Hi Colin
Thanks for such a full explanation!
I had actually just written a footnote condemning (what turns out to be)
your translation with the argument that the slash implies interchangeability
i.e. that it might mean either power or knowledge. An example of this use of
the slash might be p.232 in your Power/Knowledge afterword, where you talk
of "the Leninist/Stalinist strategic lore". Here this is the Leninist lore,
which is also the Stalinist lore. Or the case of "his/her", where it could
be his or it could be hers. Where pouvoir-savoir is used, it could not be
either, nor indeed could it be both, because it is a neologism, as you point
out. The hyphen, also in English, it seems to me, creates a new word which
is not reducible to its constituent concepts, or indeed suggesting their
identity. If anything, it seems to me, it is the slash which suggests that,
as, perhaps, in your Leninism/Stalinism example. I cannot think of any
examples of hyphenated phrases in English which do suggest identity -
normally they are entirely novel concepts. My suspicion is that the slash
was/is a lot trendier, hence looked sexier as the book title, as you
indicate. I hope I'm not being too precocious!
The pouvoir-savoir phrase incidentally goes back quite a long way - it's
used in the 1972 College course summary so quite possibly was used in that
course.
Which is the lecture in which Foucault semi-renounces the concept, by the
way?
Mant thanks,
Mark
Thanks for such a full explanation!
I had actually just written a footnote condemning (what turns out to be)
your translation with the argument that the slash implies interchangeability
i.e. that it might mean either power or knowledge. An example of this use of
the slash might be p.232 in your Power/Knowledge afterword, where you talk
of "the Leninist/Stalinist strategic lore". Here this is the Leninist lore,
which is also the Stalinist lore. Or the case of "his/her", where it could
be his or it could be hers. Where pouvoir-savoir is used, it could not be
either, nor indeed could it be both, because it is a neologism, as you point
out. The hyphen, also in English, it seems to me, creates a new word which
is not reducible to its constituent concepts, or indeed suggesting their
identity. If anything, it seems to me, it is the slash which suggests that,
as, perhaps, in your Leninism/Stalinism example. I cannot think of any
examples of hyphenated phrases in English which do suggest identity -
normally they are entirely novel concepts. My suspicion is that the slash
was/is a lot trendier, hence looked sexier as the book title, as you
indicate. I hope I'm not being too precocious!
The pouvoir-savoir phrase incidentally goes back quite a long way - it's
used in the 1972 College course summary so quite possibly was used in that
course.
Which is the lecture in which Foucault semi-renounces the concept, by the
way?
Mant thanks,
Mark