Power and Problematic Sexualities
Power and Problematic Sexualities
Foucault finally started to make sense to me with The Deployment of Sexuality. Maybe it’s because Part 4 is much more linear, but I am just relieved to feel a little less lost.
In his “Method” section, Foucault effectively dispels the rest of the ideas I had about power in relation to sex by asserting that it is (1) not “a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of a given state,” (2) not “a mode of subjugation,” and (3) not “a general system of dominance exerted by one group over another” to take over society (92). Power is instead a solution to sexualities that are deemed problematic within society, in this case, the bourgeois (93).
The problematic sexualities that Foucault discusses include female sexuality, children’s sexuality, “perverse” sexuality and sexuality in relation to economics. Though he most frequently references centuries past in regards to the aforementioned categories, all involve ideas that prevail to this day.
The feminine body is still analyzed, especially in terms of its function in the family and responsibility to children. The sexuality of females — mothers — is judged more harshly than that of fathers, as it calls the paternity of children into question. (I recall in my Roman Civ class a couple of semesters ago, the professor expressed that the chastity of females in and out of wedlock was important for this exact reason). Since females are believed to hold a greater responsibility to their family/children, are they not held to a higher standard of sexual behavior than males?
And isn’t the debate over children’s sexuality prominent in public debate today? As Foucault stated there is an assumption that “practically all children indulge or are prone to indulge in sexual activity” (104). But despite the fact that this assumption persists to this day (with statistics to back it up) abstinence-only is taught because sex is still believed to be dangerous “physical[ly], moral[ly], individual[ly] and collective[ly]” (104). This is a popular argument, but if adolescent sexuality is assumed and even proven at this point, then contraception should really just be taught in public schools already.
Economics made sexuality a “concern of the state” (116) because births had to be regulated so the poor wouldn’t just continually procreate. And isn’t eugenics-like rhetoric recycled in anti-welfare arguments to this day? In that same vein, heredity sexuality was very important because similar to poor socioeconomic status, no one wanted sexual perversions to be inherited. The theory of “degenerescence” makes it possible for any and every type of “malady” to produce a pervert to produce other and sometimes unrelated birth defects in future generations (118).
So the bourgeois sought to protect themselves from the aforementioned categories of problematic sexuality. “Hysterical” females jeopardized the family. Sexually-awakened children compromised their intelligence and morals and therefore were a detriment to their bloodlines and class. The sexuality of upper classes was problematized at the expense of the lower classes, for it was the upper classes’ sexuality that needed to be protected in order to extend that protection to their bloodlines. And to recap the theory of degenerescence, ailments within families eventually spawned perverts eventually spawned various afflictions, thereby degenerating the bloodline.
Tags: abstinence-only, bloodline, bourgeois, contraception, degenerescence, economics, eugenics, family, female hysteria, heredity, onanism, perversion, power, problematic sexualities, protection, social class, socioeconomic
