Foucault Style
March 24, 2007
I’m unsure who Foucault is trying to point the finger at. Is it our own fault that we are such a ‘perverse’ nation or society? Is he talking about just the United States? His argument seems greatly concerned with the sexuality of men. Is man to blame? There are only a few instances in which he refers to the sexuality of women. I guess it had to be that way in order to make his argument. Foucault says that it was our study of sex that gave it its power. Is there anyone to blame? He states that research never enforced codes of discourse nor abandoned them.
I have yet to digest the text and it seems as though his argument runs in circles and he knows it. Foucault says that coining the concept perversion accomplished nothing to destroy it, but to further its existence. The creation of laws and penalties, and medicine and regimentation only added to the language of perversion. I liked how he described it as a recurrent danger, destined to fail and begin again (1659). I also found it interesting how he described the birth of perversion through church confessions (1659). Maybe I’m reading it wrong but the way I interpreted it was that confessing one’s deepest ant most secret indulgences led to the spread of this disease. It makes sense. If someone hears another’s secrets and finds that they are not so dissimilar from their own, doesn’t that give them a sense of normalcy? And, if that sensation persists why not explore it? I am not an atheist, but I do love to point out how and when the exploitation of given power goes wrong.
Foucault also states that the discourse of sex and the creation of the pervert created different species of sexes. The homosexual was created via the hermaphroditic soul. Disparunist women became lesbians I’m guessing. But my favorite, the one that amuses me most, is the presbyophile: Men who have the hots for nuns. Wow! Our ancestors were messed up! This gives a whole new insight into the morals of The Sound of Music and father VanTrapp.
I believe that this new sex theory will open doors to interpreting texts. It is somewhat Derridian in nature in that there are many subsets of sex within the idea of sex itself. Each person has their own sexual center that breaks down with the formation of relationships on a day to day basis. It’s kind of like the example of religion and denominations if you want to draw that comparison. I don’t know if this is a stretch or not, but, if Jameson were to be applied to Foucault’s development of the sexual species what could he say? Homosexuality is the pastiche of hermaphroditism?
Hello –
I found it interesting that in your blog you started off with wanting to assign the blame of who caused this way of looking at sexuality. In your last sentences of your introduction paragraph I think that you pointed out a great idea. “Foucault says that it was our study of sex that gave it its power….He states that research never enforced codes of discourse nor abandoned them” Personally, I can see how he feels that the public studying the topic were the one’s that gave sexuality its ‘fuel’. If you think about it, the public analyzes thing until they start passing judgments and applying their personal thoughts. By then having the dominant society laying the framework of what’s accepted and what’s frowned upon, we quickly find yourself surrounded by rules and regulations regarding every aspect of sexuality. If we want to assign the blame to someone, I think that the blame should go to the general public. Look at other countries who are very relaxed about sexuality. Seeing that these ‘regulations’ of sexuality vary so greatly from place to place one can’t help to wonder why this is. And do the morals and accepted norms impact these views, of course! Overall, I thought that you touched upon a lot of great areas of discussion. We both seem to have a lot of questions that still need to be answered as we are working with this material.
Right on with the connection between the confessional and the spread of perversion. If this is not what Foucalt was trying to connect then Im lost. But im confident we are right. It just makes total sense. Instead of typing it out Ill copy and paste your quote.
“confessing one’s deepest ant most secret indulgences led to the spread of this disease. It makes sense. If someone hears another’s secrets and finds that they are not so dissimilar from their own, doesn’t that give them a sense of normalcy? And, if that sensation persists why not explore it? ”
This would explain the spread of a perverse nation all while it remained a hush topic. Confessional booths are the only way these ideas were forced to the surface and gave others a sense of not being such a weirdo.