On Tue, Jun 11, 1996 9:56:00 AM, Spoon Collective wrote:
Miles Jackson rightly points out the banality of the "who's left out" game.
He's not the first to make this observation: Rush Limbaugh has been
talking about this for years.
And they're both right!!! The question is, how can we seriously pose a
question concerning Foucault's treatment of the historical question of
sexuality which gives only a secondary consideration to the relations
between the genders (and the objectification of women in) a way that avoids
the pitfalls of this easy tendency.
To my mind, the question first has to be clarified: WHAT is foucault
omitting. the agency of women? the insitutionalization of gender
oppression through objectification and exploitation? (perhaps a feminist
critic, or someone who has read one on this topic can jump in and clarify
this).
Having done this, we can be pose the question in two ways: 1) Given that
the this relation between genders exercised such a powerful effect on the
formation of sexuality throughtout the west, its omission renders the
project uneven, vague and obscure (just the way an omission of developments
in 19th century sexology would have crippled his project)
2) Foucault should not leave out women because it prepetuates a misogynist
historiography. Women (like people of color...) SHOULD be represented, and
he fails to do that.
these are two very different charges against foucault. The first is
obviously more defendable than the second, but I'm not sure I would abandon
the second entirely, in spite of Rush's pointed criticism.
sb
Miles Jackson rightly points out the banality of the "who's left out" game.
He's not the first to make this observation: Rush Limbaugh has been
talking about this for years.
And they're both right!!! The question is, how can we seriously pose a
question concerning Foucault's treatment of the historical question of
sexuality which gives only a secondary consideration to the relations
between the genders (and the objectification of women in) a way that avoids
the pitfalls of this easy tendency.
To my mind, the question first has to be clarified: WHAT is foucault
omitting. the agency of women? the insitutionalization of gender
oppression through objectification and exploitation? (perhaps a feminist
critic, or someone who has read one on this topic can jump in and clarify
this).
Having done this, we can be pose the question in two ways: 1) Given that
the this relation between genders exercised such a powerful effect on the
formation of sexuality throughtout the west, its omission renders the
project uneven, vague and obscure (just the way an omission of developments
in 19th century sexology would have crippled his project)
2) Foucault should not leave out women because it prepetuates a misogynist
historiography. Women (like people of color...) SHOULD be represented, and
he fails to do that.
these are two very different charges against foucault. The first is
obviously more defendable than the second, but I'm not sure I would abandon
the second entirely, in spite of Rush's pointed criticism.
sb