In recent years, a large number of books and articles on Foucault has been published. Almost all of the book-size studies are expository and introductory. Indeed, there seems to be no other modern philosopher with reference to whom a comparable numberofintroductionshavebeen produced in such a short period. Most ofthe articles too provide over- views, rather than critical assessments or rational reconstructions, even though there existsby now a small numberoffine papers also inthe two latter genres. Moreover, more often than not, writers on Foucault approach his work as part and parcel of so-called "postmodern" philo- sophy. They concentrate on topics like the "death of the subject", the relation ofFoucault's work to.Derrida or Habermas, or its significance for postmodern art and culture. Without wanting to deny the merits, either of introductory exposi- tions, or ofstudies that read Foucault as a postmodern thinker, it seems to me that these received perspectives have tended to leave central areas and aspects ofFoucault's work somewhat underexposed.As I see it, the most important of these areas are such as would suggest reading Fou- cault from the vantage point of recent developments in the philosophy, sociology and history of science.

In recent years, a large number of books and articles on Foucault has been published. Almost all of the book-size studies are expository and introductory. Indeed, there seems to be no other modern philosopher with reference to whom a comparable numberofintroductionshavebeen produced in such a short period. Most ofthe articles too provide over- views, rather than critical assessments or rational reconstructions, even though there existsby now a small numberoffine papers also inthe two latter genres. Moreover, more often than not, writers on Foucault approach his work as part and parcel of so-called "postmodern" philo- sophy. They concentrate on topics like the "death of the subject", the relation ofFoucault's work to.Derrida or Habermas, or its significance for postmodern art and culture. Without wanting to deny the merits, either of introductory exposi- tions, or ofstudies that read Foucault as a postmodern thinker, it seems to me that these received perspectives have tended to leave central areas and aspects ofFoucault's work somewhat underexposed.As I see it, the most important of these areas are such as would suggest reading Fou- cault from the vantage point of recent developments in the philosophy, sociology and history of science.

In recent years, a large number of books and articles on Foucault has been published. Almost all of the book-size studies are expository and introductory. Indeed, there seems to be no other modern philosopher with reference to whom a comparable numberofintroductionshavebeen produced in such a short period. Most ofthe articles too provide over- views, rather than critical assessments or rational reconstructions, even though there existsby now a small numberoffine papers also inthe two latter genres. Moreover, more often than not, writers on Foucault approach his work as part and parcel of so-called "postmodern" philo- sophy. They concentrate on topics like the "death of the subject", the relation ofFoucault's work to.Derrida or Habermas, or its significance for postmodern art and culture. Without wanting to deny the merits, either of introductory exposi- tions, or ofstudies that read Foucault as a postmodern thinker, it seems to me that these received perspectives have tended to leave central areas and aspects ofFoucault's work somewhat underexposed.As I see it, the most important of these areas are such as would suggest reading Fou- cault from the vantage point of recent developments in the philosophy, sociology and history of science.