[Reader-list] Archive, Subject etc.

[ritwik bhattacharyya]

Should one continue to justify or validate a

*Positivist de-temporality* in history as a *discipline*?



It is an important question to ask as some would say that history has been
received in the mode of positivist de-temporality thanks to a specific
reading that finds it as such. Historical Time itself is a matter of debate
and elucidation that cannot be reduced to the discussion of a positivist de-
temporality. If however one attempts to argue that history is indeed about
fostering positive de-temporality through an academic discipline, one cannot
bypass the debate concerning historical time as has been discussed in detail
in recent works like Paul Ricouer's *Time and Narrative* (3 Volumes). This
is just to remind us of the formidable contenders we would face if we chose
to hold on to the Positivist de-temporality argument.


 Can one address questions of archive without
 first addressing questions of *history as a discipline*?



Let's admit that while we discuss archives we can't do that disregarding
archive's role as an equipment within the historiographic operation. Thus
without addressing the problem of history as a discourse and the conventions
of how it operates , we would not make an interesting argument, especially
in view of the question posed by Arnab['*I'm trying* *to get at some form of
history or critical/effective history or genealogy which can do
without 'archives' ( used in the disciplinary sense of history, ok?']*. Even
in generic terms a discussion of archive without discussing its
equipmentality within the hegemonic discourse of history would leave many
questions unanswered and worse still, many questions unposed.



Trying to move *away from Foucault (without loosing him)*?



*Subjectivity is crucial*. But simply moving away from Foucault or
discussing a text like Agamben's *Remnants of Auchwitz* will not help us to
understand why it is crucial in Foucault. And since Arnab had posed the
initial question about the relationship between archive and a genealogical
enterprise we might just stick on to Foucault 'the happy positivist' for a
while. We might look into Archaeology and find out what is being said about
'subjectivation' there. . *But archive, isn't it more close to the
Foucauldian provenance of governmentality than subjectivity as a primary
first?*

Governmentality, we might venture to say, is also about subject formation
from above( if the problem, for some reason ,is about the term '
subjectivity', let me plead for its provisional usage here). It would thus
be interesting too see why for Foucault, who wants to contest the
traditional histpriography etc. Archive remains a valued term, even as it is
being used in a modified sense. This might give us an initial foothold.



Thanks