>Er...no. Because most humans tend to reproduce themselves and this is
>done with the 'opposite' sex, doesn't imply that 'heterosexuality is the
>dominant discursive formation'. Ancient Greek 'heterosexuality' was quite
>different from modern heterosexuality in terms of discourse, even if it
>did also involve baby-making. So is Pathan 'heterosexuality' and so is
>!Kung 'heterosexuality'. Here again it seem useful to distinguish between
>the biological and the discursive (which of course includes the
>discourses of 'biology' the science).
>
>Call me old-fashioned.
>
>Dave Hugh-Jones
>
but if you distinguish between the biological and the discursive you are
distinguishing one discourse from all other discourses. that is
distinguishing a discourse from discourse not a discourse from a nondiscourse.
Ask the Pathan, the !Kung, the ancient greeks, the Maya, the whomever that
is not western -- take a poll among the New Guineans, for example! -- and
see if they also distinguish between the discursive and the biological?
I imagine that few use the discourse of biology (or chromosomes, christian
ethics of normal sex, or...) to talk about what you (and many others from a
specific sociohistorical cultural frame) TALK about as "biology" as a
reality outside and beyond/separate from these other nonbiological discourses.
the "problem" (i have with) with your argument is that you rely on a
presupposed distinction to prove the truthfulness of that distinction as
well also rely upon interlocuter's acceptance of such a "real" versus
"linguistic" distinction. its circular. and a question of faith. there is
something different than discourse, and thus discourse is not this which is
already assumed to be different from it.
that reproduction happens is not "proof" enough of biology as the ultimate
real of sex. or that sex is biological. to assume that sex is a
biological-natural _____(fill in the blank) is to make a specific kind of
cultural-social assertion. sex itself is a cultural-discursive formation.
its not the existence of trees that makes wooden tables. nor houses made of
wood. nor the existence of quarks that makes atom bombs, nor does it make
the theories of quarks. it is humans in forms of social collectivity that
make these "things". Has anyone read Kurt Vonnegut's VENUS ON A HALFSHELL?
I am not going to argue its value as literature, but as anthropology, well
you know he did study at chicago (i believe) until he got tired of academic
discipline and one world he depicts in his science fiction (supposedly
authored by one of his characters, Kilgore Trout) is a world in which there
are 7 sex/genders all of which are defined precisely in relation to their
NECESSARY ROLE in reproduction. Huh? yes, seven sex/genders each absolutely
necessary for reproduction. Indeed, for most these 7 would not qualify
within a binary cultural logic of sex/gender as natural sexes; from that
cultural perspective those are "genders"-- sociocultural roles/behavioural
forms-- but the argument suggests indeed that reproduction is not, has never
occurred outside of the context of any sociality/cultural/discursive
formation....
I will stop this argument/example and await the backlash response...
later.
q.