If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Eye for an eye or lex talionis traditionally refers to the retribution model. Restitution is primarily about restoring the victim, not equally harming the offender.

 

[rms]

How do you restore a victim of a violent crime outside of financial restitution?

 

[Dak]

"Violent crime" is kind of vague. Depends on the crime as far as the measures of restitution available, but pretty much any of them will involve money, and nothing is going to provide perfect restitution if physical damage was done or serious mental trauma was inflicted. At least a restitution model provides something to the victim, instead of making them and everyone else pay to lock an offender up for an arbitrary amount of time.

 

[Einherjar86]

No it's not the same thing, but up until just recently they were inextricable.

You just supported what I'm saying.

Foucault is saying that in the recent modern age (probably sometime during the 18th-19th centuries) sexuality came to function as a reflection of an individual's essential identity (which derived from the individual herself, not the social or religious order). The older, cultural connection between sexuality and fertility has nothing to do with an individual's identity because this was subsumed by a kind of cultural homogeneity. After the advent of industrial capitalism and the elevation of individualism to the level of an ideological value, sexuality separated from a kind of unified cultural image and became a signifier of individual identity.

This isn't to say that sexuality isn't a part of culture; it still definitely is. But sexuality now serves first and foremost as a sign of individual behavior and drives, not a divine essence bestowed upon individuals from a sacred order.

If you don't think that sexuality was a central component for an individuals identity, and in fact a central component of the entire culture, this requires ignoring some very glaring history that crosses culture and geography. If we just look at the Judeo roots of Judeo Christian culture, the founding texts are dated from between 1200-600BC, and the Torah is consumed with sexually related rules, while the historical portions (whether true or not is irrelevant for this point) often revolve around either expressing masculinity or femininity or denying such to captives/losers in war and politics.

In all seriousness: do you think Foucault doesn't know this? For fuck's sake, he talks about it.

The disagreement here is over the historicity of the individual. You think the individual is some kind of absolute and ahistorical essence that all humans since the dawn of humanity have possessed. This is, from all researched and studious angles, simply very unlikely. The modern individual, as something whose sexuality corresponds to its own subjective existence, and not a preordained structure that precedes it, did not exist from 1200-600 BCE.

 

[Dak]

If we just take your premises for granted, you still don't immediately come to the conclusion you (or Foucault) are pushing. If sexuality was, instead of ideological, much more corporeal and inextricable to the existence of humans, this does not support Foucault's assertions regarding the importance of sexuality in identity. Moving from concrete to ideal lessens, not increases impact.

Today, if I were to suffer damage to my sex organs, my identity might take a hit, but it's not a social death sentence.

If I were an Israelite 2600 years ago, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to call me socially dead, particularly if I had no male heir yet. Eunuchs were treated as abhuman, and barren women replaced.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm confused. I agree with what you just said. Agreeing that "abnormal" sexuality doesn't result in a social death sentence today supports Foucault's claim that sexuality corresponds to an individual's identity, not a socially or sacredly determined order.

 

[Dak]

I'm confused. I agree with what you just said. Agreeing that "abnormal" sexuality doesn't result in a social death sentence today supports Foucault's claim that sexuality corresponds to an individual's identity, not a socially or sacredly determined order.

We were speaking of centrality. Sex is now less central to the individual, not moreso, specifically because of an idealization of the subject. Sex is now a part of a complex bundle of "likes" and "dislikes" which I may assemble as my "identity", and may be more or less important as I wish.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sex in terms of a penis or vagina? Yes, it was more central, because the biological utility of sex organs were incorporated into the preordained mythology of a culture, particularly in a religious manner.

Foucault is talking about sexuality, which is the way people present or perform themselves. The idea that one's sexual behavior or performance reflects core aspects of their identity is a very recent phenomenon.

 

[Dak]

Sex in terms of a penis or vagina? Yes, it was more central, because the biological utility of sex organs were incorporated into the preordained mythology of a culture, particularly in a religious manner.

Foucault is talking about sexuality, which is the way people present or perform themselves. The idea that one's sexual behavior or performance reflects core aspects of their identity is a very recent phenomenon.

And the former is more central than the latter, and is still sexuality. Foucault is referring to the subjective formulation of a bundle of likes and dislikes which the individual constantly reconstructs based on social feedback, emotional changes, etc. One can give sexuality a premier place within the ideal and ideological bundle, but this still can't match the corporeal/set nature of prior times. It is the bundle that is central now, not any one thing within it, as those are all alterable.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, first: sexuality in terms of behavior isn't an idealization. People feel actual physical impulses, and these are just as real as impulses associated with normative sexuality.

