Lionel
> Am I correct is saying that Foucault's term savoir:
>
> concerns itself with the discovery and symbolising of discursive
formations
>
Foucault's analysis is concerned with this sort of inquiry, but savoir
[knowledge] is more the formations themselves. That's rather crude, and I
hope that the dialogue Ali and I have been having is useful. Try Archaeology
of Knowledge p15 and the note, for Foucault's distinction and definition.
> or from reading Governmentality (p.20), does it mean something a bit
> different?
I don't have that text in front of me, and so can't comment. If you post the
quote I'm sure someone will be able to help.
> Is savoir a noun? or a verb? or both?
It can be both. Savoir as a noun means knowledge or maybe close to the
English 'science'. But it is also a verb meaning 'to know' and so links up
to self-understanding, inquisitions, confession, etc. etc.
> In some ways I could perceive it to be the representation of discursive
> formation - a sort of accepted procedure, or a ritual for doing things
> within due course ... along the path and between the defined limits or
> pickettes of acceptable behaviour.
It's not quite a code of behaviour, rather a framework of knowledge within
which other smaller, localised bits of knowledge would fit. Cf the
discussion of Bayle and Pomme in the beginning of Birth of the Clinic. Pomme
is so alien to our way of thought his analysis seems fantasy. Bayle might be
incorrect, but he is sufficiently within our framework of understanding that
we can judge him to be so.
Stuart
> Am I correct is saying that Foucault's term savoir:
>
> concerns itself with the discovery and symbolising of discursive
formations
>
Foucault's analysis is concerned with this sort of inquiry, but savoir
[knowledge] is more the formations themselves. That's rather crude, and I
hope that the dialogue Ali and I have been having is useful. Try Archaeology
of Knowledge p15 and the note, for Foucault's distinction and definition.
> or from reading Governmentality (p.20), does it mean something a bit
> different?
I don't have that text in front of me, and so can't comment. If you post the
quote I'm sure someone will be able to help.
> Is savoir a noun? or a verb? or both?
It can be both. Savoir as a noun means knowledge or maybe close to the
English 'science'. But it is also a verb meaning 'to know' and so links up
to self-understanding, inquisitions, confession, etc. etc.
> In some ways I could perceive it to be the representation of discursive
> formation - a sort of accepted procedure, or a ritual for doing things
> within due course ... along the path and between the defined limits or
> pickettes of acceptable behaviour.
It's not quite a code of behaviour, rather a framework of knowledge within
which other smaller, localised bits of knowledge would fit. Cf the
discussion of Bayle and Pomme in the beginning of Birth of the Clinic. Pomme
is so alien to our way of thought his analysis seems fantasy. Bayle might be
incorrect, but he is sufficiently within our framework of understanding that
we can judge him to be so.
Stuart