Weeks v. Foucault
I enjoyed the introduction of new material this week, and especially the way Jeffery Weeks’ “The Social Construction of Sexuality” went along nicely with Michel Foucault’s section, “The Deployment of Sexuality.” Whereas Foucault focuses on power constructing sexuality, Weeks goes at from a societal perspective. I found Weeks easier to understand most likely because he uses concrete examples, and unlike Foucault, gets straight to the point.
Both Weeks and Foucault discuss the relationship between sex, freedom, and power. Weeks writes, “Sex…a source of potential freedom, whose libratory power is only blocked by the regressive force of a corrupt civilization” (Peiss 4). Instead of positing that sex is freedom that is repressed by society, Foucault spins the idea by stating, “Out eagerness to speak of sex in terms of repression is doubtless this opportunity to speak out against the powers that be” (Foucault 7). Foucault finds freedom in the sexual discourses of our “repressed” society. Furthermore, he claims that there is more in society than repressed sex. “To deal with sex, power employs nothing more than a law of prohibition. Its objective: that sex renounces itself” (84).
It is important to highlight the different influences of society and power on sexuality. Foucault views “power” (his definition of which I am still a little confused) as being the controlling force in the history of sexuality. Weeks, however, is of the opinion that there is a “social organization” of sexuality, and within this there are five main influences. I find that these five factors—kinship and family systems, economic and social organization, social regulation, political interventions, and cultures of resistance—are easy to apply to sexuality. This is probably because they have been given as influences before. Weeks cited interesting examples in some of the factors that never would have occurred to me before. For example, he mentions that “work conditions can shape sexual lives” (Peiss 7). He references female factory workers of the 1920s and 1930s who were more familiar with birth control than other women during that time. The factory women’ sexual lives were affected because of this knowledge, and this furthermore influenced when they got pregnant, and how many children they had.
While Weeks discusses the societal organization of sexuality, Foucault posits that the discourse on sex produced new societal figures. “Four figures emerged from this preoccupation with sex…the hysterical woman, the masturbating child, the Malthusian couple, and the perverse adult” (Foucault 105). I found it interesting that the discourse on sex influenced society, instead of vice versa. It never occurred to me that the discourse on sex would have brought new elements into society (I just figured the discourses would be on the same old, same old). I wonder what else these discourses brought about: does anyone have further examples? I am also eager to hear others’ explanations of Foucault’s “power.” I am still confused by the exact influence of power on sexuality. I also keep wondering “So what?” So what that power has a relationship with sexuality? What exactly does this mean in regards to sexuality in American culture?
Tags: Foucault, Power, Repression, Sexuality, Weeks
February 13th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Hi Tal,
As you and the others have now discovered, Foucault is not an easy read! But, as you point out in your discussion of Weeks, scholars have found his “take” on the history of sexuality to be invaluable. Weeks is just one of the many since the publication of History of Sexuality to apply Foucault’s insights to their studies. The debate between Weeks and Norton is also one of the outcomes of his groundbreaking work.
I do want to clarify a few comments in your post. When you quote Weeks in regard to freedom (p. 4), you are conflating what he says about the current debates with his own view. The debate is between those who see sex as dangerous and in need of control and those who see it as a principle of freedom itself (T. Reich is one that Foucault mentions in this light). Both Foucault and Weeks argue that it isn’t so simple and they are interested in why our society tends to pivot between those 2 views. But they are interested—as you rightly say—in the relationship between sexuality, power relations, truth, and freedom. And one of the questions we pursue throughout the semester is what freedom looks like from their point of view (since it isn’t the view that sex itself holds the key to liberation).
In regard to what you say here, there is an article in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education that provides an example: “I found it interesting that the discourse on sex influenced society, instead of vice versa. It never occurred to me that the discourse on sex would have brought new elements into society (I just figured the discourses would be on the same old, same old). I wonder what else these discourses brought about: does anyone have further examples?” Take a look at what this author says about Tim Gunn and his declaration as asexual.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/tim-gunn-is-asexual-and-proud/43944?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en