Thanks again, Kevin, this is great. Both your comments as well as the
references, that is.
The "Maurice Florence" piece was exactly the one I was thinking of, although
I couldn't recall the reference, in which F. describes his project as an
extension of the Kantian investigation of the conditions of possibility of
knowledge into an historical dimension and as constituted by power. On the
other hand, I'm not at all sure whether I've ever read the sections of EW
vol. 1 you refer to (i.e. pp. 199ff), so this is very useful.
N
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Do the 1980s presentations tend more in the direction of his Jan 25th
> > comments, or is it more about examining the conditions of knowledge?
> > (Although perhaps these are not two different directions after all!) Are
> > there any particular pieces from the 80s that you'd recommend above
> > others?
>
> I think that these two point actually do move in the same direction.
>
> Having quickly re-read the lecture in question, I would say that there is
> an interesting continuity between OT and what Foucault does here. Simply
> put, it all revolves around the question concerning the formation of subject
> and objects which are then given to knowledge (connaissance) (cf. AK: 15n2).
> The difference is that in OT, Foucault thinks about this in terms of
> discursive formations, whereas in STP, he think of this in term of power:
>
> 'A whole series of objects were made visible for possible forms of
> knowledge on the basis of the constitution of the population as the
> correlate of techniques of power. In turn, because these forms of knowledge
> constantly carve out new objects, the population could be formed, continue,
> and remain as the privileged correlate of modern mechanisms of power. Hence
> the theme of man, and the "human sciences" that analyze him as a living
> being, working individual, and speaking subject, should be understood on the
> basis of the emergence of population as the correlate of power and the
> object of knowledge' (STP: 79).
>
> Thus wheras in OT Foucault was concerned with the formation of the
> speaking, labouring, and living subject, in STP, he was concerned with the
> emergence of population as the 'subject-object' (77) which gave rise to or
> became the 'operator' for the 'the transition from natural history to
> biology, from the analysis of wealth to political economy, and from general
> grammar to
> historical philology' (78; 85n37).
>
> As it say in a endnote to the ninth lecture from the 1976 course, in which
> Foucault presented another, very brief, re-reading of OT: 'This is obviously
> a reworking and genealogical reformulation of the field of knowledge and
> forms of discursivity that Foucault discussed in "archaeological" terms in
> Les Mots at les choses' (SMBD: 190, 213n1).
>
> Perhaps the best presentation that addresses this from the 80's is
> 'Foucault' by Maurice Florence (a pseudonym) in EW2: 459-463; but see also,
> EW1: 199ff, amongst others.
>
> > Also, I seem to recall that there have been lots of complaints about the
> > English translation of the Trombadori interview.
>
> As far as I know, the complaints are directed towards the semiotext version
> of this. I don't know whether the version in EW3 has been radically revised,
> so cannot comment upon the quality of the translation.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Nathaniel Roberts
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
Columbia University
references, that is.
The "Maurice Florence" piece was exactly the one I was thinking of, although
I couldn't recall the reference, in which F. describes his project as an
extension of the Kantian investigation of the conditions of possibility of
knowledge into an historical dimension and as constituted by power. On the
other hand, I'm not at all sure whether I've ever read the sections of EW
vol. 1 you refer to (i.e. pp. 199ff), so this is very useful.
N
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Do the 1980s presentations tend more in the direction of his Jan 25th
> > comments, or is it more about examining the conditions of knowledge?
> > (Although perhaps these are not two different directions after all!) Are
> > there any particular pieces from the 80s that you'd recommend above
> > others?
>
> I think that these two point actually do move in the same direction.
>
> Having quickly re-read the lecture in question, I would say that there is
> an interesting continuity between OT and what Foucault does here. Simply
> put, it all revolves around the question concerning the formation of subject
> and objects which are then given to knowledge (connaissance) (cf. AK: 15n2).
> The difference is that in OT, Foucault thinks about this in terms of
> discursive formations, whereas in STP, he think of this in term of power:
>
> 'A whole series of objects were made visible for possible forms of
> knowledge on the basis of the constitution of the population as the
> correlate of techniques of power. In turn, because these forms of knowledge
> constantly carve out new objects, the population could be formed, continue,
> and remain as the privileged correlate of modern mechanisms of power. Hence
> the theme of man, and the "human sciences" that analyze him as a living
> being, working individual, and speaking subject, should be understood on the
> basis of the emergence of population as the correlate of power and the
> object of knowledge' (STP: 79).
>
> Thus wheras in OT Foucault was concerned with the formation of the
> speaking, labouring, and living subject, in STP, he was concerned with the
> emergence of population as the 'subject-object' (77) which gave rise to or
> became the 'operator' for the 'the transition from natural history to
> biology, from the analysis of wealth to political economy, and from general
> grammar to
> historical philology' (78; 85n37).
>
> As it say in a endnote to the ninth lecture from the 1976 course, in which
> Foucault presented another, very brief, re-reading of OT: 'This is obviously
> a reworking and genealogical reformulation of the field of knowledge and
> forms of discursivity that Foucault discussed in "archaeological" terms in
> Les Mots at les choses' (SMBD: 190, 213n1).
>
> Perhaps the best presentation that addresses this from the 80's is
> 'Foucault' by Maurice Florence (a pseudonym) in EW2: 459-463; but see also,
> EW1: 199ff, amongst others.
>
> > Also, I seem to recall that there have been lots of complaints about the
> > English translation of the Trombadori interview.
>
> As far as I know, the complaints are directed towards the semiotext version
> of this. I don't know whether the version in EW3 has been radically revised,
> so cannot comment upon the quality of the translation.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Nathaniel Roberts
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
Columbia University