What then would you make of a history of "sexuality" which is not equally
inclusive of "women"? We don't even have to ask whether or not it is
sexist in order to ask what kind of history is this. If it bears on the
matter, I am not attempting to criticize Foucault. Instead, I'm more
interested in the interpretations.
[remainder edited]
=====================================
What would be the methodology of this history? In Foucault's sense,
this kind of history is not possible; he does not practice history.
By history, I mean a particular methodological orientation. The
truth is HS is a genealogy of sexuality, and not a history of
sexuality, and genealogy's presuppositions are not structured by
exclusionary binarities. The notion of the "other" (gender, race,
ethnicity) is not necessarily what genealogy excludes. It is not even
its concern.
inclusive of "women"? We don't even have to ask whether or not it is
sexist in order to ask what kind of history is this. If it bears on the
matter, I am not attempting to criticize Foucault. Instead, I'm more
interested in the interpretations.
[remainder edited]
=====================================
What would be the methodology of this history? In Foucault's sense,
this kind of history is not possible; he does not practice history.
By history, I mean a particular methodological orientation. The
truth is HS is a genealogy of sexuality, and not a history of
sexuality, and genealogy's presuppositions are not structured by
exclusionary binarities. The notion of the "other" (gender, race,
ethnicity) is not necessarily what genealogy excludes. It is not even
its concern.