Chetan Vemuri schreef:
your question is very unspecific. I guess Foucault intended it to be an archeology of the discourses around sex. It's very hard to generalise an experience because an experience is specific and indivudalistic by nature. Foucault was not an expert on non-western discourses about sex neither pretended it to be. Colonial influences on sex are also not to be generalised, because each culture has dealt with colonial influences in it's own way. It's hard to say a.f.a.i.k. how much the present discourse about sex in India has been influenced by Victorian ideas about sex and what the influence of the Islamic Wahhabite movement was.
And Marx was not an universal thinker, he was just as modern as Descartes or Rousseau.
erik
--
Groet
Erik
Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl
Does anyone else think that the History of Sexuality volume 1 is intendingHi Chetan,
to generalize world sexuaity experiences or do you think it is functioning
to analyze western sexuality rather than generalizing all experiences of
sexuality? Some postcolonial critics think it is wrong to not talk about
colonial discursive effects on eastern sexualities. I feel sometimes people
approach Foucault too much as a universal thinker in the vein of thinkers
like Marx, rather than someone who is regionally focused.
your question is very unspecific. I guess Foucault intended it to be an archeology of the discourses around sex. It's very hard to generalise an experience because an experience is specific and indivudalistic by nature. Foucault was not an expert on non-western discourses about sex neither pretended it to be. Colonial influences on sex are also not to be generalised, because each culture has dealt with colonial influences in it's own way. It's hard to say a.f.a.i.k. how much the present discourse about sex in India has been influenced by Victorian ideas about sex and what the influence of the Islamic Wahhabite movement was.
And Marx was not an universal thinker, he was just as modern as Descartes or Rousseau.
erik
--
Groet
Erik
Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl