Like the other viewer said, I think this is a useful book for anyone looking to understand Foucault particularly the Order of Things but I should warn you before you buy it that this book is slightly dated as you may have guessed by the title. The interview in the back of my edition is also helpful but in all of his interviews Foucault tries to redo parts of his work so read it closely and in relation to his other interviews.

This book has been numbered as the most authoritative interpretation of Foucault. The main question of the book is how to classify Foucault¡¯s thought. Foucault has been characterized as a typical structuralist. But as the subtitle of this book implies, he is not a structuralist, authors argue. He attempted to overcome the dichotomy of structuralism and hermeneutics. Early works like ¡®The Order of Things¡¯ and ¡®The Archaeology of Knowledge¡¯ might be seen as a breakthrough in structuralist line. But late works like ¡®Discipline and Punishment¡¯ and ¡®The History of Sexuality¡¯ have some flavor of hermeneutics. In this regard, Foucault could not be classified as structuralist or hermeneutist. Then Foucault¡¯s thought, one might guess, seemed to shift from structuralism to hermeneutics. To clear the confusion, we should visit Foucault¡¯s conception of discourse. The discourse is actually how the human-being understand and construct its world. Then the question of ¡®what is discourse?¡¯ is translated into ¡®what is understanding the world?¡¯ the most dominant approaches to that question are phenomenology, hermeneutics and structuralism. But they hasn¡¯t presented satisfactory solution. In Husserlian approach, the world is understood by meaning-giving transcendental subject. In structuralist approach, both meaning and subject give way to objective law (structure). Structure governs the subject. Hermeneutics is a bit subtler than them. Human-being is a meaning-giving subject, but meaning is located in the social practices like tradition or convetion, routine. (for more details, see my review on Eagleton¡¯s ¡®Literary Theory: An Introduction) Foucault gyrates along those three positions, which makes Foucault hard to be pinpointed. The trajectory Foucault traced reveals how he attempted to set up his own solution.
The questions raised by hermeneutics and structuralism converges into the question, ¡®What lies beyond discourse?¡¯ structuralism answers ¡®it¡¯s the structure.¡¯ In the world of structuralism, the concept of meaning is altogether eliminated. Hermeneutics, according to Gadamer, answers ¡®it¡¯s the profound understanding of Being embedded in traditional linguistic practices.¡¯ They all focus on linguistic practices, the discourse. It seems that in the early works, ¡®The Archaeology of Knowledge¡¯ and ¡®The Order of things¡¯, Foucault followed the structuralist doctrines: the discourse appears as self-regulating and autonomous. The methodology he hired, archaeology is indifferent to the meaning in the discourse, just as ethnologists methodically distantiate themselves both from one¡¯s own culture and from the culture under investigation. With the method of structuralist archaeology, Foucault could achieve such a distanciation. Discourse in mere object to be dissected. But the influences from social institution, which is the essential to Foucualt¡¯s conception of discourse, couldn¡¯t be seen. According to Giddens, discourse has always some intended effect to bring about. So it plays some role in social life. As demonstrated in vivid manner on ¡®Madness and Civilization¡¯, discourse not only talks about object-being-there, but also makes it. Madness emerged as the effect of discourse. It was not naturally there. Here comes the conception of power. Early method of archaeology serves to isolate and analyze discourse. But it doesn¡¯t mean that Foucault turned to hermeneutics. Actually, he denied the meaning-giving subject with advocating the disappearance of the subject. Unlike Wittgenstein or Giddens, power is the attribute not of individual social actors but of dominating system. So discourse is not the business of individuals. In the ¡®History of Sexuality¡¯, he showed how the deep meaning like identity is related to social dominance, in other word practices of power. The subject speaking deep truth or meaning is actually the product of power. But it makes it the elusive question, where the power resides in or what the power is at all. The authors are right when saying Foucault is neither structuralist nor hermeneutist. But Foucault¡¯s position is inherently ambiguous: he seems stuck in middle, I think.

Indeed, Dreyfus and Rabinow have "cleared up" much of Foucaults difficult methods. I would say that reading this does not excuse anyone from Foucaults works; it could be read alongside them to help clarify themes and connect seemingly useless portions that most people would like to skip through. Besides, without actually reading Foucault you are missing out on some of the most profound, stylistic, and original philosophy of the twentieth century. An excellent introduction and guide, but comprehensive enough to warrant FIVE stars. Trust me. Dreyfus and Rabinow have written a surprisingly original book here; their view and support of Foucault as "beyond structuralism and hermeneutics" is brilliantly explained.

