Another chain of "are not"s. I can see why Nathaniel promised we'd be ripping our hair out this week. I think there is something interesting about Foucault's rather oppositional way of constructing his arguments. Twice, so far, he has begun with a list of things he is not trying to do. It is reasonable to try to clarify one's project by stating what that project is not, but these lists seem to be so complex as to completely distract and derail the reader into thinking about what the project is not before they ever find out what it is. Does this serve a purpose? Does it serve to reinforce the difficulty of the project? Does is leave some sense of ambiguity about what he is arguing, by also forcing you to consider the issues that he claims he does not want to address?