Dear Jo Ann
thankyou for responding, and for the points you make. This is not my
area of research, so I'm probably blundering around somewhat here, but
one point you make had me very interested. You suggest that this image of
sexual voraciousness (for men and women) was a controlling discourse on
those who had 'stepped outside the received order of things'. Are we then
suggesting that monasticism was outside the 'received order'? Or that
there are competing discourses, both with some authority: a discourse of
monasticism which values virginity and sexual continence; and a
counter-discourse (secular?) which seeks to undermine these images? Or
(as a third possibility!) that these two are flip-sides of the same
controlling discourse? interested in your thoughts (and anyone else's!)
cheers
John Arnold
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Jo Ann McNamara wrote:
>
> Though John Arnold specifically addressed me on this question, I have
> been slow to answer because dirt jamming my "a" button temporarily denied
> me access to my e-mail. Apologies to all.
> [snip]
>[...] But I do think it is directed at
> controlling women (and men) who have stepped outside the received order
> of things. The trick about studying gender is to release it from the
> "natural" order and see its specificity and adaptibility.
>
> Jo Ann
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|