Nils, sorry but can't help you there
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nils Crompton" <nilscrompton@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Problematizing
> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nils Crompton" <nilscrompton@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Problematizing
> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>