JBC--
I think you miss the thrust of Kirk's claims. Kirk
isn't claiming that he himself adheres to these
beliefs, but that such a stance seems to follow from
the claim that there is no normativity in Foucault.
In other words, it is a transcendental or critical
question about what entitles us to make claims of
either sort. If normativity is simply an effect of
power, a social construction, then there seems to be
no criteria for choosing between homophobia or
non-homophobia, racism and anti-racism. But
Foucualtians make claims all the time that we should
choose between these alternatives. So on what grounds
are they entitled to make claims? What entitles us to
UNIVERSALLY claim that homophobia and racism are
wrong? This is a problem to be solved rather than
evaded and dismissed.
Paul Bryant
Department of Philosophy
Loyola University of Chicago
--- JBCM2@xxxxxxx wrote:
> I'm trying to determine what logical disease affects
> kirk728@hotmail that
> would persuade him that what he writes below is
> somehow pertinent. one might
> just as well argue that a murderer has as much moral
> standing as his victim.
> myself, I don't hate homophobes, I just don't have
> much to say to them. I do
> exclude them from my normal going about things, just
> as I exclude racists,
> bigots and right-wing whackos. kirk728@hotmail is
> certainly free to exclude
> me from his various circles, and denounce me in
> whatever venue he has access
> to. to be honest, I feel blessed when I am so
> excluded. it's hard to
> believe that anyone who has spent anytime with
> Foucault's work would think
> that in ethical or moral situations one need only
> reverse the + or - sign to
> find equal value. perhaps kirk728@hotmail is
> laboring under the impression
> that such a strategy is somehow connected with
> Foucault's methodology, and if
> so, he could point to the reference for those of us
> who have somehow missed
> it.
>
> In a message dated 02/02/2001 2:30:07 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> <<
> But everyone else is doing the same thing to him!
> They hate
> anyone who falls into the category of "homophobic".
> >>
>
>
> <<
> But the same is true for his attackers. They imbue
> themselves
> with the authority to create a bipolar system
> between acceptance
> and homophobia. They then proceed to hate, exclude,
> and
> humiliate anyone who calls homosexuality wrong.
> Just as Juan
> does with homosexuals.
> >>
>
> <<
> Then let us apply the same standard to those who
> attack
> homophobia. It seems obvious that they have
> parrallel hatreds.
> The anti-racist is as bad as the racist. The
> ant-homophob as
> bad as the homophob.
> >>
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
I think you miss the thrust of Kirk's claims. Kirk
isn't claiming that he himself adheres to these
beliefs, but that such a stance seems to follow from
the claim that there is no normativity in Foucault.
In other words, it is a transcendental or critical
question about what entitles us to make claims of
either sort. If normativity is simply an effect of
power, a social construction, then there seems to be
no criteria for choosing between homophobia or
non-homophobia, racism and anti-racism. But
Foucualtians make claims all the time that we should
choose between these alternatives. So on what grounds
are they entitled to make claims? What entitles us to
UNIVERSALLY claim that homophobia and racism are
wrong? This is a problem to be solved rather than
evaded and dismissed.
Paul Bryant
Department of Philosophy
Loyola University of Chicago
--- JBCM2@xxxxxxx wrote:
> I'm trying to determine what logical disease affects
> kirk728@hotmail that
> would persuade him that what he writes below is
> somehow pertinent. one might
> just as well argue that a murderer has as much moral
> standing as his victim.
> myself, I don't hate homophobes, I just don't have
> much to say to them. I do
> exclude them from my normal going about things, just
> as I exclude racists,
> bigots and right-wing whackos. kirk728@hotmail is
> certainly free to exclude
> me from his various circles, and denounce me in
> whatever venue he has access
> to. to be honest, I feel blessed when I am so
> excluded. it's hard to
> believe that anyone who has spent anytime with
> Foucault's work would think
> that in ethical or moral situations one need only
> reverse the + or - sign to
> find equal value. perhaps kirk728@hotmail is
> laboring under the impression
> that such a strategy is somehow connected with
> Foucault's methodology, and if
> so, he could point to the reference for those of us
> who have somehow missed
> it.
>
> In a message dated 02/02/2001 2:30:07 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> <<
> But everyone else is doing the same thing to him!
> They hate
> anyone who falls into the category of "homophobic".
> >>
>
>
> <<
> But the same is true for his attackers. They imbue
> themselves
> with the authority to create a bipolar system
> between acceptance
> and homophobia. They then proceed to hate, exclude,
> and
> humiliate anyone who calls homosexuality wrong.
> Just as Juan
> does with homosexuals.
> >>
>
> <<
> Then let us apply the same standard to those who
> attack
> homophobia. It seems obvious that they have
> parrallel hatreds.
> The anti-racist is as bad as the racist. The
> ant-homophob as
> bad as the homophob.
> >>
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/