$H in$tead of

fiDing their li3it$6 it 8lace$ the3 in a do3ain of coordination and coeDi$tenceH in$tead of deter3ining their identity6 it 8lace$

the3 in a $8ace in which they are u$ed and re8eated. In $hort6 what ha$ een di$co%ered i$ not the ato3ic $tate3ent withit$ a88arent 3eaning6 it$ origin6 it$ li3it$6 and it$ indi%iduality ut the

>>&29??

o8erational field of the enunciati%e function and the condition$ accord;ing to which it re%eal$ %ariou$ unit$ >which 3ay e6

ut need not e6 of a gra33atical or logical order?. *ut I now feel that I 3u$t an$wer two Bue$tion$@ what do I now

under$tand y the ta$<6 which I originally $et 3y$elf6 of de$criing $tate3ent$ 'ow can thi$ theory of the $tate3ent e

adJu$ted to the analy$i$ of di$cur$i%e for3ation$ that I outlined 8re%iou$ly



I. Fir$t ta$<@ fiD the %ocaulary. If we agree to call %eral 8erfor3ance6 or6 etter6 lingui$tic 8erfor3ance6 any grou8 of $ign$

8roduced on the a$i$ of a natural >or artificial? language >langue?6 we could call for3ulation the indi%idual >or 8o$$ily

collecti%e? act that re%eal$6 on any 3aterial and according to a 8articular for36 that grou8 of $ign$@ the for3ulation i$ an e%entthat can alway$ e located y it$ $8atio;te38oral coordinate$6 which can alway$ e related to an author6 and which 3ay

con$titute in it$elf a $8ecific act >a G 8erfor3ati%eG act6 a$ the *riti$h analy$t$ call it?H we can call $entence or 8ro8o$ition the

unit$ that gra33ar or logic 3ay recognie in a grou8 of $ign$@ the$e unit$ 3ay alway$ e characteried y the ele3ent$ thatfigure in the36 and y the rule$ of con$truction that unite the3H in relation to the $entence and the 8ro8o$ition6 the Bue$tion$

of origin6 ti3e and 8lace6 and conteDt are 3erely $u$idiaryH the deci$i%e Bue$tion i$ that of their correctne$$ >if only under the for3 of Gacce8tailityG?. :e will call $tate3ent the 3odality of eDi$tence 8ro8er to that grou8 of $ign$@ a 3odality thatallow$ it to e $o3ething 3ore than a $erie$ of trace$6 $o3ething 3ore than a $ucce$$ion of 3ar<$ on a $u$tance6 $o3ething

3ore than a 3ere oJect 3ade y a hu3an eingH a 3odality that allow$ it to e in relation with a do3ain of oJect$6 to

8re$crie a definite 8o$ition to any 8o$$ile $uJect6 to e $ituated a3ong other %eral 8erfor3ance$6 and to e endowed witha re8eatale 3ateriality. :e can now under$tand the rea$on for the eBui%ocal 3eaning of the ter3 di$cour$e6 which I ha%e

u$ed and au$ed in 3any different $en$e$@ in the 3o$t general6 and %ague$t way6 it denoted a grou8 of %eral 8erfor3ance$H

and y di$cour$e6 then6 I 3eant that which wa$ 8roduced >8erha8$ all that wa$ 8roduced? y the grou8$ of $ign$. *ut I al$o3eant a grou8 of act$ of for3ulation6 a $erie$

>>&2&??

of $entence$ or 8ro8o$ition$. ,a$tly and it i$ thi$ 3eaning that wa$ finally u$ed >together with the fir$t6 which $er%ed in a

8ro%i$ional ca8acity? di$cour$e i$ con$tituted y a grou8 of $eBuence$ of $ign$6 in $o far a$ they are $tate3ent$6 that i$6 i.n

$o far a$ they can e a$$igned 8articular 3odalitie$ of eDi$tence. And if I $ucceed in $howing6 a$ I $hall try to do $hortly6 thatthe law of $uch a $erie$ i$ 8reci$ely what I ha%e $o far called a di$cur$i%e for3ation6 if I $ucceed in $howing that thi$

di$cur$i%e for3ation really i$ the 8rinci8le of di$8er$ion and redi$triution6 not of for3ulation$6 not of $entence$6 not of

8ro8o$ition$6 ut of $tate3ent$ >in the $en$e in which I ha%e u$ed thi$ word?6 the ter3 di$cour$e can he defined a$ the grou8

of $tate3ent$ that elong to a $ingle $y$te3 of for3ationH thu$ I $hall e ale to $8ea< of clinical di$cour$e6 econo3ic

di$cour$e6 the di$cour$e of natural hi$tory6 8$ychiatric di$cour$e.I a3 well aware that 3o$t of the$e definition$ do not confor3 with current u$age@ lingui$t$ u$ually gi%e the word

di$cour$e a Buite different 3eaningH logician$ and analy$t$ u$e the ter3 $tate3ent in a different way. *ut 3y intention here i$

not to tran$fer to $o3e hitherto enighted do3ain. a $et of conce8t$6 a for3 of analy$i$6 and a theory that ha%e een for3edel$ewhereH and I do not intend to u$e a 3odel y a88lying it6 with it$ own efficacy6 to new content$. Not6 of cour$e6 that I

wi$h to Bue$tion the %alue of $uch a 3odelH not that I wi$h6 e%en efore trying it6 to li3it it$ a88lication6 or to lay down thethre$hold that it 3u$t not cro$$. *ut I would li<e to re%eal a de$cri8ti%e 8o$$iility6 outline the do3ain of which. it i$ ca8ale6

define it$ li3it$ and it$ autono3y. Thi$ de$cri8ti%e 8o$$iility i$ articulated u8on other$H i.t doe$ not deri%e fro3 the3.

In 8articular6 then6 the analy$i$ of $tate3ent$ doe$ not clai3 to he a total6 eDhau$ti%e de$cri8tion of GlanguageG >langage?6 or

of Gwhat wa$ $aidG. In the whole den$ity i38lied y %eral 8erfor3ance$6 it i$ $ituated at a 8articular le%el that 3u$t e

di$tingui$hed fro3 the other$6 characteried in relation to the36 and a$tract. In 8articular6 it doe$ not re8lace a logical

analy$i$ of 8ro8o$ition$6 a gra33atical analy$i$ of $entence$6 a 8$ychological or conteDtual analy$i$ of for3ulation$@ it i$another way of attac<ing %eral 8erfor3ance$6 of di$$ociating their co38leDity6 of i$olating the ter3$ that are entangled in it$

we6 and of locating the %ariou$ regularitie$ that they oey. *y confronting the

>>&22??

$tate3ent with the $entence or the 8ro8o$ition6 I a3 not trying to redi$co%er a lo$t totality6 or to re$u$citate6 a$ 3any wouldno$talgically li<e to do6 the 8lenitude of li%ing $8eech6 the richne$$ of the :ord6 the 8rofound unity of the ,ogo$. The

analy$i$ of $tate3ent$ corre$8ond$ to a $8ecific le%el of de$cri8tion.

2. The $tate3ent6 then6 i$ not an ele3entary unity that can e added to the unitie$ de$cried y gra33ar or logic. It cannot e

i$olated li<e a $entence6 a 8ro8o$ition6 or an act of for3ulation. To de$crie a $tate;3ent i$ not a 3atter of i$olating and

characteriing a horiontal $eg;3entH ut of defining the condition$ in which the function that ga%e a $erie$ of $ign$ >a $erie$that i$ not nece$$arily gra33atical or logically $tructured? an eDi$tence6 and a $8ecific eDi$tence6 can o8erate. An eDi$t encethat re%eal$ $uch a $erie$ a$ 3ore than a 3ere trace6 ut rather a relation to a do3ain of oJect$H a$ 3ore than the re$ult of an

action or an indi%idual o8eration6 ut rather a $et of 8o$$ile 8o$ition$ for a $uJectH a$ 3ore than an organic6 autono3ou$

whole6 clo$ed in u8on it$elf and ca8ale of for3ing 3eaning of it$ own accord6 ut rather an ele3ent in a field of coeDi$tenceH a$ 3ore than a 8a$$ing e%ent or an inert oJect6 ut rather a re8eatale 3ateriality. The de$cri8tion of $tate3ent$

i$ concerned6 in a $ort of %ertical di3en$ion6 with the condition$ of eDi$tence of different grou8$ of $ignifier$ >$ignifiant$?.

'ence a 8aradoD@ the de$cri8tion of $tate3ent$ doe$ not atte38t to e%ade %eral 8erfor3ance$ in order to di$co%er ehindthe3 or elow their a88arent $urface a hidden ele3ent6 a $ecret 3eaning that lie$ uried within the36 or which e3erge$

through the3 without $aying $oH and yet the $tate3ent i$ not i33ediately %i$ileH it i$ not gi%en in $uch a 3anife$t way a$ a



gra33atical or logical $tructure >e%en if $uch a $tructure i$ not entirely clear6 or i$ %ery difficult to elucidate?. The $tate3ent

i$ neither %i$ile nor hidden.

Not hidden6 y definition6 $ince it characterie$ the 3odalitie$ of eDi$tence 8ro8er to a grou8 of effecti%ely 8roduced$ign$. The analy$i$ of $tate3ent$ can ne%er confine it$ attention to the thing$ $aid6 to the $entence$ that were actually $8o<en

or written6 to the G$ignifyingG ele3ent$ that were traced or 8ronounced and6 3ore 8articularly6 to that %ery uniBuene$$ that

gi%e$ the3 eDi$tence6 offer$ the3 to the %iew of the reader6 to a 8o$$ile reacti%ation6 to innu3erale u$e$ or 8o$$ile

>>&2??tran$for3ation$6 a3ong other thing$6 ut not li<e other thing$. It can;not concern only realied %eral 8erfor3ance$ $ince it

analy$e$ the3 at the le%el of their eDi$tence@ it i$ a de$cri8tion of thing$ $aid6 8reci$ely a$ they were $aid. The analy$i$ of

$tate3ent$6 then6 i$ a hi$torical analy$i$6 ut one that a%oid$ all inter8retation@ it doe$ not Bue$tion thing$ $aid a$ to what they

are hiding6 what they were GreallyG $aying6 in $8ite of the3$el%e$6 the un$8o<en ele3ent that they contain6 the 8roliferation of

thought$6 i3age$6 or fanta$ie$ that inhait the3H ut6 on the contrary6 it Bue$tion$ the3 a$ to their 3ode of eDi$tence6 what it

3ean$ to the3 to ha%e co3e into eDi$tence6 to ha%e left trace$6 and 8erha8$ to re3ain there6 awaiting the 3o3ent when they3ight e of u$e once 3oreH what it 3ean$ to the3 to ha%e a88eared when and where they did they and no other$. Fro3

thi$ 8oint of %iew6 there i$ no $uch thing a$ a latent $tate3ent@ for what one i$ concerned with i$ the fact of language>langage?.

A difficult the$i$ to $u$tain. :e <now and thi$ ha$ 8roaly een the ca$e e%er $ince 3en egan to $8ea< that one

thing i$ often $aid in 8lace of anotherH that one $entence 3ay ha%e two 3eaning$ at onceH that an o%iou$ 3eaning6under$tood without difficulty y e%eryone6 3ay conceal a $econd e$oteric or 8ro8hetic 3eaning that a 3ore $utle

deci8hering6 or 8erha8$ only the ero$ion of ti3e6 will finally re%ealH that eneath a %i$ile for3ulation6 there 3ay reignanother that control$ it6 di$tur$ it6 and i38o$e$ on it an articulation of it$ ownH in $hort6 that in one way or another6 thing$$aid $ay 3ore than the3$el%e$. *ut6 in fact6 the$e a88arent du8lication$6 thi$ un$aid that i$ ne%erthele$$ $aid6 do not affect the

$tate3ent6 at lea$t a$ it ha$ een defined here. Poly$e3ia which Ju$tifie$ her3eneutic$ and the di$co%ery of another

3eaning concern$ the $entence6 and the $e3antic field$ that it e38loy$@ the $a3e grou8 of word$ 3ay gi%e ri$e to $e%eral3eaning$6 and to $e%eral 8o$$ile con$truction$H there 3ay e6 therefore6 inter;wo%en or alternating6 different 3eaning$

o8erating on the $a3e enunciati%e a$e. Si3ilarly6 the $u88re$$ion of one %eral 8erfor3ance y another6 their $u$titution or

interference6 are 8heno3ena that elong to the le%el of the for3ulation >e%en if they ha%e incidence$ on the lingui$tic or logical $tructure$?H ut the $tate3ent it$elf i$ not concerned with thi$ du8lication or thi$ $u88re$$ion@ $ince it i$ the 3odality

of eDi$tence of the %eral 8erfor3ance a$ it ha$ ta<en 8lace. The

>>&24??$tate3ent cannot e regarded a$ the cu3ulati%e re$ult or the cry$talliation of $e%eral fluctuating6 $carcely articulated6 and

3utually o88o$ed $tate3ent$. The $tate3ent i$ not haunted y the $ecret 8re$ence of the un$aid6 of hidden 3eaning$6 of

$u88re$$ion$H on the contrary6 the way in which the$e hidden ele3ent$ function6 and in which they can e re$tored6 de8end$on the enunciati%e 3odality it$elf@ we <now that the Gun$aidG6 the G$u88re$$edG6 i$ not the $a3e either in it$ $tructure or in it$

effect in the ca$e of a 3athe3atical $tate3ent6 a $tate3ent in econo3ic$6 an autoiogra8hy6 or the account of a drea3.

'owe%er6 to all the$e %ariou$ 3odalitie$ of the un$aid that 3ay e located again$t the ac<ground of the enunciati%e field6$hould no dout e added a lac<6 which6 in$tead of eing in$ide $ee3$ to e correlati%e with thi$ field and to 8lay a role in the

deter3ination of it$ %ery eDi$tence. There 3ay in fact e and 8roaly alway$ are in the condition$ of e3ergence of

$tate3ent$6 eDclu$ion$6 li3it$6 or ga8$ that di%ide u8 their referential6 %alidate only one $erie$ of 3odalitie$6 enclo$e grou8$ of co;eDi$tence6 and 8re%ent certain for3$ of u$e. *ut one $hould not confu$e6 either in it$ $tatu$ or in it$ effect6 the lac< that i$

characteri$tic of an enunciati%e regularity and the 3eaning$ concealed in what i$ for3ulated in it.

. Although the $tate3ent cannot e hidden6 it i$ not %i$ile eitherH it i$ not 8re$ented to the 8erce8tion a$ the 3anife$t earer

of it$ li3it$ and characteri$tic$. It reBuire$ a certain change of %iew8oint and attitude to e recognied and eDa3ined in it$elf.

Perha8$ it i$ li<e the o%er;fa3iliar that con$tantly elude$ oneH tho$e fa3iliar tran$8arencie$6 which6 although they conceal

nothing in their den$ity6 are ne%erthele$$ not entirely clear. The enunciati%e le%el e3erge$ in. it$ %ery 8roDi3ity.

There are $e%eral rea$on$ for thi$. The fir$t ha$ already een gi%en@ the $tate3ent i$ not Ju$t another unity ao%e or elow $entence$ and 8ro8o$ition$H it i$ alway$ in%e$ted in unitie$ of thi$ <ind6 or e%en in $eBuence$ of $ign$ that do not

oey their law$ >and which 3ay e li$t$6 chance $erie$6 tale$?H it characterie$ not what i$ gi%en in the36 ut the %ery fact

that they are gi%en6 and the way in which they are gi%en. It ha$ thi$ Bua$i;in%i$iility of the Gthere i$G6 which i$ effaced in the

%ery thing of which one can $ay@ Gthere i$ thi$ or that thingG.

Another rea$on@ the G$ignifyingG $tructure of language >langage?



>>&20??



alway$ refer$ ac< to $o3ething el$eH oJect$ are de$ignated y itH 3eaning i$ intended y itH the $uJect i$ referred ac< to it

y a nu3er of $ign$ e%en if he i$ not hi3$elf 8re$ent in the3. ,anguage alway$ $ee3$ to e inhaited y the other6 the

el$ewhere6 the di$tantH it i$ hollowed y a$ence. I$ it not the locu$ in which $o3ething other than it$elf a88ear$6 doe$ not it$own eDi$tence $ee3 to e di$$i8ated in thi$ function *ut if one wi$he$ to de$crie the enunciati%e le%el6 one 3u$t con$ider

that eDi$tence it$elfH Bue$tion language6 not in the direction to which it refer$6 ut in the di3en$ion that gi%e$ itH ignore it$

8ower to de$ignate6 to na3e6 to $how6 to re%eal6 to e the 8lace of 3eaning or truth6 and6 in$tead6 turn one G$ attention to the

3o3ent which i$ at once $olidified6 caught u8 in the 8lay of the G$ignifierG and the G$ignifiedG that deter3ine$ it$ uniBue

and li3ited eDi$tence. In the eDa3ination of language6 one 3u$t $u$8end6 not only the 8oint of %iew of the G$ignifiedG >we are

u$ed to thi$ y now?6 ut al$o that of the G$ignifier G6 and $o re%eal the fact that6 here and there6 in relation to 8o$$ile do3ain$of oJect$ and $uJect$6 in relation to other 8o$$ile for3ulation$ and re;u$e$6 there i$ language.

The la$t rea$on for thi$ Bua$i;in%i$iility of the $tate3ent@ it i$ i38lied6 ut ne%er 3ade eD8licit6 in all other analy$e$ of

language. If language i$ to he ta<en a$ an oJect6 deco38o$ed into di$tinct le%el$6 de$cried and analy$ed6 an Genunciati%e

datu3G 3u$t eDi$t that will alway$ e deter3ined and not infinite@ the analy$i$ of a language >longue? alway$ o8erate$ on acor8u$ of word$ and teDt$H the unco%ering and inter8retation of i38licit 3eaning$ alway$ re$t$ on a li3ited grou8 of

$entence$H the logical analy$i$ of a $y$te3 i38lie$ a gi%en grou8 of 8ro8o$ition$ in the rewriting6 in a for3al language>langage?. The enunciati%e le%el i$ neutralied each ti3e@ either it i$ defined only a$ a re8re$entati%e $a38le that enale$ one

to free endle$$ly a88licale $tructure$H or it di$a88ear$ into a 8ure a88earance ehind which the truth of word$ i$ re%ealedH or

it act$ a$ a neutral $u$tance that $er%e$ a$ a $u88ort for for3al relation$. The fact that6 each ti3e6 it i$ indi$8en$ ale if ananaly$i$ i$ to ta<e 8lace de8ri%e$ it of all rele%ance for the analy$i$ it$elf. If one add$ to thi$ that all the$e de$cri8tion$ can e

3ade only when they the3$el%e$ for3 finite grou8$ of $tate3ent$6 it will e clear why they are $urrounded on all $ide$ y

the enunciati%e field6 why they cannot free the3$el%e$ fro3 it6 and why they cannot ta<e it

>>&2-??directly a$ it$ the3e. In con$idering $tate3ent$ in the3$el%e$6 we will not $ee<6 eyond all the$e analy$e$ and at a dee8er

le%el6 $o3e $ecret or $o3e root of language >langage? that they ha%e o3itted. :e $hall try to render %i$ile6 and analy$ale6

that i33ediate tran$8arency that con$titute$ the ele3ent of their 8o$$iility. Neither hidden6 nor %i$ile6 the enunciati%e le%el i$ at the li3it of language >langage?@ it i$ not6 in it$elf6 a grou8 of

characteri$tic$ that are 8re$ented6 e%en in an un$y$te3atic way6 to i33ediate eD8erienceH ut neither i$ it the enig3atic6 $ilent

re3ainder that it doe$ not tran$late. It define$ the 3odality of it$ a88earance@ it$ 8eri8hery rather than it$ internalorganiation6 it$ $urface rather than it$ content. *ut the fact that one can de$crie thi$ enunciati%e $urface 8ro%e$ that theGgi%enG6 the datu36 of language i$ not the 3ere rending of a funda3ental $ilenceH that the word$6 $entence$6 3eaning$6

affir3ation$6 $erie$ of 8ro8o$ition$ do not hac< directly on to a 8ri3e%al night of $ilenceH ut that the $udden a88earance of a$entence6 the fla$h of 3eaning6 the ru$Bue ge$ture of the indeD finger of de$ignation6 alway$ e3erge in the o8erational

do3ain of an enunciati%e functionH that etween language a$ one read$ and hear$ it6 and al$o a$ one $8ea<$ it6 and the a$ence

of any for3ulation6 there i$ not a 8rofu$ion of thing$ half $aid6 $entence$ left unfini$hed6 thought$ half eD8re$$ed6 an endle$$3onologue of which only a few frag3ent$ e3ergeH ut6 efore all or in any ca$e efore it >for it de8end$ on the3? the

condition$ according to which the enunciati%e function o8erate$. Thi$ al$o 8ro%e$ that it i$ %ain to $ee<6 eyond $tructural6for3al6 or inter8retati%e analy$e$ of language6 a do3ain that i$ at la$t freed fro3 all 8o$iti%ity6 in which the freedo3 of the

$uJect6 the laour of the hu3an eing6 or the o8ening u8 of a tran$cendental de$tiny could e fulfilled. One $hould not oJect

to lingui$tic 3ethod$ or logical analy$e$@ G:hen you ha%e $aid $o 3uch aout the rule$ of it$ con$truction6 what do you dowith language it$elf6 in the 8lenitude of it$ li%ing ody :hat do you do with thi$ freedo36 or with thi$ 3eaning that i$ 8rior

to all $ignification6 without which indi%idual$ could not under$tand one another in the ne%er;ending wor< of language Are

you not aware that a$ $oon a$ one ha$ cro$$ed the finite $y$te3$ that 3a<e 8o$$ile the infinity of di$cour$e6 ut which areinca8ale of founding it and of accounting for it6 what one find$ i$ the 3ar< of a tran$cendence6 or the wor< of the hu3an

eing



>>&2)??

"o you <now that you ha%e de$cried only a few of the characteri$tic$ of a language >langage? who$e e3ergence and 3ode

of eing are entirely irreducile to your analy$e$G Such oJection$ 3u$t e $et a$ide@ for if it i$ true that there i$ a di3en$ionthere that elong$ neither to logic nor to lingui$tic$6 it i$ not6 for all that6 a re$tored tran$cendence6 nor a way that ha$ een

reo8ened in the direction of an inacce$$ile origin6 nor a creation y the hu3an eing of hi$ own 3eaning$. ,anguage6 in it$

a88earance and 3ode of eing6 i$ the $tate3entH a$ $uch6 it elong$ to a de$cri8tion that i$ neither tran$cendental nor anthro8ological. The enunciati%e analy$i$ doe$ not lay down for lingui$tic or logical analy$e$ the li3it eyond which they

3u$t renounce their 8ower and recognie their 8owerle$$ne$$H it doe$ not 3ar< the line that enclo$e$ their do3ainH it i$de8loyed in another direction6 which inter$ect$ the3. The 8o$$iility of an enunciati%e analy$i$6 if it i$ e$tali$hed6 3u$t3a<e it 8o$$ile to rai$e the tran$cendental o$tacle that a certain for3 of 8hilo$o8hical di$cour$e o88o$e$ to all analy$e$ of

language6 in the na3e of the eing of that language and of the ground fro3 which it $hould deri%e it$ origin.

I 3u$t now turn to the $econd grou8 of Bue$tion$@ how can the de$cri8tion of $tate3ent$6 thu$ defined6 e adJu$ted to the

analy$i$ of di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 the 8rinci8le$ of which I outlined ao%e And in%er$ely@ to what eDtent can one $ay thatthe analy$i$ of di$cur$i%e for3ation$ really i$ a de$cri8tion of $tate3ent$6 in the $en$e in which I ha%e u$ed thi$ word It i$

i38ortant to an$wer the$e Bue$tion$H for it i$ at thi$ 8oint that the enter8ri$e to which I ha%e de%oted 3y$elf for $o 3anyyear$6 which I ha%e de%elo8ed in a $o3ewhat lind way6 ut of which I a3 now trying e%en if I readJu$t it6 e%en if I

rectify a nu3er of error$ or i38rudence$ to reca8ture the general outline6 3u$t clo$e it$ circle. A$ ha$ already eco3e

clear6 I a3 not trying to $ay here what I once tried to $ay in thi$ or that concrete analy$i$6 or to de$crie the 8roJect that I had

in 3ind6 the o$tacle$ that I encountered6 the atte38t$ that I wa$ forced to aandon6 the 3ore or le$$ $ati$factory re$ult$ thatI 3anaged to otainH I a3 not de$criing an effecti%e traJectory in order to indicate what $hould ha%e een and what will e

fro3

>>&2??now on@ I a3 trying to elucidate in it$elf in order to 3ea$ure it and to deter3ine it$ reBuire3ent$ a 8o$$iility of

de$cri8tion that I ha%e u$ed without eing aware of it$ con$traint$ and re$ource$H rather than trying to di$co%er what I $aid6and what I 3ight ha%e $aid6 I $hall try to re%eal6 in it$ own regularity a regularity that I ha%e not yet $ucceeded in 3a$tering

what 3ade it 8o$$ile to $ay what I did. *ut one can al$o $ee that I a3 not de%elo8ing here a theory6 in the $trict $en$e of

the ter3@ the deduction6 on the a$i$ of a nu3er of aDio3$6 of an a$tract 3odel a88licale to an indefinite nu3er of e38irical de$cri8tion$. If $uch an edifice were e%er 8o$$ile6 the ti3e for it ha$ certainly not yet arri%ed. I a3 not inferring

the analy$i$ of di$cur$i%e for3ation$ fro3 a definition of $tate3ent$ that would $er%e a$ a a$i$H nor a3 I inferring the nature

of $tate3ent$ fro3 what di$cur$i%e for3ation$ are6 a$ one wa$ ale to a$tract the3 fro3 thi$ or that de$cri8tionH ut I a3trying to $how how a do3ain can e organied6 without flaw6 without contradiction6 without internal aritrarine$$6 in which

$tate3ent$6 their 8rinci8le of grou8ing6 the great hi$torical unitie$ that they 3ay for36 and the 3ethod$ that 3a<e it 8o$$ileto de$crie the3 are all rought into Bue$tion. I a3 not 8roceeding y linear deduction6 ut rather y concentric circle$63o%ing $o3eti3e$ toward$ the outer and $o3e;ti3e$ toward$ the inner one$@ eginning with the 8role3 of di$;continuity in

di$cour$e and of the uniBuene$$ of the $tate3ent >the central the3e?6 I ha%e tried to analy$e6 on the 8eri8hery6 certain for3$

of enig3atic grou8ing$H ut the 8rinci8le$ of unification with which I wa$ then 8re$ented6 and which are neither gra33atical6nor logical6 nor 8$ychological6 and which con$eBuently cannot refer either to $entence$6 8ro8o$ition$6 or re8re$entation$6

forced 3e to return to the centre6 to that 8role3 of the $tate3entH to try to elucidate what i$ 3eant y the ter3 $tate3ent.And I will con$ider6 not that I ha%e con$tructed a rigorou$ theoretical 3odel6 ut that I ha%e freed a coher ent do3ain of

de$cri8tion6 that I ha%e6 if not e$tali$hed the 3odel6 at lea$t o8ened u8 and arranged the 8o$$iility of one6 if I ha%e een

ale to Gloo8 the loo8G6 and $how that the analy$i$ of di$cur$i%e for3ation$ really i$ centred on a de$cri8tion of the $tate3entin it$ $8ecificity. In $hort6 if I ha%e een ale to $how that they really are the 8ro8er di3en$ion$ of the $tate3ent that are at

wor< in the 3a88ing of di$cur$i%e for3ation$. !ather than founding a theory and 8erha8$ efore eing

>>&2??ale to do $o >I do not deny that I regret not yet ha%ing $ucceeded in doing $o? 3y 8re$ent concern i$ to e$tali$h a 8o$$iility.

In eDa3ining the $tate3ent what we ha%e di$co%ered i$ a function that ha$ a earing on grou8$ of $ign$6 which i$

identified neither with gra33atical Gacce8tailityG nor with logical correctne$$6 and which reBuire$ if it i$ to o8erate@ areferential >which. i$ not eDactly a fact6 a $tate of thing$6 or e%en an oJect6 ut a 8rinci8le of differentiation?H a $uJect >not

the $8ea<ing con$ciou$ne$$6 not the author of the for3ula;tion6 ut a 8o$ition that 3ay e filled in certain condition$ y

%ariou$ indi%idual$? H an a$$ociated field >which i$ not the real conteDt of the for3ulation6 the $ituation in which it wa$articulated6 ut a do3ain of coeDi$tence for other $tate3ent$?H a 3ateriality >which i$ not only the $u$tance or $u88ort of the

articulation6 ut a $tatu$6 rule$ of tran$cri8tion6 8o$$iilitie$ of u$e and re;u$e?. Now6 what ha$ een de$cried a$ di$cur$i%efor3ation$ are6 $trictly $8ea<ing6 grou8$ of $tate3ent$. That i$6 grou8$ of %eral 8erfor3ance$ that are not lin<ed to one



another at the $entence le%el y gra33atical >$yntactical or $e3antic? lin<$H which are not lin<ed to one another at the

8ro8o$ition le%el y logical lin<$ >lin<$ of for3al coherence or conce8tual conneDion?H and which are not lin<ed either at the

for3ulation le%el y 8$ychological lin<$ >either the identity of the for3$ of con$ciou$ne$$6 the con$tancy of the 3entalitie$6or the re8etition of a 8roJect?H ut which are lin<ed at the $tate3ent le%el. That which i38lie$ that one can define the general

$et of rule$ that go%ern their oJect$6 the for3 of di$8er$ion that regularly di%ide$ u8 what they $ay6 the $y$te3 of their

referential$H that which i38lie$ that one define$ the general $et of rule$ that go%ern the different 3ode$ of enunciation6 the 8o$$ile di$triution of the $uJecti%e 8o$ition$6 and the $y$te3 that define$ and 8re$crie$ the3H that which i38lie$ that one

define$ the $et of rule$ co33on to all their a$$ociated do3ain$6 the for3$ of $ucce$$ion6 of $i3ultaneity6 of the re8etition of which they are ca8ale6 and the $y$te3 that lin<$ all the$e field$ of co;eDi$tence togetherH la$tly6 that which i38lie$ that onecan define the general $et of rule$ that go%ern the $tatu$ of the$e $tate3ent$6 the way in which they are in$titutionalied6

recei%ed6 u$ed6 re;u$ed.6 co3ined together6 the 3ode according to which they eco3e oJect$ of a88ro8riation6 in$tru3ent$

for de$ire or intere$t6 ele3ent$ for a $trategy. To de$crie $tate3ent$6 to de$crie the enunciati%e function of

>>&9??

which they are the earer$6 to analy$e the condition$ in which thi$ function o8erate$6 to co%er the different do3ain$ that thi$function 8re$u88o$e$ and the way in which tho$e do3ain$ are articulated6 i$ to underta<e to unco%er what 3ight e called

the di$cur$i%e for3ation. Or again6 which a3ount$ to the $a3e thing6 ut in the o88o$ite directionH the di$cur$i%e for3ation

i$ the general enunciati%e $y$te3 that go%ern$ a grou8 of %eral 8erfor3ance$ a $y$te3 that i$ not alone in go%erning it6$ince it al$o oey$6 and in accordance with it$ other di3en$ion$6 logical6 lingui$tic6 and 8$ychological $y$te3$. :hat ha$

een called Gdi$cur$i%e for3ationG di%ide$ u8 the general 8lane of thing$ $aid at the $8ecific le%el of $tate3ent$. The four

direction$ in which it i$ analy$ed >for3ation of oJect$6 for3ation of the $uJecti%e 8o$ition$6 for3ation of conce8t$6for3ation of $trategic choice$? corre$8ond to the four do3ain$ in which the enunciati%e function o8erate$. And if the

di$cur$i%e for3ation$ are free in relation to the great rhetorical unitie$ of the teDt or the oo<6 if they are not go%erned y the

rigour of a deducti%e architecture6 if they are not identified with the oeu%re of an author6 it i$ ecau$e they ring into 8laythe enunciati%e le%el6 together with the regularitie$ that characterie it6 and not the gra33atical le%el of $entence$6 or the

logical le%el of 8ro8o$ition$6 or the 8$ychological le%el of for3ulation.On thi$ a$i$6 we can now ad%ance a nu3er of 8ro8o$ition$ that lie at the heart of the$e analy$e$@

& . It can e $aid that the 3a88ing of di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 inde8endently of other 8rinci8le$ of 8o$$ile unification6re%eal$ the $8ecific le%el of the $tate3entH ut it can al$o e $aid that the de$cri8tion of $tate3ent$ and of the way in which

the enunciati%e le%el i$ organied lead$ to the indi%idualiation of the di$cur$i%e for3ation$. The two a88roache$ are eBually Ju$tifiale and re%er$ile. The analy$i$ of the $tate3ent and that of the for3ation are e$tali$hed correlati%ely. :hen the

ti3e finally co3e$ to found a theory6 it will ha%e to define a deducti%e order.

2. A $tate3ent elong$ to a di$cur$i%e for3ation a$ a $entence elong$ to a teDt6 and a 8ro8o$ition to a deducti%e whole.*ut wherea$ the regularity of a $entence i$ defined y the law$ of a language >longue?6

>>&&??

and that of a 8ro8o$ition y the law$ of logic6 the regularity of $tate3ent$ i$ defined y the di$cur$i%e for3ation it$elf. Thefact of it$ elonging to a di$cur$i%e for3ation and the law$ that go%ern it are one and the $a3e thingH thi$ i$ not 8aradoDical

$ince the di$cur$i%e for3a;tion i$ characteried not y 8rinci8le$ of con$truction ut y a di$8er$ion of fact6 $ince for

$tate3ent$ it i$ not a condition of 8o$$iility ut a law of coeDi$tence6 and $ince $tate3ent$ are not interchangeale ele3ent$ ut grou8$ characteried y their 3odality of eDi$tence.

3.So we can now gi%e a full 3eaning to the definition of Gdi$;cour$eG that we $ugge$ted ao%e. :e $hall call di$cour$e

a grou8 of $tate3ent$ in $o far a$ they elong to the $a3e di$cur$i%e for3ationH it doe$ not for3 a rhetorical or for3al

unity6 endle$$ly re8eatale6 who$e a88earance or u$e in hi$tory 3ight e indicated >and6 if nece$$ary6 eD8lained? H it i$

3ade u8 of a li3ited nu3er of $tate3ent$ for which a grou8 of condition$ of eDi$tence can e defined. "i$cour$e in thi$$en$e i$ not an ideal6 ti3ele$$ for3 that al$o 8o$$e$$e$ a hi$toryH the 8role3 i$ not therefore to a$< one;$elf how and

why it wa$ ale to e3erge and eco3e e3odied at thi$ 8oint in ti3eH it i$6 fro3 eginning to end6 hi$torical a

frag3ent of hi$tory6 a unity and di$continuity in hi$tory it$elf6 8o$ing the 8role3 of it$ own li3it$6 it$ di%i$ion$6 it$tran$for3ation$6 the $8ecific 3ode$ of it$ te38orality rather than it$ $udden irru8tion in the 3id$t of the co38licitie$ of

ti3e.

