Dear Kevin,
I think that Foucault here directely transposes his analysis of what discursive or knowledge practises are doing to non-discursive or power, practices.
Especially see the 4 rules at the end of the Method section in The Will to Knowledge. They are directely derived form The Archeology of Knowledge, chapter II.
yours
machiel karskens
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 9:23:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] question on trans & interpretation
> ok, so far so good...
>
> next question:
>
> is there a correlation here between thinking of relations of force
> which organise the domain in which they are exercised and the way of
> thinking, presented in the archaeology, of regularities which regulate
> themselves?
>
> this is not formulated as eloquently as it could have been but i hope
> you see what i am getting at.
>
> best,
> kevin.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: princeptiffany@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:00:57 +0100
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] question on trans & interpretation
>
> I don't know if my intervention is timely, because it seems that I
> receive only some messages from the list. Maybe the subject is closed?
> I didn't get Kevin Turner's first message, but got the second one,
> from Leon Farnito.The question raised by Kevin Turner turns out to be
> central for my own research. Anyway, here is my interpretation of the
> passage (which might interest you just because french is my native
> language).
> I'm pretty sure I can answer Kevin's question relying almost only on
> the grammatical structure of the sentence : "Par pouvoir, il me semble
> qu'il faut comprendre d'abord la multiplicité des rapports de force
> qui sont immanents au domaine où ils s'exercent, et sont constitutifs
> de leur organisation." Here relations of force ARE immanent to the
> domain in which they are exercized, AND ARE constitutive of their
> organization. As to Kevin's first question >> Is this "their"
> referring to the "relations of force," to the "domain" in which they
> are exercised, to that "exercise," or to all three? I can answer
> without any doubt : "Their" refers to "the domain in which they
> exercize" : relations of forces are constitutive of the domain in
> which they exercize, i.e. are responsible of the organization of the
> domain in which they are exercized.
> Kevin's second question is far more complicated : >> Stated otherwise,
> "what is constitutive (relations of force?) and what is being
> organised (relations of force? The domain? The exercise?)?But it can
> be answered if we read the passage he quotes in front of this other
> one, which seems to repeat the same idea : (emphasis added)"que les
> relations de pouvoir ne sont pas en position d'extériorité à l'égard
> d'autres types de rapports (processus économiques, rapports de
> connaissance, relations sexuelles), mais qu'elles leur sont
> immanentes; elles sont les effets immédiats des partages, inégalités
> et déséquilibres qui s'y produisent, et elles sont réciproquement les
> conditions internes de ces différenciations; les relations de pouvoir
> ne sont pas en positions de superstructure, avec un simple rôle de
> prohibition ou de reconduction; elles ont, là où elles jouent, un rôle
> directement producteur." (VS p. 123-124)
> or this one, about "les relations de pouvoir" : (emphasis added)"Si,
> de fait, elles sont intelligibles, ce n'est pas parce qu'elles
> seraient l'effet, en terme de causalité, d'une instance autre, qui les
> " expliquerait ", mais, c'est qu'elles sont, de part en part,
> traversées par un calcul : pas de pouvoir qui s'exerce sans une série
> de visées et d'objectifs." (VS p. 125).
> Relations of forces exercize or are exercized in certain domains
> (sexuality, knowledge, economical process), this being a fact. The
> question at stake is the form of this exercize, the form of the
> relation between sexuality, knowledge, economical process and power.
> Sexuality, economical relations, knowledge are assumed to function on
> the basis of certain laws (natural, economical, legal, epistemological
> laws), a point of view Foucault disagrees on. He states : they follow
> a certain rationality, "une série de visées et d'objectifs", which
> make in turn these relations intelligible. The disagregation of the
> "law-based" explanation in Foucault's philosophy has one major
> consequence : that power is not exercized on other forms of relations
> from the outside, but throught them, and thus constitute them in the
> sense that they give them a certain form of rationality, which can be
> analyzed. Relations of forces both rely on and constitute sexual
> relations, knowledge relations or economical relations in so far as
> the latter follow a certain rationality. To answer now Kevin's
> question: relations of forces are constitutive of other relations,
> they are internal unconditionned conditions for them. But they rely at
> the same time on divisions, inequalities and imbalance which occur
> ("les partages, inégalités et déséquilibres qui s'y produisent").
> These divisions, inequalities and imbalance are not, though,
> "conditions" of relations of forces (in an metaphysical sense), but
> "instrument-effects". I think relations of power don't have an
> "ontological priority" as such, but rather an epistemological one:
> this is the way we should analyze sexual relations, knowledge
> relations, economical relations to make the rationalities they are
> part of intelligible.
> To sum up my analysis : it seems that in La volonté de savoir,
> relation of forces (or the exercize of power) is the level at which
> sexual relations, knowledge, etc., are intelligible, with two major
> consequences : organization, rationality, etc., can be predicated only
> of relations of forces, no matter in which domain they exercize ; this
> is consequently what one should analyze to have a proper understanding
> of any domain.
