From: "David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:49:57 +1030
>From memory Deleuze's "What is a dispositif?" in the collection _Michel
Foucault: Philosopher_ was useful for Deleuze's thinking on this issue of
the "lines of flight" relative to Foucault.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nils Crompton" <nilscrompton@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Problematizing
> Hi people,
> I can relate to your suggestions Cordelia. I think the separation from
> your culture that rk mention is a really crucial point to discuss.
> What constitutes a separation? Does critical intervention require
> I've always thought that the radical changes sought by Foucault (and
> other poststructuralists) go beyond yearning for an outside to any
> particular cultural formation. I suppose I follow the line that all
> attempts to move 'outside' are flawed in that they create a new inside;
> validated by its opposition to the 'bad' old inside until of course
> they turn bad too. Perfect example on a macro scale is 'liberating'
> iraq, (though perhaps few thought it legitimate in the first place).
> Saddam = bad, US oust Saddam, US takes over his palaces as their
> command centers - go figure.
> In sum, escape is its own discourse. But by no means does it need to
> be the same discourse. To deconstruct a discourse, to denaturalize a
> system of power et al don't need an 'outside' to operate, and are
> surely far more radical than oppositional politics?
> On the other hand, I've recently read a bit on 'lines of flight' - can
> anyone relate Deleuze & Guattari's analysis of power structures and
> resistance to Foulcault's?
> I also read once that Derrida claimed that opposition is always the
> first step to problematise any hegemony...
> Re., people who are perceived as outsiders by the system. I totally
> agree, that is a huge factor in marginalisation, women and patriarchy,
> physical and mental 'deviants' vs the medical norm, etc... They are
> seen to be outside of the logic of the norm.
> I'd say that the threat of these subjectivity's is more radical than
> 'outside-ness' for outside-ness amounts to equivilance. Rather, it is
> their reconfiguration of what is inside and outside that is most
> 'dangerous' to systems of power. The fear of the other guarantees that
> it is never truly separate but rather an internal complication - a
> hemorrhaging. It is the struggle to draw the line between insane and
> sane that is its violence.
> Perhaps it is the binary logic of inside/outside that must be
> On 07/12/2003, at 12:05 PM, Cordelia Chu wrote:
> > Hi rk,
> > That's great, which leads me to other questions:
> > 1) is it possible to remove yourself from your culture? And if
> > partially so,
> > to what extend?
> > Foucault speaks of Pierre Riviere as a person who is caught in
> > discourse
> > beyond himself, and narrated his suicide in prison, which I take to
> > imply a
> > certain causal effect. (Foucault did not explicitly state that
> > "trapped in
> > discourse beyond self" causes "suicide", it's just my own perception).
> > If
> > Pierre's action/ destruction is indeed an effect of culture/ discourse
> > of his
> > own time, is there any way he (or we) can escape from that discourse?
> > 2) and if it is possible to remove (or to some extend remove) oneself
> > from his
> > own culture/ discourse - would that make the person a threat to the
> > society,
> > since he is no longer disciplined and controlled by the governing
> > agent?
> > -Cordelia
> >> ===== Original Message From PsycheCulture@xxxxxx =====
> >> In a message dated 12/6/03 1:12:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >> francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >>> On problematization
> >> Perhaps this means to begin to call into question that which
> >> had been
> >> taken for granted.
> >> When you are totally immersed within a culture, you embrace
> >> certain
> >> ideas, modes of being and behavior as "truth."
> >> As you begin to separate from a culture, one may wish to call
> >> into
> >> question certain ideas or modes of being, to recognize that they
> >> arise out of
> > a
> >> particular discourse at a particular moment in history.
> >> It seems to me that one has to be motivated to problematize
> >> something:
> >> the idea or institution is bothering you, functioning in a destructive
> >> manner, so you wish to "call it into question," begin to deconstruct
> >> the
> > discourse,
> >> move it from being an "absolute" to something that can be questioned.
> >> rk
> >> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> >> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
> >> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> >> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> >> multipart/alternative
> >> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >> text/html
> >> ---
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> text/plain (text body -- kept)