4.,a$tly6 what we ha%e called Gdi$cur$i%e 8racticeG can now e defined 3ore 8reci$ely. It 3u$t not he confu$ed. with



the eD8re$$i%e o8eration y which can indi%idual for3ulate$ an idea6 a de$ire6 an i3ageH nor with the rational acti%ity that

3ay o8erate in a $y$te3 of inferenceH nor with the Gco38etenceG of a $8ea<ing $uJect when he con$truct$ gra33atical

$entence$H it i$ a ody of anony3ou$6 hi$torical rule$6 alway$ deter3ined in the ti3e and $8ace that ha%e defined a gi%en 8eriod6 and for a gi%en $ocial6 econo3ic6 geogra8hical6 or lingui$tic area6 the condition$ of o8eration of the enunciati%e

function.

It re3ain$ for 3e now to in%ert the analy$i$ and6 after referring di$;cur$i%e for3ation$ to the $tate3ent$ that they de$crie6 to

$ee< in another direction6 thi$ ti3e toward$ the eDterior6 the legiti3ate u$e of

>>&2??

the$e notion$@ what can e di$co%ered through the36 how they can ta<e their 8lace a3ong other

3ethod$ of de$cri8tion6 to what eDtent they can 3odify and redi$triute the do3ain of the hi$tory of idea$. *ut efore o8erating thi$ in%er$ion6 and in order to o8erate it 3ore $urely6 I $hall re3ain a little

longer in the di3en$ion that I ha%e een eD8loring6 and try to define what the analy$i$ of the

enunciati%e field and of the for3ation$ that di%ide it u8 reBuire and eDclude.

>>&??

%. RARIT&' E(TERIORIT&' ACCUMULATION

The enunci.ati%e analy$i$ ta<e$ into con$ideration an ele3ent of rarity./enerally $8ea<ing6 the analy$i$ of di$cour$e o8erate$ etween the twin 8ole$ of totality and 8lethora. One $how$ how the

different teDt$ with which one i$ dealing refer to one another6 organie the3$el%e$ into a $ingle figure6 con%erge with

in$titution$ and 8ractice$6 and carry 3eaning$ that 3ay e co33on to a whole 8eriod. Each ele3ent con;$idered i$ ta<en a$the eD8re$$ion of the totality to which it elong$ and who$e li3it$ it eDceed$. And in thi$ way one $u$titute$ for the di%er $ity

of the thing$ $aid a $ort of great6 unifor3 teDt6 which ha$ ne%er efore een articulated6 and which re%eal$ for the fir$t ti3e

what 3en Greally 3eantG not only in their word$ and teDt$6 their di$cour$e$ and their writing$6 ut al$o in the in$titution$6

8ractice$6 techniBue$6 and oJect$ that they 8roduced. In relation to thi$ i38licit6 $o%ereign6 co33unal G3eaningG6 $tate3ent$

a88ear in $u8eraundant 8roliferation6 $ince it i$ to that 3eaning alone that they all refer and to it alone that they owe their

truth@ a 8lethora of $ignifying ele3ent$ in relation to thi$ $ingle G$ignifiedG >$ignifie?. *ut thi$ 8ri3ary and ulti3ate 3ean;ing$8ring$ u8 through the 3anife$t for3ulation$6 it hide$ eneath what a88ear$6 and $ecretly du8licate$ it6 ecau$e each

di$cour$e

>>&4??

contain$ the 8ower to $ay $o3ething other than what it actually $ay$6 and thu$ to e3race a 8lurality of 3eaning$@ a 8lethora

of the G$ignifiedG in relation to a $ingle G$ignifier G. Fro3 thi$ 8oint of %iew6 di$cour$e i$ oth 8lenitude and endle$$ wealth.The analy$i$ of $tate3ent$ and di$cur$i%e for3ation$ o8en$ u8 a Buite contrary direction@ it wi$he$ to deter3ine the

8rinci8le according to which only the G$ignifyingG grou8$ that were enunciated could a88ear. It $et$ out to e$tali$h a law of rarity. Thi$ ta$< in%ol%e$ $e%eral a$8ect$@

It i$ a$ed on the 8rinci8le that e%erything i$ ne%er $aidH in relation to what 3ight ha%e een $tated in a natural language>longue?6 in relation to the unli3ited co3ination of lingui$tic ele3ent$6 $tate3ent$ >howe%er nu3erou$ they 3ay e? are

alway$ in deficitH on the a$i$ of the gra33ar and of the wealth of %ocaulary a%ailale at a gi%en 8eriod6 there are6 in total6

relati%ely few thing$ that are $aid. :e 3u$t loo< therefore for the 8rinci8le of rarification or at lea$t of non;filling of the fieldof 8o$$ile for3ulation$ a$ it i$ o8ened u8 y the language >longue?. "i$cur$i%e for3ation a88ear$ oth a$ a 8rinci8le of

di%i$ion in the entangled 3a$$ of di$cour$e$ and a$ a 8rinci8le of %acuity in the field of language >langage?.



:e are $tudying $tate3ent$ at the li3it that $e8arate$ the3 fro3 what i$ not $aid6 in the occurrence that allow$ the3 to

e3erge to the eDclu$ion of all other$. Our ta$< i$ not to gi%e %oice to the $ilence that $urround$ the36 nor to redi$co%er all

that6 in the3 and e$ide the36 had re3ained $ilent or had een reduced to $ilence. Nor i$ it to $tudy the o$tacle$ that ha%e 8re%ented a 8articular di$co%ery6 held hac< a 8articular for3ulation6 re8re$$ed a 8articular for3 of enunciation6 a 8articular

uncon$ciou$ 3eaning6 or a 8articular rationality in the cour$e of de%elo83entH ut to define a li3ited $y$te3 of 8re$ence$.

The di$cur$i%e for3ation i$ not therefore a de%elo8ing totality6 with it$ own dyna3i$3 or inertia6 carrying with it6 in anunfor3ulated di$cour$e6 what it doe$ not $ay6 what it ha$ not yet $aid6 or what contradict$ it at that 3o3entH it i$ not a rich6

difficult ger3ination6 it i$ a di$triution of ga8$6 %oid$6 a$ence$6 li3it$6 di%i$ion$.



>>&0??



'owe%er6 we are not lin<ing the$e GeDclu$ion$G to a re8re$$ionH we do not 8re$u88o$e that eneath 3anife$t $tate3ent$$o3ething re3ain$ hidden and $uJacent. :e are analy$ing $tate3ent$6 not a$ eing in the 8lace of other $tate3ent$ that ha%e

fallen elow the line of 8o$$ile e3ergence6 ut a$ eing alway$ in their own 8lace. They are 8ut ac< into a $8ace that i$entirely de8loyed and in%ol%e$ no redu8lication. There i$ no $u;teDt. And therefore no 8lethora. The enunciati%e do3ain i$

identical with it$ own $urface. Each $tate3ent occu8ie$ in it a 8lace that elong$ to it alone. The de$cri8tion of a $tate3ent

doe$ not con$i$t therefore in redi$co%ering the un$aid who$e 8lace it occu8ie$H nor how one can reduce it to a $ilent6 co33onteDtH ut on the contrary in di$co%ering what $8ecial 8lace it occu8ie$6 what ra3ification$ of the $y$te3 of for3ation$ 3a<e it

8o$$ile to 3a8 it$ localiation6 how it i$ i$olated in the general di$8er$ion of $tate3ent$.

Thi$ rarity of $tate3ent$6 the inco38lete6 frag3ented for3 of the enunciati%e field6 the fact that few thing$6 in all6 can

e $aid6 eD8lain that $tate3ent$ are not6 li<e the air we reathe6 an infinite tran$8arencyH ut thing$ that are tran$3itted and 8re$er%ed6 that ha%e %alue6 and which one trie$ to a88ro8riateH that are re8eated6 re8roduced6 and tran$for3edH to which 8re;

e$tali$hed networ<$ are ada8ted6 and to which a $tatu$ i$ gi%en in the in$titutionH thing$ that are du8licated not only y co8y

or tran$lation6 ut y eDege$i$6 co33entary6 and the internal 8roliferation of 3eaning. *ecau$e $tate3ent$ are rare6 they arecollected in unifying totalitie$6 and the 3eaning$ to e found in the3 are 3ulti8lied.

#nli<e all tho$e inter8retation$ who$e %ery eDi$tence i$ 8o$$ile only through the actual rarity of $tate3ent$6 ut which

ne%erthele$$ ignore that rarity6 and6 on the contrary6 ta<e a$ their the3e the co38act richne$$ of what i$ $aid6 the analy$i$ of

di$cur$i%e for3ation$ turn$ ac< toward$ that rarity it$elfH it ta<e$ that rarity a$ it$ eD8licit oJectH it trie$ to deter3ine it$

uniBue $y$te3H and6 at the $a3e ti3e6 it ta<e$ account of the fact that there could ha%e een inter8retation. To inter8ret i$ a

way of reacting to enunciati%e 8o%erty6 and to co38en$ate for it y a 3ulti8lication of 3eaningH a way of $8ea<ing on the

a$i$ of that 8o%erty6 and yet de$8ite it. *ut to analy$e a di$cur$i%e for3ation i$ to

>>&-??

$ee< the law of that 8o%erty6 it i$ to weigh it u86 and to deter3ine it$ $8ecific for3. In one $en$e6 therefore6 it i$ to weigh theG%alueG of $tate3ent$. A %alue that i$ not defined y their truth6 that i$ not gauged y the 8re$ence of a $ecret contentH utwhich characterie$ their 8lace6 their ca8acity for circulation and eDchange6 their 8o$$iility of tran$;for3ation6 not only in

the econo3y of di$cour$e6 ut6 3ore generally6 in the ad3ini$tration of $carce re$ource$. In thi$ $en$e6 di$cour$e cea$e$ to e

what it i$ for the eDegetic attitude@ an ineDhau$tile trea$ure fro3 which one can alway$ draw new6 and alway$ un8redictaleriche$H a 8ro%idence that ha$ alway$ $8o<en in ad%ance6 and which enale$ one to hear6 when one <now$ how to li$ten6

retro$8ecti%e oracle$@ it a88ear$ a$ an a$$et finite6 li3ited6 de$irale6 u$eful that ha$ it$ own rule$ of a88earance6 ut

al$o it$ own condition$ of a88ro8riation and o8erationH an a$$et that con$eBuently6 fro3 the 3o3ent of it$ eDi$tence >and notonly in it$ G 8ractical a88lication$G?6 8o$e$ the Bue$tion of 8owerH an a$$et that i$6 y nature6 the oJect of a $truggle6 a 8olitical

$truggle.

Another characteri$tic feature@ the analy$i$ of $tate3ent$ treat$ the3 in the $y$te3atic for3 of eDteriority. #$ually6 thehi$torical de$cri8tion of thing$ $aid i$ $hot through with the o88o$ition of interior and eDteriorH and wholly directed y a

de$ire to 3o%e fro3 the eDterior which 3ay e no 3ore than contingency or 3ere 3aterial nece$$ity6 a %i$ile ody or

uncertain tran$lation toward$ the e$$ential nucleu$ of interiority. To underta<e the hi$tory of what ha$ een $aid i$ to re;do6 in the o88o$ite direction6 the wor< of eD8re$$ion@ to go ac< fro3 $tate3ent$ 8re$er%ed through ti3e and di$8er$ed in

$8ace6 toward$ that interior $ecret that 8receded the36 left it$ 3ar< in the36 and >in e%ery $en$e of the ter3? i$ etrayed ythe3. Thu$ the nucleu$ of the initiating $uJecti%ity i$ freed. A $uJecti%ity that alway$ lag$ ehind 3anife$t hi$toryH and

which find$6 eneath e%ent$6 another6 3ore $eriou$6 3ore $ecret6 3ore funda3ental hi$tory6 clo$er to the origin6 3ore fir3ly

lin<ed to it$ ulti3ate horion >and con$eBuently 3ore in control of all it$ deter3ination$?. Thi$ other hi$tory6 which run$ eneath hi$tory6 con$tantly antici8ating it and endle$$ly recollecting the 8a$t6 can e de$cried in a $ociological or

8$ychological way a$ the e%olution of 3entalitie$H it can e gi%en a 8hilo$o8hical $tatu$ in the recollection of the ,ogo$

or the teleology of rea$onH la$tly6 it can e 8urified in



>>&)??



the 8role3atic of a trace6 which6 8rior to all $8eech6 i$ the o8ening of in$cri8tion6 the ga8 of deferred ti3e6 it i$ alway$ the

hi$toricotran$cendental the3e that i$ rein%e$ted.

A the3e who$e enunciati%e analy$i$ trie$ to free it$elf. In order to re$tore $tate3ent$ to their 8ure di$8er$ion. In order toanaly$e the3 in an eDteriority that 3ay e 8aradoDical $ince it refer$ to no ad%er$e for3 of interiority. In order to con$ider

the3 in their di$continuity6 without ha%ing to relate the36 y one of tho$e $hift$ that di$connect the3 and render the3

ine$$ential6 to a 3ore funda3ental o8ening or difference. In order to $eie their %ery irru8tion6 at the 8lace and at the 3o3ent

at which it occurred. In order to redi$co%er their occurrence a$ an e%ent. Perha8$ we $hould $8ea< of GneutralityG rather than

eDteriorityH ut e%en thi$ word i38lie$ rather too ea$ily a $u$8en$ion of elief6 an efface3ent or a G 8lacing in 8arenthe$e$G of all 8o$ition of eDi$tence6 wherea$ it i$ a Bue$tion of redi$co%ering that out$ide in which6 in their relati%e rarity6 in their inco38lete 8roDi3ity6 in their de8loyed $8ace6 enunciati%e e%ent$ are di$triuted.

Thi$ ta$< 8re$u88o$e$ that the field of $tate3ent$ i$ not de$cried a$ a Gtran$lationG of o8eration$ or 8roce$$e$ that ta<e

8lace el$ewhere >in 3enG$ thought6 in their con$ciou$ne$$ or uncon$ciou$6 in the $8here of tran$cendental con$titution$?H ut

that it i$ acce8ted6 in it$ e38irical 3ode$ty6 a$ the locu$ of 8articular e%ent$6 regularitie$6 relation$hi8$6 3odification$ and$y$te3atic tran$for3ation$H in $hort6 that it i$ treated not a$ the re$ult or trace of $o3ething el$e6 ut a$ a 8ractical do3ain

that i$ autono3ou$ >although de8endent? 6 and which can e de$cried at it$ own le%el >although it 3u$t e articulated on

$o3ething other than it$elf?.

It al$o 8re$u88o$e$ that thi$ enunciati%e do3ain refer$ neither to an indi%idual $uJect6 nor to $o3e <ind of collecti%econ$ciou$ne$$6 nor to a tran$cendental $uJecti%ityH ut that it i$ de$cried a$ an anony3ou$ field who$e configuration define$

the 8o$$ile 8o$ition of $8ea<ing $uJect$. State3ent$ $hould no longer e $ituated in relation to a $o%er;eign $uJecti%ity6 utrecognie in the different for3$ of the $8ea<ing $uJecti%ity effect$ 8ro8er to the enunciati%e field.

>>&??

A$ a re$ult6 it 8re$u88o$e$ that6 in it$ tran$for3ation$6 in it$ $ucce$$i%e $erie$6 in it$ deri%ation$6 the field of $tate3ent$

doe$ not oey the te38orality of the con$ciou$ne$$ a$ it$ nece$$ary 3odel. One 3u$t not ho8e at lea$t at thi$ le%el and inthi$ for3 of de$cri8tion to e ale to write a hi$tory of thing$ $aid that i$ legiti3ately6 in it$ for36 in it$ regularity and in it$

nature6 the hi$tory of an indi%idual or anony3ou$ con$ciou$ne$$6 of a 8roJect6 of a $y$te3 of intention$6 of a $et of ai3$. The

ti3e of di$cour$e i$ not the tran$lation6 in a %i$ile chronology6 of the o$cure ti3e of thought.

The analy$i$ of $tate3ent$ o8erate$ therefore without reference to a cogito. It doe$ not 8o$e the Bue$tion of the $8ea<ing$uJect6 who re%eal$ or who conceal$ hi3$elf in what he $ay$6 who6 in $8ea<ing6 eDerci$e$ hi$ $o%ereign freedo36 or who6

without realiing it6 $uJect$ hi3$elf to con$traint$ of which he i$ only di3ly aware. In fact6 it i$ $ituated at the le%el of the Git

i$ $aidG and we 3u$t not under$tand y thi$ a $ort of co33unal o8inion6 a collecti%e re8re$entation that i$ i38o$ed on

e%ery indi%idualH we 3u$t not under$tand y it a great6 anony3ou$ %oice that 3u$t6 of nece$$ity6 $8ea< through the di$cour$e$of e%eryoneH ut we 3u$t under$tand y it the totality of thing$ $aid6 the relation$6 the regularitie$6 and the tran$for3ation$

that 3ay e o$er%ed in the36 the do3ain of which certain figure$6 certain inter;$ection$ indicate the uniBue 8lace of a

$8ea<ing $uJect and 3ay e gi%en the na3e of author. Anyone who $8ea<$G6 ut what he $ay$ i$ not $aid fro3 anywhere. It

i$ nece$$arily caught u8 in the 8lay of an eDteriority.

The third feature of enunciati%e analy$i$@ it i$ addre$$ed to $8ecific for3$ of accu3ulation that can e identified neither with an interioriation in the for3 of 3e3ory nor with an undi$cri3inating totaliation of docu3ent$. #$ually6 when one

analy$e$ already eDi$ting di$cour$e$6 one regard$ the3 a$ ha%ing $8rung fro3 an e$$ential inertia@ they ha%e $ur%i%ed %i%ed

through chance6 or through the care with which 3en ha%e treated the36 and the illu$ion$ that they ha%e entertained a$ to their %alue and the i33ortal dignity of their word$H ut now they are nothing 3ore than written $y3ol$ 8iling u8 in du$ty

lirarie$6 $lu3ering in a $lee8 toward$ which they ha%e ne%er cea$ed to glide $ince the day they were 8ronounced6 $ince they

were forgotten

>>&??

and their %i$ile effect lo$t in ti3e. At 3o$t they 3ay e luc<y enough to e 8ic<ed u8 and eDa3ined in $o3e chancereadingH at 3o$t they can di$co%er that they ear the 3ar<$ that refer ac< to the 3o3ent of their enunciationH at 3o$t6 once

the$e 3ar<$ ha%e een deci8hered they can6 y a $ort of 3e3ory that 3o%e$ acro$$ ti3e6 free 3eaning$6 thought$6 de$ire$6

uried fanta$ie$. The$e four ter3$@ reading trace deci8her3ent 3e3ory >howe%er 3uch i38ortance one 3ay



accord to one or another of the36 and whate%er the 3eta8horical eDtent that one 3ay accord it6 and which enale$ it to

e3race the other three? define the $y$te3 that u$ually 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to $natch 8a$t di$cour$e fro3 it$ inertia and6 for a

3o3ent6 to redi$co%er $o3ething of it$ lo$t %itality.

Now6 the function of enunciati%e analy$i$ i$ not to awa<en teDt$ fro3 their 8re$ent $lee86 and6 y reciting the 3ar<$ $till

legile on their $urface6 to redi$co%er the fla$h of their irthH on the contrary6 it$ function i$ to follow the3 through their

$lee86 or rather to ta<e u8 the related the3e$ of $lee86 oli%ion6 and lo$t origin6 and to di$co%er what 3ode of eDi$tence 3ay

characterie $tate3ent$6 inde8endently of their enunciation6 in the den$ity of ti3e in which they are 8re$er%ed6 in which they

are reacti%ated6 and u$ed6 in which they are al$o ut thi$ wa$ not their original de$tiny forgotten6 and 8o$$ily e%en

de$troyed.

Thi$ analy$i$ 8re$u88o$e$ that $tate3ent$ are con$idered in the re3anence >re3anence? that i$ 8ro8er to the36 and

which i$ not that of an e%er;realiale reference ac< to the 8a$t e%ent of the for3ulation. To $ay that $tate3ent$ are re$idual>re3anent? i$ not to $ay that they re3ain in the field of 3e3ory6 or that it i$ 8o$$ile to redi$co%er what they 3eantH ut it3ean$ that they are 8re$er%ed y %irtue of a nu3er of $u88ort$ and 3aterial techniBue$ >of which the oo< i$6 of cour$e6

only one eDa38le?6 in accordance with certain ty8e$ of in$titution$ >of which the lirary i$ one?6 and with certain $tatutory

3odalitie$ >which are not the $a3e in the ca$e of a religiou$ teDt6 a law6 or a $cientific truth?. Thi$ al$o 3ean$ that they arein%e$ted in techniBue$ that 8ut the3 into o8eration6 in 8ractice$ that deri%e fro3 the36 in the $ocial relation$ that they for36

or6 through tho$e relation$6 3odify. ,a$tly6 it 3ean$ that thing$ do not ha%e Buite the $a3e 3ode of eDi$tence6 the

>>&49??

$a3e $y$te3 of relation$ with their en%iron3ent6 the $a3e $che3ata of u$e6 the $a3e 8o$$iilitie$ of tran$for3ation

once they ha%e een $aid. Thi$ $ur%i%al in ti3e i$ far fro3 eing the accidental or fortunate 8rolongation of an

eDi$tence originally intended only for the 3o3entH on the contrary6 thi$ re3anence i$ of the nature of the $tate3entHoli%ion and de$truction are in a $en$e only the ero degree of thi$ re3anence. And again$t the ac<ground that it

con$titute$6 the o8eration$ of 3e3ory can e de8loyed.

Thi$ analy$i$ al$o 8re$u88o$e$ that $tate3ent$ are treated in the for3 of additi%ity that i$ $8ecific to the3. In fact6

the ty8e$ of grou8ing etween $ucce$$i%e $tate3ent$ are not alway$ the $a3e6 and they ne%er 8roceed y a $i38le 8iling;u8 or JuDta8o$ition of $ucce$$i%e ele3ent$. Mathe3atical $tate3ent$ are not added to one another in the $a3e

way a$ religiou$ teDt$ or law$ >they each ha%e their own way of 3erging together6 annulling one another6 eDcluding one

another6 co38le3ent;ing one another6 for3ing grou8$ that are in %arying degree$ indi$$ociale and endowed with

uniBue 8ro8ertie$?. Moreo%er6 the$e for3$ of additi%ity are not gi%en once and for all6 and for a 8articular category of $tate3ent$@ 3edical ca$e;hi$tory today for3$ a cor8u$ of <nowledge that doe$ not oey the $a3e law$ of co38o$ition

a$ 3edical ca$e;hi$tory in the eighteenth centuryH 3odern 3athe3atic$ doe$ not accu3ulate it$ $tate3ent$ according tothe $a3e 3odel a$ Euclidean geo3etry.

,a$tly6 enunciati%e analy$i$ 8re$u88o$e$ that one ta<e$ 8heno3ena of recurrence into account. E%ery $tate3ent

in%ol%e$ a field of antecedent ele3ent$ in relation to which it i$ $ituated6 ut which it i$ ale to reorganie and

redi$triute according to new relation$. It con$titute$ it$ own 8a$t6 define$6 in what 8recede$ it6 it$ own filiation6redefine$ what 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile or nece$$ary6 eDclude$ what cannot e co38atile with it. And it 8o$e$ thi$

enunciati%e 8a$t a$ an acBuired truth6 a$ an e%ent that ha$ occurred6 a$ a for3 that can e 3odified6 a$ 3aterial to etran$for3ed6 or a$ an oJect that can e $8o<en aout6 etc. In relation to all the$e 8o$$iilitie$ of recurrence6 3e3ory

and oli%ion6 the redi$co%ery of 3eaning or it$ re8re$$ion6 far fro3 eing funda3ental6 are 3erely uniBue figure$.

>>&4&??The de$cri8tion of $tate3ent$ and di$cur$i%e for3ation$ 3u$t there;fore free it$elf fro3 the wide$8read and 8er$i$tent

i3age of return. It doe$ not clai3 to go ac<6 eyond a ti3e that i$ no 3ore than a falling off6 a latency6 an oli%ion6 a

co%ering u8 or a wandering6 toward$ that 3o3ent of foundation when $8eech wa$ not yet caught u8 in any for3 of 3ateriality6 when it had no chance$ of $ur%i%al6 and when it wa$ confined to the non;deter3ined di3en$ion of the o8ening. It

doe$ not try to con$titute for the already $aid the 8aradoDical in$tant of the $econd irthH it doe$ not in%o<e a dawn aout to

return. On the contrary6 it deal$ with $tate3ent$ in the den$ity of the accu3ulation in which they are caught u8 and whichne%erthele$$ they ne%er cea$e to 3odify6 to di$tur6 to o%er;throw6 and $o3eti3e$ to de$troy.

To de$crie a grou8 of $tate3ent$ not a$ the clo$ed6 8lethoric totality of a 3eaning6 ut a$ an inco38lete6 frag3ented

figureH to de$crie a grou8 of $tate3ent$ not with reference to the interiority of an intention6 a thought6 or a $uJect6 ut in



the 8lay of influence$ that ha%e o8erated fro3 one author to another6 or than the do3ain of eD8licit 8ole3ic$. "ifferent

oeu%re$6 di$8er$ed oo<$6 that whole 3a$$ of teDt$ that elong to a $ingle di$cur$i%e for3ation and $o 3any author$ who

<now or do not <now one another6 criticie one another6 in%alidate one another6 8illage one another6 3eet without <nowing itand o$tinately inter$ect their uniBue di$cour$e$ in a we of which they are not the 3a$ter$6 of which they cannot $ee the

whole6 and of who$e readth they ha%e a %ery inadeBuate idea all the$e %ariou$ figure$ and indi%idual$ do not

co33unicate $olely y the logical $ucce$$ion of 8ro8o$ition$ that they ad%ance6 nor y the recur rence of the3e$6 nor y theo$tinacy of a 3eaning tran$3itted6 forgot;ten6 and redi$co%eredH they co33unicate y the for3 of 8o$iti%ity of their

di$cour$e6 or 3ore eDactly6 thi$ for3 of 8o$iti%ity >and the condition$ of o8eration of the enunciati%e function? define$ a fieldin which for3al identitie$6 the3atic continuitie$6 tran$lation$ of conce8t$6 and 8ole3ical interchange$ 3ay e de8loyed. Thu$ 8o$iti%ity 8lay$ the role of what 3ight e called a hi$torical a 8riori.

+uDta8o$ed6 the$e two word$ 8roduce a rather $tartling effectH what I 3ean y the ter3 i$ an a 8riori that i$ not a condition

of %alidity for Judge3ent$6 ut a condition of reality for $tate3ent$. It i$ not a Bue$tion of redi$co%ering what 3ightlegiti3ie an a$$ertion6 ut of freeing the condition$ of e3ergence of $tate3ent$6 the law of their coeDi$tence with other$6 the

$8ecific for3 of their 3ode of eing6 the 8rinci8le$ according to which they $ur%i%e6 eco3e tran$for3ed6 and di$a88ear. Ana 8riori not of truth$ that 3ight ne%er e $aid6 or really gi%en to eD8erienceH ut the a 8riori of a hi$tory that i$ gi%en6 $ince it

i$ that of thing$ actually $aid. The rea$on for u$ing thi$ rather ararou$ ter3 i$ that thi$ a 8riori 3u$t ta<e account of

$tate3ent$ in their di$8er$ion6 in all the flaw$ o8ened u8 y their non;coherence6 in their o%erla88ing and 3utualre8lace3ent6 in their $i3ultaneity6 which i$ not unifiale6 and in their $ucce$$ion6 which i$ not deductileH in $hort6 it ha$ to

ta<e account of the fact that di$cour$e ha$ not only a 3eaning or a truth6 ut a hi$tory6 and a $8ecific hi$tory that doe$ not

refer it ac< to the law$ of an alien de%elo83ent. It 3u$t $how6 for eDa38le6 that the hi$tory of gra33ar i$ not the 8roJectioninto the field of language and it$ 8role3$ of a hi$tory that i$ generally that of rea$on or of a 8articular 3entality6 a hi$tory in

any ca$e that it $hare$ with 3edicine6

>>&44??

3echanical $cience$6 or theologyH ut that it in%ol%e$ a ty8e of hi$tory a for3 of di$8er$ion in ti3e6 a 3ode of $ucce$$ion6of $taility6 and of reacti%ation6 a $8eed of de8loy3ent or rotation that elong$ to it alone6 e%en if it i$ not entirely

unrelated to other ty8e$ of hi$tory. Moreo%er6 thi$ a 8riori doe$ not elude hi$toricity@ it doe$ not con$titute6 ao%e e%ent$6 andin an un3o%ing hea%en6 an ate38oral $tructureH it i$ defined a$ the grou8 of rule$ that characterie a di$cur$i%e 8ractice@ utthe$e rule$ are not i38o$ed fro3 the out$ide on the ele3ent$ that they relate togetherH they are caught u8 in the %ery thing$

that they connectH and if they are not 3odified with the lea$t of the36 they 3odify the36 and are tran$for3ed with the3 intocertain deci$i%e thre$hold$. The a 8riori of 8o$iti%itie$ i$ not only the $y$te3 of a te38oral di$8er$ionH it i$ it$elf a

tran$for3ale grou8.

O88o$ed to for3al a 8riori$ who$e Juri$diction eDtend$ without contingence6 there i$ a 8urely e38irical figureH ut on theother hand6 $ince it 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to gra$8 di$cour$e$ in the law of their actual de%elo83ent6 it 3u$t e ale to ta<e

account of the fact that $uch a di$cour$e6 at a gi%en 3o3ent6 3ay acce8t or 8ut into o8eration6 or6 on the contrary6 eDclude6

forget6 or ignore thi$ or that for3al $tructure. It cannot ta<e account >y $o3e <ind of 8$ychological or cultural gene$i$? of thefor3al a 8riori$H ut it enale$ u$ to under$tand how the for3al a 8riori$ 3ay ha%e in hi$tory 8oint$ of contact6 8lace$ of

in$ertion6 irru8tion6 or e3ergence6 do3ain$ or occa$ion$ of o8eration6 and to under$tand how thi$ hi$tory 3ay e not an

a$olutely eDtrin$ic contingence6 not a nece$$ity of for3 de8loying it$ own dialectic6 ut a $8ecific regularity. Nothing6therefore6 would e 3ore 8lea$ant6 or 3ore ineDact6 than to concei%e of thi$ hi$torical a 8riori a$ a for3al a 8riori that i$ al$o

endowed with a hi$tory@ a great6 un3o%ing6 e38ty figure that irru8ted one day on the $urface of ti3e6 that eDerci$ed o%er

3enG$ thought a tyranny that none could e$ca8e6 and which then $uddenly di$a88eared in a totally uneD8ected6 totallyun8recedented ecli8$e@ a tran$cendental $ynco8ation6 a 8lay of inter3ittent for3$. The for3al a 8riori and the hi$torical a

8riori neither elong to the $a3e le%el nor $hare the $a3e nature@ if they inter$ect6 it i$ ecau$e they occu8y two differentdi3en$ion$.

The do3ain of $tate3ent$ thu$ articulated in accordance with hi$torical a 8riori$6 thu$ characteried y different ty8e$ of

8o$iti%ity6 and

>>&40??

di%ided u8 y di$tinct di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 no longer ha$ that a88earance of a 3onotonou$6 endle$$ 8lain that I attriuted



to it at the out$et when I $8o<e of the $urface of di$cour$eGH it al$o cea$e$ to a88ear a$ the inert6 $3ooth6 neutral ele3ent inwhich there ari$e6 each according to it$ own 3o%e3ent6 or dri%en y $o3e o$cure dyna3ic6 the3e$6 idea$6 conce8t$6

<nowledge. :e are now dealing with a co38leD %olu3e6 in which heterogeneou$ region$ are differentiated or de8loyed6 inaccordance with $8ecific rule$ and 8ractice$ that cannot e $u8er8o$ed. In$tead of $eeing6 on the great 3ythical oo< of

hi$tory6 line$ of word$ that tran$late in %i$ile character$ thought$ that were for3ed in $o3e other ti3e and 8lace6 we ha%e in

the den$ity of di$;cur$i%e 8ractice$6 $y$te3$ that e$tali$h $tate3ent$ a$ e%ent$ >with their own condition$ and do3ain of a88earance? and thing$ >with their own 8o$$iility and field of u$e?. They are all the$e $y$te3$ of $tate3ent$ >whether

e%ent$ or thing$? that I 8ro8o$e to call archi%e.*y thi$ ter3 I do not 3ean the $u3 of all the teDt$ that a culture ha$ <e8t u8on it$ 8er$on a$ docu3ent$ atte$ting to it$

own 8a$t6 or a$ e%idence of a continuing identityH nor do I 3ean the in$titution$6 which6 in a gi%en $ociety6 3a<e it 8o$$ile

to record and 8re$er%e tho$e di$cour$e$ that one wi$he$ to re3e3er and <ee8 in circulation. On the contrary6 it i$ rather the

rea$on why $o 3any thing$6 $aid y $o 3any 3en6 for $o long6 ha%e not e3erged in accordance with the $a3e law$ of thought6 or the $a3e $et of circu3$tance$6 why they are not $i38ly the $ignaliation6 at the le%el of %eral 8erfor3ance$6 of

what could e de8loyed in the order of the 3ind or in the order of thing$H ut they a88eared y %irtue of a whole $et of

relation$ that are 8eculiar to the di$cur$i%e le%elH why6 in$tead of eing ad%entitiou$ figure$6 grafted6 a$ it were6 in a rather ha8haard way6 on to $ilent 8roce$$e$6 they are orn in accordance with $8ecific regularitie$H in $hort6 why6 if there are thing$

$aid and tho$e only one $hould $ee< the i33ediate rea$on for the3 in the thing$ that were $aid not in the36 nor in the3en that $aid the36 ut in the $y$te3 of di$cur$i%ity6 in the e33ciati%e 8o$$iilitie$ and i38o$$iilite$ that it lay$ down.

