In "We, 'Other Victorians,'" philosopher Michel Foucault examines the history of sexual discussion in Western culture. Sexual repression, which is strongly associated with the Victorian Era of the 19th century, began in the 17th century. Society forced most people to conform to its expectations of sexuality, enforcing "its triple edict of taboo, nonexistence, and silence" (293) upon discussion of sex and sexuality. Those who did not comply with society's repression, namely prostitutes and the mentally ill, were considered outsiders. Foucault links this increase in sexual oppression to the expansion of capitalism that began during the 17th century. In a capitalistic system, he argues, labor capacity leaves little room for "pleasurable pursuits," except for the purpose of procreation. This mentality led to increasing silence surrounding sexuality, which "[became] an integral part of bourgeois order" (294). Foucault argues that it is difficult to free ourselves from this repression, that an upheaval of the social order is required in order for sexual discourse to openly occur. While "a great sexual sermon" swept through in 1960s and 1970s and "denounced the old order" (296) to make the discuss of sex less taboo, there are still problems with the system. Lastly, Foucault's challenges the basis of sexual oppression, asking readers, "Is sexual repression truly an established historical fact?" (298). He is challenging conceptions of sexual oppression, though he makes it clear that he believes the prohibition of sexual acts and discussions did occur. We, however, must look beyond prohibition to fully understand the sexual discourse and oppression of the past several centuries
What I found interesting about Foucault's piece was how he linked the beginning of Victorian-style sexual oppression to the advent of capitalism. It's an argument I have never heard before and adds yet another layer to the incredibly amount of changes that occurred when capitalism began to spread. I also liked how he questioned the roots of sexual oppression, since it is usually a topic that receives little insight. However, I wish Foucault had discussed the implication of sexual oppression on our current era and on sexual minorities. There is much to say about how Victorian-era ideals still influence our modern day perceptions of sex and sexuality. While the discussion is continuously becoming more open, both women and sexual minorities face excessive scrutiny of their sexual practices and sexuality.
Questions:
1) In what ways does Foucault's piece apply to modern-day discussions of sexuality?
2) What sexual oppression does the LGBTQ* community face?
3) Foucault identifies prostitutes and the mentally ill as "Other Victorians." Who would you classify as "Other Victorians" and why?
What I found interesting about Foucault's piece was how he linked the beginning of Victorian-style sexual oppression to the advent of capitalism. It's an argument I have never heard before and adds yet another layer to the incredibly amount of changes that occurred when capitalism began to spread. I also liked how he questioned the roots of sexual oppression, since it is usually a topic that receives little insight. However, I wish Foucault had discussed the implication of sexual oppression on our current era and on sexual minorities. There is much to say about how Victorian-era ideals still influence our modern day perceptions of sex and sexuality. While the discussion is continuously becoming more open, both women and sexual minorities face excessive scrutiny of their sexual practices and sexuality.
Questions:
1) In what ways does Foucault's piece apply to modern-day discussions of sexuality?
2) What sexual oppression does the LGBTQ* community face?
3) Foucault identifies prostitutes and the mentally ill as "Other Victorians." Who would you classify as "Other Victorians" and why?
I liked (maybe that's not the right word) Foucault's comment about how non-procreative sex is repressed because it's "incompatible" with the capitalist work ethic. Between this and the other reading for Monday, it's like DANG, I am so degenerate in the eyes of the bourgeoisie and the doctors of the 1800s.
ReplyDeleteRay, you are definitely not alone with the manifold groups of people deemed "degenerate" in the eyes of the bourgeoisie and the doctors of the 1800s! I would say it was a tall order to NOT be deemed degenerate :)
DeleteIt was interesting to me the three "doubts" raised re: sex repression. You mentioned the first above (1. Is sexual repression truly an established historical fact?), and here are the other two for reference, taken directly from page 298: 2. Do the workings of power really belong primarily to the category of repression? 3. Did the critical discourse that addresses itself to repression come to act as a roadblock to a power mechanism that had operated unchallenged up to that point, or is it not in fact part of the same historical network as the thing it denounces by calling it "repression"?
