Re: [Foucault-L] translation question

Perhaps the closest thing in Marxism to what Foucault suggests here with "experience" is Althusser's formulation (if I remember correctly, in the essay "Marxism and Humanism" reprinted in _For Marx_) that "ideology" constitutes a "lived relation" to our real conditions of existence, and, as such, constitutes the "subject" *as such*. It is much closer to that formulation that it is to the empiricist epistemological notion of "experience" as constitutive of the relation *between* "real objects" and "subjects of knowledge".

I'm not sure what relation it might have to the concept of "theoretical mode of production" that Althusser developed; in any case that entailed a movement from the abstract to the concrete, rather than a determination of knowledge by experience in any empiricist or spiritualist sense.

I have not read every post in this thread closely, but I help this helps somewhat


On 06/11/2008, at 8:52 AM, Kevin Turner wrote:

Experience, for Foucault, is not a transhistorical phenomena, it is a grid of historical intelligibility, an analytical tool for posing questions to and thinking about certain historical processes. It thus has no equivalence to the notion of production in Marx or for Marxists.



Folow-ups
  • Re: [Foucault-L] translation question
    • From: Yoshie Furuhashi
  • Replies
    Re: [Foucault-L] translation question, Yoshie Furuhashi
    Re: [Foucault-L] translation question, Kevin Turner
    Partial thread listing: