I'm not sure if this exactly solves the problem, but I think that maybe it
helps to see the archeology as a response to the methodology and
epistemological foundations established during the enlightenment, and for
this reason the archaeology is primarily concerned with method in making
truth claims. The genealogy, on the other hand, turns the focus away from
method (and the problem of man as the basis of knowledge) in order to get
at something else established during the Enlightenment--namely the
humanist rationality of its institutions, practices, etc. So while the
genealogy is indeed engaged with texts as a way to do this, I don't think
Foucault establishes it as a methodology, but rather a mode of analysis (a
description of power). And both practices are linked in a project of
elaborating the constraints placed on man--through knowledge and through
"more humane" practices.
_____________________
Ed Comstock
College Writing Program
Department of Literature
American University
------------------------------------
The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/27/2008 09:29 AM
Please respond to
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
Hi Ed,
So, archaeology is the analysis of discourse as a set of events, and
genealogy is the analysis of the emergence and descent of these discursive
events.
But my question would then be: how does Foucault gain access to the
practices he describes by way of genealogy if not by way of ?texts and
discourses?? In other words, isn?t genealogy also a means of analysing
discourses; which is to say, is it not also a methodology; a form of
discourse analysis that addresses itself to those non-discursive events
out of which discourse, as a set of events, emerges, and which are
transformed by the latter.
Take the rather stunning overture to ?Discipline and Punish,? for example.
This in no way described the rules of formation of discourse; it is not an
analysis based upon the description of the rules internal to discursive
formations. What it does describe is a particular form of punitive
practice. But whence this description if not by way of ?texts and
discourses?? In fact, it mostly seems to derive from an account given in a
newspaper of the time (Gazette d? Amsterdam, 1 April, 1757).
If archaeology is a description of the archive, what is genealogy a
description of?
Does the aforementioned newspaper article also form part of the archive,
or does it represent a different type of discourse?
Is an analysis of the archive limited to the analysis of theoretical,
philosophical, and scientific discourses, and if so, does genealogy
addresses a different set of discourses: those of the admittance register
of an asylum, or an edict passed by the King, or the timetable of a house
of correction. And where do the prescriptive texts that Foucault addressed
in his last two publications fit into all of this?
Either genealogy is a methodology or archaeology is not limited to the
analysis of the rules internal to discursive formations.
Excuse the naiveté here,
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecomst@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:02:26 -0400
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
>
> Forgive me if this simplifies this ever-interesting issue too much. My
> reading is that archaeology shares genealogy's project of understanding
> the constraints on human behavior by showing the limits imposed in the
> project of knowing man. But archaeology is a methodology that limits
> itself to texts and discourses, and genealogy, not a methodology, while
> pertaining at many points to the uses of what appears as knowledge (such
> as "knowledge" of our sexuality), allows us to understand all of those
> non-discursive phenomena that occur along side and sometimes through
> discourse. Genealogy gets at all of those practices that have not or
> cannot be related to any particular rules of formation (at least not at
> first) in order to understand how man is constrained not only by the
> knowledges about him (because the archaeology can only speak of power to
> the extent that they originate in discourses) but also by the
> institutions
> and practices that emerged during the Enlightenment.
>
> Through the archaeology one seeks to understand how man is a product of
> knowledge events in a given epoch (and therefore is non-reciprocal to
> himself), and through genealogy one seeks to determine where practices
> emerged from to understand how these events (in any given epoch, but
> especially in our own time) took shape across time. So then as
> techniques and practices are formalized in knowledge events--as with,
for
> example, modern practices of sexuality--the work becomes once again more
> like an archaeology.
>
> And this also explains, I think, why Foucault never speaks of the
> "genealogy of power." Yes, power is the ever present background, the
> tain
> of the mirror, that allows us to see ourselves in Foucault's world
> picture. But it would not be coherent to do a "genealogy of power"
> because power itself is nothing but ever-changing techniques.
>
> _____________________
> Ed Comstock
> College Writing Program
> Department of Literature
> American University
> ------------------------------------
> The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
> brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact,
> an
> intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient,
> but
> also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
> people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
>
>
>
> Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 10/25/2008 05:51 AM
> Please respond to
> Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Nate,
>
> Thanks for the references; the last of which was most informative.
>
> The reason I have asked this question concerning Foucault's use of the
> phrase "genealogy of power" is because I trying to come to grips with
> archaeology, genealogy, and the relation between them.
>
> I know that this relation has been discussed many time on this list, and
> so I wanted to pose the question in another way. I find this relation
to
> be the most perplexing aspect of Foucault's critical project, and as
> Claire has noted in a previous discussion of this relation, Foucault's
> comment on it at best confusing and ambiguous.
>
> Foucault is actually very consistent in his discussions of archaeology:
> it
> is the 'material and methodological framework' (The Culture of the Self,
> Discussion) of his critical project, and always refer to an analysis of
> knowledge (savoir - formation of subject and object), even when, in "The
> Use of Pleasure," he talks of doing a 'archaeology of problematisations'
> (UP: 11-12, 13).
>
> When it comes to genealogy things become a little more complicated:
> Foucault describes it as being the 'theoretical justification' for
> archaeology (EW1: 12), or, as mentioned, as addressing itself to
> knowledge
> (connaissance), as addressing itself to technologies of power (STP: 36),
> as being the 'design' of an historical ontology of ourselves (EW1: 315),
> and as being both the 'reason and target of archaeology' or the 'aim of
> the analysis (The Culture of the Self, Discussion -
> http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/VideoTest/foucault-cult2.ram), finally, in
> UP,
> Foucault talks of doing a 'genealogy of practices' (UP: 11-12, 13).
>
> If archaeology is the material and method, and genealogy the design,
what
> does it mean to do a genealogy of knowledge (connaissance), of power, or
> of practices? Doesn't doing genealogy necessarily imply doing
> archaeology?
> If not, then isn't genealogy also material and method?
>
> This is precisely what seems to be implied in the quote from STP, where
> Foucault goes on to say that 'we could reconstruct the function of the
> text, not according to the rules of formation of its concepts [i.e.
> archaeologically], but according to its objectives, the strategies that
> govern it, and the program of political action it proposes [i.e.
> genealogically]' (STP: 36).
>
> These are just some of the questions I'm working through in my attempt
to
> come to grips with this most perplexing aspect of Foucault's method.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:10:35 -0400
>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
>>
>> Dear Kevin,
>>
>> Here are some places where Foucault comes close to saying "genealogy of
>> power." The first e.g., actually, is not that close at all, since it
>> concerns not a genealogy of power but of knowledge (from which a
certain
>> kind of power derives).
>>
>> But each of the succeeding examples get progressively closer and closer
>> to
>> "genealogy of power," though none are precisely what you are looking
> for.
>> (And I suspect you are entirely right that the popularity of the phrase
>> "genealogy of power" derives from its repetition in the commentarial
>> literature rather than from Foucault himself. Also, strictly speaking,
>> your
>> hunch could still be correct *even if* it should turn out that Foucault
>> himself used the phrase "genealogy of power" once or twice in passing;
>> that
>> is to say, the question of whether or not Foucault ever used the phrase
>> himself is logically independent of the question of its popularity
>> deriving
>> from the commentarial literature.)
>>
>> Here are some examples of Foucault's usage:
>>
>> Genealogy of the... scientifico-legal complex from which the power to
>> punish
>> derives:
>> "This book is intended as a correlative history of the modern soul and
> of
>> a
>> new power to judge; a genealogy of the present scientifico-legal
complex
>> from which the power to punish derives its bases, justifications and
>> rules,
>> from which it extends its effects and by which it masks its exorbitant
>> singularity." (D&P p. 23)
>>
>> Genealogy as the history of the micro-physics of punitive power:
>> "The history of this 'micro-physics' of the punitive power would then
be
>> a
>> genealogy or an element in a genealogy of the modern 'soul'." (D&P p.
> 29)
>>
>> Genealogy of struggle:
>> "...something one might call a genealogy, or rather a multiplicity of
>> genealogical researches, a painstaking rediscovery of struggles
together
>> with the rude memory of their conflicts." ("Two Lectures" in
>> Power/Knowledge, p. 83)
>>
>> Genealogy of relations of force, strategic developments, and tactics:
>> "a refusal of analyses couched in terms of the symbolic field or the
>> domain
>> of signifying structures, and a recourse to analyses in terms of the
>> genealogy of relations of force, strategic developments, and tactics."
