Finding the Faults in Foucault
Reading the essays by Weeks and Norton both came as a bit of a shock to me after finishing Foucault’s treatise on sexuality. Foucault has developed such a comprehensive theory, but it seems to me as if neither Weeks nor Norton really knows where to place it. Foucault establishes a framework for understanding how power creates ideas, culture, and how the devices and technologies of power have grasped pleasures, desires, and sex by their loins and used these phenomena to construct sexuality, one of the most devious and diverse array of power technologies ever dreamt of. Through disciplining the body and regulating populations, the technologies of power have, with sexuality as their tool, penetrated into even the most mundane aspects of life. But can we find any plain fundamental truths that Foucault’s theories of sexuality have neglected?
As Norton points out, there is a remarkable continuity throughout various queer cultures. He argues that there is indeed, a single queer culture and merely variations of it. How, if the idea of “queer” is socially constructed, can there be such continuity across time and space? Norton makes a convincing argument for the continuity of queer culture. Is this grounds for throwing away all of Foucault’s theories on the technologies of power forming what we think of as sexuality today? I definitely don’t think so. Norton argues against “social constructionism,” but I think there is a more subtle argument than that to be drawn from Foucault. Foucault describes a framework of a myriad of power relations, and describes how these power relations have defined our culture and ideas, but specifically, have produced sexuality. Nowhere does individual choice enter the picture. Does this mean that Foucault’s theory denies the will of the individual? Rather than that, I think it defines the tumultuous world around it, and gives an idea of the landscape in which individuals make choices.
But then what is this abstract notion of “power” that shapes cultures, societies, and ideas? I’m not sure. Although the theory possibly brings up more questions than it answers, I believe that it seems to be an accurate description of how power functions in the world. Despite the sometimes sloppy historical details, Foucault has managed to shape a robust theory of a major influence in our world (power), and we should strive to see what other issues the exceptions may bring up, rather than to use historical details to refute an extremely abstract theory. Norton’s point of the continuity of queer culture is one such exception that brings up the question of how this culture is communicated, and if there is anything fundamentally unique about being queer. As Foucault describes, power and the shaping of ideas is localized. It comes from many centers, and the ideas it creates are not only constructed through intellectual discussion, although Foucault often uses the word “discourse.” Although written discourse about homosexuality may have been rare, these are no grounds for saying that there was no communication of the culture amongst and within gay people.
So, the lingering question posed by Norton remains. Is there is something fundamental about being queer? And what, if anything, makes sex any different from any other realms that this “power” has penetrated? I don’t know the answer to either of these questions, and would be sceptical of anyone who claimed to. Nonetheless, I do not believe that these unanswered questions are grounds in the least for dismissing Foucault’s theory of power and sexuality. Answering the second question would, I think, even be made easier by using Foucault’s theories to help peel back the constructed layers of sexuality and to reveal the pleasures, acts, and relationships that remain.
Tags: Culture, Foucault, Power, Queer, Sex v. Sexuality, Theory
February 13th, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Hi Eli,
This is an insightful discussion, but I would like you to consider the difference between a comprehensive theory of power and why Foucault says he prefers to say he is providing an “analytics” of power (82). Does that alter the way you might read the 2 responses (especially Weeks, who draws far more on Foucault than disagreeing with him)? For the key issue you raise–Norton’s challenge in regard to something fundamental about being queer–please lead this discussion in class by briefly reading a selected sentence or two from Norton to set it up and then asking your colleagues to respond. Wait until many ideas are out on the table before you argue your point (whatever it is).