|
|
|||||
Historicizing Romantic SexualityRomantic Loves: A Response to Historicizing Romantic Sexuality |
|||||
Notes1
Foucault has a complex understanding of exactly what
"statement" means; see The Archaeology of Knowledge and
the Discourse on Language, pp. 106-17.
2
See also David M. Halperin's criticism of this misreading
of Foucault in How to Do the History of
Homosexuality, pp. 26-32.
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.
4 Compare Ellen Messer-Davidow's discussion
of the constraints of literary studies on the development
of feminist scholarship, pp.178-82.
5
On this phenomenon in cultural criticism more generally,
see Alan Liu.
6
See Greysmith, and Kriegel.
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.
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. |
