On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> John Ransom wrote:
>
> >In other words, the limit and transgression both get their being from each
> >other. If that's the case, then it's a mistake to think of them as radical
> >opposites, or as mere excuses for each other.
>
> That seems obvious and non-controversial. But what I've read of F and what
> I've seen on this list is mostly very abstract. Could we put some flesh on
> this? What limits, transgressed how?
>
> Doug
>
>
>
Some examples:
(A) Limit: Women are (ideally) perfectly proportioned sexual objects who
nevertheless find their sexuality constrained and shaped by the fashion
industry.
Transgression: Burning bras at the Miss America pageant
(B) Limit: Students are to be neatly dressed. In addition, certain
hairstyles are allowed for women but not men, and vice versa.
Transgression: Students walk around shabbily dressed, refuse to bathe, and
men wear their hair long.
(C) Limit: Workers are incapable of running factories and must rely on the
expertise of owners of capital to organize production and distribution.
Transgression: Workers take over factories in 1917 under the banner of
"All Power to the Soviets" and do a pretty good job of running things on
their own.
(D) Limit: Societal laws against murder and canibbalism
Transgression: Jeffrey Dahmer eats lunch.
I do take your point about my limit/transgression idea being obvious.
Maybe I'm headed down a dead-end here in the "true but trivial" sense. But
just as whether or not I act morally is a choice (or else it's not
morality anymore but mere instinct), so too the kinds of transgressions I
would or wouldn't be willing to engage in must be based on a choice. And
can't this choice center around: "the kind of being I want to be has a
lot to do with the kinds of play of limit-transgression I engage in. Thus
be careful which ones you choose!"
--John
> John Ransom wrote:
>
> >In other words, the limit and transgression both get their being from each
> >other. If that's the case, then it's a mistake to think of them as radical
> >opposites, or as mere excuses for each other.
>
> That seems obvious and non-controversial. But what I've read of F and what
> I've seen on this list is mostly very abstract. Could we put some flesh on
> this? What limits, transgressed how?
>
> Doug
>
>
>
Some examples:
(A) Limit: Women are (ideally) perfectly proportioned sexual objects who
nevertheless find their sexuality constrained and shaped by the fashion
industry.
Transgression: Burning bras at the Miss America pageant
(B) Limit: Students are to be neatly dressed. In addition, certain
hairstyles are allowed for women but not men, and vice versa.
Transgression: Students walk around shabbily dressed, refuse to bathe, and
men wear their hair long.
(C) Limit: Workers are incapable of running factories and must rely on the
expertise of owners of capital to organize production and distribution.
Transgression: Workers take over factories in 1917 under the banner of
"All Power to the Soviets" and do a pretty good job of running things on
their own.
(D) Limit: Societal laws against murder and canibbalism
Transgression: Jeffrey Dahmer eats lunch.
I do take your point about my limit/transgression idea being obvious.
Maybe I'm headed down a dead-end here in the "true but trivial" sense. But
just as whether or not I act morally is a choice (or else it's not
morality anymore but mere instinct), so too the kinds of transgressions I
would or wouldn't be willing to engage in must be based on a choice. And
can't this choice center around: "the kind of being I want to be has a
lot to do with the kinds of play of limit-transgression I engage in. Thus
be careful which ones you choose!"
--John