But how can we talk about this in reality?
After tackling the second half of Foucault and reading through Weeks’ and Norton’s essays, I feel convinced only that there are multiple approaches to the study of sexuality. There seems to be a general agreement that understanding the history/development of the social understanding of sexuality is key, but when the subject slips into biology and the sciences I start to have trouble. Personally, I find it difficult to “scientize” sexuality from the perspective of Foucault. Though he is generally historical and philosophical, the precision of language that he uses, turns an “open ended” text into something that seems to have a definable answer (what the answer to what/where/ and how sexuality is still remains cloudy for me).
I appreciate Foucault’s stylistics, but I don’t know why it is that in studying something so very human, and therefore fairly undefinable, there is an overarching need to find some sort of tangible answer or conclusion. Though he criticizes this approach, he often does it himself. He constantly notes that societal understandings of sex are distorted because of the importance they place on sex and sexuality holding the “truth,” but his careful and precise arguments which define every term for every situation, seem to make sexuality something outside of society.
While his approach makes sex for studying sexuality as a subject, and the approach of Weeks and Norton for that matter, I feel that there is a really key human element lacking. For all of the wonderful insights and carefully constructed arguments, I wish that there was at least some discussion of how we can use the information. Perhaps that is not the intended approach, but personally I would find it useful to see more discussions not about how things were, how things could be, or what some theories might say things are, but I would appreciate carefully reasoned, logical discussion about the way things really are. I guess my real frustration is with the way that philosophical or scientific writings can either skirt around an issue too much or dissect an issue to the point that it’s no longer recognizable.
Despite my frustration with the stylistics, I still have a lot of respect for all of the writings, and did find a lot of the discussions useful, when taken outside of the space of a book or essay and applied to reality. I am particularly interested in Foucault’s discussion of the frequent conflations made between law and power. Typically, I think I would make the same conflation myself. It’s also an area of his discussion I’d like to parse out more carefully in class discussion, since I struggled more with keeping the arguments clear in the last half of The History of Sexuality.
Tags: Foucault, Law, Power, The History of Sexuality, Weeks
February 13th, 2012 at 11:10 am
Hi Whitney,
I imagine you speak for many when you voice your frustrations about Foucault’s writing, his relentless focus on certain issues, and the opaqueness of his overall argument. But, I’m glad you are willing to hang in there with it to see if there is more to it. A key issue that shows the merit of this way of thinking is the one you point out in your final paragraph concerning the law and power. In some respects, Foucault is more interested in dissecting these issues than sexuality per se. But his point is that we need to understand all three (law, power, sex) as deeply interconnected. Furthermore, our very hold on truth is tied to all three. For class tomorrow, I’d like for you to reread the passages on p. 92-93 about power as a multiplicity of power relations for discussion. Consider what happens if you shift from using the word “power” by itself versus the term “power relations.” Foucault’s concept is the latter, always a set of relations. In regard to why it’s worth trudging through: what if he’s right?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Hi Whitney,
I have similar frustrations with theories and their applications. While I’m sure there are some pieces written more explicitly for the application of theories, most of the time, my thoughts go: “I buy your argument and theory, but NOW what?”
Personally, as a way to subside that gnawing need for “action”/application, I think merely having awareness and doubt is a form of action itself. Even if the writing seems to avoid the issue or is dissected to the point of the unfamiliar, the argument and doubt is planted in my mind. Perhaps, that will lead to future actions and decisions. As cheesy as this is going to sound, the theoretician cannot create the future, but the readers can, whether or not they utilize that theory?
February 13th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Hi Vita,
Nice point—but I chuckled to see the last sentence made into a question rather than an assertion (which it is and an astute one). One thing to keep in mind is the issue of where theory comes from. In Foucault’s case, he and Gilles Deleuze said that they think of theory as a “tool box” that can be used by people to grasp conditions of life and try to change them toward greater freedom, defined as the ability to make changes.