I wish I could, but I can't. Because I still don't know the answer to that
question myself. I was very impressed when I first read it, in 1998, and
I'm sure it's shaped my thinking in various ways ever since. But it'll
probably be another 10 years before I'll be prepared to say what it all
really means to me.
Nate
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Nathaniel
> I would like to know your thoughts on The Order of Things? How has it
> helped
> you?
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Chetan Vemuri
> West Des Moines, IA
> aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> (515)-418-2771
> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
> world"
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Nathaniel Roberts
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
Columbia University
question myself. I was very impressed when I first read it, in 1998, and
I'm sure it's shaped my thinking in various ways ever since. But it'll
probably be another 10 years before I'll be prepared to say what it all
really means to me.
Nate
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Nathaniel
> I would like to know your thoughts on The Order of Things? How has it
> helped
> you?
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Chetan Vemuri
> West Des Moines, IA
> aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> (515)-418-2771
> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
> world"
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Nathaniel Roberts
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
Columbia University