In ‘An Archaeology of Political Discourse?’ I examined the possibility of, and conditions for, rendering Foucault's archaeological method appropriate for ideologico-political analysis. Shane Mulligan takes issue with three aspects of my account, namely, the application of archaeology to the ideological realm, the translation of concepts, and the issue of political subjectivity. The first part of my reply tackles his initial objection and the next addresses the other two criticisms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FoucaultM. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge.London: Tavistock.
2.
FoucaultM. (1984) ‘What is an Author?’, in RabinowP. (ed.), The Foucault Reader.Harmondsworth: Penguin.
3.
HowarthD. (1997) ‘Complexities of Identity/Difference: the Ideology of Black Consciousness in South Africa’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 2, (1), 51–78.
4.
HowarthD. (2000) Discourse.Buckingham: Open University Press.
5.
HowarthD. (2003) ‘Populism or Popular Democracy? The UDF, Workerism and the Struggle for Radical Democracy in South Africa’, in PanizzaF. (ed.), Rethinking Populism, London: Verso (forthcoming).
6.
MzamaneM. V.HowarthD. (2000), ‘Representing Blackness: Steve Biko and the Black Consciousness Movement’, in SwitzerL.AdhikariM. (eds), The Oppositional Press in South Africa: Alternative Voices in the Last Generation under Apartheid.Ohio OH: Ohio University Press.
7.
RampheleM. (1991), ‘Empowerment and Symbols of Hope: Black Consciousness and Community Development’, in PityanaB. (eds), Bounds of Possibility: the Legacy of Steve Biko and Black Consciousness, London: Zed.