>> ("Truth and Power" n Power/Knowledge, p. 114)
>>
>> Genealogy of technologies of power:
>> "...instead of considering it in terms of an archeology of knowledge, I
>> would like to consider it from the perspective of a genealogy of
>> technologies of power." (Security, Territory, Population, p. 36)
>>
>> All best wishes,
>> Nate
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:06 AM, M. Karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The most close to <genealogy of power> comes the
>>> January 7 1976 lecture: "l'enjeu de toutes cettes
>>> généalogies, ... est celui ci: qu'est-ce que ce
>>> pouvoir " (French edition p.13 below; I think
>>> this will be p.12 of the Englis translation):
>>> the second place is mentioned by you, it is the
>>> interview with Trombadori of June 1976: "ed il
>>> ricorso ad analisi che si farebbero in termini di
>>> genealogie, di rapporti di forza, di sviluppi
>>> strategici, di tattitiche" see, Microfisica del
>>> Potere p.8 = Dits et Ecrits III page 145
>>>
>>> yours
>>> machiel karskens
>>>
>>>
>>> At 09:34 24-10-2008, Kevin Turner wrote:
>>> >Hi Clare, and thanks for the references. Having
>>> >scanned through them very quickly, I was
>>> >reasonably surprised to come across no instances
>>> >of the phrase "genealogy of power." The closest
>>> >Foucault come to saying this is in 'Truth and
>>> >Power' where he refers to â??the genealogy of
>>> >relations of forceâ?? (P/K: 114; EW3: 116). What
>>> >is interesting is that I have found many more
>>> >instances in which Foucault talks about doing a
>>> >"genealogy of knowledge (connaissance)," which
>>> >would be the "indispensable other side" to the
>>> >"archaeology of knowledge (savoir): see, for
>>> >example, "Psychiatric Power:" 238ff, 346;
>>> >"Society Must Be Defended:" 8-12; and in "Penal
>>> >Theories and Institutions," which has yet to be
>>> >translated into English, Foucault makes a
>>> >distinction between what he calls "an
>>> >archaeology of knowledge" and a "dynastics of
>>> >knowledge," cf. PP: 256n13; see also, EW1:
>>> >17ff). What's even more interesting is that I
>>> >think I have only come across one instance in
>>> >which a "genealogy of connaissance" is discussed
>>> >in the secondary literature. I cannot remember
>>> >the exact reference, but I think it was
>>> >something written by Stuart Elden. If anyone
>>> >knows of other instances of this, could I please
>>> >have references. Regards, Kevin. > -----Original
>>> >Message----- > From: c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx >
>>> >Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:43:37 +1000 > To:
>>> >foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re:
>>> >[Foucault-L] genealogy of power > > Kevin > > I
>>> >don't have my books with me but try The Order of
>>> >Discourse, 'Truth > and power' and 'Two
>>> >lectures'. If Foucault does use the term these >
>>> >are the most likely places. > > You raise a
>>> >useful point about secondary commentary
>>> >inventing terms > which then get attributed to
>>> >the primary source and the necessity to >
>>> >carefully check. I won't even begin to mention
>>> >the problems of > translation... > > At 10:48 AM
>>> >-0800 23/10/08, Kevin Turner wrote: > >I cannot
>>> >find this phrase in the text you mention - do
>>> >you have a > >reference to the page on which
>>> >Foucault uses "genealogy of power"? >> > >The
>>> >reason I am asking the question is that I don't
>>> >remember ever > >reading this phrase in any of
>>> >Foucault's texts, and so I'm
>>> >wondering > >whether is actually a product of
>>> >secondary commentary which,
>>> >through > >reiteration, has somehow become
>>> >attributed to Foucault himself. > > -- >
>>> >regards > Clare >
>>> >************************************************
>>>>> Clare O'Farrell > email:
>>> >c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx > website:
>>> >http://www.michel-foucault.com >
>>> >************************************************
>>>>>
>>> >_______________________________________________ >
>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>> >_______________________________________________ Foucault-L mailing
> list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Prof. Machiel Karskens
>>> social and political philosophy
>>> Faculty of Philosophy
>>> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nathaniel Roberts
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> Columbia University
>> -and-
>> Part Time Faculty Member
>> Department of Anthropology
>> The New School for Social Research
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on
your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
helps to see the archeology as a response to the methodology and
epistemological foundations established during the enlightenment, and for
this reason the archaeology is primarily concerned with method in making
truth claims. The genealogy, on the other hand, turns the focus away from
method (and the problem of man as the basis of knowledge) in order to get
at something else established during the Enlightenment--namely the
humanist rationality of its institutions, practices, etc. So while the
genealogy is indeed engaged with texts as a way to do this, I don't think
Foucault establishes it as a methodology, but rather a mode of analysis (a
description of power). And both practices are linked in a project of
elaborating the constraints placed on man--through knowledge and through
"more humane" practices.
