This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0D337.B8257B20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul
No I didn't mean to imply that there was no alternative to the =
discursive construction of homosexuality/heterosexuality - I was =
speaking more in the context of your example of capitalism. But the =
analysis you gave is useful in both contexts.
Your discussion of Foucault's Kantianism strikes me as being an =
aspect of Foucault's Heideggerianism. You make vague reference to a =
space for alternatives - recognizing the contingency that haunts all =
projects. In Heidegger (and Sartre?) it is this space that gives us our =
"freedom": for Sartre it is God's absence; for Heidegger it is the =
Nothing? The denaturalization of historical practices ("being held out =
into the Nothing" ... "appreciating the being of Being") renders all =
things possible.
Eh?
Nate
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul Bryant=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a
Hi Nathan--
You ask a difficult question and I find that I am not certain how to =
respond. Your remark about criticizing something like gravity that =
cannot be gotten rid of suggests that you conceive heterosexuality and =
homosexuality in these terms as well. Here the claim would be that =
regardless of whether we criticize heterosexuality and homosexuality, =
men and women will continue to sleep with one another and men and men =
and women and women will continue to sleep together. Am I correct in =
drawing this inference?
If this inference is fair, then I would like to suggest that Foucault =
is not talking about whether men and women, men and men, and women and =
women sleep together, but rather about a structure of DISCOURSE that =
groups a set of practices together and then normalizes/essentializes a =
particular form of practice. Here it seems important to carefully =
distinguish matters of fact from forms of discourse. Forms of discourse =
assemble together various matters of fact into a structure of mutual =
inherence (a relation of parts and wholes, and well formed wholes =
against ill formed wholes) in such a way that a moral heirarchialization =
of practices can be effected and particular practices can be treated as =
normal against those of the abnormal (which are nonetheless defined by =
the heirarchialization). The assemblage thus effected by the discourse =
therefore becomes a way both of precomprehending various practices =
(epistemologization) and of understanding ourselves in terms of our own =
practices (subjectivization).=20
Now, in english the term "critique" is ambiguous. In day to day =
speech we tend to understand the term critique as a way of =
delegitimating some position or activity, of showing that it is wrong or =
mistaken. Consequently, under this understanding, to critique the =
contemporary structure of sexuality would be to show that it is somehow =
fallacious. Foucault seems neutral with respect to this sense of =
critique insofar as to it implies a sort of essentialism and =
naturalization of the sexual... Furthermore, Foucault is also =
interested in unfolding the sense of various forms of struggle =
surrounding certain discourses. In this respect, Foucault must at least =
strive for some sort of neutrality insofar as the competing sides in a =
struggle often (though not essentially) share the same discourse on =
particular practices in their grounding assumptions... A scalpel can be =
used to both heal and cut, unfolding a discourse keeps this dimension of =
sense, it's ambiguity, its strange neutrality, always before itself. In =
other words, we can only show that something is mistaken if we hold that =
an alternative practice would be more authentic, more true, more fitting =
of the essence of the sexual. =20
By contrast, it seems more fruitful to understand critique in Kantian =
and philosophical terms, where critique is understood as the practice of =
determining the conditions under which something is possible and the =
limits of that form of practice. (Foucault shed quite a bit of ink on =
the Kantian notion of critique and the project of enlightenment that =
often seems ignored). Under this interpretation, to critique the modern =
conception of sexuality would be to unfold the discourse, structure or =
assemblage that renders this practice possible. Such an activity has =
both positive and negative consequences. Positively it allows us to =
understand why our understanding of sexuality takes this particular form =
and not others, where others have indeed been practiced throughout the =
history of sexuality. Negatively it allows us to see that naturalistic =
conceptions of sexuality are based on a sort of transcendental illusion =
whereby we essentialize and naturalize historically contingent forms of =
practice.
So, you ask, is it legitimate to critique a position without offering =
an alternative to that position. Here I would suggest that the =
denaturalization of practices like sexuality opens up a space of =
possibilities in which we can conceive new self relations to our own =
sexualities otherwise. As such, the denaturalization of sexuality opens =
a free space for new forms of practices. What these practices might be =
we cannot say in advance because they themselves must be brought into =
being through actual practice and engagement... To say otherwise would =
be to claim that the field of possibility is already delimited, which =
would be to fall back into the old essentialism. This answer is perhaps =
less than satisfying, but it does at least suggest that political =
practice is also political experimentation... Has it ever been =
otherwise where the social is concerned?
