Paul Allen Miller
Director of Comparative Literature
Associate Professor of Classics
Department of French and Classics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-0473
pamiller@xxxxxx
>>> lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx 05/06/02 09:54 AM >>>
But you can't be saying that Priestly Pedophiles were not pedophiles
prior
to the 18th century?>>
Well, I think you can say that, or at least Foucault did say that. They
committed acts of sodomy. But pedophile is a late 19th century
classification that specifies a sexual identity. It doesn't just name
an act, unless we want to say that Socrates was a pedophile. That's why
we make the distinction between pederasty (ancient Greek practice) and
pedophilia (modern pathology).
<< Their actions have not changed, but our definition of their
actions has changed.>>
But Foucault argues that they cannot be meaningfully separated. That's
the whole point of the argument at the end of volume 1 that sex is an
invention of the discourse of sexuality, not the other way around.
<<Did Foucault refute this statement or did he define it in different
terms.
My impression is that it was invented so that it could be repressed.
That
being the case it was repressed.>>
Well, he completely denies the repressive hypothesis. He argues that
the modern sexual dispositif is a positive incitement. That we have
become obsessed with thinking about, talking about, finding our
identities in sexuality. This is what he would say produced pedophile
priests.
But all I really wanted to say is that you were taking the quotation
from page 6 out of context. The first part of volume 1 is tricky.
Foucault outlines the classic case for the repressive hypothesis in very
persuasive tones before taking it apart. It's easy to get sucked in by
the discourse he is mimicking. That of course is precisely his point.
Whether he is ultimatley right about the repressive hypothesis is a
separate question. I think he may overstate things.
Lionel
Allen replied to my comment:
The quotation on p.6 is part of FOucault's outline of the repressive
hypothesis, which he later goes on to refute. Sex is not repressed, it
is invented in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Paul Allen Miller
Director of Comparative Literature
Associate Professor of Classics
Department of French and Classics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-0473
pamiller@xxxxxx
>>> lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx 05/05/02 22:11 PM >>>
Derive something from HOS p.6 and p.99.
'if sex is so rigorously repressed, this is because it is imcompatible
with
a general and intensive work imperative.' p. 6
'We must seek rather the pattern of the modifications which the
relationships of force imply by the very nature of their process.' p. 99
What is it that priests do when they work? What social dynamics are
created? What are the emotional reactions to the social dynamics? What
do
those dynamics lead to?
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Director of Comparative Literature
Associate Professor of Classics
Department of French and Classics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-0473
pamiller@xxxxxx
>>> lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx 05/06/02 09:54 AM >>>
But you can't be saying that Priestly Pedophiles were not pedophiles
prior
to the 18th century?>>
Well, I think you can say that, or at least Foucault did say that. They
committed acts of sodomy. But pedophile is a late 19th century
classification that specifies a sexual identity. It doesn't just name
an act, unless we want to say that Socrates was a pedophile. That's why
we make the distinction between pederasty (ancient Greek practice) and
pedophilia (modern pathology).
<< Their actions have not changed, but our definition of their
actions has changed.>>
But Foucault argues that they cannot be meaningfully separated. That's
the whole point of the argument at the end of volume 1 that sex is an
invention of the discourse of sexuality, not the other way around.
<<Did Foucault refute this statement or did he define it in different
terms.
My impression is that it was invented so that it could be repressed.
That
being the case it was repressed.>>
Well, he completely denies the repressive hypothesis. He argues that
the modern sexual dispositif is a positive incitement. That we have
become obsessed with thinking about, talking about, finding our
identities in sexuality. This is what he would say produced pedophile
priests.
But all I really wanted to say is that you were taking the quotation
from page 6 out of context. The first part of volume 1 is tricky.
Foucault outlines the classic case for the repressive hypothesis in very
persuasive tones before taking it apart. It's easy to get sucked in by
the discourse he is mimicking. That of course is precisely his point.
Whether he is ultimatley right about the repressive hypothesis is a
separate question. I think he may overstate things.
Lionel
Allen replied to my comment:
The quotation on p.6 is part of FOucault's outline of the repressive
hypothesis, which he later goes on to refute. Sex is not repressed, it
is invented in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Paul Allen Miller
Director of Comparative Literature
Associate Professor of Classics
Department of French and Classics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-0473
pamiller@xxxxxx
>>> lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx 05/05/02 22:11 PM >>>
Derive something from HOS p.6 and p.99.
'if sex is so rigorously repressed, this is because it is imcompatible
with
a general and intensive work imperative.' p. 6
'We must seek rather the pattern of the modifications which the
relationships of force imply by the very nature of their process.' p. 99
What is it that priests do when they work? What social dynamics are
created? What are the emotional reactions to the social dynamics? What
do
those dynamics lead to?
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com