Power, Pleasure and Permission: The Repressive Hypothesis

There is nothing more delightfully frustrating than reading a book that forces all my preconceived notions about a topic into oblivion. I had long assumed that, until recently, society repressed sexuality, giving rise to hatred and embarrassment over the subject. Foucault argues against the theory of repression and claims that discourse on sex was actually more frequent. Through the expansion of science and confession regarding sex, people were urged to divulge every aspect of their sexuality, rather than hide it.

I was initially hesitant to believe Foucault, but Part Two swayed my thoughts, especially regarding his explanation of the pleasure-power cycle. I believe that in order for power to exist, there must be something for that power to act upon. If sexuality were repressed, the entire pleasure-power cycle (and the knowledge-power cycle surrounding confession) would collapse. Therefore, all forms of sexuality—“abnormal” and otherwise—were frequently discussed in order for power relations to continue to exist. As Foucault puts it: “this form of power demanded constant, attentive, and curious presences for its exercised…it required an exchange of discourses, through questions that extorted admissions, and confidences that went beyond the questions that were asked.” (44) This all played into the desire to extrapolate the “truth” about sex. Human beings are constantly looking for answers, particularly in regards to their own existence—which is interconnected with sex. Thus, as more people began to question the human psyche, the discourse on sexuality increased.

One element that Foucault touches on, but deserves further analysis, is the language and location allocated for the discourse of sex. During this time period, there were still heavy restrictions placed on discussing sex (hence why scientists would basically apologize for talking about it in their texts) and only certain places where and with whom confessions were appropriate—not to mention the stigmas placed on the “abnormal” (homosexuality and adultery, for instance). I think these constraints are still apparent today and reinforce the belief that the 18^th and 19^th centuries were a time of severe repression—even if that was not entirely the case.

However, if we take Foucault at his word, we then must try and answer the question he poses in Part One: “Why do we say, with so much passion and so much resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against ourselves that we are repressed?” (8-9) I thought of one possibility that may explain why, in our current humanitarian climate, we vehemently believe in this repression. Perhaps, in order to explain why we aren’t yet an embracing society in regards to sexuality, we say there was a period where repression stunted any possibility for acceptance or change. Similar to how those who argue that the Dark Ages is why we don’t have hover cars yet, we try to rationalize society’s lack of tolerance by creating a “Dark Age” of repression.

Thus, my answer for Foucault’s question is yet another question: Do we argue for the repressive hypothesis in order to place blame on past generations for current prejudices?

~Nadia Cook-Loshilov~

Tags: Foucault, Power, Repression

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 3rd, 2013 at 9:42 pm and is filed under February 5, Nadia Cook-Loshilov. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.