Thanatz echoes Michel Foucault?

[Joe Varo]

Well, finally finished this reading of GR and in the final section I came
across something I'd not caught in previous readings, most likely because
I'd not read any Foucault when I last read GR.

If anyone has already brought up this notion, then just ignore this post.

On P. 737, Thanatz is talking to little Ludwig about sadomasochism and
says:

     Why will the Structure allow every other kind of sexual
     behavior but *that* one [s/m]?  Because submission and
     dominance are resources it needs for its very survival.
     They cannot be wasted on private sex.  In *any* kind of
     sex.  It needs our submission so that it may remain in
     power.  It needs our lusts after dominance so that it can
     co-opt us into its own power game.  There is no joy in
     it, only power.  I tell you, if S and M could be estab-
     lished universally, at the family level, the State would
     wither away.

Is it just my rather fragmentary knowledge of Foucault or does this sound
almost exactly like something he might have said?

Could Pynchon have been aware of Foucault's writings and thought?  Would
the chronology be right?

A-and, of course, there's also the Blue Oyster Cult tune, "Dominance and
Submission".  Unfortunately it has been a hell of a long time since I last
heard that one and I can't recall the lyrics at all.

Joe