How about we talk about Foucault?! Yaaayyy!
So! I'm a Francophone, I love Foucault, I read lots about him. I found it interesting that the English translation was The Order of Things, but en francais, it's "the words and things." I think that the latter is more appropriate. Do you??
And I wanna continue the question that Dr. Tiff asked in class... do you think that the Age of Resemblences or the Classical Age is a more accurate way of thinking and operating? I gave my answer in class. I think maybe it's both happening simultaneously, the natural world being an undertone and the way humans develop just adds layers of order, but it doesn't cancel out the natural world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Woah, I didn't know you were a Francophone, that's pretty cool.:)... Anyways back to the topic at hand... "words and things" I think that the literal translate could be more appropriate as well. I feel the "words" part refers to the "order" that modern scientists have created through the the various words they use to classify everything that exists. The "things" portion of the translation could refer to nature as it exists without the influence of human knowledge and classification. These things just exist. Nature and its beauty remains intact and untainted.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess to make this post better... Why is everything having to do with power subjective?? I mean, why can't government be as simple as a math equation?? You can't always expect that risk = probability *consequence.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm asking is, why are there changes in the way people think?? Like the shift between Foucault's Age Of Resemblance to the Classical Age.
From the discussion in class I believe that the best name is indeed the translated name. Since almost his entire artifact is arguing how scientific thought has changed over time, it makes sense, to me atleast, for it to be named "The Order of Things." However, I do not know how much of a difference there is between the translation of the entire work and the original work. I could be entirely off base, because Foucault really did a marvelous job confusing me, but from the discussion in class I definitely believe the translated version is more effective.
ReplyDeleteI think the effectiveness of a translation has more to do with how closely it resembles what the author meant to say. Since all languages have some inherent difference in meaning, it's never quite possible to replicate the book in its original form. For example, in my 12 grade IB English class, we read The President, a translated Spanish novel. In Spanish, the beginning has a lot of alliteration, and in English, you just don't get the same effect. With any translation, you can either go for the meaning, or go for what was actually said. I prefer it when a translator goes for what was said, because if you go word by word, you may get awkward sentences or phrases.
ReplyDeleteAs for Alli's posts, people change the way they think based on what has been presented to them. Like Europeans went from believing they were right in everything to respecting other cultures. It's an inevitable process, as more and more discoveries are made. It may not always be for the best, but unless you want people to become unthinking mindless drone then free thought and all the consequences of that is necessary (sort of like 1984).
I think the literal translation is more appropriate. When I see "the words and things" I picture "language and signs" and how they point to knowledge. We use words and signs to transfer knowledge. And with knowledge comes power. "Words and things" are how we communicate and how we grow. "The Order of Things" just does not do the work justice. As Rachel said, we can never get the actual effect Foucault is trying to get across.
ReplyDelete