Michel Foucault had his archeology but somehow it was occurring with some lived civilization. Perhaps we can convey the point more clearly if we call it a forensics. The mistake involved in the appropriation of an archeology is that somehow it is occurring upon a subject that is still living. Has anyone thought about how we could have enacted an archeology on a site that was still being used? Why would we call it archeology if it wasn’t something that was already of the past?
Indeed; it is through the process of archeology that what is no longer active is activated for the present, but indeed “man” by that time no longer existed; it’s existence is already deactivated by the time Foucault uncovered its development. But now we see that Delueze and Guattari’s efforts were indeed an attempt at recessitation of the issue, of attempting the redirect the state as an re-incarnation of itself. So it is the what we have now could be framed within a dual reckoning, such that the state of man while being deceased in essence is indeed brought into the present as a sort of Frankenstein’s monster: We ‘natural philosophers’ come by our monster as a freak of nature, an abhorrence that we have been attempting to resettle back in its grave, all the while allowing it to ‘live’ through our various blunders, despite our noble intentions. Indeed, a significant work by Foucault concerns prisons and the ideal of the penitentiary.
Little do most then admit that the end of philosophy, how ever still discussed, if in the frame of ‘out of fashion’, witnessed the body in the state of decomposition and decided to let it lay assuming what has killed it. And yet (oddly and conspicuously enough) no investigation into its death has been made, only a continuing resurrection of the monster.
So now that we indeed have found, and admit into evidence, a dead body, we have discovered a state that is deceased, we have yet to discover the crime that was committed. It is no longer an archaeology, it seems that a forensic Analysis is called for. At the hearing, an outside expert is called for because the experts for the state are now on the cozy payroll, and their interest lay in preventing the case from going to court.