I know, I said I was going to shut up, but this is too rich. Mani, you
can call me a Parisian dandy all you want but I can't let this one pass:
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Mani Salem-Haghighi wrote:
> Strictly speaking, this is false. Who do you have in mind when you speak
> of "those in power"? There is no one "in power", or better, everybody's
> "in power". See, for example, the chapter on Method in the first volume
> of the Histpry of Sexuality.
See, for example, the international division of labor instead. See, for
example, the CIA. See, for example, Wall Street. See, for example,
patriarchy and heterosexiam. "Strictly speaking" there may be no one "in
power," but this does not change the brute facts of power structures --
power may "circulate" rather than being "possessed," but this does not
change the fact that some people exert power wheereas others are objects
of power, pawns in political, economic, and, yes, military "games." You
really think there is no one "in power"? Tell that to Leonard Peltier.
Tell that to at least 100,000 slaughtered Iraqis. Tell it to slaughtered
Palestinians, Cambodians, Armenians, East Timorese, and Jews, for that
matter. Tell it to women in the sex trade. Etc., etc. Sorry if this
sounds like dandyism, but there is reality to deal with, regardless of
what some people think poststructuralism has done to reality.
Ben
PS -- my email is now working.
can call me a Parisian dandy all you want but I can't let this one pass:
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Mani Salem-Haghighi wrote:
> Strictly speaking, this is false. Who do you have in mind when you speak
> of "those in power"? There is no one "in power", or better, everybody's
> "in power". See, for example, the chapter on Method in the first volume
> of the Histpry of Sexuality.
See, for example, the international division of labor instead. See, for
example, the CIA. See, for example, Wall Street. See, for example,
patriarchy and heterosexiam. "Strictly speaking" there may be no one "in
power," but this does not change the brute facts of power structures --
power may "circulate" rather than being "possessed," but this does not
change the fact that some people exert power wheereas others are objects
of power, pawns in political, economic, and, yes, military "games." You
really think there is no one "in power"? Tell that to Leonard Peltier.
Tell that to at least 100,000 slaughtered Iraqis. Tell it to slaughtered
Palestinians, Cambodians, Armenians, East Timorese, and Jews, for that
matter. Tell it to women in the sex trade. Etc., etc. Sorry if this
sounds like dandyism, but there is reality to deal with, regardless of
what some people think poststructuralism has done to reality.
Ben
PS -- my email is now working.