Second, Foucault avoids any discussion over whether sexuality derives more prominently from biology or social conditions. All he says is that in the 18-19th centuries, cultural texts and artifacts begin to treat sexual behavior as reflective of an individual's identity. He doesn't say that this is how things are or that one way is right or wrong; he simply makes the historical observation that discourse places more emphasis on the connection between sexuality and individual identity.

 

[Dak]

Okay, first: sexuality in terms of behavior isn't an idealization. People feel actual physical impulses, and these are just as real as impulses associated with normative sexuality.

Second, Foucault avoids any discussion over whether sexuality derives more prominently from biology or social conditions. All he says is that in the 18-19th centuries, cultural texts and artifacts begin to treat sexual behavior as reflective of an individual's identity. He doesn't say that this is how things are or that one way is right or wrong; he simply makes the historical observation that discourse places more emphasis on the connection between sexuality and individual identity.

On the first point yes, behavior isn't an idealization. I don't know what I may have said that suggested otherwise.

It is this latter portion I reject. Sexual behavior was if anything more "reflective" of an identity prior to the Victorian era than after. If we want to argue that to be more corporeal means it is the thing rather than a reflection, that's fine, but then that still doesn't support any discussion of centrality. If behavior "reflects" the identity rather than being the identity, this is merely dualism-speak for precisely the same thing as before. It is no coincidence this change in description lies in the middle of the Cartesian era.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, then you would be wrong.

It isn't until the 17/18/19th centuries that sex becomes a strictly controlled and restricted object of scientific and cultural inquiry. Historical documents reflect this.

You need to make a qualitative distinction between the kinds of documents being published in the Cartesian age and those published before the Roman golden age. Judaic texts are not an inquiry into the scientific or identitarian status of sexuality. They are doctrinal prescriptions of a sacred order. Scientific and psychiatric documents are also prescriptive (albeit unconsciously), but they concern the way that sexuality derives from an individual.

If either one of these is the more idealized version of sex, it's the former - the explicitly doctrinal prescription of what sex should be.

 

[-CC-]

Your arguments are so asinine and petty that it's getting to the point that I'd rather read Mort's forum-buddy's posts. This shit is getting out of hand. Can we quarantine you two?

 

[Einherjar86]

The only reason I intervene here is because other people let Dak reduce their comments or attempts at argument to either caricatures or appeal to extremes. No one else chimes in when I begin posting. If that's partially my fault, I apologize.

Either way, I won't continue this if it's moved. It isn't practice or sharpening for me anymore; it's become explaining subtle concepts and differences that I don't have the time to explain.

 

[The Ozzman]

You two need your own thread for shit.

 

[Einherjar86]

Perhaps the more mature and productive thing to do would have been to ask: what do other people think about this argument, i.e. Foucault's claim that sexuality as a component of individual identity only really begins to emerge in historical documents and writings in the 18th-19th centuries? Foucault uses sexuality here instead of gender, mainly because the period he's interested in predates the popular concept of gender as we know it in political debates. I'm happy to elaborate more on this if people are interested; there is also a lot of information available online. The book is called The History of Sexuality.

Cassette mentioned, some pages ago now, a certain resistance to poststructuralist notions of gender. I would ask where that resistance comes from, if I could...?

I'm happy to stop going back and forth with Dak (in fact, I would really love to). However, this thread is for debating sexuality and gender. If that's what people are sick of, then I don't really see a point for the thread at all.

 

[rms]

I don't think i've ever seen Ozz or Cyanide contribute to a thread, especially this one, so phuck em. Discussion is kind of dead anyways, don't agree with Dak's promise. But maybe he's really happy that Eric Garner's family got 6mil for his death and that will somehow change things, when its of course not their money.

http://video.news.sky.com/video/h26...pMiloAndNi1507141644128814368889818183000.mp4

Milo went on BBC news again to talk about gender gap. Basically same stuff as before, but he doesn't really ever delve into the cultural influence that could steer men and women into different career paths. Would be an actually interesting discussion to participate in.

 

[Dak]

Perhaps the more mature and productive thing to do would have been to ask: what do other people think about this argument, i.e. Foucault's claim that sexuality as a component of individual identity only really begins to emerge in historical documents and writings in the 18th-19th centuries? Foucault uses sexuality here instead of gender, mainly because the period he's interested in predates the popular concept of gender as we know it in political debates. I'm happy to elaborate more on this if people are interested; there is also a lot of information available online. The book is called The History of Sexuality.

Cassette mentioned, some pages ago now, a certain resistance to poststructuralist notions of gender. I would ask where that resistance comes from, if I could...?

I'm happy to stop going back and forth with Dak (in fact, I would really love to). However, this thread is for debating sexuality and gender. If that's what people are sick of, then I don't really see a point for the thread at all.

