Getting Somewhere: HEFCE Proposals on Open Access for a Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework

Interesting discussion of publishing at The Disorder of Things, in relation to the UK research assessment and open access debates.

Meera's avatarThe Disorder Of Things

zimbabwe-press

This week, the UK’s Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) published their formal proposals for including an open access requirement in any post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF). Responses to this will be accepted until 30th October 2013. These proposals follow a pre-consultation letter and set of responses which were submitted earlier in the year (link to University of Cambridge response).

Following up our concerns about the policy raised over the last few months (here and here, further posts here) the present iteration represents a decent outcome on some of the details, not least because it defers quite a few of them. That these issues have been deferred does not mean that they do not matter; rather it means that the battles on them will be fought elsewhere – with universities, with journal boards, with learned societies, with publishers and their lawyers and so…

View original post 1,393 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Two decisions in the translation of Lectures on the Will to Know

LWKGraham Burchell has provided another excellent translation of a Foucault lecture course – Lectures on the Will to Know. I worked on that course extensively in the French and have over the past few days spent a lot of time checking each reference to the English. In many instances I adopted his translation over my own, and was continually impressed by how he rendered difficult, fragmented and obtuse passages – this course is based on Foucault’s manuscript, not on transcribed tapes, so it’s not always fully worked out. But there are two decisions made for the English translation that are worth reflecting on. He discusses both in the “Translator’s Note”.

The first is that the French edition had the pages of the manuscript the editor Daniel Defert used as the basis for the text in the margins. The course is based almost exclusively on this manuscript Foucault rather than on the tape recordings used for previous courses. This is because there were no tape recordings available. There are pages of manuscript missing in part or whole, and while the previous volumes used the manuscript to supplement the spoken record, here there is only one of the two sources to draw upon. Burchell rightly says that “except where a page break corresponds with a new paragraph or section, the precise point at which one page ends and another begins is not indicated. This lack of precision inevitably increases with a translated text”. He then continues: “Without the original manuscript or an accurate copy ready to hand, the manuscript pagination is of no use to the English reader and is an unnecessary hindrance to smooth reading” (p. xiv). But while it may have been a hindrance it just isn’t the case that it is ‘no use’. What use was it to the French reader, when the manuscript is not publicly accessible? For the English reader the most useful thing about the manuscript page would have been to allow quick access to the corresponding passage in the French.

Other translations of lecture courses – Heidegger’s being the obvious example – have the pagination of the original language in margins or running heads. Any passage can then quickly be found in the original. This isn’t the case in the Foucault lecture courses – not just this course, but generally. The publisher and series editor should be blamed for that choice. With this course, the manuscript pagination would have been helpful to substitute for that gap. Burchell gives the example of the Loeb parallel language texts of the classics, noting that there is “the pagination of the source text alongside the original Greek or Latin, but omits it from the accompanying English translation” (p. xiv). But this is a poor parallel – because the Loeb has the original and translation on facing pages, you can read across. Indeed, the whole point of the Loeb is the ability to find any passage in both languages; something this English translation of Foucault makes a whole lot harder.

The second is the transliteration of Greek terms. Foucault’s manuscript did not transliterate, and Defert respected this. Burchell has chosen to transliterate. Interestingly, both Defert and Burchell cite a passage from Bernard Knox’s Oedipus at Thebes, though draw different conclusions. So, the French reader must grapple with the Greek alphabet, while the English reader doesn’t need to. Heidegger translations don’t transliterate his Greek. Does this tell us something about the sense of the audience between languages and thinkers? Again the comparison given as a rationale is inexact. Burchell notes that he is “following the practice of the French editors of the already published volumes of Foucault’s lectures” (p. xiv). But the previously published lectures are on the basis of editors listening to, and transcribing, recordings. Orally, πόλις and polis sound the same. Unless we checked Foucault’s manuscript for those courses, we don’t know the choice he made. We do know that his last writings, such as the final two volumes of the History of Sexuality, transliterated Greek words. But one of the things that is striking about the course in question, from 1970-71, is that it shows a Foucault deeply familiar with Greek texts, much earlier than had previously been acknowledged. And that his own notes for the course kept Greek characters.