_____________________
Ed Comstock
College Writing Program
Department of Literature
American University
------------------------------------
The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
10/27/2008 09:29 AM
Please respond to
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
Hi Ed,
So, archaeology is the analysis of discourse as a set of events, and
genealogy is the analysis of the emergence and descent of these discursive
events.
But my question would then be: how does Foucault gain access to the
practices he describes by way of genealogy if not by way of ?texts and
discourses?? In other words, isn?t genealogy also a means of analysing
discourses; which is to say, is it not also a methodology; a form of
discourse analysis that addresses itself to those non-discursive events
out of which discourse, as a set of events, emerges, and which are
transformed by the latter.
Take the rather stunning overture to ?Discipline and Punish,? for example.
This in no way described the rules of formation of discourse; it is not an
analysis based upon the description of the rules internal to discursive
formations. What it does describe is a particular form of punitive
practice. But whence this description if not by way of ?texts and
discourses?? In fact, it mostly seems to derive from an account given in a
newspaper of the time (Gazette d? Amsterdam, 1 April, 1757).
If archaeology is a description of the archive, what is genealogy a
description of?
Does the aforementioned newspaper article also form part of the archive,
or does it represent a different type of discourse?
Is an analysis of the archive limited to the analysis of theoretical,
philosophical, and scientific discourses, and if so, does genealogy
addresses a different set of discourses: those of the admittance register
of an asylum, or an edict passed by the King, or the timetable of a house
of correction. And where do the prescriptive texts that Foucault addressed
in his last two publications fit into all of this?
Either genealogy is a methodology or archaeology is not limited to the
analysis of the rules internal to discursive formations.
Excuse the naiveté here,
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecomst@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:02:26 -0400
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
>
> Forgive me if this simplifies this ever-interesting issue too much. My
> reading is that archaeology shares genealogy's project of understanding
> the constraints on human behavior by showing the limits imposed in the
> project of knowing man. But archaeology is a methodology that limits
> itself to texts and discourses, and genealogy, not a methodology, while
> pertaining at many points to the uses of what appears as knowledge (such
> as "knowledge" of our sexuality), allows us to understand all of those
> non-discursive phenomena that occur along side and sometimes through
> discourse. Genealogy gets at all of those practices that have not or
> cannot be related to any particular rules of formation (at least not at
> first) in order to understand how man is constrained not only by the
> knowledges about him (because the archaeology can only speak of power to
> the extent that they originate in discourses) but also by the
> institutions
> and practices that emerged during the Enlightenment.
>
> Through the archaeology one seeks to understand how man is a product of
> knowledge events in a given epoch (and therefore is non-reciprocal to
> himself), and through genealogy one seeks to determine where practices
> emerged from to understand how these events (in any given epoch, but
> especially in our own time) took shape across time. So then as
> techniques and practices are formalized in knowledge events--as with,
for
> example, modern practices of sexuality--the work becomes once again more
> like an archaeology.
>
> And this also explains, I think, why Foucault never speaks of the
> "genealogy of power." Yes, power is the ever present background, the
> tain
> of the mirror, that allows us to see ourselves in Foucault's world
> picture. But it would not be coherent to do a "genealogy of power"
> because power itself is nothing but ever-changing techniques.
>
> _____________________
> Ed Comstock
> College Writing Program
> Department of Literature
> American University
> ------------------------------------
> The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
> brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact,
> an
> intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient,
> but
> also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
> people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
>
>
>
> Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 10/25/2008 05:51 AM
> Please respond to
> Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> To
> Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Nate,
>
> Thanks for the references; the last of which was most informative.
