Hi Thomas,
Surely the target of archaeological research is "statements" not "men:" i.e. the things said by men, not the men making the statements.
In other words, what counts in the things said by men (statements) is what was said (statements) and not what they may have thought below or beyond what was said (looking for what was not said in what was said, which would be the task of hermeneutics), and what counts is that which systematises what was said ( statements) from the outset. That is to say, what counts is that which systematises statements (the rules of formation of discourse). And it is statements, and not men, that are thereafter endlessly accessible to new discourses and open to the task of transformation.
Regards,
Kevin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 06 August 2012 22:31
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation question
I think you are making a mistake. I don't know French beyond recognizing some words and being able to puzzle out sentences so if my alternative reading is refuted by something like gender agreement of pronouns, please let me know:
You translated this way:
> "What counts in the things said by men, it is not so much what they
> have thought below or beyond the things said, but that which
> systematizes the things said from the outset..."
I think the thing referred to as being systematized is neither the things said or the thoughts, but *men*.
It is the people who are systematized from the start
in various games. What matters in the words of the
people is those games, not any purported thoughts within or behind the words.
In terms of just the basic rhetoric, my reading shows a more parallel structure:
"it is not so much what *they* have thought [...]
meaning "men"
"but that which systematizes *them* [...]
meaning "men".
The passage in the published translation continues:
"thus making *them*[1] thereafter endlessly accessible
to future discourses and open to the task of
transforming *them*[2]"
where my understanding is
[1] = "men"
[2] = "future discourses"
Another parallel, in other words: men being both accessible to and open to the task of transforming future discourses.
I wonder... well, the french uses an idiom:
d'entrée de jeu
which you translate as "from the outset"
but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to translate it more literally:
"from the start of the game"
because I think Foucault, in this passage, might even be alluding to Wittgenstein's "language games".
-t
On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 04:39 -0800, Kevin Turner wrote:
> I have yet another translation question. This time in comes from the 'Preface' to "Birth of the Clinic."
>
> The original French reads:
>
> 'Ce qui compte dans les choses dites par les hommes, ce n'est pas
> tellement ce qu'ils auraient pensé en deçà ou au-delà d'elles, mais ce
> qui d'entrée de jeu les systématise...' (NC: xv)
>
> The published English translation reads:
>
> 'What counts in the things said by men is not so much what they may
> have thought or the extent to which these things represent their
> thoughts, as that which systematizes them from the outset...' (BC:
> xix)
>
> To me, this makes it sound like what is systematised from the outset is thought and not the things said by men.
>
> Would this passage be better translated as
>
> "What counts in the things said by men, it is not so much what they
> have thought below or beyond the things said, but that which systematizes the things said from the outset..."
>
> Thus making what is systematised from the outset not thought but what is said.
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
Surely the target of archaeological research is "statements" not "men:" i.e. the things said by men, not the men making the statements.
In other words, what counts in the things said by men (statements) is what was said (statements) and not what they may have thought below or beyond what was said (looking for what was not said in what was said, which would be the task of hermeneutics), and what counts is that which systematises what was said ( statements) from the outset. That is to say, what counts is that which systematises statements (the rules of formation of discourse). And it is statements, and not men, that are thereafter endlessly accessible to new discourses and open to the task of transformation.
Regards,
Kevin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 06 August 2012 22:31
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] translation question
I think you are making a mistake. I don't know French beyond recognizing some words and being able to puzzle out sentences so if my alternative reading is refuted by something like gender agreement of pronouns, please let me know:
You translated this way:
> "What counts in the things said by men, it is not so much what they
> have thought below or beyond the things said, but that which
> systematizes the things said from the outset..."
I think the thing referred to as being systematized is neither the things said or the thoughts, but *men*.
It is the people who are systematized from the start
in various games. What matters in the words of the
people is those games, not any purported thoughts within or behind the words.
In terms of just the basic rhetoric, my reading shows a more parallel structure:
"it is not so much what *they* have thought [...]
meaning "men"
"but that which systematizes *them* [...]
meaning "men".
The passage in the published translation continues:
"thus making *them*[1] thereafter endlessly accessible
to future discourses and open to the task of
transforming *them*[2]"
where my understanding is
[1] = "men"
[2] = "future discourses"
Another parallel, in other words: men being both accessible to and open to the task of transforming future discourses.
I wonder... well, the french uses an idiom:
d'entrée de jeu
which you translate as "from the outset"
but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to translate it more literally:
"from the start of the game"
because I think Foucault, in this passage, might even be alluding to Wittgenstein's "language games".
-t
On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 04:39 -0800, Kevin Turner wrote:
> I have yet another translation question. This time in comes from the 'Preface' to "Birth of the Clinic."
>
> The original French reads:
>
> 'Ce qui compte dans les choses dites par les hommes, ce n'est pas
> tellement ce qu'ils auraient pensé en deçà ou au-delà d'elles, mais ce
> qui d'entrée de jeu les systématise...' (NC: xv)
>
> The published English translation reads:
>
> 'What counts in the things said by men is not so much what they may
> have thought or the extent to which these things represent their
> thoughts, as that which systematizes them from the outset...' (BC:
> xix)
>
> To me, this makes it sound like what is systematised from the outset is thought and not the things said by men.
>
> Would this passage be better translated as
>
> "What counts in the things said by men, it is not so much what they
> have thought below or beyond the things said, but that which systematizes the things said from the outset..."
>
> Thus making what is systematised from the outset not thought but what is said.
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth