Basically the only real point he tried to disprove with "powerful
researches" was his interpretation of Foucault's thesis in The History of
Sexuality volume 1 that sexuality is a construction of history and society,
which he feels his wrong due to evolutionary psychology and the like proving
that there is a sexual nature, as well as the fact of basic biology and
genetics.
I think he misses the point in that Foucault, to my mind, says that the
ideas based around sexuality in the West traditionally are historically
varied and complicated and that he's not trying to deny the biological
existence of men and women but the notion that traditional sexuality is
inevitable or irreversibly natural. Or I may be wrongly phrasing it my self.
In fact, in my response to the teacher, I wrote that Foucault is not trying
to so much disprove anything as to merely show a genealogy of the
perceptions of sexuality in the West. If anything, that he was underming
naive notions about sexuality held by the everyday person or academic.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 00:17 -0600, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
>
>
> > He also views Foucault as essentially a social constructionist which is
> an
> > understandable yet rather mistaken (to me at least) characterization of
> his
> > work and project.
>
>
> Well, yes (making reasonable assumptions about
> what you mean by "social constructionist" etc.).
>
> So, how to address a person with that
> misunderstanding?
>
> One way is to challenge him on his claims of all
> of these "subtexts". There's what Foucault says
> and then there's a whole other range of theory
> that is what your teacher finds to be the "subtext".
> As if Foucault needed some explanation other than
> the explanation which is exactly what Foucault
> wrote.
>
> Well, ok, then the challenge to that critic is to
> get specific: He says he has a theory of what
> Foucault "really meant" so then let him not sell the
> theory, right away, but instead apply the theory and
> find some specific examples in Foucault to which he
> can apply his theory and convince us of the error of
> those specific examples. If he succeeds a couple of
> times then maybe we can begin to take his claim of
> a general theory of this subtext seriously ... but if
> he can't even produce a single one....
>
> -t
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
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"
researches" was his interpretation of Foucault's thesis in The History of
Sexuality volume 1 that sexuality is a construction of history and society,
which he feels his wrong due to evolutionary psychology and the like proving
that there is a sexual nature, as well as the fact of basic biology and
genetics.
I think he misses the point in that Foucault, to my mind, says that the
ideas based around sexuality in the West traditionally are historically
varied and complicated and that he's not trying to deny the biological
existence of men and women but the notion that traditional sexuality is
inevitable or irreversibly natural. Or I may be wrongly phrasing it my self.
In fact, in my response to the teacher, I wrote that Foucault is not trying
to so much disprove anything as to merely show a genealogy of the
perceptions of sexuality in the West. If anything, that he was underming
naive notions about sexuality held by the everyday person or academic.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 00:17 -0600, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
>
>
> > He also views Foucault as essentially a social constructionist which is
> an
> > understandable yet rather mistaken (to me at least) characterization of
> his
> > work and project.
>
>
> Well, yes (making reasonable assumptions about
> what you mean by "social constructionist" etc.).
>
> So, how to address a person with that
> misunderstanding?
>
> One way is to challenge him on his claims of all
> of these "subtexts". There's what Foucault says
> and then there's a whole other range of theory
> that is what your teacher finds to be the "subtext".
> As if Foucault needed some explanation other than
> the explanation which is exactly what Foucault
> wrote.
>
> Well, ok, then the challenge to that critic is to
> get specific: He says he has a theory of what
> Foucault "really meant" so then let him not sell the
> theory, right away, but instead apply the theory and
> find some specific examples in Foucault to which he
> can apply his theory and convince us of the error of
> those specific examples. If he succeeds a couple of
> times then maybe we can begin to take his claim of
> a general theory of this subtext seriously ... but if
> he can't even produce a single one....
>
> -t
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
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"