Re: reply to:Re: Basic info on Foucault for reading Bob Goss

> But something else: a third point of view???????
> Where does this stop?

Well...Jeroen, why do we need to STOP? What foundation fetish asserts a need to

>There will always be 'others' in a discourse
> decontructed like this. If we deconstruct the male/female dichotomy this
> way we create a new one between sexed and non-sexed people, if we try to
> look from a hermapphrodite perspective. I think the point Foucault tries to
> make (why he brings in the hermaphrodite) is because he wants to show how
> ridiculously important it seems to be for people to assign themselves a
> sex.

The idea is not to create a third position in a's not like 1,2,3!
We're talking about something else here, a third that challenges the binary. The
hermaphrodite challenges our dichotomies at a profound level. Butler uses the
drag queen to do the same thing.

> The only use for decontruction is to end a useless distinction, not to
> create even more useless distinctions. It is impossible to look at anything
> without making distinctions. If I look and see 'Male', I also see 'female'.
> The same way I can only distinguish 'black' by aknowleging 'white'.
> Foucault's point (I think) is: 'Stop looking!' Am I male or female? Who
> cares?

Oh, I disagree here. The idea is that we cannot simply STOP looking. And if we
can make clear distinctions--that is, if we can BELIEVE in our clear
distinctions--we WILL hierarchicalize them. We've proven our will to hierarchy.
D&G, Foucault, Butler, and a host of others suggest that we can move beyond
simple dichotomies...we can learn to think Other/Wise. (Not that we'll stop
thinking logically, but only that logic might be ONE language game among many
rather than THE language game.) We can see black IN white, male IN female; to
be, as Nietzsche said, Beyond Good and Evil is to be able re/cognize that there
is no such distinction.

> What I read in Foucaults work is not something he is saying, but something
> he is showing. His critique of the social sciences: they see black, they
> see white, they deconstruct it green, but if we look closely everything is
> grey (and boring). My point is: a green point of view is evenly unjust as a
> white point of view or a black point of view. Although it can be usefull to
> try, it makes no sense to truly believe we ever can escape this.
> /------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Jeroen van Dalen | |
> | | |
> | Amsterdam | |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------/

I don't think this is a close enough reading of affirmative deconstruction. The
"green" point of view is not, again, just one more perspective. It's not just
the third in a series. It's a new game's a step outside
logocentrism, if only for an instant. I think that's worth it.



D Diane Davis D
D Rhetoric and Composition D
D Old Dominion University D
D Norfolk, VA 23925 D
D e-ddress: dddavis@xxxxxxxx D


Partial thread listing: