The Root of Sexual Inhibition
I always find it hard to discuss philosophy because of its digressive nature – as soon as you answer one question, you realize that there are a million other questions you need to ask in order to come close to “truth”. And even then that truth is subjective, as it could change depending on the questions you ask.
It seems to me that society wasn’t so much repressed (which to me involves force) as slowly accepting of an updated social etiquette. Foucault leads us to believe that, though power and force were in subtle ways behind the change in sexual discourse, the aim was not to flat out suppress sexual desire but to change the way people thought about sex. And indeed the latter task would be easier to accomplish. Foucault describes the ultimate goal as an attempt to make sex a utilitarian practice only. He theorizes that the beginning of what we thing of as sexual repression occurred in tandem with capitalism. The reason for this pattern is because capitalism required a functioning labor force. Sex for pleasures sake was considered a distraction for the working class, but utilitarian sex equaled a repopulated labor force. He also mentions religion, particularly Catholicism, as being a catalyst to reforming sexual language. I thought it particularly interesting when he mentioned that the booklets on confessional questions from the Middle Ages were slowly refined to take the sexual language out. I still don’t know the answer to “What changed?”, but I feel that the Church’s stance on sexuality can be rationalized if not justified. It’s religion, after all, which usually requires organization and different types of uniformity from its followers in order to maintain strength and power. Which makes people wonder if sexual modesty was taught with good intention and then taken too far by corrupt powers. But I also wonder if people in positions of power felt like they had to discover the “truth” of sex before the common man did; so they decided to turn it into a confined and complete package that needed no more exploration or questioning and then they could continue the important exploration themselves and have control over, or at least sway, what the public thought and knew about sex.
But in all of the questions the Foucault poses or that come up naturally I see the same core question: why do we find it hard to talk about sex? Is it the intimacy? Our fear of rejection? A natural part of evolved civilization? Where does this sense of propriety come from? Do we view sex with a slight sense of fear already because of its bestial nature? Because we feel it is a part of us that is primitive, so we feel self-conscious and defensive? And because humans have a fear of sex, is that why it was so easy to get people to turn it into an object of secrecy and disgust? Maybe the only way to discuss philosophy is to be careful about digressing to far into psychology. Trying to get my ideas in order to discuss philosophy is nearly impossible, but: I would postulate that most humans are fascinated by sex. And it only makes sense that a physical act, already singular by its mechanics, which evokes so many intangible feelings would be a point of fascination for a species that has the cognitive power for extended self reflection. And I feel like as we get more technologically advanced we also get more self aware – the amount of information available to us lets us create comparisons for every aspect of our lives, because we’re always asking ourselves if we are doing it (life) right. Maybe we just say we are repressed because it is easier to explain away self-consciousness with a tangible event (in this case we blame the bourgeoisie), than to try and figure out the complications of human nature.
Another thing that is interesting to me (and seems connected to the scientia sexualis) is how humans also find embarrassment and self consciousness to be a well of pleasure- pornography fetishes include medical examinations and forced-sex fantasies, where the crux of pleasure is found in the complete exposure of the human body. Is it just a paradoxical effect of our relationship with sex?
The only thing I can say to excuse the amount of questions I added is that Foucault threw my brain into turmoil, out of which questions come far more readily than answers.
February 4th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
I’m not sure whose post this is, so don’t forget for future ones to identify yourself. But let me speak in praise of turmoil when it comes to thinking about our assumptions regarding power, sexuality, and truth! For class tomorrow, I’d like you to lead a discussion around this sentence from your post:
“But I also wonder if people in positions of power felt like they had to discover the “truth” of sex before the common man did; so they decided to turn it into a confined and complete package that needed no more exploration or questioning and then they could continue the important exploration themselves and have control over, or at least sway, what the public thought and knew about sex.”
It will come in to play when we discuss Confession and the status of truth in particular, so be ready to jump in when that comes up. It’s not quite in line with how Foucault describes the relationship between truth and power, so consider how you might rethink the question lurking in that sentence.