mapping domination

Antony, I am a little confused. When you say "such a break", do you mean
classification of
thinking/ attitude into periods? Or classifying subjects into discipline
(philosophy, psychology,
psychiatry, politic etc)? Or, do you mean labeling Foucault as "philosopher/
theorist/ activist/
nihilist/ goldfish" etc? Or... something else entirely?

I think there is a lot of truth to what you said about critical thinking and
postmodernity; I also
agree that these "breaks" might not be accurate/ useful at all. On the other
hand, I cannot imagine
how difficult it would be to understand history of thoughts, or just to make
sense of our world, if
we don't somehow lump things into categories and give them labels. It becomes
a little more
dangerous when these categories are arbitrarily constructed and handed down to
us as "fact".

Anyway, back on topic. * Maybe * it is impossible to map 'mechanisms of
domination' in 'all their
complexity', but I think it is possible and important to map domination to
some extand.

Pierre is both insane and criminal by our society's language. Pierre is (I
assume) unable to reason
by his nature ("insane"); but he is forced to take up discourses constructed
by the "reasonable",
and identify himself/ confess to be a "monster created by the system". His
right to think
differently (unreasonably) is stripped from him; and at the end he chose
suicide. Was his self-
destruction a result of dominating discourse?

The homosexual's right to express his "life purpose" is also oppressed
(History of Sexuality v.1);
but that't not just history, the discourse we use nowadays is no less
oppressive; the use and
construction of AIDS discourse to coerce heterosexuality is very much real in
Japan, right now.
when I first read Foucault's discipline and punish, I felt as if he is
constructing a picture of verbal
lobotomy that we all condoned by not resisting.

But could Pierre escape the discourse of his own time? Can we challenge the
discourse handed
down to us? Some very important big guy says something like, "you cannot
think what you cannot
speak", are we confined to think within what our discourse allows?

I don't know, I think I am depressed ;_; (j/k)


>===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>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>;
>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
>> other discipline.
>> Psychology emerged out of a modern society that demands progress and
>> 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
>> 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
>> >to do is that psychology was a unifying discipline whereas Foucault's
>> >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
>> >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
>> >to try though - I mean, the more we know about the particular subject,
>> >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
>> >>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
>> >>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
>> >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
>> >to
>> >>be part of the "politics", and that his role is to map out the mechanism
>> >>domination in all its complexity in order to provoke resistance and
>> >>and
>> >>uncertainties. He also claim that his goal is to effect a societal
>> >>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
>> >>>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
>> >>> himself problematized
>> >>> the discourse/ history of these issues? (pretending that these
>> >>>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
>> >>to
>> >>> be
>> >>> >a problem. Hence, our society problematizes sexuality, whereas
>> >>> >societies did not, or at least did so in a different way.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Mark
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>

Partial thread listing: