Somehow, I think my teacher may have been thinking more about Judith Butler
than about Foucault when he was talking about Foucault's "undermining of
socially-constructed sexuality" as his points about psychology and sex seem
to be more concerned with the human nature of men and women per say. And
that seems to be more applicable to a critique of Butler (not necessarily a
right critique) than of Foucault.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I agree entirely, 100%
> I don't think he is the abstract, stuffy, obscurantist French nihilistic
> academic he's so often painted to be. I think he would in a way be
> disdainful of the "foucault studies" image painted around his work all the
> time. Or the way he's kept as an abstract thinker for the ivory tower of
> academia rather than someone for average thinkers in society to use.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Thomas Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 19:27 -0600, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> So, to that, you can say "what do you mean by
>> 'sexuality'?"
>>
>> Surely there are scientific accounts that use
>> words like "sexuality" as terms-of-art: as formal
>> terms in a formalizible science paper.
>>
>> Just as surely there are "rhetorical" - to avoid
>> any Foucault terms-of-art - uses of "sexuality" and
>> related terms. There is the imperfect logic of
>> sexuality as it appears in court, or in legislation,
>> or in this or that theology, etc.
>>
>> There are "sexualities," so to speak, with not
>> a single topic of discussion.
>>
>> Less fancily: he's doing an "apples v. oranges"
>> thing.
>>
>> We can leave the "self" out of it for a minute
>> because when we contrast uses of that term we'll
>> see the same problems again but harder to think
>> about because they feel closer to home, so to speak.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> No, that's just fine. One of the academics can
>> probably find an interview or some such where
>> he said as much himself. Not regarding sexuality
>> but on other matters that apply by good analogy
>> similar topics come up in the dialog with Chomsky.
>>
>> It's not that hard a concept but the confusion you
>> attribute to your friend here seems really common
>> and surprisingly persistent. I'm interested to find
>> simple plain-language ways to clear it up.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> Not just perceptions but how it relates to
>> exercises of power against individual people
>> and how those exercises of power incline people
>> towards either reinforcing the pattern or breaking
>> from it in very narrowly constrained ways.
>>
>>
>> > If anything, that he was underming
>> > naive notions about sexuality held by the everyday person or academic.
>> >
>>
>>
>> He was "just" being clear-headed and not trying
>> to overgeneralize while nevertheless being
>> unafraid of some obvious analytic abstractions.
>>
>> He eeked that out of the academic publication
>> system by also being a beautiful writer who could
>> treat academic forms as purely abstract forms.
>>
>> He turned the academic gaze upon itself, rather
>> completely and truly, and to this day that flummoxes
>> the academic voice.
>>
>> -t
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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"
>
--
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"
than about Foucault when he was talking about Foucault's "undermining of
socially-constructed sexuality" as his points about psychology and sex seem
to be more concerned with the human nature of men and women per say. And
that seems to be more applicable to a critique of Butler (not necessarily a
right critique) than of Foucault.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I agree entirely, 100%
> I don't think he is the abstract, stuffy, obscurantist French nihilistic
> academic he's so often painted to be. I think he would in a way be
> disdainful of the "foucault studies" image painted around his work all the
> time. Or the way he's kept as an abstract thinker for the ivory tower of
> academia rather than someone for average thinkers in society to use.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Thomas Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 19:27 -0600, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> So, to that, you can say "what do you mean by
>> 'sexuality'?"
>>
>> Surely there are scientific accounts that use
>> words like "sexuality" as terms-of-art: as formal
>> terms in a formalizible science paper.
>>
>> Just as surely there are "rhetorical" - to avoid
>> any Foucault terms-of-art - uses of "sexuality" and
>> related terms. There is the imperfect logic of
>> sexuality as it appears in court, or in legislation,
>> or in this or that theology, etc.
>>
>> There are "sexualities," so to speak, with not
>> a single topic of discussion.
>>
>> Less fancily: he's doing an "apples v. oranges"
>> thing.
>>
>> We can leave the "self" out of it for a minute
>> because when we contrast uses of that term we'll
>> see the same problems again but harder to think
>> about because they feel closer to home, so to speak.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> No, that's just fine. One of the academics can
>> probably find an interview or some such where
>> he said as much himself. Not regarding sexuality
>> but on other matters that apply by good analogy
>> similar topics come up in the dialog with Chomsky.
>>
>> It's not that hard a concept but the confusion you
>> attribute to your friend here seems really common
>> and surprisingly persistent. I'm interested to find
>> simple plain-language ways to clear it up.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> Not just perceptions but how it relates to
>> exercises of power against individual people
>> and how those exercises of power incline people
>> towards either reinforcing the pattern or breaking
>> from it in very narrowly constrained ways.
>>
>>
>> > If anything, that he was underming
>> > naive notions about sexuality held by the everyday person or academic.
>> >
>>
>>
>> He was "just" being clear-headed and not trying
>> to overgeneralize while nevertheless being
>> unafraid of some obvious analytic abstractions.
>>
>> He eeked that out of the academic publication
>> system by also being a beautiful writer who could
>> treat academic forms as purely abstract forms.
>>
>> He turned the academic gaze upon itself, rather
>> completely and truly, and to this day that flummoxes
>> the academic voice.
>>
>> -t
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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"
>
--
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"