THE “DEFEAT” OF THE ARQUAEOLOGY

Abstract

There is undeniable the acceptance almost generalized on behalf of the commentators of Foucault (Morey, 2014; Castro, 1995; Díaz, 2014) in distinguishing three moments in its thought: the archeological one, the genealogical one and the ethical one. The above mentioned division can show us that it is possible to raise several investigations on this matter as for the topic and the method. To our judgment the most urgent investigation must fall down in the question of the method. What urgency did Foucault have not to continue its investigations with the archaeological method? Will really perhaps it was a question of some in sufficiency? Is it possible to speak about a “defeat”? In the year 2010, philosopher Judith Revel raised the idea that alter the archaeological method exists still a too urgent investigation: to demonstrate that the change of method of Foucault, of the archaeological on to the genealogical one, does not obey any means a possible defeat but the archaeology walks alter the genealogical method and cannot separate of him, that is tos ay, the present of archeology is latent in the genealogy. This work tries, from the saying, to study previously and base the opinion about the Revel, that is to say, really a  change existed but it cannot be considered to be a defeat.