I think maybe an analogy for our disagreement here would be something akin to I see the Foucaultian argument trying to assert that fuel injection radically altered the automobile to the extent that gasoline was more central to the operation of the engine and/or made the fuel injected cars not cars like cars were previously. The former argument would be wrong as fuel injection decreases the amount of gasoline needed, the latter just lends itself to weird definitional circling.

But I can let it rest.

I don't think i've ever seen Ozz or Cyanide contribute to a thread, especially this one, so phuck em. Discussion is kind of dead anyways, don't agree with Dak's promise. But maybe he's really happy that Eric Garner's family got 6mil for his death and that will somehow change things, when its of course not their money.

http://video.news.sky.com/video/h26...pMiloAndNi1507141644128814368889818183000.mp4

Milo went on BBC news again to talk about gender gap. Basically same stuff as before, but he doesn't really ever delve into the cultural influence that could steer men and women into different career paths. Would be an actually interesting discussion to participate in.

They don't generally, just driveby. Are you talking about not agreeing with restitution? If so what part?

Eric Garner's family getting money makes more sense from the family's perspective than locking up the cops involved, but why put the taxpayers on the hook for behavior which I would assume cannot be found within SOP for dealing with selling "looseys" or whatever they were calling the single cigs?

Is it really cultural influence or is it the general differences in the sort of work environments that relatively elevated estrogen vs testosterone tend to find accommodating? Don't even get me into employers that have certain minimum fitness levels on the job descriptions, who then hire men and women who can't or won't meet them, and so all that work that requires those fitness levels gets passed off onto the "young back and arms" without any difference in pay.

There hasn't been a peep of complaint that the offshoring and then recession disproportionately hit men (especially those with less education/minorities), and those jobs haven't come back and may not ever.

 

[rms]

They don't generally, just driveby. Are you talking about not agreeing with restitution? If so what part?

It seems your argument is that a financial incentive/punishment would deter more than the status quo. But the system seems to really fail when its poor on whoever crime. I also don't think you could ever legislate a system to criminals without some sort of punishment. But pragmatic ability is a different argument than what is better/right etc.

Eric Garner's family getting money makes more sense from the family's perspective than locking up the cops involved, but why put the taxpayers on the hook for behavior which I would assume cannot be found within SOP for dealing with selling "looseys" or whatever they were calling the single cigs?

Taxpayers are still paying the bill, and might even justify an increase in budget in response to these civil cases. Obviously ~3mil (after fees/lawyer) is objectively better for their lives following his death, but how is there going to be systemic change? Because the cop(s) are now working in admin divisions or ones away from the population?

Is it really cultural influence or is it the general differences in the sort of work environments that relatively elevated estrogen vs testosterone tend to find accommodating? Don't even get me into employers that have certain minimum fitness levels on the job descriptions, who then hire men and women who can't or won't meet them, and so all that work that requires those fitness levels gets passed off onto the "young back and arms" without any difference in pay.

Personally, I think the inherent differences in the endocrine systems facilitate most of what the person is interested in, but I don't know of any arguments against that. And that's where the discussion in these arguments eventually lead to. "Well women pick nurturing careers because that's what the media says they should!" --but I think media enables that behavior rather than change it.

There hasn't been a peep of complaint that the offshoring and then recession disproportionately hit men (especially those with less education/minorities), and those jobs haven't come back and may not ever.

I have a theory on this in relation to the Soup Nazi episode from Seinfeld, ever seen it?

 

[Dak]

It seems your argument is that a financial incentive/punishment would deter more than the status quo. But the system seems to really fail when its poor on whoever crime. I also don't think you could ever legislate a system to criminals without some sort of punishment. But pragmatic ability is a different argument than what is better/right etc.

Taxpayers are still paying the bill, and might even justify an increase in budget in response to these civil cases. Obviously ~3mil (after fees/lawyer) is objectively better for their lives following his death, but how is there going to be systemic change? Because the cop(s) are now working in admin divisions or ones away from the population?

Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill, and deterrence is at best a tertiary claim of a restitutional approach. Here's the paper we covered regarding Restitution theory in my Ethics of Punishment class. It's not comprehensive but it provides a scholarly presentation:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2379899?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Systemic change is going to need to start with ending the War on Drugs (where much of the police related outrages revolve).

Personally, I think the inherent differences in the endocrine systems facilitate most of what the person is interested in, but I don't know of any arguments against that. And that's where the discussion in these arguments eventually lead to. "Well women pick nurturing careers because that's what the media says they should!" --but I think media enables that behavior rather than change it.

I have a theory on this in relation to the Soup Nazi episode from Seinfeld, ever seen it?

Hormones: Only affecting us if in our milk. Yeah I think I know what you mean.

I have seen the Soup Nazi episode but it's been years and so I'm not sure what part of it relates to job offshoring and the loss of construction jobs.