Howarth, D (2003) Archaeology, Genealogy and Hegemony: a Reply to Mulligan. Political Studies, 51 (2). pp. 436-440. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00433
Howarth, D (2003) Archaeology, Genealogy and Hegemony: a Reply to Mulligan. Political Studies, 51 (2). pp. 436-440. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00433
Howarth, D (2003) Archaeology, Genealogy and Hegemony: a Reply to Mulligan. Political Studies, 51 (2). pp. 436-440. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00433
Abstract
<jats:p> 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. </jats:p>
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Subjects: | J Political Science > JC Political theory |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Social Sciences Faculty of Social Sciences > Government, Department of |
| SWORD Depositor: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
| Depositing User: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
| Date Deposited: | 03 Sep 2015 10:05 |
| Last Modified: | 05 Dec 2024 19:18 |
| URI: | http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/10176 |