Cordelia, I always wonder about the usefulness of such a break. Critical
thinking long predated the Enlightenment even if it was not called
deconstruction or whatever. Post modernism existed before Foucault. As for
judging/evaluating, Primo Levi made the point that "We cannot judge our
behavior or that of others, driven at that time by the code of that time, on
the basis of today's code." How do we approach such a question?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cordelia Chu" <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
To: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:42 PM
Subject: RE: Problematizing
> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
thinking long predated the Enlightenment even if it was not called
deconstruction or whatever. Post modernism existed before Foucault. As for
judging/evaluating, Primo Levi made the point that "We cannot judge our
behavior or that of others, driven at that time by the code of that time, on
the basis of today's code." How do we approach such a question?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cordelia Chu" <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
To: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:42 PM
Subject: RE: Problematizing
> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>