Concerning my remark that in "WIE?" the term
Foucault uses is 'franchissement' not 'transgression'
John Ransom wrote:
Wasn't it actually written in English? Of course, everything Foucault did
is translated into French in Dits et Ecrits.
Well, in The Foucault Reader the text is said to be translated by
Catherine Porter. To my knowledge it was first published but not
originally written in English. It's true of course that a few pieces
F. wrote in English are translated into French for Dits et Ecrits.
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.
Asuming that 'transgression' and 'franchissement' mean the same
thing, I suppose.
> In any case, it seems further argumentation is needed to show
> that Foucault used the two terms interchangeably.
Perhaps, but first don't we need an argument that the two terms are
significantly different?
The general French usage of the two terms is I think sufficient
argument for that. Also in no major French dictionary are
the terms used to define each other.
I think the above is a tad too restrictive on interpretive license.
Perhaps, but I think details are important. Foucault thought
so too. Remember his discussion in "Nietzsche, Genealogy,
History" of 'Ursprung', 'Entstehung' and 'Herkunft' and what he
makes of the distinction between them for explaining what
genealogy means.
Ferda
Foucault uses is 'franchissement' not 'transgression'
John Ransom wrote:
Wasn't it actually written in English? Of course, everything Foucault did
is translated into French in Dits et Ecrits.
Well, in The Foucault Reader the text is said to be translated by
Catherine Porter. To my knowledge it was first published but not
originally written in English. It's true of course that a few pieces
F. wrote in English are translated into French for Dits et Ecrits.
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.
Asuming that 'transgression' and 'franchissement' mean the same
thing, I suppose.
> In any case, it seems further argumentation is needed to show
> that Foucault used the two terms interchangeably.
Perhaps, but first don't we need an argument that the two terms are
significantly different?
The general French usage of the two terms is I think sufficient
argument for that. Also in no major French dictionary are
the terms used to define each other.
I think the above is a tad too restrictive on interpretive license.
Perhaps, but I think details are important. Foucault thought
so too. Remember his discussion in "Nietzsche, Genealogy,
History" of 'Ursprung', 'Entstehung' and 'Herkunft' and what he
makes of the distinction between them for explaining what
genealogy means.
Ferda