It is not so easy to determine where Foucault is attempting to go with his published books. In this sense, the books from "Madness and Civilization" to the 3rd "History of Sexuality" can be thought of as practical works that have specific institutional and discursive aims. Thus, they are short in explanation of the methodology and instead such intentions are available as they are practiced in the texts. For example, philosophers such as Nietzsche and Marx, to name a few, are hardly mentioned in Foucault's book; however, they are often evoked and utilised without obvious references or footnotes. As Deleuze once commented: Foucault doesn't say what to do, he just does it.

Thus, Foucault's occasional essays, covering academic journals, popular press, lectures, introductions, and so on, serve to clue us, the readers, as to where Foucault is coming from, and, furthermore, in which direction his thought is heading.

This edition, covering Foucault's superb writings on literature, his mentors, music, as well as other philosophical movements, situates a thinker within an intellectual context from his very own words. In "The Archaeology of Knowledge" Foucault begins by saying "do not ask me who I am..." To be sure, with this volume, we can begin to better understand Foucault without the interface of commentators and scholars. Directness of discourse is an important element in Foucault's thought...

Although much of the pieces that appear here have been previously translated and released in a variety of formats, I predict that any scholar or occasional reader would be pleased to accept this redundancy for the very convenience that this collection presents.

Some most interesting pieces include, the previously hard to find Foucault's response to Derrida's reading of "Madness and Civilization"; Foucault's responses to the Epistemology circle; and an illuminating interview in which Foucault situates his thought in 20th Century French intellectual life. In addition, this collection includes popular 'staple' such as "Theatrum Philosophicum," "Nietzsche, Freud, Marx," and "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History," all of which provide endless insight into Foucault even despite numerous re-readings.

While serious followers of Foucault's works would benefit greatly from this collection, this would also serve as a good introduction to Foucault--maybe second only to the cartoon books on Foucault!

And to close: if Nietzsche was the greatest philosophical stylist, this collection demonstrates conclusively that Foucault was a close second...

Michel Foucault , i think should be read by anyone read and liked Nietzsche.

I found the idea of an anthropologist having the opportunity to observe operations in a French biotech institution as things unfolded very enticing. At times I wished that I had a better background in philosophy since Rabinow makes frequent references to certain philosophers in a few chapters which I found a bit challenging to read. Nevertheless, the event that Rabinow covers is an interesting one, and he gives a very good picture of how the French view bioscience, the human body, and the commercialization of biotech products. In particular I enjoyed his descriptions and insights on the interactions of the people involved in the event and how they fit in the overall context of French society.

I really loved Rabinow's MAKING PCR, about the process of developing this major biotech tool (and probably a more accurate look at Kary Mullis than he gives in his own autobiography). FRENCH DNA is a terrific book in a different way. Rabinow tells an exciting and sobering story, virtually a who-done-it, and along the way he raises important questions about what genetic material really is, who owns it, what it means to have international research collaborations, and what biotechnology means to individuals and nations. A fascinating book.

I'm not too crazy about this inaugural edition of the Essential Works of M. Foucault series in English. For one, the three volumes are to be collected from the French 'Dits et Ecrits' series; that is to say, the English translations will be a selection from the complete French. It blows my mind why they didn't just translate the entire French series.

This volume is divided into two sections: the first is the complete collection of Foucault's resumes from the courses he conducted at the College de France; and the second part consists of numerous interviews and essays that have been gathered around the theme of ethics. The resumes are the official submissions by Foucault to the College, meaning that they weren't meant for publication but rather for administrative reasons. As summaries of a year's worth of teachings, covering 1970 to 1984, they only provide crude chunks of what may have proceeded in these courses and public lectures. Thus, they are rather innocuous, and useless for most scholars. The second part is equally erratic as the theme of ethics just doesn't hold up: for example, what does the piece "The Masked Philosopher" have to do with Foucault's study of Greek and Christian ethics?

The 2nd volume of this series, on aesthetics, methhod and epistemology, is a far superior collection of Foucault goodies.

The best selections from this volume is a good summary of Foucault's last two projects: on Greek and Roman sexual practices. Even the introduction by Paul Rabinow is a minor disappointment.

And I gotta say this: the cover layout is atrocious. And why couldn't they just find another photo of Foucault for the back cover, instead of merely reversing the image? Which makes me wonder: which is the original?

The First of three volumes (the second and third are also available on Amazon.com) that will introduce selected translations from the original four French volumes. This first volume has 11 course summaries that M. Foucault submitted to the College de France from 1970 to 1982. Moreover, Rabinow has skillfully included several key essays and interviews from M. Foucault's last years, when his work turned exclusively toward issues of ethics and the "care of the self." The outlines often explore subjectivity, but M. Foucault's thought turned more moral and political, zeroing in on technology and the social institutions. The selection starts with the difference M. Foucault made between the "will to knowledge" (a passion for authoritative organization) and the "will to truth" (concern for the integrity of subjective expression).

