My Teacher also said this following the passage i just sent you:
"Chetan, read The History of Sexuality. Please show me where Foucault gives
any serious consideration to genetic predisposition in gendered roles. The
entire subcontext, especially when he considers science and sexuality, is to
undermine and undo what he thinks to be entirely socially constructed norms
of sexuality. I'm not saying modern science justifies all of those norms,
but it certainly flies in the face of what is essentially a denial of
natural predispositions in sexuality. You have to read all three volumes to
see that."
When I replied, he said:
"So there's no subtext of criticism, especially of science, in The History
of Sexuality? If you can't see that, I'd say you have a very unique
interpretation of Foucault. Secondly, there's no doubt that subjectification
is an essential component of his analysis of the entire judical framework.
How could you deny that?
Are you seriously proposing that Foucault does not generally criticize a
scientific basis for universal human nature? If nothing else, that puts you
in disagreement with the majority of Foucault scholarship out there."
Not to sound incredibly petulant and childish, but I'm now quite unsure if
my defense of as merely historicizing western perceptions of sexuality and
not critiquing scientific categories of sex was plausible after reading
that.
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
"Chetan, read The History of Sexuality. Please show me where Foucault gives
any serious consideration to genetic predisposition in gendered roles. The
entire subcontext, especially when he considers science and sexuality, is to
undermine and undo what he thinks to be entirely socially constructed norms
of sexuality. I'm not saying modern science justifies all of those norms,
but it certainly flies in the face of what is essentially a denial of
natural predispositions in sexuality. You have to read all three volumes to
see that."
When I replied, he said:
"So there's no subtext of criticism, especially of science, in The History
of Sexuality? If you can't see that, I'd say you have a very unique
interpretation of Foucault. Secondly, there's no doubt that subjectification
is an essential component of his analysis of the entire judical framework.
How could you deny that?
Are you seriously proposing that Foucault does not generally criticize a
scientific basis for universal human nature? If nothing else, that puts you
in disagreement with the majority of Foucault scholarship out there."
Not to sound incredibly petulant and childish, but I'm now quite unsure if
my defense of as merely historicizing western perceptions of sexuality and
not critiquing scientific categories of sex was plausible after reading
that.
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"