A Tale of Two Returns

Just how eternal is the Eternal Return? This article examines how Foucault's readings of Nietzsche and of Deleuze critically revise the Return so as to arrive at a concept of contingency that is itself contingent. I argue that this archaeological/genealogical rereading problematises the Return as presented in Difference and Repetition; when the Return is presented as ‘the form of change [that] does not change’, it risks returning eternally to the Same – for all its avowed affirmation of difference. By returning the Return to its own historically contingent epistemic conditions of possibility, Foucault repeats Deleuze's philosophy with maximum difference.