The archi%e i$ fir$t the law of what can e $aid6 the $y$te3 that go%ern$ the a88earance of $tate3ent$ a$ uniBue e%ent$. *ut

the archi%e i$ al$o that which deter;3ine$ that all the$e thing$ $aid do not accu3ulate endle$$ly in an a3or8hou$ 3a$$6 nor are they in$cried in an unro<en linearity6 nor

>>&4-??

do they di$a88ear at the 3ercy of chance eDternal accident$H ut they are grou8ed together in di$tinct figure$6 co38o$ed

together in accordance with 3ulti8le relation$6 3aintained or lurred in accordance with $8ecific regularitie$H that whichdeter3ine$ that they do not withdraw at the $a3e 8ace in ti3e6 ut $hine6 a$ it were6 li<e $tar$6 $o3e that $ee3 clo$e to u$

$hining rightly fro3 afar off6 while other$ that are in fact clo$e to u$ are already growing 8ale. The archi%e i$ not that which6de$8ite it$ i33ediate e$ca8e6 $afeguard$ the e%ent of the $tate3ent6 and 8re$er%e$6 for future 3e3orie$6 it$ $tatu$ a$ an

e$ca8eeH it i$ that which6 at the %ery root of the $tate3ent;e%ent6 and in that which e3odie$ it6 define$ at the out$et the

$y$te3 of it$ enunciaility. Nor i$ the archi%e that which collect$ the du$t of $tate3ent$ that ha%e eco3e inert once 3ore6and which 3ay 3a<e 8o$$ile the 3iracle of their re$urrectionH it i$ that which define$ the 3ode of occurrence of the

$tate3ent;thingH it i$ the $y$te3 of it$ functioning. Far fro3 eing that which unifie$ e%ery;thing that ha$ een $aid in the

great confu$ed 3ur3ur of a di$cour$e6 far fro3 eing only that which en$ure$ that we eDi$t in the 3id$t of 8re$er%eddi$cour$e6 it i$ that which differentiate$ di$cour$e$ in their 3ulti8le eDi$tence and $8ecifie$ the3 in their own duration.

*etween the language >langue? that define$ the $y$te3 of con$tructing 8o$$ile $entence$6 and the cor8u$ that 8a$$i%ely

collect$ the word$ that are $8o<en6 the archi%e define$ a 8articular le%el@ that of a 8ractice that cau$e$ a 3ulti8licity of $tate3ent$ to e3erge a$ $o 3any regular e%ent$6 a$ $o 3any thing$ to e dealt with and 3ani8ulated. It doe$ not ha%e the

weight of traditionH and it doe$ not con$titute the lirary of all lirarie$6 out$ide ti3e and 8laceH nor i$ it the welco3ing

oli%ion that o8en$ u8 to all new $8eech the o8erational field of it$ freedo3H etween tradition and oli%ion6 it re%eal$ therule$ of a 8ractice that enale$ $tate3ent$ oth to $ur%i%e and to undergo regular 3odification. It i$ the general $y$te3 of the

for3ation and tran$for3ation of $tate3ent$.It i$ o%iou$ that the archi%e of a $ociety6 a culture6 or a ci%iliation cannot e de$cried eDhau$ti%elyH or e%en6 no dout6

the archi%e of a whole 8eriod. On the other hand6 it i$ not 8o$$ile for u$ to de$crie our own archi%e6 $ince it i$ fro3 within

the$e rule$ that we $8ea<6 $ince it i$ that which gi%e$ to what we can $ay and to it$elf6 the oJect of our di$cour$e it$3ode$ of a88earance6 it$ for3$ of eDi$tence and



>>&4)??



coeDi$tence6 it$ $y$te3 of accu3ulation6 hi$toricity6 and di$a88earance. The archi%e cannot e de$cried in it$ totalityH and in

it$ 8re$ence it i$ una%oidale. It e3erge$ in frag3ent$6 region$6 and le%el$6 3ore fully6 no dout6 and with greater $har8ne$$6

the greater the ti3e that $e8arate$ u$ fro3 it@ at 3o$t6 were it not for the rarity of the docu3ent$6 the greater chronologicaldi$tance would e nece$$ary to analy$e it. And yet could thi$ de$cri8tion of the archi%e e Ju$tified6 could it elucidate that

which 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile6 3a8 out the 8lace where it $8ea<$6 control it$ right$ and dutie$6 te$t and de%elo8 it$ conce8t$ at

lea$t at thi$ $tage of the $earch6 when it can define it$ 8o$$iilitie$ only in the 3o3ent of their realiation if it 8er$i$ted inde$criing only the 3o$t di$tant horion$ Should it not a88roach a$ clo$e a$ 8o$$ile to the 8o$iti%ity that go%ern$ it and the

archi%e $y$te3 that 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile today to $8ea< of the archi%e in general Should it not illu3inate6 if only in an oliBueway6 that enunciati%e field of which it i$ it$elf a 8art The analy$i$ of the archi%e6 then6 in%ol%e$ a 8ri%ileged region@ at onceclo$e to u$6 and different fro3 our 8re$ent eDi$tence6 it i$ the order of ti3e that $urround$ our 8re$ence6 which o%erhang$ it6

and which indicate$ it in it$ otherne$$H it i$ that which6 out$ide our$el%e$6 deli3it$ u$. The de$cri8tion of the archi%e de8loy$

it$ 8o$$iilitie$ >and the 3a$tery of it$ 8o$$iilitie$? on the a$i$ of the %ery di$cour$e$ that ha%e Ju$t cea$ed to e our$H it$thre$hold of eDi$tence i$ e$tali$hed y the di$continuity that $e8arate$ u$ fro3 what we can no longer $ay6 and fro3 that

which fall$ out$ide our di$cur$i%e 8racticeH it egin$ with the out$ide of our own language >langage?H it$ locu$ i$ the ga8 etween our own di$cur$i%e 8ractice$. In thi$ $en$e6 it i$ %alid for our diagno$i$. Not ecau$e it would enale u$ to draw u8 a

tale of our di$tincti%e feature$6 and to $<etch out in ad%ance the face that we will ha%e in the future. *ut it de8ri%e$ u$ of our

continuitie$H it di$$i8ate$ that te38oral identity in which we are 8lea$ed to loo< at our$el%e$ when we wi$h to eDorci$e thedi$continuitie$ of hi$toryH it rea<$ the thread of tran$cendental teleologie$H and where anthro8ological thought once

Bue$tioned 3anG$ eing or $uJecti%ity6 it now ur$t$ o8en the other6 and the out$ide. In thi$ $en$e6 the diagno$i$ doe$ not

e$tali$h the fact of our identity y the 8lay of di$tinction$. It e$tali$he$ that we are difference6 that our rea$on i$ thedifference of di$cour$e$6 our hi$tory the difference of ti3e$6 our $el%e$ the difference of 3a$<$. That difference6 far fro3

>>&4?? eing the forgotten and reco%ered origin6 i.$ thi$ di$8er$ion that we are and. 3a<e.

The ne%er co38leted6 ne%er wholly achie%ed unco%ering of the archi%e for3$ the general horion

to which the de$cri8tion of di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 the analy$i$ of 8o$iti%itie$6 the 3a88ing of theenunciati%e field elong. The right of word$ which i.$ not that of the 8hilologi$t$ authorie$6

therefore6 the u$e of the ter3 archaeology to de$crie all the$e $earche$. Thi$ ter3 doe$ not i38ly the

$earch for a eginningH it doe$ not relate analy$i$ to geological eDca%ation. It de$ignate$ the generalthe3e of a de$cri8tion that Bue$tion$ the already;$aid at the le%el of it$ eDi$tence@ of the enunciati%e

function that o8erate$ within it6 of the di$cur$i%e for3ation6 and the general archi%e $y$te3 to which

it elong$. Archaeology de$crie$ di$cour$e$ a$ 8ractice$ $8ecified in the ele3ent of the archi%e.

Part IVArchaeological Description

1. ARCHAEOLO!& AND THE HISTOR& OF IDEAS

>>&0&??

:e can now re%er$e the 8rocedureH we can go down$trea36 and6 once we ha%e co%ered the do3ain of di$cur$i%e for3ation$

and $tate3ent$6 once we ha%e outlined their general theory6 we can 8roceed to 8o$$ile do3ain$ of a88lication. :e can

eDa3ine what u$e i$ $er%ed y thi$ analy$i$ that I ha%e rather $ole3nly called GarchaeologyG. Indeed6 we 3u$t@ for6 to e



an uncertain oJect6 with adly drawn frontier$6 3ethod$ orrowed fro3 here and there6 and an a88roach lac<ing in. rigour

and $taility. And it $ee3$ to 8o$$e$$ two role$. On the one hand6 it recount$ the y;way$ and 3argin$ of hi$tory. Not the

hi$tory of the $cience$6 ut that of i38erfect6 ill;a$ed <nowledge6 which could ne%er in the whole of it$ long6 8er$i$tent lifeattain the for3 of $cientificity >the hi$tory of alche3y rather than che3i$try6 of ani3al $8irit$ or 8hrenology rather than

8hy$iology6 the hi$tory of ato3i$tic the3e$ rather than 8hy$ic$?. The hi$tory of tho$e $hady 8hilo$o8hie$ that haunt literature6

art6 the $cience$6 law6 ethic$6 and e%en 3anG$ daily lifeH the hi$tory of tho$e age;old the3e$ that are ne%er cry$tallied in arigorou$ and indi%idual $y$te36 ut which ha%e for3ed the $8ontaneou$ 8hilo$o8hy of tho$e who did not 8hilo$o8hie. The

hi$tory not of literature ut of that tangential ru3our6 that e%eryday6 tran$ient writing that ne%er acBuire$ the $tatu$ of anoeu%re6 or i$ i33ediately lo$t@ the analy$i$ of $u;literature$6 al3anac$6 re%iew$ and new8a8er$6 te38orary $ucce$$e$6anony3ou$ author$. Thu$ defined ut one can $ee at once how difficult it i$ to fiD 8reci$e li3it$ for it the hi$tory of

idea$ i$ concerned with all that in$idiou$ thought6 that whole inter8lay of re8re$entation$ that flow anony3ou$ly etween

3enH in the inter$tice$ of the great di$cur$i%e 3onu3ent$6 it re%eal$ the cru3ling $oil on which they are a$ed. It i$ thedi$ci8line of fluctuating language$ >langage$?6 of $ha8ele$$ wor<$6 of unrelated the3e$. The analy$i$ of o8inion$ rather than

of <nowledge6 of error$ rather than of truth6 of ty8e$ of 3entality rather than of for3$ of thought.

*ut on the other hand the hi$tory of idea$ $et$ out to cro$$ the oundarie$ of eDi$ting di$ci8line$6 to deal with the3 fro3the out$ide6 and to reinter8ret the3. !ather than a 3arginal do3ain6 then6 it con$titute$ a $tyle of analy$i$6 a 8utting into

8er$8ecti%e. It ta<e$ account of the hi$torical field of the $cience$6 of literature6 of 8hilo$o8hy@ ut it de$crie$ the <nowledgethat ha$ $er%ed a$ an e38irical.6 unreflecti%e a$i$ for $u$eBuent for3aliation$H it trie$ to redi$co%er the i33ediate

eD8erience that di$cour$e tran$crie$H it follow$ the gene$i$6 which6 on the a$i$ of recei%ed or acBuired re8re$entation$6 gi%e$

irth to $y$te3$ and ceu%re$. It $how$6 on the other hand6 how the great figure$ that are uilt u8 in thi$ way graduallydeco38o$e@ how the the3e$ fall a8art6 8ur$ue their i$olated li%e$6 fall into di$u$e6 or are reco38o$ed in a new

>>&04??way. The hi$tory of idea$6 then6 i$ the di$ci8line of eginning$ and end$6 the de$cri8tion of o$cure continuitie$ and return$6the recon$titution of de%elo83ent$ in the linear for3 of hi$tory. *ut it can al$o6 y that %ery fact6 de$crie6 fro3 one do3ain

to another6 the whole inter;8lay of eDchange$ and inter3ediarie$@ it $how$ how $cientific <now;ledge i$ diffu$ed6 gi%e$ ri$e to

8hilo$o8hical conce8t$6 and ta<e$ for3 8erha8$ in literary wor<$H it $how$ how 8role3$6 notion$6 the3e$ 3ay e3igrate fro3the 8hilo$o8hical field where they were for3ulated to $cientific or 8olitical di$cour$e$H it relate$ wor< with in$titution$6 $ocial

cu$to3$ or eha%iour6 techniBue$6 and unrecorded need$ and 8ractice$H it trie$ to re%i%e the 3o$t elaorate for3$ of di$cour$e

in the concrete land$ca8e6 in the 3id$t of the growth and de%elo83ent that witne$$ed their irth. It eco3e$ therefore thedi$ci8line of interference$6 the de$cri8tion of the concentric circle$ that $urround wor<$6 underline the36 relate the3 to one

another6 and in$ert the3 into whate%er they are not.

It i$ clear how the$e two role$ of the hi$tory of idea$ are articulated one u8on the other. In it$ 3o$t general for36 it can e$aid that it continually de$crie$ and in all the direction$ in which it o8erate$ the tran$ition fro3 non;8hilo$o8hy to

8hilo$o8hy6 fro3 non;$cientificity to $cience6 fro3 non;literature to the Ru%re it$elf. It i$ the analy$i$ of $ilent irth$6 or di$tant corre$8ondence$6 of 8er3anence$ that 8er$i$t eneath a88arent change$6 of $low for3ation$ that 8rofit fro3

innu3erale lind co38licitie$6 of tho$e total figure$ that gradually co3e together and $uddenly conden$e into the fine 8oint

of the wor<. /ene$i$6 continuity6 totaliation@ the$e are the great the3e$ of the hi$tory of idea$6 and that y which it i$attached to a certain6 now traditional6 for3 of hi$torical analy$i$. In the$e condition$6 it i$ nor3al that anyone who $till

8racti$e$ hi$tory6 it$ 3ethod$6 it$ reBuire3ent$ and 8o$$iilitie$ thi$ now rather $ho8;$oiled idea cannot concei%e that a

di$ci8line li<e the hi$tory of idea$ $hould e aandonedH or rather6 con$ider$ that any other for3 of analy$ing di$cour$e$ i$ a etrayal of hi$tory it$elf. *ut archaeological de$cri8tion i$ 8reci$ely $uch an aandon3ent of the hi$tory of idea$6 a

$y$te3atic reJection of it$ 8o$tulate$ and 8rocedure$6 an atte38t to 8racti$e a Buite different hi$tory of what 3en ha%e $aid.

That $o3e 8eo8le do not recognie in thi$ enter8ri$e the hi$tory of their

>>&00??childhood6 that they 3ourn it$ 8a$$ing6 and continue to in%o<e6 in an age that i$ no longer 3ade for it6 that great $hade of



for3er ti3e$6 certainly 8ro%e$ their fidelity. *ut $uch con$er%ati%e eal confir3$ 3e in 3y 8ur8o$e and gi%e$ 3e the

confidence to do what I $et out to do.

*etween archaeological analy$i$ and the hi$tory of idea$ there are a great 3any 8oint$ of di%ergence. I $hall try $hortly toe$tali$h four difference$ that $ee3 to 3e to e of the ut3o$t i38ortance. They concern the attriution of inno%ation6 the

analy$i$ of contradiction$6 co38arati%e de$cri8tion$6 and the 3a88ing of tran$for3ation$. I ho8e that y eDa3ining the$e

different 8oint$ we will e ale to gra$8 the $8ecific Bualitie$ of archaeological analy$i$6 and that we 3ay e ale to 3ea$ureit$ de$cri8ti%e ca8acity. For the 3o3ent6 howe%er6 I $hould li<e to lay down a few 8rinci8le$.

1.Archaeology trie$ to define not the thought$6 re8re$entation$6 i3age$6 the3e$6 8reoccu8ation$ that are concealed or

re%ealed in di$;cour$e$H ut tho$e di$cour$e$ the3$el%e$6 tho$e di$cour$e$ a$ 8ractice$ oeying certain rule$. It doe$ not

treat di$cour$e a$ docu3ent6 a$ a $ign of $o3ething el$e6 a$ an ele3ent that ought to e tran$8arent6 ut who$e unfortunateo8acity 3u$t often e 8ierced if one i$ to reach at la$t the de8th of the e$$ential in the 8lace in which it i$ held in re$er%eH it

i$ concerned with di$cour$e in it$ own %olu3e6 a$ a 3onu3ent. It i$ not an inter8retati%e di$ci8line@ it doe$ not $ee<

another6 etter;hidden di$cour$e. It refu$e$ to e GallegoricalG.

2.Archaeology doe$ not $ee< to redi$co%er th.e continuou$6 in$en$ile tran$ition that relate$ di$cour$e$6 on a gentle

$lo8e6 to what 8recede$ the36 $urround$ the36 or follow$ the3. It doe$ not await the 3o3ent when6 on the a$i$ of what

they were not yet6 they eca3e what they areH nor the 3o3ent when6 the $olidity of their figure cru3 ling away6 they will

gradually lo$e their identity. On the contrary6 it$ 8role3 i$ to define di$cour$e$ in their $8ecificityH to $how in what waythe $et of rule$ that they 8ut into o8eration i$ irreducile to any otherH to follow the3 the whole length of their eDterior

ridge$6 in order to underline the3 the etter. It doe$ not 8roceed6 in $low 8ro;gre$$ion6 fro3 the confu$ed field of o8inion

to the uniBuene$$ of the

>>&0-??

$y$te3 or the definiti%e $taility of $cienceH it i$ not a GdoDologyGH ut a differential analy$i$ of the 3odalitie$ of di$cour$e.

3.Archaeology i$ not ordered in accordance with the $o%ereign figure of the oeu%re$H it doe$ not try to gra$8 the

3o3ent in which the oeuvre e3erge$ on the anony3ou$ horion. It doe$ not wi$h to redi$co%er the enig3atic 8oint at

which the indi%idual and the $ocial are in%erted into one another. It i$ neither a 8$ychology6 nor a $ociology6 nor 3ore

generally an anthro8ology of creation.. The oeu%re i$ not for archaeology a rele%ant di%i$ion6 e%en if it i$ a 3atter of

re8lacing it in it$ total conteDt or in the networ< of cau$alitie$ that $u88ort it. It define$ ty8e$ of rule$ for di$cur$i%e 8ractice$ that run through indi%idual oeu%re$6 $o3eti3e$ go%ern the3 entirely6 and do3inate the3 to $uch an eDtent that

nothing elude$ the3H ut which $o3eti3e$6 too6 go%ern only 8art of it. The authority of the creati%e $uJect6 a$ the rai$on

d

G

etre of an oeu%re and the 8rinci8le of it$ unity6 i$ Buite alien to it.

4.,a$tly6 archaeology doe$ not try to re$tore what ha$ een thought6 wi$hed6 ai3ed at6 eD8erienced6 de$ired y 3en in

the %ery 3o3ent at which they eD8re$$ed it in di$cour$eH it doe$ not $et out to reca8ture that elu$i%e nucleu$ in which theauthor and the oeu%re eDchange identitie$H in which thought $till re3ain$ neare$t to one;$elf6 in the a$ yet unaltered for3

of the $a3e6 and in which language >langage? ha$ n.ot yet een de8loyed in the $8atial6 $ucce$$i%e di$8er$ion. of

di$cour$e. In other word$6 it doe$ not try to re8eat what ha$ een $aid y reaching it in it$ %ery identity. It doe$ not clai3to efface it$elf in the a3iguou$ 3ode$ty of a reading that would ring ac<6 in all it$ 8urity6 the di$tant6 8recariou$6

al3o$t effaced light of the origin. It i$ nothing 3ore than a rewriting@ that i$6 in the 8re$er%ed for3 of eDter iority6 a

regulated tran$for3ation of what ha$ already een written. It i$ not a return to the inner3o$t $ecret of the originH it i$ the$y$te3atic de$cri8tion of a di$cour$e;oJect.

>>&0)??



2. THE ORI!INAL A)d THE RE!ULAR

In general6 the hi$tory of idea$ deal$ with the field of di$cour$e$ a$ a do3ain with two %alue$H any ele3ent located there 3ay

e characteried a$ old or newH traditional or originalH confor3ing to an a%erage ty8e or de%iant. One can di$tingui$h.

therefore etween two categorie$ of for3ulation@ tho$e that are highly %alued and relati%ely rare6 which a88ear for the fir$tti3e6 which ha%e no $i3ilar antecedent$6 which 3ay $er%e a$ 3odel$ for other$6 and which to thi$ eDtent de$er%e to e

regarded a$ creation$H and tho$e6 ordinary6 e%eryday6 $olid6 that are not re$8on$ile for the3$el%e$6 and which. deri%e6

$o3eti3e$ going $o far a$ to re8eat it word for word6 fro3 what ha$ already een $aid. To each of the$e two grou8$ thehi$tory of idea$ gi%e$ a $tatu$H and it doe$ not $uJect the3 to the $a3e analy$i$@ in de$criing the fir$t6 it recount$ the hi$tory

of in%ention$6 change$6 tran$for3ation$6 it $how$ how truth freed it$elf fro3 error6 how con$ciou$ne$$ awo<e fro3 it$

$ucce$$i%e $lu3er$6 how new for3$ ro$e u8 i.n turn to 8roduce the land$ca8e that we <now todayH it i$ the ta$< of thehi$torian to redi$co%er on the a$i$ of the$e i$olated 8oint$6 the$e $ucce$$i%e ru8ture$6 the continuou$ line of an e%olution.

The $econd grou86 on the other hand6 re%eal$ hi$tory a$ inertia and weight6 a$ a $low accu3ulation of the 8a$t6 a $ilent

>>&0??

$edi3entation of thing$ $aidH in thi$ $econd grou86 $tate3ent$ 3u$t he treated y weight and in accordance with what they

ha%e in co33onH their uniBue occurrence 3ay e neutraliedH the i38ortance of their author G$ identity6 the ti3e and 8lace of their a88earance are al$o di3ini$hedH on the other hand6 it i$ their eDtent that 3u$t e 3ea$uredH the eDtent of their re8etition

in ti3e and 8lace6 the channel$ y which they are diffu$ed6 the grou8$ in which they circulateH the general horion that they

outline for 3enG$ thought6 the li3it$ that they i38o$e on itH and how6 in characteriing a 8eriod6 they 3a<e it 8o$$ile todi$tingui$h it fro3 other$H one then de$crie$ a $erie$ of o%erall figure$. In the fir$t ca$e6 the hi$tory of idea$ de$crie$ a

$ucce$$ion of e%ent$ in thoughtH in the $econd6 there are uninterru8ted eD8an$e$ of effect$H in the fir$t6 one recon$titute$ the

e3ergence of truth$ of for3$H in the $econd6 one re;e$tali$he$ forgotten $oliditie$6 and refer$ di$cour$e$ to their relati%ity.It i$ true that6 etween the$e two authoritie$6 the hi$tory of idea$ i$ continuou$ly deter3ining relation$H neither analy$i$ i$

e%er found in it$ 8ure $tateH it de$crie$ conflict$ etween the old and the new6 the re$i$tance of the acBuired6 the re8re$$ionthat it eDerci$e$ o%er what ha$ $o far ne%er een $aid6 the co%ering$ y which it 3a$<$ it6 the oli%ion to which it $o3eti3e$

$ucceed$ in confining itH ut it al$o de$crie$ the condition$6 which6 o$curely and at a di$tance6 will facilitate the e3ergence

of future di$cour$e$H it de$crie$ the re8ercu$$ion$ of di$co%erie$6 the $8eed and eDtent of their diffu$ion6 the $low 8roce$$e$of re8lace3ent or the $udden u8hea%al$ that o%erthrow fa3iliar language >langage?H it de$crie$ the integration of the new in

the already $tructured field of the acBuired6 the 8rogre$$i%e fall fro3 the original into the traditional6 or6 again6 the

rea88earance$ of the already;$aid6 and the unco%ering of the original. *ut thi$ inter$ection doe$ not 8re%ent it fro3 alway$3aintaining a i8olar analy$i$ of the old and the new. An analy$i$ that rein%e$t$ in the e38irical ele3ent of hi$tory6 and in

each of it$ $tage$6 the 8role3atic of the origin@ in e%ery Ru%re6 in e%ery hoo<6 in the $3alle$t teDt6 the 8role3 i$ to

redi$co%er the 8oint of ru8ture6 to e$tali$h6 with the greate$t 8o$$ile 8reci$ion6 the di%i$ion etween the i38licit den$ity of the already;$aid6 a 8erha8$ in%oluntary fidelity to acBuired o8inion6 the law of di$cur$i%e fatalitie$6 and the %i%acity of

creation6 the lea8 into irreducile difference. Although thi$ de$cri8tion

>>&0??

of originalitie$ 3ay $ee3 o%iou$ enough6 it 8o$e$ two %ery different 3ethodological 8role3$H that of re$e3lance and

that of 8roce$$ion. It 8re$u88o$e$6 in effect6 that one can e$tali$h a $ort of $ingle6 great $erie$ in which e%ery for3ulationwould a$$u3e a date in accordance with ho3ogeneou$ chronological guide;line$. *ut6 to eDa3ine the Bue$tion 3ore clo$ely6

doe$ /ri336 with hi$ law of %owel;gradation$6 8recede *o88 >who Buoted hi36 u$ed hi36 a88lied and 3odified what he

$aid? in the $a3e way and on the $a3e te38oral lineH and did CceurdouD and AnBuetil;"u8erron >in o$er%ing analogie$ etween /ree< and San$<rit? antici8ate the definition of the Indo;Euro8ean language$6 and 8recede the founder$ of

co38arati%e gra33ar :a$ Sau$;$ure G 8recededG y Peirce and hi$ $e3iotic$6 y Arnauld and ,ancelot with the Cla$$ical

analy$i$ of the $ign6 and y the Stoic$ and the theory of the G$ignifier G6 in the $a3e $erie$ and in accordance with the $a3e3ode of anteriority Prece$$ion i$ not an irreducile and 8ri3ary donneeH it cannot 8lay the role of an a$olute 3ea$ure that

3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to gauge all di$cour$e and to di$tingui$h the original fro3 the re8etiti%e. The 3a88ing of antecedent$ i$

not enough6 in it$elf6 to deter3ine a di$cur$i%e orderH on the contrary6 it i$ $uordinated to the di$cour$e that one i$



analy$ing6 at the le%el that one choo$e$6 on the $cale that one e$tali$he$. *y de8loying di$cour$e throughout a calen dar6 and

y gi%ing a date to each of it$ ele3ent$6 one doe$ not otain a definiti%e hierarchy of 8rece$$ion$ and originalitie$H thi$

hierarchy i$ ne%er 3ore than relati%e to the $y$te3$ of di$cour$e that it $et$ out to e%aluate.

Si3ilarly6 the re$e3lance etween two or $e%eral $ucce$$i%e for3ulation$ al$o 8o$e$ a whole $erie$ of 8role3$. In

what $en$e and in accordance with what criteria can one affir3@ Gthi$ ha$ een $aidGH Gthe $a3e thing can already he found in

thi$ or that teDtG6 etc. :hat i$ identity6 8artial or total6 in the order of di$cour$e The fact that two enunciation$ are eDactly

identical6 that they are 3ade u8 of the $a3e word$ u$ed with the $a3e 3eaning6 doe$ not6 a$ we <now6 3ean that they area$olutely identical. E%en when one find$6 in the wor< of "iderot and ,a3arc<6 or of *enoit de Maillet and "arwin6 the

$a3e for3ulation of the 8rinci8le of e%olution6 one cannot con$ider that one i$ dealing in each ca$e with the $a3e di$cur$i%e

e%ent6 which ha$ een $uJected at different ti3e$ to a $erie$ of re8etition$. Identity i$ not a

>>&-9??

criterion e%en when it i$ eDhau$ti%eH e%en le$$ $o when it i$ 8artial6 when word$ are not u$ed each ti3e in the $a3e $en$e6 or

when the $a3e nucleu$ of 3eaning i$ a88rehended through different word$@ to what eDtent can one affir3 that it i$ the $a3e

organici$t the3e that e3erge$ in the $o %ery different di$cour$e$ and %ocaularie$ of *uffon6 +u$$ieu6 and Cu%ier And6

in%er$ely6 can one $ay that the word GorganiationG ha$ the $a3e 3eaning in the wor< of "auenton6 *lu3enach6 and

/eoffroy Saint;'ilaire /enerally $8ea<ing6 doe$ one find the $a3e ty8e of re$e3lance etween Cu%ier and "arwin6 and

etween Cu%ier and ,innaeu$ >or Ari$totle? There i$ no i33ediately recogniale re$e3lance etween the for3ulation$@their analogy i$ an effect of the di$cur$i%e field in which it i$ 3a88ed.

It i$ not legiti3ate6 then6 to de3and6 8oint;lan<6 of the teDt$ that one i$ $tudying their title to originality6 and whether they

really 8o$$e$$ tho$e degree$ of noility that are 3ea$ured here y the a$ence of ance$tor$. The Bue$tion can ha%e 3eaningonly in %ery 8reci$ely defined $erie$6 in grou8$ who$e li3it$ and do3ain ha%e een e$tali$hed6 etween guide;line$ that

deli3it $ufficiently ho3ogeneou$ di$;cur$i%e field$.G *ut to $ee< in the great accu3ulation of the already;$aid the teDt that

re$e3le$ Gin ad%anceG a later teDt6 to ran$ac< hi$tory in order to redi$co%er the 8lay of antici8ation$ or echoe$6 to go right ac< to the fir$t $eed$ or to go forward to the la$t trace$6 to re%eal in a wor< it$ fidelity to tradition or it$ irreducile

uniBuene$$6 to rai$e or lower it$ $toc< of originality6 to $ay that the Port;!oyal gra33arian$ in%ented nothing6 or to di$co%er

that Cu%ier had 3ore 8redece$$or$ than one thought6 the$e are har3le$$ enough a3u$e3ent$ for hi$torian$ who refu$e togrow u8.

Archaeological de$cri8tion i$ concerned with tho$e di$cur$i%e 8ractice$ to which the fact$ of $ucce$$ion 3u$t e referred

if one i$ not to e$tali$h the3 in an un$y$te3atic and nai%e way6 that i$ in ter3$ of 3erit. At the le%el in which they are6 the

originalityanality o88o$ition i$ therefore not rele%ant@ etween an initial for3ulation and the $entence6 which6 year$6

centurie$ later6 re8eat$ it 3ore or le$$ eDactly6 it e$tali$he$ no hierarchy of %alueH it 3a<e$ no radical difference. It trie$

It wa$ in thi$ way that M. Canguilhe3 e$tali$hed the $erie$ of 8ro8o$ition$ which6 fro3 :illi$ to Procha$<a6 3ade 8o$$ile the definition of the refleD.

>>&-&??



only to e$tali$h the regularity of $tate3ent$. In thi$ $en$e6 regularity i$ not in o88o$ition to irregularity6 which6 in the

3argin$ of current o8inion or the 3o$t freBuent teDt$6 characterie$ the de%iant $tate3ent >anor3al6 8ro8hetic6 retarded6

8athological6 or the 8roduct of geniu$?H it de$ignate$6 for e%ery %eral 8erfor3ance >eDtraordinary6 or anal6 uniBue in it$own <ind or endle$$ly re8eated?6 the $et of condition$ in which the enunciati%e function o8erate$6 and which guarantee$ and

define$ it$ eDi$tence. In thi$ $en$e6 regularity doe$ not characterie a certain central 8o$ition etween the end$ of a $tati$tical

cur%e it i$ not %alid therefore a$ an indeD of freBuency or 8roailityH it $8ecifie$ an effecti%e field of a88earance. E%ery$tate3ent ear$ a certain regularity and it cannot e di$$ociated fro3 it. One 3u$t not therefore o88o$e the regularity of a

$tate3ent with the irregularity of another >that 3ay he le$$ eD8ected6 3ore uniBue6 richer in. inno%ation?6 ut to other regularitie$ that characterie other $tate3ent$.Archaeology i$ not in $earch of in%ention$H and it re3ain$ un3o%ed at the 3o3ent >a %ery 3o%ing one6 I ad3it? when for

the fir$t ti3e $o3eone wa$ $ure of $o3e truthH it doe$ not try to re$tore the light of tho$e Joyful 3orning$. *ut neither i$ it

concerned with the a%erage 8heno3ena of o8inion6 with the dull grey of what e%eryone at a 8articular 8eriod 3ight re8eat.:hat it $ee<$ in the teDt$ of ,innaeu$ or *uffon6 Petty or !icardo6 Pinel or *ichat6 i$ not to draw u8 a li$t of founding $aint$H

it i$ to unco%er the regularity of a di$cur$i%e 8ractice. A 8ractice that i$ in o8eration6 in the $a3e way6 in the wor< of their 8redece$$or$H a 8ractice that ta<e$ account in their wor< not only of the 3o$t original affir3ation$ >tho$e that no one el$e

drea3t of efore the3?6 ut al$o of tho$e that they orrowed6 e%en co8ied6 fro3 their 8redece$$or$. A di$co%ery i$ no le$$

regular6 fro3 the enunciati%e 8oint of %iew6 than the teDt that re8eat$ an.d diffu$e$ itH regularity i$ no le$$ o8erant6 no le$$effecti%e and acti%e6 in a anal a$ in a uniBue for3a;tion. In. $uch a de$cri8tion one cannot ad3it a difference in nature

etween creati%e $tate3ent$ >which re%eal $o3ething new6 which e3it hitherto un<nown infor3ation6 and which are Gacti%eG

in the $a3e way? and i3itati%e $tate3ent$ >which recei%e and re8eat infor3ation6 an.d re3ain6 a$ it were6 G 8a$$i%eG?. Thefield of $tate3ent$ i$ not a grou8 of inert area$ ro<en u8 y fecund 3o3ent$H it i$ a do3ain that i$ acti%e throughout.

>>&-2??

Thi$ analy$i$ of enunciati%e regularitie$ o8en$ u8 in $e%eral direction$ that one day 8erha8$ will e eD8lored with greater

care.

