On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> Hi
>
> I must admit I skipped a few parts of The History of Sexuality v1, including
> the part on infantile masturbation.
>
> I understand that Foucault is (among other things) criticizing the
> repressive hypothesis here...in that section (or elsewhere) does Foucault
> claim that discourses on infantile sexuality actually had a tangible effect
> on infantile sexual activity?
>
> Speaking of infantile sexuality, watch Disney's "Bambi" with sex on your
> mind sometime. If you've read any Paglia, think about the kouros and erotic
> hierarchy, etc etc bla bla. If you haven't read any Paglia, you're missing
> out :)
>
> ~Nate
To attempt to summarise Foucault's thinking here.... there are
perhaps two important sections which need to be read and read again.
These are the _Repressive Hypothesis_ chapter and also the section
later in that book on method (don't have the book with me to check
page numbers, sorry.) F writes that power produces. A discursive
formation is both power and resistance. Instead of saying that
repression stops certain types of sexual activities, F argues that the
discourses of sex and the affects of power produce sexual categories.
One example he gives is the invention of the homosexual in the 19th
century. Another example is infantile sexuality. Rather then
infantile sexuality and homosexuality being repressed by the
discourses which outlaw it, these discourses invent the category of
the homosexual and infantile sexuality. This does not mean that
homosexuality or infantile sexuality as practices did not happen, as
such, prior the the 19th Century notion of repression, but occupied
different discursive postions, and hence did not neccessarily exist as
categories of the homosexual or infantile sexuality. (An argument
against essentialism.) F is also interested in the connections in the
discourse on sex between the homosexual and the infantile sexual. The
repressive notion of sexuality links homosexuality with infantile
sexuality. To put it bluntly and by way of example: sports like rugby
were introduced to and made compulsory in the elite boys public
schools in England in the 19th Century to stop the boys buggering
each other. So what tangible affect power has may also appear
quite tangental to the issue. Then again, male sports, like
rugby, are homosexual with a public and proper (repressive)
heterosexual appearance, if we follow Fs method, here. Another
affect was to institutionalise infantile homosexuality as a product
of the all boys boarding school which the boys were expected to grow
out of. (It can become quite complex and never quite as simple as my
attempted summary, given the immanence Foucault gives power.)
Hope this helps as one approach to Fs History of Sexuality, Vol 1.
Vol 2 looks to the ancient Greek's pedagogical traditions of boy love
which illustrates another discursive set of sexual norms.
best wishes
chris Jones.
> Hi
>
> I must admit I skipped a few parts of The History of Sexuality v1, including
> the part on infantile masturbation.
>
> I understand that Foucault is (among other things) criticizing the
> repressive hypothesis here...in that section (or elsewhere) does Foucault
> claim that discourses on infantile sexuality actually had a tangible effect
> on infantile sexual activity?
>
> Speaking of infantile sexuality, watch Disney's "Bambi" with sex on your
> mind sometime. If you've read any Paglia, think about the kouros and erotic
> hierarchy, etc etc bla bla. If you haven't read any Paglia, you're missing
> out :)
>
> ~Nate
To attempt to summarise Foucault's thinking here.... there are
perhaps two important sections which need to be read and read again.
These are the _Repressive Hypothesis_ chapter and also the section
later in that book on method (don't have the book with me to check
page numbers, sorry.) F writes that power produces. A discursive
formation is both power and resistance. Instead of saying that
repression stops certain types of sexual activities, F argues that the
discourses of sex and the affects of power produce sexual categories.
One example he gives is the invention of the homosexual in the 19th
century. Another example is infantile sexuality. Rather then
infantile sexuality and homosexuality being repressed by the
discourses which outlaw it, these discourses invent the category of
the homosexual and infantile sexuality. This does not mean that
homosexuality or infantile sexuality as practices did not happen, as
such, prior the the 19th Century notion of repression, but occupied
different discursive postions, and hence did not neccessarily exist as
categories of the homosexual or infantile sexuality. (An argument
against essentialism.) F is also interested in the connections in the
discourse on sex between the homosexual and the infantile sexual. The
repressive notion of sexuality links homosexuality with infantile
sexuality. To put it bluntly and by way of example: sports like rugby
were introduced to and made compulsory in the elite boys public
schools in England in the 19th Century to stop the boys buggering
each other. So what tangible affect power has may also appear
quite tangental to the issue. Then again, male sports, like
rugby, are homosexual with a public and proper (repressive)
heterosexual appearance, if we follow Fs method, here. Another
affect was to institutionalise infantile homosexuality as a product
of the all boys boarding school which the boys were expected to grow
out of. (It can become quite complex and never quite as simple as my
attempted summary, given the immanence Foucault gives power.)
Hope this helps as one approach to Fs History of Sexuality, Vol 1.
Vol 2 looks to the ancient Greek's pedagogical traditions of boy love
which illustrates another discursive set of sexual norms.
best wishes
chris Jones.