Hi, Edy Sukrisno!
>....Foucault uses some Marxist terms, but not in a rigid
>and strict way as French Marxists do.
Yes. We need to pay attention to how Foucault uses them, not...
Levi-Strauss or whomever.
>....Capitalism (which is often associated with the American
>hegemony) is really a revolutionary force destroying local cultures.
And why is that? When I was in Indonesia, it wasn't like people were
chained, forced to watch American soap operas, or banned from seeing Wayung
Kulit! And yet, when I would go to a Wayung Kulit performance, it seemed
the vast majority of the people were OLD.
Is it... short attention span? The need for a quick fix? (That would tie
back into Foucault's theme, wouldn't it? SEX as a quick fix.) McDonald's
hamburgers as... instant gratification.
>....it is a historical force, based on Darwinian principle, at work and we
>shouldn't cry over the passing traditional cultures.
I happen to have played gamelon while there, and like some of it.
But I agree with you.
Back to SEX..........
>Foucault's distinction on *scientiae sexualis* and *ars erotica*, somewhere
>in the book, to contrast the "West" and the "East" is more problematic
>these days since the imaginative boundaries between the West and the rest
>are blurred.
Yes. And the Internet itself is helping that blur, isn't it? I have an
e-mail friend from the Philippines, another one chats in a group from
India, and... global meltdown. Intriguing.
But Foucault's constructs of viewing sex *scientifically*, and with words
like "antiseptic", "experts", etc., we feel these "authorities" who somehow
believe themselves grounded to say... "This is correct. This is wrong..."
versus
An *erotic art*, which appeals to us aesthetically, regardless of what
culture produced it. What does it EVOKE, for you?
I think is still valid, don't you? It doesn't have to be east and west as
much as logical/Descartes-mind-set versus a feeling/impulsive *response*.
>The urge to talk about sex is stronger now.
Than when? Than... the 1950s? Than the 1960s? Since an event called
"Stonewall" in the States, in 1970? Foucault is arguing this point, yes.
He's writing in 1977. And certainly, since then, we've heard so much that
when I see David Bowie perform "Fashion" against a stage that's projecting
images of S&M, it seems... not shocking as much as... funny?... to people.
>The more people talk about
>sex, the more problems seem to come up.
Why? I'd say the more people ENGAGE in sex, the more problems could come
up, particularly if it's with multiple partners...
>However, this doesn't indicate
>that there are no problems when sex is untalked. We just never know.
Oh... we can speculate about SOME things, can't we? For example, when
Camille Paglia went from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson in _Sexual Personae_,
I think she showed that issues about sex have ALWAYS been of interest,
particularly, perhaps in her construct, during times of "decadence".
A decaying of an old order can also mean, however, an evolution toward a
broader one. It doesn't mean, necessarily, "falling apart" as much as
*changing*.
>....I believe that Foucault uses the term "power" and "knowledge"
>in the context power/knowledge, but I'm rather baffled by the term
>sexuality. The definition in the glossary of the book in the Indonesian
>translation is less clarifying than confusing.
Here's another way to phrase what I think (today) that he's talking about:
Power, be it through The Church, The Doctor, Mother and Father, or The
State (and those can be very powerful!), or even what you see on TV as
sanctioned as "the American way" and you want to be that way--
Power has a way of controlling sex. It sanctions this kind, it does not
sanction that kind.
In Oscar Wilde's truly Victorian time, he broke a law (sodomy) and went to
jail for it. The Supreme Court in the United States, by the way, upheld the
State of Georgia's right to have a sodomy law, despite it being contested
by a homosexual that it was in his own home with another consenting adult,
roughly 8 years ago, if memory serves me correctly. So in the United
States, each State has laws governing "sodomy" and other sex acts, many of
which are simply not enforced anymore, but are still the Law, and could be
used against someone.
Other views?
---Randall Albright
P.S.--
Edy:
Saya lebih sukah berbicarca bahasa English daripada bahasa Indonesian!
Tetapi
Saya lebih sukah gamelon daripada TV!