&. A grou8 of $tate3ent$ i$ characteried6 then6 y a certain for3 of regularity6 without it eing either nece$$ary or 8o$$ile

to di$tingui$h etween what i$ new and what i$ not. *ut the$e regularitie$ we $hall co3e hac< to the3 later are notgi%en once and for allH the $a3e regularity i$ not to e found at wor< in Tournefort and "arwin6 ,ancelot and Sau$$ure6 Petty

and Keyne$. There are6 then6 ho3ogeneou$ field$ of enunciati%e regularitie$ >they characterie a di$cur$i%e for3a;tion?6 ut

the$e field$ are different fro3 one another. The 3o%e3ent fro3 one field of enunciati%e regularitie$ to another need not eacco38anied y corre$8onding change$ at all other le%el$ of di$cour$e. There are %eral 8erfor3ance$ that are identical fro3

the 8oint of %iew of gra33ar >%ocaulary6 $yntaD6 and the language >langue? in general?H that are al$o identical. fro3 the 8oint of %iew of logic >fro3 the 8oint of %iew of 8ro8o$itional $tructure6 or of the deducti%e $y$te3 in which it i$ 8laced? H ut which. are enunciati%ely different. Thu$ the for3ation of the Buantitati%e relation etween 8rice$ and 3onetary 3a$$ in

circulation 3ay e eD8re$$ed in the $a3e word$ or $ynony3ou$ word$ and e otained y the $a3e rea$oningH ut it i$

not enunciati%ely identical in /re$ha3 or ,oc<e and the nineteenth;century 3arginali$t$H it doe$ not elong in each ca$e tothe $a3e $y$te3 of for3ation of oJect$ and conce8t$. :e 3u$t di$tingui$h6 then6 etween lingui$tic ana;logy >or

tran$lataility?6 logical identity >or eBui%alence?6 and enunciati%e ho3ogeneity. It i$ with the$e ho3ogeneitie$ and the$e alonethat archaeology i$ concerned. It can $ee the a88earance of a new di$cur$i%e 8ractice through %eral for3ulation$ that re3ain

lingui$tically analogou$ or logically eBui%alent >y ta<ing u8 again6 $o3eti3e$ word for word6 the old theory of $entence;

attriution and %er;co8ula the Port;!oyal gra33arian$ o8ened u8 an enunciati%e regularity who$e $8ecificity it i$ the dutyof archaeology to de$crie?. In%er$ely6 it 3ay ignore difference$ of %ocaulary6 it 3ay 8a$$ o%er $e3antic field$ or different

deducti%e organiation$6 if it i$ ca8ale of recogniing in each ca$e6 de$8ite their heterogeneity6 a certain enunciati%e

regularity >fro3 thi$ 8oint of %iew6 the theory of the language >langage? of action6 the $earch for the origin of language$>longue$?6 the e$tali$h3ent of 8ri3iti%e

>>&-??



root$6 a$ they are found in the eighteenth century6 are not GnewG in relation to ,ancelotG$ GlogicalG analy$e$?One can $ee the e3ergence therefore of a nu3er of di$conneDion$ and articulation$. One can no longer $ay that a

di$co%ery6 the for3ula;tion of a general 8rinci8le6 or the definition of a 8roJect6 inaugurate$6 in a 3a$$i%e way6 a new 8ha$e inthe hi$tory of di$cour$e. One no longer ha$ to $ee< that 8oint of a$olute origin or total re%olution on the a$i$ of which

e%erything i$ organied6 e%erything eco3e$ 8o$$ile and nece$$ary6 e%erything i$ effaced in order to egin again. One i$

deal;ing with. e%ent$ of different ty8e$ and le%el$6 caught u8 in di$tinct hi$torical we$H the e$tali$h3ent of an enunciati%eho3ogeneity in no way i38lie$ that6 for decade$ or centurie$ to co3e6 3en will $ay and thin< the $a3e thingH nor doe$ it

i38ly the definition6 eD8licit or not6 of a nu3er of 8rinci8le$ fro3 which e%erything el$e would flow6 a$ ine%italecon$eBuence$. Enunciati%e ho3ogeneitie$ >and heterogeneitie$? inter$ect with lingui$tic continuitie$ >and change$?6 withlogical identitie$ >and difference$?6 without any of the3 8roceeding at the $a3e 8ace or nece$$arily affecting one another. *ut

there 3u$t eDi$t etween the3 a nu3er of relation$ and inter;de8endence$ who$e no dout highly co38leD do3ain 3u$t e

de$cried.

2. Another direction of re$earch@ the interior hierarchie$ within enunciati%e regularitie$. :e ha%e $een that e%ery $tate3ent elong$ to a certain regularity that con$eBuently none can e regarded a$ 8ure creation6 a$ the 3ar%ellou$ di$order of

geniu$. *ut we ha%e al$o $een that no $tate3ent can e regarded a$ inacti%e6 and e %alid a$ the $carcely real $hadow or

tran$fer of the initial $tate3ent. The whole enunciati%e field i$ oth regular and alerted@ it ne%er $lee8$H the lea$t $tate3ent the 3o$t di$creet or the 3o$t anal 8ut$ into o8eration a whole $et of rule$ in accordance with which it$ oJect6 it$

3odality6 the conce8t$ that it e38loy$6 and the $trategy of which it i$ a 8art6 are for3ed. The$e rule$ are ne%er gi%en in a

for3ulation6 they Gtra%er$eG for3ulation$6 and $et u8 for the3 a $8ace of coeDi$tenceH one cannot therefore redi$co%er theuniBue $tate3ent that would articulate the3 for the3$el%e$. 'owe%er6 certain grou8$ of $tate3ent$ 8ut the$e rule$ into

o8eration in their 3o$t general and 3o$t widely a88licale for3H

>>&-4??

u$ing the3 a$ a $tarting;8oint6 one can $ee how other oJect$6 other conce8t$6 other enunciati%e 3odalitie$6 or other $trategicchoice$ 3ay e for3ed on the a$i$ of rule$ that are le$$ general and who$e do3ain of a88lication i$ 3ore $8ecified. One can

thu$ de$crie a tree of enunciati%e deri%ation@ at it$ a$e are the $tate3ent$ that 8ut into o8eration rule$ of for3ation in their

3o$t eDtended for3H at it$ $u33it6 and after a nu3er of ranching$6 are the $tate3ent$ that 8ut into o8eration the $a3eregularity6 ut one 3ore delicately articulated6 3ore clearly deli3ited and localied in it$ eDten$ion.

Archaeology and thi$ i$ one of it$ 8rinci8al the3e$ 3ay thu$ con$titute the tree of deri%ation of a di$cour$e. That of

Natural 'i$tory6 for eDa38le. It will 8lace at the root6 a$ go%erning $tate3ent$6 tho$e that concern the definition of o$er%ale$tructure$ and the field of 8o$$ile oJect$6 tho$e that 8re$crie the for3$ of de$cri8tion and the 8er ce8tual code$ that it can

u$e6 tho$e that re%eal the 3o$t general 8o$$iilitie$ of characteriation6 and thu$ o8en u8 a whole do3ain of conce8t$ to e

con$tructed6 and6 la$tly6 tho$e that6 while con$tituting a $trategic choice6 lea%e roo3 for the greate$t nu3er of $u$eBuent

o8tion$. And it will find6 at the end$ of the ranche$6 or at %ariou$ 8lace$ in the whole6 a urgeoning of di$co%erie$G >li<e that

of fo$$il $erie$?6 conce8tual tran$for3ation$ >li<e the new definition of the genu$?6 the e3ergence of new notion$ >li<e that of

3a33al$ or organ;i$3?6 technical i38ro%e3ent$ >8rinci8le$ for organiing collection$6 3ethod$ of cla$$ification andno3enclature?. Thi$ deri%ation fro3 go%erning $tate3ent$ 3u$t not e confu$ed with a deduction that i$ 3ade on the a$i$ of

aDio3$H nor 3u$t it e identified with the ger3ination of a general idea6 or a 8hilo$o8hical nucleu$ who$e $ignificancee3erge$ gradually in eD8erience or 8reci$e conce8tualiation$H la$tly6 it 3u$t not he ta<en a$ a 8$ychological gene$i$ a$ed

on a di$co%ery who$e con$eBuence$ and 8o$$iilitie$ gradually de%elo8 and unfold. It i$ different fro3 all the$e cour$e$6 and

it 3u$t e de$cried in it$ autono3y. One can thu$ de$crie the archaeological deri%ation$ of Natural 'i$tory without eginning with it$ unde3on$trale aDio3$ or it$ funda3ental the3e$ >the continuity of nature6 for eDa38le?6 and without

ta<ing a$ oneG$ $tarting;8oint and guiding;thread the fir$t di$co%erie$ or the fir$t a88roache$ >tho$e of Tournefort efore tho$e

of ,innaeu$6 tho$e of +on$ton efore tho$e of Tournefort?. The archaeo;

>>&-0??

logical order i$ neither that of $y$te3atici tie$6 nor that of chronological $ucce$$ion$.*ut one can $ee that a whole do3ain of 8o$$ile Bue$tion$ i$ o8en;ing u8 here. For the$e different

order$ cannot e $8ecific and autono3ou$H there 3u$t e relation$ and de8endence$ etween the3. For

certain di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 the archaeological order i$ 8erha8$ not %ery different fro3 the $y$te3aticorder6 a$ in other ca$e$ it 3ay follow the thread of chronological $ucce$$ion$. The$e 8aralleli$3$

>contrary to the di$tortion$ 3et with el$ewhere? are worthy of analy$i$. In any ca$e6 it i$ i38ortant not to

confu$e the$e different order$6 not to $ee< in an GinitialG di$co%ery or in the originality of a for3ulationthe 8rinci8le fro3 which e%erything can e deduced and deri%edH not to $ee< in a general 8rinci8le the

law of enunciati%e regularitie$ or indi%idual in%ention$H not to de3and of archaeological deri%ation thatit re8roduce the order of ti3e or re%eal a deducti%e $che3a.

Nothing would e 3ore fal$e than to $ee in the analy$i$ of di$;cur$i%e for3ation$ an atte38t attotalitarian 8eriodiation6 wherey fro3 a certain 3o3ent and for a certain ti3e6 e%eryone would thin<



in the $a3e way6 in $8ite of $urface difference$6 $ay the $a3e thing6 through a 8oly3or8hou$ %ocaulary6

and 8roduce a $ort of great di$;cour$e that one could tra%el o%er in any direction. On the contrary6

archaeology de$crie$ a le%el of enunciati%e ho3ogeneity that ha$ it$ own te38oral articulation$6 andwhich doe$ not carry with it all the other for3$ of identity and difference that are to e found in

languageH and at thi$ le%el6 it e$tali$he$ an order6 hierarchie$6 a whole urgeon;ing that eDclude$ a

3a$$i%e6 a3or8hou$ $ynchrony6 gi%en totally once and for all. In tho$e confu$ed unitie$ that we callG 8eriod$G6 it re%eal$6 with all their $8ecificity6 Genunciati%e 8eriod$G that are articulated6 ut without eing

confu$ed with the36 u8on the ti3e of conce8t$6 on theoretical 8ha$e$6 on $tage$ of for3aliation and of lingui$tic de%elo83ent.

>>&--??

3. CONTRADICTIONS

The hi$tory of idea$ u$ually credit$ the di$cour$e that it analy$e$ with coherence. If it ha88en$ to notice an irregularity in the

u$e of word$6 $e%eral inco38atile 8ro8o$ition$6 a $et of 3eaning$ that do not adJu$t to one another6 conce8t$ that cannot e$y$te3atied together6 then it regard$ it a$ it$ duty to find6 at a dee8er le%el6 a 8rinci8le of cohe$ion that organie$ the

di$cour$e and re$tore$ to it it$ hidden unity. Thi$ law of coherence i$ a heuri$tic rule6 a 8rocedural oligation6 al3o$t a 3oral

con$traint of re$earch@ not to 3ulti8ly contradiction$ u$ele$$lyH not to e ta<en in y $3all difference$H not to gi%e too 3uch

weight to change$6 di$a%owal$6 return$ to the 8a$t6 and 8ole3ic$H not to $u88o$e that 3enG$ di$cour$e i$ 8er8etually

under3ined fro3 within y the contradiction of their de$ire$6 the influence$ that they ha%e een $uJected to6 or the

condition$ in which they li%eH ut to ad3it that if they $8ea<6 and if they $8ea< a3ong the3$el%e$6 it i$ rather to o%erco3ethe$e contradiction$6 and to find the 8oint fro3 which they will e ale to e 3a$tered. *ut thi$ $a3e coherence i$ al$o the

re$ult of re$earch@ it define$ the ter3inal unitie$ that co38lete the analy$i$H it di$co%er$ the internal organiation of a teDt6 thefor3 of de%elo83ent of an indi%idual oeu%re6 or the 3eeting;8lace of different di$cour$e$. In order to recon$titute it6 it 3u$t

fir$t e 8re$u88o$ed6 and one will only e $ure of finding it if one ha$ 8ur$ued it far enough and for long enough. It

>>&-)??

a88ear$ a$ an o8ti3u3@ the greate$t 8o$$ile nu3er of contradiction$ re$ol%ed y the $i38le$t 3ean$.

*ut a great 3any 3ean$ are u$ed and6 y that %ery fact6 the coherence$ found 3ay differ con$ideraly. *y analy$ing thetruth of 8ro8o$ition$ and the relation$ that unite the36 one can define a field of logical non;contradiction@ one will then

di$co%er a $y$te3aticityH one will ri$e fro3 the %i$ile ody of $entence$ to that 8ure6 ideal architecture that the a3iguitie$



of gra33ar and the o%erloading of word$ with 3eaning$ ha%e 8roaly concealed a$ 3uch a$ eD8re$$ed. *ut one can ado8t

the contrary cour$e6 and6 y following the thread of analogie$ and $y3ol$6 redi$co%er a the3atic that i$ 3ore i3aginary than

di$cur$i%e6 3ore affecti%e than rational6 and le$$ clo$e to the conce8t than to de$ireH it$ force ani3ate$ the 3o$t o88o$edfigure$6 ut only to 3elt the3 at once into a $lowly tran$for3ale unityH what one then di$;co%er$ i$ a 8la$tic continuity6 the

3o%e3ent of a 3eaning that i$ e3odied in %ariou$ re8re$entation$6 i3age$6 and 3eta8hor$. The$e coherence$ 3ay e

the3atic or $y$te3atic6 eD8licit or not@ they can e $ought at the le%el of re8re$entation$ that were con$ciou$ in the $8ea<;ing$uJect6 ut which hi$ di$cour$e for circu3$tantial rea$on$ or ecau$e of an inadeBuacy in the %ery for3 of hi$ language

>langage? failed to eD8re$$H it can al$o e $ought in $tructure$ that would ha%e con$trained the author the 3ore hecon$tructed the36 and which would ha%e i38o$ed on hi36 without hi$ realiing it6 8o$tulate$6 o8erational $che3ata6 lingui$ticrule$6 a $et of affir3ation$ and funda3ental elief$6 ty8e$ of i3age$6 or a whole logic of the fanta$tic. ,a$tly6 there are

coherence$ that one e$tali$he$ at the le%el of an indi%idual hi$ iogra8hy6 or the uniBue circu3$tance$ of hi$ di$cour$e

ut one can al$o e$tali$h the3 in accordance with roader guide;line$6 one can gi%e the3 the collecti%e6 diachronicdi3en$ion$ of a 8eriod6 a genera for3 of con$ciou$ne$$6 a ty8e of $ociety6 a $et of tradition$6 an i3aginary land$ca8e

co33on to a whole culture. In all the$e for3$6 a coherence di$co%ered in thi$ way alway$ 8lay$ the $a3e role@ it $how$ thati33ediately %i$ile contradiction$ are 3erely $urface reflection$H and that thi$ 8lay of di$8er$ed light 3u$t e concentrated

into a $ingle focu$. Contradiction i$ the illu$ion of a unity that hide$ it$elf or i$ hidden@ it ha$ it$ 8lace only in the ga8

etween con$ciou$ne$$ and uncon$ciou$ne$$6 thought and the teDt6 the ideality and the contingent

((168))

ody of eD8re$$ion. In any ca$e6 analy$i$ 3u$t $u88re$$ contradiction a$ e$t it can.At the end of thi$ wor<6 only re$idual contradiction$ re3ain accident$6 defect$6 3i$ta<e$ or6 on the contrary6 a$ if the

entire analy$i$ had een carried out in $ecrecy and in $8ite of it$elf6 the funda3ental contradiction e3erge$@ the ringing into

8lay6 at the %ery origin of the $y$te36 of inco38atile 8o$tulate$6 inter$ection$ of irreconcilale influence$6 the fir$tdiffraction of de$ire6 the econo3ic and 8olitical conflict that o88o$e$ a $ociety to it$elf6 all thi$6 in$tead of a88earing a$ $o

3any $u8erficial ele3ent$ that 3u$t e reduced6 i$ finally re%ealed a$ an organiing 8rinci8le6 a$ the founding6 $ecret law that

account$ for all 3inor contradiction$ and gi%e$ the3 a fir3 foundation@ in $hort6 a 3odel for all the other o88o$ition$. Such acontradiction6 far fro3 eing an a88earance or accident of di$cour$e6 far fro3 eing that fro3 which it 3u$t e freed if it$

truth i$ at la$t to e re%ealed6 con$titute$ the %ery law of it$ eDi$tence@ it i$ on the a$i$ of $uch a contradiction that di$cour$e

e3erge$6 and it i$ in order oth to tran$late it and to o%erco3e it that di$cour$e egin$ to $8ea<H it i$ in order to e$ca8e thatcontradiction6 wherea$ contradiction i$ cea$ele$$ly reorn through di$;cour$e6 that di$cour$e endle$$ly 8ur$ue$ it$elf and

endle$$ly egin$ againH it i$ ecau$e contradiction i$ alway$ anterior to the di$cour$e6 and ecau$e it can ne%er therefore

entirely e$ca8e it6 that di$cour$e change$6 undergoe$ tran$for3ation6 and e$ca8e$ of it$elf fro3 it$ own continuity.Contradiction6 then6 function$ throughout di$cour$e6 a$ the 8rinci8le of it$ hi$toricity.

The hi$tory of idea$ recognie$6 therefore6 two le%el$ of contradiction@ that of a88earance$6 which i$ re$ol%ed in the

8rofound unity of di$cour$eH and that of foundation$6 which gi%e$ ri$e to di$cour$e it$elf. In relation to the fir$t le%el of contradiction6 di$cour$e i$ the ideal figure that 3u$t e $e8arated fro3 their accidental 8re$ence6 fro3 their too %i$ile odyH

in relation to the $econd6 di$cour$e i$ the e38irical figure that contradiction$ 3ay ta<e u8 and who$e a88arent cohe$ion 3u$t e de$troyed6 in order to redi$co%er the3 at la$t in their irru8tion and %iolence. "i$cour$e i$ the 8ath fro3 one contradiction

to another@ if it gi%e$ ri$e to tho$e that can e $een6 it i$ ecau$e it oey$ that which it hide$. To analy$e di$cour$e i$ to hide

and re%eal contradiction$H it i$ to $how the 8lay that they $et u8 within itH it i$ to 3anife$t

>>&-??how it can eD8re$$ the36 e3ody the36 or gi%e the3 a te38orary a88earance.

For archaeological analy$i$6 contradiction$ are neither a88earance$ to e o%erco3e6 nor $ecret 8rinci8le$ to e unco%ered.They are oJect$ to e de$cried for the3$el%e$6 without any atte38t eing 3ade to di$co%er fro3 what 8oint of %iew they

can e di$$i8ated6 or at what le%el they can e radicalied and effect$ eco3e cau$e$. ,et u$ ta<e a $i38le eDa38le6 one that

ha$ already een 3entioned $e%eral ti3e$@ in the eighteenth century6 ,innaeu$G$ fiDi$t 8rinci8le wa$ contradicted6 not $o 3uch

y the di$co%ery of the Peloria6 which changed only it$ 3ode$ of a88lication6 ut y a nu3er of Ge%olutioni$tG affir3ation$that are to e found in the wor<$ of *uffon6 "iderot6 *ordeu6 Maillet6 and 3any other$. Archaeological analy$i$ doe$ not

con$i$t in $howing that eneath thi$ o88o$ition6 at a 3ore e$$ential le%el6 e%eryone acce8ted a nu3er of funda3ental the$e$>the continuity and 8lenitude of nature6 the correlation etween recent for3$ and cli3ate6 the al3o$t i38erce8tile tran$ition

fro3 the non;li%ing to the li%ing?H nor doe$ it con$i$t in $howing that $uch an o88o$ition reflect$6 in the 8articular do3ain of

Natural 'i$tory6 a 3ore general conflict that di%ide$ all eighteenth;century <nowledge and thought >the conflict etween thethe3e of an ordered creation6 acBuired once and for all6 de8loyed without irreducile $ecret6 and the the3e of a 8rolific

nature6 endowed with enig3atic 8ower$6 gradually de8loying it$elf through hi$tory6 and o%erturning all $8atial order$ in

oedience to the onward thru$t of ti3e?. Archaeology trie$ to $how how the two affir3ation$6 fiDi$t and Ge%olutioni$tG6 $hare aco33on locu$ in a certain de$cri8tion of $8ecie$ and genera@ thi$ de$cri8tion ta<e$ a$ it$ oJect the %i$ile $tructure of organ$



>that i$6 their for36 $ie6 nu3er6 and arrange3ent in $8ace?H and it can li3it that oJect in two way$ >to the organi$3 a$ a

whole6 or to certain ele3ent$6 deter3ined either y i38ortance or y taDono3ic con%enience?H one then re%eal$6 in the $econd

ca$e6 a regular tale6 containing a nu3er of definite $Buare$6 that in a way con$titute$ the 8rogra33e of all 8o$$ile creation>$o that6 whether 8re$ent6 $till to co3e6 or already di$a88eared6 the ordering of the $8ecie$ and genera i$ definiti%ely fiDed? H

and in the fir$t ca$e6 grou8$ of <in$hi8 that re3ain indefinite and o8en6 that are $e8arated fro3 one another6 and that tolerate

an indeter3inate nu3er of new for3$6 howe%er clo$e they

>>&)9??3ay e to 8reeDi$ting for3$. *y deri%ing in thi$ way the contradiction etween two the$e$ fro3 a certain do3ain of oJect$6

fro3 it$ deli3itation$ and di%i$ion$6 one doe$ not di$co%er a 8oint of conciliation. *ut neither doe$ one tran$fer it to a 3ore

funda3ental le%elH one define$ the locu$ in which it ta<e$ 8laceH it re%eal$ the 8lace where the two ranche$ of thealternati%e JoinH it localie$ the di%ergence and the 8lace where the two di$cour$e$ are JuDta8o$ed. The theory of $tructure i$

not a co33on 8o$tulate6 a a$i$ of general elief $hared y ,innaeu$ and *uffon6 a $olid6 funda3ental affir3ation thatthrow$ ac< to the le%el of a $u$idiary deate the conflict of e%olutioni$3 and fiDi$3H it i$ the 8rinci8le of their

inco38atiility6 the law that go%ern$ their deri%ation and their coeDi$tence. *y ta<ing contradiction$ a$ oJect$ to e

de$cried6 archaeological analy$i$ doe$ not try to di$co%er in their 8lace a co33on for3 or the3e6 it trie$ to deter3ine theeDtent and for3 of the ga8 that $e8arate$ the3. In relation to a hi$tory of idea$ that atte38t$ to 3elt contradiction$ in the

$e3i;nocturnal unity of an o%erall figure6 or which atte38t$ to tran$3ute the3 into a general6 a$tract6 unifor3 8rinci8le of

inter8retation or eD8lanation6 archaeology de$crie$ the different $8ace$ of di$$en$ion.It cea$e$6 therefore6 to treat contradiction$ a$ a general function o8erating6 in the $a3e way6 at all le%el$ of di$cour$e6 and

which analy$i$ $hould either $u88re$$ entirely or lead ac< to a 8ri3ary6 con$tituti%e for3@ for the great ga3e of

contradiction 8re$ent under innu3erale gui$e$6 then $u88re$$ed6 and finally re$tored in the 3aJor conflict in which itcul3inate$ it $u$titute$ the analy$i$ of different ty8e$ of contradiction6 different le%el$ in accordance with which it can

e 3a88ed6 different function$ that it can eDerci$e.

"ifferent ty8e$ fir$t of all. So3e contradiction$ are localied only at the le%el of 8ro8o$ition$ and a$$ertion$6 without inany way affecting the ody of enunciati%e rule$ that 3a<e$ the3 8o$$ile@ thu$ in the eighteenth century the the$i$ of the

ani3al character of fo$$il$ wa$ o88o$ed y the 3ore traditional the$i$ of their 3ineral natureH the con$eBuence$ that can edrawn fro3 the$e two the$e$ are certainly %ery nu3erou$ and far;reachingH ut it can e $hown that they originated in the

$a3e di$cur$i%e for3ation6 at the $a3e 8oint6 and in accordance with the $a3e condition$ of o8eration of the enunciati%e

functionH they are contradiction$ that are archaeologically deri%ed6 and>>&)&??

which con$titute a ter3inal $tate. Other$6 on the contrary6 go eyond the ound$ of a di$cur$i%e for3ation6 and they o88o$e

the$e$ that do not elong to the $a3e condition$ of enunciation@ thu$ ,innaeu$G$ fiDi$3 i$ contradicted y "arwinG$e%olutioni$36 ut only to the eDtent that one neutralie$ the difference etween Natural 'i$tory6 to which the fir$t elong$6

and iology6 to which the $econd elong$. They are eDtrin$ic contradiction$ that reflect the o88o$ition etween di$tinct di$;

cur$i%e for3ation$. For archaeological de$cri8tion >ignoring6 for the 3o3ent6 any 8o$$ile 8rocedural difference$?6 thi$o88o$ition con$titute$ the ter3inu$ a Buo6 wherea$ deri%ed contradiction$ con$titute the ter3inu$ ad Bue3 of analy$i$.

*etween the$e two eDtre3e$6 archaeological de$cri8tion de$crie$ what 3ight e called intrin$ic contradiction$@ tho$e that are

de8loyed in the di$cur$i%e for3ation it$elf6 and which6 originating at one 8oint in the $y$te3 of for3ation$6 re%eal $u;

$y$te3$@ hence6 to <ee8 to the eDa38le of eighteenth;century Natural 'i$tory6 the contradiction etween 3ethodicalG

analy$e$ and G$y$te3aticG analy$e$. The o88o$ition here i$ not a ter3inal one@ they are not two contradictory 8ro8o$ition$

aout the $a3e oJect6 they are not two inco38atile u$e$ of the $a3e conce8t6 ut two way$ of for3ing $tate3ent$6 othcharacteried y certain oJect$6 certain 8o$ition$ of $uJecti%ity6 certain conce8t$6 and certain $trategic choice$. 5et the$e

$y$te3$ are not 8ri3ary one$@ for it can e $hown to what eDtent they oth deri%e fro3 a $ingle 8o$iti%ity6 that of Natural'i$tory. It i$ the$e intrin$ic o88o$ition$ that are rele%ant to archaeological analy$i$.

Then different le%el$. An intrin$ic archaeological contradiction i$ not a fact6 8urely and $i38ly6 that it i$ enough to $tate a$

a 8rinci8le or eD8lain a$ an effect. It i$ a co38leD 8heno3enon that i$ di$triuted o%er different le%el$ of the di$cur$i%efor3ation. Thu$6 for $y$te3atic Natural 'i$tory and 3ethodical Natural 'i$tory6 which were in con;$tant o88o$ition for a

good 8art of the eighteenth century6 one can recognie@ an inadeBuation of the oJect$ >in the one ca$e one de$crie$ the

general a88earance of the 8lantH in the other certain 8redeter3ined %ariale$H in the one ca$e6 one de$crie$ the totality of the 8lant6 or at lea$t it$ 3o$t i38ortant 8art$6 in the other one de$crie$ a nu3er of ele3ent$ cho$en aritrarily for their

taDono3ic con%enienceH $o3e;ti3e$ one ta<e$ account of the 8lant G$ different $tate$ of growth and 3aturity6 at other$ one

confine$ oneG$ attention to a $ingle 3o3ent6 a

>>&)2??

$tage of o8ti3u3 %i$iility?H a di%ergence of enunciati%e 3odalitie$ >in the ca$e of the $y$te3atic analy$i$ of 8lant$6 one

a88lie$ a rigorou$ 8erce8tual and lingui$tic code6 and in accordance with a con$tant $caleH for 3ethodical de$cri8tion6 the



code$ are relati%ely free6 and the $cale$ of 3a88ing 3ay o$cillate?H an inco38atiility of conce8t$ >in the G$y$te3$G6 theconce8t of generic character i$ an aritrary6 though 3i$lead;ing 3ar< to de$ignate the generaH in the 3ethod$ thi$ $a3e

conce8t 3u$t include the real definition of the genu$?H la$tly6 an eDclu$ion of theoretical o8tion$ >$y$te3atic taDono3y 3a<e$GfiDi$3G 8o$$ile6 e%en if it i$ rectified y the idea of a continuou$ creation in ti3e6 gradually unfolding the ele3ent$ of thetale$6 or y the idea of natural cata$tro8he$ ha%ing di$tured y our 8re$ent gae the linear order of natural 8roDi3itie$6 ut

eDclude$ the 8o$$iility of a tran$for3ation that the 3ethod acce8t$ without a$olutely i38lying it?.Function$. The$e for3$ of o88o$ition do not all 8lay the $a3e role in di$cur$i%e 8ractice@ they are not6 in a ho3ogeneou$

way6 o$tacle$ to o%erco3e or a 8rinci8le of growth. In any ca$e6 it i$ not enough to $ee< in the3 the cau$e either of thedeceleration or the acceleration of hi$toryH ti3e i$ not introduced into the truth and ideality of di$cour$e on the a$i$ of thee38ty6 general for3 of o88o$ition. The$e o88o$ition$ are alway$ 8articular functional $tage$. So3e of the3 ring aout an

additional de%elo83ent of the enunciati%e field@ they o8en u8 $eBuence$ of argu3entation6 eD8eri3ent6 %erification6 and

%ariou$ inference$H they 3a<e 8o$$ile the deter3ination of new oJect$6 they arou$e new enunciati%e 3odalitie$6 they definenew conce8t$ or 3odify the field of a88lication of tho$e that already eDi$t@ ut without anything eing 3odified in the $y$te3

of 8o$iti%ity of the di$cour$e >thi$ wa$ the ca$e in the di$cu$$ion$ of the eighteenth;century naturali$t$ on the frontier etween

the 3ineral and the %egetal6 or on the oundarie$ of life or nature and the origin of fo$$il$?H $uch additi%e 8roce$$e$ 3ayre3ain deci$i%ely o8en or clo$ed y a de3on$tration that refute$ the3 or a di$co%ery that 8ut$ the3 out of o8eration. Other$

induce a reorganiation of the di$cur$i%e field@ they 8o$e the Bue$tion of the 8o$$ile tran$lation of one grou8 of $tate3ent$into another6 of the 8oint of coherence that 3ight articulate one on another6 of their integration in a 3ore general $8ace >thu$

the $y$te33ethod o88o$ition a3ong eighteenth;century naturali$t$ induce$ a $erie$ of atte38t$ to recreate oth of the3 in a

>>&)??$ingle for3 of de$cri8tion6 to gi%e to the 3ethod the rigour and. regularity of the $y$te36 to coincide the aritrarine$$ of the

$y$te3 with the concrete analy$e$ of the 3ethod?H they are not new oJect$6 new conce8t$6 new enunciati%e 3odalitie$ thatare added in a linear fa$hion to the oldH ut oJect$ of another >3ore general or 3ore 8articular? le%el6 conce8t$ that ha%e

another $tructure and another field of a88lication6 enunciation$ of another ty8e6 without6 howe%er6 altering the rule$ of

for3ation. Other o88o$ition$ 8lay a critical role@ they 8ut into o8eration the eDi$tence of the acce8tailityG of the di$cur$i%e 8racticeH they define the 8oint of it$ effecti%e i38o$$iility and of it$ hi$torical refleDion >thu$ the de$cri8tion.6 in Natural

'i$tory it$elf6 of organic $i3ilaritie$ and function$ that o8erate6 through anato3ical %ariale$6 in definite condition$ of

eDi$tence6 no longer 8er3it$6 a$ an autono3ou$ di$cur$i%e for3ation at lea$t6 a Natural. 'i$tory that i$ a taDono3ic $cience of eing$ on the a$i$ of their %i$ile ch.aracter$?.

A di$cur$i%e for3ation i$ not6 therefore6 an ideal6 continuou$6 $3ooth teDt that run$ eneath the 3ulti8licity of

contradiction$6 and re$ol%e$ the3 in the cal3 unity of coherent thoughtH nor i$ it the $urface in which6 in a thou$and differenta$8ect$6 a contradiction i$ reflected that i$ alway$ in retreat6 ut e%erywhere do3inant. It i$ rather a $8ace of 3ulti8le

di$$en$ion$H a $et of different o88o$ition$ who$e le%el$ and role$ 3u$t e de$cried. Archaeological analy$i$6 then6 erect$ the

8ri3acy of a contradiction that ha$ it$ 3odel in the $i3ultaneou$ affir3ation and negation of a $ingle 8ro8o$ition. *ut therea$on for thi$ i$ not to e%en out o88o$ition$ in th.e general for3$ of thought and to 8acify the3 y force6 y a recour$e to a

con$tructing a 8riori. On the contrary6 it$ 8ur8o$e i$ to 3a86 in a 8articular di$cur$i%e 8ractice6 the 8oint at which they arecon$tituted6 to define the for3 that they a$$u3e6 the relation$ that they ha%e with each other6 and the do3ain that they go%ern.

In $hort6 it$ 8ur8o$e i$ to 3aintain di$cour$e in all it$ 3any irregularitie$H and con$eBuently to $u88re$$ the the3e of a con;

tradiction unifor3ly lo$t and redi$co%ered6 re$ol%ed and fore%er ri$ing again6 in the undifferentiated ele3ent of the ,ogo$.

>>&)4??

%. THE COMARATIVE FACTS

Archaeological analy$i$ indi%idualie$ and de$crie$ di$cur$i%e for3ation$. That i$6 it 3u$t co38are the36 o88o$e the3 toone another in the $i3ultaneity in which they are 8re$ented.6 di$tingui$h the3 fro3 tho$e that do not elong to the $a3e

ti3e;$cale6 relate the36 on the a$i$ of their $8ecificity6 to the non;di$cur$i%e 8ractice$ that $urround the3 and $er%e a$ a

general ele3ent for the3. In thi$6 too6 they are %ery different fro3 e8i$te3ological or architectonicG de$cri8tion$6 whichanaly$e the internal $tructure of a theoryH archaeological $tudy i$ alway$ in the 8luralH it o8erate$ in a great nu3er of

regi$ter$H it cro$$e$ inter$tice$ and ga8$H it ha$ it$ do3ain where unitie$ are JuDta8o$ed6 $e8arated6 fiD their cre$t$6 confront

one another6 and accentuate the white$8ace$ etween one another. :hen it i$ concerned with a 8articular ty8e of di$cour$e>that of 8$ychiatry in Madne$$ and Ci%iliation or that of 3edicine in Nai$$ance de la cliniBue?6 it i$ in order to e$tali$h6 y



>>&))??

cliniBue?. The nu3er of $uch networ<$ i$ not6 therefore6 defined in ad%anceH only the te$t of analy$i$ can $how whether they

eDi$t6 and which of the3 eDi$t >that i$6 which can e de$cried?. Moreo%er6 e%ery di$cur$i%e for3ation doe$ not elong

>nece$$arily6 at lea$t? to only one of the$e $y$te3$6 ut enter$ $i3ultaneou$ly into $e%eral field$ of relation$6 in which it doe$

not occu8y the $a3e 8lace6 or eDerci$e the $a3e function >the taDono3y8athology relation$ are not i$o3or8hic with the

taDono3ygra33ar relation$H the gra33arAnaly$i$ of :ealth relation$ are not i$o3or8hic with the gra33areDege$i$

relation$?.

