On the subject of 'happy positivism'. There was a well-known review
of The Order of Things published in Les Temps Modernes (Sartre's
journal) in 1967 by Simone de Beauvoir's secretary/assistant Sylvie
Le Bon. The title of this piece was 'Un positiviste desespere: Michel
Foucault' (a desperate positivist). Georges Canguilhem referred to
this criticism in his own 1967 review of Foucault's work in the
journal Critique. Obviously the term positivist was intended as an
insult in relation to Foucault's 'structuralist' stance. Thus
Foucault's remark about being happy to be a positivist was an oblique
response to this (existentialist) criticism.
Happy would definitely be the right word in this context! There are
quite a few problems with that first translation of The order of
discourse.
At 23:53 -0400 6/10/04, Brodie Richards wrote:
>I do not recall Foucault using the exact phrase "happy positivism"
>not at least in the English translation of Archealogy of Knowledge.
>What he does say about it is on page 125 of A/K and what I think
>leads to the phrase being created by commentators is the following
>passage. He says: "If, by substituting the analysis of rarity for
>the search for totalities, the description of relations of
>exteriority for the theme of transcendental foundation, the analysis
>of accumulations for the quest of origin, one is a positivst, then I
>am quite happy to be one." This is referring back, on the same
>page, to his "willingness" to use the term "positivty" to describe
>the emergence of a discursive formation. So, unless I am wrong, F.
>himself does say he is employing a "happy positivism". In this
>sense, the term positivity is more important to his argument and to
>any argument about what he meant than the phrase "happy positivism."
>"Happy positivism" has a polemical usfulness but not much else in my
>opinion.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panoptique@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************
of The Order of Things published in Les Temps Modernes (Sartre's
journal) in 1967 by Simone de Beauvoir's secretary/assistant Sylvie
Le Bon. The title of this piece was 'Un positiviste desespere: Michel
Foucault' (a desperate positivist). Georges Canguilhem referred to
this criticism in his own 1967 review of Foucault's work in the
journal Critique. Obviously the term positivist was intended as an
insult in relation to Foucault's 'structuralist' stance. Thus
Foucault's remark about being happy to be a positivist was an oblique
response to this (existentialist) criticism.
Happy would definitely be the right word in this context! There are
quite a few problems with that first translation of The order of
discourse.
At 23:53 -0400 6/10/04, Brodie Richards wrote:
>I do not recall Foucault using the exact phrase "happy positivism"
>not at least in the English translation of Archealogy of Knowledge.
>What he does say about it is on page 125 of A/K and what I think
>leads to the phrase being created by commentators is the following
>passage. He says: "If, by substituting the analysis of rarity for
>the search for totalities, the description of relations of
>exteriority for the theme of transcendental foundation, the analysis
>of accumulations for the quest of origin, one is a positivst, then I
>am quite happy to be one." This is referring back, on the same
>page, to his "willingness" to use the term "positivty" to describe
>the emergence of a discursive formation. So, unless I am wrong, F.
>himself does say he is employing a "happy positivism". In this
>sense, the term positivity is more important to his argument and to
>any argument about what he meant than the phrase "happy positivism."
>"Happy positivism" has a polemical usfulness but not much else in my
>opinion.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panoptique@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************