Best Regards,
Paul=20
Nathan Goralnik <rhizome85@xxxxxxxx> wrote:=20
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0D337.B8257B20
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></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> No I didn't mean to =
imply that=20
there was no alternative to the discursive construction of=20
homosexuality/heterosexuality - I was speaking more in the context of =
your=20
example of capitalism. But the analysis you gave is useful in both=20
contexts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Your discussion of =
Foucault's=20
Kantianism strikes me as being an aspect of Foucault's Heideggerianism. =
You make=20
vague reference to a space for alternatives - recognizing the =
contingency that=20
haunts all projects. In Heidegger (and Sartre?) it is this space that =
gives us=20
our "freedom": for Sartre it is God's absence; for Heidegger it is the =
Nothing?=20
The denaturalization of historical practices ("being held out into the =
Nothing"=20
... "appreciating the being of Being") renders all things =
possible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Eh?</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 =
5:13=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Foucault and =
pragmatism,=20
q&a</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Hi Nathan--</P><BR>
<P>You ask a difficult question and I find that I am not certain how =
to=20
respond. Your remark about criticizing something like gravity =
that=20
cannot be gotten rid of suggests that you conceive heterosexuality and =
homosexuality in these terms as well. Here the claim would be =
that=20
regardless of whether we criticize heterosexuality and homosexuality, =
men and=20
women will continue to sleep with one another and men and men and =
women and=20
women will continue to sleep together. Am I correct in drawing =
this=20
inference?</P>If this inference is fair, then I would like to suggest =
that=20
Foucault is not talking about whether men and women, men and men, and =
women=20
and women sleep together, but rather about a structure =
of DISCOURSE that=20
groups a set of practices together and then normalizes/essentializes a =
particular form of practice. Here it seems important to =
carefully=20
distinguish matters of fact from forms of discourse. Forms of =
discourse=20
assemble together various matters of fact into a structure of mutual =
inherence=20
(a relation of parts and wholes, and well formed wholes against ill =
formed=20
wholes) in such a way that a moral heirarchialization of practices can =
be=20
effected and particular practices can be treated as normal against =
those of=20
the abnormal (which are nonetheless defined by the =
heirarchialization). =20
The assemblage thus effected by the discourse therefore becomes a way =
both of=20
precomprehending various practices (epistemologization) and of =
understanding=20
ourselves in terms of our own practices (subjectivization).=20
<P>Now, in english the term "critique" is ambiguous. In day to =
day=20
speech we tend to understand the term critique as a way of =
delegitimating some=20
position or activity, of showing that it is wrong or mistaken. =20
Consequently, under this understanding, to critique the contemporary =
structure=20
of sexuality would be to show that it is somehow fallacious. =
Foucault=20
seems neutral with respect to this sense of critique insofar as to it =
implies=20
a sort of essentialism and naturalization of the sexual... =20
Furthermore, Foucault is also interested in unfolding the sense =
of=20
various forms of struggle surrounding certain discourses. In =
this=20
respect, Foucault must at least strive for some sort of neutrality =
insofar as=20
the competing sides in a struggle often (though not essentially) share =
the=20
same discourse on particular practices in their grounding=20
assumptions... A scalpel can be used to both heal and cut, =
unfolding a=20
discourse keeps this dimension of sense, it's ambiguity, its strange=20
neutrality, always before itself. In other words, we can only =
show that=20
something is mistaken if we hold that an alternative practice would be =
more=20
authentic, more true, more fitting of the essence of the sexual. =
</P>
<P>By contrast, it seems more fruitful to understand critique in =
Kantian and=20
philosophical terms, where critique is understood as the practice of=20
determining the conditions under which something is possible and the =
limits of=20
that form of practice. (Foucault shed quite a bit of ink on the =
Kantian=20
notion of critique and the project of enlightenment that often seems=20
ignored). Under this interpretation, to critique the modern =
conception=20
of sexuality would be to unfold the discourse, structure or assemblage =
that=20
renders this practice possible. Such an activity has both =
positive and=20
negative consequences. Positively it allows us to understand why =
our=20
understanding of sexuality takes this particular form and not others, =
where=20
others have indeed been practiced throughout the history of =
sexuality. =20
Negatively it allows us to see that naturalistic conceptions of =
sexuality are=20
based on a sort of transcendental illusion whereby we essentialize and =
naturalize historically contingent forms of practice.</P>
