> In other words,
>they are empty of historical content. Further, in an inverse form, the
>same psychoanalytic musings can be easily put to a homophobic/sexist
>purpose: e.g. "non-genital sexuality or 'partial drives' have been
>integrated into capitalism while the destruction of genital sexuality is
>the form that sexual repression takes today."
Is this Adorno, or Reimut Reiche, Yoshie?
I'm a little resistant to your argument because it seems to absolutise a homosex position as the ideal point from which all else must be judged.
Granted that the legend of gay fascism was absurd, is it not conceivable that 'non-genital sexuality' could be integrated into capitalism; and even that the heterosexual family, as a site that resists regulation, could be increasingly out of step with the capitalist norm?
It seems too rigid to suggest that heterosexuality is the intrinsically ideal state for capitalism, and homosexuality always the deviant. Deviations have a way of being integrated, norms have a way of being discarded. All that is solid melts into air and all that...
>One may refute such musings
>with all kinds of empirical evidence to the contrary, but fundamentally
>they can survive empirical challenges with their formalism intact. That's
>the poverty of left-Hegelian dialectic that I mentioned earlier. In other
>words, it is an otherworldly dialectic that refuses to be anchored in
>history.
Perhaps you could explain this last point. I am not sure why Hegel gets such a battering from you. -- Jim heartfield