Foucault’s archeology and genealogy were analytical tools used in the study of artifacts (Howard 27). The difference between the two is that whereas the former comprises of tools aimed towards comprehending how artifacts are collaboratively suitable in a historical period, the latter includes works directed toward determining the kind of populace that fit in the artifacts. Foucault was a philosopher who used the term archeology to differentiate his works from conventional history. Whereas orthodox history research how things happened over a long period, archeology studies how a variety of things occurred at the same duration. The studied artifacts in archeology may involve artistic materials, structures, and instruments and determine how they all collaboratively fit at the analyzed period. Foucault’s works followed a similar concept. For instance, the philosopher studied varied artifacts from Europe that encompassed linguistics, science, and economics. Items and theories from the aspects were analyzed to determine the correct trends in the era. After their comprehension, he investigated how all of them concurred collaboratively in the 18th century. The methodology advocated for enhanced precision when evaluating the historical occurrences. In the field, his main focus was on know-how. He utilized the term “episteme” and is evidenced in the aspects of the European facets studied (Bonditti 3). The term is fundamental as it is the foundation to determines the know-how that is honest and the one that is biased.
Foucault utilized the term genealogy to refer to measures that entailed the determination of the individuals who fit in the analyzed aspects in archeology (Howard 31). Hence, he analyzed how the people in the eighteenth-century fit in the studied science, economy, and linguistics of Europe in the eighteenth century. Therefore, it depicts that genealogy activities are founded on archeology actions. The two concepts make up of what distinguished Foucault’s from approaches used in conventional history. They elucidate the interrelationship between processes in the world and show that they all depend on each other (Bonditti 1). That is, successive events are predetermined by the manner their predecessors unravel. Therefore, the events in the historical and contemporary periods in the universe are linear. The experiences accrued in all stages aid innovations, which enable discovery of better techniques of undertaking things. The events occurring at the same time and fitting individuals in the processes further promote unification and betterment of strategies. The determination of the accurate data in the process of studying the past events, as per Foucault, is faced with a challenge referred to as “epistemological obstacle.” The concept portrays that the intellectual nature and state of individuals have the propensity to influence the comprehension of matters, which translate to the generation of biased data. Realization of the notion aids in the precise determination of historical events in cross-sectional nature as practiced by Foucault.
Deleuze term “topology” entails a perception, which states that the belief in the independent existence of the world does not necessarily require justifiable views. The concept suggests that the study of the historical events and artifacts should not be founded on honesty to illustrate the passive world of species. He argues that the conventional view of nature consists of the tendency of the universe to differentiate things from the way they materialize to people and the things, which are found on their autonomy in the world. He referred to the existing independent things as “nuomena.” His analysis and elucidations portray that he views “nuomena” as elements that can be identified and comprehended by human beings. Deleuze explains that the things that are thought to be beyond the comprehension of individuals are due to lack of experience and are liable to be understood with the effective study (DeLanda). He gave an example of two different containers each filled with an air of different temperature degrees. He illustrated that when one is full of hot vapor and the other one cold air, the only difference between the two structure differs potency. The experiment further experiments with the joining of the two containers aided by a small aperture in both, which are then joined together. According to Deleuze, the warm air, due to the lower intensity, would flow to the other container and the conventional flow created would lead to balancing the temperature between the air in the two-separate apparatus. He advocates for the similarity between such an experiment and the facets of the world such as social, economic, or science. Such phenomena are only differentiated by their strength similar to the air in the containers.
Deleuze further incorporates the idea of essentialism in the concept; a term which entails a perception that every aspect in the world has a distinguishable set of traits (DeLanda). The different traits are what make up individual identities and operations of the entities. The determination of such aspects is enabled by the study of the relationship between history and time. The process entails the use of mathematical tools, which presume that the future is not in existence and equate the past and the contemporary periods. The mathematics of prediction of the past use time as an external variable in the calculations. Therefore, the concept of topology differs from Foucault’s methods since whereas the former tries to understand the unknown static variables in the past, the latter studies what is already known based on past experiences. Deleuze utilized the concept of topology in studying anthropology in the field of production and libido. He studied the manufacturers’ intentions in their business after the end of battles in the 20th century. He and Guattari studied the theories and explanations of the business conduct projected by Marx and the libido study done by Freud. They viewed the two distinct notions as two separate entities, which collaboratively constituted fundamental world processes. They also blended the participants that Marx and Freud considered as stakeholders in the elucidations of their respective fields and how the historical works were related to contemporary events. The processes conducted in the separate industries consist of invisible elements referred to as machines as elucidated by Deleuze. He illustrates that the immaterial nature is categorized into a framework known as “socious.” Such structures are not registered in the intellectual part of the human and are altered over time. Deleuze and Guattari partitioned the historical incidents in the categories of tribal, hierarchies, and investors exclusion and studied both the visible and invincible elements in the ancient periods.
Bonditti, Philippe, et al. “Genealogy.” © Routledge, 2015.
DeLanda, Manuel. “Deleuze and the Open-ended Becoming of the World.” Retrieved from: https://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/delanda/pages/becoming.htm
Howard, Stephen. “Archaeology and/or Genealogy: Agamben’s Transformation of Foucauldian Method.” Journal of Italian Philosophy 1 (2018).