1. "Foucault is not Deleuze" - agreed
2. "intersect" - I'm still not so happy with this term (in the precise
context of translating F.'s phrase) because F. seems to want to emphasise
that power relations get into, inside bodies (without us being aware of
that). It's not that power intersects with a (pre-given) body; they are
mutually constitutive. So, for example,, certain discourses and practices
relating to sexuality might actually generate certain possibilities (or
impossibilities) for pleasure; and other discourses and practices might
make our bodies physically capable (and incapable) in precise ways. The
fact that these relations have now passed into the body, moulding it in
precise ways while by-passing consciousness, is what is crucial. A large
part of the task of critique is to make this 'unconscious' conscious.
Timothy
2012/3/9 Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> I have to say, I've never really understood this Foucault does metaphysics
> of power line of argument. A micro-physics of power, yes; but a
> metaphysics? Foucault was not Deleuze, and I think it is misplaced to read
> them as doing the same thing.
>
> To say that power intersects within the body or within bodies is to say
> something like the body is a "node" through which multiple and
> heterogeneous relations of power pass, meet and, yes, intersect. Wheres the
> metaphysics? Power is precisely not a substance which can permeate, imbue,
> or infuse bodies. It is a set of relations which intersect with bodies. To
> exercise power is precisely to exercise those relations: i.e. put them into
> practice.
>
> Best,
> Kevin.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fkalouche@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 00:30:27 -0500
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur
> > des corps
> >
> > Taking the context, it is imperative to use permeate, imbued or infuse
> > rather than traverse or go through, etc., since the question is related
> > to fields and networks of forces than are not "internalized" but form
> > fields and networks within which bodies flourish, function and where non
> > discursive practices are made possible. Anyone informed by Spinoza and
> > Deleuze would understand why a linear perspective fails here. This is
> > part of the "new" Nietzschean metaphysics of multiplicity and
> > indeterminacy that Foucault and Deleuze were engaged in. Spare me the
> > "individual choice" and "agency" references; self transformation and self
> > subjectivization are not the same as these old metaphysical
> > constructions.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Fouad
> >
> >> From: princeptiffany@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 00:01:05 +0100
> >> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur
> >> des corps
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you people for your rapid responses. However, some more details
> >> could be useful, for a proper answer to my question.
> >> "Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur des corps" is the title
> >> of a 1977's interview, published in Dits et Ecrits, vol. III
> >> (1976-1979), n°197. That's why I thought it was "famous". In this
> >> interview, Foucault makes this wonderful assertion : "Ce que je cherche,
> >> c'est à essayer de montrer comment les rapports de pouvoir peuvent
> >> passer matériellement dans l'épaisseur même des corps sans avoir à être
> >> relayés par la représentation des sujets. Si le pouvoir atteint le
> >> corps, ce n'est pas parce qu'il a d'abord été intériorisé dans la
> >> conscience des gens. Il y a un réseau de bio-pouvoir, de somato-pouvoir
> >> qui est lui-même un réseau à partir duquel naît la sexualité comme
> >> phénomène historique et culturel à l'intérieur duquel à la fois nous
> >> nous reconnaissons et nous nous perdons."
> >> For those who can't understand french, in this passage Foucault reassert
> >> that what he calls "power" can literally and in actual fact "pass
> >> through bodies" without being "internalized" by people ("in the
> >> subject's representation"), functionning like he then calls a
> >> "somato-power" (from the greek word somato = body).
> >> I thought this interview, or concept, had been translated, giving a
> >> somehow "standard" formulation. I've been adviced "power relations run
> >> through the interior of bodies", in the very depths of them. What do you
> >> think ?
> >> I accept many more suggestions, but thanks again to the first ones !
> >> Best,
> >> Tiffany P.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> From: princeptiffany@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:01:18 +0100
> >>>> Subject: [Foucault-L] Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur
> >>>> des corps
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>> How would you translate in English Foucault's famous phrase "les
> >>>> rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur des corps" ? I'm french, and
> >>>> I'm having a hard time finding key-passages in "good English".
> >>>> Thank you in advance,
> >>>> Tiffany P.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on
> your desktop!
> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
2. "intersect" - I'm still not so happy with this term (in the precise
context of translating F.'s phrase) because F. seems to want to emphasise
that power relations get into, inside bodies (without us being aware of
that). It's not that power intersects with a (pre-given) body; they are
mutually constitutive. So, for example,, certain discourses and practices
relating to sexuality might actually generate certain possibilities (or
impossibilities) for pleasure; and other discourses and practices might
make our bodies physically capable (and incapable) in precise ways. The
fact that these relations have now passed into the body, moulding it in
precise ways while by-passing consciousness, is what is crucial. A large
part of the task of critique is to make this 'unconscious' conscious.
Timothy
2012/3/9 Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> I have to say, I've never really understood this Foucault does metaphysics
> of power line of argument. A micro-physics of power, yes; but a
> metaphysics? Foucault was not Deleuze, and I think it is misplaced to read
> them as doing the same thing.
>
> To say that power intersects within the body or within bodies is to say
> something like the body is a "node" through which multiple and
> heterogeneous relations of power pass, meet and, yes, intersect. Wheres the
> metaphysics? Power is precisely not a substance which can permeate, imbue,
> or infuse bodies. It is a set of relations which intersect with bodies. To
> exercise power is precisely to exercise those relations: i.e. put them into
> practice.
>
> Best,
> Kevin.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fkalouche@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 00:30:27 -0500
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur
> > des corps
> >
> > Taking the context, it is imperative to use permeate, imbued or infuse
> > rather than traverse or go through, etc., since the question is related
> > to fields and networks of forces than are not "internalized" but form
> > fields and networks within which bodies flourish, function and where non
> > discursive practices are made possible. Anyone informed by Spinoza and
> > Deleuze would understand why a linear perspective fails here. This is
> > part of the "new" Nietzschean metaphysics of multiplicity and
> > indeterminacy that Foucault and Deleuze were engaged in. Spare me the
> > "individual choice" and "agency" references; self transformation and self
> > subjectivization are not the same as these old metaphysical
> > constructions.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Fouad
> >
> >> From: princeptiffany@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 00:01:05 +0100
> >> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur
> >> des corps
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you people for your rapid responses. However, some more details
> >> could be useful, for a proper answer to my question.
> >> "Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur des corps" is the title
> >> of a 1977's interview, published in Dits et Ecrits, vol. III
> >> (1976-1979), n°197. That's why I thought it was "famous". In this
> >> interview, Foucault makes this wonderful assertion : "Ce que je cherche,
> >> c'est à essayer de montrer comment les rapports de pouvoir peuvent
> >> passer matériellement dans l'épaisseur même des corps sans avoir à être
> >> relayés par la représentation des sujets. Si le pouvoir atteint le
> >> corps, ce n'est pas parce qu'il a d'abord été intériorisé dans la
> >> conscience des gens. Il y a un réseau de bio-pouvoir, de somato-pouvoir
> >> qui est lui-même un réseau à partir duquel naît la sexualité comme
> >> phénomène historique et culturel à l'intérieur duquel à la fois nous
> >> nous reconnaissons et nous nous perdons."
> >> For those who can't understand french, in this passage Foucault reassert
> >> that what he calls "power" can literally and in actual fact "pass
> >> through bodies" without being "internalized" by people ("in the
> >> subject's representation"), functionning like he then calls a
> >> "somato-power" (from the greek word somato = body).
> >> I thought this interview, or concept, had been translated, giving a
> >> somehow "standard" formulation. I've been adviced "power relations run
> >> through the interior of bodies", in the very depths of them. What do you
> >> think ?
> >> I accept many more suggestions, but thanks again to the first ones !
> >> Best,
> >> Tiffany P.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> From: princeptiffany@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:01:18 +0100
> >>>> Subject: [Foucault-L] Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur
> >>>> des corps
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>> How would you translate in English Foucault's famous phrase "les
> >>>> rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur des corps" ? I'm french, and
> >>>> I'm having a hard time finding key-passages in "good English".
> >>>> Thank you in advance,
> >>>> Tiffany P.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on
> your desktop!
> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>