First Reaction to Parts 1, 2, and 3

Firstly, I would just like to say that I have never read Foucault before. I am partial to writers with a heavy hand in general, but I found the style in this piece of writing a little more difficult to navigate, for the same reasons as someone else had mentioned. I found the writing to be somewhat circular and redundant, but rather than simply reinforcing the same idea, it was expanding and altering within its repetitions. This was certainly cause for re-reading, and I am starting to get used to it. I will say also, I have enjoyed the reading at the same time.

Reading what Foucault has to say  about the proliferation of the conversation pertaining to sex and sexuality, ridden with issues from taboo, pure science, etc, is a complicated one for me to think about. I think part of his point, and one that stuck out to me, was that the constant conversation about sexuality strips it of its natural state. Like Richard was saying, trying to define sexuality is full of contradictions. The map we looked at in class last week is emblematic of the ways that sexuality can be experienced through only the physical description of the activity; it points to these extreme differences that do not lend themselves to a comprehensive definition, beyond which there could only be a sweepingly general and vague one. I suppose my point is that the more detailed and specific one gets within their analysis of human sexuality, behavior, and identity, it becomes harder and harder to get to the true nature of it.  Foucault brought this up in terms of the medical field as well. In terms of how one studies sex and sexual behavior, the conclusions that come out of sterile rather than organic stimulation will not always be indicative of true human nature.

Reading Foucault makes me think of why people are so obsessed with talking about sex and sexuality. I agree with Foucault that most of the conversation about sex after the 17th century is within the framework of repression, and that feeds into the psychological need to be rebellious in a lot of ways, but I think it is more complicated than that. In addition to the whole issue of power and the institution(s) that held it, the discussion for me was embodied close to the end of part two. When Foucault was laying out his four arguments (pages 41-49), they all said something similar to me. While he picked apart specifics in his analysis, what I took from it was something mentioned (directly or indirectly) in each argument. The entire power mechanism, meaning discourse on sexuality, and partially the pursuit to define and understand said discourse, is all an effort to perpetuate itself. Personally I found this to be a defining factor in reading Foucaults’ writing. I think this is something that maybe I am running with in a different direction that Foucault was, but the perpetuation solely to sustain the existence of the thing itself is really common in my opinion. Those with power seek to retain it rather than divest themselves of it, and once that power is injected into a vehicle, be it a conversation of the judicial kind, or medical kind, that vehicle must remain in order to continue producing the effects of the power it holds.

In reading the first three parts of the book, throughout the complicated writing structure, not to mention having to look up a number of words I had not seen before, trying to glean the point and gain a real understanding of his point of view was a somewhat difficult experience for me. I realize I am not making a comprehensive commentary on the writing or every facet of the arguments or questions proposed, this is just what has stuck out to me as the most important piece.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 7th, 2011 at 9:44 pm and is filed under Sami. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.