Thursday, October 14, 2004

Libidinal Economy and the Episteme

There is something else that unites Lot's wife, Martha, Polathene Pam, and Sartre and that is the issue of choice. Lot's wife chose to take a peak behind her. Martha was free to hang from a rope. And nobody forced Polathene Pam to swap her pantyhose for britches. But does the authenticity that Sartre insists upon have to end up in an ending of tragic hyperbole in order to validate its existence from the very start?

Just last night in the final Presidential debate the issue of "choice" came up once again in relation to that most slippery of all slopes: the "homosexual." But in a country with such an insideous antipathy towards the "other," I really wish that the Hillbilly Texan and Massachusetts' Herman Munster would realize that we are all the "other," whatever our episteme....

Icarus is listening, but feels like falling...

2 comments:

SiRen65 said...

Surely none of our heroines below is truly free?? Just as was argued in the Mary Poovey article, people and decisions are social...the "individual" like Martha resides within her episteme that forces her into a limited spectrum of choice. Actually, I feel that Lot's wife was the "freest" of our trilogy, because she still conceived of an opion ostensibly closed to her, despite the prospect of punishment, she still pursued her own desire. In short...maybe it depends on what we mean by free...does anybody truly make a free choice about anything...it's all a balance of rewards and punishment, perhaps, in a society ostensibly ruled by Law.

SiRen65 said...

Bsides, the point is that Polythene Pam didn;t swop her panty hose for britches, she wore the pantyhose more so, plus cardboard eyelarshes, and heels and kilts and jackboots...she was drag, a woman in drag as a woman...hence the point.