Structuralism/Foucault: that certain problems can be found elsewhere, for example ethnology, linguistics, economics, can be called structuralism. But they have not been imported from one area to the other, but have their origin in the field of history itself.
Old view: the subject had a donor function. Their correlative: the continuous history as a guarantee that everything that has escaped the subject can be restored to it. Time is understood as totalization, and the revolutions are always only ideational realizations.
What is now mourned is not so much the disappearance of history but its form. One even realizes that Marx or Nietzsche do not guarantee the security of what was entrusted to them.
FoucaultVsAnthropologism: it is not about idealtypes, worldviews, cultural totals, epochs, which are respectively related to humans. (II 28).
Archeology/Foucault: this book does not ask for the structure, but rather for the field in which the questions of human being, the consciousness, the origin and the subject manifest, cross and specify themselves. But no doubt one would not be wrong to say that the problem of structure also arises here.
Structuralism/Foucault: I did not want to lead the undertaking beyond its legitimate boundaries. In "the order of things" I have not used the term structure a single time.
Structuralism: Thought image: our play of displacement and underestimation turns obliquely to all those forms of structuralism, which must be tolerated._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences 1994
Archäologie des Wissens Frankfurt/M. 1981