Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 09:00:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Pouvoir


You can find a similar interpretation (or discussion) in Deleuze's 
'Foucault'. I don't know if it has been translated.
Francois

Kevin Turner a écrit:

> credit where credit's due - i got the insight from Stuart Elden's 
> "mapping  the present:" 106, and Beatrice Hanssen's "critique of 
> violence": 153, the  latter of whom references Gayatri Spivak's 
> "Outside the Teaching Machine:"  25-52.
>
> as for power being an actuality: you can take this in (at least) two 
> ways  - either it is an actuality in terms of being a substance and 
> thus a  property, or it is an actuality in terms of being a 
> potentiality. i think  foucault means the later. thus to think of 
> power as capacity is not to  think of it as an innate capability, or 
> an essentail attribute, but  precisely the capacity "to be able to" 
> (power - pouvoir as a verb, as a  doing) through the capacity to 
> "know'how" (knowledge - savoir).
>
> i think Nietzsche's observation that 'there is no "being" behind 
> doing,  acting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction imposed on 
> the doing -  the doing itself is everything' ("On The Genealogy of 
> Morals" 1996: First  Essay, 13), is a very good way to think about 
> power/pouvoir as a verb.
>
> regards - k.
>
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:37:47 +1000, Lionel Boxer <lboxer-AT-hotmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Can we be certain that Foucault did not mean anything beyond 
>> something  actual?  I think the idea that it has something to do with 
>> "capacity"  adds an interesting dimension.  Where does Foucault make 
>> that statement  in a clear way?
>>
>> Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA - 0411267256 - lboxer-AT-hotmail.com
>> Charity day at Dame Elisabeth's - see http://intergon.net
>> Victorian Scottish Regiment
>> NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT (none may attack me with impunity)
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Melbourne Volunteer Rifle Regiment 150th Anniversary --  
>> http://intergon.net/rifles
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>> From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly-AT-hotmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>> To: foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>> Subject: Pouvoir
>>> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:30:40 +1000
>>>
>>> we've got to be careful with this - it was a line I chased for a while.
>>> 'pouvoir' as a verb means 'to be able to'; as a noun, it means 
>>> 'power'.  The reason we have to be so careful is that in 'The 
>>> Subject and Power'  Foucault is very specific that by power he does 
>>> not mean capacity or  potential but something actual. 'Power' in 
>>> English also has the  connotation of a capacity to do something, but 
>>> not in Foucault's usage.
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> >From: francois gagnon <francois.gagnon.1-AT-UMontreal.CA>
>>> >Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>> >To: foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>> >Subject: Re: micro-translations
>>> >Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:46:47 -0400
>>> >
>>> >Yes it can.
>>> >F.
>>> >
>>> >Kevin Turner a écrit:
>>> >
>>> >>while we're on the subject of translation...
>>> >>
>>> >>can someone confirm that the term foucault uses for power,
>>> >>"pouvoir," can  also mean "be able 
>>> (to)",  "can," "be possible," or
>>> >>"capacity," etc.
>>> >>
>>> >>cheers - k
>>> >>
>>> >>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:52:00 +0200, xavier delcourt
>>> >><delcourt-AT-cuej.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>équilibre européen: "european balance" would 
>>> be  totally acceptable
>>> >>>from  my point of view
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >François Gagnon
>>> >Doctorant
>>> >Département de Communication
>>> >Université de Montréal
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Protect yourself from junk e-mail:   
>> http://microsoft.ninemsn.com.au/protectfromspam.aspx
>>
>
>
>

-- 
François Gagnon
Doctorant
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal