+
From: Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms@xxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:07:38 +0100
Chetan Vemuri schreef:
Does anyone else think that the History of Sexuality volume 1 is intending
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.
Hi Chetan,
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