Power And Sexuality

Justin Mak
105829601
HIS 393

Analyzing Knowledge, Power and Sexuality

At the turn of the eighteenth century, the notion of sexuality moved from the public spotlight into the home. An era of free expression had transformed into an era of both repressed desires and repression in sexual activities. This was also subsequent with the rise of the bourgeoisie, or the working middle class, as the subject of sex became taboo. Michel Foucalt, author of The History of Sexuality:An Introduction states that through the repression of sexuality, both power and knowledge are outcomes. Both discussion and media on the topic of pleasure or sex became a prime pathway to the repression of sexuality. Through the censorship and regulation of discourse
on the subject of sexuality, people in positions of power maintained their grasp on the general public. The powers that were prevalent throughout Europe in the eighteenth century changed the politics of this type of discourse, discouraging sinful language and subjects, while even banning words. Whether it be through law or through common understanding of what discussions were to be held in private or hushed tones. Foucault goes on to explain that our modern society often views sexuality since the eighteenth century in terms of the “repressive hypothesis.” The “repressive hypothesis” maintains that since the beginning of the rise of the bourgeoisie in the seventeenth century, the spending of time on purely pleasurable acts became a thing to be ashamed of. Extra marital sexual relations were becoming seen as an unthinkable act and even sex in general was now regarded in a more scientific way and in a merely reproductive manner. Of the two “types” of power mentioned in The History of Sexuality, the juridico-discursive concept of power seems easy to relate to as we are part of the society that is “repressed” by this power. The second concept of power is that of Foucault's, himself. His “method” concept is slightly opposed to the juridico-discursive concept by stating that power is in every relation and that the dominance of one over the other does not exactly mean a fluctuation in power. In this essay I will explore the subjects of power, knowledge, and sexuality throughout their history and show the link between them while also relating them to their parts in European society. Prior to the rise of the bourgeoisie in the seventeenth century, the general mindset concerning sex was very open and the regulations on the nude or obscene were generally lax. “Sexual practices had little need of secrecy, words were said without undue reticence, and things were done without too much concealment; one had a tolerant familiarity with the illicit...it was a period when bodies made a display of themselves.” (Foucault 3) This quote can be an accurate representation of a sexual lifestyle preceding the emergence of the working middle class. The repressive hypothesis is on track with this, claiming that power has been repressing sex since the seventeenth century and that we can overcome this human constraint by talking more openly about sex and engaging in its practice more often. The figures who held power during this time noticed that the only way to control the public image of sexuality was to control the discourse surrounding the subject. By oppressing the humans natural sexual desire, the powers that be effectively established their dominance in society. “Calling sex by its name thereafter became more difficult and more costly...control its free circulation in speech, expunge it from the things that were said, and extinguish the words that rendered it too visibly present.” (Foucault 17) In this quotation, Foucault shows how the higher authority was beginning to control speech regarding subjects that were seen as sinful. Not only do they begin to control the conditions and settings in which illicit dialectic could be spoken, but they also began to change the language itself. Even laws were passed to regulate the use and misuse of certain terms. In order to condemn the topic of sexuality to the shadows and confines of people's homes; power, in the form of government had to first control the media and discussion on topics regarding sexuality. Foucault often uses the term “discourse” when talking about this type of discussion, so for lack of a better alternative and for the sake of consistency, I will also use this term. This is an example of the juridico-discursive notion of power in which it is seen that the general population is being repressed or held down by a higher authority which is in position of power. In fact, it seems that the repression of these pleasurable desires and its subsequent discourse were established mainly in order to gain power. In order to gain a better understanding of Foucault's own notion of power, we must become knowledgeable in the current view on power, the juridico-discursive concept. “It is this conception that governs both the thematics of repression and the theory of the law as constitutive of desire.” (Foucault 82) It is this juridico-discursive concept of power that helps the repressive hypothesis remain as widely accepted as it is. Foucault describes this perception in regards to five principal features. The first principle is that power and sex always have a negative relationship. In that, “where sex and pleasure are concerned, power can do nothing but say no to them.” (Foucault 83) The next principle explains that power, because of its close association with the government, takes the form of law and thus has an effect on the way sex is treated or viewed. The third principle is generally straightforward. The way for power to deal with sex is by means of prohibition. By enabling punishment for offendors of this law, power can easily deal with sex. Fourth, power alleges that sex is not to be discussed and that it basically did not exist. Lastly, we see that power maintains the same relationship with sex at all levels of life. The devices that they use to maintain this relationship (law or censorship) will always remain this way through the different levels of society. This power is seen in a somewhat ironical way by Foucault. He shows that while this power may be dominating, it is also not capable of producing anything. The only power that is evident is the power of limitation. “Further, it is a power that only has the force of the negative on its side...This is the paradox of its effectiveness: it is incapable of doing anything,except to render what it dominates incapable of doing anything either, except for what this power allows it to do.” (Foucault 85) Although it seems that all this control, regulation, censorship, and prohibition was to push sexuality deep into the shadows away from the public eye, it seems to have had quite the opposite effect on the level of discourse. Even though censorship and restrictions were placed on speech and “enunciations” the natural human curiousity eclipsed such social norms. “The tightening up of the rules of decorum likely did produce, as a countereffect, a valorization and intensification of indecent speech.” (Foucault 18) Many modern psychoanalysts believe that it this repression itself, that causes desire. Therefore, the censorship of sexual discourse has had an adverse affect, resulting in a veritable explosion of illicit speech. In some ways, it can look as if this ciew of power had brought on this change. One way was the expansion of the yearly confession in Catholic dominant areas in Europe. Although one had to monitor his language closely, he was also expected to confess much more than he previously had. In an effort to understand and examine sexuality, confessionals were now a place to confess everything. “Not only will you confess to acts contravening the law, but you will seek to transform your desire, your every desire, into discourse.” (Foucault 21) This meant that you were to admit “-to all the insinuations of the flesh:thoughts, desires, voluptuous imaginings, delectations, combined movements of the body and soul.” (Foucault 19) This emphasis on transforming every bit of desire into confessional discussion motivated people to analyze their own sexual being, whether they went to confessional or not. This repressive hypothesis is also contended when looking at children's sexuality in the eighteenth century.
It may not be as prominent or noticeable as the discourse brought on by confession but it remained ever present in the mind of staff at educational institutions. “On the whole, one can have the impression that sex was hardly spoken of at all in these institutions. But one only has to glance over the architectural layout, the rules of discipline, and their whole internal organization:the question of sex was a constant preoccupation.” (Foucault 27) In essence, the emphasis on sexuality was veiled but always there and became increasingly referenced as you examine these institutions more closely. The classes, dormitories, and even the tables were all designed with the sexuality of children in mind. Because of this emphasis on educating the adolescants on sex, the children became surrounded by “precepts, opinions, observations, medical advice, clinical cases,” all about the topic of children's sexuality. This was succesful in “educating” the young children at the institutions but was also a magnification on the discourse on childrens sexuality. An experimental school was even established to educate youths on
sexuality. Foucault points out that since the Middle Ages and the time of absolute monarchies, power has manifested itself in the form of law. When the eighteenth century came around, and people began to see the shortcomings of absolute monarchies, they began to criticize the higher authorities. Unfortunately, all these criticisms were in accordance to the law that the absolute monarchies had themselves engineered. Therefore, following the fall of the absolute monarchies, these manifestations of power were still intact. However, Foucault believes that this is also still because our perception of power under this juridico-discursive concept. He believes that in order to oppose this way of percieving power, we must forget this “negative representation” and begin to see power in a broader sense, disconnected from the laws that currently represent it. Foucault's perception of “power” is mainly in contradiction to the juridico-discursive concept of power.
It does not view power as a limiting force in which one group can use against another, nor is it an object that one can possess. He views power as being prevalent in every relationship, no matter from what side. This is directly in opposition to the juridico-discursive idea which maintains that power is “one-sided” oppressive. He lets us know that power cannot be applied to something but rather, it always exists within the relationship. Also, that power relationships are not uniform and can emerge at any level of society regardless of the majority power. Lastly, resistance is always a participant in the power relationship and is dynamic. Foucault stresses that we cannot percieve sexuality in terms of a one sided relationship. There are actually many power relations that sculpt our view on sexual discourse. He sets up four rules for his concept. His “Rule of immanence” maintains that knowledge and power are linked and that different manifestations of power effect our will to
learn.
Foucault's “Rule of continual variation” says that in order for power to exist, the relationship must be dynamic and ever changing. Foucault uses children's sexuality as an example for this rule. At first, the topic of children's sex was between the parents and the professionals but then grows to include the children. The experimental school is an example of this. Eventually this broadens the subject and the sexuality of adults is placed under the microscope. His third rule, the “Rule of double conditioning,” explains that “local centers” of power cannot exist without a master plan. Finally, the “Rule of the tactical polyvalence of discourses” states that discourse is the vital link between knowledge and power. This is extremely evident and can be proved by examples. Without discourse, there is no way to express this knowledge, nor is there much for power to “repress.” One cannot deny that the rise of the bourgeoisie was connected to the restraint of sexual or pleasurable desires. One, also, cannot deny that at this time power took the form of law and censorship to impose it's will on the public. However, the view of power as having negative, restraining characteristics is challenged by the author of this book. It remains true to the repressive hypothesis that there was a sort of restraint set on discourse by persons of authority but that is not entirely true. In some ways, discourse and the ideas of pleasure were brought to the forefront by the attention paid towards repressing those same ideas and discourse. Foucault's take on power is a constant reminder that everything has two sides and that power can emerge everywhere.