Antony, I think psychology and Foucaultian projects emerged in different
epoch; I am not ready to judge whether one is more valid/ possible than the
other discipline.
Psychology emerged out of a modern society that demands progress and "secular
knowledge" that are then used to construct and organize "reality".
Foucaultian projects more or less reflect and feed to (or construct) the
post-modern attitude that express distrust over metanarratives. I think of
dispersal and discontinuity as, more or less, a marker of Foucault's time.
-Cordelia
>===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>Cordelia, I think the difference between psychology and what Foucault tried
>to do is that psychology was a unifying discipline whereas Foucault's work
>dealt with dispersal and discontinuity.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Cordelia Chu" <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
>To: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:23 PM
>Subject: RE: Problematizing
>
>
>Hi Antony
>
>I think you have a good point, and I would love to see more comments on how
>successful Foucault is perceived to be. However, "human behavior" is no
>less
>complex than domination mechanism; but that never stopped human from
>creating
>the discipline called "psychology".
>
>I personally think Foucault has not yet created a complete map, just like
>philosophy has not draft out a coherent map of "truth" and "wisdom"; and
>psychologist have not completely mapped "animal behabiors". It wouldn't hurt
>to try though - I mean, the more we know about the particular subject, the
>more we can control, discipline, surveillance and organize the society
>toward
>"utopia", we all agree, yes? (please don't take me seriously)
>
>regards,
>-Cordelia
>
>>===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>>I imagine that he set himself an impossible task - mapping out the
>mechanism
>>of domination in all its complexity - did he not think this was beyond him
>>as to do so would be to impose a macro representation on what were
>>essentially disparate and dispersed micro practices?
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Cordelia Chu" <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
>>To: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:59 PM
>>Subject: RE: Problematizing
>>
>>
>>I can't remember, he might have rejected the theorist label, but Foucault
>>has
>>morph'ed so many times in his career, it's hard to say he never was a
>>theorist. Besides ... just because he claims he is not one, doesn't mean
>he
>>is more right than those who label him as such ;-) (for that matter,
>>Foucault
>>also, at some point, rejected the "philosopher" label, the "anarchist"
>>label,
>>among others)
>>
>>Back to "problematize"... I seem to recall Foucault saying that he refuse
>to
>>be part of the "politics", and that his role is to map out the mechanism of
>>domination in all its complexity in order to provoke resistance and doubts
>>and
>>uncertainties. He also claim that his goal is to effect a societal change
>>much more profound than redrafting the law.
>>
>>-raccoon
>>
>>>===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>>>Does he not reject being labelled a theorist insisting that he is an
>>>experimenter?
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "claudius" <claudius.laumanns@xxxxxx>
>>>To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 7:46 PM
>>>Subject: AW: Problematizing
>>>
>>>
>>> He says he is a theorist of the new social movements. So he lookes at
>>the
>>> prison riots, the feminists, the anti- medical movement etc. to see at
>>>which
>>> point of oppression they start to problemize. Further his thesis is that
>>>you
>>> can`t devide between power an knowledge. So he thinks that his ability
>to
>>> problemize as a theorist is a function of these attacks against
>>oppression
>>> (or is it domination??? I am not a native speaker, too)
>>>
>>> Claudius
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von
>>Cordelia
>>> Chu
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 6. Dezember 2003 20:26
>>> An: Mark Kelly; foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Betreff: RE: Problematizing
>>>
>>>
>>> It comes as a shock to me too O_O I just notice I searched under
>>> 'problematise', which is why the
>>> word is not found.
>>>
>>> Moving onto a slightly more general question: did Foucault simply
>pointed
>>> out
>>> that our society
>>> problematized sexuality / homosexuality / madness etc? Or, did Foucault
>>> himself problematized
>>> the discourse/ history of these issues? (pretending that these subjects
>>>are
>>> not seen as "problems"
>>> before Foucault pointed it out)
>>>
>>> -Cordelia
>>>
>>> >===== Original Message From "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>>> >The OED definition: problematize, v. Obs. rare-1. [f. as prec. + -ize.]
>>> >intr. To propound problems.
>>> >First recorded in 1630, which comes as a shock to me - I'd always
>>thought
>>> it
>>> >had been invented be Foucault, or rather his translators. In
>Foucauldian
>>> >usage, I recognise it, with Larry, as meaning when one takes something
>>to
>>> be
>>> >a problem. Hence, our society problematizes sexuality, whereas previous
>>> >societies did not, or at least did so in a different way.