<P>So, you ask, is it legitimate to critique a position without =
offering an=20
alternative to that position. Here I would suggest that the=20
denaturalization of practices like sexuality opens up a space of =
possibilities=20
in which we can conceive new self relations to our own sexualities=20
otherwise. As such, the denaturalization of sexuality opens a =
free space=20
for new forms of practices. What these practices might be we =
cannot say=20
in advance because they themselves must be brought into being through =
actual=20
practice and engagement... To say otherwise would be to claim =
that the=20
field of possibility is already delimited, which would be to fall back =
into=20
the old essentialism. This answer is perhaps less than =
satisfying, but=20
it does at least suggest that political practice is also political=20
experimentation... Has it ever been otherwise where the social =
is=20
concerned?</P>
<P>Best Regards,</P>
<P>Paul <BR></P><BR>
<P> <B><I>Nathan Goralnik <rhizome85@xxxxxxxx></I></B> =
wrote:=20
<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px =
solid"><BR><BR>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR><BR><BR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Paul</FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><BR><BR>
<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=20
one structure without any idea of what an alternative to that =
structure=20
might be is just like criticizing something we can't get rid of, =
like=20
gravity?</FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><BR><BR>
<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=20
I'm still interested ;)</FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
Nate</FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><BR><BR>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- =
</DIV><BR><BR>
<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><BR><BR>
<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><BR><BR>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 02, =
2001 12:44=20
AM</DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Foucault and =
pragmatism,=20
q&a</DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<P><BR>The claim that heterosexuality is a social construction and =
that it=20
is 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=20
in mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not =
imply that=20
one should adopt the contrary position. To do so would be to =
be no=20
less defined by the structure of power in question. This is =
a common=20
mistake made where criticism is concerned. For instance, one =
often=20
assumes that any criticism made against capitalism entails that =
one is=20
automatically a supporter of socialism. This happens all the =
more=20
often now that the soviet union has fallen. Yet is it not =
possible=20
that capitalism has the resources for criticizing itself from =
within,=20
without yet entailing the opposite position? Oppositional =
thinking=20
seems to indicate a rather slavish turn of mind. <BR><BR>
<P>Paul <BR><BR>
<P> <B><I>Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> =
wrote:=20
<BR><BR><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=20
century<BR>psychological categories, but they all seem to figure =
out how=20
to make<BR>babies.<BR><BR>Vunch. Do you have a citation for =
Taylor=20
criticizing Foucault as an advocate<BR>of universal =
homosexuality? I=20
spent a summer at an Institute where Taylor<BR>did a series of =
talks. I=20
have also read a lot of his stuff. I do not recall<BR>any =
arguments=20
quite this bizarre coming from him. Indeed, he is =
usually<BR>quite=20
careful.<BR><BR>Larry<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From:=20
<VUNCH@xxxxxxx><BR>To: =
<FOUCAULT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent:=20
Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:40 AM<BR>Subject: Re: Foucault and =
pragmatism,=20
q&a<BR><BR><BR>> In a message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM =
Eastern=20
Daylight Time,<BR>> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx =
writes:<BR>><BR>> >=20
Besides, Vunch, is Foucault REALLY saying we should all be gay? =
Is=20
he<BR>REALLY<BR>> > saying that heterosexuality should=20
disappear?<BR>> ><BR>> > Of course =
not.<BR>><BR>>=20
Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, that it is merely a=20
social<BR>> construction!!<BR>><BR>>=20
Vunch<BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>e <BR><BR>
<P><BR><BR><BR>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
<BR><BR><B>Do You Yahoo!?</B><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://auctions.yahoo.com/";>Yahoo! Auctions</A> - buy the =
things you=20
want at great prices</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<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_000C_01C0D337.B8257B20--
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0D337.B8257B20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul
No I didn't mean to imply that there was no alternative to the =
discursive construction of homosexuality/heterosexuality - I was =
speaking more in the context of your example of capitalism. But the =
analysis you gave is useful in both contexts.
