by "objective" I mean that which was said, as opposed to reading in what was said what wasn't said.
a quote from Foucault sums this up quite nicely:
Instead of reconstituting the immanent secret, [contemporary criticism] treats the text as a set of elements (words, metaphors, literary forms, groups of narratives) amongst which one can bring out absolutely new relations, insofar as they have not been controlled by the writer's design and are made possible only by the work itself as such. The formal relations that one can discover in this way are not present in anyone's mind; they don't constitute the language content of the statements, their indiscreet secret. They are a construction, but an accurate construction provided that the relations described can actually be assigned to the material treated. We've learned to place people's words in relationships that are still unformulated, said by us for the first time, and yet objectively accurate' (EW2: 286-287).
hence remaining at the level of what was objectively stated; but also, the usefulness of having read everything it is possible to read.
just wanted to clarify this point.
regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thhphilo112358@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:40:29 -0400
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Hermeneutics of the Subject and volumes 2
> and 3 of the History of Sexuality
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> An interesting discussion. I only want to add that there is probably
> something to be said for preserving the idea that the kinds of work
> that make use of Foucault can and, dare I say, should cover a very
> broad range but with varying degrees of cost and effectiveness. On
> the one hand there is the 'toolbox' approach suggested by Foucault
> himself -- available to anyone who finds something useful in it,
> scholar or not. If this is 'cherry picking', I don't see much problem
> in it. Foucault once claimed (sorry, the reference escapes me) that
> he used Nietzsche against Nietzsche and understood this to be a very
> Nietzschean thing to do. I understand Foucault to always have been
> more interested in the possible critical effects produced by this or
> that reading of a text than in adhering to some notion of objectivity
> or orthodox fidelity. He often took what he could use from a writer
> while completely ignoring other aspects. His readings of Plato and
> Descartes come to mind in this regard. On the other hand I think
> there is a lot of work yet to be done (but never definitively
> completed) that would involve reading "all of Foucault" in a careful,
> comprehensive, and scholarly manner as Fouad suggests. Somewhere
> between these two I think we should be able to discuss various
> divergent readings of Foucault that are more or less provocative,
> effective, careful, interesting, etc. without having in any way to
> appeal a 'true' or 'objective' Foucault.
>
> Trent
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Fouad Kalouche wrote:
>
>>
>> In dialogue with Kevin, Timothy and others,
>>
>> An academic approach to the study of Foucault requires a
>> comprehensive (and not a selective) knowledge of the corpus of F's
>> works. That does not mean that the more one reads of Foucault, one
>> would know or reveal the "truth" about Foucault (and his texts);
>> but this does mean that the practice of reading Foucault ensures
>> some kind of familiarity and proximity that will contribute to a
>> 'fidelity' in one's interpretation. Foucault's works has not been
>> collected in such a way yet that the "corpus" is available to
>> everyone--this is still in process and the courses are part and
>> parcel of this endeavor. It does not matter that commercial or
>> economic interests are at play--they always are; what matters is
>> that we do not have yet for Foucault the equivalent of the Colli
>> and Montinari edition of Nietzsche's complete works (an endeavor
>> that Foucualt and Deleuze were invovled in as general editors of
>> the French Gallimard edition). Many scholars are cherry-picking,
>> nowadays, and claiming to represent Foucault, without accounting
>> for the differences/similarities across texts along with the contexts.