>>> >
>>> >Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
epoch; I am not ready to judge whether one is more valid/ possible than the
other discipline.
Psychology emerged out of a modern society that demands progress and "secular
knowledge" that are then used to construct and organize "reality".
Foucaultian projects more or less reflect and feed to (or construct) the
post-modern attitude that express distrust over metanarratives. I think of
dispersal and discontinuity as, more or less, a marker of Foucault's time.
-Cordelia
>===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>Cordelia, I think the difference between psychology and what Foucault tried
>to do is that psychology was a unifying discipline whereas Foucault's work
>dealt with dispersal and discontinuity.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Cordelia Chu" <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
>To: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:23 PM
>Subject: RE: Problematizing
>
>
>Hi Antony
>
>I think you have a good point, and I would love to see more comments on how
>successful Foucault is perceived to be. However, "human behavior" is no
>less
>complex than domination mechanism; but that never stopped human from
>creating
>the discipline called "psychology".
>
>I personally think Foucault has not yet created a complete map, just like
>philosophy has not draft out a coherent map of "truth" and "wisdom"; and
>psychologist have not completely mapped "animal behabiors". It wouldn't hurt
>to try though - I mean, the more we know about the particular subject, the
>more we can control, discipline, surveillance and organize the society
>toward
>"utopia", we all agree, yes? (please don't take me seriously)
>
>regards,
>-Cordelia
>
>>===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>>I imagine that he set himself an impossible task - mapping out the
>mechanism
>>of domination in all its complexity - did he not think this was beyond him
>>as to do so would be to impose a macro representation on what were
>>essentially disparate and dispersed micro practices?
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Cordelia Chu" <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
>>To: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:59 PM
>>Subject: RE: Problematizing
>>
>>
>>I can't remember, he might have rejected the theorist label, but Foucault
>>has
>>morph'ed so many times in his career, it's hard to say he never was a
>>theorist. Besides ... just because he claims he is not one, doesn't mean
>he
>>is more right than those who label him as such ;-) (for that matter,
>>Foucault
>>also, at some point, rejected the "philosopher" label, the "anarchist"
>>label,
>>among others)
>>
>>Back to "problematize"... I seem to recall Foucault saying that he refuse
>to
>>be part of the "politics", and that his role is to map out the mechanism of
>>domination in all its complexity in order to provoke resistance and doubts
>>and
>>uncertainties. He also claim that his goal is to effect a societal change
>>much more profound than redrafting the law.
>>
>>-raccoon
>>
>>>===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>>>Does he not reject being labelled a theorist insisting that he is an
>>>experimenter?
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "claudius" <claudius.laumanns@xxxxxx>
>>>To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 7:46 PM
>>>Subject: AW: Problematizing
>>>
>>>
>>> He says he is a theorist of the new social movements. So he lookes at
>>the
>>> prison riots, the feminists, the anti- medical movement etc. to see at
>>>which
>>> point of oppression they start to problemize. Further his thesis is that
>>>you
>>> can`t devide between power an knowledge. So he thinks that his ability
>to
>>> problemize as a theorist is a function of these attacks against
>>oppression
>>> (or is it domination??? I am not a native speaker, too)
>>>
>>> Claudius
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von
>>Cordelia
>>> Chu
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 6. Dezember 2003 20:26
>>> An: Mark Kelly; foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Betreff: RE: Problematizing
>>>
>>>
>>> It comes as a shock to me too O_O I just notice I searched under
>>> 'problematise', which is why the
>>> word is not found.
>>>
>>> Moving onto a slightly more general question: did Foucault simply
>pointed
>>> out
>>> that our society
>>> problematized sexuality / homosexuality / madness etc? Or, did Foucault
>>> himself problematized
>>> the discourse/ history of these issues? (pretending that these subjects
>>>are
>>> not seen as "problems"
>>> before Foucault pointed it out)
>>>
>>> -Cordelia
>>>
>>> >===== Original Message From "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>>> >The OED definition: problematize, v. Obs. rare-1. [f. as prec. + -ize.]
>>> >intr. To propound problems.
>>> >First recorded in 1630, which comes as a shock to me - I'd always
>>thought
>>> it
>>> >had been invented be Foucault, or rather his translators. In
>Foucauldian
>>> >usage, I recognise it, with Larry, as meaning when one takes something
>>to
>>> be
>>> >a problem. Hence, our society problematizes sexuality, whereas previous
>>> >societies did not, or at least did so in a different way.
>>> >
>>> >Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>