In exposing to us how these systems of knowledge are shaped by political structures of power (which in turn serve to justify themselves), M. Foucault provided dazzling critiques of some of our most highly regarded institutions in the areas of health, justice, government and education. This is really the first concrete anthology of M. Foucault's ethics of the care of the self and sexuality that really joins everything to his critical analysis of power/knowledge. In this volume, M. Foucault describes how philosophers, from antiquity to modernity, developed the practice of self-care through various literary modes: keeping journals of useful thoughts and quotations, exchanging correspondence of self-disclosure and advice between friends, writing texts of self-examination and confession (as if to imply that this was the forerunner of the modern day "examination of conscience"), drafting meditative and exploratory essay. Moreover, M. Foucault insists that "a pleasure must be something incredibly intense" or it is "nothing": "the real pleasure would be deep, so intense, so overwhelming that I couldn't survive it, I would die." Leaving no doubt why he is linked with such notables as Bataille, de Sade and Nietzsche. One of the more disturbing problematics that M. Foucault brings up in an interview is his thought points of resistance to power:

Q. It would seem that there is something of a deficiency in your problematic, namely, in the notion of resistance against power. Which presupposes a very active subject, very concerned with the care of itself and of others and, therefore, competent politically and philosophically.
M.F. This brings us back to the problem of what I mean by power. I scarcely use the word power, and if I use it on occasion it is simply as shorthand for the expression I generally use: relations of power. But there are ready-made models: when one speaks of power, people immediately think of a political structure, a government, a dominant social class, the master and the slave, and so on. I am not thinking of this at all when I speak of relations of power. I mean that in human relationships, whether they involve verbal communication such as we are engaged in at this moment, or amorous, institutional, or economic relationships, power is always present: I mean a relationship in which one person tries to control the conduct of the other. So I am speaking of relations that exist at different levels, in different forms; these power relations are mobile, they can be modified, they are not fixed once and for all.... These power relations are thus mobile, reversible, and unstable. It should also be noted that power relations are possible only insofar as the subjects are free. If one of them were completely at the other's disposal and became his thing, there wouldn't be any relations of power. Thus, in order for power relations to come into play, there must be at least a certain degree of freedom on both sides. Even when the power relation is completely out of balance, when it can truly be claimed that one side has "total power" over the other, a power can be exercised over the other only insofar as the other still has the option of killing himself, of leaping out the window, or of killing the other person.... Of course, states of domination do indeed exist. In a great many cases, power relations are fixed in such a way that they are perpetually asymmetrical and allow an extremely limited margin of freedom.... But the claim that "you see power everywhere, thus there is no freedom" seems to me absolutely inadequate. The idea that power is a system of domination that controls everything and leaves no room for freedom cannot be attributed to me. (291-293)
(quote abridged)

For M. Foucault, ethical self-care is formed by the system of knowledge and the power relations (as outlined above) in which the self is situated. The really expansive genealogical studies of M. Foucault's earlier books deal with how science related to disease, madness and criminality and how institutional powers sought to govern populations. Despite the almost about-face that M. Foucault makes, this book is helpful in making the change clear and how it fits within his oeuvre. M. Foucault's alternatives usefully problematize them; and problematization rather than conceited solutions is the hallmark of M. Foucault's philosophy. Rabinow's selection is a helpful one and no respectable M. Foucault selection should be without it, Volume 2 - Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology, and Volume 3 - Power (all available on Amazon.com)

Miguel Llora

The acute awareness of the world and the role of the thinker in the world Foucault displays in this collection, especially in this volume, has inspired me. I see this collection as the personal side of Foucault, where the histories/archaeologies are of a slightly more academic tone. Berkeley's Rabinow, one of the leading MC scholars around, provides some great commentary and insight in his introduction.

