Writing Style Used in Foucault's The Archeology of Knowledge

My first instinct was to avoid this article like the plague because of the author. I knew that Michel Foucault’s work would be densely packed and intellectually challenging. A review of so prominent a writer can be fraught with risk. And yet, I was intrigued. The title of the work, in Foucault’s terms is an énoncé or statement that could have meaning only within the context of a more general discourse. Foucault was speaking not simply about others, but about himself and his relationship to the vast discourse for which he is the author. He was, after all, speaking before la Société française de Philosophie, immediately following the publication of his monumental work, The Archeology of Knowledge. This paper will examine the general approach or style of discourse that Foucault uses to lead his audience through his argument.

He opens his address, “I am proposing this slightly odd question...” followed by a confession that certain aspects of his work “now appear ill-advised and misleading” . Slightly odd indeed! The opening dangles like bait in front of this group of philosophers and historians. After all, one of the most common logical fallacies in academic analysis is the “ad hominem” argument. Such as, “He is Michel Foucault and therefore what he has to say must have merit.” His introduction continues to intrigue the audience even by that which he excludes. He is not going to examine pertinent questions like the valorization of authors or “the moment when the stories of heroes gave way to an author’s bibliography” . Is Foucault throwing a barb at critics who use “ad hominem” arguments to attack his work or is he making a critical comment about some of his contemporaries who are resting too much on their academic laurel...

... middle of paper ...

...s us to imagine a culture without any need for an author. It is suddenly evident that he has not been talking about author as a person at all but rather about the author-function. It no longer matters who is speaking. New questions arise: Where does it come from? Who controls it? What is the discourse within which it has meaning ?

Foucault opens with a teaser to stimulate interest. He uses illustration in advance of argument to prepare his audience for challenging issues. Dramatic tension sustains interest and marks key turning points in his presentation. Finally, he uses a dramatic ending to drive home a subtle but critically important element of his thesis. With his combination of intellectual rigour and compelling style, Foucault succeeds in creating the intellectual space for even a neophyte history student to explore new meaning in the idea of author.