A new one for me! What is pomosexual?
His "chauve" head stricken some as sexy but pomosexual?
I hope you don't mind me fooling around. i am a dissertator waiting for my
prof. comments since few months ago, in other word, i m going N U T S !
>from crazy to the lazy!
At 07:23 PM 10/20/96 -0400, M. Crane wrote:
>I'm far too lazy to go into detail, but it would seem that Foucault's
>"Discourse on Language" in _The Archeology of Language_ has a decidedly
>postmodern feel to it, in that it privileges language over the modernist
>individual (at least in my reading of it). And he seems to be saying in
>a lot of his work that most of the structures that have been
>traditionally read as being "universal" and apriori are really historical
>constructs. Does that count as being pomo? Was Foucault a Pomosexual?
>U. of Louisville
>Lowly Grad. student
>On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Ferda Keskin wrote:
>> >Discussion on this list has to be provoked. There is a simple
>> >technique. You begin with a controversial claim, like "Foucault is a
>> >Marxist," or "Foucault is a conservative," or "Foucault is a liberal."
>> >Then you supply an argument, or a quotation, to justify your claim.
>> >And then you encourage people who disagree to try to convince you that
>> >you are mistaken.
>> >Speaking of controversial interpretations of Foucault: I think
>> >Foucault is so far from being a "post-modernist" that he has much more
>> >in common with Immanuel Kant than he does with, say, Lyotard or
>> >Derrida (not that I would admit that Derrida is a postmodernist).
>> >I don't have time to justify this, but perhaps those who have read
>> >Foucault's "What is Enlightenment?," or, say, Ian Hacking's
>> >"Self-improvement" (in FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER), can anticipate
>> >the sort of justification I would give.
>> >I'm really curious: what is it about Foucault that makes him something
>> >other than a characteristically "modern" thinker?
>> I completely agree that Foucault is not "postmodern"..
>> As a matter of fact, in "What is Enlightenment" he describes his
>> attitude as the attitude of modernity, very much in the fashion of
>> Baudelaire and, to a certain extent, of Kant.
>> I think this point can be substantiated by looking at how the
>> the limit attitude he mentions in "What is E." fits in the general
>> account Foucault gives of his work in the Introduction to The Use
>> of Pleasure ( a slightly different earlier version of that account
>> can also be found in The Foucault Reader, pp.33-339).
>University of Louisville
Az Khak Bar'amadim-o- Bar Khak Shodym