> there a feminine sexuality free from the discourse
> that remains to be liberated,
> or is the notion of a unique 'feminine sexuality' a
> means of control in
i believe it functions as a means of control, but does
it's function as such deny it an identity prior to
discourse? i guess this recalls the recent quotation
of foucault's assertion that there is no subject prior
to power. in foucauldian analysis, can we read
feminine sexuality as the subject that does not exist
prior to power (i.e. the dominant discourse) which
defines it and may so happen to function as a 'means
of control in itself?'
personally, i would tend to think that, as richard
said, when no one is looking at you, you still exist.
while your looking-glass self may be a means of
defining identity, it is not the sole one...similarly,
power is an essential defining force, but i disagree
if foucault's assertion is that power is the sole
defining force. but then again, i think a lot of
silly things sometimes. any thoughts??
> --- 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)
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!