*Pr=E9face =E0 la transgression*: has nobody caught the light, playful tone=
of
this title ? Anglo-american readers read this text with such
grimness (again, the protestant ethic ?). Foucault was asked to write a
preface to the complete works of George Bataille which were being published
by Gallimard. At the time (61 ? 63 ?) for such an established house as
Gallimard, publishing Bataille was a brave act. Most intellectuals at the
time probably would have refused writing any preface to B's work. B was not
considered a serious anything (philosopher ?, writer ?, funny kind of
anthropologist ?) and Sartre was a BIG force on the scene (recall his
dismissal of *La litt=E9rature et le mal*) so Foucault was also breaking
ground in doing this. But he plays with the high seriousness of Gallimard,
with the notion of an oeuvre compl=E8te, with the Author itself. Pr=E9face =
=E0 la
transgression, as
title, is very funny, it's a joke. Commonsensically even, transgression
wouldn't seem to need *any* kind of preface, no auspicious sending off. On
any level of conceptual thinking of transgression there is always this
*levity* of which F's preface acts as a reminder, as if to say, yes what you
will read here in Bataille is Highly Serious, quite troubling, insane to
some, but it's also light, weightless, even funny at times. It is
expendable, to use Bataille's word. [Nobody ever writes about the humor in
=46oucault, which is such an important part of his work, and which is --as
with the best humor-- never just funny.]. Just a thought.
A Monferr=E9
Dept. of French
Yale U
of
this title ? Anglo-american readers read this text with such
grimness (again, the protestant ethic ?). Foucault was asked to write a
preface to the complete works of George Bataille which were being published
by Gallimard. At the time (61 ? 63 ?) for such an established house as
Gallimard, publishing Bataille was a brave act. Most intellectuals at the
time probably would have refused writing any preface to B's work. B was not
considered a serious anything (philosopher ?, writer ?, funny kind of
anthropologist ?) and Sartre was a BIG force on the scene (recall his
dismissal of *La litt=E9rature et le mal*) so Foucault was also breaking
ground in doing this. But he plays with the high seriousness of Gallimard,
with the notion of an oeuvre compl=E8te, with the Author itself. Pr=E9face =
=E0 la
transgression, as
title, is very funny, it's a joke. Commonsensically even, transgression
wouldn't seem to need *any* kind of preface, no auspicious sending off. On
any level of conceptual thinking of transgression there is always this
*levity* of which F's preface acts as a reminder, as if to say, yes what you
will read here in Bataille is Highly Serious, quite troubling, insane to
some, but it's also light, weightless, even funny at times. It is
expendable, to use Bataille's word. [Nobody ever writes about the humor in
=46oucault, which is such an important part of his work, and which is --as
with the best humor-- never just funny.]. Just a thought.
A Monferr=E9
Dept. of French
Yale U