The Temporality of Signs and the Endless Hermeneutics: A Genealogical Analysis of Foucault’s Interpretation of Nietzsche, Frued, and Marx

This article is dedicated to examining the complex and intertwined relationship between the sign and meaning within the sphere of modern philosophy, focusing on the genealogy of interpretive systems in Michel Foucault’s intellectual framework. Through a conceptual and comparative analysis of the ideas of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx, the author identifies three distinct temporalities in the functioning of signs and mechanisms of interpretation: the temporality of expiration in the classical sign system, linear temporality in Marxist dialectics, and cyclical temporality in modern hermeneutics. The study explores Foucault’s stance toward modern hermeneutics—which presupposes the primacy of interpretation over the sign—and examines the endless deferral of meaning, the impossibility of reaching a fixed origin, and the entangled relationship between interiority and exteriority as foundational components of modern thought. It further demonstrates that, according to the “hermeneutics of suspicion” attributed by Foucault to the aforementioned thinkers, every interpretation is itself the interpretation of another, and the sign dwells in a fluid, unstable, and provisional state. While acknowledging the innovation in Foucault’s tripartite temporality, this article argues for its revision on three levels: the principle of resemblance is rooted in mythic thought rather than confined to classical epistemes; Foucault’s critique of dialectical time overlooks historical continuity; and his hermeneutic perspective tends toward radical relativism. Ultimately, the article reinterprets Foucault’s ideas on temporality as a dynamic and interwoven structure.
 
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
In the tradition of Western thought, the relation between sign and meaning has always been a central issue in the philosophy of language. From Plato’s theory of forms to Saussurian structuralism, meaning gradually moved beyond an intrinsic matter to a conventional one. Through his definition of the signifier and the signified, Saussure formulated a static model. Peirce, on the other hand, through his triadic model, revived the role of interpretation and reference, and paved the way for an exegesis of meaning. Hjelmslev also divided the structure of language into levels of expression and content, and proposed the possibility of “inexpressible thinking.” By formulating the so-called imperfections, theorists such as Greimas argued that meaning is an aesthetic matter, and the result of the subject’s action in a cultural context. In this regard, meaning can no longer be reduced to simple dichotomies, such as intense/moderate, but is formed in the context of semantic discontinuities. Echoing a genealogical approach, Foucault identifies three modes of temporality in relation to the sign and interpretation: the temporality of expiration in the classical sign system, linear temporality in Marxist dialectics, and cyclical temporality in modern hermeneutics. The present study explores Foucault’s stance toward modern hermeneutics—which presupposes the primacy of interpretation over the sign—and examines the endless deferral of meaning, the impossibility of reaching a fixed origin, and the entangled relationship between interiority and exteriority as foundational components of modern thought.
2. Methodology
Informed by Foucault’s genealogy and critical discourse analysis, the present study examines the complex and intertwined relationship between the sign and meaning within the sphere of modern philosophy. Through a historico-conceptual analysis of signs and discursive formations, this article also attempts to identify power relations, the course of meaning transformation, and hidden layers of interpretation in psychological, social, and economic contexts.
3. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study is informed by Michel Foucault’s genealogical reading of the sign. By analyzing epistemological breaks, Foucault explains that signs move beyond a sixteenth-century similarity-based and benevolent structure to a malevolent, fluid, and powerful structure in the modern era. In this transition, the meaning of the sign is formed not in an intrinsic depth, but at the extrinsic levels of historical, psychological, and economic relations. For Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx, interpretation is not the attainment of a final truth, but rather an endless and historical process of unfolding and reproducing meaning.
4. Discussion and Analysis
The findings of this study indicate that despite its potentials to explain the fluid and discrete process of meaning, Foucault’s theory has shortcomings in understanding narrative, cultural, and memory permanence. The critical analysis shows that, contrary to Foucault’s assumption, cognitive principles, such as similarity and proximity, have roots not only in the classical era but also in mythological, poetic, and ritual structures, all of which lead to similar cognitive errors. Echoing the works of Frazer, Ricoeur, Habermas, and Gadamer, the researcher argues that although signs undergo erosion of meaning in the context of history, they have the ability to be reproduced in interpretive cycles, cultural narratives, collective memory, and communicative agreements. The research indicates that Foucault’s temporal triad is not three conflicting paths, but rather three intertwined and dynamic forces that, in interaction with each other, shape the context of symbolic representations in the history of thought and discourse.
5. Conclusion
Through a conceptual and comparative analysis of the ideas of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx, the author identified three distinct temporalities in the functioning of signs and mechanisms of interpretation: the temporality of expiration in the classical sign system, linear temporality in Marxist dialectics, and cyclical temporality in modern hermeneutics. While acknowledging the innovation in Foucault’s tripartite temporality, this article argues for its revision on three levels: the principle of resemblance is rooted in mythic thought rather than confined to classical epistemes; Foucault’s critique of dialectical time overlooks historical continuity; and his hermeneutic perspective tends toward radical relativism.
Bibliography
Algooneh Juneghani, Masoud. 1396 [2017]. “Nortrop Frye va Radeh-bandi-e Sambol-hā. Naghd-e Adabi. 40 (10): 7-39. [In Persian].
Algooneh Juneghani, Masoud. 2018. “Interpretant, Pure Rhetoric, and Semiotics of Poetry.” Semiotica, 222: 163-179. [In English].
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les Mots et Les Choses. Paris: Gallimard. [In French].
Foucault, Michel. 1970. Nietzsche, Freud, Marx. Paris: Gallimard. [In French].
Foucault, Michel. 2005. The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. NP: Routledge.
Mehregan, Arvin. 1390 [2011]. Ro’yā, āein, Ostooreh: Gooneh-hā-e Tafsir-e Vāghei’at dar Kherad-e Qarizi. Isfehan: Farda. [In Persian].
Ricoeur, Paul. 2016. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. J. B., Thompson (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press. [In English].