Re: obscure Foucault questions

Selon Mark Kelly <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> hi
> in contrast to the recent entertaining traffic I've been humourlessly
> complaining about, I need help with some really spoddy questions arising
> from my recent close reading of 'The Subject and Power', the stuff by
> Foucault which first appeared as the original appendix to Breyfus and
> Rabinow's book 'Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics'.
> Part of this was originally written in English and part in French - does
> anyone have any idea if the version in Dits et ecrits went back to the
> original French version or if it is retranslated from the English?

In Dits et Écrits, it is noted that the french version is a translation from F.

> Does anyone know anything more about when and where this stuff was written
> and why it was written in different languages?
> Lastly, a lot of this piece has strong resonances with the analytical
> philosophy of action, in ways indeed in which it bears almost no realtion to
> Foucault's other stuff. I wonder if he might not have come into contact with
> that stuff in America, but can't think how I'd even begin finding that out -
> there's nothing on that score in the biographies.
> not holding my breath,

In my doctoral "examen de synthese", I defended the idea that the opposition
between Foucault's conception of discourse and the enonce and the analytical
philosophy of action (apa) was 'overstated' or overblown (sorry for the English
nuances I don't always master). The definitions he gives in the Archaeology are
explicitly (if I remember well) trying to distinguish his position from that of
the apa one, but I argued it was not really convincing and that the
distinctions seemed quite pale (which is something, by the way, that suggests
that Foucualt 'knew' about apa well before 'The subject and Power'). To argue
that, I relied in part on Deleuze and Guattari's 'Postulat de la linguistique'
chapter in Capitalisme et Schizophrénie where they explicitly draw on apa to
set out their view on language of discourse. Given their proximity to Foucault
(especially Deleuze) on the matter and the reaction of the evaluation jury, I
don't think my interpretation was too far-stretched.

> Mark


Partial thread listing: