Marco
I'm not sure this is where you mean, but look at 'On the Genealogy of
Ethics' in the Foucault Reader (its in Dits et ecrits too, but as a
translation of the English language interview). I think it might be in the
Dreyfus & Rabinow book 2nd edition too. Anyway, Foucault Reader, p 343:
'I am not looking for an alternative; you can't find the solution of a
problem in the solution of another problem raised at another moment by other
people. You see, what i want to do is not the history of solutions, and
that's the reason why i don't accept the word _alternative_. I would like to
do the genealogy of problems, of _problematiques_. My point is not that
everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly
the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something
to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic
activism'.
You could also check the 'Polemics, Politics and Problemisations' interview
in the same volume. There was a paper on problemisations in Radical
Philosophy a couple of issues back.
Best
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Abel <mxa174@xxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, October 18, 1999 21:45
Subject: problematization
>Hi there:
>Could anyone point me to the site where Foucault claims that
>problematization is always dangerous or risky. I believe it's in an
>interview, perhaps in the context of the question of resistance in his
>work. I seem to recall that he says something like problematization is
>a dangerous business, that this is his politics, but that others need to
>do their own work to resist, rather than relying on him for doing the
>work for them. I hope I'm not hallucinating all this.
>Thanks.
>Marco Abel
>
>--
>
>
>"Judgment prevents the emergence of any new mode of existence. . . .
>Herein, perhaps, lies the secret: to bring into existence and not to
>judge. If it is so disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is
>of equal value, but on the contrary because what has value can be made
>or distinguished only by defying judgment" (Gilles Deleuze).
>
>
>
>
I'm not sure this is where you mean, but look at 'On the Genealogy of
Ethics' in the Foucault Reader (its in Dits et ecrits too, but as a
translation of the English language interview). I think it might be in the
Dreyfus & Rabinow book 2nd edition too. Anyway, Foucault Reader, p 343:
'I am not looking for an alternative; you can't find the solution of a
problem in the solution of another problem raised at another moment by other
people. You see, what i want to do is not the history of solutions, and
that's the reason why i don't accept the word _alternative_. I would like to
do the genealogy of problems, of _problematiques_. My point is not that
everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly
the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something
to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic
activism'.
You could also check the 'Polemics, Politics and Problemisations' interview
in the same volume. There was a paper on problemisations in Radical
Philosophy a couple of issues back.
Best
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Abel <mxa174@xxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, October 18, 1999 21:45
Subject: problematization
>Hi there:
>Could anyone point me to the site where Foucault claims that
>problematization is always dangerous or risky. I believe it's in an
>interview, perhaps in the context of the question of resistance in his
>work. I seem to recall that he says something like problematization is
>a dangerous business, that this is his politics, but that others need to
>do their own work to resist, rather than relying on him for doing the
>work for them. I hope I'm not hallucinating all this.
>Thanks.
>Marco Abel
>
>--
>
>
>"Judgment prevents the emergence of any new mode of existence. . . .
>Herein, perhaps, lies the secret: to bring into existence and not to
>judge. If it is so disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is
>of equal value, but on the contrary because what has value can be made
>or distinguished only by defying judgment" (Gilles Deleuze).
>
>
>
>