What I meant was, how do you find it as historical scholarship is concerned?
I though it was far superior than what Gutting gave it credit for, but I'm
not sure.
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
I though it was far superior than what Gutting gave it credit for, but I'm
not sure.
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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"