Hi Machiel
That was what I had in mind when asking the question; although I had not made the specific connection between these two text--I was thinking more along the lines outlined in David Owen's Maturity and Modernity: 159.
I was also wondering about the relation between Section II of the Archaeology, and the four major aspects of "relation to self" detailed in The Use of Pleasure (and also in 'On the Genealogy of Ethics'): namely (1) determination of the ethical substance (formation of objects); (2) mode of subjection (formation of enunciative modalities); (3) elaboration of ethical work or ascetics (formation of concepts); and (4) telos (formation of strategies).
I think such observations are not only essential to the claim that Foucault never stopped doing archaeology, but also to demonstrate the centrality of the archaeological method to all of Foucault's critical histories, and not just those concerning knowledge or the human sciences.
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel)
Sent: 14 December 2012 12:06
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] question on trans & interpretation
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
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
GET FREE SMILEYS FOR YOUR IM & EMAIL - Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google Talk™ and most webmails
That was what I had in mind when asking the question; although I had not made the specific connection between these two text--I was thinking more along the lines outlined in David Owen's Maturity and Modernity: 159.
I was also wondering about the relation between Section II of the Archaeology, and the four major aspects of "relation to self" detailed in The Use of Pleasure (and also in 'On the Genealogy of Ethics'): namely (1) determination of the ethical substance (formation of objects); (2) mode of subjection (formation of enunciative modalities); (3) elaboration of ethical work or ascetics (formation of concepts); and (4) telos (formation of strategies).
I think such observations are not only essential to the claim that Foucault never stopped doing archaeology, but also to demonstrate the centrality of the archaeological method to all of Foucault's critical histories, and not just those concerning knowledge or the human sciences.
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel)
Sent: 14 December 2012 12:06
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] question on trans & interpretation
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
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
GET FREE SMILEYS FOR YOUR IM & EMAIL - Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google Talk™ and most webmails