Romantic Loves: A Response to Historicizing Romantic Sexuality

Notes

¹ Foucault has a complex understanding of exactly what "statement" means; see The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, pp. 106-17.
close window

² See also David M. Halperin's criticism of this misreading of Foucault in How to Do the History of Homosexuality, pp. 26-32.
close window

³ For a partial bibliography, see Roy Porter and Lesley Hall, Anthony Fletcher, Tim Hitchcock, Anna Clark, Richard Sha ("Romanticism and Sexuality” and "Romanticism and the Sciences of Perversion"), and Daniel O'Quinn.
close window

⁴ Compare Ellen Messer-Davidow's discussion of the constraints of literary studies on the development of feminist scholarship, pp.178-82.
close window

⁵ On this phenomenon in cultural criticism more generally, see Alan Liu.
close window

⁶ See Greysmith, and Kriegel.
close window

⁷ See Amanda Anderson for an argument that Foucault's output is essentially divided between "the critique of bourgeois modernity” and "the shift to aesthetic modernity” (198).  In these terms, Loesberg privileges the second at the expense of the first.
close window

⁸ On the importance of considering love in relation to the history of sexuality, see George Haggerty, Men in Love, pp. 18-20, and "Male Love and Friendship in the Eighteenth Century," pp. 70-81.
close window