Shifting into Focus

After taking some time to digest all of the Foucault that we’ve taken in over the past few weeks (I must admit I’m still working on a lot of it) I’m particularly interested in the final section: Right of Death and Power Over Life. I am most interested in the way that this section helps outline the way that Foucault’s methods allow for specific definitions with a certain openness to changing cultural attitudes/trends. For example, the word “power” is one that is loaded, but used rather freely and carelessly in relation to a lot of different subjects. Foucault explains how the conventional notion of “power” (sovereign power) shifted in modern times, but this explanation also helps make it clear why power is not a term that should be thoughtlessly applied to different relationships or subjects-particularly sexuality.

He explains first, “Perhaps this juridical form must be referred to a historical type of society in which power was exercised mainly as a means of deduction”(136). This juridical form is the juridico-discursive power structure we outlined in class, which suggests that there is a “head” of power, a sovereign power whose primary strength is his ability to take away life. Foucault explains that this power structure was “essentially a right of seizure.” He explains that modern power structures are quite different in that the primary function of “power” is not deduction, but rather “a power bent on generating forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impending them, making them submit, or destroying them.”

This shift in terms of the role of power in society is important because it shows the way that the Western perception of power and power relations might be working in terms of our understanding of the power dynamics of sexuality. Foucault acknowledges the limitations general society might have in terms of seeing power as something that is not inextricably linked to resistance, but he offers the suggestion that maybe this resistance is present, but that it is often a positive source in a power relation rather than the negative connotation that is usually ascribed to the notion of resistance.

I was interested in his outlining of how power has changed in this section, because after I read it, talked about it in class and thought more about it I feel that I’ve started to think a little bit differently about what I might call “power” in society as more of a relationship of forces rather than one force acting on and “overpowering” another. I think shifting my perspective on the way power works will be helpful in terms of my perception of sexuality as it acts in culture because I will likely be more open to seeing power relations in sexuality in a less absolute way. I’m hoping to keep this mindset so that I can think more deeply about the interconnectedness of social and cultural relationships that create the power relations surrounding different facets of sexuality as it functions in American culture.

Outlining the different elements of each power structure Foucault discusses was really helpful. It has also been helpful to step away from the material momentarily to try to think about what he is saying in my own terms. I am eager to see how I can apply the different theories and suggestions proposed in The History of Sexuality to the literature that we read in this course and eventually how I might apply it to a broader perspective on cultural issues or different media.

Tags: Foucault, Power, Sexuality, The History of Sexuality

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 19th, 2012 at 10:26 pm and is filed under February Postings, Whitney Porter. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.