--0-179530796-988789488=:82025
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The claim that heterosexuality is a social construction and that it is involved in a certain structure of power does not itself imply the OPPOSITE: that we should all become homosexuals. In fact, a careful reading of Foucault will reveal that homosexuality is no less a construction of the nineteenth century episteme. We must always hold in mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not imply that one should adopt the contrary position. To do so would be to be no less defined by the structure of power in question. This is a common mistake made where criticism is concerned. For instance, one often assumes that any criticism made against capitalism entails that one is automatically a supporter of socialism. This happens all the more often now that the soviet union has fallen. Yet is it not possible that capitalism has the resources for criticizing itself from within, without yet entailing the opposite position? Oppositional thinking seems to indicate a rather slavish turn of mind.
Paul
Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The idea that treating "heterosexuality" as a social construction (i.e.,
calling it what it is) will stop people from breeding is a jaw dropping
claim. Not all societies generate identities out of 19th century
psychological categories, but they all seem to figure out how to make
babies.
Vunch. Do you have a citation for Taylor criticizing Foucault as an advocate
of universal homosexuality? I spent a summer at an Institute where Taylor
did a series of talks. I have also read a lot of his stuff. I do not recall
any arguments quite this bizarre coming from him. Indeed, he is usually
quite careful.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a
> In a message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > Besides, Vunch, is Foucault REALLY saying we should all be gay? Is he
REALLY
> > saying that heterosexuality should disappear?
> >
> > Of course not.
>
> Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, that it is merely a social
> construction!!
>
> Vunch
>
e
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
--0-179530796-988789488=:82025
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P> <BR>The claim that heterosexuality is a social construction and that it is involved in a certain structure of power does not itself imply the OPPOSITE: that we should all become homosexuals. In fact, a careful reading of Foucault will reveal that homosexuality is no less a construction of the nineteenth century episteme. We must always hold in mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not imply that one should adopt the contrary position. To do so would be to be no less defined by the structure of power in question. This is a common mistake made where criticism is concerned. For instance, one often assumes that any criticism made against capitalism entails that one is automatically a supporter of socialism. This happens all the more often now that the soviet union has fallen. Yet is it not possible that capitalism has the resources for criticizing itself from within, without yet entailing the opposite position? Oppositional thinking seems to indicate a rather slavish turn of mind.
<P>Paul
<P> <B><I>Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The idea that treating "heterosexuality" as a social construction (i.e.,<BR>calling it what it is) will stop people from breeding is a jaw dropping<BR>claim. Not all societies generate identities out of 19th century<BR>psychological categories, but they all seem to figure out how to make<BR>babies.<BR><BR>Vunch. Do you have a citation for Taylor criticizing Foucault as an advocate<BR>of universal homosexuality? I spent a summer at an Institute where Taylor<BR>did a series of talks. I have also read a lot of his stuff. I do not recall<BR>any arguments quite this bizarre coming from him. Indeed, he is usually<BR>quite careful.<BR><BR>Larry<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: <VUNCH@xxxxxxx><BR>To: <FOUCAULT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:40 AM<BR>Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a<BR><BR><BR>> In a message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,<BR>> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:<BR>><BR>> > Besides, Vunch, is Foucault REALLY saying we should all be gay? Is he<BR>REALLY<BR>> > saying that heterosexuality should disappear?<BR>> ><BR>> > Of course not.<BR>><BR>> Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, that it is merely a social<BR>> construction!!<BR>><BR>> Vunch<BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>e <p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com/";>Yahoo! Auctions</a> - buy the things you want at great prices
--0-179530796-988789488=:82025--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The claim that heterosexuality is a social construction and that it is involved in a certain structure of power does not itself imply the OPPOSITE: that we should all become homosexuals. In fact, a careful reading of Foucault will reveal that homosexuality is no less a construction of the nineteenth century episteme. We must always hold in mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not imply that one should adopt the contrary position. To do so would be to be no less defined by the structure of power in question. This is a common mistake made where criticism is concerned. For instance, one often assumes that any criticism made against capitalism entails that one is automatically a supporter of socialism. This happens all the more often now that the soviet union has fallen. Yet is it not possible that capitalism has the resources for criticizing itself from within, without yet entailing the opposite position? Oppositional thinking seems to indicate a rather slavish turn of mind.
Paul
Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The idea that treating "heterosexuality" as a social construction (i.e.,
calling it what it is) will stop people from breeding is a jaw dropping
claim. Not all societies generate identities out of 19th century
psychological categories, but they all seem to figure out how to make
babies.
Vunch. Do you have a citation for Taylor criticizing Foucault as an advocate
of universal homosexuality? I spent a summer at an Institute where Taylor
did a series of talks. I have also read a lot of his stuff. I do not recall
any arguments quite this bizarre coming from him. Indeed, he is usually
quite careful.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a
> In a message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > Besides, Vunch, is Foucault REALLY saying we should all be gay? Is he
REALLY
> > saying that heterosexuality should disappear?
> >
> > Of course not.
>
> Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, that it is merely a social
> construction!!
>
> Vunch
>
e
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
--0-179530796-988789488=:82025
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P> <BR>The claim that heterosexuality is a social construction and that it is involved in a certain structure of power does not itself imply the OPPOSITE: that we should all become homosexuals. In fact, a careful reading of Foucault will reveal that homosexuality is no less a construction of the nineteenth century episteme. We must always hold in mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not imply that one should adopt the contrary position. To do so would be to be no less defined by the structure of power in question. This is a common mistake made where criticism is concerned. For instance, one often assumes that any criticism made against capitalism entails that one is automatically a supporter of socialism. This happens all the more often now that the soviet union has fallen. Yet is it not possible that capitalism has the resources for criticizing itself from within, without yet entailing the opposite position? Oppositional thinking seems to indicate a rather slavish turn of mind.
<P>Paul
<P> <B><I>Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The idea that treating "heterosexuality" as a social construction (i.e.,<BR>calling it what it is) will stop people from breeding is a jaw dropping<BR>claim. Not all societies generate identities out of 19th century<BR>psychological categories, but they all seem to figure out how to make<BR>babies.<BR><BR>Vunch. Do you have a citation for Taylor criticizing Foucault as an advocate<BR>of universal homosexuality? I spent a summer at an Institute where Taylor<BR>did a series of talks. I have also read a lot of his stuff. I do not recall<BR>any arguments quite this bizarre coming from him. Indeed, he is usually<BR>quite careful.<BR><BR>Larry<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: <VUNCH@xxxxxxx><BR>To: <FOUCAULT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:40 AM<BR>Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a<BR><BR><BR>> In a message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,<BR>> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:<BR>><BR>> > Besides, Vunch, is Foucault REALLY saying we should all be gay? Is he<BR>REALLY<BR>> > saying that heterosexuality should disappear?<BR>> ><BR>> > Of course not.<BR>><BR>> Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, that it is merely a social<BR>> construction!!<BR>><BR>> Vunch<BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>e <p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com/";>Yahoo! Auctions</a> - buy the things you want at great prices
--0-179530796-988789488=:82025--