We read enough articles that mentioned Michel Foucault’s work that it seemed ridiculous to avoid reading his work (in translation), so I gave my students some sections of The History of Sexuality Volume I. So far, we’ve discussed “We ‘Other Victorians,'” which I guess you could say is Foucault’s introduction to his introduction on sexuality. I’ve also selected portions of “Method” and “Domain” (later in the volume) and plan on reading to them a few other key passages. It’s difficult to gauge how much of this theory the students are ready to parse. But, early on, I’m still blissfully optimistic that the grappling is going well. No one has fallen asleep–that’s a good sign.
On Friday, we talked about Foucault’s project in discussing sexuality, knowledge, power, and politics. We marched through the repressive hypothesis and into his discussion of the controls exerted on sexuality not so incidentally coinciding with the rise of capitalism. We talked about the limited spaces for and “uses” of sex, and the more we talked about how controlled sex and sexuality are, the more we began to question why. The students quickly realized that this “history” is unlike any other “historical” text they’ve encountered. One student made a particularly good observation: I feel like Foucault is better at raising questions than he is at tracing history. Yes; the more we know, the more we wonder.
Here are some questions that Foucault raises in this section that are particularly useful or maybe a better term here since we’re talking Foucault would be pleasureful:
1. What led us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it is something we silence?
2. What paths have brought us to the point where we are “at fault” with respect to our own sex?
3. Why has sexuality been so widely discussed, and what has been said about it?
4. What were the effects of power generated by what was said?
5. What are the links between these discourses, these effects of power, and the pleasures that were invested by them?
Foucault provides us with an excellent set of questions as we look at power, knowledge, and pleasure related to sex and sexualities. I know that I’ve been thinking quite about what Foucault says about the nature of power, which is “to be repressive, and to be especially careful in repressing useless energies, the intensity of pleasures, and irregular modes of behavior.” I’m sure that Foucault’s notion of “repressive” power plays into McIntosh’s idea of the “oppressive” nature of privilege. And his idea of “irregular modes of behavior” clearly assumes “regular” modes–or, as we say, “normative.”
On a less serious note: in at least 73% of the photos of Michel Foucault I’ve found, he’s wearing a turtleneck. As one who sports the turtleneck far too often, I approve.