<html>
<br>
Thank you Paul for that much needed intervention. I agree that capitalism
"has the resources for criticizing itself from within," and in
fact I think that capitalism's seemingly endless capacity to generate and
contain its own critiques is also crucial to capitalism's continued
'success'? I think a questioning of the oppositional logic upsets the
inside/outside so that we don't have to submit difference to opposition.
But here is where I always get stuck because proliferation (as opposed to
opposition) is uncomfortably close to the workings of capitalism
itself...<br>
targol<br>
<br>
At 12:44 AM 5/2/01 -0700, you wrote: <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>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:=A0 that we should all become homosexuals.=A0
In fact, a careful reading of Foucault will reveal that homosexuality is
no less a construction of the nineteenth century episteme.=A0 We must
always hold in mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not
imply that one should adopt the contrary position.=A0 To do so would be to
be no less defined by the structure of power in question.=A0 This is a
common mistake made where criticism is concerned.=A0 For instance, one
often assumes that any criticism made against capitalism entails that one
is automatically a supporter of socialism.=A0 This happens all the more
often now that the soviet union has fallen.=A0 Yet is it not possible that
capitalism has the resources for criticizing itself from within, without
yet entailing the opposite position?=A0 Oppositional thinking seems to
indicate a rather slavish turn of mind. <br>
<br>
Paul <br>
<br>
=A0 <b><i>Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx></b></i> wrote:
<blockquote>
<dl>
<dd>The idea that treating "heterosexuality" as a social
construction (i.e.,
<dd>calling it what it is) will stop people from breeding is a jaw
dropping
<dd>claim. Not all societies generate identities out of 19th century
<dd>psychological categories, but they all seem to figure out how to
make
<dd>babies.<br>
<br>
<dd>Vunch. Do you have a citation for Taylor criticizing Foucault as an
advocate
<dd>of universal homosexuality? I spent a summer at an Institute where
Taylor
<dd>did a series of talks. I have also read a lot of his stuff. I do not
recall
<dd>any arguments quite this bizarre coming from him. Indeed, he is
usually
<dd>quite careful.<br>
<br>
<dd>Larry
<dd>----- Original Message -----
<dd>From:=20
<dd>To:=20
<dd>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:40 AM
<dd>Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>> In a message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<dd>> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:
<dd>>
<dd>> > Besides, Vunch, is Foucault REALLY saying we should all be
gay? Is he
<dd>REALLY
<dd>> > saying that heterosexuality should disappear?
<dd>> >
<dd>> > Of course not.
<dd>>
<dd>> Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, that it is merely a
social
<dd>> construction!!
<dd>>
<dd>> Vunch
<dd>></blockquote>
<dd>e <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>Do You Yahoo!?</b>
<dd><a href=3D"http://auctions.yahoo.com/";>Yahoo! Auctions</a> - buy the
things you want at great prices <br>
<br>
</dl>
<BR>
</html>
<br>
Thank you Paul for that much needed intervention. I agree that capitalism
"has the resources for criticizing itself from within," and in
fact I think that capitalism's seemingly endless capacity to generate and
contain its own critiques is also crucial to capitalism's continued
'success'? I think a questioning of the oppositional logic upsets the
inside/outside so that we don't have to submit difference to opposition.
But here is where I always get stuck because proliferation (as opposed to
opposition) is uncomfortably close to the workings of capitalism
itself...<br>
targol<br>
<br>
At 12:44 AM 5/2/01 -0700, you wrote: <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>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:=A0 that we should all become homosexuals.=A0
In fact, a careful reading of Foucault will reveal that homosexuality is
no less a construction of the nineteenth century episteme.=A0 We must
always hold in mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not
imply that one should adopt the contrary position.=A0 To do so would be to
be no less defined by the structure of power in question.=A0 This is a
common mistake made where criticism is concerned.=A0 For instance, one
often assumes that any criticism made against capitalism entails that one
is automatically a supporter of socialism.=A0 This happens all the more
often now that the soviet union has fallen.=A0 Yet is it not possible that
capitalism has the resources for criticizing itself from within, without
yet entailing the opposite position?=A0 Oppositional thinking seems to
indicate a rather slavish turn of mind. <br>
<br>
Paul <br>
<br>
=A0 <b><i>Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx></b></i> wrote:
<blockquote>
<dl>
<dd>The idea that treating "heterosexuality" as a social
construction (i.e.,
<dd>calling it what it is) will stop people from breeding is a jaw
dropping
<dd>claim. Not all societies generate identities out of 19th century
<dd>psychological categories, but they all seem to figure out how to
make
<dd>babies.<br>
<br>
<dd>Vunch. Do you have a citation for Taylor criticizing Foucault as an
advocate
<dd>of universal homosexuality? I spent a summer at an Institute where
Taylor
<dd>did a series of talks. I have also read a lot of his stuff. I do not
recall
<dd>any arguments quite this bizarre coming from him. Indeed, he is
usually
<dd>quite careful.<br>
<br>
<dd>Larry
<dd>----- Original Message -----
<dd>From:=20
<dd>To:=20
<dd>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:40 AM
<dd>Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>> In a message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<dd>> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:
<dd>>
<dd>> > Besides, Vunch, is Foucault REALLY saying we should all be
gay? Is he
<dd>REALLY
<dd>> > saying that heterosexuality should disappear?
<dd>> >
<dd>> > Of course not.
<dd>>
<dd>> Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, that it is merely a
social
<dd>> construction!!
<dd>>
<dd>> Vunch
<dd>></blockquote>
<dd>e <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>Do You Yahoo!?</b>
<dd><a href=3D"http://auctions.yahoo.com/";>Yahoo! Auctions</a> - buy the
things you want at great prices <br>
<br>
</dl>
<BR>
</html>