The Archaeology of Knowledge is Foucault's 1969 work that showcases his novel approach to understanding how knowledge systems evolve over time. And yes, the book contains nothing about uncovering some physical artifacts. Click the title for more of my notes.

My Notes

Foucault investigates the historical layers of thought, discourse, and knowledge in the book. For the most part, he is talking about this concept called "discursive formations." Those are systems of rules that define what can be thought, expressed, shared, and even known at a certain period in time. He thinks what we actually know is influenced by various unrelated and related factors, and that we can't overlook them. Foucault says these factors don't come from a single source or cause. There are multiple factors interchangibly working together, creating the knowledge as we know it.

He also draws a critical distinction between total history and general history.

Total History:

A project of total history seeks to reconstruct the overall form of a civilization—its material or spiritual principle, the common significance of all phenomena of a period, or the law that accounts for their cohesion. It assumes that:

• All events within a defined space and time can be organized into a system of homogeneous relations (cause, analogy, or expression).
• The same historical forces and transformations operate across all spheres—economic, social, mental, technological, political—bringing everything under the same type of transformation.
• History itself can be divided into grand units (stages or phases) that each contain their own principle of unity and cohesion.

General History:

A general history instead seeks to determine what relations may legitimately be described between different historical series (economic, institutional, scientific, cultural, etc.):

• It rejects the totalizing approach.
• Focuses on the interplay of correlation and dominance, the effects of shifts, different temporalities, and rehandlings.
• Examines in what distinct totalities certain elements from various series figure simultaneously.
• Asks: not just which series, but what “series of series” (“tables”) can be drawn up.
• Instead of drawing everything around a single center, “a general history would deploy the space of a dispersion”

Source: Marxists

And Foucault thinks we should approach history learning with general history because it is, essentially, more accurate.

With this book, I believe Foucault wanted to challenge our assumptions on what is even progress, or unity, or objectivity in history. The book says that the truths we hold dear didn't just emerge from a single source of linear progress, but rather from the intersection of many very complex narratives.

Check out my deep thinks to read more about my deeper dive into Foucauldian philosophy and how I used his general history concept to analyze the power and knowledge epistemology.