On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Ferda Keskin wrote:
> I think we have to be a little careful in trying to extrapolate
> a much broader discussion of transgression from the
> "Preface to the Transgression" by associating this text with
> "What is Enlightenment?". In the original French version
> of "What is Enlightenment?" the word Foucault uses is=20
> 'franchissement' and not 'transgression'.
> Here is the French version of the passage John Ransom=20
> quoted:
>=20
> "Il s'agit en somme de transformer la critique exerc=E9e dans la
> forme de limitation n=E9cessaire en une critique pratique
> dans la forme du franchissement possible". ("Qu'est-ce-que
> les lumieres", Dits et Ecrits, V.4, p.574)
Wasn't it actually written in English? Of course, everything Foucault did
is translated into French in Dits et Ecrits.=20
>=20
> Now, I am not saying that the two concepts, 'franchissement'
> and 'transgression' are unrelated, but I wonder why Foucault
> used the former term rather than the latter. Did he,
> perhaps, not want to commit himself to some content that he=20
> had ascribed to 'transgression' some twenty years earlier?
I'm not trying to say that Foucault thought he was saying the same thing
in "Transgression" that he was saying in "WIE". I don't need him for that.
The fact seems to be that the two discussions are closely related.
> In any case, it seems further argumentation is needed to show=20
> that Foucault used the two terms interchangeably.
Perhaps, but first don't we need an argument that the two terms are
significantly different?=20
> I think "What is Enlightenment?" is a text with retrospective
> overtones for the following reasons:
> i) Foucault argues (in "The Subject and Power") that the=20
> question of the subject 'is the general theme of (his) research.
> and=20
> ii) he argues (in the Preface to the History of Sexuality, V.2)
> that we should undertake a nominalist reduction of the subject
> and that a proper understanding of subjective experience=20
> requires a historical ontology of ourselves.
> iii) he explains (in "What is Enlightenment?") what he=20
> understands by this historical ontology: criticism (I think given=20
> the context 'critique' would be a better translation than=20
> 'criticism') as analysis of and reflection upon limits for their
> possible 'franchissement'.
>=20
> If this is a text that Foucault finds relevant to his entire=20
> project, it is hard to understand why he did not emphasize
> the continuity between 'Preface to Transgression' and
> 'What is Enlightenment?' by using the same term for the same=20
> concept (unless he assigned substantially different meanings to
> them.)
>=20
> Ferda Keskin
>=20
I think the above is a tad too restrictive on interpretive license.=20
--John
> I think we have to be a little careful in trying to extrapolate
> a much broader discussion of transgression from the
> "Preface to the Transgression" by associating this text with
> "What is Enlightenment?". In the original French version
> of "What is Enlightenment?" the word Foucault uses is=20
> 'franchissement' and not 'transgression'.
> Here is the French version of the passage John Ransom=20
> quoted:
>=20
> "Il s'agit en somme de transformer la critique exerc=E9e dans la
> forme de limitation n=E9cessaire en une critique pratique
> dans la forme du franchissement possible". ("Qu'est-ce-que
> les lumieres", Dits et Ecrits, V.4, p.574)
Wasn't it actually written in English? Of course, everything Foucault did
is translated into French in Dits et Ecrits.=20
>=20
> Now, I am not saying that the two concepts, 'franchissement'
> and 'transgression' are unrelated, but I wonder why Foucault
> used the former term rather than the latter. Did he,
> perhaps, not want to commit himself to some content that he=20
> had ascribed to 'transgression' some twenty years earlier?
I'm not trying to say that Foucault thought he was saying the same thing
in "Transgression" that he was saying in "WIE". I don't need him for that.
The fact seems to be that the two discussions are closely related.
> In any case, it seems further argumentation is needed to show=20
> that Foucault used the two terms interchangeably.
Perhaps, but first don't we need an argument that the two terms are
significantly different?=20
> I think "What is Enlightenment?" is a text with retrospective
> overtones for the following reasons:
> i) Foucault argues (in "The Subject and Power") that the=20
> question of the subject 'is the general theme of (his) research.
> and=20
> ii) he argues (in the Preface to the History of Sexuality, V.2)
> that we should undertake a nominalist reduction of the subject
> and that a proper understanding of subjective experience=20
> requires a historical ontology of ourselves.
> iii) he explains (in "What is Enlightenment?") what he=20
> understands by this historical ontology: criticism (I think given=20
> the context 'critique' would be a better translation than=20
> 'criticism') as analysis of and reflection upon limits for their
> possible 'franchissement'.
>=20
> If this is a text that Foucault finds relevant to his entire=20
> project, it is hard to understand why he did not emphasize
> the continuity between 'Preface to Transgression' and
> 'What is Enlightenment?' by using the same term for the same=20
> concept (unless he assigned substantially different meanings to
> them.)
>=20
> Ferda Keskin
>=20
I think the above is a tad too restrictive on interpretive license.=20
--John