> =====================================
> What would be the methodology of this history?
excellent question. How are we to understand this methodology?
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.
I agree that Foucault is doing a genealogy of sexuality. Yet it does not
escape my attention that the title of the *series* is a "history".
Foucault has told us of archaelogy and of genealogy, but hasn't he only
referred to "history" in terms of the those two terms prior to this work?
What is it to do a history of sexuality rather than a Genealogy of
Sexuality, a name which he might have entitled it instead if he were so
inclined.
> What would be the methodology of this history?
excellent question. How are we to understand this methodology?
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.
I agree that Foucault is doing a genealogy of sexuality. Yet it does not
escape my attention that the title of the *series* is a "history".
Foucault has told us of archaelogy and of genealogy, but hasn't he only
referred to "history" in terms of the those two terms prior to this work?
What is it to do a history of sexuality rather than a Genealogy of
Sexuality, a name which he might have entitled it instead if he were so
inclined.