>
> The reason I have asked this question concerning Foucault's use of the
> phrase "genealogy of power" is because I trying to come to grips with
> archaeology, genealogy, and the relation between them.
>
> I know that this relation has been discussed many time on this list, and
> so I wanted to pose the question in another way. I find this relation
to
> be the most perplexing aspect of Foucault's critical project, and as
> Claire has noted in a previous discussion of this relation, Foucault's
> comment on it at best confusing and ambiguous.
>
> Foucault is actually very consistent in his discussions of archaeology:
> it
> is the 'material and methodological framework' (The Culture of the Self,
> Discussion) of his critical project, and always refer to an analysis of
> knowledge (savoir - formation of subject and object), even when, in "The
> Use of Pleasure," he talks of doing a 'archaeology of problematisations'
> (UP: 11-12, 13).
>
> When it comes to genealogy things become a little more complicated:
> Foucault describes it as being the 'theoretical justification' for
> archaeology (EW1: 12), or, as mentioned, as addressing itself to
> knowledge
> (connaissance), as addressing itself to technologies of power (STP: 36),
> as being the 'design' of an historical ontology of ourselves (EW1: 315),
> and as being both the 'reason and target of archaeology' or the 'aim of
> the analysis (The Culture of the Self, Discussion -
> http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/VideoTest/foucault-cult2.ram), finally, in
> UP,
> Foucault talks of doing a 'genealogy of practices' (UP: 11-12, 13).
>
> If archaeology is the material and method, and genealogy the design,
what
> does it mean to do a genealogy of knowledge (connaissance), of power, or
> of practices? Doesn't doing genealogy necessarily imply doing
> archaeology?
> If not, then isn't genealogy also material and method?
>
> This is precisely what seems to be implied in the quote from STP, where
> Foucault goes on to say that 'we could reconstruct the function of the
> text, not according to the rules of formation of its concepts [i.e.
> archaeologically], but according to its objectives, the strategies that
> govern it, and the program of political action it proposes [i.e.
> genealogically]' (STP: 36).
>
> These are just some of the questions I'm working through in my attempt
to
> come to grips with this most perplexing aspect of Foucault's method.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:10:35 -0400
>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] genealogy of power
>>
>> Dear Kevin,
>>
>> Here are some places where Foucault comes close to saying "genealogy of
>> power." The first e.g., actually, is not that close at all, since it
>> concerns not a genealogy of power but of knowledge (from which a
certain
>> kind of power derives).
>>
>> But each of the succeeding examples get progressively closer and closer
>> to
>> "genealogy of power," though none are precisely what you are looking
> for.
>> (And I suspect you are entirely right that the popularity of the phrase
>> "genealogy of power" derives from its repetition in the commentarial
>> literature rather than from Foucault himself. Also, strictly speaking,
>> your
>> hunch could still be correct *even if* it should turn out that Foucault
>> himself used the phrase "genealogy of power" once or twice in passing;
>> that
>> is to say, the question of whether or not Foucault ever used the phrase
>> himself is logically independent of the question of its popularity
>> deriving
>> from the commentarial literature.)
>>
>> Here are some examples of Foucault's usage:
>>
>> Genealogy of the... scientifico-legal complex from which the power to
>> punish
>> derives:
>> "This book is intended as a correlative history of the modern soul and
> of
>> a
>> new power to judge; a genealogy of the present scientifico-legal
complex
>> from which the power to punish derives its bases, justifications and
>> rules,
>> from which it extends its effects and by which it masks its exorbitant
>> singularity." (D&P p. 23)
>>
>> Genealogy as the history of the micro-physics of punitive power:
>> "The history of this 'micro-physics' of the punitive power would then
be
>> a
>> genealogy or an element in a genealogy of the modern 'soul'." (D&P p.
> 29)
>>
>> Genealogy of struggle:
>> "...something one might call a genealogy, or rather a multiplicity of
>> genealogical researches, a painstaking rediscovery of struggles
together
>> with the rude memory of their conflicts." ("Two Lectures" in
>> Power/Knowledge, p. 83)
>>
>> Genealogy of relations of force, strategic developments, and tactics:
>> "a refusal of analyses couched in terms of the symbolic field or the
>> domain
>> of signifying structures, and a recourse to analyses in terms of the
>> genealogy of relations of force, strategic developments, and tactics."
