The full reference for this version of 'What is an author?' is as follows:
Michel Foucault, 'What is an author?', in _Language, Counter-Memory,
Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews_, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, 1977, pp. 113-138.
I have never read the Rabinow version, presuming them to be the same. It
gives the original as appearing in _Bulletin de la Societe francaise de
Philosophie_, 63, No. 3, (1969), pp. 73-104. Apparently that version
includes introductory remarks by Jean Wahl and response by Foucault,
together with the debate subsequent to the lecture. Perhaps some sections
are interpolations from the responses by Foucault, included by Bouchard in
this version?
Other essays in this collection are:
A Preface to Transgression
Language to Infinity
The Father's 'No'
Fantasia of the Library
Nietsche, Genealogy, History
Theatrum Philosophicum
History of Systems of Thought
Intellectuals and Power
Revolutionary Action: 'Until Now'
A nice collection of translations that is, I believe, still in print. On
influences on Foucault's essay on the author, I always assumed that Pierre
Macherey's _Pour une théorie de la production littéraire_ (1966 --
translated as _A Theory of Literary Production_ and published by RKP in
1978) would have been the main precursor of Foucault's position. Certainly
Macherey's analysis anticipates and complements that of Foucault, presented
only three years later, and would seem as much of an 'influence' (if I may
use that term for a moment) as analytical philosophy on that particular
text, although in the Bouchard version (p. 121) Foucault does refer
explicitly to John R. Searle's _Speech Acts_ (January 1969, Foucault's
lecture being given in February 1969).
Dr. David McInerney
review editor
Borderlands e-journal
www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Roberts" <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Foucault and the analytical philosophy
> Yes, that must be the one. I had it in a xerox form, but not with me at
> the moment.
>
> At 12:21 PM 7/17/2003 +0930, you wrote:
> >Nate, do you mean the translation of 'What is an author?' in Bouchard's
> >collection of Foucault's essays?
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Nathaniel Roberts" <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:01 PM
> >Subject: Foucault and the analytical philosophy
> >
> >
> > > I seem to remember that there is a discussion of the analytic
dimensions
> >of
> > > Foucault's thought in the introduction to Foucault and his
Interlocutors,
> > > ed. Arnold Davidson.
> > >
> > > Also, there are two different versions of "what is an author" in
> > > English. The one in Rabinow's Foucualt Reader is used more by
literary
> > > theory types. The other version (which I will to give the reference
for
> > > later, since I don't have it handy) contain a number of statements
> >relating
> > > to Anglo-American (analytic) philosophy of language (particularly
about
> > > nameing, definite descriptions, etc., if memory serves). I have
always
> > > found this version to be far more interesting --and, in reference to
the
> > > previous question about his contact with (or knowledge of) analytic
> > > philosophy, it could help us place this a bit better.
> > >
> > > I also remember (an interview, I think) where Foucault excuses himself
> > > saying "I'm not an analytic philosopher --nobody's perfect.")
> > >
> > > best wishes,
> > > Nate
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:15 PM 7/16/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> > > >Thanks everyone for your very useful replies.
> > > >I find this question of Foucault's realtion to the analytical
philosophy
> >of
> > > >action, and to analytical philosophy generally, fascinating (I don't
find
> > > >the link to Rorty very interesting in this regard - he is no
analytical
> > > >philosopher - not that he is 'postmodern' either). Despite coming
from an
> > > >analytical philosophy background, I know next to nothing about 'APA'.
The
> > > >thing that struck me about 'The Subject and Power' is simply that it
is
> > > >highly analytical, in structure, method, what have you. It's like
> >Foucault
> > > >is explicating his concept of power under the rules governing the
> >production
> > > >of discourse in analytical philosophy.
> > > >As far as awarness of APA goes, I don't know. Although what Foucault
> >writes
> > > >looks a lot like analytical philosophy, it doesn't show much
awareness of
> > > >the minefield of issues around deefining action and understanding
what
> > > >action is. Not that I'm suggesting this debate is really that
worthwhile,
> > > >but it's as if Foucault adopts the analytical style and the concept
of
> > > >'action', which appeals to his positivist instincts, while in fact
making
> >no
> > > >real engagement with APA.
> > > >I'd be very interested Francois if you could elaborate on what you
say
> >about
> > > >the links between Foucault and APA in the Archaeology of Knowledge.
