I tend to agree with Mark. firstly I don't think that Foucault disagreed
with calling himself homosexual (in fact I do remember reading an interview
with in in gai pied before his death talking about this issue). Secondly,
this promoting Foucault above homosexuality is insulting and homophobic. The
rejection of Foucault's 'queerness' is merely a way of appropriating
Foucault as institutionally acceptable.
Is this yet another part of (some) straights appropriating the queer, and
making it (in their view) decent and respectable?
Dave Cummings
Centre for Post-Colonial Studies
School of English
University of Kent at Canterbury
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Rifkin <rifkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: FOUCAULT WAS NOT HOMO
> I have not said anything on this list in perhaps years, but the subject
> line of this post has brought me out of semi-retirement.
>
> First of all, given that it is well-known that Foucault had sex with men,
> why shouldn't he be referred to as a "homosexual"? Is the concern that he
> would have preferred some other term?
>
> Secondly, the tone of this post seems to be to try to clear Foucault's
> name of the taint of the term "homosexual." If this is the case, I find
> that project deeply offensive inasmuch as it seems to me to be operating
> out of a rather homophobic place. Perhaps I'm totally misreading the
> post, but if so, I can think of several subject lines less calculated to
> convey this impression.
>
>
> According to Juan Cruz:
> >
> > Hello in this stupid society people label homosexual any one who doesnt
have
> > a girlfriend, or who doesn't have any time to engage in dumb/silly
behaviour
> > of the herd
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
>
with calling himself homosexual (in fact I do remember reading an interview
with in in gai pied before his death talking about this issue). Secondly,
this promoting Foucault above homosexuality is insulting and homophobic. The
rejection of Foucault's 'queerness' is merely a way of appropriating
Foucault as institutionally acceptable.
Is this yet another part of (some) straights appropriating the queer, and
making it (in their view) decent and respectable?
Dave Cummings
Centre for Post-Colonial Studies
School of English
University of Kent at Canterbury
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Rifkin <rifkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: FOUCAULT WAS NOT HOMO
> I have not said anything on this list in perhaps years, but the subject
> line of this post has brought me out of semi-retirement.
>
> First of all, given that it is well-known that Foucault had sex with men,
> why shouldn't he be referred to as a "homosexual"? Is the concern that he
> would have preferred some other term?
>
> Secondly, the tone of this post seems to be to try to clear Foucault's
> name of the taint of the term "homosexual." If this is the case, I find
> that project deeply offensive inasmuch as it seems to me to be operating
> out of a rather homophobic place. Perhaps I'm totally misreading the
> post, but if so, I can think of several subject lines less calculated to
> convey this impression.
>
>
> According to Juan Cruz:
> >
> > Hello in this stupid society people label homosexual any one who doesnt
have
> > a girlfriend, or who doesn't have any time to engage in dumb/silly
behaviour
> > of the herd
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
>