> And this is precisely what I disagree with.
> Does anyone disagree with my interpretation? Let me know, because it
> is a major hypothesis in my own research!
> Thanks for putting the question at stake,and sorry for the long
> development, (and at last, sorry for my english, and some mistakes)
> Best,
> Tiffany PrincepDoctorante contractuelle à l'Université de Paris 1
> Panthéon-SorbonnePhiCo/EXeCO (EA
> 3562)princeptiffany@hotmail.fr06.60.93.93.57
>
> > Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:05:05 -0200
> > From: leonfarhineto@xxxxxxxxx
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] question on trans & interpretation
> >
> > In my opinion:
> >
> > Immanence implies that power relations are constitutive of their own
> > organization (which is constituted by them). The organization as an
> > effect
> > of power relations, is not really different from them. In this
> > cause-effect
> > way of expression, the organized set of power relations is* “causa
> > sui” *and
> > lasts until ist difficult-to-explain self-transformation, named the
> > “évènement”.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Kevin Turner
> > <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > In "La volonté de savoir" Foucault states: 'Par pouvoir, il me
> > > semble qu'il
> > > faut comprendre d'abord la multiplicité des rapports de force qui
> > > sont
> > > immanents au domaine où ils s'exercent, et sont constitutifs de
> > > leur
> > > organisation' (VS: 121-122).
> > >
> > > The published English translation reads: 'It seems to me that
> > > power must be
> > > understood in the first instance as the multiplicity of force
> > > relations
> > > immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute
> > > their own
> > > organization (WK: 92).
> > >
> > > My more literal translation reads: 'With power, it seems to me
> > > that we must
> > > first understand the multiplicity of relations of force that are
> > > immanent
> > > in/to the domain in which they are exercised, and [that] are
> > > constitutive
> > > of
> > > their organisation.'
> > >
> > > And my question concerns the "their" in the second part of the
> > > statement
> > > (are constitutive of "their" organisation).
> > >
> > > Is this "their" referring to the "relations of force," to the
> > > "domain" in
> > > which they are exercised, to that "exercise," or to all three?
> > >
> > > Stated otherwise, "what is constitutive (relations of force?) and
> > > what is
> > > being organised (relations of force? The domain? The exercise?)?"
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kevin.
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks &
> > > orcas on
> > > your desktop!
> > > Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
> > > [http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://leonfarhineto.blogspot.com/
> > [http://leonfarhineto.blogspot.com/]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
I think that Foucault here directely transposes his analysis of what discursive or knowledge practises are doing to non-discursive or power, practices.
Especially see the 4 rules at the end of the Method section in The Will to Knowledge. They are directely derived form The Archeology of Knowledge, chapter II.
yours
machiel karskens
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 9:23:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] question on trans & interpretation
> ok, so far so good...
>
> next question:
>
> is there a correlation here between thinking of relations of force
> which organise the domain in which they are exercised and the way of
> thinking, presented in the archaeology, of regularities which regulate
> themselves?
>
> this is not formulated as eloquently as it could have been but i hope
> you see what i am getting at.
>
> best,
> kevin.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: princeptiffany@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:00:57 +0100
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] question on trans & interpretation
>
> I don't know if my intervention is timely, because it seems that I
> receive only some messages from the list. Maybe the subject is closed?
> I didn't get Kevin Turner's first message, but got the second one,
> from Leon Farnito.The question raised by Kevin Turner turns out to be
> central for my own research. Anyway, here is my interpretation of the
> passage (which might interest you just because french is my native
> language).
> I'm pretty sure I can answer Kevin's question relying almost only on
> the grammatical structure of the sentence : "Par pouvoir, il me semble
> qu'il faut comprendre d'abord la multiplicité des rapports de force
> qui sont immanents au domaine où ils s'exercent, et sont constitutifs
> de leur organisation." Here relations of force ARE immanent to the
> domain in which they are exercized, AND ARE constitutive of their
> organization. As to Kevin's first question >> Is this "their"
> referring to the "relations of force," to the "domain" in which they
> are exercised, to that "exercise," or to all three? I can answer
> without any doubt : "Their" refers to "the domain in which they
> exercize" : relations of forces are constitutive of the domain in
> which they exercize, i.e. are responsible of the organization of the
> domain in which they are exercized.
