“History,” as Foucault writes it, is the articulation of the series of practices (archive, historical a priori) that accounts for our current practices, where “account” means assigning the rel- evant transformations (differentials) and displacements or charting the practice along an axis of power, knowledge, or “subjectivation.” Thus Foucault’s program offers the “new historians” too much and too little: too many diverse relations, too many lines of analysis, but not enough unitary necessity. We are left with a plethora of in- telligibilities and a lack of necessity. But he resolutely refuses, as he puts it, to place himself “under the sign of unique necessity” (IP, 46).