To
Nathaniel: I don't get what's wrong with your 3 propositions. I would even say
I agree with all of them, I find these "categorizations" even more
"natural" (meaning: intuitive) than the homo/hetero one. But maybe
I'm too queer? Haha.
To Ryan,
and everyone interested: I'm pretty sure the meaning of Sedgwick's
pseudo-statement is not that people are closer through
the sexual acts they perform, but that they sometimes can feel
closer through the practices they have in common, or that we can also
categorize them along these axes (I'm thinking here of Sedgwick rhetorical
exercise in the beginning of Epistemology of the closet: there are a wide range
of “sexual” categories that we don’t think of, but that are still
possible). Anyway, I agree with your interpretation too. All we've got here is
the binary opposition between acts and identities. Let's say that I think this
opposition is also reductive (but it will bring us too far).
Still I find
it interesting, because it also refers to some of Foucault’s statements on
fist-fucking (mostly during interviews, like the one with Jean Le Bitoux, but never
printed in a book …). There were (and still is) a sort of gay fist-fucking community,
isn’t it?
Moreover, I’m
currently trying to develop a critique of some aspects of queer theory
connected to my research, by emphasizing that the gap which exists between acts
and identities, as two extreme and opposed terms, skips over the elements which
historically connected them from candle to candle. For example: if you practice
sodomy, one may infer that you like practicing sodomy; one can even infer that
you practice sodomy because you have a preference for this practice, for
various reasons; you can practice sodomy because you use it like a
contraceptive, or because you just like it; always practice it, and never
practice anything else; then watch a lot of porn movies, especially the sodomy scenes;
have fantasies about sodomy; practice sodomy only with men; one can then infer
that you have a particular taste for this practice, and that maybe it is part
of your sexual preference; sexual orientation isn’t far away, and here you are
a sodomy-lover, bringing out friends in your sodomy facebook group; if a
psychiatrist’s surfing on the web, he may find your facebook community, and
invent a new term to designated your weird practice, and maybe he will
discuss your case with his colleagues.
Okay, this
example is quite strange, but here we haven’t acts or identities, but a various
range of locus in which you have been psychologized and analyzed, probably in normative
terms.
My point is:
between acts and identities, there are practices and behaviors, which are not as
“one-time” as acts, and not as stable as identities, but which still allow
categorization and psychological analysis.
Therefore,
Sedgwick’s pseudo-statement could allow me to make my case.
Furthermore, is anyone interested in this subject / field of research ? I don't mean on sodomy, I mean on history of sexuality. Let me know !
Best,
Tiffany P.
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:04:39 -0500
> From: ryanspaul@xxxxxxxxx
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] PRECISION Need reference: Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
>
> Or in other words, not that straight men who perform cunnilingus are
> "closer to" or "more like" lesbians who perform cunnilingus than they are
> to gay men or straight men who don't engage in this activity, but that
> because sexual acts cut across conventional sexual identities, they reveal
> the arbitrariness of those categories, and that erotic desire is not just
> about who you want but also about what you want to do.
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Ryan Paul <ryanspaul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure where this particular idea appears in Sedgwick, but I would
> > imagine that it is not expressed or intended in as reductive a way as you
> > note. To me, it resonates with the generally propensity of queer theories
> > to challenge sexuality as a stable identity and to refuse to reduce
> > sexuality to the gender of the choice of sexual object. By putting emphasis
> > back on the actions themselves and cutting across the constructed
> > identities of straight, gay, bi, etc., we can perhaps better grasp desire's
> > fluidity and remove it from a heteronormative or reproductive teleology.
> >
> > Best,
> > RSP
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> >
> >> "...individuals who practice similar sorts of sex acts have more in
> >> common
> >> with one another than those who happen to be of the same gender."
> >>
> >> Really? Taken literally this seems to be saying that: 1) straight men who
> >> perform cunnilingus have more in common with lesbian women who do the same
> >> than they have with straight and gay men who don't, 2) straight women who
> >> perform fellatio have more in common with gay men who do so than with
> >> straight women who don't, 3) straight men who like to fuck their
> >> girlfriends up the ass have more in common with gay men who fuck other
> >> men.
> >>
> >> This sounds pretty reductive to me. But surely Sedgwick must have
> >> something
> >> else in mind, no?
> >>
> >> Nate
> >>
> >> > > From: princeptiffany@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:37:19 +0100
> >> > > Subject: [Foucault-L] Need reference: Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi everyone,
> >> > > In "Revisiting Bodies and Pleasures", Judith Butler claims :
> >> > > "Queer theorist Eve
> >> > > Sedgwick suggests that it may be individuals who practice similar
> >> sorts
> >> > of sex
> >> > > acts have more in common with one another than those who happen to be
> >> of
> >> > the
> >> > > same gender. In this way, sexual alliances that cut across gender
> >> appear
> >> > to take the place of
> >> > > gender-based solidarities, and queer activism, though indebted to
> >> > feminism,
> >> > > takes its distances from feminism through this formulation that
> >> Foucault
> >> > in
> >> > > part inspired."(Theory, Culture, Society, avril 1999, 16 (2): 11-20,
> >> URL
> >> > <http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/16/2/11>)
> >> > > I guess Sedgwick's statement is hiding in her Epistemology of the
> >> > closet, but I'm struggling to find the relevant passage.
> >> > > Is someone aware of such a passage ?
> >> > > Thank you in advance,
> >> > > Tiffany P.
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dr. Nathaniel Roberts<
> >> http://www.mmg.mpg.de/departments/religious-diversity/scientific-staff/dr-nathaniel-roberts/
> >> >
> >> Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity
> >> Herman-Föge-Weg 11
> >> 37073 Göttingen
> >> Germany
> >> +49 (0) 551-4956-0
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list