These are minor issues, and unlikely to inconvenience most readers. Indeed, the second will undoubtedly be of significant benefit for many. But I felt both deserved some comment. Let me reiterate the praise of Burchell’s translation though – that alone will make the course far more accessible.

Posted in Books, Foucault's Last Decade, Michel Foucault, Publishing | 1 Comment

Michael Dillon on The Courage of Truth

The chair group on History and Theory of International Relations at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands) is launching an annual Lecture series entitled ‘Modes of Reasoning’. The lectures are intended as a space for leading intellectuals to reflect on historical and contemporary modes of reasoning order and power – details here.

The opening lecture entitled ‘The Courage of Truth’ will be delivered by Prof. Michael Dillon at the Senate Room, Academy Building, University of Groningen, 25 September 2013, 17-18.30

An abstract and poster for the lecture can be found here.

Entrance is free.

Posted in Conferences, Michael Dillon, Michel Foucault | 1 Comment

Willing the impossible: an interview with Judith Butler

At Open Democracy (via Maoquai)

Posted in Judith Butler, Politics | Leave a comment

Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift 2013 Arts of the Political: New Openings For the Left, reviewed by Dave Featherstone

Featherstone on Amin and Thrift.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When did Foucault lecture on Nietzsche?

Until recently, there were only two texts by Foucault explicitly on Nietzsche.

1. ‘Nietzsche, Freud, Marx’, Cahiers de Royaumont, VI, 1967, pp. 183-200. (The note in Dits et écrits says this was from a symposium at Royaumont in July 1964.)

2. ‘Nietzsche, la génealogie, l’histoire’, in Hommage à Jean Hyppolite, Paris: PUF, 1971, pp. 145-72.

Both texts are reprinted in Dits et écrits and appear, among other places, in volume 2 of Essential Works. There is also the discussion of Nietzsche in the first of the ‘Truth and Juridical Forms’ lectures given in Rio in May 1973 (in Dits et écrits and Essential Works, Volume 3).

Now, with the publication and translation of Lectures on the Will to Know, we have the text of a lecture from April 1971, given at McGill University. This lecture is given as an appendix to the course from the Collège de France, and stands in place of missing material. Part of the lecture of 16th December 1970 and the whole of the 23rd December 1970 lecture were on Nietzsche and are missing from the manuscript. The course editor Daniel Defert thinks this is because the pages were removed to be used as the basis for a lecture elsewhere. But not presumably the McGill lecture, which he says is only identifiable because of an additional page at the top, summarising key themes, written on hotel notepaper.

In his editorial material, Defert notes that Foucault lectured on Nietzsche at the University of Vincennes in the winter of 1969-70; then at SUNY Buffalo in March 1970, and then at McGill in April 1971. (In Buffalo Foucault also lectured on de Sade, lectures that are now published in La grande étrangère, on ‘What is an Author?’ and “the search for the absolute in Bouvard and Pécuchet”). Defert suggests that the outcome of these Nietzsche lectures “will be the long article: ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History'” (LWK 264/268).

Winter 1969-70 is late 1969 and early 1970, but in Dits et écrits Defert notes that Foucault gave a course on ‘Nietzsche and Genealogy’ in February 1969 – the previous academic year (Vol I, p. 34). He also notes that the tribute to Hyppolite, at the École Normale Supérieure, was held on 19th January 1969. This led to the Hommage à Jean Hyppolite volume, of which Foucault wrote the foreword (Dits et écrits text 67), and contributed a chapter, ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’ (text 84). The ‘foreword’ was originally published in Revue de métaphysique et de morale, Vol 74 No 2, 1969, pp. 131-6.

So, here are the three questions.

1. Did Foucault give two lecture courses at Vincennes, one in early 1969, and one in late 1969-early 70?

2. What was Foucault’s contribution to the 1969 Hyppolite tribute event? Was it [an early version of] ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’, or the text that became the ‘foreword’, or something else? [Defert categorically states that Foucault wrote the Nietzsche essay in 1971].

3. For what lecture did Foucault remove the 16 and 23 December 1970 manuscript pages  from the Collège de France course?

With the first question, it’s possible that there was only one course, or that it was repeated. With the second question, if he gave a lecture on Nietzsche at the event, then it pre-dates other known lectures, with the exception of ‘Nietzsche, Freud, Marx’, and so wasn’t the outcome of those other lectures, but their predecessor. If it wasn’t ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’ when was that text written [Defert says it was in 1971]? For the third question, on the basis of what we currently know, it’s unclear but the most likely candidate is the 21 May 1973 lecture in Rio – because the SUNY Buffalo lectures preceded the Collège de France course; while the McGill one appears to be different.

Here’s what it means in terms of the chronology:

19 January 1969, tribute to Hyppolite at the École Normale Supérieure

February 1969, lecture course on Nietzsche at University of Vincennes – unpublished

Winter 1969-70, lecture course on Nietzsche at University of Vincennes – unpublished

March 1970, lecture on Nietzsche at SUNY Buffalo – unpublished

16 Dec 1970, part of lecture on Nietzsche, Collège de France – removed from ms., now missing, presumed lost

23 Dec 1970 lecture on Nietzsche, Collège de France – removed from ms., now missing, presumed lost

April 1971, Lecture at McGill – ‘How to think the history of truth with Nietzsche without relying on truth’ (in Lectures on the Will to Know)

? 1971 ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’ published in Hyppolite volume.

21 May 1973, ‘Truth and Juridical Forms’ lectures in Rio begin – the first lecture is very close to the McGill lecture of April 1971 (and to the Collège de France lectures from December 1970?).

Any additional information, or corrections, would be appreciated.

Posted in Foucault's Last Decade, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean Hyppolite, Michel Foucault | 10 Comments

Academic writing

Some advice in the Times Higher Education.

Posted in Writing | 1 Comment

‘Global Urbanisation: Challenges and Prospects’ – call for papers

A panel at the Regional Studies Association conference at UCLA:

‘Global Urbanisation: Challenges and Prospects ‘

Monday 16th -Wednesday 18th December 2013

University of California, Los Angeles, USA

Submit your abstract to: Elizabeth.mitchell@regionalstudies.org

Call for papers open until 19th August

 

Posted in Conferences, urban/urbanisation | Leave a comment

Deleuze & Guattari: Democrats

Mark Purcell on Deleuze, Guattari, Lefebvre, democracy and space. A good intro to some of the themes in his new book. I recently wrote a review of the book which should be out later this year.

Mark Purcell's avatarPath to the Possible

Sorry for the delay in posting new things.  I have just returned from the Lisbon and the Deleuze Studies Conference, and Dublin and the AESOP/ACSP planning conference.  Here is the text of my talk at the Deleuze Studies conference, arguing that D&G are basically democrats (understood the way I understand democracy), but that Lefebvre is an essential addition to D&G if we want to think space well.

df

For Urban Democracy

Introduction

Deleuze and Guattari rarely use the word democracy. So it may seem strange at first that this paper argues that it is both possible and fruitful to read in their work a deep desire for democracy. When I say democracy, I don’t mean the liberal-democratic State with its elected representatives, parties, and laws. Rather I mean radical democracy, a democracy in which people directly manage their own affairs for themselves. Democracy as a form of life in which the…

View original post 2,070 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New Film on Paolo Virno

Mark Purcell with the news of a documentary on Paolo Virno.

Mark Purcell's avatarPath to the Possible

The producers of a new documentary on Paolo Virno, Marco Ugolini and Mário Gomes, have contacted me and asked that I reblog information on their project, which I am happy to do.  Information on their project is here.  They are also trying to crowdsource the funding, or at least part of it, on Indiegogo, and the link for that is here.  I am a big fan of Virno, and so increased attention to his work is a good thing, I think.

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment