Having Discourse: Talk Matters in Sex and Power, Says Foucault
According to Michel Foucault in "We Other Victorians," what we say about sex and our own repression is more relevant than any other determinant in the power/discourse structure of the topic.
According to Michel Foucault in "We Other Victorians," what we say about sex and our own repression is more relevant than any other determinant in the power/discourse structure of the topic.
In "We Other Victorians," from volume one of author Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, poses questions concerning the idea of sexual repression and the discourse that surrounds it, from the 17th century until today.
He writes, "…repression operated as a sentence to disappear, but also as an injunction to silence, and affirmation of nonexistence, and, by implication that there was nothing to say about such things, nothing to see, and nothing to know" (p.293).
The "other" Victorians he refers to are those who don’t fit within the normative society; the pimps, the mental patients, the prostitutes. Only they are permitted – in very limited, conscribed ways – to attach currency to words and gestures not afforded the general public.
Foucault’s position is that if repression is an "injunction to silence," then by speaking of sex we are deliberately defying authority. We then briefly join those "others" and step for a moment outside of the supposed repressive reality that rules. We express our desire for change in the power structure by entertaining a discourse about sexuality; creating a "science of sexuality."
But are we all talk and no action? Foucault emphasizes the fact that what is important is not necessarily that we are repressed, but what we say about it, and how we say it, that determine actual power.
"The question I would like to pose is not: Why are we repressed? But rather: Why do we say, with so much passion and so much resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against ourselves, that we are repressed? By what spiral did we come to affirm that sex is negated?" (p.297).
When I first read this, I thought it meant that he was saying we are not repressed; we are just focused on saying that we are. After further study, I look at this statement now to mean that Foucault is not saying we are not repressed (he later states that we likely are), but that it’s more interesting to look at how and why we say so.
Foucault also agrees that there is paradox in living in an age when there is sexual repression but an awful lot of superficial talk about sex; "The affirmation of a sexuality that has never been more rigorously subjugated than during the age of the hypocritical, bustling, and responsible bourgeoisie is coupled with the grandiloquence of a discourse purporting to reveal the truth about sex, modify its economy within reality, subvert the law that governs it, and change its future" (p. 296).
He posits that the way in which the speakers hold power and how that power is disseminated can not only contribute to the further repressive nature of this "other Victorian" mentality, but paradoxically can also catalyze what he calls "incitement" to further discourse, an aspect of the "polymorphous techniques of power" (p. 299).
One of Foucault’s primary rhetorical strategies is to first state what something is not, and then what he thinks it is. I am not saying "this," I am saying "that." In doing so, he effectively establishes his "ethos" by anticipating an opponent’s potential argument or possible misunderstanding, then clarifying his own position.
Despite my instinctive loathing of what I call "theoretical language," I enjoyed this article by Foucault. As a side note, when initially reading the title I assumed this piece was about how we "other" Victorians, not how we are "the other Victorians!"
I thought the parallel of the time of repression, post 16th century, with the advent of capitalism was interesting. It makes sense why sex would have to be pushed under the covers, so to speak, so that the most could be gotten out of workers, that they be productive (and reproductive) rather than gluttonous pleasure-seekers.
It also makes sense in a more modern way that our capitalist social structure equates pleasure with shopping and buying and consuming products, rather than with sex. Why be having sex all afternoon when you could be out buying this product that will give you more satisfaction?
This piece contains the key questions that Foucault is usually concerned with: who has the power and how did they get there? Who is doing the speaking, what are they saying and how is that represented? "What is at issue, briefly, is the overall ‘discursive fact,’ the way in which sex is ‘put into discourse" (p. 299).
He writes, "…repression operated as a sentence to disappear, but also as an injunction to silence, and affirmation of nonexistence, and, by implication that there was nothing to say about such things, nothing to see, and nothing to know" (p.293).
The "other" Victorians he refers to are those who don’t fit within the normative society; the pimps, the mental patients, the prostitutes. Only they are permitted – in very limited, conscribed ways – to attach currency to words and gestures not afforded the general public.
Foucault’s position is that if repression is an "injunction to silence," then by speaking of sex we are deliberately defying authority. We then briefly join those "others" and step for a moment outside of the supposed repressive reality that rules. We express our desire for change in the power structure by entertaining a discourse about sexuality; creating a "science of sexuality."
But are we all talk and no action? Foucault emphasizes the fact that what is important is not necessarily that we are repressed, but what we say about it, and how we say it, that determine actual power.
"The question I would like to pose is not: Why are we repressed? But rather: Why do we say, with so much passion and so much resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against ourselves, that we are repressed? By what spiral did we come to affirm that sex is negated?" (p.297).
When I first read this, I thought it meant that he was saying we are not repressed; we are just focused on saying that we are. After further study, I look at this statement now to mean that Foucault is not saying we are not repressed (he later states that we likely are), but that it’s more interesting to look at how and why we say so.
Foucault also agrees that there is paradox in living in an age when there is sexual repression but an awful lot of superficial talk about sex; "The affirmation of a sexuality that has never been more rigorously subjugated than during the age of the hypocritical, bustling, and responsible bourgeoisie is coupled with the grandiloquence of a discourse purporting to reveal the truth about sex, modify its economy within reality, subvert the law that governs it, and change its future" (p. 296).
He posits that the way in which the speakers hold power and how that power is disseminated can not only contribute to the further repressive nature of this "other Victorian" mentality, but paradoxically can also catalyze what he calls "incitement" to further discourse, an aspect of the "polymorphous techniques of power" (p. 299).
One of Foucault’s primary rhetorical strategies is to first state what something is not, and then what he thinks it is. I am not saying "this," I am saying "that." In doing so, he effectively establishes his "ethos" by anticipating an opponent’s potential argument or possible misunderstanding, then clarifying his own position.
Despite my instinctive loathing of what I call "theoretical language," I enjoyed this article by Foucault. As a side note, when initially reading the title I assumed this piece was about how we "other" Victorians, not how we are "the other Victorians!"
I thought the parallel of the time of repression, post 16th century, with the advent of capitalism was interesting. It makes sense why sex would have to be pushed under the covers, so to speak, so that the most could be gotten out of workers, that they be productive (and reproductive) rather than gluttonous pleasure-seekers.
It also makes sense in a more modern way that our capitalist social structure equates pleasure with shopping and buying and consuming products, rather than with sex. Why be having sex all afternoon when you could be out buying this product that will give you more satisfaction?
This piece contains the key questions that Foucault is usually concerned with: who has the power and how did they get there? Who is doing the speaking, what are they saying and how is that represented? "What is at issue, briefly, is the overall ‘discursive fact,’ the way in which sex is ‘put into discourse" (p. 299).
No comments:
Post a Comment