The horion of archaeology6 therefore6 i$ not a $cience6 a rationality6 a 3entality6 a cultureH it i$ a tangle of inter8o$iti%itie$



only the o%erall relation of $e%eral di$cour$e$ to thi$ or that other di$cour$eH it i$ the law of their co33unication$. *ecau$e

!ou$$eau and other$ reflected in turn on the ordering of the $8ecie$ and the origin of the language$6 thi$ doe$ not 3ean that

relation$ were 3ade and eDchange$ occurred etween taDono3y and gra33arH or ecau$e Turgot6 after ,aw and Petty6wi$hed to treat coinage a$ a $ign6 that econo3y and the theory of language were rought clo$e together and that their hi$tory

$till ear$ the trace of the$e atte38t$. It 3ean$ rather if6 at lea$t6 one i$ atte38ting to 3a<e an archaeological de$cri8tion

that the re$8ecti%e arrange3ent$ of the$e three 8o$iti%itie$ were $uch that6 at the le%el of uuvres, author$6 indi%idualeDi$tence$6 8roJect$6 and atte38t$6 one can find $uch eDchange$.

. Archaeology al$o re%eal$ relation$ etween di$cur$i%e for3ation$ and non;di$cur$i%e do3ain$ >in$titution$6 8olitical

e%ent$6 econo3ic>>&9??

8ractice$ and 8roce$$e$?. The$e ra88roche3ent$ are not intended to unco%er great cultural continuitie$6 nor to i$olate

3echani$3$ of cau$ality. *efore a $et of enunciati%e fact$6 archaeology doe$ not a$< what could ha%e 3oti%ated the3 >the$earch for conteDt$ of for3ulation?H nor doe$ it $ee< to redi$co%er what i$ eD8re$$ed in the3 >the ta$< of her3eneutic$?H it

trie$ to deter3ine how the rule$ of for3ation that go%ern it and which characterie the 8o$iti%ity to which it elong$ 3ay e lin<ed to non;di$cur$i%e $y$te3$@ it $ee<$ to define $8ecific for3$ of articulation.

,et u$ ta<e the eDa38le of clinical 3edicine6 who$e e$tali$h3ent at the end of the eighteenth century i$ conte38orary

with a nu3er of 8olitical e%ent$6 econo3ic 8heno3ena6 and in$titutional change$. *etween the$e fact$ and the organiationof ho$8ital 3edicine6 it i$ ea$y enough to $u$8ect the eDi$tence of certain lin<$6 at lea$t if one o8erate$ largely on intuition.

*ut how can $uch lin<$ e analy$ed A $y3olic analy$i$ would $ee in the organiing of clinical 3edicine6 and in the

hi$torical 8roce$$e$ that were conco3itant with it6 two $i3ultaneou$ eD8re$$ion$6 which reflect and $y3olie one another6which $er%e each other a$ a 3irror6 and who$e 3eaning$ are caught u8 in an end;le$$ 8lay of refleDion@ two eD8re$$ion$ that

eD8re$$ nothing ut the for3 that they $hare. Thu$ 3edical idea$ of organic $olidarity6 functional cohe$ion6 ti$$ular

co33unication and. the aandon3ent of the cla$$ificatory 8rinci8le of di$ea$e$ in fa%our of an analy$i$ of the odilyinteraction$ 3ight corre$8ond >in order to reflect the36 ut al$o to he reflected in the3? to a 8olitical 8ractice that i$

di$co%ering6 eneath $till feudal $tratification$6 relation$ of a functional ty8e6 econo3ic conneDion$6 a $ociety who$e

de8endence$ and reci8rocitie$ were to 8ro;%ide6 in the for3 of $ociety6 the analogon of life. A cau$al analy$i$6 on the other hand6 would try to di$co%er to what eDtent 8olitical change$6 or eco3onic 8roce$$e$6 could deter3ine the con$ciou$ne$$ of

$cienti$t$ the horion and direction of their intere$t6 their $y$te3 of %alue$6 their way of 8ercei%ing thing$6 the $tyle of their rationalityH thu$6 at a 8eriod in which indu$trial ca8itali$3 wa$ eginning to recalculate it$ 3an8ower reBuire3ent$6 di$ea$e

too< a on $ocial di3en$ion@ the 3aintenance of health6 cure6 8ulic a$$i$tance for the 8oor and $ic<6 the $earch for

8athological cau$e$ and $ite$6 eca3e a collecti%e re$8on$iility that 3u$t e a$$u3ed y the $tate. 'ence the %alue 8lacedu8on

>>&&??

the ody a$ a wor< tool6 the care to rationalie 3edicine on the a$i$ of the other $cience$6 the effort$ to 3aintain the le%el of health of a 8o8ulation6 the attention 8aid to thera8y6 after;care6 and the recording of long;ter3 8heno3ena.

Archaeology $ituate$ it$ analy$i$ at another le%el@ the 8heno3ena of eD8re$$ion6 refleDion$6 and $y3oliation are for it3erely the effect$ of an o%erall reading in $earch of for3al analogie$ or tran$lation$ of 3eaningH a$ for cau$al relation$6 they3ay e a$$igned to the le%el of the conteDt or of the $ituation and their effect on the $8ea<ing $uJectH oth6 in any ca$e6 can

e 3a88ed once one ha$ defined the 8o$iti%itie$ in which they a88ear and the rule$ in accordance with which the$e 8o$iti%itie$ ha%e een for3ed. The field of relation$ that characterie$ a di$cur$i%e for3ation i$ the locu$ in which

$y3oliation$ and effect$ 3ay he 8ercei%ed6 $ituated6 and deter3ined. If archaeology ring$ 3edical di$cour$e clo$er to a

nu3er of 8ractice$6 it i$ in order to di$co%er far le$$ Gi33ediateG relation$ than eD8re$$ion6 ut far 3ore direct relation$ thantho$e of a cau$ality co33unicated through the con$ciou$ne$$ of the $8ea<ing $uJect$. It wi$he$ to $how not how 8olitical

8ractice ha$ deter3ined the 3eaning and for3 of 3edical di$cour$e6 ut how and in what for3 it ta<e$ 8art in it$ condition$

of e3ergence6 in$ertion6 and functioning. Thi$ relation 3ay he a$$igned to $e%eral le%el$. Fir$t to that of the di%i$ion anddeli3itation of the 3edical oJect@ not6 of cour$e6 that it wa$ 8olitical 8ractice that fro3 the early nineteenth century

i38o$ed on 3edicine $uch new oJect$ a$ ti$$ular le$ion$ or the anato3o;8hy$iological correlation$H ut it o8ened u8 new

field$ for the 3a88ing of 3edical oJect$ >the$e field$ are con$tituted y the 3a$$ of the 8o8ulation ad3ini$trati%ely co3; 8art3ented and $u8er%i$ed6 gauged according to certain nor3$ of life and health6 and analy$ed according to docu3entary

and $tati$tical for3$ of regi$trationH they are al$o con$tituted y the great con$cri8t ar3ie$ of the re%olutionary and

Na8oleonic 8eriod6 with their $8ecific for3 of 3edical controlH they are al$o con$tituted y the in$titution$ of ho$8itala$$i$tance that were defined at the end of the eighteenth and the eginning of the nineteenth centurie$6 in relation to the

econo3ic need$ of the ti3e6 and to the reci8rocal 8o$ition of the $ocial cla$$e$?. One can al$o $ee the a88earance of thi$

relation of 8olitical 8ractice to 3edical di$cour$e in the $tatu$ accorded to the doctor6 who eco3e$>>&2??

not only the 8ri%ileged6 ut al$o %irtually the eDclu$i%e6 enunciator of thi$ di$cour$e6 in the for3 of in$titutional relation thatthe doctor 3ay ha%e with the ho$8italied 8atient or with hi$ 8ri%ate 8ractice6 in the 3odalitie$ of teaching and diffu$ion that

are 8re$cried or authoried for thi$ <nowledge. ,a$tly6 one can gra$8 thi$ relation in the function that i$ attriuted to 3edical

di$cour$e6 or in the role that i$ reBuired of it6 when it i$ a Bue$tion of Judging indi%idual$6 3a<ing ad3ini$trati%e deci$ion$6

laying down the nor3$ of a $ociety6 tran$lating in order to Gre$ol%eG or to conceal the3 conflict$ of another order6 gi%ing



3odel$ of a natural ty8e to analy$e$ of $ociety and to the 8ractice$ that concern it. It i$ not a Bue$tion6 then6 of $howing how

the 8olitical 8ractice of a gi%en $ociety con$tituted or 3odified the 3edical conce8t$ and theor etical $tructure of 8athologyH

ut how 3edical di$cour$e a$ a 8ractice concerned with a 8articular field of oJect$6 finding it$elf in the hand$ of a certainnu3er of $tatutorily de$ignated indi%idual$6 and ha%ing certain function$ to eDerci$e in $ociety6 i$ articulated on 8ractice$

that are eDternal to it6 and which are not the3$el%e$ of a di$cur$i%e order.

If in thi$ analy$i$ archaeology $u$8end$ the the3e of eD8re$$ion and refleDion6 if it refu$e$ to $ee in di$cour$e the $urface

of the $y3olic 8roJection of e%ent$ or 8roce$$e$ that are $ituated el$ewhere6 it i$ not in order to redi$co%er a cau$al $eBuencethat 3ight e de$cried 8oint y 8oint6 and which would 3a<e it 8o$$ile to relate a di$co%ery and an e%ent6 or a conce8t and

a $ocial $tructure. *ut on the other hand if it $u$8end$ $uch a cau$al analy$i$6 if it wi$he$ to a%oid the nece$$ary conneDion

through the $8ea<ing $uJect6 it i$ not in order to guarantee the $o%ereign6 $ole inde8endence of di$cour$eH it i$ in order todi$co%er the do3ain of eDi$tence and functioning of a di$cur$i%e 8ractice. In other word$6 the archaeological de$cri8tion of

di$cour$e$ i$ de8loyed in the di3en$ion of a general hi$toryH it $ee<$ to di$co%er that whole do3ain of in$titution$6 econo3ic

8roce$$e$6 and $ocial relation$ on which a di$cur$i%e for3ation can e articulatedH it trie$ to $how how the autono3y of di$cour$e and it$ $8ecificity ne%erthele$$ do not gi%e it the $tatu$ of 8ure ideality and total hi$torical inde8endenceH what it

wi$he$ to unco%er i$ the 8articular le%el in which hi$tory can gi%e 8lace to definite ty8e$ of di$cour$e6 which ha%e their own

ty8e of hi$toricity6 and which are related to a whole $et of %ariou$ hi$toricitie$.

5. CHAN!E A)d TRANSFORMATIONS

,et u$ now turn to the archaeological de$cri8tion of change. :hate%er theoretical critici$3$ one can 3a<e of the traditionalhi$tory of idea$6 it doe$ at lea$t ta<e a$ it$ e$$ential the3e the 8heno3ena of te38oral $ucce$$ion and $eBuence6 analy$e$

the3 in accordance with $che3ata of e%olution6 and thu$ de$crie$ the hi$torical de8loy3ent of di$;cour$e$. Archaeology6howe%er6 $ee3$ to treat hi$tory only to freee it. On the one hand6 y de$criing di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 it ignore$ the

te38oral relation$ that 3ay he 3anife$ted in the3H it $ee<$ general rule$ that will he unifor3ly %alid6 in the $a3e way6 and at

e%ery 8oint in ti3e@ doe$ it not6 therefore6 i38o$e the con$tricting figure of a $ynchrony on a de%elo83ent that 3ay he $low

and i38erce8tile In thi$ Gworld of idea$G6 which i$ in it$elf $o untru$tworthy6 in which a88arently the 3o$t $tale figure$

di$a88ear $o Buic<ly6 ut in which $o 3any irregularitie$ occur that are later accorded definiti%e $tatu$6 in which the future

alway$ antici8ate$ it$elf6 wherea$ the 8a$t i$ con$tantly $hifting6 i$ not archaeology %alid a$ a $ort of 3otionle$$ thoughtAnd6 on the other hand6 when it doe$ ha%e recour$e to chronology6 it i$ only6 it $ee3$6 in order to fiD6 at the li3it$ of the

8o$iti%itie$6 two 8in8oint$@ the 3o3ent at which they are orn and the 3o3ent at which they

>>&4??

di$a88ear6 a$ if duration wa$ u$ed only to fiD thi$ crude calendar6 and wa$ o3itted throughout the analy$i$ it$elfH a$ if ti3eeDi$ted only in the %acant 3o3ent of ru8ture6 in that white6 8aradoDically ate38oral crac< in which one $udden for3ulation

re8lace$ another. :hether a$ a $ynchrony of 8o$iti%itie$6 or a$ an in$tantaneity of $u$titution$6 ti3e i$ a%oided6 and with it

the 8o$$iility of a hi$torical de$cri8tion di$a88ear$. "i$cour$e i$ $natched fro3 the law of de%elo83ent and e$tali$hed in adi$continuou$ ate38orality. It i$ i33oilied in frag3ent$@ 8recariou$ $8linter$ of eternity. *ut there i$ nothing one can do

aout it@ $e%eral eternitie$ $ucceeding one another6 a 8lay of fiDed i3age$ di$a88earing in turn6 do not con$titute either

3o%e3ent6 ti3e6 or hi$tory.*ut the 8role3 3u$t e eDa3ined in greater detail.

,et u$ ta<e fir$t the a88arent $ynchrony of di$cur$i%e for3ation$. One thing i$ true@ it i$ no u$e e$tali$hing the rule$ in e%ery$tate3ent6 and they cannot therefore he 8ut into o8eration with e%ery $tate3ent6 they do not change each ti3eH they can he

found at wor< in $tate3ent$ or grou8$ of $tate3ent$ in widely $e8arated 8eriod$. :e ha%e $een6 for eDa38le6 that for nearly a

century fro3 Tournefort to +u$$ieu the %ariou$ oJect$ of Natural 'i$tory oeyed the $a3e rule$ of for3ationH we ha%e



$een that the theory of attriution i$ the $a3e and 8lay$ the $a3e role in the wor< of ,ancelot6 Condillac6 and "e$tutt de

Tracy. Moreo%er6 we ha%e $een that the order of $tate3ent$ a$ed on archaeological deri%ation did not nece$$arily re8roduce

the order of $ucce$$ion$@ one can find in *eauee $tate3ent$ that are archeologically anterior to tho$e to e found in. the/ra33aire of Port;!oyal. In $uch an analy$i$6 therefore6 there i$ a $u$8en$ion of te38oral $ucce$$ion$ or6 to e 3ore

8reci$e6 of the calendar of for3ulation$. *ut thi$ $u$8en$ion i$ intended 8reci$ely to re%eal the relation$ that characterie the

te38orality of di$cur$i%e for3ation$ and articulate the3 in $erie$ who$e inter$ection in no way 8reclude$ analy$i$.

>a? Archaeology define$ the rule$ of for3ation of a grou8 of $tate;3ent$. In thi$ way it $how$ how a $ucce$$ion of e%ent$ 3ay6 in the $a3e

>>&0??

order in which it i$ 8re$ented6 eco3e an oJect of di$cour$e6 e recorded6 de$cried6 eD8lained6 elaorated into conce8t$6 and

8ro%ide the o88ortunity for a theoretical choice. Archaeology analy$e$ the degree and for3 of 8er3eaility of a di$cour$e@ it 8ro%ide$ the 8rinci8le of it$ articulation o%er a chain of $ucce$$i%e e%ent$H it define$ the o8erator$ y which the e%ent$ are

tran$cried into $tate3ent$. It doe$ not challenge6 for eDa38le6 the relation etween the Analy$i$ of :ealth and the great

3onetary fluctuation$ of the $e%enteenth and early eighteenth centurie$H it trie$ to $how what6 in the$e cri$e$6 could e gi%ena$ an oJect of di$cour$e6 how tho$e cri$e$ could e conce8tualied in $uch an oJect6 how the intere$t$ that were in conflict

throughout the$e 8roce$$e$ could de8loy their $trategy in the3. Or again6 it doe$ not clai3 that the cholera e8ide3ic of &2wa$ not an e%ent that concerned 3edicine@ it $how$ how clinical di$cour$e 8ut into o8eration $uch a ody of rule$ that a

whole do3ain of 3edical oJect$ could then e reorganied6 that a whole grou8 of 3ethod$ of recording and nota;tion could

e u$ed6 that the conce8t of infla33ation could e aandoned and the old theoretical 8role3 of fe%er$ could e re$ol%ed

definiti%ely. Archaeology doe$ not deny the 8o$$iility of new $tate3ent$ in correlation with GeDternalG e%ent$. It$ ta$< i$ to

$how on what condition a correlation can eDi$t etween the36 and what 8reci$ely it con$i$t$ of >what are it$ li3it$6 it$ for36

it$ code6 it$ law of 8o$$iility?. It doe$ not try to a%oid that 3oility of di$cour$e$ that 3a<e$ the3 3o%e to the rhyth3 of

e%ent$H it trie$ to free the le%el at which it i$ $et in 3otion what 3ight he called the le%el of Ge%entialG engage;3ent. >An

engage3ent that i$ $8ecific for e%ery di$cur$i%e for3ation6 and which doe$ not ha%e the $a3e rule$6 the $a3e o8erator$6 or

the $a3e $en$iility in6 for eDa38le6 the Analy$i$ of :ealth and in Political Econo3y6 in the old 3edicine of theGcon$titution$G and in 3odern e8ide3iology.?

>h? Moreo%er6 all the rule$ of for3ation a$$igned y archaeology to a 8o$iti%ity do not ha%e the $a3e generality@ $o3e are

3ore $8ecific and deri%e fro3 other$. Thi$ $uordination 3ay e 3erely hierarchical ut it 3ay al$o in%ol%e a te38oral

%ector. Thu$ in /eneral /ra33ar6 the theory of the %er;attriution and that of the noun;articulation are lin<ed to oneanother@ and the $econd deri%e$ fro3 the fir$t6 ut

>>&-??

without it eing 8o$$ile to deter3ine an order of $ucce$$ion etween the3 >other than the deducti%e

or rhetorical order that ha$ een cho$en for the eD8o$e?. On the other hand6 the analy$i$ of the co3; 8le3ent or the $earch for root$ could a88ear >or rea88ear? only when the analy$i$ of the attriuti%e

$entence or the notion of the noun a$ an analytic $ign of re8re$entation had een de%elo8ed. Another

eDa38le@ in the Cla$$ical 8eriod6 the 8rinci8le of the continuity of eing$ i$ i38lied in thecla$$ification of $8ecie$ according to $tructural character$H and in thi$ $en$e they are $i3ultaneou$H on

the other hand6 it i$ only when thi$ cla$$ification i$ underta<en that the lacunae and ga8$ 3ay einter8reted in the categorie$ of a hi$tory of nature6 of the earth6 and of the $8ecie$. In other word$6 the

archaeological ra3ification of the rule$ of for3ation i$ not a unifor3ly $i3ultaneou$ networ<@ there

eDi$t relation$6 ranche$6 deri%ation$ that are te38orally neutralH there eDi$t other$ that i38ly a 8articular te38oral direction. Archaeology6 then6 ta<e$ a$ it$ 3odel neither a 8urely logical $che3a of

$i3ultaneitie$H nor a linear $ucce$$ion of e%ent$H ut it trie$ to $how the inter$ection etween

nece$$arily $ucce$$i%e relation$ and other$ that are not $o. It doe$ not elie%e6 therefore6 that a $y$te3

of 8o$iti%ity i$ a $ynchronic figure that one can 8ercei%e only y $u$8ending the whole of thediachronic 8roce$$. Far fro3 eing indifferent to $ucce$$ion6 archaeology 3a8$ the te38oral %ector$

of deri%ation.

Archaeology doe$ not $et out to treat a$ $i3ultaneou$ what i$ gi%en a$ $ucce$$i%eH it doe$ not tryto freee ti3e and to $u$titute for it$ fluD of e%ent$ correlation$ that outline a 3otionle$$ figure.

:hat it $u$8end$ i$ the the3e that $ucce$$ion i$ an a$olute@ a 8ri3ary6 indi$$ociale $eBuence to

which di$cour$e i$ $uJected y the law of it$ finitudeH it i$ al$o the the3e that there i$ in di$cour$eonly one for3 and only one le%el of $ucce$$ion. For the$e the3e$6 it $u$titute$ analy$e$ that re%eal

oth the %ariou$ for3$ of $ucce$$ion that are $u8er8o$ed in di$cour$e >and y for3$ I do not $i38ly3ean the rhyth3$ or cau$e$6 ut the $erie$ the3$el%e$?6 and the way in which the $ucce$$ion$ thu$



$8ecified are articulated. In$tead of following the thread of an original calendar6 in relation to which

one would e$tali$h the chronology of $ucce$$i%e or $i3ultaneou$ e%ent$6 that of $hort or la$ting

8roce$$e$6 that of 3o3entary or 8er3anent 8heno3ena6 one trie$ to $how how it i$

>>&)?? 8o$$ile for there to e $ucce$$ion6 and at what different le%el$ di$tinct $ucce$$ion$ are to e found. To con$titute an

archaeological hi$tory of di$cour$e6 then6 one 3u$t free one$elf of two 3odel$ that ha%e for $o long i38o$ed their i3age@ the

linear 3odel of $8eech >and 8artly at lea$t of writing?6 in which all e%ent$ $ucceed one another6 without any effect of coincidence and $u8er8o$itionH and the 3odel of the $trea3 of con$ciou$ne$$ who$e 8re$ence alway$ elude$ it$elf in it$

o8enne$$ to the future and it$ retention of the 8a$t. ParadoDical a$ it 3ay e6 di$;cur$i%e for3ation$ do not ha%e the $a3e

3odel of hi$toricity a$ the flow of con$ciou$ne$$ or the linearity of language. "i$cour$e6 at lea$t a$ analy$ed y archaeology6that i$6 at the le%el of it$ 8o$iti%ity6 i$ not a con$ciou$ne$$ that e3odie$ it$ 8roJect in the eDternal for3 of language >langage?H

it i$ not a language >longue?6 8lu$ a $uJect to $8ea< it. It i$ a 8ractice that ha$ it$ own for3$ of $eBuence and $ucce$$ion.

Archaeology i$ 3uch 3ore willing than the hi$tory of idea$ to $8ea< of di$continuitie$6 ru8ture$6 ga8$6 entirely new for3$ of 8o$iti%ity6 and of $udden redi$triution$. The 8ractice of 8olitical econo3y wa$6 traditionally6 to $ee< e%erything that led u8 to

!icardo6 e%erything that could fore$hadow hi$ analy$e$6 3ethod$6 and 8rinci8al notion$6 e%ery;thing that tended to 3a<e hi$di$co%erie$ 3ore 8roaleH the 8ractice of the hi$tory of co38arati%e gra33ar wa$ to redi$co%er eyond *o88 and Rask

— earlier re$earch into the filiation and <in$hi8 of language$H it wa$ to deter3ine how 3uch AnBuetil;"u8erron contriuted

toward$ the con$titution of an Indo;Euro8ean do3ainH it wa$ to unco%er the fir$t co38ari$on >3ade in &)-? of San$<rit and

,atin conJugation$H it 3ay e%en lead one ac< to 'arri$ or !a3u$. Archaeology 8roceed$ in the o88o$ite direction@ it $ee<$rather to untie all tho$e <not$ that hi$torian$ ha%e 8atiently tiedH it increa$e$ difference$6 lur$ the line$ of co33unication6

and trie$ to 3a<e it 3ore difficult to 8a$$ fro3 one thing to anotherH it doe$ not try to $how that the Phy$io cratic analy$i$ of

8roduction fore$hadowed that of !icardoH it doe$ not regard it a$ rele%ant to it$ own analy$e$ to $ay that CceurdouDfore$hadowed *o88.

:hat doe$ thi$ in$i$tence on di$continuitie$ corre$8ond to In fact6 it

>>&??

i$ 8aradoDical only in relation to the 8ractice of the hi$torian$ of idea$. It i$ rather the hi$tory of idea$ with it$ concern for continuitie$6 tran$ition$6 antici8ation$6 and fore$hadowing$ that 8lay$ with 8aradoD. Fro3 "auenton to Cu%ier6 fro3

AnBuetil to *o886 fro3 /ra$lin6 Turgot6 or Foronnai$ to !icardo e%en $uch a chronologically $3all ga8 the

difference$ are innu3erale@ $o3e are localied6 other$ are 3ore generalH $o3e concern 3ethod$6 other$ conce8t$H$o3eti3e$ they concern the do3ain of oJect$6 at other$ the whole lingui$tic in$tru3ent. More $tri<ing $till i$ the eDa38le

of 3edicine@ in a Buarter of a century6 fro3 &)9 to &&06 3edical di$cour$e changed 3ore 8rofoundly than $ince the

$e%enteenth century6 8roaly than $ince the Middle Age$6 and 8erha8$ e%en $ince /ree< 3edicine@ a change that re%ealednew oJect$ >organic le$ion$6 dee8 $ite$6 ti$$ular alteration$6 way$ and for3$ of inter;organic diffu$ion6 anato3oclinical $ign$

and correlation$?6 techniBue$ of o$er%ation6 of detection of the 8athological $ite6 recordingH a new 8erce8tual grid6 and on

al3o$t entirely new de$cri8ti%e %ocaularyH new $et$ of conce8t$ and no$ogra8hical di$triution$ >century;old6 $o3eti3e$age;old categorie$ $uch a$ fe%er or con$titution di$a88eared6 and di$ea$e$ that are 8erha8$ a$ old a$ the world li<e

tuerculo$i$ were at la$t i$olated and na3ed?. Tho$e who $ay that archaeology in%ent$ difference$ in an aritrary way can

ne%er ha%e o8ened ,a No$ogra8hic 8hilo$o8hiBue and the Traite de$ 3e3rane$. Archaeology i$ $i38ly trying to ta<e $uchdifference$ $eriou$ly@ to throw $o3e light on the 3atter6 to deter3ine how they are di%ided u86 how they are entangled with

one another6 how they go%ern or are go%erned y one another6 to which di$tinct categorie$ they elongH in $hort6 to de$crie

the$e difference$6 not to e$tali$h a $y$te3 of difference$ etween the3. If there i$ a 8aradoD in archae ology6 it i$ not that itincrea$e$ difference$6 ut that it refu$e$ to reduce the3 thu$ in%erting the u$ual %alue$. For the hi$tory of idea$6 the

a88earance of difference indicate$ an error6 or a tra8H in$tead of eDa3ining it6 the cle%er hi$torian 3u$t try to reduce it@ tofind eneath it a $3aller difference6 and eneath that an e%en $3aller one6 and $o on until he reache$ the ideal li3it6 the non;

difference of 8erfect continuity. Archaeology6 on the other hand6 ta<e$ a$ the oJect of it$ de$cri8tion what i$ u$ually

regarded a$ an o$tacle@ it$ ai3 i$ not to o%erco3e difference$6 ut to analy$e the36 to $ay what



((189))

eDactly they con$i$t of6 to differentiate the3. 'ow doe$ thi$ differen;tiation o8erate

&. In$tead of con$idering that di$cour$e i$ 3ade u8 of a $erie$ of ho3ogeneou$ e%ent$ >indi%idual for3ulation$?6

archaeology di$;tingui$he$ $e%eral 8o$$ile le%el$ of e%ent$ within the %ery den$ity of di$cour$e@ the le%el of the $tate3ent$the3$el%e$ in their uniBue e3ergenceH the le%el of the a88earance of oJect$6 ty8e$ of enunciation6 conce8t$6 $trategic

choice$ >or tran$for3ation$ that affect tho$e that already eDi$t?H the le%el of the deri%ation of new rule$ of for3a;tion on the

a$i$ of rule$ that are already in o8eration ut alway$ in the ele3ent of a $ingle 8o$iti%ityH la$tly6 a fourth le%el6 at whichthe $u$titution of one di$cur$i%e for3ation for another ta<e$ 8lace >or the 3ere a88earance and di$a88earance of a

8o$iti%ity?. The$e e%ent$6 which are y far the 3o$t rare6 are6 for archaeology6 the 3o$t i38ortant@ only archaeology6 in any

ca$e6 can re%eal the3. *ut they are not the eDclu$i%e oJect of it$ de$cri8tionH it would e a 3i$ta<e to thin< that they ha%ean a$olute control o%er all the other$6 and that they lead to $i3ilar6 $i3ultaneou$ ru8ture$ at the different le%el$

di$tingui$hed ao%e. All the e%ent$ that occur within the den$ity of di$cour$e are not i33ediately elow one another. Of

cour$e6 the a88earance of a di$cur$i%e for3ation i$ often correlati%e with a %a$t renewal of oJect$6 for3$ of enunciation6conce8t$6 and $trategie$ >a 8rinci8le that i$ not uni%er$al howe%er@ /eneral /ra33ar wa$ e$tali$hed in the $e%enteenth

century without 3uch a88arent alteration in gra33atical tradition?H ut it i$ not 8o$$ile to deter3ine the 8articu lar conce8t

or oJect that $uddenly 3anife$t$ it$ 8re$ence. One $hould not de$crie $uch an e%ent6 therefore6 in accordance withcategorie$ that 3ay e $uitale for the e3ergence of a for3ulation6 or the a88earance of a new word. It i$ u$ele$$ to a$< of

$uch an e%ent Bue$tion$ li<e@ :ho i$ it$ author :ho i$ $8ea<ing In what circu3$tance$ and in what conteDt :ith what

intention$6 what 8roJect in 3indG The a88earance of a new 8o$iti%ity i$ not indicated y a new $entence uneD8ected6$ur8ri$ing6 logically un8redictale6 $tyli$tically de%iant that i$ in$erted into a teDt6 and announce$ either the o8ening of a

new cha8ter6 or the entry of a new $8ea<er. It i$ an e%ent of a Buite different ty8e.

i



>>&9??2. In order to analy$e $uch e%ent$6 it i$ not enough $i38ly to indicate change$6 and to relate the3 i33ediately to the

theological6 ae$thetic 3odel of creation >with it$ tran$cendence6 with all it$ originalitie$ and in%ention$?6 or to the

8$ychological 3odel of the act of con$ciou$ne$$ >with it$ 8re%iou$ o$curity6 it$ antici8ation$6 it$ fa%ourale circu3$tance$6it$ 8ower$ of re$toration?6 or to the iological 3odel of e%olution. :e 3u$t define 8reci$ely what the$e change$ con$i$t of@

that i$6 $u$titute for an undifferentiated reference to change which i$ oth a general container for all e%ent$ and thea$tract 8rinci8le of their $ucce$$ion the analy$i$ of tran$for3ation$. The di$a88earance of one 8o$iti%ity and thee3ergence of another i38lie$ $e%eral ty8e$ of tran$;for3ation. *y going fro3 the 3ore 8articular to the 3ore general6 one

can and 3u$t de$crie@ how the different ele3ent$ of a $y$te3 of for3ation were tran$for3ed >what6 for eDa38le6 were the

%ariation$ in the rate of une38loy3ent and laour need$6 what were the 8olitical deci$ion$ concerning the guild$ and theuni%er$itie$6 what were the new need$ and new 8o$$iilitie$ of 8ulic a$$i$tance at the end of the eighteenth century all

the$e were ele3ent$ in the $y$te3 of for3a;tion of clinical 3edicine?H how the characteri$tic relation$ of a $y$te3 of for3ation were tran$for3ed >how6 in the 3iddle of the $e%enteenth century6 for eDa38le6 the relation etween the 8erce8tual

field6 the lingui$tic code6 the u$e of in$tru3ent$6 and infor3ation that wa$ 8ut into o8eration y the di$cour$e on li%ing eing$

wa$ 3odified6 thu$ 3a<ing 8o$$ile the definition of the oJect$ 8ro8er to Natural 'i$;tory?H how the relation$ etweendifferent rule$ of for3ation were tran$for3ed >how6 for eDa38le6 iology 3odified the order and the de8endence that Natural

'i$tory had e$tali$hed etween the theory of characteriation and the analy$i$ of te38oral deri%ation$?H la$tly6 how the

relation$ etween %ariou$ 8o$iti%itie$ were tran$for3ed >how the relation$ etween 8hilology6 iology6 and econo3ic$tran$for3 the relation$ etween /eneral /ra33ar6 Natural 'i$tory6 and the Analy$i$ of :ealthH how the interdi$cur$i%e

configuration outlined y the 8ri%ileged relation$ of the$e three di$ci8line$ i$ deco38o$edH how their re$8ecti%e relation$ with

3athe3atic$ and 8hilo$o8hy are 3odifiedH how a 8lace e3erge$ for other di$cur$i%e for3ation$ and6 in 8articular6 for thatinter8o$iti%ity that wa$ later to a$$u3e the na3e of the hu3an $cience$?. !ather than refer to the li%ing force of change >a$ if

it were



>>&&??

it$ own 8rinci8le?6 rather than $ee< it$ cau$e$ >a$ if it were no 3ore than a 3ere effect?6 archaeology trie$ to e$tali$h the

$y$te3 of tran$;for3ation$ that con$titute GchangeGH it trie$ to de%elo8 thi$ e38ty6 a$tract notion6 with a %iew to according itthe analy$ale $tatu$ of tran$for3ation. It i$ under$tandale that $o3e 3ind$ are $o attached to all tho$e old 3eta8hor$ y

which6 for a century and a half6 hi$tory >3o%e3ent6 fluD6 e%olution? ha$ een i3agined6 that they $ee archaeology $i38ly a$the negation of hi$tory and the crude affir3ation of di$continuityH the truth i$ that they cannot acce8t that change $hould e

clean$ed of all the$e ad%entitiou$ 3odel$6 that it $hould e de8ri%ed of oth it$ 8ri3acy a$ a uni%er$al law and it$ $tatu$ a$ a

general effect6 and that it $hould e re8laced y the analy$i$ of %ariou$ tran$for3ation$.

. To $ay that one di$cur$i%e for3ation i$ $u$tituted for another i$ not to $ay that a whole world of a$olutely newoJect$6 enunciation$6 conce8t$6 and theoretical choice$ e3erge$ fully ar3ed and fully organied in a teDt that will 8lace that

world once and for allH it i$ to $ay that a general tran$for3ation of relation$ ha$ occurred6 ut that it doe$ not nece$$arily

alter all the ele3ent$H it i$ to $ay that $tate3ent$ are go%erned y new rule$ of for3ation6 it i$ not to $ay that all oJect$ or conce8t$6 all enunciation$ or all theoretical choice$ di$a88ear. On the contrary6 one can6 on the a$i$ of the$e new rule$6

de$crie and analy$e 8heno3ena of continuity6 return6 and re8etition@ we 3u$t not forget that a rule of for3ation i$ neither

the deter3ination of an oJect6 nor the characteriation of a ty8e of enunciation6 nor the for3 or content of a conce8t6 ut the 8rinci8le of their 3ulti8licity and di$8er$ion. One of the$e ele3ent$ or $e%eral of the3 3ay re3ain identical >8re$er%e

the $a3e di%i$ion6 the $a3e characteri$tic$6 the $a3e $tructure$?6 yet elong to different $y$te3$ of di$8er$ion6 and e

go%erned y di$tinct law$ of for3ation. One can find in $uch 8heno3ena therefore@ ele3ent$ that re3ain throughout $e%eraldi$tinct 8o$iti%itie$6 their for3 and content re3aining the $a3e6 ut their for3ation$ eing heterogeneou$ >$uch a$ 3onetary

circulation a$ an oJect fir$t in the Analy$i$ of :ealth6 and then in 8olitical econo3yH the conce8t of character fir$t in

Natural 'i$tory6 then in iology?H ele3ent$ that are con$tituted6 3odified6 organied in one di$cur$i%e for3ation6 and which6

$tailied at la$t6 figure in another >$uch a$ the conce8t of refleD6 which6 a$

>>&2??

/. Canguilhe3 ha$ $hown6 wa$ for3ed in Cla$$ical $cience fro3 :illi$ to Procha$<a6 then entered 3odern 8hy$iology?H

ele3ent$ that a88ear later6 a$ an ulti3ate deri%ation in a di$cur$i%e for3ation6 and which occu8y an i38ortant 8lace in a later

for3ation >$uch a$ the notion of organi$36 which a88eared at the end of the eighteenth century in Natural 'i$tory6 and a$ the



re$ult of a whole taDono3ic enter8ri$e of characteriation6 and which eca3e the 3aJor conce8t of iology at the ti3e of

Cu%ierH or the notion of le$ional $ite6 which Morgagni di$co%ered6 and which eca3e one of the 8rinci8al conce8t$ of clinical

3edicine?H ele3ent$ that rea88ear after a 8eriod of de$uetude6 oli% ion6 or e%en in%alidation >$uch a$ the return to a ,innaeanty8e of fiDi$3 in a iologi$t li<e Cu%ierH or the reacti%ation in the eighteenth century of the old notion of an original

language?. The 8role3 for archaeology i$ not to deny $uch 8heno3ena6 nor to try to di3ini$h their i38ortanceH ut6 on the

contrary6 to try to de$crie and 3ea$ure the3@ how can $uch 8er3anence$ or re8etition$6 $uch long $eBuence$ or $uch cur%e$ 8roJected through ti3e eDi$t Archaeology doe$ not hold the content for the 8ri3ary and ulti3ate dor3ee that 3u$t account

for all the re$tH on the contrary6 it con$ider$ that the $a3e6 the re8etiti%e6 and the uninterru8ted are no le$$ 8role3atic thanthe ru8ture$H for archaeology6 the identical and the continuou$ are not what 3u$t e found at the end of the analy$i$H theyfigure in the ele3ent of a di$;cur$i%e 8racticeH they too are go%erned y the rule$ of for3ation of 8o$iti%itie$H far fro3

3anife$ting that funda3ental6 rea$$uring inertia which we li<e to u$e a$ a criterion of change6 they are the3$el%e$ acti%ely6

regularly for3ed. And to tho$e who 3ight e te38ted to criticie archaeology for concerning it$elf 8ri3arily with theanaly$i$ of the di$continuou$6 to all tho$e agora8hoic$ of hi$tory and ti3e6 to all tho$e who confu$e ru8ture and irrationality6

I will re8ly@ It i$ you who de%alue the continuou$ y the u$e that you 3a<e of it. 5ou treat it a$ the $u88ort;ele3ent to whiche%erything el$e 3u$t e relatedH you treat it a$ the 8ri3ary law6 the e$$ential weight of any di$cur$i%e 8rac ticeH you would li<e

to analy$e e%ery 3odification in the field of thi$ inertia6 a$ one analy$e$ e%ery 3o%e3ent in the gra%itational field. *ut in

according thi$ $tatu$ to continuity6 you are 3erely neutraliing it6 dri%;ing it out to the outer li3it of ti3e6 toward$ an original 8a$$i%ity. Archaeology 8ro8o$e$ to in%ert thi$ arrange3ent6 or rather >for our



that carrie$ with it all di$cur$i%e for3ation$ at once@ ru8ture i$ not an undifferentiated inter;%al e%en a 3o3entary one

etween two 3anife$t 8ha$e$H it i$ not a <ind of la8$u$ without duration that $e8arate$ two 8eriod$6 and which de8loy$ two

heterogeneou$ $tage$ on either $ide of a $8litH it i$ alway$ a di$continuity $8ecified y a nu3er of di$tinct tran$for3ation$6

etween two 8articular 8o$iti%itie$. The analy$i$ of archaeological rea<$ $et$ out6 therefore6 to e$tali$h6 etween $o 3any

different change$6 analogie$ and difference$6 hierarchie$6 co38le3entaritie$6 coincidence$6 and $hift$@ in $hort6 to de$crie

the di$8er$ion of the di$continuitie$ the3$el%e$.

The idea of a $ingle rea< $uddenly6 at a gi%en 3o3ent6 di%iding all di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 interru8ting the3 in a $ingle3o3ent and recon$tituting the3 in accordance with the $a3e rule$ $uch an idea cannot e $u$tained. Theconte38oraneity of $e%eral tran$for3ation$ doe$ not 3ean their eDact chronological coincidence@ each tran$for3ation 3ay

ha%e it$ own 8articular indeD of te38oral %i$co$ityG. Natural 'i$tory6 /eneral /ra33ar6 and the Analy$i$ of :ealth were

con$tituted in $i3ilar way$6 and all three in the cour$e of the $e%enteenth centuryH ut the $y$te3 of for3ation of theAnaly$i$ of :ealth wa$ lin<ed with a great 3any condition$ and non;di$cur$i%e 8ractice$ >the circulation of good$6

3onetary 3ani8ulation$ and their effect$6 the $y$te3 of 8rotect;ing trade and 3anufacture$6 fluctuation$ in the Buantity of

3etal coined?@ hence the $lowne$$ of a 8roce$$ that la$ted for o%er a century >fro3 /ra33ont to Cantillon?6 wherea$ thetran$for3ation$ that had ta<en 8lace in /eneral /ra33ar and Natural 'i$tory had eDtended o%er $carcely 3ore than twenty;

fi%e year$. In%er$ely6 conte38orary6

>>&4??

$i3ilar6 and lin<ed tran$for3ation$ do not elong to a $ingle 3odel that i$ re8roduced $e%eral ti3e$ on the $urface of

di$cour$e$6 and i38o$e$ on all a $trictly identical for3 of ru8ture@ when one de$crie$ the archaeological rea< that led to

8hilology6 iology6 and econo3ic$6 one i$ $howing how the$e three 8o$iti%itie$ were lin<ed >y the di$a88earance of the

analy$i$ of the $ign6 and of the theory of re8re$entation?6 what $y33etrical effect$ it could 8roduce >the idea of a totality and

of an organic ada8tation a3ong li%ing eing$H the idea of 3or8hological coherence6 and of a regulated e%olution in

language$H the idea of a for3 of 8roduction that ha$ it$ internal law$ and it$ li3it$ of de%el o83ent?H ut it al$o $how$ what

were the $8ecific difference$ of the$e tran$for3ation$ >how in 8articular hi$toricity i$ introduced in a 8ar ticular way in the$e

three 8o$iti%itie$6 how their relation to hi$tory cannot therefore e the $a3e6 e%en though they all ha%e a 8articular relation

with it?.,a$tly6 there are i38ortant $hift$ etween different archaeological ru8ture$ and $o3eti3e$ e%en etween di$cur$i%e

for3ation$ that are %ery clo$e and lin<ed y a great 3any relation$. ,et u$ ta<e the di$ci8 line$ of language$ and hi$toricalanaly$i$@ the great tran$for3ation that ga%e ri$e at the eginning of the nineteenth century to a hi$torical6 co38arati%e

gra33ar 8receded y a good half;century the 3utation in hi$torical di$cour$e@ a$ a re$ult6 the $y$te3 of inter8o$iti%ity in

which 8hilology wa$ in%ol%ed wa$ 8rofoundly affected in the $econd half of the nineteenth century6 without the 8o$iti%ity of 8hilology e%er eing 8ut into Bue$tion. 'ence 8heno3ena of Gfrag3ented $hiftG6 of which we can cite at lea$t another fa3ou$

eDa38le@ conce8t$ li<e tho$e of $ur8lu$ %alue or falling rate of 8rofit6 a$ found in MarD6 3ay e de$cried on the a$i$ of the

$y$te3 of 8o$iti%ity that i$ already in o8eration in the wor< of !icardoH ut the$e conce8t$ >which are new6 ut who$e rule$ of for3ation are not? a88ear in MarD hi3$elf a$ elonging at the $a3e ti3e to a Buite different di$cur$i%e 8ractice@ they

are for3ed in that di$cur$i%e 8ractice in accordance with $8ecific law$6 they occu8y in it a different 8o$ition6 they do not

figure in the $a3e $eBuence$@ thi$ new 8o$iti%ity i$ not a tran$for3ation of !icardo G$ analy$e$H it i$ not a new 8oliticalecono3yH it i$ a di$cour$e that occurred around the deri%ation of certain econo3ic conce8t$6 ut which6 in turn6 define$ the

condition$ in which the di$cour$e of

>>&0??

econo3i$t$ ta<e$ 8lace6 and 3ay therefore e %alid a$ a theory and a critiBue of 8olitical econo3y.

Archaeology di$articulate$ the $ynchrony of rea<$6 Ju$t a$ it de$troyed the a$tract unity of changeand e%ent. The 8eriod i$ neither it$ a$ic unity6 nor it$ horion6 nor it$ oJect@ if it $8ea<$ of the$e thing$

it i$ alway$ in ter3$ of 8articular di$cur$i%e 8ractice$6 and a$ a re$ult of it$ analy$e$. The Cla$$ical age6

which ha$ often een 3entioned in archaeological analy$e$6 i$ not a te38oral figure that i38o$e$ it$unity and e38ty for3 on all di$cour$e$H it i$ the na3e that i$ gi%en to a tangle of continuitie$ and

di$continuitie$6 3odification$ within 8o$iti%itie$6 di$;cur$i%e for3ation$ that a88ear and di$a88ear.

Si3ilarly6 ru8ture i$ not for archaeology the 8ro8 of it$ analy$e$6 the li3it that it indicate$ fro3 afar6without eing ale either to deter3ine it or to gi%e it $8ecificityH ru8ture i$ the na3e gi%en to

tran$for3ation$ that ear on the general rule$ of one or $e%eral di$cur$i%e for3ation$. Thu$ the French!e%olution $ince u8 to now all archaeological analy$e$ ha%e een centred on it — doe$ not 8lay the

role of an e%ent eDterior to di$cour$e6 who$e di%i$i%e effect one i$ under $o3e <ind of oligation to

di$co%er in all di$;cour$e$H it function$ a$ a co38leD6 articulated6 de$criale grou8 of tran$for3ation$that left a nu3er of 8o$iti%itie$ intact6 fiDed for a nu3er of other$ rule$ that are $till with u$6 and al$o

e$tali$hed 8o$iti%itie$ that ha%e recently di$a88eared or are $till di$a88earing efore our eye$.



>>&-??

*. SCIENCE AND "NOWLED!E

A $ilent deli3itation ha$ een i38o$ed on all the 8receding analy$e$6 without the 8rinci8le go%erning

it6 or e%en it$ outline6 eing 3ade clear. All the eDa38le$ referred to elonged without eDce8tion to a

%ery $3all do3ain. In no way could I e $aid to ha%e Gco%eredG6 let alone analy$ed6 the i33en$e

do3ain of di$cour$e@ why did I $y$te3atically ignore GliteraryG6 G 8hilo$o8hicalG6 or G 8oliticalG teDt$ "o

not di$cur$i%e for3ation$ and $y$te3$ of 8o$iti%itie$ ha%e a 8lace in the3 too And if I wa$ re$tricting

3y attention to the $cience$6 why did I $ay nothing of 3athe3atic$6 8hy$ic$6 or che3i$try :hy did Iconcentrate on $o 3any duiou$6 $till i38reci$e di$ci8line$ that are 8erha8$ doo3ed for e%er to re3ain

elow the thre$hold of $cientificity In $hort6 what i$ the relation etween archaeology and the

analy$i$ of the $cience$

(a) POSITIVITIES, DISCIPLINES, SCIENCES

Fir$t Bue$tion@ doe$ not archaeology6 under the rather iarre ter3$ of Gdi$cur$i%e for3ation G andG 8o$iti%ityG6 de$crie what are Buite $i38ly 8$eudo;$cience$ >li<e 8$ycho8athology?6 $cience$ at the

8rehi$toric $tage >li<e Natural 'i$tory?6 or $cience$ entirely 8enetrated with ideology >li<e 8oliticalecono3y? I$ it not the 8ri%ileged analy$i$ of what will alway$ re3ain Bua$i;$cientific If one call$Gdi$ci8line$G grou8$ of

>>&)??

$tate3ent$ that orrow their organiation fro3 $cientific 3odel$6 which tend to coherence and de3on$trati%ity6 which are

acce8ted6 in$titutionalied6 tran$3itted6 and $o3eti3e$ taught a$ $cience$6 could one not $ay that archaeology de$crie$di$ci8line$ that are not really $cience$6 while e8i$te3ology de$crie$ $cience$ that ha%e een for3ed on the a$i$ of >or in

$8ite of? eDi$ting di$ci8line$

To the$e Bue$tion$ I can re8ly in the negati%e. Archaeology doe$ not de$crie di$ci8line$. At 3o$t6 $uch di$ci8line$ 3ay6 in

their 3anife$t de8loy3ent6 $er%e a$ $tarting;8oint$ for the de$cri8tion of 8o$iti%itie$H ut they do not fiD it$ li3it$@ they do not

i38o$e definiti%e di%i$ion$ u8on itH at the end of the analy$i$ they do not re;e3erge in the $a3e $tate in which they entered itHone cannot e$tali$h a i;uni%ocal relation etween e$tali$hed di$ci8line$ and di$cur$i%e for3ation$.

,et u$ ta<e an eDa38le of thi$ di$tortion. The linch;8in of Madne$$ and Ci%iliation wa$ the a88earance at the eginning

of the nineteenth century of a 8$ychiatric di$ci8line. Thi$ di$ci8line had neither the $a3e content6 nor the $a3e internal

organiation6 nor the $a3e 8lace in 3edicine6 nor the $a3e 8ractical function6 nor the $a3e 3ethod$ a$ the traditional cha8ter

on di$ea$e$ of the headG or ner%ou$ di$ea$e$G to e found in eighteenth;century 3edical treati$e$. *ut on eDa3ining thi$ new

di$ci8line6 we di$co%ered two thing$@ what 3ade it 8o$$ile at the ti3e it a88eared6 what rought aout thi$ great change in

the econo3y of conce8t$6 analy$e$6 and de3on$tration$6 wa$ a whole $et of relation$ etween ho$8italiation6 intern3ent6 thecondition$ and 8rocedure$ of $ocial eDclu$ion6 the rule$ of Juri$8rudence6 the nor3$ of indu$trial laour and ourgeoi$

3orality6 in $hort a whole grou8 of relation$ that characteried for thi$ di$cur$i%e 8ractice the for3ation of it$ $tate 3ent$H ut



thi$ 8ractice i$ not only 3anife$ted in a di$ci8line 8o$$e$$;ing a $cientific $tatu$ and $cientific 8reten$ion$H it i$ al$o found in

o8eration in legal teDt$6 in literature6 in 8hilo$o8hy6 in 8olitical deci$ion$6 and in the $tate3ent$ 3ade and the o8inion$

eD8re$$ed in daily life. The di$cur$i%e for3ation who$e eDi$tence wa$ 3a88ed y the 8$ychiatric di$ci8line wa$ notcoeDten$i%e with it6 far fro3 it@ it went well eyond the oundarie$ of 8$ychiatry. Moreo%er6 y going ac< in ti3e and trying

to di$co%er what6 in the $e%enteenth and eighteenth centurie$6 could ha%e 8receded the e$tali$h3ent of 8$ychiatry6 we

realied that there wa$ no $uch 8rior di$ci8line@ what had een $aid

((198))

on the $uJect of 3ania6 deliriu36 3elancholia6 and ner%ou$ di$ea$e$ y the doctor$ of the Cla$$ical 8eriod in no waycon$tituted. an autono3ou$ di$ci8line6 ut at 3o$t a co33entary on the analy$i$ of fe%er$6 of alteration$ in the hu3our$6 or

of affection$ of the rain. 'owe%er6 de$8ite the a$ence of any e$tali$hed di$ci8line6 a di$cur$i%e 8ractice6 with it$ own

regularity and con$i$tency6 wa$ in o8eration. Thi$ di$;cur$i%e 8ractice wa$ certainly 8re$ent in 3edicine6 ut it wa$ al$o to e found in ad3ini$trati%e regulation$6 in literary or 8hilo$o8hical teDt$6 in ca$ui$tic$6 in the theorie$ or 8roJect$ of

oligatory laour or a$$i$tance to the 8oor. In the Cla$$ical 8eriod6 therefore6 there were a di$cur$i%e for3ation and a

8o$iti%ity 8erfectly acce$$ile to de$cri8tion6 to which corre$8onded no definite di$ci8line that could e co38ared with 8$ychiatry.

*ut although it i$ true that 8o$iti%itie$ are not 3erely the doulet$ of e$tali$hed di$ci8line$6 are they not the 8rototy8e$

of future $cience$ *y di$cur$i%e for3ation6 doe$ one not 3ean the retro$8ecti%e 8roJection of $cience$ on their own 8a$t6the $hadow that they ca$t on what 8receded the3 and which thu$ a88ear$ to ha%e fore$hadowed the3 :hat we ha%e

de$cried6 for eDa38le6 a$ the Analy$i$ of :ealth or /eneral /ra33ar6 thu$ according the3 what wa$ 8erha8$ a highly

artificial autono3y6 wa$ it not6 Buite $i38ly6 8olitical econo3y in an inchoate $tate6 or a $tage 8rior to the e$tali$h3ent of atruly rigorou$ $cience of language I$ it archaeology trying6 y 3ean$ of a retrograde 3o%e3ent who$e legiti3acy it would

no dout e difficult to e$tali$h6 to regrou8 in an inde8endent di$cur$i%e 8ractice all the heterogeneou$ and di$8er$edele3ent$ who$e co38licity will 8ro%e to he nece$$ary to the e$tali$h3ent of a $cience

Again6 the an$wer 3u$t e in the negati%e. :hat wa$ analy$ed under the na3e of Natural 'i$tory doe$ not e3race6 in a

$ingle figure6 e%erything that in the $e%enteenth and eighteenth centurie$ 3ight %alidly con$titute a 8rototy8e of the $cienceof life6 and figure in it$ legiti3ate genealogy. The 8o$iti%ity thu$ re%ealed account$ for a nu3;er of $tate3ent$ concerning

the re$e3lance$ and difference$ etween eing$6 their %i$ile $tructure6 their $8ecific and generic character$6 their 8o$$ile

cla$$ification6 the di$continuitie$ that $e8arate the36 and the tran$ition$ that connect the3H ut it ignore$ a nu3er of other analy$e$ that date ne%erthele$$ fro3 the $a3e 8eriod6 and which

>>&??

al$o outline the ance$tral figure$ of iology@ the analy$i$ of refleD 3o%e3ent >which wa$ to ha%e $o 3uch i38ortance in thecon$titution of an anato3o;8hy$iology of the ner%ou$ $y$te3?6 the theory of ger3$ >which $ee3$ to antici8ate the 8role3$

of e%olution and genetic$?6 the eD8lanation of ani3al or %egetal growth >which wa$ to e one of the 3aJor Bue$tion$ of the

8hy$iology of organi$3$ in general?. More;o%er@ far fro3 antici8ating a future iology6 Natural 'i$tory a taDono3icdi$cour$e6 lin<ed to the theory of $ign$ and to the 8roJect of a $cience of order eDcluded6 y it$ $olidity and autono3y6 the

con$titution of a unitary $cience of life. Si3ilarly6 the di$cur$i%e for3ation de$cried a$ /eneral /ra33ar doe$ not ta<e intoaccount far fro3 it e%erything that could ha%e een $aid aout language in the Cla$$ical 8eriod6 and of which the

inheritance or re8udiation6 de%elo83ent or critiBue6 wa$ to e found later in 8hilology@ it ignored the 3ethod$ of *ilical

eDege$i$6 and that 8hilo$o8hy of language a$ for3ulated y (ico or 'erder. "i$cur$i%e for3ation$ are not6 therefore6 future$cience$ at the $tage at which6 $till uncon$ciou$ of the3$el%e$6 they are Buietly eing con$tituted@ they are not6 in fact6 in a

$tate of teleological $uordination in relation to the orthogene$i$ of the $cience$.

Should it e $aid6 therefore6 that there can he no $cience where there i$ a 8o$iti%ity6 and that 8o$iti%itie$ are alway$eDclu$i%e of the $cience$ Should it e $u88o$ed that in$tead of eing in a chronological relation to the $cience$6 they are in

fact alternati%e$ That they are6 in a way6 the 8o$iti%e figure of a certain e8i$te3ological defect. *ut here6 too6 one could finda counter;eDa38le. Clinical 3edicine i$ certainly not a $cience. Not only ecau$e it doe$ not co38ly with the for3al criteria6or attain the le%el of rigour eD8ected of 8hy$ic$6 che3i$try6 or e%en of 8hy$iologyH ut al$o ecau$e it in%ol%e$ a $carcely

organied 3a$$ of e38irical. o$er%ation$6 uncontrolled eD8eri3ent$ and re$ult$6 thera8eutic 8re$cri8tion$6 and in$titutional

regulation$. And yet thi$ non;$cience i$ not eDclu$i%e of $cience@ in the cour$e of the nineteenth century6 it e$tali$heddefinite relation$ etween $uch 8erfectly con$tituted $cience$ a$ 8hy$iology6 che3i$try6 or 3icroiologyH 3oreo%er6 it ga%e

ri$e to $uch di$cour$e$ a$ that of 3orid anato3y6 which it would e 8re$u38tuou$ no dout to call a fal$e $cience.

"i$cur$i%e for3ation$ can e identified6 therefore6 neither a$ $cience$6 nor a$ $carcely $cientific di$ci8line$6 nor a$ di$tant

8refiguration$



>>299??

of the $cience$ to co3e6 nor a$ for3$ that eDclude any $cientificity fro3 the out$et. :hat6 therefore6 i$ the relation etween

the 8o$iti%itie$ and the $cience$

(b) KNOWLEDGE (SAVOIR)

Po$iti%itie$ do not characterie for3$ of <nowledge whether they are a 8riori6 nece$$ary condition$ or for3$ of rationality

that ha%e6 in turn6 een 8ut into o8eration y hi$tory. *ut neither do they define the $tate of <nowledge at a gi%en 3o3ent inti3e@ they do not draw u8 a li$t of what6 fro3 that 3o3ent6 had een de3on$trated to e true and had a$$u3ed the $tatu$ of

definiti%ely acBuired <nowledge6 and a li$t of what6 on the other hand6 had een acce8ted without either 8roof or adeBuate

de3on$tration6 or of what had een acce8ted a$ a co33on elief or a elief de3anded y the 8ower of the i3agination. Toanaly$e 8o$iti%itie$ i$ to $how in accordance with which rule$ a di$cur$i%e 8ractice 3ay for3 grou8$ of oJect$6 enunciation$6

conce8t$6 or theoretical choice$. The ele3ent$ thu$ for3ed do not con$titute a $cience6 with a defined $tructure of idealityH

their $y$te3 of relation$ i$ certainly le$$ $trictH ut neither are they ite3$ of <nowledge 8iled u8 one on to8 of another6deri%ed fro3 heterogeneou$ eD8eri3ent$6 tradition$6 or di$co%erie$6 and lin<ed only y the identity of the $uJect that

8o$$e$$e$ the3. They are that on the a$i$ of which coherent >or incoherent? 8ro8o$ition$ are uilt u86 3ore or le$$ eDactde$cri8tion$ de%elo8ed6 %erification$ carried out6 theorie$ de8loyed. They for3 the 8recondition of what i$ later re%ealed and

which later function$ a$ an ite3 of <nowledge or an illu$ion6 an acce8ted truth or an eD8o$ed error6 a definiti%e acBui$ition or

an o$tacle $ur3ounted. Thi$ 8recondition 3ay not6 of cour$e6 e analy$ed a$ a donee6 a li%ed eD8erience6 $till i38licated inthe i3agination or in 8erce8tion6 which 3an<ing in the cour$e of it$ hi$tory too< u8 again in the for3 of rationality6 or which

each indi%idual 3u$t undergo on hi$ own account if he wi$he$ to redi$co%er the ideal 3eaning$ that are contained or

concealed within it. It i$ not a 8re;<nowledge or an archaic $tage in the 3o%e3ent that lead$ fro3 i33ediate <nowledge to

a8odicticityH it i$ a grou8 of ele3ent$ that would ha%e to e for3ed y a di$cur$i%e 8ractice if a $cientific di$cour$e wa$ to econ$tituted6 $8ecified not only y it$ for3 and

>>29&??rigour6 ut al$o y the oJect$ with which it deal$6 the ty8e$ of enunciation that it u$e$6 the conce8t$ that it 3ani8ulate$6 and

the $trategie$ that it e38loy$. Thu$ $cience i$ not lin<ed with that which 3u$t ha%e een li%ed6 or 3u$t e li%ed6 if theintention of ideality 8ro8er to it i$ to he e$tali$hedH ut with that which 3u$t ha%e een $aid or 3u$t e $aid if a

di$cour$e i$ to eDi$t that co38lie$6 if nece$$ary6 with the eD8eri3ental or for3al criteria of $cientificity.

Thi$ grou8 of ele3ent$6 for3ed in a regular 3anner y a di$cur$i%e 8racticeH and which are indi$8en$ale to thecon$titution of a $cience6 although they are not nece$$arily de$tined to gi%e ri$e to one6 can he called <nowledge. Knowledge

i$ that of which one can $8ea< in a di$;cur$i%e 8ractice6 and which i$ $8ecified y that fact@ the do3ain con$tituted y the

different oJect$ that will or will not acBuire a $cientific $tatu$ >the <nowledge of 8$ychiatry in the nineteenth century i$ notthe $u3 of what wa$ thought to he true6 ut the whole $et of 8ractice$6 $ingularitie$6 and de%iation$ of which one could $8ea<

in 8$ychiatric di$cour$e?H <nowledge i$ al$o the $8ace in which the $uJect 3ay ta<e u8 a 8o$ition and $8ea< of the oJect$

with which he deal$ in hi$ di$cour$e >in thi$ $en$e6 the <nowledge of clinical 3edicine i$ the whole grou8 of function$ of o$er%ation6 interrogation6 deci8her3ent6 recording6 and deci$ion that 3ay e eDerci$ed y the $uJect of 3edical di$cour$e?H

<nowledge i$ al$o the field of coordination and $uordination of $tate3ent$ in which conce8t$ a88ear6 and are defined6

a88lied and tran$for3ed >at thi$ le%el6 the <nowledge of Natural 'i$tory6 in the eighteenth century6 i$ not the $u3 of what wa$$aid6 ut the whole $et of 3ode$ and $ite$ in accordance with which one can integrate each new $tate3ent with the already

$aid?H la$tly6 <nowledge i$ defined y the 8o$$iilitie$ of u$e and a88ro8riation offered y di$cour$e >thu$6 the <nowledge of 8olitical econo3y6 in the Cla$$ical 8eriod6 i$ not the the$i$ of the different the$e$ $u$tained6 ut the totality of it$ 8oint$ of

articulation on other di$cour$e$ or on other 8ractice$ that are not di$;cur$i%e?. There are odie$ of <nowledge that are

inde8endent of the $cience$ >which are neither their hi$torical 8rototy8e$6 nor their 8ractical y;8roduct$?6 ut there i$ no<nowledge without a 8articular di$cur$i%e 8racticeH and any di$cur$i%e 8ractice 3ay he defined y the <nowledge that it

for3$.

In$tead of eD8loring the con$ciou$ne$$<nowledge >connai$$ance? >>292??

$cience aDi$ >which cannot e$ca8e $uJecti%ity?6 archaeology eD8lore$ the di$cur$i%e 8ractice<nowledge >$a%oir?$cience

aDi$.G And wherea$ the hi$tory of idea$ find$ the 8oint of alance of it$ analy$i$ in the ele3ent of connai$$ance >and i$ thu$

forced6 again$t it$ will6 to encounter the tran$cendental interrogation?6 archaeology find$ the 8oint of al ance of it$ analy$i$ in

$a%oir that i$.6 in a do3ain in which the $uJect i$ nece$$arily $ituated and de8endent6 and can ne%er figure a$ titular >either a$

a tran$cendental acti%ity6 or a$ e38irical con$ciou$ne$$?.

It i$ under$tandale in the$e condition$ that we $hould di$tingui$h carefully etween $cientific do3ain$ and archaeological

territorie$@ their articulation and their 8rinci8le$ of organiation are Buite different. Only 8ro;8o$ition$ that oey certain law$of con$truction elong to a do3ain of $cientificityH affir3ation$ that ha%e the $a3e 3eaning6 that $ay the $a3e thing6 that are

a$ true a$ they are6 ut which do not elong to the $a3e $y$te3aticity6 are eDcluded fro3 thi$ do3ain@ what "iderot G$ ,e !e%e

de dGAle3ert $ay$ aout the de%elo83ent of $8ecie$ 3ay well eD8re$$ certain of the conce8t$ or certain of the $cientifichy8othe$e$ of the 8eriodH it 3ay e%en antici8ate a future truthH it doe$ not elong to the do3ain of $cientificity of Natural



'i$tory6 ut it doe$ not elong to it$ archaeological territory6 if at lea$t one can di$co%er in o8eration in it the $a3e rule$ of

for3ation a$ in ,innaeu$6 *uffon6 "auenton6 or +u$$ieu. Archaeological territorie$ 3ay eDtend to GliteraryG or G8hilo$o8hicalG

teDt$6 a$ well a$ $cientific one$. Knowledge i$ to e found not only in de3on$tration$6 it can al$o he found in fiction6refleDion6 narrati%e account$6 in$titutional regulation$6 and 8olitical deci$ion$. The archaeological territory of Natural 'i$tory

include$ *onnetG$ Palingene$ie 8hilo$o8hiBue or *enoit de MailletG$ Tellia3ed6 although they do not co38ly to a great eDtent

with the acce8ted $cientific nor3$ of the 8eriod6 and e%en le$$6 of cour$e6 with tho$e that ca3e to e reBuired later. The

archaeological territory of /eneral /ra33ar e3race$ the i3agining$ of Fare d

G

Oli%et >which were ne%er accorded$cientific $tatu$6 and elong rather to the $8here of 3y$tical thought? no le$$ than the analy$i$ of attriuti%e 8ro8o$ition$

>which wa$ then acce8ted a$ e%ident truth6 and in which generati%e gra33ar 3ay now recognie it$ 8refigured truth?.

>>footnote??

G For the di$tinction etween connai$$ance and $a%oir6 cf. note 6 8. &-.

>>29??

"i$cur$i%e 8ractice doe$ not coincide with the $cientific de%elo8;3ent that it 3ay gi%e ri$e toH and the <nowledge that it

for3$ i$ neither an unfini$hed 8rototy8e nor the y;8roduct to e found in daily life of a con$tituted $cience. The $cience$ ignoring6 for the 3o3ent6 the difference etween di$cour$e$ that ha%e the $tatu$ of $cientificity6 or 8reten$ion$ to it6 and tho$e

that really 8re$ent the for3al criteria of a $cience a88ear in the ele3ent of a di$cur$i%e for3ation and again$t the ac<ground of <nowledge. Thi$ o8en$ u8 two $erie$ of 8role3$@ what can e the 8lace or role of a region of $cientificity in

the archaeological territory in which it a88ear$ In accordance with what order and what 8roce$$e$ i$ the e3ergence of a

region of $cientificity in a gi%en di$cur$i%e for3ation acco38i$hed :e cannot6 at 8re$ent6 8ro;%ide $olution$ to the$e 8role3$@ all we can do now i$ to indicate in what direction they 3ight e analy$ed.

(c) KNOWLEDGE (SAVOIR) AND IDEOLOGY

Once con$tituted6 a $cience doe$ not ta<e u86 with all the interconneDion$ that are 8ro8er to it6 e%erything that for3ed the

di$cur$i%e 8ractice in which it a88earedH nor doe$ it di$$i8ate in order to conde3n it to the 8rehi$tory of error6 8reJudice6 or i3agination the <nowledge that $urround$ it. Morid anato3y did not reduce to the nor3$ of $cientificity the 8o$iti%ity of

clinical 3edicine. Knowledge i$ not an e8i$te3ological $ite that di$a88ear$ in the $cience that $u8er$ede$ it. Science >or what

i$ offered a$ $uch? i$ localied in a field of <nowledge and 8lay$ a role in it. A role that %arie$ according to differ entdi$cur$i%e for3ation$6 and i$ 3odified with their 3utation$. :hat6 in the Cla$$ical 8eriod6 wa$ offered a$ the 3edical

<nowledge of di$;ea$e$ of the 3ind occu8ied a %ery $3all 8lace in the <nowledge of 3adne$$@ it con$tituted $carcely 3orethan one of it$ 3any $urface$ of contact >the other$ eing Juri$8rudence6 ca$ui$tic$6 8olice regulation$6 etc.?H on the other

hand6 the 8$ycho8athological analy$e$ of the nineteenth century6 which were al$o offered a$ $cientific <nowledge

>connai$$ance? of 3ental di$ea$e$6 8layed a %ery different6 3uch 3ore i38ortant role in the <nowledge (savoir) of 3adne$$>the role of 3odel6 and deci$ion;3a<ing authority?. Si3ilarly6 $cientific di$cour$e >or $cientific 8reten$ion? doe$ not 8erfor3

the $a3e function in the

>>294??

econo3ic <nowledge of the $e%enteenth and in that of the nineteenth century. In any di$cur$i%e for3ation6 one find$ a$8ecific relation etween $cience and <nowledgeH and in$tead of defining etween the3 a relation of eDclu$ion or

$utraction >y trying to di$co%er what in <nowledge $till elude$ and re$i$t$ $cience6 what in $cience i$ $till co3 8ro3i$ed yit$ 8roDi3ity to and the influence of <nowledge?6 archaeological analy$i$ 3u$t $how 8o$iti%ely how a $cience function$ in

the ele3ent of <nowledge.It i$ 8roaly there6 in that $8ace of inter8lay6 that the relation$ of ideology to the $cience$ are e$tali$hed. The hold of

ideology o%er $cientific di$cour$e and the ideological functioning of the $cience$ are not articulated at the le%el of their ideal

$tructure >e%en if they can e eD8re$$ed in it in a 3ore or le$$ %i$ile way?6 nor at the le%el of their technical u$e in a $ociety

>although that $ociety 3ay otain re$ult$ fro3 it?6 nor at the le%el of the con$ciou$ne$$ of the $uJect$ that uilt it u8H theyare articulated where $cience i$ articulated u8on <nowledge. If the Bue$tion of ideology 3ay e a$<ed of $cience6 it i$ in $o

far a$ $cience6 without eing identified with <nowledge6 ut without either effacing or eDcluding it6 i$ localied in it6

$tructure$ certain of it$ oJect$6 $y$te3atie$ certain of it$ enunciation$6 for3alie$ certain of it$ conce8t$ and $trategie$H it i$in $o far a$ thi$ de%elo83ent articulate$ <nowledge6 3odifie$ it6 and redi$triute$ it on the one hand6 and con;fir3$ it and

gi%e$ it %alidity on the otherH it i$ in $o far a$ $cience find$ it$ 8lace in a di$cur$i%e regularity6 in which6 y that %ery fact6 it i$

or i$ not de8loyed6 function$ or doe$ not function6 in a whole field of di$;cur$i%e 8ractice$. In $hort6 the Bue$tion of ideology



that i$ a$<ed of $cience i$ not the Bue$tion of $ituation$ or 8ractice$ that it reflect$ 3ore or le$$ con$ciou$lyH nor i$ it the

Bue$tion of the 8o$$ile u$e or 3i$u$e to which it could e 8utH it i$ the Bue$tion of it$ eDi$tence a$ a di$cur$i%e 8ractice and

of it$ functioning a3ong other 8ractice$.

*roadly $8ea<ing6 and $etting a$ide all 3ediation and $8ecificity6 it can e $aid that 8olitical econo3y ha$ a role in

ca8itali$t $ociety6 that it $er%e$ the intere$t$ of the ourgeoi$ cla$$6 that it wa$ 3ade y and for that cla$$6 and that it hear$ the

3ar< of it$ origin$ e%en in it$ conce8t$ and logical architectureH ut any 3ore 8reci$e de$cri8tion of the relation$ etween

the e8i$te3ological $tructure of 8olitical econo3y and it$ ideological function 3u$t ta<e into account the analy$i$ of the

>>290??

di$cur$i%e for3ation that ga%e ri$e to it and the grou8 of oJect$6 conce8t$6 and theoretical choice$ that it had to de%elo8 and

$y$te3atieH and one 3u$t then $how how the di$cur$i%e 8ractice that ga%e ri$e to $uch a 8o$iti%ity functioned a3ong other 8ractice$ that 3ight ha%e een of a di$cur$i%e6 ut al$o of a 8olitical or econo3ic6 order.

Thi$ enale$ u$ to ad%ance a nu3er of 8ro8o$ition$.

I. Ideology i$ not eDclu$i%e of $cientificity. Few di$cour$e$ ha%e gi%en $o 3uch 8lace to ideology a$ clinical di$cour$e or

that of 8olitical econo3y@ thi$ i$ not a $ufficiently good rea$on to treat the totality of their $tate3ent$ a$ eing under3ined

y error6 contradiction6 and a lac< of oJecti%ity.

2.Theoretical contradiction$6 lacunae6 defect$ 3ay indicate the ideological functioning of a $cience >or of a di$cour$e

with $cientific 8reten$ion$?H they 3ay enale u$ to deter3ine at what 8oint in the $tructure thi$ functioning ta<e$ effect.

*ut the analy$i$ of thi$ function;ing 3u$t e 3ade at the le%el of the 8o$iti%ity and of the relation$ etween the rule$ of for3ation and the $tructure$ of $cientificity.

3.*y correcting it$elf6 y rectifying it$ error$6 y clarifying it$ for3ulation$6 di$cour$e doe$ not nece$$arily undo it$

relation$ with ideology. The role of ideology doe$ not di3ini$h a$ rigour increa$e$ and error i$ di$$i8ated.

4.To tac<le the ideological functioning of a $cience in order to re%eal and to 3odify it i$ not to unco%er the

8hilo$o8hical 8re$u88o$ition$ that 3ay lie within itH nor i$ it to return to the foundation$ that 3ade it 8o$$ile6 and that

legiti3ated it@ it i$ to Bue$tion it a$ a di$;cur$i%e for3ationH it i$ to tac<le not the for3al contradiction$ of it$ 8ro8o$ition$6

ut the $y$te3 of for3ation of it$ oJect$6 it$ ty8e$ of enunciation6 it$ conce8t$6 it$ theoretical choice$. It i$ to treat it a$

one 8ractice a3ong other$.

d8 ##E$E(T T?$E?:" 3( T?E$ &?$:(:":GA

It i$ 8o$$ile to de$crie $e%eral di$tinct e3ergence$ of a di$cur$i%e for3ation. The 3o3ent at which a di$cur$i%e 8ractice

achie%e$ indi%iduality and autono3y6 the 3o3ent therefore at which a $ingle

>>29-??

$y$te3 for the for3ation of $tate3ent$ i$ 8ut into o8eration6 or the 3o3ent at which thi$ $y$te3 i$ tran$for3ed6 3ight ecalled the thre$hold of 8o$iti%ity. :hen in the o8eration of a di$cur$i%e for3ation6 a grou8 of $tate3ent$ i$ articulated6 clai3$

to %alidate >e%en un$ucce$$fully? nor3$ of %erification and coherence6 and when it eDerci$e$ a do3inant function >a$ a 3odel6

a critiBue6 or a %erification? o%er <nowledge6 we will $ay that the di$cur$i%e for3ation cro$$e$ a thre$hold of e8i$te3ologiation. :hen the e8i$te3ological figure thu$ outlined oey$ a nu3er of for3al criteria6 when it$ $tate3ent$

co38ly not only with archaeological rule$ of for3ation6 ut al$o with certain law$ for the con$truction of 8ro8o$ition$6 we

will $ay that it ha$ cro$$ed a thre$hold of $cientificity. And when thi$ $cientific di$cour$e i$ ale6 in turn6 to define the aDio3$nece$$ary to it6 the ele3ent$ that it u$e$6 the 8ro8o$itional $tructure$ that are legiti3ate to it6 and the tran$for3ation$ that it

acce8t$6 when it i$ thu$ ale6 ta<ing it$elf a$ a $tarting;8oint6 to de8loy the for3al edifice that it con$titute$6 we will $ay that itha$ cro$$ed the thre$hold of for3aliation.

The di$triution in ti3e of the$e different thre$hold$6 their $ucce$$ion6 their 8o$$ile coincidence >or lac< of it?6 the way inwhich they 3ay go%ern one another6 or eco3e i38licated with one another6 the condition$ in which6 in turn6 they aree$tali$hed6 con$titute for archaeology one of it$ 3aJor do3ain$ of eD8loration. Their chronology6 in fact6 i$ neither regular

nor ho3ogeneou$. The di$cur$i%e for3ation$ do not cro$$ the3 at regular inter%al$6 or at the $a3e ti3e6 thu$ di%iding u8 the

hi$tory of hu3an <nowledge >connai$$ance$? into different age$H at a ti3e when 3any 8o$iti%itie$ ha%e cro$$ed the thre$holdof for3aliation6 3any other$ ha%e not yet attained that of $cientificity6 or e%en of e8i$te3ologiation. Moreo%er@ each

di$cur$i%e for3ation doe$ not 8a$$ through the$e different thre$hold$ in turn6 a$ through the natural $tage$ of iological

3aturation6 in which the only %ariale i$ the latency 8eriod or the length of the inter%al$. They are6 in fact6 e%ent$ who$edi$8er$ion i$ not e%oluti%e@ their uniBue order i$ one of the characteri$tic$ of each di$cur$i%e for3ation. 'ere are a few

eDa38le$ of the$e difference$.

In $o3e ca$e$6 the thre$hold of 8o$iti%ity i$ cro$$ed well efore that of e8i$te3ologiation@ thu$ 8$ycho8athology6 a$ a



di$cour$e with $cientific 8reten$ion$6 e8i$te3ologied at the eginning of the nineteenth

>>29)??

century6 with Pinel6 'einroth6 and E$Buirol6 a di$cur$i%e 8ractice that largely antedated it6 and that had acBuired it$autono3y and $y$te3 of regularity long efore. *ut there are al$o ca$e$ in which the$e two $tage$ are confu$ed in ti3e6

when the e$tali$h3ent of a 8o$iti%ity in%ol%e$ at the $a3e ti3e the e3ergence of an e8i$te3ological figure. So3eti3e$ the

thre$hold$ of $cientificity are lin<ed with the tran$ition fro3 one 8o$iti%ity to anotherH $o3eti3e$ they are differentH thu$ thetran$ition fro3 Natural 'i$tory >with the $cientificity that wa$ 8ro8er to it? to iology >a$ a $cience not of the cla$$ification

of eing$6 ut of $8ecific correlation$ of different organi$3$? did not ta<e 8lace at the ti3e of Cu%ier without thetran$for3ation of one 8o$iti%ity into another@ on the other hand6 the eD8eri3ental 3edicine of Claude *ernard6 then the

3icroiology of Pa$teur6 3odified the ty8e of $cientificity reBuired y 3orid anato3y and 8hy$iology6 without the di$;

cur$i%e for3ation of clinical 3edicine6 a$ then e$tali$hed6 eing 3ade ino8erale. Si3ilarly6 the new $cientificitye$tali$hed in the iological di$ci8line$ y e%olutioni$3 did not 3odify the iological 8o$iti%ity that had een defined at the

ti3e of Cu%ier. In the ca$e of econo3ic$ the di$conneDion$ are 8articularly nu3erou$. In the $e%enteenth century6 one can

recognie a thre$hold of 8o$iti%ity@ it al3o$t coincide$ with the 8ractice and theory of 3ercantili$3H ut it$ e8i$te3ologia;

tion did not occur until later6 at the %ery end of the century6 or the eginning of the neDt century6 with,oc<e and Cantillon.

'owe%er6 the nineteenth century6 with !icardo6 3ar<$ oth a new ty8e of 8o$iti%ity6 a new for3 of e8i$te3ologiation6

which were later to he 3odified in turn y Cournot and +e%on$6 at the %ery ti3e that MarD wa$ to re%eal an entirely new

di$cur$i%e 8ractice on the a$i$ of 8olitical econo3y.If one recognie$ in $cience only the linear accu3ulation of truth$ or the orthogene$i$ of rea$on6 and fail$ to recognie in

it a di$cur$i%e 8ractice that ha$ it$ own le%el$6 it$ own thre$hold$6 it$ own %ariou$ ru8ture$6 one can de$crie only a $inglehi$torical di%i$ion6 which one ado8t$ a$ a 3odel to e a88lied at all ti3e$ and for all for3$ of <nowledge@ a di%i$ion

etween what i$ definiti%ely or what i$ not yet $cientific. All the den$ity of the di$conneDion$6 the di$8er$ion of the ru8ture$6

the $hift$ in their effect$6 the 8lay of the interde8endence are reduced to the 3onotonou$ act of an endle$$ly re8eatedfoundation.

>>29??

There i$ 8erha8$ only one $cience for which one can neither di$tingui$h the$e different thre$hold$6 nor de$crie a $i3ilar

$et of $hift$@ 3athe3atic$6 the only di$cur$i%e 8ractice to ha%e cro$$ed at one and the $a3e ti3e the thre$hold$ of 8o$iti%ity6e8i$te3ologiation6 $cientificity6 and for3aliation. The %ery 8o$$iility of it$ eDi$tence i38lied that which6 in all other

$cience$6 re3ain$ di$8er$ed throughout hi$tory6 $hould e gi%en at the out$et@ it$ original 8o$iti%ity wa$ to con$titute analready for3alied di$cur$i%e 8ractice >e%en if other for3aliation$ were to e u$ed later?. 'ence the fact that their e$tali$h3ent i$ oth $o enig3atic >$o little acce$$ile to analy$i$6 $o confined within the for3 of the a$olute eginning?

and $o %alid >$ince it i$ %alid oth a$ an origin and a$ a foundation?H hence the fact that in the fir$t ge$ture of the fir$t

3athe3atician one $aw the con$titution of an ideality that ha$ een de8loyed throughout hi$tory6 and ha$ een Bue$tionedonly to e re8eated and 8urifiedH hence the fact that the eginning of 3athe3atic$ i$ Bue$tioned not $o 3uch a$ a hi$torical

e%ent a$ for it$ %alidity a$ a 8rinci8al of hi$tory@ and hence the fact that6 for all the other $cience$ the de$cri8tion of it$

hi$torical gene$i$6 it$ gro8ing$ and failure$6 it$ late e3ergence i$ related to the 3eta;hi$torical 3odel of a geo3etrye3erging $uddenly6 once and for all6 fro3 the tri%ial 8ractice$ of land;3ea$uring. *ut if one ta<e$ the e$tali$h3ent of

3athe3atical di$cour$e a$ a 8rototy8e for the irth and de%elo83ent of all the other $cience$6 one run$ the ri$< of

ho3ogeniing all the uniBue for3$ of hi$toricity6 of reducing to the authority of a $ingle ru8ture all the different thre$hold$that a di$cur$i%e 8ractice 3ay cro$$6 and re8roduce endle$$ly6 at e%ery 3o3ent in ti3e6 the 8role3 of origin@ the right$ of

the hi$toricotran$cendental analy$i$ would thu$ e rein$tated. Mathe3atic$ ha$ certainly $er%ed a$ a 3odel for 3o$t$cientific di$cour$e$ in their effort$ to attain for3al rigour and de3on$trati%ityH ut for the hi$torian who Bue$tion$ the actual

de%elo83ent of the $cience$6 it i$ a ad eDa38le6 an eDa38le at lea$t fro3 which one cannot generalie.

e8 T?E ##E$E(T TA!E :# T?E ?T:$A :# T?E &E(&EThe 3ulti8le thre$hold$ that we ha%e $ucceeded in 3a88ing 3a<e

di$tinct for3$ of hi$torical analy$i$ 8o$$ile. Fir$t6 analy$i$ at the le%el

>>29??

of for3aliation@ it i$ thi$ hi$tory that 3athe3atic$ ne%er cea$e$ to recount aout it$elf in the 8roce$$ of it$ own de%elo83ent.

:hat it 8o$$e$$e$ at a gi%en 3o3ent >it$ do3ain6 it$ 3ethod$6 the oJect$ that it define$6 the language that it e38loy$? i$ne%er thrown ac< into the eDternal field of non;$cientificity6 ut i$ con$tantly undergoing redefinition >if only a$ an area that



ha$ fallen into di$u$e or te38orary $terility? in the for3al $tructure that 3athe3atic$ con$titute$H thi$ 8a$t i$ re%ealed a$ a

8articular ca$e6 a nai%e 3odel6 a 8artial and in$ufficiently generalied $<etch6 of a 3ore a$tract6 or 3ore 8owerful theory6 or

one eDi$ting at a higher le%elH 3athe3atic$ retran$crie$ it$ real hi$torical traJectory into the %ocaulary of %icinitie$6de8endence$6 $uordination$6 8rogre$$i%e for3aliation$6 and $elf;en%elo8ing generalitie$. For thi$ hi$tory of 3athe3atic$

>the hi$tory that i$ con$tituted y 3athe3atic$ it$elf and which 3athe3atic$ recount$ aout it$elf?6 the algera of "io8hantu$

i$ not an eD8erience that re3ain$ in $u$;8en$eH it i$ a 8articular ca$e of Algera a$ we ha%e <nown it $ince Ael and /aloi$Hthe /ree< 3ethod of eDhau$tion$ wa$ not an i38a$$e that had to e e$ca8ed fro3H it i$ a nai%e 3odel of integral calculu$.

Each hi$torical e%ent ha$ it$ own for3al le%el and localiation. Thi$ i$ a recurrential analy$i$6 which can e carried out onlywithin a con$tituted $cience6 one that ha$ cro$$ed it$ thre$hold of for3aliation.G

The $econd ty8e of hi$torical analy$i$ i$ $ituated at the thre$hold of $cientificity6 and Bue$tion$ it$elf a$ to the way in

which it wa$ cro$$ed on the a$i$ of %ariou$ e8i$te3ological figure$. It$ 8ur8o$e i$ to di$;co%er6 for eDa38le6 how a conce8t

$till o%erlaid with 3eta8hor$ or i3aginary content$ wa$ 8urified6 and accorded the $tatu$ and func tion of a $cientificconce8t. To di$co%er how a region of eD8erience that ha$ already een 3a88ed6 already 8artially articulated6 ut i$ $till o%er;

laid with i33ediate 8ractical u$e$ or %alue$ related to tho$e u$e$6 wa$ con$tituted a$ a $cientific do3ain. To di$co%er how6 in

general6 a $cience wa$ e$tali$hed o%er and again$t a 8re;$cientific le%el6 which oth 8a%ed the way and re$i$ted it inad%ance6 how it $ucceeded in o%erco3ing the o$tacle$ and li3itation$ that $till $tood in it$ way. /. *achelard and /.

Canguilhe3 ha%e 8ro%ided 3odel$ of thi$ <ind of hi$tory. #nli<e recurrential analy$i$6 it ha$ no need to $ituate it$elf withinthe

>>footnote??

Michel Serre$6 'er3e$ ou la co33unication6 8. ).

>>2&9??

$cience it$elf6 to redi$triute e%ery e8i$ode in it$ con$truction6 to recount it$ for3aliation in the for3al %ocaulary that it $till

8o$$e$$e$ today@ indeed6 how could it do $o6 $ince it $how$ what the $cience ha$ freed it$elf fro36 e%erything that it ha$ had to

lea%e ehind in it$ 8ro;gre$$ toward$ the thre$hold of $cientificity. Con$eBuently6 thi$ de$cri8tion ta<e$ a$ it$ nor3 the fullycon$tituted $cienceH the hi$tory that it recount$ i$ nece$$arily concerned with the o88o$ition of truth and error6 the rational and

the irrational6 the o$tacle and fecundity6 8urity and i38urity6 the $cientific and the non;$cientific. It i$ an e8i$te3ological

hi$tory of the $cience$.The third ty8e of hi$torical analy$i$ ta<e$ a$ it$ 8oint of attac< the thre$hold of e8i$te3ologiation the 8oint of clea%age

etween di$;cur$i%e for3ation$ defined y their 8o$iti%ity and e8i$te3ological figure$ that are not nece$$arily all $cience$

>and which 3ay ne%er6 in fact6 $ucceed in eco3ing $cience$?. At thi$ le%el6 $cientificity doe$ not $er%e a$ a nor3@ in thi$archaeological hi$tory6 what one i$ trying to unco%er are di$cur$i%e 8ractice$ in $o far a$ they gi%e ri$e to a cor8u$ of

<nowledge6 in $o far a$ they a$$u3e the $tatu$ and role of a $cience. To underta<e a hi$tory of the $cience$ at thi$ le%el i$ notto de$crie di$cur$i%e for3ation$ without regard to e8i$te3ological $tructure$H it i$ to $how how the e$tali$h3ent of a

$cience6 and 8erha8$ it$ tran$ition to for3aliation6 ha%e co3e aout in a di$cur$i%e for3ation6 and in 3odification$ to it$

8o$iti%ity. Such an analy$i$ $et$ out6 therefore6 to outline the hi$tory of the $cience$ on the a$i$ of a de$cri8tion of di$cur$i%e 8ractice$H to define how6 in accordance with which regularity6 and a$ a re$ult of which 3odification6 it wa$ ale to gi%e ri$e to

the 8roce$$e$ of e8i$te3ologiation6 to attain the nor3$ of $cientificity6 and6 8erha8$6 to reach the thre$hold of for3aliation.

In $ee<ing the le%el of di$cur$i%e 8ractice in the hi$torical den$ity of the $cience$6 one i$ not trying to 8lace the di$cur$i%e 8ractice at $o3e dee86 original le%el6 one i$ not trying to 8lace it at the le%el of li%ed eD8erience >on thi$ earth6 which i$ gi%en6

irregular and frag3ented6 efore all geo3etryH in the hea%en that glitter$ through the grid of all a$trono3ie$? H one i$ trying to

re%eal etween 8o$iti%itie$6 <nowledge6 e8i$te3ological figure$6 and $cience$6 a whole $et of difference$6 relation$6 ga8$6$hift$6 inde8endence$6 autono3ie$6 and the way in which they articulate their own hi$toricitie$ on one another.

>>2&&??

The analy$i$ of di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 of 8o$iti%itie$6 and <nowledge in their relation$ with e8i$te3ological figure$ andwith the $cience$ i$ what ha$ een called6 to di$tingui$h it fro3 other 8o$$ile for3$ of the hi$tory of the $cience$6 the

analy$i$ of the e8i$te3e. Thi$ e8i$te3e 3ay e $u$8ected of eing $o3ething li<e a world;%iew6 a $lice of hi$tory co33on

to all ranche$ of <nowledge6 which i38o$e$ on each one the $a3e nor3$ and 8o$tulate$6 a general $tage of rea$on6 a certain$tructure of thought that the 3en of a 8articular 8eriod cannot e$ca8e a great ody of legi$lation written once and for all

y $o3e anony3ou$ hand. *y e8i$te3e6 we 3ean6 in fact6 the total $et of relation$ that unite6 at a gi%en 8eriod6 the

di$cur$i%e 8ractice$ that gi%e ri$e to e8i$te3ological figure$6 $cience$6 and 8o$$ily for3alied $y$te3$H the way in which6 ineach of the$e di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 the tran$ition$ to e8i$te3ologiation6 $cientificity6 and for3aliation are $ituated and

o8erateH the di$triution of the$e thre$hold$6 which 3ay coincide6 e $uordinated to one another6 or e $e8arated y $hift$ in

ti3eH the lateral relation$ that 3ay eDi$t etween e8i$te3ological figure$ or $cience$ in $o far a$ they elong toneighouring6 ut di$tinct6 di$cur$i%e 8ractice$. The e8i$te3e i$ not a for3 of <nowledge >connai$$ance? or ty8e of



can al$o $ee another 8o$$ile direction for analy$i$@ in$tead of $tudying the $eDual eha%iour of 3en at a gi%en 8eriod >y

$ee<ing it$ law in a $ocial $tructure6 in a collecti%e uncon$ciou$6 or in a certain 3oral attitude?6 in$tead of de$criing what

3en thought of $eDuality >what religiou$ inter8retation they ga%e it6 to what eDtent they a88ro%ed or di$a88ro%ed of it6 whatconflict$ of o8inion or 3orality it ga%e ri$e to?6 one would a$< one$elf whether6 in thi$ eha%iour6 a$ in the$e re8re$en tation$6

a whole di$cur$i%e 8ractice i$ not at wor<H whether $eDuality6 Buite a8art fro3 any orientation toward$ a $cientific di$cour$e6

i$ not a grou8 of oJect$ that can e tal<ed aout >or that it i$ foridden to tal< aout?6 a field of 8o$$ile enunciation$>whether in lyrical or legal language?6 a grou8 of conce8t$ >which can no dout e 8re$ented in the ele3entary for3 of

notion$ or the3e$?6 a $et of choice$ >which 3ay a88ear in the coherence of eha%ior or in $y$te3$ of 8re$cri8tion?. Such anarchaeology would $how6 if it $ucceeded in it$ ta$<6 how the 8rohiition$6 eDclu$ion$6 li3itation$6 %alue$6 freedo3$6 andtran$gre$$ion$ of $eDuality6 all it$ 3anife$tation$6 %eral or otherwi$e6 are lin<ed to a 8articular di$cur$i%e 8ractice. It would

re%eal6 not of cour$e a$ the ulti3ate truth of $eDuality6 ut a$ one of the di3en$ion$ in accordance with which one can

de$crie it6 a certain Gway of $8ea<ingGH and one would $how how thi$ way of $8ea<ing i$ in%e$ted not in $cientific di$cour$e$6 ut in a $y$te3 of 8rohiition$ and %alue$. An analy$i$ that would e carried out not in the direction of the e8i$te3e6 ut in

that of what we 3ight call the ethical.

*ut here i$ an eDa38le of another 8o$$ile orientation. In analy$ing a 8ainting6 one can recon$titute the latent di$cour$e of

the 8ainterH one can try to reca8ture the 3ur3ur of hi$ intention$6 which are not tran;$cried into word$6 ut into line$6

$urface$6 and colour$H one can try to unco%er the i38licit 8hilo$o8hy that i$ $u88o$ed to for3 hi$ %iew of the world. It i$ al$o

8o$$ile to Bue$tion $cience6 or at lea$t the o8inion$ of the 8eriod6 and to try to recognie to what eDtent they a88ear in the

8ainter G$ wor<. Archaeological analy$i$ would ha%e another ai3@ it would try to di$co%er whether $8ace6 di$tance6 de8th6

colour6 light6 8ro8ortion$6 %olu3e$6 and contour$ were not6 at the 8eriod in Bue$tion6 con$idered6 na3ed6 enunciated6 and

conce8tualied in a di$cur$i%e 8racticeH and whether the <nowledge that thi$ di$cur$i%e 8ractice gi%e$ ri$e to wa$ not

e3odied 8erha8$ in theorie$ and

>>2&4??$8eculation$6 in for3$ of teaching and code$ of 8ractice6 ut al$o in 8roce$$e$6 techniBue$6 and e%en in the %ery ge$ture of the

8ainter. It would not $et out to $how that the 8ainting i$ a certain way of G3ean;ingG or G$ayingG that i$ 8eculiar in that it

di$8en$e$ with word$. It would try to $how that6 at lea$t in one of it$ di3en$ion$6 it i$ di$cur$i%e 8ractice that i$ e3odied intechniBue$ and effect$. In thi$ $en$e6 the 8ainting i$ not a 8ure %i$ion that 3u$t then he tran$cried into the 3ateriality of

$8aceH nor i$ it a na<ed ge$ture who$e $ilent and eternally e38ty 3eaning$ 3u$t e freed fro3 $u$eBuent inter8retation$. Iti$ $hot through and inde8endently of $cientific <nowledge >connai$$ance? and 8hilo$o8hical the3e$ with the 8o$iti%ity

of a <nowledge >$a%oir?.It $ee3$ to 3e that one 3ight al$o carry out an analy$i$ of the $a3e ty8e on 8olitical <nowledge. One would try to $howwhether the 8olitical eha%ior of a $ociety6 a grou86 or a cla$$ i$ not $hot through with a 8articular6 de$criale di$cur$i%e

8ractice. Thi$ 8o$iti%ity would o%iou$ly not coincide either with the 8olitical theorie$ of the 8eriod or with econo3ic

deter3ination$@ it would define the ele3ent in 8olitic$ that can eco3e an oJect of enunciation6 the for3$ that thi$ enunci;ation 3ay ta<e6 the conce8t$ that are e38loyed in it6 and the $trategic choice$ that are 3ade in it. In$tead of analy$ing thi$

<nowledge which i$ alway$ 8o$$ile in the direction of the e8i$te3e that it can gi%e ri$e to6 one would analy$e it in the

direction of eha%iour6 $truggle$6 conflict$6 deci$ion$6 and tactic$. One would thu$ re%eal a ody of 8olitical <nowledge that i$not $o3e <ind of $econdary theoriing aout 8ractice6 nor the a88lication of theory. Since it i$ regularly for3ed y a

di$cur$i%e 8ractice that i$ de8loyed a3ong other 8ractice$ and i$ articulated u8on the36 it i$ not an eD8re$$ion that 3ore or

le$$ adeBuately Greflect$G a nu3er of GoJecti%e dataG or real 8ractice$. It i$ in$cried6 fro3 the out$et6 in the field of different 8ractice$ in which it find$ it$ $8ecificity6 it$ function$6 and it$ networ< of de8endence$. If $uch a de$cri8tion were 8o$$ile6

there would e no need of cour$e to 8a$$ through the authority of an indi%idual or collecti%e con$ciou$ne$$ in order to gra$8the 8lace of articulation of a 8olitical 8ractice and theoryH there would he no need to try to di$co%er to what eDtent thi$

con$ciou$ne$$ 3ay6 on the one hand6 eD8re$$ $ilent condition$6 and6 on the other6 $how that it i$ $u$ce8tile to theoretical

truth$H one would not need to 8o$e the 8$ychological 8role3 of an act of con$ciou$ne$$

>>2&0??

>8ri$e de con$cience?H in$tead6 one would analy$e the for3ation and tran$;for3ation$ of a ody of <nowledge. The Bue$tion6 for eDa38le6 would not e to deter3ine fro3 what 3o3ent a re%olutionary

con$ciou$ne$$ a88ear$6 nor the re$8ecti%e role$ of econo3ic condition$ and theoretical elucidation$ in

the gene$i$ of thi$ con$ciou$ne$$H it would not atte38t to retrace the general6 and eDe38lary6 iogra8hy of re%olutionary 3an6 or to find the origin$ of hi$ 8roJectH ut it would try to eD8lain the

for3ation of a di$cur$i%e 8ractice and a ody of re%olutionary <nowledge that are eD8re$$ed in

eha%iour and $trategie$6 which gi%e ri$e to a theory of $ociety6 and which o8erate the interference



and 3utual tran$for3ation of that eha%iour and tho$e $trategie$.

To the Bue$tion$ 8o$ed ao%e I$ archaeology concerned only with $cience$ I$ it alway$ an

analy$i$ of $cientific di$cour$e we can now gi%e a re8ly6 in each ca$e in the negati%e. :hatarchaeology trie$ to de$crie i$ not the $8ecific $tructure of $cience6 ut the %ery different do3ain of

<nowledge. Moreo%er6 although it i$ concerned with <now;ledge in it$ relation to e8i$te3ological

figure$ and the $cience$6 it 3ay al$o Bue$tion <nowledge in a different direction and de$crie it in adifferent $et of relation$. The orientation toward$ the e8i$te3e ha$ een the only one to e eD8lored

$o far. The rea$on for thi$ i$ that6 ecau$e of a gradient that no dout characterie$ our culture$6 di$;cur$i%e for3ation$ are con$tantly eco3ing e8i$te3ologied. It i$ y Bue$tioning the $cience$6 their hi$tory6 their $trange unity6 their di$8er$ion6 and their ru8ture$6 that the do3ain of 8o$iti%itie$ wa$

ale to a88earH it i$ in the inter$tice of $cientific di$cour$e$ that we were ale to gra$8 the 8lay of

di$cur$i%e for3ation$. It i$ hardly $ur8ri$ing6 there;fore6 that the 3o$t fruitful region6 the one 3o$t

o8en to archaeological de$cri8tion $hould ha%e een that GCla$$icalG age6 which fro3 the !enai$$ance

to the nineteenth century $aw the e8i$te3ologiation of $o 3any 8o$iti%itie$H nor i$ it $ur8ri$ing that

the di$cur$i%e for3ation$ and $8ecific regularitie$ of <nowledge are outlined 8reci$ely where thele%el$ of $cientificity and for3aliation were 3o$t difficult to attain. *ut that wa$ no 3ore than a

8referential 8oint of attac<H it i$ not6 for archaeology6 an oligatory do3ain.

>>2&??

Part V Conclusion

CONCLUSION

Throughout thi$ oo<6 you ha%e een at great 8ain$ to di$$ociate your$elf fro3 $tructurali$3G6 or at lea$t fro3 what i$

ordinarily under;$tood y that ter3. 5ou ha%e tried to $how that you u$ed neither the 3ethod$ nor the conce8t$ of $tructurali$3H that you 3a<e no reference to the 8rocedure$ of lingui$tic de$cri8tionH that you are not concerned with

for3aliation. *ut what do the$e difference$ a3ount to6 if not that you ha%e failed to a%ail your$elf of what i$ 3o$t 8o$iti%e63o$t rigorou$6 and 3o$t re%ealing in $tructural analy$i$ That the do3ain that you ha%e tried to deal with i$ not $u$ce8tileto thi$ <ind of enter8ri$e6 and that it$ richne$$ ha$ con$tantly eluded the $che3ata in which you wi$hed to enclo$e it And

with a88arent unconcern6 you are now trying to di$gui$e the i38otence of your 3ethodH you are now 8re$ent;ing a$ an

eD8licitly intended difference the unconBuerale di$tance that $e8arate$ you6 and will alway$ $e8arate you6 fro3 a true$tructural analy$i$.

For you ha%e not 3anaged to decei%e u$. It i$ true that in the %oid left y the 3ethod$ that you ha%e cho$en not to u$e6

you ha%e 8reci8itated a whole $erie$ of notion$ that $ee3 Buite alien to the conce8t$ now acce8ted y tho$e who de$crielanguage$6 3yth$6 or wor<$ of literatureH you ha%e $8o<en of for3ation$6 8o$iti%itie$6 <nowledge6 di$cur$i%e 8ractice$@ a

whole 8ano8ly of ter3$ who$e uniBuene$$ and

>>229??

3ar%ellou$ 8ower$ you were 8roud to 8oint out at e%ery $te8. *ut would you ha%e in%ented $o 3any odditie$ if you had not

tried to a88ly6 in a do3ain that wa$ irreducile to the36 $o3e of the funda3ental the3e$ of $tructurali$3 and tho$e %erythe3e$ that con$titute it$ 3o$t deatale and 8hilo$o8hically duiou$ 8o$tulate$ It i$ a$ if you had u$ed not the e38irical6

$eriou$ wor< of $tructural analy$i$6 ut two or three the3e$ that are really eDtra8olation$ rather than nece$$ary 8rinci8le$.

5ou ha%e tried to reduce the di3en$ion$ 8ro8er to di$cour$e6 ignore it$ $8ecific irregularity6 hide what initiati%e andfreedo3 it 8o$$e$$e$6 and 3a<e u8 for the i3alance that it $et$ u8 within the language >longue?@ you ha%e tried to clo$e thi$

o8enne$$. ,i<e a certain for3 of lingui$tic$6 you ha%e tried to di$8en$e with the $8ea<ing $uJectH you elie%ed that one couldcut off fro3 di$cour$e all it$ anthro8ological reference$6 and treat it a$ if it had ne%er een for3ulated y anyone6 a$ if it had

not co3e aout in 8articular circu3$tance$6 a$ if it were not i3ued with re8re$entation$6 a$ if it were addre$$ed to no one.

,a$tly6 you ha%e a88lied to it a 8rinci8le of $i3ultaneity@ you ha%e refu$ed to $ee that di$cour$e6 unli<e the language >longue? 8erha8$6 i$ e$$entially hi$torical6 that it wa$ 3ade u8 not of a%ailale ele3ent$6 ut of real6 $ucce$$i%e e%ent$6 that it cannot e

analy$ed out$ide the ti3e in which it occurred.



5ou are Buite right@ I 3i$under$tood the tran$cendence of di$;cour$eH in de$criing it6 I refu$ed to refer it to a

$uJecti%ityH I did not gi%e 8ri3ary con$ideration6 a$ if it ought to e it$ general for36 to it$ diachronic character. *ut thi$ wa$not intended to eDtend6 eyond the do3ain of the language >longue?6 conce8t$ and 3ethod$ that had een te$ted within it. If I

$8o<e of di$cour$e6 it wa$ not to $how that the 3echani$3$ or 8roce$$e$ of the language >longue? were entirely 8re;$er%ed initH ut rather to re%eal6 in the den$ity of %eral 8erfor3ance$6 the di%er$ity of the 8o$$ile le%el$ of analy$i$H to $how that in

addition to 3ethod$ of lingui$tic $tructuration >or inter8retation?6 one could draw u8 a $8ecific de$cri8tion of $tate3ent$6 of

their for3ation6 and of the regularitie$ 8ro8er to di$cour$e. If I $u$8ended all reference to the $8ea<ing $uJect6 it wa$ not todi$co%er law$ of con$truction or for3$ that could e a88lied in the $a3e way y all $8ea<ing $uJect$6 nor wa$

>>22&??it to gi%e %oice to the great uni%er$al di$cour$e that i$ co33on to all 3en at a 8articular 8eriod. On the contrary6 3y ai3 wa$

to $how what the difference$ con$i$ted of6 how it wa$ 8o$$ile for 3en6 within the $a3e di$cur$i%e 8ractice6 to $8ea< of

different oJect$6 to ha%e contrary o8inion$6 and to 3a<e contradictory choice$H 3y ai3 wa$ al$o to $how in what waydi$cur$i%e 8ractice$ were di$tingui$hed fro3 one anotherH in $hort6 I wanted not to eDclude the 8role3 of the $uJect6 ut to

define the 8o$ition$ and function$ that the $uJect could occu8y in the di%er$ity of di$cour$e. ,a$tly6 a$ you ha%e o$er%ed6 I

did not deny hi$tory6 ut held in $u$8en$e the general6 e38ty category of change in order to re%eal tran$for3ation$ at

different le%el$H I reJect a unifor3 3odel of te38oraliation6 in order to de$crie6 for each di$cur$i%e 8ractice6 it$ rule$ of accu3ulation6 eDclu$ion6 reacti%ation6 it$ own for3$ of deri%ation6 and it$ $8ecific 3ode$ of conneDion o%er %ariou$$ucce$$ion$.

So I did not wi$h to carry the $tructurali$t enter8ri$e eyond it$ legiti3ate li3it$. And you 3u$t ad3it that I ne%er once

u$ed the word $tructureG in The Order of Thing$. *ut let u$ lea%e off our 8ole3ic$ aout $tructurali$3GH they hardly $ur%i%ein area$ now de$erted y $eriou$ wor<er$H thi$ 8articular contro%er$y6 which 3ight ha%e een $o fruiftul6 i$ now acted out

only y 3i3e$ and tu3ler$.

ItG$ no u$e trying to a%oid the$e 8ole3ic$@ you wonGt e$ca8e the 8role3 $o ea$ily. For the 8role3 doe$ not concern

$tructurali$3. I recognie the %alue of it$ in$ight$ of cour$e@ when it i$ a Bue$tion of analy$ing a language >longue?63ythologie$6 fol<;tale$6 8oe3$6 drea3$6 wor<$ of literature6 e%en fil3$ 8erha8$6 $tructural de$cri8tion re%eal$ relation$ that

could not otherwi$e e i$olatedH it 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to define recurrent ele3ent$6 with their for3$ of o88o$ition6 and their

criteria of indi%idualiationH it al$o 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to lay down law$ of con$truction6 eBui%alence$6 and rule$ of tran$for3ation. And de$8ite a nu3er of re$er%ation$ that I had at the eginning6 I now ha%e no difficulty in acce8ting that

3anG$ language$ >longue$?6 hi$ uncon$ciou$6 and hi$ i3agination are go%erned y law$ of $tructure. *ut what I a$olutely

cannot acce8t i$ what you are doing@ I cannot acce8t that one can analy$e $cientific di$cour$e$ in their $ucce$$ion withoutreferring the3 to $o3ething li<e a con$tituent acti%ity6 without recogniing

>>222??

e%en in their he$itation$ the o8ening of an original 8roJect or a funda3ental teleology6 without di$co%ering the 8rofoundcontinuity that lin<$ the36 and lead$ the3 to the 8oint at which we can gra$8 the3H I cannot acce8t that one can analy$e the

de%elo83ent of rea$on in thi$ way6 and free the hi$tory of thought fro3 all taint of $uJecti%ity. ,et u$ eDa3ine the 8role3

3ore clo$ely@ I agree that one can $8ea<6 in ter3$ of ele3ent$ and rule$ of con$truction6 of language >longue? in general atlea$t of that language of other ti3e$ and 8lace$ which i$ that of 3yth$6 or e%en of that ne%erthele$$ rather $trange language

which i$ that of our uncon$ciou$ or of our literary wor<$H ut the language of our <nowledge6 that language which we are

u$ing here and now6 the $tructural di$cour$e it$elf that enale$ u$ to analy$e $o 3any other language$ >langage$?6 that

language which6 in it$ hi$torical den$ity6 we regard a$ irreducile. 5ou $urely cannot forget that it i$ on the a$i$ of thatlanguage6 with it$ $low gene$i$6 and the o$cure de%elo83ent that ha$ rought it to it$ 8re$ent $tate6 that we can $8ea< of

other di$cour$e$ in ter3$ of $tructure$H it i$ that language which ha$ gi%en u$ the 8o$$iility and the right to do $oH it for3$

the lind $8ot on the a$i$ of which thing$ around u$ are arranged a$ we $ee the3 today. I don Gt 3ind one dealing with

ele3ent$6 relation$6 and di$continuitie$ when analy$ing Indo;Euro8ean 3yth$ or the tragedie$ of !acineH and I can e%en

acce8t that one $hould di$8en$e6 a$ far a$ one can6 with a di$cu$$ion of the $8ea<ing $uJect$H ut I di$8ute that the$e$ucce$$e$ gi%e one the right to turn the analy$i$ ac< on to the for3$ of di$cour$e that 3ade the3 8o$$ile6 and to Bue$tion

the %ery locu$ in which we are $8ea<ing today. The hi$tory of tho$e analy$e$ in which $uJecti%ity elude$ one retain$ it$ owntran$cendence.



It $ee3$ to 3e that the difference etween u$ lie$ there >3uch 3ore than in the o%er;di$cu$$ed Bue$tion of

$tructurali$3?. A$ you <now6 I ha%e no great li<ing for inter8retation6 ut allow 3e6 a$ a <ind of ga3e6 to $ay what I

under$tand you to ha%e $aid earlier. GOf cour$eG6 you $ay6 Gwe 3u$t now ad3it6 de$8ite all the attac<$ of the arriere;garde6 thatone for3alie$ deducti%e di$cour$e$H of cour$e we ha%e to ad3it that one de$crie$6 not $o 3uch the hi$tory of a $oul6 not $o

3uch a 8roJect of eDi$tence6 a$ the architecture of a 8hilo$o8hical $y$te3H of cour$e6 whate%er we thin< aout it6 we ha%e to

tolerate tho$e analy$e$

>>22??

that lin< literary oeu%re$6 not to the li%ed eD8erience of an indi%idual6 ut to the $tructure$ of the language >longue?. Of

cour$e6 we ha%e had to aandon all tho$e di$cour$e$ that once led u$ to the $o%ereignty of con$ciou$ne$$. *ut what we ha%e

lo$t o%er the la$t half;century6 we are ho8ing to reco%er in the $econd degree6 y 3ean$ of the analy$i$ of tho$e analy$e$6 or atlea$t y the funda3ental Bue$tioning that we a88ly to the3. :e will a$< the3 where they ca3e fro36 toward$ what hi$torical

de$tination they are 3o%ing without eing aware of it6 what nai%ety lind$ the3 to the condition$ that 3a<e the3 8o$$ile6

and what 3eta8hy$ical enclo$ure enclo$e$ their rudi3entary 8o$iti%i$3. And $o in the end it will not 3atter that theuncon$ciou$ i$ not6 a$ we elie%ed and affir3ed6 the i38licit edge of con$ciou$ne$$H it will not 3atter that a 3ythology i$ no

longer a world;%iew6 and that a no%el i$ $o3ething other than the outer $lo8e of a li%ed eD8erienceH for the rea$on that

e$tali$he$ all the$e new Gtruth$G i$ under $trict $u8er%i$ion@ neither it$elf6 nor it$ 8a$t6 nor that which 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile6 nor that which 3a<e$ it our$ e$ca8e$ the attriution of tran$cendence. For it i$ to it now and we are deter3ined ne%er to

aandon thi$ that we will now 8o$e the Bue$tion of the origin6 the fir$t con$titution6 the teleological horion6 te38oralcontinuity. It i$ that thought6 which i$ now eco3ing our$6 that we will 3aintain in hi$torico;tran$cendental do3 inance. That

i$ why6 if we 3u$t tolerate all the$e $tructurali$3$6 whether we li<e it or not6 we will not allow any taint to that hi$tory of

thought that i$ our own hi$toryH we will not allow the unra%elling of tho$e tran$cendental thread$ that ha%e hound it $ince thenineteenth century to the 8role3 of origin and $uJecti%ity. To who3$oe%er a88roache$ that fortre$$ in which we ha%e ta<en

refuge6 and which we are deter3ined to defend and to hold6 we re8eat6 with a ge$ture that ward$ off all 8rofanation@ G Noli

tangereG.

*ut I ha%e o$tinately gone on. Not that I a3 either certain of %ictory or $ure of 3y wea8on$. *ut ecau$e it $ee3ed to 3ethat6 for the 3o3ent6 the e$$ential ta$< wa$ to free the hi$tory of thought fro3 it$ $uJection to tran$cendence. For 3e6 the

8role3 wa$ certainly not how to $tructuralie it6 y a88lying to the de%elo83ent of <nowledge or to the gene$i$ of the$cience$ categorie$ that had 8ro%ed the3$el%e$ in the do3ain of language >longue?. My ai3 wa$ to analy$e thi$ hi$tory6 in thedi$continuity that no teleology would reduce in ad%anceH to 3a8

>>224??

it in a di$8er$ion that no 8re;e$tali$hed horion would e3raceH to allow it to e de8loyed in an anony3ity on which no

tran$cendental con$titution would i38o$e the for3 of the $uJectH to o8en it u8 to a te38orality that would not 8ro3i$e the

return of any dawn. My ai3 wa$ to clean$e it of all tran$cendental narci$$i$3H it had to e freed fro3 that circle of the lo$torigin6 and redi$co%ered where it wa$ i38ri$onedH it had to e $hown that the hi$tory of thought could not ha%e thi$ role of

re%ealing the tran$cendental 3o3ent that rational 3echanic$ ha$ not 8o$$e$$ed $ince Kant6 3athe3atical idealitie$ $ince

'u$$erl6 and the 3eaning$ of the 8ercei%ed world $ince Merleau;Ponty de$8ite the effort$ that had een 3ade to find ithere.

And I thin< that really6 de$8ite the ele3ent of dout introduced y our a88arent di$8ute o%er $tructurali$36 we under$tood

each other 8erfectly. I 3ean6 each of u$ under$tood 8erfectly what the other wa$ trying to do. It i$ Buite nor3al that you$hould defend the right$ of a continuou$ hi$tory6 o8en oth to the a88lication of a teleology and to the endle$$ 8roce$$e$ of

cau$alityH ut it wa$ not to 8rotect it fro3 a $tructural in%a$ion that failed to recognie it$ 3o%e3ent6 $8ontaneity6 and internaldyna3i$3H in fact6 you were trying to 8re$er%e the 8ower$ of a con$tituent con$ciou$ne$$6 $ince it wa$ really they that were in

Bue$tion. *ut thi$ defence wa$ to ta<e 8lace el$ewhere6 and not in the $a3e 8lace a$ the di$cu$$ion it$elf@ for if you recognie

the right of a 8iece of e38irical re$earch6 $o3e frag3ent of hi$tory6 to challenge the tran$cendental di3en$ion6 then you ha%eceded the 3ain 8oint. 'ence a $erie$ of $hift$ or di$8lace3ent$. To treat archaeology a$ a $earch for the origin6 for for3al a

8riori$6 for founding act$6 in $hort6 a$ a $ort of hi$torical 8heno3enology >when6 on the contrary6 it$ ai3 i$ to free hi$tory



fro3 the gri8 of 8heno3enology?6 and then to oJect that it fail$ in it$ ta$<6 and that it ne%er di$co%er$ 3ore than a $erie$ of

e38irical fact$. Then to contra$t archaeological de$cri8tion6 and it$ concern to e$tali$h thre$hold$6 ru8ture$6 and

tran$for3ation$6 with the true wor< of hi$torian$6 which i$ to re%eal continuitie$ >when thi$ cea$ed to e the concern of hi$torian$ decade$ ago?H and then to re8roach it for it$ lac< of concern for e38iricitie$. And then to regard it a$ an enter;8ri$e

who$e ai3 i$ to de$crie cultural totalitie$6 to ho3ogenie the 3o$t o%iou$ difference$6 and to redi$co%er the uni%er$ality of

con$tricti%e for3$ >when it$ ai3 i$ to define the uniBue $8ecificity of



>>220??

di$cur$i%e 8ractice$?6 and then to oJect to difference$6 change$6 and 3utation$. ,a$tly6 to regard it a$ an i38ortation of

$tructurali$3 into the do3ain of hi$tory >when it$ 3ethod$ and conce8t$ cannot 8o$$ily e confu$ed with $tructurali$3?and then to $how that it cannot function a$ a true $tructural analy$i$.

Thi$ whole 8lay of di$8lace3ent$ and 3i$under$tanding$ i$ 8erfectly coherent and nece$$ary. It rought with it a$econdary enefit@ eing ale to a88roach fro3 an oliBue angle all tho$e for3$ of $tructurali$3 that had to e tolerated6 and

that could no longer e re$i$tedH and to $ay to the3@ 5ou $ee what youGll eD8o$e your$el%e$ to if you touch tho$e do3ain$

that are $till our$H your 3ethod$ 3ay ha%e $o3e %alidity el$e;where6 ut they would $oon e rought to recognie their



It i$ true that I ha%e ne%er 8re$ented archaeology a$ a $cience6 or e%en a$ the eginning$ of a future $cience. And I ha%e

tried to draw u8 a $ur%ey and in the 8roce$$ to 3a<e a good 3any correction$ of the wor< that I had done in certain

field$ of concrete re$earch6 rather than 8roduce 8lan$ for $o3e future uilding. The word archaeology i$ not $u88o$ed tocarry any $ugge$tion of antici8ationH it $i38ly indicate$ a 8o$$ile line of attac< for the analy$i$ of %eral 8erfor3ance$@ the

$8ecification of a le%el that of the $tate3ent and the archi%eH the deter3ination and illu3ination of a do3ain the

enunciati%e regularitie$6 the 8o$iti%itie$H the a88lication of $uch conce8t$ a$ rule$ of for3a;tion6 archaeological deri%ation6and hi$torical a 8riori. *ut in al3o$t all

>>22??

it$ di3en$ion$ and o%er al3o$t all it$ cre$t$6 the enter8ri$e i$ related to the $cience$6 and to analy$e$ of a $cientific ty8e6 or to

theorie$ $uJect to rigorou$ criteria. Fir$t of all6 it i$ related to the $cience$ that are con$tituted and e$tali$h their nor3$ inthe <nowledge archaeologic;ally de$cried@ for the archaeological enter8ri$e6 the$e $cience$ are $o 3any $cience;oJect$6 a$

3orid anato3y6 8hilology6 8olitical econo3y6 and iology ha%e already een. It i$ al$o related to $cientific for3$ of analy$i$6 ut i$ di$tingui$hed fro3 the3 either in le%el6 do3ain6 or 3ethod$6 and JuDta8o$ed to the3 y characteri$tic line$

of di%i$ionH y $eiing6 out of the 3a$$ of thing$ $aid6 u8on the $tate3ent defined a$ a function of realiation of the %eral

8erfor3ance6 it di$tingui$he$ it$elf fro3 a $earch who$e 8ri%ileged field i$ lingui$tic co38etence@ while $uch a de$cri8tioncon$titute$ a generati%e 3odel6 in order to define the acce8taility of $tate3ent$6 archaeology trie$ to e$tali$h rule$ of for;

3ation6 in order to define the condition$ of their realiationH etween the$e two 3ode$ of analy$i$6 there are6 therefore6 a

nu3er of analogie$6 ut there are al$o a nu3er of difference$ >in 8articular6 concern;ing the 8o$$ile le%el of for3aliation? H in any ca$e6 for archaeology6 a generati%e gra33ar 8lay$ the role of a related analy$i$. Moreo%er6 in their

de8loy3ent and in the field$ that they co%er6 archaeological de$cri8tion$ are articulated u8on other di$ci8line$H in $ee<ing to

define6 out;$ide all reference to a 8$ychological or con$tituent $uJecti%ity6 the different 8o$ition$ of the $uJect that 3ay ein%ol%ed in $tate3ent$6 archaeology touche$ on a Bue$tion that i$ eing 8o$ed today y 8$ychoanaly$i$H in trying to re%eal

the rule$ of for3ation of conce8t$6 the 3ode$ of $ucce$$ion6 conneDion6 and coeDi$tence of $tate3ent$6 it touche$ on the

8role3 of e8i$te3ological $tructure$H in $tudying the for3ation of oJect$6 the field$ in which they e3erge and are$8ecified6 in $tudying too the condition$ of a88ro8riation of di$cour$e$6 it touche$ on the analy$i$ of $ocial for3ation$. For

archaeology6 the$e are $o 3any correlati%e $8ace$. ,a$tly6 in $o far a$ it i$ 8o$$ile to con$titute a general theory of 8roduction$6 archaeology6 a$ the analy$i$ of the rule$ 8ro8er to the different di$cur$i%e 8ractice$6 will find what 3ight. e

called it$ en%elo8ing theory.

If I $ituate archaeology a3ong $o 3any other6 already con$tituted6 di$cour$e$6 it i$ not in order to gi%e it $o3e <ind of $tatu$ y a$$ociation that it would e inca8ale of acBuiring in i$olationH it i$ not in order to

>>22??

gi%e it a definiti%e 8lace in an un3o%ing con$tellationH ut in order to re%eal6 with the archi%e6 the di$cur$i%e for3ation$6 the

8o$iti%itie$6 the $tate3ent$6 and their condition$ of for3ation6 a $8ecific do3ain. A do3ain that ha$ not $o far een 3ade the

oJect of any analy$i$ >at lea$t6 of what i$ 3o$t $8ecific and 3o$t irreducile to inter8retation$ and for3aliation$ aout it?H ut a do3ain that ha$ no 3ean$ of guaranteeing at the $till rudi3entary $tage of 3a88ing at which I a3 at 8re$ent thatit will re3ain $tale and autono3ou$. After all6 it 3ay e that archaeology i$ doing nothing 3ore than 8laying the role of an

in$tru3ent that 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to articulate6 in a le$$ i38reci$e way than in the 8a$t6 the analy$i$ of $ocial for3ation$ and

e8i$te3ological de$cri8tion$H or which 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to relate an analy$i$ of the 8o$ition$ of the $uJect to a theory of thehi$tory of the $cience$H or which 3a<e$ it 8o$$ile to $ituate the 8lace of inter$ection etween a general theory of 8roduction

and a generati%e analy$i$ of $tate3ent$. ,a$tly6 it 3ay turn out that archaeology i$ the na3e gi%en to a 8art of our

conte38orary theoretical conJuncture. :hether thi$ conJuncture i$ gi%;ing ri$e to an indi%idualiale di$ci8line6 who$e initialcharacteri$tic$ and o%erall li3it$ are eing outlined here6 or whether it i$ gi%ing ri$e to a $et of 8role3$ who$e 8re$ent

coherence doe$ not 3ean that it will not e ta<en u8 later el$ewhere6 in a different way6 at a higher le%el6 or u$ing different

3ethod$6 I a3 in no 8o$ition at the 3o3ent to decide. And6 to tell you the truth6 it i$ 8roaly not u8 to 3e to decide. I acce8tthat 3y di$cour$e 3ay di$a88ear with the figure that ha$ orne it $o far.

5ou 3a<e curiou$ u$e of the freedo3 that you Bue$tion in other$. For you gi%e your$elf the whole field of a free $8ace

that you e%en refu$e to Bualify. *ut are you forgetting the care with which you enclo$ed the di$cour$e of other$ within$y$te3$ of rule$ Are you forgetting all tho$e con$traint$ that you de$cried $o 3eticulou$ly 'a%e you not de8ri%edindi%idual$ of the right to inter%ene 8er$onally in the 8o$iti%itie$ in which their di$cour$e$ are $ituated 5ou ha%e lin<ed their

$lighte$t word$ to oligation$ that conde3n their $lighte$t inno%ation$ to confor3ity. 5ou 3a<e re%olution %ery ea$y for

your$elf6 ut %ery difficult for other$. It 3ight he etter if you had a clearer awarene$$ of the condition$ in which you $8ea<6and a greater confidence in the real action of 3en and in their 8o$$iilitie$.

>>29??

IG3 afraid you are 3a<ing a doule 3i$ta<e@ aout the di$cur$i%e 8ractice$ that I ha%e tried to



$ur%i%e in I$ not di$cour$e6 in it$ 3o$t 8rofound deter3ination6 a UtraceU And i$ it$ 3ur3ur not the 8lace of in$u$tantiali33ortalitie$ Mu$t we ad3it that the ti3e of di$cour$e i$ not the ti3e of con$ciou$ne$$ eDtra8olated to the di3en$ion$ of

hi$tory6 or the ti3e of hi$tory 8re$ent in the for3 of con$ciou$ne$$ Mu$t I $u88o$e that in 3y di$cour$e I can ha%e no$ur%i%al And that in $8ea<ing I a3 not ani$hing 3y death6 ut actually e$tali$hing itH or rather that I a3 aoli$hing all

interiority in that eDterior that i$ $o indifferent to 3y life6 and $o neutral6 that it 3a<e$ no di$tinction etween 3y life and 3y

deathG

I under$tand the unea$e of all $uch 8eo8le. They ha%e 8roaly found it difficult enough to recognie that their hi$tory6

their econo3ic$6 their $ocial 8ractice$6 the language >langue? that they $8ea<6 the 3ythology of their ance$tor$6 e%en the$torie$ that they were told in their childhood6 are go%erned y rule$ that are not all gi%en to their con$ciou$ne$$H they canhardly agree to eing di$8o$$e$$ed in addition of that di$cour$e in which they wi$h to e ale to $ay i33ediately and directly

what they thin<6 elie%e6 or i3agineH they 8refer to deny that di$cour$e i$ a co38leD6 differentiated 8ractice6 go%erned y

analy$ale rule$ and tran$for3ation$6 rather than e de8ri%ed of that tender6 con;$oling certainty of eing ale to change6 if

not the world6 if not life6 at lea$t their G3eaningG6 $i38ly with a fre$h word that can co3e only fro3 the3$el%e$6 and re3ain

for e%er clo$e to the $ource. So 3any thing$ ha%e already eluded the3 in their language >langage?@ they ha%e no wi$h to $ee

what they $ay go the $a3e wayH at all co$t$6 they 3u$t 8re$er%e that tiny frage3ent of di$cour$e whether written or $8o<en who$e fragile6 uncertain eDi$tence 3u$t 8er8etuate their li%e$. They cannot ear >and one cannot ut $y38athie? to hear

$o3eone $aying@ G"i$cour$e i$ not life@ it$ ti3e i$ not your ti3eH in it6 you will not e reconciled to deathH you 3ay ha%e

<illed /od eneath the weight of all that you ha%e $aidH ut donGt i3agine that6 with all that you are $aying6 you will 3a<e a

3an that will li%e longer than he.G

INDE( a priori 5% 3bel* (4 2'9 accounts boo 9,

accumulation 1,%5+1

actualityB domain 6%

3danson* <4 6* 66* 177

adverb 92

age pyramid 9,

alchemy 1, algebra 2'9 allegory 227 alphabet 96

analysisB causal 1%o* 1%2C of

contradictions 1C of the

epiteme 211C physiocratic 1%7C of

the sign 19C symbolic 1%o 3nalysis of Dealth 6%* 72* 7,*7+* 7*

7

6

* 77*

1

7*

@%

analysts 121 3n=uetiluperron* 34 19* 1%7*

1%%appropriationB rules and processes 7appurtenancesB symbolic 1',

archaeology %* 1+%* 169* 177* 1%%C correlations 179C description 171C history of ideas 1159C isomorphisms 17%C model 17%C

shifts 17%C territories 2'2

archive 1+25%

3ristotle 16o

3rnauld* 34 19

3rtaud* 34 27

articulation 67

atemporalityB discontinuous 1%+ atomistic themes 1,

attribution 67C of innovation 1C theory 1%+

0achelard* G4 +* 2'9 0al-ac* ?4 de 2 Ba!", (4 ,%* 1%+ 2,+88

0enoit de <aillet ,9* 19* 2'2 0ernard* &4 2'7

0ible 199

0iblical criticism 1760ichat* <4 #4 ,7* 9* 1+2* 161 biology ,+* 1%9

bipolar analysis 1% 0leuler* E4 ++

0lumenbach* /4 16o 0opp* #4 19* 1%7*1%% 0ordeu* T4 de ,9* 169 bourgeoisie 77* 2'+ breasB synchrony 19

0roussais* #4/4 F4 1+2

B!ff#$, G. %&, 66 -06 )26 &426 &06 '6', 169* 17'* 2'2 0utor* <4 2



&anguilhem* G4 192* 2'9 &antillon* $4 7,* 76* 19,* 2'7 causal analysis 1%o* 1%2 causal succession +

causality 22+

cell pathology ,7

characteri-ationB theory 19' chemistry 199

cholera epidemic 1%,28 1% &lassical period 17

clinical medicine 9* 1+2* 1%o &oeurdou>* $4!4 19* 1%7 coe>istenceB field 112

coherence 167C la) 166

coinage see 3nalysis of Dealth &olbert* /4 04 76Comedie humaine, La (Ba"ac) 2 comparative descriptions 1 conceptB displacement C formation

625%%C incompatibility 172 concomitanceB field 6+&ondillac* E4 1%+

connaissance 16* 6o* 2''51+ conscious act (prise de conscience) 21+51

constructionB rule 99* 1'9

conte>t log

contradictions 16657,C analysis 1 &opernicus 116

correlate 101, 1'2* 1',

&ournot* 34 34 2'7

criminality +6* +7* , crystallography 176

&uvier* G4 16o* 1%%* 192

ar)in* &4 ,9* 117* 1+2* 19* 16'* 162* 171

aubenton* "4/4<4 16o* 1%%* 2'2 deciphermentB internal 1' delin=uent +%

derivationB tree of enunciative 16+ descriptionsB comparative 1C

epistemological 17+ designation 67

estutt de Tracy 1%+ development 2+C la) 1%+ iderot* 4 ,9* 1+2* 19 diffractionB points 7, iophantus 2'9

discontinuity 9* 10

discourse 12'* 1,1C function 7C

interpretation 2

discursive constellationB economy

7+88discursive events ,'

discursive fieldB reorgani-ation 172 discursive formation 121* 1,'* 1,1*1* 1+* 191C synchrony 1%+ dissensionB spaces 17'

doctorsB discourse C institutional

sites 6

document 7* 12,88

domain 6%C enunciative 1,7C no)ledge 21C ob;ects %1* 122C scientific 2'2

ostoevsy* #4 <4 2 u "aurens* ?4/4 ++uclos* &4 ,%

&cce omo (iet-sche8 27 economic discourse 76* 77 economy of the discursive

constellation 7+

elementB dispersion %o

enunciabilityB system 1+6

enunciationB coe>istence 112C divergent modalities 172C domain 1,7C events 1,7C field 6+* 110, 172C function 9911%* 1'%* 1'9C

homogeneity 162* 16,* 16C modalities %1* %,C ob;ect 21+C regularities 162C sub;ect 1'6C tree of derivation 1+enveloping theory 22%

epiteme C analysis 211 epistemological description 17+ e=uivalenceB points 7,

Es=uirol* /4 E4 4 ++* +7* 2'7Eulor* "4 17

evential engagementB level 1% evolution 2+C ar)inHs theory 171C principle 19

e>istenceB modalities 122 e>teriority 1,67

#abre dH:livet* 34 2'2

fieldB concomitance 6+C memory 6+* 1,9C nondiscursive practices 7C stabili-ation 116

fine artB theory 176

fi>ist principleB "innaeus 169* 171* 192

#leur du ( Le



#orbonnais* F4 de 1%%

formationB discursive 1+C mobility of system %,C rules +2C system %2* %+

formulation 12'C act 9,C author 1'7C level 129

#rench $evolution 17%98 19 #rench type)riters 96

#reud* 4 116* 212

functions 172

Galois* E4 2'9genealogical tree 9,

Genera %lantarum "innaeus8 92 General Grammar 6%* 72* 7+* 17* 17%* 1%* 1%9

geometry 176C metahistorical model 2'%

Grammaire de %ort)"oyal C ee alo General GrammarC !ort$oyal grammar

grammar ,+C "atin 92C structure 101 Grammont* 4 de 19,

Gresham* ir T4 162

Grimm* /4 19

gro)th curve 9,

Gueroult* <4

?arris* /41%7

?einroth* /4 &4 34 ++* 2'7

?erder* /4 G4 199

historiansB literary 11C tools , historical a priori 1+2% historicotranscendental analysis2'%88

history +* 6C of ideas 2,* 12* 1,* 1+* 16%C of no)ledge *connaiance+ 16C of thought 1,

((236))

hospital 6

incompatibilityB points 7, innovationB attribution 1 institutional sitesB doctors 6 intelligence =uotient ++ interdiscursive

configuration 17 interpositivityB region 176

Jevons, W. S. 1+2* 2'7

JoyCe

, J. 2

;udiciaryB authority +% Jussieu, B. de 6* 1%+* 2'2

Kant* 4 22+ Keynes* /4 <4 162

inshipB secret 1',

no)ledgeB authority %9C domain 21

no)ledge (savoir: connaissance) 2''1C and ideology 2', Kraepelin* E4 ++

laboratory 7

"aennec* $4 T4 ?4 1+2

"amarc* /4 04 19

"ancelot* &4 ,%* 19* 162* 16,* 1%+ language ,'* ,%* 96C analysis 177C

&lassical ,%C fluctuating 1,Csignified 12C signifier 12

"atin 1%7C grammar 92

"avoisier* 34 17la)B coherence 166C vo)elgradations Grimm8 19

"a)* /4 7,* 76* 179library 7

linguisticsB analogy 162C competence 22%C performance 12'linguists 121

"innaeus* &4 62* 6+* 6* 72* 7* 77* 92* 1+2* 16o* 161* 169* 17'* 192 literary analysis

literary historians 11

"oce* /4162* 2'7

logical identity 162



logicians 121

"ogos 1,6* 17,C unity 122

madness ,6

Madness and Civii!a"ion 16* 1%* 72* 17+* 197<allarme* 4 2

mapping of transformations 1 <ar>* K4 1+* 1* 16* 2'7 material unity language 26 mathematicsB discourse 2'%C

history 2'9C treatise 1' medical science ,67

medicine ,+* +6* 17+* 1%%C clinical 9*1%o

memoryB field 6+* 1,9 <erleau!onty* <4 22+ methodology 12C problems 19 <ichelet* /4 2

microbiology 199* 2'7 monument 1

<orgagni* G4 04 9* 192 mythology 2,2

#aissance de a cini$ue 16* 1%* 72* 17+ (atural ?istory 6,* 6%* 72* 7+* 77*

%1* 1+2* 16+* 17+* 17C 1%th

century 171C domain 169 (iet-sche* #4 D4 1+* 1* 16* 27 nominal syntagma 92* 100 nondiscursive practicesB field 7 non

tautological propositions 1'9 normativityB domain 6%nounB proper too

nounarticulation 1% novel 1'+

novelist 11

ob;ectB domain %1* 1',* 122C inade=uation 171

Od%sse% 2

oeuvre 2* 27* 2%* +2* 67* 79* %o* 1'7*

'+,* '', '6

oppositionB intrinsic 171

Order o& 'hins, 'he ,-( -(

painting 21,* 21+

oioenesie phiosophi$ue 0onnet8 2'2paranoia ++

!arisuverney* /4 76 !asteur* "4 2'7

pedagogyB practice 7 !eirce* &4 4 '9

periodi-ation %C totalitarian 16 permutationB canonic form 99 personal pronoun 92 !etty* ir D4 7,* 161* 162* 179

phenomenology 22+ philology 19+phrenology ',

!hysiocratic analysis 1%7 !hysiocrats 71* 72* 77* %2* 1+2 physiology 199C humours and

germs 176

!inel* !4 ++* 161* 2'7 !lato 116!oe* E4 34 ,6

political economy ,+* 1+2* 1%7* 2'+ politics 21+

polysemia 12,

!ort$oyal grammar ,%* 7* 16o positivities 19,positivityB threshold 2'6prayer 9+

precession 19

preconceptual 67* 6%

preface 1'

present indicative 92

*+*-$a regularities % procedures of intervention 6 !rochasa* /4 16o* 192

pronounB personal 92C secondperson 1'9

proper noun 100

proposition 91* 1'%* 1'9* 12'C level

129C nontautological 1'9 psychiatric discourse +6* , psychiatry +7* %,* '7+* '97 psychoanalysis 22% psychopathology ,+*

,* +7* 1* 2'6Cdiscourse ++

Iuesnay* F. +'* 1+2

$acine* J. 222 ais, !. de 2 a"us, #. 1%7



random numbers 96

rarification 1,,5+1C principle 1,+ Ra/, $4 K4 1%7

rational mechanics 176

Recherche du "emps perdu !roust8 1'+

recurrence 1+'

recurrent redistribution recurrential analysis 2'9

referent 101, 1',* 1'9

refractionB la) 9,

remanence ',9$enaissance 6

repeatable materiality 11+

residual (remanen") ',9

Reve de d*Aem+er", Le iderot8 2'2

valueB formation +'

Fan )ieten ++* 1+2 verbattributionB theory 1% verbal performance 12'* 122*

12,* 22%

Fico* G4 17* 199 vocabularyB polymorphous 16

strategiesB formation 7159 structuralism 219* 221* 22 structureB ontology 22C theory 17' successionB canonic form 99

surfaces of emergence + symbolic analysis 1%o symbols 11,C numeric 96 syntagma 99C nominal 92* 100 systemati-ationB

points 7,

tautology 227

teleology 22+C of reason 1,6 Telliamed 0enoit de <aillet8 2'2 temporal derivationB analysis 19' temporal successions 1%+

temporal vectors of derivation 1%6 Thg /tre et on Double( Le 3rtaud8

2788

threshold ofepistemologi-ation 2'6 threshold of formali-ation 2'6 threshold of positivity 2'6 threshold of scientificity 2'6

totalitarian periodi-ation 16 Tournefort* /4 !4 de 6* 162* 16+* 1%+ Tractatu Dittgenstein8 27 tradition 2,

Traitr de membrane 0ichat8 9 transcribingB methods 6 transformationB analysis 19oC

mapping 1

translatingB modes 6 Turgot* 34 $4 1+2* 177* 179* 1%%

type)ritersB #rench 96

0lye /oyce8 2 Utilitarists 72* 7,* 76* 77* %2

validityB domain 6%

DealthB 3nalysis 6%* 72* 7,* 7+* 7*

76* 77* 17* @% e"anschauun 176 Dillis* T4 192

Dittgenstein* "4 27 DordB richness 122

foucault, michel (2002) archaeology of knowledge - london;routledge

Documents