>....Foucault uses some Marxist terms, but not in a rigid
>and strict way as French Marxists do.
Yes. We need to pay attention to how Foucault uses them, not...
Levi-Strauss or whomever.
>....Capitalism (which is often associated with the American
>hegemony) is really a revolutionary force destroying local cultures.
And why is that? When I was in Indonesia, it wasn't like people were
chained, forced to watch American soap operas, or banned from seeing Wayung
Kulit! And yet, when I would go to a Wayung Kulit performance, it seemed
the vast majority of the people were OLD.
Is it... short attention span? The need for a quick fix? (That would tie
back into Foucault's theme, wouldn't it? SEX as a quick fix.) McDonald's
hamburgers as... instant gratification.
>....it is a historical force, based on Darwinian principle, at work and we
>shouldn't cry over the passing traditional cultures.
I happen to have played gamelon while there, and like some of it.
But I agree with you.
Back to SEX..........
>Foucault's distinction on *scientiae sexualis* and *ars erotica*, somewhere
>in the book, to contrast the "West" and the "East" is more problematic
>these days since the imaginative boundaries between the West and the rest
>are blurred.
Yes. And the Internet itself is helping that blur, isn't it? I have an
e-mail friend from the Philippines, another one chats in a group from
India, and... global meltdown. Intriguing.
But Foucault's constructs of viewing sex *scientifically*, and with words
like "antiseptic", "experts", etc., we feel these "authorities" who somehow
believe themselves grounded to say... "This is correct. This is wrong..."
versus
An *erotic art*, which appeals to us aesthetically, regardless of what
culture produced it. What does it EVOKE, for you?
I think is still valid, don't you? It doesn't have to be east and west as
much as logical/Descartes-mind-set versus a feeling/impulsive *response*.
>The urge to talk about sex is stronger now.
Than when? Than... the 1950s? Than the 1960s? Since an event called
"Stonewall" in the States, in 1970? Foucault is arguing this point, yes.
He's writing in 1977. And certainly, since then, we've heard so much that
when I see David Bowie perform "Fashion" against a stage that's projecting
images of S&M, it seems... not shocking as much as... funny?... to people.
>The more people talk about
>sex, the more problems seem to come up.
Why? I'd say the more people ENGAGE in sex, the more problems could come
up, particularly if it's with multiple partners...
>However, this doesn't indicate
>that there are no problems when sex is untalked. We just never know.
Oh... we can speculate about SOME things, can't we? For example, when
Camille Paglia went from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson in _Sexual Personae_,
I think she showed that issues about sex have ALWAYS been of interest,
particularly, perhaps in her construct, during times of "decadence".
A decaying of an old order can also mean, however, an evolution toward a
broader one. It doesn't mean, necessarily, "falling apart" as much as
*changing*.
>....I believe that Foucault uses the term "power" and "knowledge"
>in the context power/knowledge, but I'm rather baffled by the term
>sexuality. The definition in the glossary of the book in the Indonesian
>translation is less clarifying than confusing.
Here's another way to phrase what I think (today) that he's talking about:
Power, be it through The Church, The Doctor, Mother and Father, or The
State (and those can be very powerful!), or even what you see on TV as
sanctioned as "the American way" and you want to be that way--
Power has a way of controlling sex. It sanctions this kind, it does not
sanction that kind.
In Oscar Wilde's truly Victorian time, he broke a law (sodomy) and went to
jail for it. The Supreme Court in the United States, by the way, upheld the
State of Georgia's right to have a sodomy law, despite it being contested
by a homosexual that it was in his own home with another consenting adult,
roughly 8 years ago, if memory serves me correctly. So in the United
States, each State has laws governing "sodomy" and other sex acts, many of
which are simply not enforced anymore, but are still the Law, and could be
used against someone.
Other views?
---Randall Albright
P.S.--
Edy:
Saya lebih sukah berbicarca bahasa English daripada bahasa Indonesian!
Tetapi
Saya lebih sukah gamelon daripada TV!