> 2)pouvire is not a word. You mean pouvoir. We already discussed this at
> length Kevin, Google search! The question you ask is not really to the point.
> Foucault hardly talks about power in these works, and where he does he hasn't
> developed the conecpt of power (pouvoir) he does later, so it's really
> irrelevant whether he says pouvoir or puissance (both being common French
> nouns, he quite possibly uses both at various times).
I disagree. Although I don't have the original French texts in front of
me, "pouvoir" and "puissance" mean quite different things it seems to me.
"Puissance" is close to the model of power against which Foucault was
reacting: power as domination, as something that comes always and only
from above, and as something which is held by particular individuals
(particularly one's enemies and rarely one's self). "Pouvoir", by contrast
(as in "pouvoir/savoir" - power/knowledge) is what we would probably
recognize as Foucault's conception of power from HOS I and D&P:
"micro-physical", "both intentional and non-subjective", etc. And
although Foucault doesn't highlight power-as-pouvoir in such works as M&C,
he has said elsewhere that he later realized that his preoccupation
throughout his entire oeuvre had been this conception of power, so I would
imagine that "pouvoir" would be more relevant even to such early texts.
Phil
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
{ Phil Thomson
{ home: http://www.sfu.ca/~pthomson
{ label: http://centibel.org/
{ group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/databenders/
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
SDF Public Access UNIX System
http://www.freeshell.org/
Geekier than you since 1987.
> length Kevin, Google search! The question you ask is not really to the point.
> Foucault hardly talks about power in these works, and where he does he hasn't
> developed the conecpt of power (pouvoir) he does later, so it's really
> irrelevant whether he says pouvoir or puissance (both being common French
> nouns, he quite possibly uses both at various times).
I disagree. Although I don't have the original French texts in front of
me, "pouvoir" and "puissance" mean quite different things it seems to me.
"Puissance" is close to the model of power against which Foucault was
reacting: power as domination, as something that comes always and only
from above, and as something which is held by particular individuals
(particularly one's enemies and rarely one's self). "Pouvoir", by contrast
(as in "pouvoir/savoir" - power/knowledge) is what we would probably
recognize as Foucault's conception of power from HOS I and D&P:
"micro-physical", "both intentional and non-subjective", etc. And
although Foucault doesn't highlight power-as-pouvoir in such works as M&C,
he has said elsewhere that he later realized that his preoccupation
throughout his entire oeuvre had been this conception of power, so I would
imagine that "pouvoir" would be more relevant even to such early texts.
Phil
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
{ Phil Thomson
{ home: http://www.sfu.ca/~pthomson
{ label: http://centibel.org/
{ group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/databenders/
+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
SDF Public Access UNIX System
http://www.freeshell.org/
Geekier than you since 1987.