At 12:05 AM -0500 3/15/97, brehkopf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Anyway, I think this all merits some discussion. Perhaps I am the only
>gay man who read Miller's bio of Foucault who (1) thinks Foucault is
>amazing, and (2) is not offended -- but rather is impressed -- by
>Miller's bio.
>
>Here's my question: for all the comments about that bio characterizing
>it as homophobic, I've yet to hear a convincing reason for its actually
>*being* homophobic. Could someone who has read it and who thinks it's
>homophobic please tell me why they think this?
This characterization of Miller as homophobic also mystifies me. I just
don't see it. It seems to me that Miller admires Foucault a great deal, and
I think he does a fine job of mixing biography and thought. He pushes on
some things - Foucault's fascination with sadomasochism, torture, and death
- that some may see as irrelevant personal detail, but seem quite relevant
to the substance of Foucault. Just what's trashy and homophobic about it?
Doug
>Anyway, I think this all merits some discussion. Perhaps I am the only
>gay man who read Miller's bio of Foucault who (1) thinks Foucault is
>amazing, and (2) is not offended -- but rather is impressed -- by
>Miller's bio.
>
>Here's my question: for all the comments about that bio characterizing
>it as homophobic, I've yet to hear a convincing reason for its actually
>*being* homophobic. Could someone who has read it and who thinks it's
>homophobic please tell me why they think this?
This characterization of Miller as homophobic also mystifies me. I just
don't see it. It seems to me that Miller admires Foucault a great deal, and
I think he does a fine job of mixing biography and thought. He pushes on
some things - Foucault's fascination with sadomasochism, torture, and death
- that some may see as irrelevant personal detail, but seem quite relevant
to the substance of Foucault. Just what's trashy and homophobic about it?
Doug