Yes, I see now that either translation could be read in a number of ways.
The fundamental point is that Foucault would not accept either "experience"
or "sexuality" as trans-historical categories.
But any discontinuity implies a continuity as well; to say the sexuality was
not the same in classical Greece as in Victorian England implies that there
is at least *some* prima facie basis on which to compare the two. Thus we
do not even bother to assert that there was a discontinuity between Greek
agricultural practices and Victorian slavery... or between a fish and a
bicycle.
To give an example closer to home, F. in the O.T. demonstrates a
discontinuity between the "analysis of wealth" in the classical age and
modern "political economy" and also between the natural history of the
classical age and modern biology. But even in saying this he is
acknowledging that there is some point of comparison between the analysis of
wealth and political economy, which makes the discover of a discontinuity
between them interesting, whereas to say that the analysis of wealth and
modern philology are discontinuous with one another would be quite beside
the point.
So with respect to what F. is doing in History of Sexuality, I agree with
you entirely that "sexuality" does not refer to a self-identical object
throughout history. But there is nevertheless *something* on basis of which
Greek, Roman and Victorian practices are contrasted. "Experience" on the
other hand, I take to refer to a prominent feature of the way "sexuality" is
conceptualized in the present day (i.e. in relation to contemporary notions
of subjectivity, in which the category of experience plays a central role).
Thus if the Han translation is implying what you take it to be implying
--viz. leaving "experience as an a-historical, subjective act of
consciousness: i.e. to look at the different subjective experiences of
sexuality across time"-- then it is certainly wrong, because for the Romans
(for example) sexuality wasn't even about an "experience" primarily, but was
instead all about managing oneself in a field of potentially weakening
influences.
Anyway, I think we are all in agreement pretty much about what Foucault was
up to; which English translation is the better all depends on what we take
each possibility to connote, and what you have shown me is that both are
susceptible to conveying diametrically opposed meanings.
All best,
Nate
p.s. sorry for the (hopefully not too) pedantic excursus on continuity and
breaks.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> that interesting, because I read this the other way round.
>
> to do "a history of sexuality as an experience" is to historicise sexuality
> but to leave experience as an a-historical, subjective act of consciousness:
> i.e. to look at the different subjective experiences of sexuality across
> time.
>
> whereas to do "a history of the experience of sexuality" is to historicise
> both experience and sexuality, which seems to fit Foucault's stated aim of
> analysing "sexuality as a historically singular form of experience" (EW 1:
> 199): i.e. to do a history of forms of experiences of sexuality, which
> suggests that both sexuality, and the forms of experience are historically
> constituted. Here, experience does not refer to an act of consciousness of a
> transcendental subject, but to different historical forms of experince that
> constitutes subject, in this case, subjects of a sexuality.
>
> That's why I like to know how the original French should be translated.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:30:59 -0400
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation question
>
> I don't have the French, so I'm going a bit out on a limb here... but it
> seems pretty clear to me that Han's modified translation better
> characterizes Foucualt's project (whether or not it more literally
> translates the French). For to say "a history of the experience of
> sexuality," on the other hand, seems to imply that there is some
> numerically
> identical experience that persists through time, and thus has a history.
> Whereas "a history of sexuality as an experience" seems to refer to
> something more explicit: sexuality (as it has come to be) defined in terms
> of experience. Sexuality, after all, was not always conceived of primarily
> as an experience.
>
> On the historical relativity of concepts, I think Quentin Skinner's
> discussion in "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas" is
> apposite. This essay first appeared in History and Theory, 8 (1969), pp.
> 3-53, and was re-printed in James Tully, ed., _Meaning and Context: Quentin
> Skinner and His Critics_. Tully provides a very interesting introductory
> essay in which he compares and contrasts Foucault's and Skinner's
> approaches. The comparison is not exact; Skinner, I think, tends to be a
> bit more focused on rhetoric and argument, whereas Foucault treats concepts
> themselves as part and parcel of particular technologies of power. But the
> comparison Tully draws is nevertheless instructive, and I'd highly
> recommend
> the Skinner collected in this volume to fellow students of Foucault.
>
> Regards,
> Nate
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > I have a query concerning a translation in "The Use of Pleasure."
> >
> > In the English translation, Foucault states that what he planned was 'a
> > history of the experience of sexuality' (UP: 4).
> >
> > In Beatrice Han's discussion of this text in "Foucault's Critical
> Project,"
> > she modifies the translation so that it states that what Foucault planned
> > was 'a history of sexuality as an experience' (Han, 2002: 153).
> >
> > This may seem like a subtle difference but I think a lot hangs on whether
> > Foucault is understood to be doing "a history of the experience of
> > sexuality" or "a history of sexuality as an experience."
> >
> > Thoughts on which is the better translation, or whether both translations
> > are legitimate, or which translation best captures what Foucault did,
> etc.
