Machiel, Kevin:
Here's another question with respect to the
distinction between savoir and connaissance:
I feel that the distinction between
savoir/connaissance is quite similar to a distinction
between langue/parole (in linguistics) and
structure/practice (in soc. sciences). Do you agree /
disagree? And, if you agree, isn't this parallelism -
which suggests a particular kind of a dualistic
tension between savoir and connaissance - problematic,
given Foucault's distrust of dualistic thinking
(which, for me, is very strongly articulated in
'History of Sexuality')?
With thanks for your time,
Alex.
--- machiel karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In L'archéologie du savoir on page 236 'savoir is
> called : "l'état des
> connaissances" at a given moment; so "connaissance"
> is positive knowledge on
> a given topic or in a given discipline; "savoir" is
> the field of knowledge
> or discursive formation at that moment, which makes
> this positive knowledge
> possible.
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Foucault List" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:12 PM
> Subject: [Foucault-L] savoir - connaissance
>
>
> > In "The Archaeology of Knowledge" Sheridan Smith
> makes the following
> observation on the relation between savoir and
> connaissance:
> >
> > 'Connaissance refers...to a particular corpus of
> knowledge, a particular
> discipline â?? biology or economics, for example.
> Savoir, which is usually
> defined as knowledge in general, to totality of
> connaissance, is used by
> Foucault in an underlying, rather than an overall,
> way. He has himself
> offered the following comment on his usage of these
> terms: â??By connaissance
> I mean the relation of the subject to the object and
> the formal rules that
> govern it. Savoir refers to the conditions that are
> necessary in a
> particular period for this or that type of object to
> be given to
> connaissance and for this or that type of
> enunciation to be formulatedâ??'(AK:
> 15n2).
> >
> > The problem is, Sheridan Smith does not give a
> reference for Foucault's
> comments: does anybody know where Foucault
> originally made this statement?
> >
> > Regards - Kevin.
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________
> > Free 2GB Email - Online Storage, Effective Spam
> Protection, Calendar &
> more!
> > Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Here's another question with respect to the
distinction between savoir and connaissance:
I feel that the distinction between
savoir/connaissance is quite similar to a distinction
between langue/parole (in linguistics) and
structure/practice (in soc. sciences). Do you agree /
disagree? And, if you agree, isn't this parallelism -
which suggests a particular kind of a dualistic
tension between savoir and connaissance - problematic,
given Foucault's distrust of dualistic thinking
(which, for me, is very strongly articulated in
'History of Sexuality')?
With thanks for your time,
Alex.
--- machiel karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In L'archéologie du savoir on page 236 'savoir is
> called : "l'état des
> connaissances" at a given moment; so "connaissance"
> is positive knowledge on
> a given topic or in a given discipline; "savoir" is
> the field of knowledge
> or discursive formation at that moment, which makes
> this positive knowledge
> possible.
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Foucault List" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:12 PM
> Subject: [Foucault-L] savoir - connaissance
>
>
> > In "The Archaeology of Knowledge" Sheridan Smith
> makes the following
> observation on the relation between savoir and
> connaissance:
> >
> > 'Connaissance refers...to a particular corpus of
> knowledge, a particular
> discipline â?? biology or economics, for example.
> Savoir, which is usually
> defined as knowledge in general, to totality of
> connaissance, is used by
> Foucault in an underlying, rather than an overall,
> way. He has himself
> offered the following comment on his usage of these
> terms: â??By connaissance
> I mean the relation of the subject to the object and
> the formal rules that
> govern it. Savoir refers to the conditions that are
> necessary in a
> particular period for this or that type of object to
> be given to
> connaissance and for this or that type of
> enunciation to be formulatedâ??'(AK:
> 15n2).
> >
> > The problem is, Sheridan Smith does not give a
> reference for Foucault's
> comments: does anybody know where Foucault
> originally made this statement?
> >
> > Regards - Kevin.
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________
> > Free 2GB Email - Online Storage, Effective Spam
> Protection, Calendar &
> more!
> > Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com