Well, being picky, you cannot 'die of aids'. At most, you can die from
opportunistic infections as a result of AIDS. But I guess that's beside the
point. More to the point is the suggestion that his lifestyle contributed to
his death. Well, it might have done, but it doesn't really matter if he
slept with 100 men or 1 man, or 1 woman. You only need to be infected with
HIV from one person. This attitude of the Oxford Dictionary falls into that
old trap of suggesting gay men in the 80s were swimming around in a trough
of their own sordid desires, and that they got their just desserts. HIV
awareness and education has tried (at least relatively successfully) to
dispel this prejudice/myth and put things on a more balanced level.
James Miller, The Passion of Michel Foucault, tries to draw parallels
between the life and the work of Foucault, suggesting all sorts of things
about F's sex life. Apart from mistakes, much of this is quite dubious. More
plausible, and certainly more philosophically sound, is David Macey, The
Lives of Michel Foucault or Didier Eribon, Michel Foucault (which doesn't
really talk about sex at all, as I recall). A response by a gay writer is
David Halperin, Saint Foucault.
I guess the inevitable question is, does it matter? Foucault's work on
sexuality is obviously informed by his personal life, but his reputation as
a thinker was there before this work began to be published. To be honest,
whatever its merits, to me it is his least satisfactory work.
By the way, what is meant by the subject/abject distinction? Who is this
taken from? Sounds a bit of a poor joke, and a poor criticism of Foucault.
Best wishes
Stuart
opportunistic infections as a result of AIDS. But I guess that's beside the
point. More to the point is the suggestion that his lifestyle contributed to
his death. Well, it might have done, but it doesn't really matter if he
slept with 100 men or 1 man, or 1 woman. You only need to be infected with
HIV from one person. This attitude of the Oxford Dictionary falls into that
old trap of suggesting gay men in the 80s were swimming around in a trough
of their own sordid desires, and that they got their just desserts. HIV
awareness and education has tried (at least relatively successfully) to
dispel this prejudice/myth and put things on a more balanced level.
James Miller, The Passion of Michel Foucault, tries to draw parallels
between the life and the work of Foucault, suggesting all sorts of things
about F's sex life. Apart from mistakes, much of this is quite dubious. More
plausible, and certainly more philosophically sound, is David Macey, The
Lives of Michel Foucault or Didier Eribon, Michel Foucault (which doesn't
really talk about sex at all, as I recall). A response by a gay writer is
David Halperin, Saint Foucault.
I guess the inevitable question is, does it matter? Foucault's work on
sexuality is obviously informed by his personal life, but his reputation as
a thinker was there before this work began to be published. To be honest,
whatever its merits, to me it is his least satisfactory work.
By the way, what is meant by the subject/abject distinction? Who is this
taken from? Sounds a bit of a poor joke, and a poor criticism of Foucault.
Best wishes
Stuart