McIntyre,
Do you know much about Deleuze & Guattari's lines of flight? Are they
a break?
nils
On 07/12/2003, at 8:32 PM, McIntyre wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Do you know much about Deleuze & Guattari's lines of flight? Are they
a break?
nils
On 07/12/2003, at 8:32 PM, McIntyre wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>