Professor Lee Quinby – Macaulay Honors College – Spring 2010

Depressing to Optimistic


Depressing to Optimistic

Depressing to Optimistic

Parts Four and Five of Foucault’s The History of Sexuality were quite an emotional rollercoaster.  Foucault beings by discussing the “juridico-discursive” idea of power, and then criticizing it and explaining his own theory of power – though I found both ideas quite depressing.  Foucault claims that the “juridico-discursive” idea of power underlies the repressive hypothesis, which, if it is taken to be the truth about sexuality in our society is depressing because it means we are repressed (though it is clear by now that Foucault does not believe in this hypothesis, he does point out there is a reason one might desire to believe this idea – it holds “the promise of a liberation” (83)). The “juridico-discursive” idea of power also underlies the psychoanalytical position that “law constitutes desire”. This seems to be an even more depressing idea to me, that humans are stuck in a “the grass is always greener…” mentality, that we always desire what we do not have, and never desire what we do have – specific to sexuality, sexual desire wouldn’t exist without an inability to fulfill all of our sexual impulses. If you extrapolate this idea to desire of any nature, not just sexual, it even more unappealing. While I do believe that it is a positive trait to always desire and strive for more (this is the reason for the advancement of society, for example in the realm of technology), I also believe humans need to have some level of desire for what we do have to attain happiness. To come back down to the level of sexual desire, I think it is more appealing to have hope that you can indulge in your sexual impulses without losing them. Since Foucault is arguing against the “juridico-discursive” idea of power, he doesn’t agree with this psychoanalytical position that law constitutes desire – in fact, he seems to agree with me, stating that if you believe in this idea the you are “always-already trapped” (83). However, his concept of power – that is comes from everywhere, and pervades everything, is no more reassuring, because, as he says, it means we are powerless to escape this power, and even resistance is part of power.

Yet Part Five is more uplifting. Foucault attempts to answer the question posed in the introduction to Part Four: “Why this great chase after the truth of sex, the truth as sex?” through the idea of “bio-power,” that is, the shift of power from “right of death” to “power over life”. Because power exists in regimes that have an interest in the lives and health of their citizens, sex has become a preoccupation of modern life, as it is instrumental in regulating the growth and behavior of a population.  But Foucault scoffs at the idea that liberation is dependent on healthy sexuality.  He asserts that sex has taken on added importance in the forms of power and knowledge. If we – those who look for the truth of sex, or look at the truth as sex – could just unlink these ideas from sex, the deployment of sexuality would no longer hold power over us, we would no longer seek knowledge through sexuality (for as he says earlier, power and knowledge are always linked). This is something that seems relatively easy to obtain (at least in comparison to David’s idea of the Thunder Cats revolution).  Perhaps it is naive (was there ever really a time when people “just” had sex?) and contradictory to Foucault’s other ideas (for isn’t this a form of resistance, and isn’t resistance a part of power because power is omnipresent?) but still, to strive for this seems to be a much more optimistic outlook on the future of sexuality then any of the other ideas presented.

Note: I did not discuss Foucault’s argument for a constructionist view of sexuality, since I addressed in my last post, and I do not see the “essentialist” argument and the falsehood of the idea that truth lies in ones sexuality as mutually exclusive.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.