This collection of Foucault's essays, lectures, interviews, and editorials, offers even the casual reader of Foucault welcome insights into his methods, his intellectual biography and the development of his own methods. Most valuable perhaps are interviews collected from various magazines where he is challenged by his interviewers to respond to their criticisms and the criticisms of others. In one, for instance, Foucault tries hard to correct those who read his works as a totalizing critique of capitalism, or the current penal system, or the mental institution. He insists that his works are only intended to be seen as the history of various specific institutions and that those critics and followers who are tempted to project his findings onto current practices distort his intent. Whether or not you believe him, his defense of his method and his avowed intent are compelling. In another, he also quickly and cogently characterizes his two main intellectual influences, Hegelism and phenomenology, explains why he rejected these particular philosophical trends, but how they nevertheless challenged him to arrive at his own agenda and the course of his studies. Throughout Foucault is ruthlessly honest about his own failings -- for instance his lack of knowledge about the Frankfurt School, and thoughtful -- his appraisal of the problems that inhere in national healthcare programs, which he generally supports but with interesting qualifications. The editorials, while they address issues that may seem remote or dated, demonstrate that he was actively engaged in the politics of his time, and show how he applies his analytical methods to current events. Some selections will be of interest only to the Foucault fanatic or to his biographers, which is the reason for the four star, instead of the five-star, rating. Highly recommended.

This book offers a good overview of Foucaults writings, making the reader (at least me) wanting to dig deeper into several of the subjects Foucault addressed. A shortcoming is that, considering the wealth of Foucault's ouevre, some of the chapters are too condensed to be used as more than an "intellectual appetizer". I assume that for the reader who is not familiar with Foucault at all, some other book like "Foucault for Beginners" might be more useful for getting an overview. Starting from there one might want to read more anyway.

If you're wondering about Foucault, this is a great book to pick up. Not all of the concepts make sense immediately, as it is a reader and Foucault is complicated, but it's still worth a look. Pick out some favorite chapters and then read further.

Paul Rabinow does a spectacular job of compiling the "essential" Foucault. I needed to read "Madness and Civilization" as well as "I Pierre Riviere....." for a humanities course 2 years ago and this book was very helpful in placing Foucault in perspective. The Foucault Reader includes the controversial "What is an Author?", an article that outlines the complex mechanism of how a whole set of layers changes the way you, the reader, engage with the text. If Foucault and Roland Barthe were so busy analyzing the "Author Function", it makes one wonder: How much of their own "Author Function" where they aware of? By collaborating with Rabinow, Foucault is just as guilty of making his personality,notoriety and other works, work for or against each other. So much for the "Death of an Author". Notwithstanding all that I wrote above, I highly recommend this as a starting point, lest you get lost in Foucault's purposeful ambiguity.

Miguel Llora

Paul Rabinow is an anthropologist who studies molecular biologists. He tells the story of the development of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a technique that revolutionized molecular biology. Rabinow succeeds in writing a book about science that is entertaining and informative to scientists and non-scientists alike. This book provides a first-hand examples of an unexpected revolution resulting from an unassuming research project, and the long road from concept to product. See also "French DNA" by Paul Rabinow and "The Golden Helix" by Arthur Kornberg.

As a scientist (working on PCR technologies), the book was quite enjoyable, in particular the introduction in which the author has very interesting insights on the psychology of people working on scientific research, and made me pause for a "look at the mirror". The remaining of the book is a more casual reading, which nonetheless I found very interesting.

Very entertaining biographical account of the discovery of PCR, individuals, corporations, money and financial risk in biotech. Highlights the solitary, individual act of scientific discovery and how this can be decoupled from corresponding financial reward (science is not business, business is not science).

In the book, Rabinow seeks to reflect on his experience during his period of studying Morocan-islamic-religious sects and family linages related to saints of Muslim belief.

In whole he forgets to describe (providing he saw any) women or children and their role in the whole system of religion in Moroco.

Thus, if read as an ethnography, the book is very faulty.

This is a great introduction to some of the intricacies and complications cultural anthropologists face when doing fieldwork, since the world is our field (and not some lab cordoned off in some building). Several reviewers have mistaken this book for an ethnography, which it is not. This book is a self-reflexive look unto the complications an anthropologists subjectivity and experiences brings into one's study.

First off, this is not a book about the Moroccan people. It is a book about the ethnographer's experience with a community of Moroccan people. I assume that, somewhere out there, is a university press publication of his actual findings gathering dust on a shelf. Instead, this book is about some of the more uncomfortable aspects of anthropology and the destroying of illusions.

Questions of finding the outsider's insider (someone enough on the fringes to be willing to take you under their wing, but not so much that they don't have a good in-road into their own culture), of the purity of research (did you have to pay these people before they'd bother to talk to you? Were they expecting payment based on relations with other enthnographers?), and how much one can really understand a culture just by sitting a watching it (as opposed to participating, which threatens objectivity) are the issues Rabinow faced, and what he wrote about.

"Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco" is just that, memoirs on the process of the research itself, not Rabinow's findings. There are interesting comments on Rabinow's interactions with his insiders, but rarely the sort that could go into a standard academic tome. This answer to the delima of objectivity, splitting one's experiences into an official report and a journal of sorts, is one I'd like to see more of.