Week 3 Reading Response

In Foucault’s explanation of the differences between eighteenth and nineteenth century economic epistemic formations he discusses the change from representational knowledge frameworks where systems are circular to productive frameworks of knowledge and accumulation that have to do with linearity and causality. His assertion, drawing on Ricardo, that “all value is determined, not according to the instruments that permit its analysis, but according to the conditions of production that have brought it into being” (255-256) explains this shift. Foucault says that this is due to the accumulation of capital and the disarticulation of value from being defined by what it materially represents in exchange. I’m confused because aren’t the instruments of analysis also a part of how something comes into being-- isn’t this also an element of capitalist accumulation? Why does this shift from the representative to the productive have to mean that the instruments of representation/production are no longer a part of how something is assessed as valuable (“better” quality goods for more expensive textiles)?

Similar to the shift with labor and value Foucault talks about the ways in which grammar transforms words from the representative and subjects them to the rules of a grammatical system. So words shift from being mere representational systems to a part of a “grammatical totality” that gives them meaning in relation to the entire system. As an example I was thinking of how we read words as an entirety, as a whole system internal to itself, a collection of letters. In general, it is not important how we arrange letters in a word, if the first and last letter remain in tact our brains will reassemble and read the word as an entirety. For example, “lcous of pwoer” or “dsiuorcse of kwoneglde.”