This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0136_01C0D322.D9DF1B00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul
I totally follow you're argument, I'm just curious how you'd respond =
to the claim that criticizing one structure without any idea of what an =
alternative to that structure might be is just like criticizing =
something we can't get rid of, like gravity?
I suppose it's not a good analogy because there are no lines of =
flight from the forces of gravity, but I'm still interested ;)
Nate
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul Bryant=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a
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.=20
Paul=20
Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:=20
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:=20
To:=20
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=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
------=_NextPart_000_0136_01C0D322.D9DF1B00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Paul</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I totally follow =
you're=20
argument, I'm just curious how you'd respond to the claim that =
criticizing one=20
structure without any idea of what an alternative to that structure =
might be is=20
just like criticizing something we can't get rid of, like =
gravity?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I suppose it's not a =
good=20
analogy because there are no lines of flight from the forces of gravity, =
but I'm=20
still interested ;)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Nate</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dlevi_bryant@xxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:levi_bryant@xxxxxxxxx";>Paul=20
Bryant</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>[email protected]=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 02, 2001 =
12:44=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Foucault and =
pragmatism,=20
q&a</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P><BR>The claim that heterosexuality is a social construction and =
that it is=20
involved in a certain structure of power does not itself imply the=20
OPPOSITE: that we should all become homosexuals. In fact, =
a=20
careful reading of Foucault will reveal that homosexuality is no less =
a=20
construction of the nineteenth century episteme. We must always =
hold in=20
mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not imply that =
one=20
should adopt the contrary position. To do so would be to be no =
less=20
defined by the structure of power in question. This is a common =
mistake=20
made where criticism is concerned. For instance, one often =
assumes that=20
any criticism made against capitalism entails that one is =
automatically a=20
supporter of socialism. This happens all the more often now that =
the=20
soviet union has fallen. Yet is it not possible that capitalism =
has the=20
resources for criticizing itself from within, without yet entailing =
the=20
opposite position? Oppositional thinking seems to indicate a =
rather=20
slavish turn of mind.=20
<P>Paul=20
<P> <B><I>Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> =
wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px =
solid">The=20
idea that treating "heterosexuality" as a social construction=20
(i.e.,<BR>calling it what it is) will stop people from breeding is a =
jaw=20
dropping<BR>claim. Not all societies generate identities out of 19th =
century<BR>psychological categories, but they all seem to figure out =
how to=20
make<BR>babies.<BR><BR>Vunch. Do you have a citation for Taylor =
criticizing=20
Foucault as an advocate<BR>of universal homosexuality? I spent a =
summer at=20
an Institute where Taylor<BR>did a series of talks. I have also read =
a lot=20
of his stuff. I do not recall<BR>any arguments quite this bizarre =
coming=20
from him. Indeed, he is usually<BR>quite =
careful.<BR><BR>Larry<BR>-----=20
Original Message -----<BR>From: <VUNCH@xxxxxxx><BR>To:=20
<FOUCAULT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, =
2001 1:40=20
AM<BR>Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a<BR><BR><BR>> =
In a=20
message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,<BR>>=20
rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:<BR>><BR>> > Besides, Vunch, is =
Foucault=20
REALLY saying we should all be gay? Is he<BR>REALLY<BR>> > =
saying that=20
heterosexuality should disappear?<BR>> ><BR>> > Of =
course=20
not.<BR>><BR>> Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, =
that it is=20
merely a social<BR>> construction!!<BR>><BR>>=20
Vunch<BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>e=20
<P><BR>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
<B>Do You Yahoo!?</B><BR><A href=3D"http://auctions.yahoo.com/";>Yahoo! =
Auctions</A> - buy the things you want at great=20
prices</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0136_01C0D322.D9DF1B00--
------=_NextPart_000_0136_01C0D322.D9DF1B00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul
I totally follow you're argument, I'm just curious how you'd respond =
to the claim that criticizing one structure without any idea of what an =
alternative to that structure might be is just like criticizing =
something we can't get rid of, like gravity?
I suppose it's not a good analogy because there are no lines of =
flight from the forces of gravity, but I'm still interested ;)
Nate
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul Bryant=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a
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.=20
Paul=20
Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:=20
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:=20
To:=20
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=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
------=_NextPart_000_0136_01C0D322.D9DF1B00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Paul</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I totally follow =
you're=20
argument, I'm just curious how you'd respond to the claim that =
criticizing one=20
structure without any idea of what an alternative to that structure =
might be is=20
just like criticizing something we can't get rid of, like =
gravity?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I suppose it's not a =
good=20
analogy because there are no lines of flight from the forces of gravity, =
but I'm=20
still interested ;)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Nate</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dlevi_bryant@xxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:levi_bryant@xxxxxxxxx";>Paul=20
Bryant</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>[email protected]=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 02, 2001 =
12:44=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Foucault and =
pragmatism,=20
q&a</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P><BR>The claim that heterosexuality is a social construction and =
that it is=20
involved in a certain structure of power does not itself imply the=20
OPPOSITE: that we should all become homosexuals. In fact, =
a=20
careful reading of Foucault will reveal that homosexuality is no less =
a=20
construction of the nineteenth century episteme. We must always =
hold in=20
mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not imply that =
one=20
should adopt the contrary position. To do so would be to be no =
less=20
defined by the structure of power in question. This is a common =
mistake=20
made where criticism is concerned. For instance, one often =
assumes that=20
any criticism made against capitalism entails that one is =
automatically a=20
supporter of socialism. This happens all the more often now that =
the=20
soviet union has fallen. Yet is it not possible that capitalism =
has the=20
resources for criticizing itself from within, without yet entailing =
the=20
opposite position? Oppositional thinking seems to indicate a =
rather=20
slavish turn of mind.=20
<P>Paul=20
<P> <B><I>Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> =
wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px =
solid">The=20
idea that treating "heterosexuality" as a social construction=20
(i.e.,<BR>calling it what it is) will stop people from breeding is a =
jaw=20
dropping<BR>claim. Not all societies generate identities out of 19th =
century<BR>psychological categories, but they all seem to figure out =
how to=20
make<BR>babies.<BR><BR>Vunch. Do you have a citation for Taylor =
criticizing=20
Foucault as an advocate<BR>of universal homosexuality? I spent a =
summer at=20
an Institute where Taylor<BR>did a series of talks. I have also read =
a lot=20
of his stuff. I do not recall<BR>any arguments quite this bizarre =
coming=20
from him. Indeed, he is usually<BR>quite =
careful.<BR><BR>Larry<BR>-----=20
Original Message -----<BR>From: <VUNCH@xxxxxxx><BR>To:=20
<FOUCAULT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, =
2001 1:40=20
AM<BR>Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a<BR><BR><BR>> =
In a=20
message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,<BR>>=20
rhizome85@xxxxxxxx writes:<BR>><BR>> > Besides, Vunch, is =
Foucault=20
REALLY saying we should all be gay? Is he<BR>REALLY<BR>> > =
saying that=20
heterosexuality should disappear?<BR>> ><BR>> > Of =
course=20
not.<BR>><BR>> Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, =
that it is=20
merely a social<BR>> construction!!<BR>><BR>>=20
Vunch<BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>e=20
<P><BR>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
<B>Do You Yahoo!?</B><BR><A href=3D"http://auctions.yahoo.com/";>Yahoo! =
Auctions</A> - buy the things you want at great=20
prices</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0136_01C0D322.D9DF1B00--