초록 close

푸코의 의학적 시선의 고고학은 구조주의 방법론도 아니고 인식론도 아니고 과학사도 아니다. 의학적 시선의 고고학이란 현(근)대라는 특정한 시대 의 의학적 담론구성체의 형성 조건들의 현존에 대한 역사적이며 비판적인 연구 이다. 하나의 담론구성체의 역사를 서술하는 것은 “현재의 관점에서 과거의 역 사를 서술하는 것”이 아니라 “현재의 역사를 서술하는 것”이다. 더군다나 그 고 고학은 단순히 과거에 대한 복원적 서술이 아니라, 그 담론구성체와 관련된 비 (非)언어적 조건들 즉, 권력관계와 주체성의 현재적 조건들에 대한 비판이면서 동시에 새로운 조건 창출을 모색함을 뜻한다. 따라서 그 고고학은 현재의 역사 를 다시 서술하는 것이기 때문에 역사적이면서도 비판적이다. 이 비(非)지식적 조건들은 단순히 인식 조건이나 과학성의 조건만이 아니라 근본적으로 비언어 적 조건들이므로, 이러한 조건의 현존에 대한 탐구는 인식 조건의 가능성을 탐 구하는 인식론도 아니고 개별분과들에 기반을 두고 형성된 과학들을 서술하는 과학사도 아니라 현(근)대성의 현존에 대한 해체 존재론이다.


The archaeoloy of medical gaze is not a structuralist methodology. It also is neither a epistemology nor a history of science. But, it is a historico-critical study of the existence of the formational conditions of a medical discursive formation in the particular times of modernity. Writing the history of a discursive formation is not “writing a history of the past in terms of the present”, but “writing the history of the present.” In addition, it is simply not a restorative description of the past, but a critique of the non-verbal conditions of the discursive formation. It is not only a critique of the conditions of the present power relations and subjectivity, but also a search for transformation of them. Therefore, it is historical and critical, for it is rewriting the history of the present. As these non-verbal conditions are simply neither the epistemological, nor scientifical, the research of the existence of them is neither the epistemology that seeks to know the possibilities of knowledge, nor the history of science that wants to describe sciences which have been formed based on disciplines. It is a deconstructive ontology of the existence of the modernity.


The archaeoloy of medical gaze is not a structuralist methodology. It also is neither a epistemology nor a history of science. But, it is a historico-critical study of the existence of the formational conditions of a medical discursive formation in the particular times of modernity. Writing the history of a discursive formation is not “writing a history of the past in terms of the present”, but “writing the history of the present.” In addition, it is simply not a restorative description of the past, but a critique of the non-verbal conditions of the discursive formation. It is not only a critique of the conditions of the present power relations and subjectivity, but also a search for transformation of them. Therefore, it is historical and critical, for it is rewriting the history of the present. As these non-verbal conditions are simply neither the epistemological, nor scientifical, the research of the existence of them is neither the epistemology that seeks to know the possibilities of knowledge, nor the history of science that wants to describe sciences which have been formed based on disciplines. It is a deconstructive ontology of the existence of the modernity.