Your discussion of Foucault's Kantianism strikes me as being an =
aspect of Foucault's Heideggerianism. You make vague reference to a =
space for alternatives - recognizing the contingency that haunts all =
projects. In Heidegger (and Sartre?) it is this space that gives us our =
"freedom": for Sartre it is God's absence; for Heidegger it is the =
Nothing? The denaturalization of historical practices ("being held out =
into the Nothing" ... "appreciating the being of Being") renders all =
things possible.
Eh?
Nate
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul Bryant=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a
Hi Nathan--
You ask a difficult question and I find that I am not certain how to =
respond. Your remark about criticizing something like gravity that =
cannot be gotten rid of suggests that you conceive heterosexuality and =
homosexuality in these terms as well. Here the claim would be that =
regardless of whether we criticize heterosexuality and homosexuality, =
men and women will continue to sleep with one another and men and men =
and women and women will continue to sleep together. Am I correct in =
drawing this inference?
If this inference is fair, then I would like to suggest that Foucault =
is not talking about whether men and women, men and men, and women and =
women sleep together, but rather about a structure of DISCOURSE that =
groups a set of practices together and then normalizes/essentializes a =
particular form of practice. Here it seems important to carefully =
distinguish matters of fact from forms of discourse. Forms of discourse =
assemble together various matters of fact into a structure of mutual =
inherence (a relation of parts and wholes, and well formed wholes =
against ill formed wholes) in such a way that a moral heirarchialization =
of practices can be effected and particular practices can be treated as =
normal against those of the abnormal (which are nonetheless defined by =
the heirarchialization). The assemblage thus effected by the discourse =
therefore becomes a way both of precomprehending various practices =
(epistemologization) and of understanding ourselves in terms of our own =
practices (subjectivization).=20
Now, in english the term "critique" is ambiguous. In day to day =
speech we tend to understand the term critique as a way of =
delegitimating some position or activity, of showing that it is wrong or =
mistaken. Consequently, under this understanding, to critique the =
contemporary structure of sexuality would be to show that it is somehow =
fallacious. Foucault seems neutral with respect to this sense of =
critique insofar as to it implies a sort of essentialism and =
naturalization of the sexual... Furthermore, Foucault is also =
interested in unfolding the sense of various forms of struggle =
surrounding certain discourses. In this respect, Foucault must at least =
strive for some sort of neutrality insofar as the competing sides in a =
struggle often (though not essentially) share the same discourse on =
particular practices in their grounding assumptions... A scalpel can be =
used to both heal and cut, unfolding a discourse keeps this dimension of =
sense, it's ambiguity, its strange neutrality, always before itself. In =
other words, we can only show that something is mistaken if we hold that =
an alternative practice would be more authentic, more true, more fitting =
of the essence of the sexual. =20
By contrast, it seems more fruitful to understand critique in Kantian =
and philosophical terms, where critique is understood as the practice of =
determining the conditions under which something is possible and the =
limits of that form of practice. (Foucault shed quite a bit of ink on =
the Kantian notion of critique and the project of enlightenment that =
often seems ignored). Under this interpretation, to critique the modern =
conception of sexuality would be to unfold the discourse, structure or =
assemblage that renders this practice possible. Such an activity has =
both positive and negative consequences. Positively it allows us to =
understand why our understanding of sexuality takes this particular form =
and not others, where others have indeed been practiced throughout the =
history of sexuality. Negatively it allows us to see that naturalistic =
conceptions of sexuality are based on a sort of transcendental illusion =
whereby we essentialize and naturalize historically contingent forms of =
practice.
So, you ask, is it legitimate to critique a position without offering =
an alternative to that position. Here I would suggest that the =
denaturalization of practices like sexuality opens up a space of =
possibilities in which we can conceive new self relations to our own =
sexualities otherwise. As such, the denaturalization of sexuality opens =
a free space for new forms of practices. What these practices might be =
we cannot say in advance because they themselves must be brought into =
being through actual practice and engagement... To say otherwise would =
be to claim that the field of possibility is already delimited, which =
would be to fall back into the old essentialism. This answer is perhaps =
less than satisfying, but it does at least suggest that political =
practice is also political experimentation... Has it ever been =
otherwise where the social is concerned?
