foucault, student of althusser, is known by many independently of his teacher’s influence. traces of althusser’s method can be found in foucault’s work – even the most ‘radical’ moves that one might not initially attribute to an althusserian influence.
one of the most (non)obvious examples is foucault’s almost obsessive research on the production of truth through the manufacturing of speaking subjects. like althusser’s subjectivity without a subject, foucault similarly posits subjectivity as a process of bodies caught up in their own subjection.
althusser’s system of “over-determination” builds in a humility that doesn’t rely on a single determinate cause – borrowing from the strategies of freud’s dream interpretation used to carefully break the frustration of mis-recognition. in contrast to the all-too-common notion that foucault was rabidly anti-psychoanalytic (quickly broken by even a small foray into his biography would find that he received psychology training), i would argue that foucault’s own concept of immanent causality borrows heavily from althusser, and thus also sharing a heritage in freudian dream interpretation.
i don’t wish to push this too far, for even althusser later recognizes the limitations of condensation/displacement for describing the immanent encounter of elements, except to note an interesting tie-in: excess. in particular, how an excess (of content, in particular) prevents the systematization of causality – a common post-structuralist theme (derrida, for example, will talk about it in terms of the supplement, differance, or trace).
now for the money quote from “nietzsche, genealogy, history” (Lang, Counter-Mem, Prac p148):
even though a “field of discursive events” is “finite and limited,” the events “may, in sheer size, exceed the capacities of recording, memory, or reading.”