Dear Machiel,
The conventional translation for énoncé is statement or utterance.
And thanks for the references, most of which I already have; I have an updated version of Flynn's text in his Sartrre, Foucault, and Historical Reason, Vol. 2 (Ch. 3); and I presume that you mean Ch. 5 of Hacking's book.
Thanks once again for the references - Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 14:03:11 +0200 (CEST)
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Archive
>
> Dear Kevin
>
> The axes of Foucault's analysis is his theory of the énoncé [ how do you
> call this in English?] as a speech singularity or event, which has always
> a history.
> So the idea of the archive has to do with the question how an archive of
> énoncés could be possible.
> Then Foucault does not say that it is not possible at all or completely
> or logically impossible to describe your own archive.
> Your quote is preceded by the phrase: "on ne peut décrire EXHAISTIVEMENT
> l'archive d'une société"
>
> and followed by: ... Elle [ = the archive] se donne par fragements,
> régions, niveaux
> ...
> and on p. 172 (Franch text) the archive is finally described as "la
> bordure du temps qui entourne notre présent"
>
>
> some literature on this point is
>
> I. Hacking (2002) Historical Ontology (London 2002)
>
> T. Flynn 'Michel Foucault and the career of the historical event' in B.
> Dauenhauer ed At the nexus of philosophy and history (Athene 1988)
> 178-200
>
> Michel de Certeau Heterologies. Discourse on the Other, Minneapolis 1986
>
> Gilles Deleuze : ‘Un nouvel archiviste’ = chapter 1 of his 1986 book
> Foucault
>
> Veyne, Paul (1978) 'Foucault révolutionne l'histoire' in Comment on écrit
> l'histoire, , Seuil, Paris 1978
>
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
> ----- "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 10:58:07 PM
>> Subject: [Foucault-L] The Archive
>>
>> Dear Foucault listers,
>>
>> In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault states that 'it is not
>> possible for us to describe our own archive, since it is from within
>> these rules that we speak, since it is that which gives to what we can
>> say — and to itself, the object of our discourse — its modes of
>> appearance, its forms of existence and coexistence, its system of
>> accumulation, historicity, and disappearance' (AK: 130; 'il ne nous
>> est pas possible de decrire notre propre archive, puisque c'est a
>> I'interieur de ses regles que no us parlons, puis que c' est eIle qui
>> donne a ce que nous pouvons dire - et a elle-meme, objet de notre
>> discours - ses modes d'apparition, ses formes d'existence et de
>> coexistence, son systeme de cumul, d'historicite et de disparition,'
>> AS: 171).
>>
>> I was wondering if there are other instances where Foucault makes
>> similar claims, and if so, where.
>> I was also wondering if there are any discussions concerning this
>> claim, and whether anybody has made a counter claim: i.e. that we can
>> have access to, and thus describe, our own archive.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
>> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
The conventional translation for énoncé is statement or utterance.
And thanks for the references, most of which I already have; I have an updated version of Flynn's text in his Sartrre, Foucault, and Historical Reason, Vol. 2 (Ch. 3); and I presume that you mean Ch. 5 of Hacking's book.
Thanks once again for the references - Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 14:03:11 +0200 (CEST)
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The Archive
>
> Dear Kevin
>
> The axes of Foucault's analysis is his theory of the énoncé [ how do you
> call this in English?] as a speech singularity or event, which has always
> a history.
> So the idea of the archive has to do with the question how an archive of
> énoncés could be possible.
> Then Foucault does not say that it is not possible at all or completely
> or logically impossible to describe your own archive.
> Your quote is preceded by the phrase: "on ne peut décrire EXHAISTIVEMENT
> l'archive d'une société"
>
> and followed by: ... Elle [ = the archive] se donne par fragements,
> régions, niveaux
> ...
> and on p. 172 (Franch text) the archive is finally described as "la
> bordure du temps qui entourne notre présent"
>
>
> some literature on this point is
>
> I. Hacking (2002) Historical Ontology (London 2002)
>
> T. Flynn 'Michel Foucault and the career of the historical event' in B.
> Dauenhauer ed At the nexus of philosophy and history (Athene 1988)
> 178-200
>
> Michel de Certeau Heterologies. Discourse on the Other, Minneapolis 1986
>
> Gilles Deleuze : ‘Un nouvel archiviste’ = chapter 1 of his 1986 book
> Foucault
>
> Veyne, Paul (1978) 'Foucault révolutionne l'histoire' in Comment on écrit
> l'histoire, , Seuil, Paris 1978
>
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
> ----- "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 10:58:07 PM
>> Subject: [Foucault-L] The Archive
>>
>> Dear Foucault listers,
>>
>> In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault states that 'it is not
>> possible for us to describe our own archive, since it is from within
>> these rules that we speak, since it is that which gives to what we can
>> say — and to itself, the object of our discourse — its modes of
>> appearance, its forms of existence and coexistence, its system of
>> accumulation, historicity, and disappearance' (AK: 130; 'il ne nous
>> est pas possible de decrire notre propre archive, puisque c'est a
>> I'interieur de ses regles que no us parlons, puis que c' est eIle qui
>> donne a ce que nous pouvons dire - et a elle-meme, objet de notre
>> discours - ses modes d'apparition, ses formes d'existence et de
>> coexistence, son systeme de cumul, d'historicite et de disparition,'
>> AS: 171).
>>
>> I was wondering if there are other instances where Foucault makes
>> similar claims, and if so, where.
>> I was also wondering if there are any discussions concerning this
>> claim, and whether anybody has made a counter claim: i.e. that we can
>> have access to, and thus describe, our own archive.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
>> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth