Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Angel һƥÀÇ's Reviews > The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences

The Order of Things by Michel Foucault
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
25600796
's review

it was ok

Michel Foucault is doing something with words in this book, which is actually trying to make something that should be easy to understand (and explain) quite complicated to follow, as he creates "awesome" sentences that last for ages and paragraphs that defy the laws of mathematics and understanding of the way words can be put in order one after the other. Our friend Foucault has decided that explaining something in an easy to follow way is for people that don't really care about language, philosophy and the understanding of how the Western world has created itself as the time has advanced, with stops on how the people have explained to themselves and others different concepts, starting with the depiction of a picture from a Spanish painter which paints himself or maybe he doesn't or maybe he is painting the viewer to the most present obsession with man while touching on economy, the description of nature or animals, and some nice moments talking about paper money or Nietzsche. Some of his ideas get lost in his love for making extra-long sentences where he can congratulate himself with how smart he is and get the reader lost because it may necessary to stop once or twice to follow what he was saying two pages ago where he started a course of thought that maybe is not as clear as it should be, but, hey, this is an awesome book that plays beautifully with language and all these things we humans use when trying to understand each other and the world we live in. That doesn't mean to say that the reader won't learn anything from this book, but probably many will find themselves quite lost in it, while many others will be patting their backs as they think that following Foucault's ideas means they are very smart, which they may be, but this really doesn't matter, because whatever they understand of Foucault's ideas depends on constructions on language and things of the society they live in, and on the power relations, and the bio-power and all beautiful things we may pass hours talking about (again, they are actually quite interesting, but unnecessary to make them over-complicated when the idea behind them would be way easier to follow with a clearer explanation, which may or may not be forthcoming, but it is possible, as language, words and the construction of sentences depend on the writer, or the one that is saying the words, making it not as complicated for the reader to follow the sentences that have been written on paper ("paper" being just a way in which symbols explain a thing, constructs that we humans try to create to explain the world that surrounds us, because without language, which may be something we kind of are born with, as an organ, helps us to communicate with each other, some kind of evolution organ which explains why we learn how to talk with each other (or could just be that I'm trying to make this sentence extra long (which may have to do with the order of these brackets)))).

Oh, yeah, and the way people (or men, as the books keeps saying) have understood things in Europe has changed a lot with the pass of time. And we are determined by the constructs (or deconstructs) all around us.

You know, the order of things.

Or words and things.

3.5/10
12 likes ·  ? flag

Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read The Order of Things.
Sign In ?

Reading Progress

March 5, 2016 – Started Reading
March 5, 2016 – Shelved
September 14, 2016 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Patricia Joynton You nailed it!


Angel һƥÀÇ Patricia wrote: "You nailed it!"

Thank you (^o^)/


Xander I was planning to read this one next, but your sarcasm makes me hesitate - well done. ;)

Great review!


Angel һƥÀÇ Xander wrote: "I was planning to read this one next, but your sarcasm makes me hesitate - well done. ;)

Great review!"


thanks :)! Well, if you like Foucault or other of the same style, go for it. I found he did better in "Discipline and Punish" than in this one, but the obscurity of language of many of these writers (and maybe you have had to 'suffer' them too, if you have ever written any thesis, is sometimes... way too much (in my opinion (it being just some constructed and biased feeling around my identities, and all that :) )). Anyway, thanks again, Xander!


message 5: by Da (new) - rated it 5 stars

Da Cheung Seems to me that this book is not for general reader... guess that the translator tried to preserve the original sentence structure and made it extra-difficult for readers to follow


Angel һƥÀÇ Da wrote: "Seems to me that this book is not for general reader... guess that the translator tried to preserve the original sentence structure and made it extra-difficult for readers to follow"

Hello Da, thanks for your commentary!

Yes, I understand perfectly that Foucalt and the translator have a purpose behind the use of a particular language. But at the same time, I am a fan of the: if a child can't understand what you are saying, then you are not saying it correctly. Foucault (and/or the translator) overcomplicate (in my opinion) things (that are actually really interesting). For example, when Foucault talks about 'silly' classifications, referencing Borges, it is top notch commentary, but then... just goes on and on and on... I will never believe that something shouldn't be for the general reader (because I think that a writer that believes so, is a writer that things too highly of themselves). On the other hand, "Discipline and Punish", even if a little bit 'snobby' too, is so fascinating that you can forgive Foucault (and translator) for being a little bit 'opaque' with their language.

Do you like this kind of books :D? Because there are so many interesting books (and yes, I will accept that they are more difficult to read/understand that an airport paperback novel). Adorno, Pierre Bourdieu, Said, Rorty, Wittgenstein... Do you have a favorite :)?


back to top