> > > >
> > > >MArk
> > >
>
Michel Foucault, 'What is an author?', in _Language, Counter-Memory,
Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews_, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, 1977, pp. 113-138.
I have never read the Rabinow version, presuming them to be the same. It
gives the original as appearing in _Bulletin de la Societe francaise de
Philosophie_, 63, No. 3, (1969), pp. 73-104. Apparently that version
includes introductory remarks by Jean Wahl and response by Foucault,
together with the debate subsequent to the lecture. Perhaps some sections
are interpolations from the responses by Foucault, included by Bouchard in
this version?
Other essays in this collection are:
A Preface to Transgression
Language to Infinity
The Father's 'No'
Fantasia of the Library
Nietsche, Genealogy, History
Theatrum Philosophicum
History of Systems of Thought
Intellectuals and Power
Revolutionary Action: 'Until Now'
A nice collection of translations that is, I believe, still in print. On
influences on Foucault's essay on the author, I always assumed that Pierre
Macherey's _Pour une théorie de la production littéraire_ (1966 --
translated as _A Theory of Literary Production_ and published by RKP in
1978) would have been the main precursor of Foucault's position. Certainly
Macherey's analysis anticipates and complements that of Foucault, presented
only three years later, and would seem as much of an 'influence' (if I may
use that term for a moment) as analytical philosophy on that particular
text, although in the Bouchard version (p. 121) Foucault does refer
explicitly to John R. Searle's _Speech Acts_ (January 1969, Foucault's
lecture being given in February 1969).
Dr. David McInerney
review editor
Borderlands e-journal
www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Roberts" <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Foucault and the analytical philosophy
> Yes, that must be the one. I had it in a xerox form, but not with me at
> the moment.
>
> At 12:21 PM 7/17/2003 +0930, you wrote:
> >Nate, do you mean the translation of 'What is an author?' in Bouchard's
> >collection of Foucault's essays?
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Nathaniel Roberts" <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:01 PM
> >Subject: Foucault and the analytical philosophy
> >
> >
> > > I seem to remember that there is a discussion of the analytic
dimensions
> >of
> > > Foucault's thought in the introduction to Foucault and his
Interlocutors,
> > > ed. Arnold Davidson.
> > >
> > > Also, there are two different versions of "what is an author" in
> > > English. The one in Rabinow's Foucualt Reader is used more by
literary
> > > theory types. The other version (which I will to give the reference
for
> > > later, since I don't have it handy) contain a number of statements
> >relating
> > > to Anglo-American (analytic) philosophy of language (particularly
about
> > > nameing, definite descriptions, etc., if memory serves). I have
always
> > > found this version to be far more interesting --and, in reference to
the
> > > previous question about his contact with (or knowledge of) analytic
> > > philosophy, it could help us place this a bit better.
> > >
> > > I also remember (an interview, I think) where Foucault excuses himself
> > > saying "I'm not an analytic philosopher --nobody's perfect.")
> > >
> > > best wishes,
> > > Nate
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:15 PM 7/16/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> > > >Thanks everyone for your very useful replies.
> > > >I find this question of Foucault's realtion to the analytical
philosophy
> >of
> > > >action, and to analytical philosophy generally, fascinating (I don't
find
> > > >the link to Rorty very interesting in this regard - he is no
analytical
> > > >philosopher - not that he is 'postmodern' either). Despite coming
from an
> > > >analytical philosophy background, I know next to nothing about 'APA'.
The
> > > >thing that struck me about 'The Subject and Power' is simply that it
is
> > > >highly analytical, in structure, method, what have you. It's like
> >Foucault
> > > >is explicating his concept of power under the rules governing the
> >production
> > > >of discourse in analytical philosophy.
> > > >As far as awarness of APA goes, I don't know. Although what Foucault
> >writes
> > > >looks a lot like analytical philosophy, it doesn't show much
awareness of
> > > >the minefield of issues around deefining action and understanding
what
> > > >action is. Not that I'm suggesting this debate is really that
worthwhile,
> > > >but it's as if Foucault adopts the analytical style and the concept
of
> > > >'action', which appeals to his positivist instincts, while in fact
making
> >no
> > > >real engagement with APA.
> > > >I'd be very interested Francois if you could elaborate on what you
say
> >about
> > > >the links between Foucault and APA in the Archaeology of Knowledge.
> > > >
> > > >MArk
> > >
>