At 11:34 AM 2/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>However, it is playing with fire to let someone have control over you. They
>could hurt you.
But isn't the assumption that being hurt is necessarily a bad thing called
into question by Foucault?
Now, I am not trying to set off a huge backlash here - we need standards of
good and bad, and I think we can find support for such a requirement in
Foucault's work.
However, particularly with respect to intimate human relations, it seems to
me that he is questioning all of our presuppositions about what feels good
and what feels bad, about how we learn what is supposed to feel good and
what is supposed to feel bad, and about the various mating rituals we enter
into that may lead to sex, or that we enter into in order to get sex.
>Again, highly dangerous, in my opinion.
So, am I to conclude that everything that is dangerous should be avoided?
That is has no value?
It seems to me that Foucault makes calls for a rethinking of what is taken
for granted. And yes, that is very dangerous to the way of life and the way
of thinking supported by what is taken for granted. Sexuality is assumed to
exist in certain forms, and to be properly acted upon with certain people
for certain ends - both of which are supported by various institutional
perks. I think Foucault forces the question, "Why does the government care
who I have sex with, whether we are married, and whether children are a
possible outcome."
Just a thought,
Joanna
>However, it is playing with fire to let someone have control over you. They
>could hurt you.
But isn't the assumption that being hurt is necessarily a bad thing called
into question by Foucault?
Now, I am not trying to set off a huge backlash here - we need standards of
good and bad, and I think we can find support for such a requirement in
Foucault's work.
However, particularly with respect to intimate human relations, it seems to
me that he is questioning all of our presuppositions about what feels good
and what feels bad, about how we learn what is supposed to feel good and
what is supposed to feel bad, and about the various mating rituals we enter
into that may lead to sex, or that we enter into in order to get sex.
>Again, highly dangerous, in my opinion.
So, am I to conclude that everything that is dangerous should be avoided?
That is has no value?
It seems to me that Foucault makes calls for a rethinking of what is taken
for granted. And yes, that is very dangerous to the way of life and the way
of thinking supported by what is taken for granted. Sexuality is assumed to
exist in certain forms, and to be properly acted upon with certain people
for certain ends - both of which are supported by various institutional
perks. I think Foucault forces the question, "Why does the government care
who I have sex with, whether we are married, and whether children are a
possible outcome."
Just a thought,
Joanna