At 4:04 PM -0500 3/7/97, malgosia askanas wrote:
>The reason I am
>trying to understand this essay is precisely because I have grave doubts
>about the value of literary, or artistic, "transgression" per se,
>and it helps me to think about it against something that argues in its
>favor lovingly.
...and...
>I think the general category of "trangression"
>is so sweeping and crude as to be useless; one has to evaluate each
>of these actions separately, on its own terms, in its own context.
So we're less at odds than it seemed; I agree with this entirely (and I'd
also say that "power" in Foucault is an extremely vague concept). My
questions are about those terms, contexts, modes of evaluation.
Doug
>The reason I am
>trying to understand this essay is precisely because I have grave doubts
>about the value of literary, or artistic, "transgression" per se,
>and it helps me to think about it against something that argues in its
>favor lovingly.
...and...
>I think the general category of "trangression"
>is so sweeping and crude as to be useless; one has to evaluate each
>of these actions separately, on its own terms, in its own context.
So we're less at odds than it seemed; I agree with this entirely (and I'd
also say that "power" in Foucault is an extremely vague concept). My
questions are about those terms, contexts, modes of evaluation.
Doug