Hi David,
thanks for the references.
and i know what you mean about the French - I often woder why I did not chose and English writer as my favorite author.
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vagabond@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:26:57 +1030
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
>
> A related reference that might elucidate this somewhat is the translation
> of Althusser's book on Montesquieu, which makes this distinction with
> regard to what we might call 'social powers' (puissances) in Montesquieu
> - le roi, des grands, et le peuple (the king, the great, and the people)
> - and 'powers of government' (pouvoirs) - executive, juridical,
> legislative. With regard to the thesis that the juridical power is not a
> true power - in that it is restricted to 'a sight and a voice' ('to read
> and speak the law') - then this corresponds to the formula 'three
> puissances but only two pouvoirs'. What is interesting here is that the
> juridical pouvoir is also described here as a puissance (the capacity to
> speak and read) but really it is the right or authority to read and speak
> the law that constitutes it as a pouvoir.
>
> Not being a speaker of French in any real capacity I have found this
> confusing too.
>
> This is traced back to at least Spinoza (the distinction also exists in
> Latin and Italian).
>
>
> For useful references on pouvoir/puissance see Patton's critique of
> Taylor, Hardt's introduction to his translation of Negri's Savage
> Anomaly, and Montag's review of Negri's Insurgencies.
>
> Best of luck. As I said above, I have been struggling with the nuances
> of this distinction myself.
>
>
> On 15/11/2011, at 11:00 PM, Tiffany P. wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>> I don't know if your question has already been answered, but here is
>> what I can tell (I'm french) : in general, the term "puissance" refers
>> to the "capacity of the body", not to political power. "Puissance" has
>> an "inner" aspect which doesn't have "power". In Il faut défendre la
>> société, Foucault talks about "puissance" in a political sense when he
>> refers to colonial political power, or to king's political force. In a
>> sense, and I think you are right, "puissance" isn't appropriate to
>> qualify modern power , but could be for sovereign power, which precisely
>> thinks itself in the terms of "puissance". '(in french you say "grandes
>> puissances industrielles" ou "coloniales", "la puissance économique d'un
>> pays", etc.). The term "puissance" is indeed used when sovereign power
>> comes into question, but in the very expression : "sovereign power", in
>> french he uses the term "pouvoir" and not "puissance" (i.e. "pouvoir
>> souverain").
>> I found a excerpt in which Foucault states : "En déplaçant l'axe, le
>> centre de gravité, de son analyse, Boulainvilliers faisait quelque chose
>> d'important. D'abord, parce qu'il définissait le principe de ce qu'on
>> pourrait appeler le caractère relationnel du pouvoir : le pouvoir, ce
>> n'est pas une propriété, ce n'est pas une puissance ; le pouvoir ce
>> n'est jamais qu'une relation que l'on ne peut, et ne doit, étudier qu'en
>> fonction des termes entre lesquels cette relation joue. On ne peut donc
>> faire ni l'histoire des rois ni l'histoire des peuples, mais l'histoire
>> de ce qui constitue, l'un en face de l'autre, ces deux termes, dont l'un
>> n'est jamais l'infini et l'autre n'est jamais le zéro. En faisant cette
>> histoire, en définissant le caractère relationnel du pouvoir et en
>> l'analysant dans l'histoire, Boulainvilliers refusait - et c'est là, je
>> crois, l'autre aspect de son opération -le modèle juridique de la
>> souveraineté qui avait été, jusque-là, la seule manière que l'on avait
>> de penser le rapport entre le peuple et le monarque, ou encore entre le
>> peuple et ceux qui gouvernent. Ce n'est pas en termes juridiques de
>> souveraineté, mais en termes historiques de domination et de jeu entre
>> les rapports de force que Boulainvilliers a décrit ce phénomène du
>> pouvoir. Et c'est dans ce champ-là qu'il a placé l'objet de son analyse
>> historique" (Il faut défendre la société, éd.
>> française, p. 150)
>> Hope it will help you,
>> Best regards,
>> Tiffany P.
>>
>>> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 01:57:39 -0800
>>> From: kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx
>>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
>>>
>>> Hi to one and all,
>>>
>>> I was just curious, when Foucault talks of sovereign power - in Il faut
>>> défendre la société or La volonté de savoir, for example - does he use
>>> the term "puissance" or "pouvoir."
>>>
>>> Cheers - K
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> Publish your photos in seconds for FREE
>>> TRY IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
Send your photos by email in seconds...
TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if3
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.
thanks for the references.
and i know what you mean about the French - I often woder why I did not chose and English writer as my favorite author.
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vagabond@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:26:57 +1030
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
>
> A related reference that might elucidate this somewhat is the translation
> of Althusser's book on Montesquieu, which makes this distinction with
> regard to what we might call 'social powers' (puissances) in Montesquieu
> - le roi, des grands, et le peuple (the king, the great, and the people)
> - and 'powers of government' (pouvoirs) - executive, juridical,
> legislative. With regard to the thesis that the juridical power is not a
> true power - in that it is restricted to 'a sight and a voice' ('to read
> and speak the law') - then this corresponds to the formula 'three
> puissances but only two pouvoirs'. What is interesting here is that the
> juridical pouvoir is also described here as a puissance (the capacity to
> speak and read) but really it is the right or authority to read and speak
> the law that constitutes it as a pouvoir.
>
> Not being a speaker of French in any real capacity I have found this
> confusing too.
>
> This is traced back to at least Spinoza (the distinction also exists in
> Latin and Italian).
>
>
> For useful references on pouvoir/puissance see Patton's critique of
> Taylor, Hardt's introduction to his translation of Negri's Savage
> Anomaly, and Montag's review of Negri's Insurgencies.
>
> Best of luck. As I said above, I have been struggling with the nuances
> of this distinction myself.
>
>
> On 15/11/2011, at 11:00 PM, Tiffany P. wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>> I don't know if your question has already been answered, but here is
>> what I can tell (I'm french) : in general, the term "puissance" refers
>> to the "capacity of the body", not to political power. "Puissance" has
>> an "inner" aspect which doesn't have "power". In Il faut défendre la
>> société, Foucault talks about "puissance" in a political sense when he
>> refers to colonial political power, or to king's political force. In a
>> sense, and I think you are right, "puissance" isn't appropriate to
>> qualify modern power , but could be for sovereign power, which precisely
>> thinks itself in the terms of "puissance". '(in french you say "grandes
>> puissances industrielles" ou "coloniales", "la puissance économique d'un
>> pays", etc.). The term "puissance" is indeed used when sovereign power
>> comes into question, but in the very expression : "sovereign power", in
>> french he uses the term "pouvoir" and not "puissance" (i.e. "pouvoir
>> souverain").
>> I found a excerpt in which Foucault states : "En déplaçant l'axe, le
>> centre de gravité, de son analyse, Boulainvilliers faisait quelque chose
>> d'important. D'abord, parce qu'il définissait le principe de ce qu'on
>> pourrait appeler le caractère relationnel du pouvoir : le pouvoir, ce
>> n'est pas une propriété, ce n'est pas une puissance ; le pouvoir ce
>> n'est jamais qu'une relation que l'on ne peut, et ne doit, étudier qu'en
>> fonction des termes entre lesquels cette relation joue. On ne peut donc
>> faire ni l'histoire des rois ni l'histoire des peuples, mais l'histoire
>> de ce qui constitue, l'un en face de l'autre, ces deux termes, dont l'un
>> n'est jamais l'infini et l'autre n'est jamais le zéro. En faisant cette
>> histoire, en définissant le caractère relationnel du pouvoir et en
>> l'analysant dans l'histoire, Boulainvilliers refusait - et c'est là, je
>> crois, l'autre aspect de son opération -le modèle juridique de la
>> souveraineté qui avait été, jusque-là, la seule manière que l'on avait
>> de penser le rapport entre le peuple et le monarque, ou encore entre le
>> peuple et ceux qui gouvernent. Ce n'est pas en termes juridiques de
>> souveraineté, mais en termes historiques de domination et de jeu entre
>> les rapports de force que Boulainvilliers a décrit ce phénomène du
>> pouvoir. Et c'est dans ce champ-là qu'il a placé l'objet de son analyse
>> historique" (Il faut défendre la société, éd.
>> française, p. 150)
>> Hope it will help you,
>> Best regards,
>> Tiffany P.
>>
>>> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 01:57:39 -0800
>>> From: kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx
>>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
>>>
>>> Hi to one and all,
>>>
>>> I was just curious, when Foucault talks of sovereign power - in Il faut
>>> défendre la société or La volonté de savoir, for example - does he use
>>> the term "puissance" or "pouvoir."
>>>
>>> Cheers - K
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> Publish your photos in seconds for FREE
>>> TRY IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
Send your photos by email in seconds...
TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if3
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.