>Didn't MF analyze "power"?
Questions like this and the references you've made to maybe getting a bad slant on Foucault from "Foucauldians" suggests you haven't read much of his stuff yourself. Is that the case?
>For example, if you're examining, say, how madness or homosexuality
>was defined by doctors or lawyers in a certain place and time and
>how these definitions embedded themselves in discourse - how is that
>not a history of medical culture or legal culture?
Here's an answer from Foucault:
>.. it is rather an enquiry whose aim is to rediscover on what basis
>knowledge and theory became possible; within what space of order
>knowledge is constituted... Such an enterprise is not so much a
>history, in the traditional meaning of the word, as an "archaeology"
>(Order, xxi-xxii).