You can find a similar interpretation (or discussion) in Deleuze's
'Foucault'. I don't know if it has been translated.
Francois
Kevin Turner a écrit:
> credit where credit's due - i got the insight from Stuart Elden's
> "mapping the present:" 106, and Beatrice Hanssen's "critique of
> violence": 153, the latter of whom references Gayatri Spivak's
> "Outside the Teaching Machine:" 25-52.
>
> as for power being an actuality: you can take this in (at least) two
> ways - either it is an actuality in terms of being a substance and
> thus a property, or it is an actuality in terms of being a
> potentiality. i think foucault means the later. thus to think of
> power as capacity is not to think of it as an innate capability, or
> an essentail attribute, but precisely the capacity "to be able to"
> (power - pouvoir as a verb, as a doing) through the capacity to
> "know'how" (knowledge - savoir).
>
> i think Nietzsche's observation that 'there is no "being" behind
> doing, acting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction imposed on
> the doing - the doing itself is everything' ("On The Genealogy of
> Morals" 1996: First Essay, 13), is a very good way to think about
> power/pouvoir as a verb.
>
> regards - k.
>
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:37:47 +1000, Lionel Boxer <lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Can we be certain that Foucault did not mean anything beyond
>> something actual? I think the idea that it has something to do with
>> "capacity" adds an interesting dimension. Where does Foucault make
>> that statement in a clear way?
>>
>> Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA - 0411267256 - lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Charity day at Dame Elisabeth's - see http://intergon.net
>> Victorian Scottish Regiment
>> NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT (none may attack me with impunity)
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Melbourne Volunteer Rifle Regiment 150th Anniversary --
>> http://intergon.net/rifles
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>> From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Pouvoir
>>> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:30:40 +1000
>>>
>>> we've got to be careful with this - it was a line I chased for a while.
>>> 'pouvoir' as a verb means 'to be able to'; as a noun, it means
>>> 'power'. The reason we have to be so careful is that in 'The
>>> Subject and Power' Foucault is very specific that by power he does
>>> not mean capacity or potential but something actual. 'Power' in
>>> English also has the connotation of a capacity to do something, but
>>> not in Foucault's usage.
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> >From: francois gagnon <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >Subject: Re: micro-translations
>>> >Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:46:47 -0400
>>> >
>>> >Yes it can.
>>> >F.
>>> >
>>> >Kevin Turner a écrit:
>>> >
>>> >>while we're on the subject of translation...
>>> >>
>>> >>can someone confirm that the term foucault uses for power,
>>> >>"pouvoir," can also mean "be able
>>> (to)", "can," "be possible," or
>>> >>"capacity," etc.
>>> >>
>>> >>cheers - k
>>> >>
>>> >>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:52:00 +0200, xavier delcourt
>>> >><delcourt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>équilibre européen: "european balance" would
>>> be totally acceptable
>>> >>>from my point of view
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >François Gagnon
>>> >Doctorant
>>> >Département de Communication
>>> >Université de Montréal
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Protect yourself from junk e-mail:
>> http://microsoft.ninemsn.com.au/protectfromspam.aspx
>>
>
>
>
--
François Gagnon
Doctorant
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal
'Foucault'. I don't know if it has been translated.
Francois
Kevin Turner a écrit:
> credit where credit's due - i got the insight from Stuart Elden's
> "mapping the present:" 106, and Beatrice Hanssen's "critique of
> violence": 153, the latter of whom references Gayatri Spivak's
> "Outside the Teaching Machine:" 25-52.
>
> as for power being an actuality: you can take this in (at least) two
> ways - either it is an actuality in terms of being a substance and
> thus a property, or it is an actuality in terms of being a
> potentiality. i think foucault means the later. thus to think of
> power as capacity is not to think of it as an innate capability, or
> an essentail attribute, but precisely the capacity "to be able to"
> (power - pouvoir as a verb, as a doing) through the capacity to
> "know'how" (knowledge - savoir).
>
> i think Nietzsche's observation that 'there is no "being" behind
> doing, acting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction imposed on
> the doing - the doing itself is everything' ("On The Genealogy of
> Morals" 1996: First Essay, 13), is a very good way to think about
> power/pouvoir as a verb.
>
> regards - k.
>
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:37:47 +1000, Lionel Boxer <lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Can we be certain that Foucault did not mean anything beyond
>> something actual? I think the idea that it has something to do with
>> "capacity" adds an interesting dimension. Where does Foucault make
>> that statement in a clear way?
>>
>> Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA - 0411267256 - lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Charity day at Dame Elisabeth's - see http://intergon.net
>> Victorian Scottish Regiment
>> NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT (none may attack me with impunity)
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Melbourne Volunteer Rifle Regiment 150th Anniversary --
>> http://intergon.net/rifles
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>> From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Pouvoir
>>> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:30:40 +1000
>>>
>>> we've got to be careful with this - it was a line I chased for a while.
>>> 'pouvoir' as a verb means 'to be able to'; as a noun, it means
>>> 'power'. The reason we have to be so careful is that in 'The
>>> Subject and Power' Foucault is very specific that by power he does
>>> not mean capacity or potential but something actual. 'Power' in
>>> English also has the connotation of a capacity to do something, but
>>> not in Foucault's usage.
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> >From: francois gagnon <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >Subject: Re: micro-translations
>>> >Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:46:47 -0400
>>> >
>>> >Yes it can.
>>> >F.
>>> >
>>> >Kevin Turner a écrit:
>>> >
>>> >>while we're on the subject of translation...
>>> >>
>>> >>can someone confirm that the term foucault uses for power,
>>> >>"pouvoir," can also mean "be able
>>> (to)", "can," "be possible," or
>>> >>"capacity," etc.
>>> >>
>>> >>cheers - k
>>> >>
>>> >>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:52:00 +0200, xavier delcourt
>>> >><delcourt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>équilibre européen: "european balance" would
>>> be totally acceptable
>>> >>>from my point of view
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >François Gagnon
>>> >Doctorant
>>> >Département de Communication
>>> >Université de Montréal
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Protect yourself from junk e-mail:
>> http://microsoft.ninemsn.com.au/protectfromspam.aspx
>>
>
>
>
--
François Gagnon
Doctorant
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal