we have no major disagreement.
I am not so sure of the French; but I see no reason why, in English, we cannot maintain the notion that relations of power both intersect within, and (consequently) pass through bodies.
I guess it all depends on how we want to read Foucault and to what ends:
Are we trying to get at what Foucault really, truly, 100%, unequivocally and without a doubt actually meant?
Or are we trying to see what work we can put his work to?
If the latter, then surely such readings are perspectival: not "what is it?" but "which one is it?" i.e. "what is it for me; the one who poses the question what is it?"
Best,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:50:20 +0800
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur
> des corps
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
I am not so sure of the French; but I see no reason why, in English, we cannot maintain the notion that relations of power both intersect within, and (consequently) pass through bodies.
I guess it all depends on how we want to read Foucault and to what ends:
Are we trying to get at what Foucault really, truly, 100%, unequivocally and without a doubt actually meant?
Or are we trying to see what work we can put his work to?
If the latter, then surely such readings are perspectival: not "what is it?" but "which one is it?" i.e. "what is it for me; the one who poses the question what is it?"
Best,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:50:20 +0800
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Les rapports de pouvoir passent à l'intérieur
> des corps
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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