Best Regards,
Paul=20
Nathan Goralnik <rhizome85@xxxxxxxx> wrote:=20
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0D337.B8257B20
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></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> No I didn't mean to =
imply that=20
there was no alternative to the discursive construction of=20
homosexuality/heterosexuality - I was speaking more in the context of =
your=20
example of capitalism. But the analysis you gave is useful in both=20
contexts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Your discussion of =
Foucault's=20
Kantianism strikes me as being an aspect of Foucault's Heideggerianism. =
You make=20
vague reference to a space for alternatives - recognizing the =
contingency that=20
haunts all projects. In Heidegger (and Sartre?) it is this space that =
gives us=20
our "freedom": for Sartre it is God's absence; for Heidegger it is the =
Nothing?=20
The denaturalization of historical practices ("being held out into the =
Nothing"=20
... "appreciating the being of Being") renders all things =
possible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Eh?</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 =
5:13=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Foucault and =
pragmatism,=20
q&a</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Hi Nathan--</P><BR>
<P>You ask a difficult question and I find that I am not certain how =
to=20
respond. Your remark about criticizing something like gravity =
that=20
cannot be gotten rid of suggests that you conceive heterosexuality and =
homosexuality in these terms as well. Here the claim would be =
that=20
regardless of whether we criticize heterosexuality and homosexuality, =
men and=20
women will continue to sleep with one another and men and men and =
women and=20
women will continue to sleep together. Am I correct in drawing =
this=20
inference?</P>If this inference is fair, then I would like to suggest =
that=20
Foucault is not talking about whether men and women, men and men, and =
women=20
and women sleep together, but rather about a structure =
of DISCOURSE that=20
groups a set of practices together and then normalizes/essentializes a =
particular form of practice. Here it seems important to =
carefully=20
distinguish matters of fact from forms of discourse. Forms of =
discourse=20
assemble together various matters of fact into a structure of mutual =
inherence=20
(a relation of parts and wholes, and well formed wholes against ill =
formed=20
wholes) in such a way that a moral heirarchialization of practices can =
be=20
effected and particular practices can be treated as normal against =
those of=20
the abnormal (which are nonetheless defined by the =
heirarchialization). =20
The assemblage thus effected by the discourse therefore becomes a way =
both of=20
precomprehending various practices (epistemologization) and of =
understanding=20
ourselves in terms of our own practices (subjectivization).=20
<P>Now, in english the term "critique" is ambiguous. In day to =
day=20
speech we tend to understand the term critique as a way of =
delegitimating some=20
position or activity, of showing that it is wrong or mistaken. =20
Consequently, under this understanding, to critique the contemporary =
structure=20
of sexuality would be to show that it is somehow fallacious. =
Foucault=20
seems neutral with respect to this sense of critique insofar as to it =
implies=20
a sort of essentialism and naturalization of the sexual... =20
Furthermore, Foucault is also interested in unfolding the sense =
of=20
various forms of struggle surrounding certain discourses. In =
this=20
respect, Foucault must at least strive for some sort of neutrality =
insofar as=20
the competing sides in a struggle often (though not essentially) share =
the=20
same discourse on particular practices in their grounding=20
assumptions... A scalpel can be used to both heal and cut, =
unfolding a=20
discourse keeps this dimension of sense, it's ambiguity, its strange=20
neutrality, always before itself. In other words, we can only =
show that=20
something is mistaken if we hold that an alternative practice would be =
more=20
authentic, more true, more fitting of the essence of the sexual. =
</P>
<P>By contrast, it seems more fruitful to understand critique in =
Kantian and=20
philosophical terms, where critique is understood as the practice of=20
determining the conditions under which something is possible and the =
limits of=20
that form of practice. (Foucault shed quite a bit of ink on the =
Kantian=20
notion of critique and the project of enlightenment that often seems=20
ignored). Under this interpretation, to critique the modern =
conception=20
of sexuality would be to unfold the discourse, structure or assemblage =
that=20
renders this practice possible. Such an activity has both =
positive and=20
negative consequences. Positively it allows us to understand why =
our=20
understanding of sexuality takes this particular form and not others, =
where=20
others have indeed been practiced throughout the history of =
sexuality. =20
Negatively it allows us to see that naturalistic conceptions of =
sexuality are=20
based on a sort of transcendental illusion whereby we essentialize and =
naturalize historically contingent forms of practice.</P>
<P>So, you ask, is it legitimate to critique a position without =
offering an=20
alternative to that position. Here I would suggest that the=20
denaturalization of practices like sexuality opens up a space of =
possibilities=20
in which we can conceive new self relations to our own sexualities=20
otherwise. As such, the denaturalization of sexuality opens a =
free space=20
for new forms of practices. What these practices might be we =
cannot say=20
in advance because they themselves must be brought into being through =
actual=20
practice and engagement... To say otherwise would be to claim =
that the=20
field of possibility is already delimited, which would be to fall back =
into=20
the old essentialism. This answer is perhaps less than =
satisfying, but=20
it does at least suggest that political practice is also political=20
experimentation... Has it ever been otherwise where the social =
is=20
concerned?</P>
<P>Best Regards,</P>
<P>Paul <BR></P><BR>
<P> <B><I>Nathan Goralnik <rhizome85@xxxxxxxx></I></B> =
wrote:=20
<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px =
solid"><BR><BR>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR><BR><BR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Paul</FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><BR><BR>
<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=20
one structure without any idea of what an alternative to that =
structure=20
might be is just like criticizing something we can't get rid of, =
like=20
gravity?</FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><BR><BR>
<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=20
I'm still interested ;)</FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
Nate</FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><BR><BR>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- =
</DIV><BR><BR>
<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><BR><BR>
<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><BR><BR>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 02, =
2001 12:44=20
AM</DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Foucault and =
pragmatism,=20
q&a</DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<P><BR>The claim that heterosexuality is a social construction and =
that it=20
is 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=20
in mind that the negation or criticism of a position does not =
imply that=20
one should adopt the contrary position. To do so would be to =
be no=20
less defined by the structure of power in question. This is =
a common=20
mistake made where criticism is concerned. For instance, one =
often=20
assumes that any criticism made against capitalism entails that =
one is=20
automatically a supporter of socialism. This happens all the =
more=20
often now that the soviet union has fallen. Yet is it not =
possible=20
that capitalism has the resources for criticizing itself from =
within,=20
without yet entailing the opposite position? Oppositional =
thinking=20
seems to indicate a rather slavish turn of mind. <BR><BR>
<P>Paul <BR><BR>
<P> <B><I>Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> =
wrote:=20
<BR><BR><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=20
century<BR>psychological categories, but they all seem to figure =
out how=20
to make<BR>babies.<BR><BR>Vunch. Do you have a citation for =
Taylor=20
criticizing Foucault as an advocate<BR>of universal =
homosexuality? I=20
spent a summer at an Institute where Taylor<BR>did a series of =
talks. I=20
have also read a lot of his stuff. I do not recall<BR>any =
arguments=20
quite this bizarre coming from him. Indeed, he is =
usually<BR>quite=20
careful.<BR><BR>Larry<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From:=20
<VUNCH@xxxxxxx><BR>To: =
<FOUCAULT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent:=20
Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:40 AM<BR>Subject: Re: Foucault and =
pragmatism,=20
q&a<BR><BR><BR>> In a message dated 4/30/01 1:28:28 AM =
Eastern=20
Daylight Time,<BR>> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx =
writes:<BR>><BR>> >=20
Besides, Vunch, is Foucault REALLY saying we should all be gay? =
Is=20
he<BR>REALLY<BR>> > saying that heterosexuality should=20
disappear?<BR>> ><BR>> > Of course =
not.<BR>><BR>>=20
Unfortunately, he IS saying that it should, that it is merely a=20
social<BR>> construction!!<BR>><BR>>=20
Vunch<BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>e <BR><BR>
<P><BR><BR><BR>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
<BR><BR><B>Do You Yahoo!?</B><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://auctions.yahoo.com/";>Yahoo! Auctions</A> - buy the =
things you=20
want at great prices</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<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_000C_01C0D337.B8257B20--