>> ("Truth and Power" n Power/Knowledge, p. 114)
>>
>> Genealogy of technologies of power:
>> "...instead of considering it in terms of an archeology of knowledge, I
>> would like to consider it from the perspective of a genealogy of
>> technologies of power." (Security, Territory, Population, p. 36)
>>
>> All best wishes,
>> Nate
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:06 AM, M. Karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The most close to <genealogy of power> comes the
>>> January 7 1976 lecture: "l'enjeu de toutes cettes
>>> généalogies, ... est celui ci: qu'est-ce que ce
>>> pouvoir " (French edition p.13 below; I think
>>> this will be p.12 of the Englis translation):
>>> the second place is mentioned by you, it is the
>>> interview with Trombadori of June 1976: "ed il
>>> ricorso ad analisi che si farebbero in termini di
>>> genealogie, di rapporti di forza, di sviluppi
>>> strategici, di tattitiche" see, Microfisica del
>>> Potere p.8 = Dits et Ecrits III page 145
>>>
>>> yours
>>> machiel karskens
>>>
>>>
>>> At 09:34 24-10-2008, Kevin Turner wrote:
>>> >Hi Clare, and thanks for the references. Having
>>> >scanned through them very quickly, I was
>>> >reasonably surprised to come across no instances
>>> >of the phrase "genealogy of power." The closest
>>> >Foucault come to saying this is in 'Truth and
>>> >Power' where he refers to â??the genealogy of
>>> >relations of forceâ?? (P/K: 114; EW3: 116). What
>>> >is interesting is that I have found many more
>>> >instances in which Foucault talks about doing a
>>> >"genealogy of knowledge (connaissance)," which
>>> >would be the "indispensable other side" to the
>>> >"archaeology of knowledge (savoir): see, for
>>> >example, "Psychiatric Power:" 238ff, 346;
>>> >"Society Must Be Defended:" 8-12; and in "Penal
>>> >Theories and Institutions," which has yet to be
>>> >translated into English, Foucault makes a
>>> >distinction between what he calls "an
>>> >archaeology of knowledge" and a "dynastics of
>>> >knowledge," cf. PP: 256n13; see also, EW1:
>>> >17ff). What's even more interesting is that I
>>> >think I have only come across one instance in
>>> >which a "genealogy of connaissance" is discussed
>>> >in the secondary literature. I cannot remember
>>> >the exact reference, but I think it was
>>> >something written by Stuart Elden. If anyone
>>> >knows of other instances of this, could I please
>>> >have references. Regards, Kevin. > -----Original
>>> >Message----- > From: c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx >
>>> >Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:43:37 +1000 > To:
>>> >foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re:
>>> >[Foucault-L] genealogy of power > > Kevin > > I
>>> >don't have my books with me but try The Order of
>>> >Discourse, 'Truth > and power' and 'Two
>>> >lectures'. If Foucault does use the term these >
>>> >are the most likely places. > > You raise a
>>> >useful point about secondary commentary
>>> >inventing terms > which then get attributed to
>>> >the primary source and the necessity to >
>>> >carefully check. I won't even begin to mention
>>> >the problems of > translation... > > At 10:48 AM
>>> >-0800 23/10/08, Kevin Turner wrote: > >I cannot
>>> >find this phrase in the text you mention - do
>>> >you have a > >reference to the page on which
>>> >Foucault uses "genealogy of power"? >> > >The
>>> >reason I am asking the question is that I don't
>>> >remember ever > >reading this phrase in any of
>>> >Foucault's texts, and so I'm
>>> >wondering > >whether is actually a product of
>>> >secondary commentary which,
>>> >through > >reiteration, has somehow become
>>> >attributed to Foucault himself. > > -- >
>>> >regards > Clare >
>>> >************************************************
>>>>> Clare O'Farrell > email:
>>> >c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx > website:
>>> >http://www.michel-foucault.com >
>>> >************************************************
>>>>>
>>> >_______________________________________________ >
>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>> >_______________________________________________ Foucault-L mailing
> list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Prof. Machiel Karskens
>>> social and political philosophy
>>> Faculty of Philosophy
>>> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nathaniel Roberts
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> Columbia University
>> -and-
>> Part Time Faculty Member
>> Department of Anthropology
>> The New School for Social Research
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on
your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list