The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences

When Foucault says that man did not exist before the 19th century, what does he mean? How is the 19th-century human incompatible with the Classical Age human? Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?

If you could rearrange the chapters and subchapters of The Order of Things, how would you arrange them? Why? How would this affect a reader’s ability to understand Foucault’s thoughts?

Foucault uses language to structure an episteme’s possibilities. What potential frameworks are there for establishing a common denominator for an episteme? How would using labor/economics as this baseline potentially change Foucault’s analysis?

Foucault relies on readers having a pre-existing knowledge of the people he cites. Pick one person Foucault cites and research their work. Who were they? Why did they think and write what they did? How does having this historical information illuminate Foucault’s archaeology of knowledge?

Why does Foucault conceptualize his method as a type of archaeology? Can you think of some different ways to conceptualize his method? How might those different names change the way we perceive the method?

What is the unthought? How is it incompatible with the Classical Age cogito? Do you think the unthought is a wholly new invention of the 19th century? Why or why not?

Why does Foucault write about Western European cultures as a monolithic West? Why isn’t The Order of Things concerned with exploring one European culture’s episteme? Do you think Foucault’s choice of starting with the 16th century is relevant to his decision to explore the West as a whole?

Does Foucault’s methodology have any weaknesses? Is there anything he overlooks? Cite a specific passage or subchapter where this fault is strongest. If you believe Foucault’s methodology does not have any weaknesses, what do you wish he had explored further. Why?