-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: wrobert at uci.edu
>
> The problem is that they aren't even analogies. If you took the
> trouble to read the broader argument, you would realize that Butler
> is stating that the meaningfulness of sex is not accessible through
> 'materiality', rather it is discourse that makes the body meaningful
> by transforming that 'matter' into something meaningful. Also, keep
> in mind that discourse is something more than volunteeristic language
> within a Foucaultian perspective. It's inevitably tied into
> institutions and social interactions.
>
But discourse is no less material than bodies.
What I definitely don't buy is that the body without discourse is an empty or blank slate and is meaningless.
This looks like a step up from the common Xtian villification of the body. But it's not. It's just more fashionably put.
Joanna