Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:11:03 -0400 From: "D. Diane Davis" <dddavis-AT-metronet.com> Subject: Re: Power and Foucault (was Rape) Colin: Butler doesn't say there is no materiality of the body. She simply notes that no matter how hard we try to get at it, we won't succeed. If there is a material body that PRECEDES discursive appropriation, we cannot know it. This is why some bodies end up mattering more than others. The point here is not to say 'oh, gee, there's only language and nothing else.' It's to say that we can't have the thing in itself...not even the body in itself. Even the matierality of the body--as we can know it--has a history. We will have always already, to use a heideggerianism, "thinged the thing." To assume that you can get at the thing in itself is to ... well, as you say, assume the status of a god. Butler does not. She's no humanist. She's a negotiator. ddd -- DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D D D D. Diane Davis D D Rhetoric and Composition D D Old Dominion University D D dddavis-AT-metronet.com D D http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/davis/ddd.htm D D D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005