> > would be most welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kevin.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> --
> Nathaniel Roberts
> Adjunct Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> Columbia University
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Nathaniel Roberts
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
Columbia University
The fundamental point is that Foucault would not accept either "experience"
or "sexuality" as trans-historical categories.
But any discontinuity implies a continuity as well; to say the sexuality was
not the same in classical Greece as in Victorian England implies that there
is at least *some* prima facie basis on which to compare the two. Thus we
do not even bother to assert that there was a discontinuity between Greek
agricultural practices and Victorian slavery... or between a fish and a
bicycle.
To give an example closer to home, F. in the O.T. demonstrates a
discontinuity between the "analysis of wealth" in the classical age and
modern "political economy" and also between the natural history of the
classical age and modern biology. But even in saying this he is
acknowledging that there is some point of comparison between the analysis of
wealth and political economy, which makes the discover of a discontinuity
between them interesting, whereas to say that the analysis of wealth and
modern philology are discontinuous with one another would be quite beside
the point.
So with respect to what F. is doing in History of Sexuality, I agree with
you entirely that "sexuality" does not refer to a self-identical object
throughout history. But there is nevertheless *something* on basis of which
Greek, Roman and Victorian practices are contrasted. "Experience" on the
other hand, I take to refer to a prominent feature of the way "sexuality" is
conceptualized in the present day (i.e. in relation to contemporary notions
of subjectivity, in which the category of experience plays a central role).
Thus if the Han translation is implying what you take it to be implying
--viz. leaving "experience as an a-historical, subjective act of
consciousness: i.e. to look at the different subjective experiences of
sexuality across time"-- then it is certainly wrong, because for the Romans
(for example) sexuality wasn't even about an "experience" primarily, but was
instead all about managing oneself in a field of potentially weakening
influences.
Anyway, I think we are all in agreement pretty much about what Foucault was
up to; which English translation is the better all depends on what we take
each possibility to connote, and what you have shown me is that both are
susceptible to conveying diametrically opposed meanings.
All best,
Nate
p.s. sorry for the (hopefully not too) pedantic excursus on continuity and
breaks.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> that interesting, because I read this the other way round.
>
> to do "a history of sexuality as an experience" is to historicise sexuality
> but to leave experience as an a-historical, subjective act of consciousness:
> i.e. to look at the different subjective experiences of sexuality across
> time.
>
> whereas to do "a history of the experience of sexuality" is to historicise
> both experience and sexuality, which seems to fit Foucault's stated aim of
> analysing "sexuality as a historically singular form of experience" (EW 1:
> 199): i.e. to do a history of forms of experiences of sexuality, which
> suggests that both sexuality, and the forms of experience are historically
> constituted. Here, experience does not refer to an act of consciousness of a
> transcendental subject, but to different historical forms of experince that
> constitutes subject, in this case, subjects of a sexuality.
>
> That's why I like to know how the original French should be translated.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:30:59 -0400
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation question
>
> I don't have the French, so I'm going a bit out on a limb here... but it
> seems pretty clear to me that Han's modified translation better
> characterizes Foucualt's project (whether or not it more literally
> translates the French). For to say "a history of the experience of
> sexuality," on the other hand, seems to imply that there is some
> numerically
> identical experience that persists through time, and thus has a history.
> Whereas "a history of sexuality as an experience" seems to refer to
> something more explicit: sexuality (as it has come to be) defined in terms
> of experience. Sexuality, after all, was not always conceived of primarily
> as an experience.
>
> On the historical relativity of concepts, I think Quentin Skinner's
> discussion in "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas" is
> apposite. This essay first appeared in History and Theory, 8 (1969), pp.
> 3-53, and was re-printed in James Tully, ed., _Meaning and Context: Quentin
> Skinner and His Critics_. Tully provides a very interesting introductory
> essay in which he compares and contrasts Foucault's and Skinner's
> approaches. The comparison is not exact; Skinner, I think, tends to be a
> bit more focused on rhetoric and argument, whereas Foucault treats concepts
> themselves as part and parcel of particular technologies of power. But the
> comparison Tully draws is nevertheless instructive, and I'd highly
> recommend
> the Skinner collected in this volume to fellow students of Foucault.
>
> Regards,
> Nate
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > I have a query concerning a translation in "The Use of Pleasure."
> >
> > In the English translation, Foucault states that what he planned was 'a
> > history of the experience of sexuality' (UP: 4).
> >
> > In Beatrice Han's discussion of this text in "Foucault's Critical
> Project,"
> > she modifies the translation so that it states that what Foucault planned
> > was 'a history of sexuality as an experience' (Han, 2002: 153).
> >
> > This may seem like a subtle difference but I think a lot hangs on whether
> > Foucault is understood to be doing "a history of the experience of
> > sexuality" or "a history of sexuality as an experience."
> >
> > Thoughts on which is the better translation, or whether both translations
> > are legitimate, or which translation best captures what Foucault did,
> etc.
> > would be most welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kevin.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> --
> Nathaniel Roberts
> Adjunct Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> Columbia University
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Nathaniel Roberts
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
Columbia University