I guess my question was does History of Sexuality volume 1 deserve to be
accused of generalizing a total world discourse of sexuality when it was
really focusing on just western discourses in the 18th and 19th centuries?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chetan Vemuri schreef:
> > Does anyone else think that the History of Sexuality volume 1 is
> > to generalize world sexuaity experiences or do you think it is
> > to analyze western sexuality rather than generalizing all experiences of
> > sexuality? Some postcolonial critics think it is wrong to not talk about
> > colonial discursive effects on eastern sexualities. I feel sometimes
> > approach Foucault too much as a universal thinker in the vein of thinkers
> > like Marx, rather than someone who is regionally focused.
> Hi Chetan,
> your question is very unspecific. I guess Foucault intended it to be an
> archeology of the discourses around sex. It's very hard to generalise an
> experience because an experience is specific and indivudalistic by
> nature. Foucault was not an expert on non-western discourses about sex
> neither pretended it to be. Colonial influences on sex are also not to
> be generalised, because each culture has dealt with colonial influences
> in it's own way. It's hard to say a.f.a.i.k. how much the present
> discourse about sex in India has been influenced by Victorian ideas
> about sex and what the influence of the Islamic Wahhabite movement was.
> And Marx was not an universal thinker, he was just as modern as
> Descartes or Rousseau.
> Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ejehms
> Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
> Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl
> Foucault-L mailing list
West Des Moines, IA
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the