Reaction/Analysis of Parts 4 and 5
I found Part 4 Chapters 2 and 3 to be the most enlightening in regards to what I assume is Foucaults’ true argument, even though they were difficult to understand at times. With the discussion of method, he reveals that the true issue is power. As we discussed in class last week, sexuality itself seems only to be a vehicle for power. The chapter on method I found to be perhaps the most conceptual. Foucault discusses power in great detail, but at the same time leaves it vaguely fluid. However, I agreed with a lot of what he was saying. Power is expressed all the time and is not solely repressive, it is also creative. However that would undermine the social construct of rebellion and freedom altogether, by ripping people away from the notion of being separate from the overall system.
I found The Deployment of Sexuality and The Deployment of Alliances also to fit well logically with this take on power; sexuality is called upon clearly in this chapter as a vehicle for connections, which is what gives it the importance of identity. The ability to consolidate conclusions is the source of what people seem to think is the “secret,” as I perceive it. Foucault talks about specific examples of how sexuality has become part of the societal apparatuses for people to define and resist. Alliances and Sexuality compliment one another by his definitions in this portion, but also looking at how the domain has become one of public interest and will to knowledge, as an expression of power, undermines the repressive hypothesis. When Foucault goes back to the discussion of the actual history of sexuality, going back to 1215 in regards to the Lateran Council, I think he illuminates the argument against the repressive hypothesis. I mean that I think the more detailed the description, the more his points can be aligned with the argument that the history shows that the “discourse” on sexuality is all part of one whole cohesive unit, rather than splintered into separate power structures that adhere to the oppresor/opressed duality.
February 15th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Hi Sami,
I’m not sure how Savannah’s comment ended up under your post—which did not show up until much later for some reason. At any rate, here’s my comment on yours!
Your first paragraph tends to be a little too vague, so work on analyzing the material in more detail by singling out a statement or passage and then open it up from there. The most apt statement in this paragraph is that “Power is expressed all the time and is not solely repressive, it is also creative.” But following that is one that I want us to discuss in class because your conclusion goes against the grain of what Foucault means by “resistance” so be ready to lead that discussion in class today.
In your second paragraph, you bring up the key concepts that Foucault uses to distinguish the two main forms of sexuality over time: the system of alliance and the deployment of sexuality and we will dissect these in class but for now I want to revise your last sentence to make it better reflect his view. It would be more accurate this way: “I mean that I think the more detailed the description, the more his points can be aligned with the argument that the history shows that the “discourses” on sexuality are multiple, often fragmentary, overlapping, and proliferative, rather than bifurcated into simple binary power structures that adhere to the oppressor/oppressed duality.” We’ll talk about the difference in class.