Can't this leisure / idleness distinction be understood fairly
straightforwardly (i.e. not ironically) - we never work harder then when
at rest. I am thinking of the programmed awfulness of what people *do*
when they are not working - the concept of a leisure *activity* and all
the other informative oxymorons of a consumer society. Idleness on the
other hand would be non-consumerist occupation of time-not-at-work and
therefore deviant.
Jon.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Stuart Elden" <Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: minor question
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 22:03:22 +0100
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Matthew,
I haven't seen the second volume yet, so I haven't had a chance to see
what
they have done with Des Espaces Autres. There are a number of problems
with
that translation, so I do hope they haven't made it worse.
On the line you cite,
"in our society where leisure is the rule, idleness is a sort of
deviation"
(Diacritics, spring 1986, p25).
The French is:-
"dans notre societe ou le loisir est la regle, l'oisivete forme une
sorte de
deviation"
(Dits et ecrits, Vol IV, p757)
which looks pretty accurate and straightforward to me.
>It looks as if he might have meant to say "where leisure is *against*
the
rule", but on the other >hand, it makes (ironic) sense as it stands,
too.
Anyone have the French?
Isn't Foucault's point that ordered rest (leisure) is the requirement
but
that unordered rest (idleness) is the deviation. Old age - the thing
Foucault is talking about - especially in rest homes, is hardly leisure,
and
is therefore unproductive, and therefore deviation.
Any other thoughts?
Best wishes
Stuart
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
straightforwardly (i.e. not ironically) - we never work harder then when
at rest. I am thinking of the programmed awfulness of what people *do*
when they are not working - the concept of a leisure *activity* and all
the other informative oxymorons of a consumer society. Idleness on the
other hand would be non-consumerist occupation of time-not-at-work and
therefore deviant.
Jon.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Stuart Elden" <Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: minor question
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 22:03:22 +0100
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Matthew,
I haven't seen the second volume yet, so I haven't had a chance to see
what
they have done with Des Espaces Autres. There are a number of problems
with
that translation, so I do hope they haven't made it worse.
On the line you cite,
"in our society where leisure is the rule, idleness is a sort of
deviation"
(Diacritics, spring 1986, p25).
The French is:-
"dans notre societe ou le loisir est la regle, l'oisivete forme une
sorte de
deviation"
(Dits et ecrits, Vol IV, p757)
which looks pretty accurate and straightforward to me.
>It looks as if he might have meant to say "where leisure is *against*
the
rule", but on the other >hand, it makes (ironic) sense as it stands,
too.
Anyone have the French?
Isn't Foucault's point that ordered rest (leisure) is the requirement
but
that unordered rest (idleness) is the deviation. Old age - the thing
Foucault is talking about - especially in rest homes, is hardly leisure,
and
is therefore unproductive, and therefore deviation.
Any other thoughts?
Best wishes
Stuart
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com