Transgression marks contemporary discourse, as a profanation without
object, a sexuality that knows itself as limit and the surpassing of
limits. In sum, we have a transitive paradigm of communication
predicated on the shifting nature of values and perspectives. Does the
Repressive Hypothesis, consequently, suggest that this ?transitive
function? of discourse becomes an ?object? or ?aim? of power
relationships? I think so. In order for the deployment of sexuality to
take place, for example, did this transgressive communication not exist
as more than a conceit of bourgeois sophistication? Rather than just
masking or appropriating transgressive experience (its reason for being
to out maneuver repression) doesn?t ?sexuality? valorize transgression
as act, as its mode of action par excellence, a dramatization of
bourgeois prowess, a multiplication of managerial efficacies, as it
deploys forms of sexualized transgression?
In the context of History of Sexuality, vol. 1, such constructs as
?non-dialectical thought,? or ?the Death of God,? in addition to
appearing as hyper-romantic figures, also suggest that discourse might
?simulate? transgression as a model of social action, a circuit in which
the act of self-knowledge, and its mailability, if touted as proof of
our freedom, proves equally well, our imprisonment, and what is more,
applies this indeterminacy as a management principle.
object, a sexuality that knows itself as limit and the surpassing of
limits. In sum, we have a transitive paradigm of communication
predicated on the shifting nature of values and perspectives. Does the
Repressive Hypothesis, consequently, suggest that this ?transitive
function? of discourse becomes an ?object? or ?aim? of power
relationships? I think so. In order for the deployment of sexuality to
take place, for example, did this transgressive communication not exist
as more than a conceit of bourgeois sophistication? Rather than just
masking or appropriating transgressive experience (its reason for being
to out maneuver repression) doesn?t ?sexuality? valorize transgression
as act, as its mode of action par excellence, a dramatization of
bourgeois prowess, a multiplication of managerial efficacies, as it
deploys forms of sexualized transgression?
In the context of History of Sexuality, vol. 1, such constructs as
?non-dialectical thought,? or ?the Death of God,? in addition to
appearing as hyper-romantic figures, also suggest that discourse might
?simulate? transgression as a model of social action, a circuit in which
the act of self-knowledge, and its mailability, if touted as proof of
our freedom, proves equally well, our imprisonment, and what is more,
applies this indeterminacy as a management principle.