>Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 10:49:42 +0100
>To:Mbayiha Rene-Claude <mbayihar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From:E.Tulle-Winton@xxxxxxxxxx (Emmanuelle Tulle-Winton)
>Subject:Re: rape
>
>>"on peut toujours tenir le discours theorique qui consiste a dire: de toute
>>facon la sexualite ne peut en aucun cas etre objet de punition. Et quand on
>>punit le viol on doit punir exclusivement la violence physique. Et dire que
>>ce n'est rien de plus qu'une agression, et rien d'autre: que l'on foute son
>>coup
>>de poing dans la gueule de quelqu'un, ou son penis dans le sexe, cela
>>n'appelle pas de difference...Mais primo ((my comment:site of ambiguity)):
>>je ne suis pas sur que les femmes seraient d'accord...
>
>This quote does not conclusively prove that Foucault was of the opinion
>that rape was a crime of violence as opposed to a 'sexual' crime. I
>cannot get a hold of the full reference as my library does not hold the
>volume from which it was extracted. So we need to know what comes before
>and after (especially the list of riders which is started with the primo
>bit). However, the quote only POSITS a hypothesis that rape is
>essentially physical violence, hence the 'ambiguity' which you pick up on.
>Foucault here is well aware that crime is socially constructed and
>negotiated by 'interest' groups. One could argue that discursive
>processes which involve rape are precisely about a reappropriation of the
>nature of its violence, ie the establishment of a power base - who
>controls who and what, including definitions. To the extent that violence
>against the person is a PENETRATION or VIOLATION (remember the French for
>rape is viol), then the difference between inserting a knife or a bullet
>in someone's body and inserting a penis or other object into a vagina is
>only culturally and socially rendered significant and meaningful by
>prevalent gender and social relations and the ability of interest groups
>to re-appropriate and recast dominant discourses - there lies the
>possibility for resistance and the conditions for new subjectivities.
>
>I hope this makes sense!
>
>Emmanuelle
>
>PS Talking about Foucault and discourse, I am interested in communicating
>with anyone who has an interest in ageing, especially the formation of
>discourses (academic and lay) on ageing and their impact on the production
>of subjects in late 20th century western society. My starting question
>is, what is successful ageing?
>
Emmanuelle Tulle-Winton
Department of Social Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
Glasgow G4 0BA
Scotland
Tel: 0141 331 3330
Fax: 0141 331 3439
>To:Mbayiha Rene-Claude <mbayihar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From:E.Tulle-Winton@xxxxxxxxxx (Emmanuelle Tulle-Winton)
>Subject:Re: rape
>
>>"on peut toujours tenir le discours theorique qui consiste a dire: de toute
>>facon la sexualite ne peut en aucun cas etre objet de punition. Et quand on
>>punit le viol on doit punir exclusivement la violence physique. Et dire que
>>ce n'est rien de plus qu'une agression, et rien d'autre: que l'on foute son
>>coup
>>de poing dans la gueule de quelqu'un, ou son penis dans le sexe, cela
>>n'appelle pas de difference...Mais primo ((my comment:site of ambiguity)):
>>je ne suis pas sur que les femmes seraient d'accord...
>
>This quote does not conclusively prove that Foucault was of the opinion
>that rape was a crime of violence as opposed to a 'sexual' crime. I
>cannot get a hold of the full reference as my library does not hold the
>volume from which it was extracted. So we need to know what comes before
>and after (especially the list of riders which is started with the primo
>bit). However, the quote only POSITS a hypothesis that rape is
>essentially physical violence, hence the 'ambiguity' which you pick up on.
>Foucault here is well aware that crime is socially constructed and
>negotiated by 'interest' groups. One could argue that discursive
>processes which involve rape are precisely about a reappropriation of the
>nature of its violence, ie the establishment of a power base - who
>controls who and what, including definitions. To the extent that violence
>against the person is a PENETRATION or VIOLATION (remember the French for
>rape is viol), then the difference between inserting a knife or a bullet
>in someone's body and inserting a penis or other object into a vagina is
>only culturally and socially rendered significant and meaningful by
>prevalent gender and social relations and the ability of interest groups
>to re-appropriate and recast dominant discourses - there lies the
>possibility for resistance and the conditions for new subjectivities.
>
>I hope this makes sense!
>
>Emmanuelle
>
>PS Talking about Foucault and discourse, I am interested in communicating
>with anyone who has an interest in ageing, especially the formation of
>discourses (academic and lay) on ageing and their impact on the production
>of subjects in late 20th century western society. My starting question
>is, what is successful ageing?
>
Emmanuelle Tulle-Winton
Department of Social Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
Glasgow G4 0BA
Scotland
Tel: 0141 331 3330
Fax: 0141 331 3439