On Mon, Jun 10, 1996 10:20:21 PM, Dan Harrison wrote:
>In other words, I think that the BEST thing that
>CAN EVER come out of this list would beto quote Foucault and his various
(or
>related) texts, or those written about him. This will certainly take less
>time than coming up with inane things to say on a regular basis, and will
>also prove to be more enlightening.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. I mean, many of us already own the
books. Why do we need computers and stuff if we're just going to send
eachother little quotes?
I'm more interested in looking at the question of how feminists react to
Foucault (as if there were one single feminist reaction). I'll pose a
simple question, which I believe is often direced at Hist Sex vol I. How
is it possible to write a history of sexuality which barely mentions women?
With the exception of one or two pages, Foucault gives little space to a
consideration of a "sex/gender system" in which power is unevenly
distributed between genders. Is this an oversight which makes it
impossible to take the book seriously?
============
I think feminists read too much into Foucault's work, and I somehow
have the uncomfortable feeling that they
expected him to cover their political concerns, legitimate as they are.
However, to accuse Foucault of neglecting to engage with the
sex/gender system is not in itself a legitimate criticism. (The
positive thing is to see Foucault's analyses as an invitation to carry
out the kind of work which his theoretical framework makes possible).
In my view, the question of the relationship between Foucault and feminisms is
not of neglect; it is not a substantial question, but it is a question
of the practice of critique and methodology (genealogy/archaeology).
The effects of these are realized in the question of the political
character of Foucault's work. Are feminists prepared to accept the implications of
Foucault's critique of power and his formulation of power relations,
of which sexuality (and to specify the gender-form of sexuality is
irrelevant here) is a critical part?
>In other words, I think that the BEST thing that
>CAN EVER come out of this list would beto quote Foucault and his various
(or
>related) texts, or those written about him. This will certainly take less
>time than coming up with inane things to say on a regular basis, and will
>also prove to be more enlightening.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. I mean, many of us already own the
books. Why do we need computers and stuff if we're just going to send
eachother little quotes?
I'm more interested in looking at the question of how feminists react to
Foucault (as if there were one single feminist reaction). I'll pose a
simple question, which I believe is often direced at Hist Sex vol I. How
is it possible to write a history of sexuality which barely mentions women?
With the exception of one or two pages, Foucault gives little space to a
consideration of a "sex/gender system" in which power is unevenly
distributed between genders. Is this an oversight which makes it
impossible to take the book seriously?
============
I think feminists read too much into Foucault's work, and I somehow
have the uncomfortable feeling that they
expected him to cover their political concerns, legitimate as they are.
However, to accuse Foucault of neglecting to engage with the
sex/gender system is not in itself a legitimate criticism. (The
positive thing is to see Foucault's analyses as an invitation to carry
out the kind of work which his theoretical framework makes possible).
In my view, the question of the relationship between Foucault and feminisms is
not of neglect; it is not a substantial question, but it is a question
of the practice of critique and methodology (genealogy/archaeology).
The effects of these are realized in the question of the political
character of Foucault's work. Are feminists prepared to accept the implications of
Foucault's critique of power and his formulation of power relations,
of which sexuality (and to specify the gender-form of sexuality is
irrelevant here) is a critical part?