Foucault does not use the puissance/pouvoir distiction at all in relation to the disctiction between disciplinary power and sovereign power. All different powers: sovereign power, as well as disciplinary power, biopower, pastoral power, governmental power and so on are called by him pouvoir.
Also power of and over the body is called by hem pouvoir.
Kevin is right: pouvoir is constantly deconstucted by Foucault as set of tactics and strategies and so on, as against the (in France) dominant idea of pouvoir as being massive = sovereign state power, governmental power or power of the Law.
It is in his eyes, indeed, a set of tiny, mundan ingredients that forms a chain of techniques which turns people into subjects.
yours
machiel karskens
----- "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:02:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
>
> I don't know how useful this may be, but I find it helpful to think of
> puissance as having the power to be able to act and pouvoir as being
> able to exercise power: i.e. pouvoir draws my attention to that which
> need to be in place (tactic, mechanism, technique, technology, etc.)
> in order to be able to exercise power, i.e. to be able to act on the
> actions of others, to be able to conduct the conduct of others, etc.
> In other words, pouvoir draws my attention to all the mundane, tiny,
> heterogeneous ingredients from which power is made.
>
> - k
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: a.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:46:44 +0000
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
> >
> >
> > So does the puissance/pouvoir distinction map on to
> > soveriegn/disciplinary power? In D & P sovereign power is clearly
> > corporeal, hence the opening graphic description of the fate of
> Damiens.
> > It seems to me (as a monolingual English speaker) that there is no
> > difficulty in a work like 'power' having two meanings. Of course we
> do
> > have to know in which sense we are using a word (like 'power') and a
> lot
> > of attention is given to this in English language publications.
> >
> > Tony O'Brien
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > on behalf of Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel) [mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 9:30 a.m.
> > To: Mailing-list
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
> >
> > In French and Latin and other Roman languages there is a generally
> used
> > distinction between puissance (Lat: potentia), being power = force,
> > capacity to effect or ableness, and pouvoir (Lat: potestas), being
> > political, constitutional power (for example:sovereignty = summa
> > potestas). In English this distinction cannot be made, unfortunately
> both
> > are called power.
> >
> > Foucault most often speaks of pouvoir meaning political power,
> > sometimes he uses puissance(s), referring to the actual power =
> capacity
> > of enforcement of some political actors, or mostly: bodies.
> > Most of time, however, he speaks of force (relation de(s)
> force(s))in
> > that case.
> >
> > yours
> > machiel karskens
> >
> > ----- "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:08:32 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Send any screenshot to your friends in seconds...
> Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social
> networks.
> TRY IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if2 for
> FREE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
Also power of and over the body is called by hem pouvoir.
Kevin is right: pouvoir is constantly deconstucted by Foucault as set of tactics and strategies and so on, as against the (in France) dominant idea of pouvoir as being massive = sovereign state power, governmental power or power of the Law.
It is in his eyes, indeed, a set of tiny, mundan ingredients that forms a chain of techniques which turns people into subjects.
yours
machiel karskens
----- "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:02:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
>
> I don't know how useful this may be, but I find it helpful to think of
> puissance as having the power to be able to act and pouvoir as being
> able to exercise power: i.e. pouvoir draws my attention to that which
> need to be in place (tactic, mechanism, technique, technology, etc.)
> in order to be able to exercise power, i.e. to be able to act on the
> actions of others, to be able to conduct the conduct of others, etc.
> In other words, pouvoir draws my attention to all the mundane, tiny,
> heterogeneous ingredients from which power is made.
>
> - k
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: a.obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:46:44 +0000
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
> >
> >
> > So does the puissance/pouvoir distinction map on to
> > soveriegn/disciplinary power? In D & P sovereign power is clearly
> > corporeal, hence the opening graphic description of the fate of
> Damiens.
> > It seems to me (as a monolingual English speaker) that there is no
> > difficulty in a work like 'power' having two meanings. Of course we
> do
> > have to know in which sense we are using a word (like 'power') and a
> lot
> > of attention is given to this in English language publications.
> >
> > Tony O'Brien
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > on behalf of Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel) [mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 9:30 a.m.
> > To: Mailing-list
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
> >
> > In French and Latin and other Roman languages there is a generally
> used
> > distinction between puissance (Lat: potentia), being power = force,
> > capacity to effect or ableness, and pouvoir (Lat: potestas), being
> > political, constitutional power (for example:sovereignty = summa
> > potestas). In English this distinction cannot be made, unfortunately
> both
> > are called power.
> >
> > Foucault most often speaks of pouvoir meaning political power,
> > sometimes he uses puissance(s), referring to the actual power =
> capacity
> > of enforcement of some political actors, or mostly: bodies.
> > Most of time, however, he speaks of force (relation de(s)
> force(s))in
> > that case.
> >
> > yours
> > machiel karskens
> >
> > ----- "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:08:32 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] pouvoir/puissance
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Send any screenshot to your friends in seconds...
> Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social
> networks.
> TRY IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if2 for
> FREE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list