پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی ومطالعات فرهنگی غرب شناسی بنیادی 2383-0581 16 2 2026 01 21 From Archeology to Geneaology: The Problematique of Rupture/Continiuty in Foucault’s Methodology از دیرینه‌شناسی تا تبارشناسی: بحث در مشکله گسست/تداوم در روش‌شناسی میشل فوکو 127 154 11856 10.30465/os.2026.53737.2088 FA سید محسن علوی پور دانشیار پژوهشکده مطالعات سیاسی و روابط بین‌الملل و حقوق پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی 0000-0001-7996-0538 رضا استوار مسعود کارشناسی ارشد علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس Journal Article 2025 11 12 Introduction: This study examines a major transformation in Michel Foucault’s methodology: the shift from the archaeological approach to the genealogical one. Initially, Foucault focused on archaeology to uncover the hidden rules behind the formation of knowledge, discursive structures, and fundamental concepts of each historical period. Rather than focusing on the subject or consciousness, this approach emphasized the structures that determine what qualifies as “knowledge.” Key concepts such as episteme, discourse, and archive are central to this approach. Foucault demonstrates that history is not linear and continuous but is shaped by epistemological ruptures. However, in the mid-1970s, Foucault realized that archaeology was insufficient to explain the role of power in the formation of knowledge and subjectivity. Thus, influenced by Nietzsche, he turned to genealogy. In this new approach, rather than focusing solely on linguistic rules of knowledge, Foucault emphasized power struggles, embodiment, subject formation, and the entanglement of knowledge/power. In genealogy, concepts like “truth” are not seen as absolute but as products of power structures. Furthermore, genealogy does not seek origins but investigates the diverse and contingent conditions of emergence and transformation. A central question that arises here is the relationship between these two methodological approaches. Some argue that the transition reflects a rupture. In their view, Foucault abandons archaeology due to its inadequacy in explaining social experience and the discursive formation of the present. In such understanding, the centrality of power/knowledge in Foucault’s later works marks a radical and critical turn toward political engagement. Others contend that genealogy is not a denial of archaeology; but rather its evolution: an enriched methodology that adds new dimensions to the earlier approach, making it more robust and strategic. Among these perspectives, Gilles Deleuze offers a unique interpretation with his concept of folding. He suggests that the shift occurs internally: archaeology and genealogy are intertwined and mutually reflective, like two sides of a woven fabric. Thus, speaking of a strict methodological rupture is inadequate. Materials & Methods: This study is explicitly methodological and requires a conceptual framework. Core concepts from both archaeological and genealogical approaches are extracted from Foucault’s various works. Since Foucault often avoids giving clear definitions, preferring to elaborate through archival and historical research, the study employs an interpretive approach to derive reliable definitions from his writings. Discussion & Result: Ultimately, it is argued that archaeology and genealogy should not be seen as distinct and disconnected; rather, they represent different levels of a unified project. One describes the discursive mechanisms, while the other analyzes political power and subjectivity. Folding is the key concept that reveals how external rules of knowledge are internalized within the subject, shaping processes of subject formation and vice versa. This approach provides a deeper understanding of Foucault’s intellectual project and offers a way to grasp history, power, and truth as dynamic and intertwined phenomena. Conclusion: The study concludes that contrary to the view that this methodological shift represents a rupture, it is actually a deeper continuity within Foucault’s intellectual project. While genealogy introduces more politically engaged tools, Foucault’s fundamental concern remains the analysis of power and truth. Deleuze’s concept of folding illustrates that this is not a break but a continuous interplay between power, knowledge, and subject formation. He identifies three methodological axes in Foucault’s work—knowledge (archaeology), power (genealogy), and subject formation (later period)—not as separate stages but as interconnected processes of internalization and reflexivity. مقاله حاضر به بررسی تحول روش‌شناختی در اندیشه فوکو، از دیرینه‌شناسی‌(archaeology) به تبارشناسی(genealogy) می‌پردازد. فوکو در ابتدا با رویکرد دیرینه‌شناختی، ساختارهای معرفتی و گفتمانی دوره‌ها‌ی تاریخی را تحلیل می‌کرد. در این رویکرد، تمرکز بر کشف قواعد ناپیدای تولید دانش، اپیستمه، و ساختارهای زبانی بود که حقیقت را ممکن می‌ساختند. اما به‌‌تدریج فوکو دریافت که این چارچوب از تبیین نقش قدرت در شکل‌گیری سوژگی عاجز است؛ از همین‌رو، با تأسی به نیچه، به تبارشناسی روی آورد که بر ستیز قدرت، سوژه‌سازی، و درهم‌تنیدگی دانش/قدرت تاکید دارد؛ در این تحلیل، مفاهیمی چون بدن، سوژه، و «تاریخ اکنون» به مرکز توجه می‌آیند. اما نکته‌ای که در این میان قابل تامل است، نسبت این دو رویکرد روش‌شناختی در اندیشه فوکو است. برخی بر این باورند که رابطه میان دیرینه‌شناسی و تبارشناسی از نوع گسست، و برخی بر تداوم و تحول روش‌شناختی فوکو تاکید دارند. مقاله حاضر بر آن است که با بررسی این دیدگاه‌ها، با بهره‌گیری از انگاشت ظرافت‌مند ژیل دلوز از اندیشه فوکو، به این بحث بپردازد که رابطه بین دیرینه‌شناسی و تبارشناسی نه گسست بلکه «تاخوردگی» است؛ یعنی یک پیوستار روش‌شناختی که در آن قدرت، دانش و سوژگی درهم‌تنیده‌اند.

https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_11856_ef77022c7b788c29c95a72a87414cd96.pdf