> Kevin's second question is far more complicated : >> Stated otherwise,
> "what is constitutive (relations of force?) and what is being
> organised (relations of force? The domain? The exercise?)?But it can
> be answered if we read the passage he quotes in front of this other
> one, which seems to repeat the same idea : (emphasis added)"que les
> relations de pouvoir ne sont pas en position d'extériorité à l'égard
> d'autres types de rapports (processus économiques, rapports de
> connaissance, relations sexuelles), mais qu'elles leur sont
> immanentes; elles sont les effets immédiats des partages, inégalités
> et déséquilibres qui s'y produisent, et elles sont réciproquement les
> conditions internes de ces différenciations; les relations de pouvoir
> ne sont pas en positions de superstructure, avec un simple rôle de
> prohibition ou de reconduction; elles ont, là où elles jouent, un rôle
> directement producteur." (VS p. 123-124)
> or this one, about "les relations de pouvoir" : (emphasis added)"Si,
> de fait, elles sont intelligibles, ce n'est pas parce qu'elles
> seraient l'effet, en terme de causalité, d'une instance autre, qui les
> " expliquerait ", mais, c'est qu'elles sont, de part en part,
> traversées par un calcul : pas de pouvoir qui s'exerce sans une série
> de visées et d'objectifs." (VS p. 125).
> Relations of forces exercize or are exercized in certain domains
> (sexuality, knowledge, economical process), this being a fact. The
> question at stake is the form of this exercize, the form of the
> relation between sexuality, knowledge, economical process and power.
> Sexuality, economical relations, knowledge are assumed to function on
> the basis of certain laws (natural, economical, legal, epistemological
> laws), a point of view Foucault disagrees on. He states : they follow
> a certain rationality, "une série de visées et d'objectifs", which
> make in turn these relations intelligible. The disagregation of the
> "law-based" explanation in Foucault's philosophy has one major
> consequence : that power is not exercized on other forms of relations
> from the outside, but throught them, and thus constitute them in the
> sense that they give them a certain form of rationality, which can be
> analyzed. Relations of forces both rely on and constitute sexual
> relations, knowledge relations or economical relations in so far as
> the latter follow a certain rationality. To answer now Kevin's
> question: relations of forces are constitutive of other relations,
> they are internal unconditionned conditions for them. But they rely at
> the same time on divisions, inequalities and imbalance which occur
> ("les partages, inégalités et déséquilibres qui s'y produisent").
> These divisions, inequalities and imbalance are not, though,
> "conditions" of relations of forces (in an metaphysical sense), but
> "instrument-effects". I think relations of power don't have an
> "ontological priority" as such, but rather an epistemological one:
> this is the way we should analyze sexual relations, knowledge
> relations, economical relations to make the rationalities they are
> part of intelligible.
> To sum up my analysis : it seems that in La volonté de savoir,
> relation of forces (or the exercize of power) is the level at which
> sexual relations, knowledge, etc., are intelligible, with two major
> consequences : organization, rationality, etc., can be predicated only
> of relations of forces, no matter in which domain they exercize ; this
> is consequently what one should analyze to have a proper understanding
> of any domain.
> And this is precisely what I disagree with.
> Does anyone disagree with my interpretation? Let me know, because it
> is a major hypothesis in my own research!
> Thanks for putting the question at stake,and sorry for the long
> development, (and at last, sorry for my english, and some mistakes)
> Best,
> Tiffany PrincepDoctorante contractuelle à l'Université de Paris 1
> Panthéon-SorbonnePhiCo/EXeCO (EA
> 3562)princeptiffany@hotmail.fr06.60.93.93.57
>
> > Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:05:05 -0200
> > From: leonfarhineto@xxxxxxxxx
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] question on trans & interpretation
> >
> > In my opinion:
> >
> > Immanence implies that power relations are constitutive of their own
> > organization (which is constituted by them). The organization as an
> > effect
> > of power relations, is not really different from them. In this
> > cause-effect
> > way of expression, the organized set of power relations is* “causa
> > sui” *and
> > lasts until ist difficult-to-explain self-transformation, named the
> > “évènement”.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Kevin Turner
> > <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > In "La volonté de savoir" Foucault states: 'Par pouvoir, il me
> > > semble qu'il
> > > faut comprendre d'abord la multiplicité des rapports de force qui
> > > sont
> > > immanents au domaine où ils s'exercent, et sont constitutifs de
> > > leur
> > > organisation' (VS: 121-122).
> > >
> > > The published English translation reads: 'It seems to me that
> > > power must be
> > > understood in the first instance as the multiplicity of force
> > > relations
> > > immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute
> > > their own
> > > organization (WK: 92).
> > >
> > > My more literal translation reads: 'With power, it seems to me
> > > that we must
> > > first understand the multiplicity of relations of force that are
> > > immanent
> > > in/to the domain in which they are exercised, and [that] are
> > > constitutive
> > > of
> > > their organisation.'
> > >
> > > And my question concerns the "their" in the second part of the
> > > statement
> > > (are constitutive of "their" organisation).
> > >
> > > Is this "their" referring to the "relations of force," to the
> > > "domain" in
> > > which they are exercised, to that "exercise," or to all three?
> > >
> > > Stated otherwise, "what is constitutive (relations of force?) and
> > > what is
> > > being organised (relations of force? The domain? The exercise?)?"
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kevin.
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks &
> > > orcas on
> > > your desktop!
> > > Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
> > > [http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://leonfarhineto.blogspot.com/
> > [http://leonfarhineto.blogspot.com/]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list