From: "Kevin Turner" <k.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:04:18 +0100
I did not mean to conflate dispositif and grid of intelligibility, or to
suggest that they were isomorphic; nor did I mean to imply that the later
was the definition of the former: 'only that which has no history can be
One the one hand, I wanted to know if the English "grid of
intelligibility" was a direct translation of the French "grille
d'intelligibilitÃ©" (thanks to FranÃ§ois for the correct translation); and,
more importantly, if the former was a translation of Foucaultâ??s use of the
later, or whether various translators (i.e. David Macy SMBD: 171, 226-236)
had translated "dispositif" as "grid of intelligibility."
On the other hand, I was interested in the relationality between
"dispositif" and "grid of intelligibility." Here, I think that a
"dispositif" can be understood as an "analytical grid," a "field (or
network) of comprehensibility," proposed by the researcher for the
analysis of a particular strategic assemblage of discursive and
non-discursive tactics: a "grid of intelligibility" which the researcher
is consciously posing from a perspectivist position within the ensemble of
practices s/he aims to study. Maybe in this way, and following Stuart
Elden (Mapping the Present: 110ff), the notion of dispositif is relatable
to Heideggerâ??s understanding of "ge-stell:" "enframing"?
Regards â?? Kevin.
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:08:20 +0930, David McInerney
> Kevin Turner wrote:
>> are they so very different?
>> the reason i asked about dreyfus and rabinow's rendering of dispositif
>> as grid of intelligibility is that they state that a 'dispositif is,
>> of course, a grid of analysis constructed by the historian' (121). as
>> such, a dispositif is both an apparatus or deployment that is being
>> analysed, and the means by which, and through which, such a
>> decipherment is carried out.
> Might this just be taken to mean that 'dispositif' is a 'concept'? It
> doesn't read to me as a definition of dispositif.
Dept. of Sociology