ReplyDelete1. I feel that we are the equivalent of an unreliable narrator. That is, we taint history with our own points of view, a lens of our own societal and systematic challenges and pitfalls. So it is possible that history is not sex repressed, but that we impose sex repression on it. But if that is the case, then doesn't that validate the idea that "sex repression [was] truly an established historical fact?" That is, if we do view history with a lens of sex repression, mustn't that lens come from a history of sex repression?
As you have all said, Foucault points to a very fascinating correlation between the initiation of investigation into sex and sexuality in the 17th and 18th Centuries with the dying system of feudalism. Because a burgeoning capitalist system needed new beings to insert into the cog and wheel system, sexual reproduction was emphasized. Additionally, scientists became the new regulators of normalization, providing a hierarchy (highly influenced by race in addition to gender) based on scientific findings. They determined what was normal, allowing the normal to take precedence over the natural. Therefore, Foucault states that technological advancement and scientific discovery associated with industrialization were the tools used to structure a system of control for capitalism to replace the system previously grounded in a divine hierarchy. Capitalism and gender/sexuality/sexual control go hand in hand in Foucault's eyes.
ReplyDeleteIn current discourse, most LGBTQ rights discussions are centered around the discussion of marriage equality. This is primarily due to the agenda being set by fairly wealthy, white males (which leads to erasure of issues around queer and trans* violence, homelessness, and suicide). I recently read an article in the Tufts Observer (as Moira plugged today) that talked about why the writer was against same-sex marriage equality. The writer believed that same-sex marriage is still working within a capitalist framework that still acts in a classist construction of society. The institution of marriage (same-sex included) and all the benefits (governmental and otherwise) associated with it largely ignores and demonizes any other committal relationship or familial structure. Because of this and of the fact that same-sex marriage still works in a largely stratified capitalist structure, thereby proving a function of class privilege, the author viewed it as "using the Master's tools" so to speak. Thinking about this, I find it fascinating that a group of people ostracized through the rise of capitalist societies are now fighting to work within the same system that has confined them.
Foucuault's piece does, in many ways, apply to modern day discussions of sexuality. The Victorians were arguably sexually repressed, and this was attributed to the age of capitalism that obstructed recreational activities such as sex. Their discourse with sex became layered with florid language that embellished the discourse of sex. The fact that it is still a common for parents to refer to sex as "birds and bees", indicates how the repression of sex in the 18th, 19th century follows into the discourse of this century.Foucault brings forth an interesting point where he calls this a "hypocritical sexuality". This act of rejecting sex, not talking about sex, and not acknowledging its presence, highlights the Victorian's obsession with sex. In today's society, we too, find ways to deflect our current society by speaking about how repressed the past is. Foucault poses the question, was "sex repression truly an established historical fact?". Speaking about sex today is a conscious defiance of power. It is still shocking, still revolutionary. Tufts Observer just put out an entire issue dedicated to sex, and there is a lot of "talk" around this issue, including the fact that all of my professors have made mention to this issue. To answer your first question, I believe the heightening of this issue blatantly reveals how today's society still upholds some extent of the sexual repression of the Victorian society.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think today there is still a lot of gender and sex policing that indicates that there is an obsession with sex and sexuality. One example I think is interesting is certain religions' obsession with policing sexuality. In recent history, the Catholic Church has been a strong opponent of abortion and homosexuality. Much of what we read about the Catholic Church and much of what we have heard has related to these issues. The church used to me more focused on service and charity, whereas now there is an obsession with keeping people in order instead of focusing on more productive parts of the Bible and of other parts of the religion that used to have more emphasis. Pope Francis himself even pointed this out in 2013 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). So in many ways (not just the Catholic Church) I think that our society represents that of the Victorian Era when it comes to obsessing over the parts of society that are deemed negative.
DeleteI agree with all of this, especially because, in my mind, sex workers and the mentally ill have made little head way in terms of gaining societal sexual freedom since Foucault wrote this piece. Sex work is only legal in Las Vegas, in the United States and I'm fairly certain the sexual lives of the mentally ill is not on the agendas of many in terms of important issues to educate the masses about. A couple years ago someone running for office in some Eastern state in the U.S. ran on a "I'm going to make all sodomy (aka gay sex) illegal, to protect the children from pedophiles". Talk about repression. The GOP's obsession with the unborn and with restricting access to contraception, the high price of condoms, the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of IUDs and the near non existence of comprehensive sex education programs in public schools seem like blatant examples of sexual repression here in the United States. And people have written novels on the topic for other countries as well.
DeleteHiu, I am really glad you brought up parents talking about sex to their children. I've been thinking about that a lot this week and wondering myself what IS the best way to talk about sex with kids, because hey, with the world the way it is today and maybe having siblings much older or questioning what their parents do they WILL hear about it and ask, and i swear the ages of kids who ask are getting younger and younger. And some of us WILL be parents someday, hence my wondering. Depending on the age there may or may not need to be a lot of detail in explaining sex and sexual-related things, but hands-down knowledge is important and it is better to give non-sugarcoated information--even just basic--than none.
DeleteIn extention, I also agree with Grace on sexual repression being related to and leading to "the GOP's obsession with the unborn and with restricting access to contraception, the high price of condoms, the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of IUDs and the near non existence of comprehensive sex education programs in public schools". Other than talking to kids up to 5th/6th grade it is EVEN MORE important to give free information and have access to protection for middle school and high school kids. I had a sex ed class in 7th or 8th grade which actually was pretty resourceful and it helped that my teacher was funny so he helped us get through the awkward stuff. He did a fine job in explaining things too. However, I'm not sure if this is coming from it being so long ago or the school didn't want us to know EVERYTHING, I remember still having to do my own personal research in high school to fill in the blanks of what i didn't know about sex, and it made me feel better. Another fault of the sex ed class is i'm pretty sure we didn't talk about same-sex sexuality, which ALSO resulted in me researching and talking to well-informed older LGBTQ students in high school.
I think Foucalt's analysis of the link between capitalism and sexual repression is very pertinent to today's society. While sexual repression has faded somewhat in modernity, gender repression has now phased in as a way capitalism continues to enforce certain standards for the sake of keeping the same people on top and the rest in the work force. As people start to reach the edges of the gender "boxes" they are forced into as children, they call into question the ways that capitalism gains from oppression of the feminine and of anything "outside the binary". Tactics for control start losing pertinence, and the whole way in which society maintains order will have to be rethought. I think as people become more and more concerned with personal identity and finding their place without guidelines that are as restricting, socialist techniques will gain more and more relevance. The age of the standard worker is coming to a close, and hopefully the idea that a human does not have to work to "earn" the right to be alive will gain traction.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I think that sexual repression is still problematic in modern times, but gender repression is applicable regarding your point that "oppression of the feminine" is currently seen as the key to being successful. There are countless ways that people are attempting to transcend the gender repression (read: get out of the “men make good workers/employees” box) imposed by capitalism. I’m thinking along the lines of organizations such as the Society for Women Engineers, Women in Computer Science, etc - while these organizations try to emphasize “anything you can do, I can do better,” it perpetuates that those who identify as female compromise a lesser gender and they need to work harder to bring themselves up to the standards set by/for male employees. I don’t believe these standards hold any water as it’s simply a social construct, but it also perpetuates the gender binary itself. Where do those who don’t identify as either gender fit?
DeleteI'm interested in Question #1. If, like Foucault, you see social shifts brought in by economics, then you could use today’s market system to analyze the current state of affairs in LGBT politics.
ReplyDeleteIf the banishment of sex except for procreation is an outcome of capitalism entering into the private sphere and doing away with inessentials, then that raises interesting thoughts about the recent events happening with gay marriage and its (il)legalization.
In our era of capitalism, commodification occurs amongst everything; commodified lifestyles, experiences, a ‘look.’ Would Post-Fordism, with its focus on niche markets instead of a one-size-fits-all mentality, be the reason for the increasing acceptance of marriage between people of the same sex? Marriage was originally a means of economic exchange that between two families, and in its form today it still carries many tax and legal benefits, so in itself marriage is already inside the economic sphere. If marriage is a product, then gay marriage would be a niche market.
In response to your 2nd question, my first thought was how people often say, in response to how they feel about queer people, "what they do in the bedroom is their own business". While this on the surface is true (it's not anyone else's business what other people do with their sex lives), I feel like that statement is often used as a blanket statement for a sentiment that is more along the lines of "I don't care if you're queer as long as you don't ever make it visible to me". Queer people are often excessively policed in terms of public (or private) displays of affection by people who claim to be "tolerant" or otherwise. I suppose it's not exactly in line with the sexual repression of the Victorian era, but this idea that its inappropriate for a same-gendered couple to, say, kiss in public or on TV because "what if the children see?" is ridiculous and definitely a double standard (children watch heterosexual couples kiss in popular media- and, I'm sure, in public- ALL the time)
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, as Grace commented above, the state of sex education in this country is abysmal, and I would venture to guess (though I have no real facts to back it up, just personal experience) many queer kids are left potentially even more unprepared. I was lucky enough to receive fairly comprehensive sex ed, but there was absolutely no discussion of any type of sex other than "traditional" penetrative sex, which leaves a huge knowledge gap for kids who will end up in relationships in which there is not one person with a penis and one with a vagina. The continuing lack of comprehensive sex ed for all possible types of sex is another example of how sexual repression continues to effect the LGBTQ community today.
I would like to add to the examples people are giving for the first question, "In what ways does Foucault's piece apply to modern-day discussions of sexuality?" I thought of an example in class lastnight when the question came up and people were discussing it but i never spoke. I have never attended a Catholic [or any other religious] school except for an after-school CCD (i forget what it stands for) program run by a Catholic church, but I do know from talking to friends who have attended and watching programs on the subject that sex/sexuality is repressed and encouraged to NOT discuss in the open. The nuns who teach assume not talking about sex will encourage students to focus on their studies and be "good students"... but by now everyone (maybe not the nuns) knows what is discussed and acted on happens NOT in class--through notes, in whispers, and behind closed doors. And this goes for ALL types of sexuality. It is even more encouraged, especially in Catholic schools, that gay/queer sex does not occur, not even kissing or holding hands.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is comfortable to answer this, I'm curious to know if anyone has attended a religious school and experienced any of these things.
I do believe that Foucault’s piece still applies to modern-day discussions of sexuality. It is very apparent that conversations about sexuality are repressed, such as the refusal to teach encompassing sex education in some schools. I’d really like to bring up what Amanda had mentioned. She mentioned that she has noticed that children who “ask [about sex] are getting younger and younger”, yet it is still appears that sex is repressed in our society. My question, then, is what is changing in our society that is allowing this barrier of repression to break apart and allow us to speak more freely about sexual acts? Foucalt said that in order to stop this repression, a massive change in our society must come through “transgression of laws, a lifting of prohibition… and a new economy in the mechanisms of power will be required” (294). Clearly our capitalistic economy hasn’t changed, and yet people are still becoming more open with discussions of sexuality. It seems, though, that the types of discussions that are being thrown about this topic around belong to the white, heterosexual, able bodied bourgeoisie, the same class/group of people who originally silenced society. Our patriarchal societal permits only certain views of proper “sex” to be shared, while everyone else who is not privileged by this framework becomes the “other Victorians” Foucalt mentions. Some light is being shed upon marginalized groups such as female identified individuals and GSRM individuals, but not enough is accepted by society to bring complete understanding and freedom. I do agree with Foucal that no one will be freed from this repression or treated more equally until there are major changes of law and economic mindset.
ReplyDeleteCasino Site | Find the Best Online Casino
ReplyDeleteChoosing the best 카지노사이트 online kadangpintar casino for you to get an experience with the casino site. We offer over 100 of the 메리트 카지노 주소 best online casino