>>
>> I just wanted to reiterate that any respectable scholar would have
>> to read "all of Foucault" (not in the sense of postivistic totality
>> but in the sense that Blanchot uses in his call for reading "Tout
>> Sade") if she/he is interested in studying Foucault. Timothy is
>> right about the "publish or perish" academic context--laced with
>> marketing startegies involved in constructing truth-values--but
>> this criticism also applies to those writing (and selling) the
>> "definitive" interpretations of elements of a corpus that has not
>> been adequately delineated yet (although the Dits and Ecrits and
>> the Courses have and are doing that). And once the text is more
>> delineated, that does not mean that it is fixed; it would permit
>> more broadly textually informed interpretations and readings. So,
>> like Kevin says, there are not texts out there that will
>> miraculously "reveal" some hidden Foucauldian truths; but the more
>> texts inform our interpretations, the less we (interpreters)
>> ourselves need to hide/reveal "Foucault's truth"!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Fouad Kalouche > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:08:26 -0800> From:
>> kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re:
>> [Foucault-L] The Hermeneutics of the Subject and volumes 2 and 3 of
>> the History of Sexuality> > Chetan,> > For a long time, the only
>> text I had read by Foucault was "Discipline and Punish," and from
>> this reading, I think I formed a very clear and coherent
>> understanding of what Foucault was doing with this book, of the
>> kind of work it was carrying out.> > Somewhat later, I began to
>> read all the texts available in English, and consequently formed a
>> different understanding of what was taking place in the pages of
>> DP. > > Is this second reading more accurate than the first? Is it
>> a reading which, due to the extra material, produces a more fuller,
>> more detailed, more sophisticated, and truer understanding of what
>> takes place in DP? I’m not sure. For me it simply represents a
>> different understanding, one that in no way invalidates my original
>> reading of the text, but which has certainly modified that
>> reading.> > This also holds for my undertaking of what happens in
>> DP following my reading of the Collège de France lectures that took
>> place prior to its publication (Psychiatric Power, Abnormal), and
>> which formed the background research for it.> > Does all this extra
>> data bring me “closer” to the “real” Foucault as this is presented
>> in Discipline and Punish? Once again, I’m not sure. But I don’t
>> think so. I think that the difference between my reading of that
>> text 14 years ago and now is not one of accuracy, but one of
>> interpretation.> > So, I think I would respond to your question by
>> saying that "Hermeneutic of the Subject" does not so much reveal
>> the “true light” of UP and CS but, rather, opens up a different
>> aperture (grid of intelligibility) through which these texts can be
>> read and understood.> > There are only interpretations of
>> interpretations...> > Regards,> Kevin.> >
>> ____________________________________________________________>
>> Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages> Easily monitor multiple
>> email accounts & access them with a click.> Visit http://
>> www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!> >
>> _______________________________________________> Foucault-L mailing
>> list
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive.
>> http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?
>> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
a quote from Foucault sums this up quite nicely:
Instead of reconstituting the immanent secret, [contemporary criticism] treats the text as a set of elements (words, metaphors, literary forms, groups of narratives) amongst which one can bring out absolutely new relations, insofar as they have not been controlled by the writer's design and are made possible only by the work itself as such. The formal relations that one can discover in this way are not present in anyone's mind; they don't constitute the language content of the statements, their indiscreet secret. They are a construction, but an accurate construction provided that the relations described can actually be assigned to the material treated. We've learned to place people's words in relationships that are still unformulated, said by us for the first time, and yet objectively accurate' (EW2: 286-287).
hence remaining at the level of what was objectively stated; but also, the usefulness of having read everything it is possible to read.
just wanted to clarify this point.
regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thhphilo112358@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:40:29 -0400
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Hermeneutics of the Subject and volumes 2
> and 3 of the History of Sexuality
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> An interesting discussion. I only want to add that there is probably
> something to be said for preserving the idea that the kinds of work
> that make use of Foucault can and, dare I say, should cover a very
> broad range but with varying degrees of cost and effectiveness. On
> the one hand there is the 'toolbox' approach suggested by Foucault
> himself -- available to anyone who finds something useful in it,
> scholar or not. If this is 'cherry picking', I don't see much problem
> in it. Foucault once claimed (sorry, the reference escapes me) that
> he used Nietzsche against Nietzsche and understood this to be a very
> Nietzschean thing to do. I understand Foucault to always have been
> more interested in the possible critical effects produced by this or
> that reading of a text than in adhering to some notion of objectivity
> or orthodox fidelity. He often took what he could use from a writer
> while completely ignoring other aspects. His readings of Plato and
> Descartes come to mind in this regard. On the other hand I think
> there is a lot of work yet to be done (but never definitively
> completed) that would involve reading "all of Foucault" in a careful,
> comprehensive, and scholarly manner as Fouad suggests. Somewhere
> between these two I think we should be able to discuss various
> divergent readings of Foucault that are more or less provocative,
> effective, careful, interesting, etc. without having in any way to
> appeal a 'true' or 'objective' Foucault.
>
> Trent
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Fouad Kalouche wrote:
>
>>
>> In dialogue with Kevin, Timothy and others,
>>
>> An academic approach to the study of Foucault requires a
>> comprehensive (and not a selective) knowledge of the corpus of F's
>> works. That does not mean that the more one reads of Foucault, one
>> would know or reveal the "truth" about Foucault (and his texts);
>> but this does mean that the practice of reading Foucault ensures
>> some kind of familiarity and proximity that will contribute to a
>> 'fidelity' in one's interpretation. Foucault's works has not been
>> collected in such a way yet that the "corpus" is available to
>> everyone--this is still in process and the courses are part and
>> parcel of this endeavor. It does not matter that commercial or
>> economic interests are at play--they always are; what matters is
>> that we do not have yet for Foucault the equivalent of the Colli
>> and Montinari edition of Nietzsche's complete works (an endeavor
>> that Foucualt and Deleuze were invovled in as general editors of
>> the French Gallimard edition). Many scholars are cherry-picking,
>> nowadays, and claiming to represent Foucault, without accounting
>> for the differences/similarities across texts along with the contexts.
>>
>> I just wanted to reiterate that any respectable scholar would have
>> to read "all of Foucault" (not in the sense of postivistic totality
>> but in the sense that Blanchot uses in his call for reading "Tout
>> Sade") if she/he is interested in studying Foucault. Timothy is
>> right about the "publish or perish" academic context--laced with
>> marketing startegies involved in constructing truth-values--but
>> this criticism also applies to those writing (and selling) the
>> "definitive" interpretations of elements of a corpus that has not
>> been adequately delineated yet (although the Dits and Ecrits and
>> the Courses have and are doing that). And once the text is more
>> delineated, that does not mean that it is fixed; it would permit
>> more broadly textually informed interpretations and readings. So,
>> like Kevin says, there are not texts out there that will
>> miraculously "reveal" some hidden Foucauldian truths; but the more
>> texts inform our interpretations, the less we (interpreters)
>> ourselves need to hide/reveal "Foucault's truth"!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Fouad Kalouche > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:08:26 -0800> From:
>> kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re:
>> [Foucault-L] The Hermeneutics of the Subject and volumes 2 and 3 of
>> the History of Sexuality> > Chetan,> > For a long time, the only
>> text I had read by Foucault was "Discipline and Punish," and from
>> this reading, I think I formed a very clear and coherent
>> understanding of what Foucault was doing with this book, of the
>> kind of work it was carrying out.> > Somewhat later, I began to
>> read all the texts available in English, and consequently formed a
>> different understanding of what was taking place in the pages of
>> DP. > > Is this second reading more accurate than the first? Is it
>> a reading which, due to the extra material, produces a more fuller,
>> more detailed, more sophisticated, and truer understanding of what
>> takes place in DP? I’m not sure. For me it simply represents a
>> different understanding, one that in no way invalidates my original
>> reading of the text, but which has certainly modified that
>> reading.> > This also holds for my undertaking of what happens in
>> DP following my reading of the Collège de France lectures that took
>> place prior to its publication (Psychiatric Power, Abnormal), and
>> which formed the background research for it.> > Does all this extra
>> data bring me “closer” to the “real” Foucault as this is presented
>> in Discipline and Punish? Once again, I’m not sure. But I don’t
>> think so. I think that the difference between my reading of that
>> text 14 years ago and now is not one of accuracy, but one of
>> interpretation.> > So, I think I would respond to your question by
>> saying that "Hermeneutic of the Subject" does not so much reveal
>> the “true light” of UP and CS but, rather, opens up a different
>> aperture (grid of intelligibility) through which these texts can be
>> read and understood.> > There are only interpretations of
>> interpretations...> > Regards,> Kevin.> >
>> ____________________________________________________________>
>> Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages> Easily monitor multiple
>> email accounts & access them with a click.> Visit http://
>> www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!> >
>> _______________________________________________> Foucault-L mailing
>> list
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive.
>> http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?
>> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!