>Does anyone "know" what the words for "power" and "knowledge" are in French?
It's interesting that they aren't the words that Foucault uses. I'm sure there are others who can answer this better than I can, I've only had four years of French and never read Foucault in French, but Foucault does not generally use the nouns "connaissance" and "puissance" which would translate literally to knowledge and power, but rather the infinitive form "pouvoir/savoir" which translates literally as "to be able to/to know". This is a big source of confusion for those whose first encounter with Foucault is in English (as mine was) because what Foucault (or perhaps his translators?) means by power is not exactly the same as the common American usage, such as in the cliche "knowledge is power".
It is significant that Foucault uses "pouvoir" (to be able) because for him power (and knowledge) delimit a field of possibilites. Certain things become problems, or become possible objects of knowledge, at certain times as the result of the very particular play of power (among other things). For example, the "criminal" did not become a possible object of knowledge, in terms of his motivations, his perversions, his moral corruption, his reformability, etc. until after (or perhaps simultaneously with) a reconfiguration of the justice system to defend "society" rather than cancel affronts to the sovereign.
I invite those more knowledgable than I to correct my French or my explanation of Foucault.
Andrew Brokos
>
>
>>From: Phil Ryan <philip_ryan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: power/knowledge
>>Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:34:48 -0400
>>
>>
>>
>>John Patrick wrote:
>>
>> > his basic
>> > premise seems quite basic to me. The common expression "knowledge is
>>power"
>> > seems to summarize his position.There doesn't seem to be anything
>> > revolutionary about that.
>>
>>As that great American philosopher, W.J. Clinton, once put it, it depends
>>on
>>"what the meaning of 'is' is"
>>
>>We regularly use the verb in English, without having to think about what
>>heavy
>>duty it does, how many shades of meaning it holds.
>>
>>For ex, we say that "2+2 is 4" and, conversely, "4 is 2+2"
>>
>>But "is" does not always entail this reversibility
>>
>>For example: Those who make the statement
>>
>>"Knowledge is power"
>>
>>are rarely willing to turn it around to say
>>
>>"Power is knowledge"
>>
>>One of the things that makes Foucault interesting for many of us is that he
>>was
>>willing to turn the phrase around. Foucault emphatically rejected the
>>claim
>>that he had simply identified knowledge with power, so it's better to read
>>his
>>claims as something like:
>>
>>knowledge <generates> power [ho-hum]
>>
>>power generates knowledge [more interesting, I think]
>>
>>One of the themes running through Discipline and Punish, to take one work,
>>is
>>how the prison and analogous institutions served to generate knowledge
>>about
>>human beings. Foucault would often suggest that the whole "human sciences"
>>were
>>informed by the knowledge flowing from such relations of power.
>>
>>It's a striking thesis, for me at least, and is worth playing with, and
>>applying
>>to different contexts to see how fruitful it is.
>>
>>
>>Hope that that "is" helpful.
>>
>>Phil Ryan
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
It's interesting that they aren't the words that Foucault uses. I'm sure there are others who can answer this better than I can, I've only had four years of French and never read Foucault in French, but Foucault does not generally use the nouns "connaissance" and "puissance" which would translate literally to knowledge and power, but rather the infinitive form "pouvoir/savoir" which translates literally as "to be able to/to know". This is a big source of confusion for those whose first encounter with Foucault is in English (as mine was) because what Foucault (or perhaps his translators?) means by power is not exactly the same as the common American usage, such as in the cliche "knowledge is power".
It is significant that Foucault uses "pouvoir" (to be able) because for him power (and knowledge) delimit a field of possibilites. Certain things become problems, or become possible objects of knowledge, at certain times as the result of the very particular play of power (among other things). For example, the "criminal" did not become a possible object of knowledge, in terms of his motivations, his perversions, his moral corruption, his reformability, etc. until after (or perhaps simultaneously with) a reconfiguration of the justice system to defend "society" rather than cancel affronts to the sovereign.
I invite those more knowledgable than I to correct my French or my explanation of Foucault.
Andrew Brokos
>
>
>>From: Phil Ryan <philip_ryan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: power/knowledge
>>Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:34:48 -0400
>>
>>
>>
>>John Patrick wrote:
>>
>> > his basic
>> > premise seems quite basic to me. The common expression "knowledge is
>>power"
>> > seems to summarize his position.There doesn't seem to be anything
>> > revolutionary about that.
>>
>>As that great American philosopher, W.J. Clinton, once put it, it depends
>>on
>>"what the meaning of 'is' is"
>>
>>We regularly use the verb in English, without having to think about what
>>heavy
>>duty it does, how many shades of meaning it holds.
>>
>>For ex, we say that "2+2 is 4" and, conversely, "4 is 2+2"
>>
>>But "is" does not always entail this reversibility
>>
>>For example: Those who make the statement
>>
>>"Knowledge is power"
>>
>>are rarely willing to turn it around to say
>>
>>"Power is knowledge"
>>
>>One of the things that makes Foucault interesting for many of us is that he
>>was
>>willing to turn the phrase around. Foucault emphatically rejected the
>>claim
>>that he had simply identified knowledge with power, so it's better to read
>>his
>>claims as something like:
>>
>>knowledge <generates> power [ho-hum]
>>
>>power generates knowledge [more interesting, I think]
>>
>>One of the themes running through Discipline and Punish, to take one work,
>>is
>>how the prison and analogous institutions served to generate knowledge
>>about
>>human beings. Foucault would often suggest that the whole "human sciences"
>>were
>>informed by the knowledge flowing from such relations of power.
>>
>>It's a striking thesis, for me at least, and is worth playing with, and
>>applying
>>to different contexts to see how fruitful it is.
>>
>>
>>Hope that that "is" helpful.
>>
>>Phil Ryan
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/