Clarification on “Equipments of Power” and François Fourquet’s publication list

Although the two excerpts of discussions between Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, and Fourquet on “Equipments of Power” and the city have been translated in Foucault Live (Semiotext(e) 1996) there still seems to be some misunderstanding[1]. First, as Stuart Elden has noted, they are published in reverse order from how they appear in the second volume of Dits et écrits. In the Semiotext(e) volume, they appear thus, without any context — context which I am adding in brackets:

1.Establishing “Logical Categories” (105-108). [Text 130 in Dits et écrits, pages 183-6 in Recherches 13, from a discussion in September 1972]

2. Is the City a Productive or Anti-productive Force? (108-112).  [Text 129 in Dits et écrits, page 27-31 in Recherches 13, from a discussion in May 1972]

But perhaps even more interesting, these discussions are both responses to an essay by Fourquet and Lion Murard entitled “La Ville-Ordinateur” (The Computer-City) that opens the issue and which can be found here in French (perhaps in a somewhat revised form? I’m not sure yet). If this has been translated into English, I have not been able to find it. If this is the case, then I think I will do one (NB: I have completed a rough draft of the translation of Macherey’s “Foucault avec Deleuze” that I mentioned months ago, but still need to proofread and clean it up).

In his biography of Deleuze and Guattari, François Dosse (2010, 271) also weighs in on the importance of this issue of Recherches:

“The most important issue of the CERFI magazine, Recherches (Research), was the issue introducing a series on public works. It exemplified the claim the group was making for the social sciences.”

Finally, I wanted to share Fourquet’s publication list, because there seems to be a lot there for anyone interested in Deleuze and (to a greater degree) Guattari and the urban. I am obviously becoming very interested in translating, so if anyone out there would like to work together on some of this, please let me know.

[1] Primarily for me, but it seems like Simone Brott reads the English translation without grasping the order of events or the initial essay by Fourquet and Murard).