In Michel Foucault's introduction of his book The Archaeology of Knowledge, he points several criticisms that he has with how we as a civilization keep and perceive history to which he will define in greater detail throughout the book. Foucault discusses the pros and cons of traditional analysis and fact gathering for compilations of history vs newer modes. However, he always comes back to the point of "the document" and how it should be formed and to what extent it may have or will be tampered with.
Foucault goes on to discuss several consequences he sees of history recorded in traditional forms, especially in regards to totalities. After he lists the consequences he comes back to this idea of totalities by discussing the epistemological mutation of history with regards to Marx and Nietzsche. He quotes, "One is led therefore to anthropologize Marx, to make of him a historian of totalities, and to rediscover in him the message of humanism; one is led therefore to interpret Nietzsche in the terms of transcendental philosophy, and to reduce his genealogy to the level of a search for origins; lastly, one is led to leave to one side, as if it had never arisen, that whole field of methodological problems that the new history is now presenting" (13).
2 years ago