in my view, for this passage, 'instaurer' and 'fonder' can be taken as
synonyms, either of which could be translated as 'institute', 'inaugurate',
or 'found', depending on the context.
So the fact that Foucault uses 'fonde' rather that 'instaure' in the second
case would have no significance (unless you have some other evidence for why
F would want to say that the subject of law is 'founded' while the subject
of ethics is 'instituted/inaugurated'.
But, sometimes, it's just not worth while to 'enculer les mouches'...
By the way, I don't know where you get the idea that 'fonde' is a
subjunctive - Surely it's the present tense of 'fonder'.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Timothy,
> Our translations are very close, but as a novice in the translation game,
> I’m curious about the terms “instaure” and “fonde.”
> The first term can be translated as institutes, but I’ve read that if it
> implies a link between things then is should be translated as establishes;
> I’ve also read that if what is being instituted is a regime or a dialogue
> (i.e. a regime of truth, a dialogue with oneself) the it should also be
> translated as establish. Interestingly the term can also mean “to impose,”
> “to found,” and “to organise.”
> The word “fonde” is even more interesting. From what I can tell it is the
> subjunctive of the verb “fonder”, which means to found, set up (but can also
> mean “to justify”): as such, it too could be translated as establish.
> However, “fonde” is also the subjunctive of the verb “fondre,” which means
> to fuse together, to merge or to combine.
> It’s interesting how the different possible translation of each of these
> terms changes the meaning of the translated passage. Of course, one should
> probably keep all of them in mind when thinking about the passage, but to
> write them all down in a translation doesn’t make for good presentation.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:51:59 +0800
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation and interpretation question.
> > Dear Kevin,
> > I think you are quite right about the misleading English translation.
> > Here is a modified translation of the passage that I use in a recent
> > publication - it's very close to yours, I think. However, I did insert
> > [first], [second], [third] to clarify what I understand to be Foucault's
> > argument:
> > "By 'thought', [first] I mean that which institutes, in diverse possible
> > forms,
> > the game of truth and falsehood and which, consequently, constitutes the
> > human being as a subject of knowledge; [second] that which founds the
> > acceptance or the refusal of the rule and constitutes the human being as
> > a
> > social and juridical subject; [third] that which institutes the relation
> > to
> > self
> > and to others, and constitutes the human being as ethical subject."
> > (ibid.:
> > 200, modified).
> > This is in my "Rethinking Experience With Foucault", in *Foucault and
> > Philosophy *(Blackwell, 2010).
> > Regards,
> > Timothy
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> Thought
> >> The following passage comes from ‘Préface a l’ « Histoire de la
> >> sexualité »
> >> ‘Par « pensée », j’entends ce qui instaure, dans diverses formes
> >> possible,
> >> le jeu du vrai et du faux et qui, par conséquent, constitue l’être
> >> humain
> >> comme sujet de connaissance ; ce qui fonde l’acceptation ou le refus de
> >> la
> >> règle et constitue l’être humain comme sujet social et juridique ; ce
> >> qui
> >> instaure le rapport avec soi-même et avec les autres, et constitue
> >> l’être
> >> humain comme sujet éthique’ (DEII : 1398).
> >> The published English translation of this passage reads:
> >> ‘By “thought,” I mean what establishes, in a variety of possible forms,
> >> the
> >> play of true and false, and consequently [which as a consequence]
> >> constitutes the human being as knowing subject [a subject of learning];
> >> in
> >> other words, it is the basis for accepting or refusing rules, and
> >> constitutes human beings as social and juridical subjects; it is what
> >> establishes the relationship with oneself and others, and constitutes
> >> human
> >> beings as ethical subject’ (EW1: 200 [Foucault Reader: 334]).
> >> My rendition of this passage is as follows:
> >> By “thought”, I mean that which establishes, in various possible forms,
> >> the
> >> play of truth and false and which, consequently, constitutes the human
> >> being
> >> as subject of knowledge (knowing subject); that which sets up (fuses
> >> together - fonde) the acceptance or refusal of rules and constitutes the
> >> human being as social and juridical subject; that which establishes the
> >> relationship with oneself and with the others, and constitutes the human
> >> being as ethical subject.
> >> (A) The wording of the published English translation of this passage
> >> make
> >> it sound like what Foucault meant by “thought” was the play of true and
> >> false, and that it is “thought,” understood thus, which, on the one
> >> hand, is
> >> the basis for the acceptance or refusal of rules, and, on the other,
> >> establishes the relation to oneself and others.
> >> That is to say, on this reading, it is the constitution of the knowing
> >> subject which is the basis both for the constitution of the social and
> >> juridical subject and for the constitution of the ethical subject. That
> >> is
> >> to say, the constitution of the subject of knowledge by way of the play
> >> of
> >> true and false is seen as being both prior to and as acting as the basis
> >> for
> >> (the inclusion of “in other words” in the published English translation)
> >> the
> >> constitution of the social and juridical subject by way of the
> >> acceptance
> >> and refusal of rules, and the constitution of the ethical subject by way
> >> of
> >> the relation to oneself and others. Stated simply, the first axis is not
> >> only given more weight that the other two, it is seen as their condition
> >> of
> >> possibility.
> >> (B) In my revised translation, each axes is given equal weight it that
> >> what
> >> Foucault meant by thought was that which (1) establishes the play of
> >> true
> >> and false, (2) founds the acceptance and refusal or rules, and (3)
> >> establishes the relation with oneself and others. And it is thought,
> >> understood thus, that constitutes (1) the subject of knowledge, (2) the
> >> social and juridical subject, and (3) the ethical subject.
> >> In the first reading (A), thought is identified with one of the axes
> >> under
> >> discussion (true and false – subject of knowledge); in the second
> >> reading
> >> (B), thought is understood to be exterior to each axis in that it is
> >> what
> >> establishes each of them and constitutes the subject in different ways
> >> relative to each axis. Thus, thought is not identified with the first
> >> axis,
> >> which is then taken to be the condition of possibility for the second
> >> and
> >> third axes; thought is simply understood to be the condition of
> >> possibility
> >> for all three axes.
> >> I was wondering what people thought of the English translation, my
> >> revised
> >> translation, and the subsequent readings of the two passages.
> >> Regards,
> >> Kevin.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> GET FREE SMILEYS FOR YOUR IM & EMAIL - Learn more at
> Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google Talk™ and
> most webmails
> Foucault-L mailing list