as Machiel noted, the answer to your question is history:
both langue and structure are ahistorical - parole and agency being empirical instances of langue and structure. this is to say, that the dualism of these forms is that of the empirico-transcendental doublet that Foucault talked about at lenght in The Oder of Things. In addition, the ahistorical of both langue and structure tends to be the universal subject of history: it is man as universal substance that allows for knowldege of man as empirical instance.
For Foucault both savoir and connaissance are historically constituted - moreover, savoir is not the cause of connaissance, rather connaissance is an effect of savoir; and savoir is the historical apriori of subjects (and objects) - it is what gives subject to connaissance.
thus, savoir/connaissance is ontologically different from either langue/parole or structure.agency. and therefore i do not think of savoir/connaissance as a dualism, but as a couplet.
regards - kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexandre_beliaev@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] savoir - connaissance
> Machiel, Kevin:
> Here's another question with respect to the
> distinction between savoir and connaissance:
> I feel that the distinction between
> savoir/connaissance is quite similar to a distinction
> between langue/parole (in linguistics) and
> structure/practice (in soc. sciences). Do you agree /
> disagree? And, if you agree, isn't this parallelism -
> which suggests a particular kind of a dualistic
> tension between savoir and connaissance - problematic,
> given Foucault's distrust of dualistic thinking
> (which, for me, is very strongly articulated in
> 'History of Sexuality')?
> With thanks for your time,
> --- machiel karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In L'archÃ©ologie du savoir on page 236 'savoir is
>> called : "l'Ã©tat des
>> connaissances" at a given moment; so "connaissance"
>> is positive knowledge on
>> a given topic or in a given discipline; "savoir" is
>> the field of knowledge
>> or discursive formation at that moment, which makes
>> this positive knowledge
>> machiel karskens
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Foucault List" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:12 PM
>> Subject: [Foucault-L] savoir - connaissance
>>> In "The Archaeology of Knowledge" Sheridan Smith
>> makes the following
>> observation on the relation between savoir and
>>> 'Connaissance refers...to a particular corpus of
>> knowledge, a particular
>> discipline â biology or economics, for example.
>> Savoir, which is usually
>> defined as knowledge in general, to totality of
>> connaissance, is used by
>> Foucault in an underlying, rather than an overall,
>> way. He has himself
>> offered the following comment on his usage of these
>> terms: âBy connaissance
>> I mean the relation of the subject to the object and
>> the formal rules that
>> govern it. Savoir refers to the conditions that are
>> necessary in a
>> particular period for this or that type of object to
>> be given to
>> connaissance and for this or that type of
>> enunciation to be formulatedâ'(AK:
>>> The problem is, Sheridan Smith does not give a
>> reference for Foucault's
>> comments: does anybody know where Foucault
>> originally made this statement?
>>> Regards - Kevin.
>>> Free 2GB Email - Online Storage, Effective Spam
>> Protection, Calendar &
>>> Visit http://www.inbox.com/email
to find out more!
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>> Foucault-L mailing list
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> Foucault-L mailing list