>The quote is from
>Foucault, Michel. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy and history. In Paul
>Rabinow (Ed.), the Foucault Reader. (pp. 76-100). New York: Pantheon
>Books and specifically, page 88, where F is talking about effective
>history. Perhaps Stuart Elden can provide a French original? Thanks
>Stuart
C'est que le savoir n'est pas fait pour comprendre, il est fait pour
trancher.
Dits et ecrits, Vol II, p. 148
So the word in question is trancher, not couper. Trancher could mean cut in
a violent sense - slitting a throat, cutting off a head [but in Foucault's
phrase we need to cut - couper - the king's head off]. But trancher also has
a sense of bringing to an end, concluding; tranche is a slice.
But if read in the context of the discussion, it seems obvious that it is
related to the discussion of discontinuity and the breaking up of seemingly
seamless passages of history, the refusal of a solid centre around which
history resolves.
Hope that's useful in contextualising the remark.
Stuart
>Foucault, Michel. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy and history. In Paul
>Rabinow (Ed.), the Foucault Reader. (pp. 76-100). New York: Pantheon
>Books and specifically, page 88, where F is talking about effective
>history. Perhaps Stuart Elden can provide a French original? Thanks
>Stuart
C'est que le savoir n'est pas fait pour comprendre, il est fait pour
trancher.
Dits et ecrits, Vol II, p. 148
So the word in question is trancher, not couper. Trancher could mean cut in
a violent sense - slitting a throat, cutting off a head [but in Foucault's
phrase we need to cut - couper - the king's head off]. But trancher also has
a sense of bringing to an end, concluding; tranche is a slice.
But if read in the context of the discussion, it seems obvious that it is
related to the discussion of discontinuity and the breaking up of seemingly
seamless passages of history, the refusal of a solid centre around which
history resolves.
Hope that's useful in contextualising the remark.
Stuart