Statements

This time around history and language are investigated in their assumptions and methodology to both be predicated on ideas of origin. Foucault's method appears as a contrast to the standard, concentrating on the development of institutions in their contexts realizing the multiplicity of their creation and the possible hindsight bias of the historian. This goes back essentially to his affinity with Nietzsche and his genealogical method of investigation which seeks to view the emergence of things as a result of several lines of evolution and parentage as opposed to linear movement from an origin and to pass judgment on present forms in their present form and not via their method of emergence. This consideration of multiplicity and context in history as something that is not linear and necessarily precedent to the modern is the quality that Deleuze looks on and analyzes. In describing discursive formations, for example, Deleuze states:
"[A] science never absorbs the family or formation which defines it; the scientific status and pretensions of psychiatry cannot quell juridical texts, literary expressions, philosophical reflections, political decisions and public opinions, which all form and integral part of the corresponding formation" (19).
What this seems to imply in addition to history's nonlinearity is its undividability. To study economic history without studying political history, natural history, and cultural history is in a sense to lose important parts of the topic that is being considered and when the topic is something like power, it's expression comes in many forms.

All this appears as a complement to Derrida's deconstruction of language, his emphasis on the text as being conditioned by absence while representing a past presence and his consideration of the performative citation.