Foucault argues that it is an effect of power that we think talking about sexuality is a form of confession or liberation.
When we look at how we talk about sexuality in terms of freedom we often mean in comparison with the past. So it is useful to look at historical patterns of power relations to understand how these have contributed to the conservative culture of sex, or in some cases sexual liberation and freedom. Did our ancestors live in a state of primitive promiscuity, or was monogamy a biological necessity and fact? Was there once an Eden of sexual egalitarianism before the ‘world historical defeat of the female sex’, or was patriarchal domination present from the dawn of culture?’ (Weeks 2003, p14) We have not yet escaped these evolutionist controversies. But we do seem to be living in a time of change where a past that is often described as sexually repressive is giving way to what many see as ‘liberation’.
Foucault takes issue with the conventional view that for a long time we have been living in a Victorian regime and that it is through power that our sexuality is subjected to regulation. The ‘imperial prude is emblazoned on our restrained, mute and hypocritical sexuality’ (1978, p3), thus suppressing sexual expression, forcing a civilization into repression. ‘On the subject of sex, silence became the rule’ (1978, p3), sex was not a topic of conversation for the social space, and sex itself was confined to the home for the purpose of reproduction not pleasure. According to Foucault this approach sees sexual repression coinciding with the rise of capitalism, a time of ‘systematically exploited’ labor. So that ‘if sex is so rigorously repressed, this is because it is incompatible with a general and intensive work imperative’ (1978, p6) evidence of the relationship between power and sex. He suggests (a bit tongue in cheek) that one of the benefits of taking this view of history is that ‘the mere fact that one is speaking about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression’ (1978, p6). So that talking about sex may feel liberating.
But Foucault challenges this view of repression and the view of power as something that is possessed and imposed from above. He sees power as coming ‘from everywhere’ and that ’states of power … are always local and unstable’ (1978 p 93). Even in our conversations we think about whether we are saying the right thing and are conscious of what others might be thinking about us. This is perhaps the most ‘local’ example of power operating as Foucault sees it.
Foucault’s ideas were developed by Butler in her the idea that ‘[g]ender reality is performative… that it is real only to the extent that it is performed’ (Stone 2007 p62). According to Butlers work, different gender norms exist across different cultures, institutions and practices. People are expected to conform to different norms depending on their class or race/ethnicity . These laws are ever changing. Victorian society middle-class women were expected to be ‘pure, modest and chaste’, whereas black women were expected to be ‘hypersexualised’ (Stone 2007 p62). We can see the evolution of changing norms and expressions in popular culture through observing ideas of sexuality in the music industry, especially where film clips have often become hypersexualised. To some, it may be seen to be objectification of the body, but to others- self-empowerment. The fact that there are opposing ways of seeing this shows that these expressions are effects of a power process.
To understand the existing norms that surround sexuality and power, it proves useful to identify the ways in which we as individuals monitor and self-regulate our behaviour. We are constantly being bombarded with advertising, ‘shop here, wear this, want this, love this, be this, buy this, buy that’ (Inside Story by Horrorshow).Which contributes to the constructions of norms. Whether it be pink or blue babies clothing, to the difference in marketing campaigns of health and beauty products across gender where they often use sex to sell. It all ties in to how power operates in the way in which we perform our gender and self regulate. Stone (2007, p 65) gives the example of women constantly monitoring their weight in order to conform to the norm of an ‘attractive female figure’. Individuals have the capacity to ‘critically reflect on their own behaviour, to assess it and then to modify it. Having the ability to reflect on how the established general behaviour is linked to an oppressive gender system leaves way for individuals to liberate themselves from past controls.
Foucault states the question he poses is not ‘Why are we repressed? But why we do we say with such passion and so much resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against ourselves, that we are repressed?’ (1978 p9) For one thing, this allows us to say we are now liberated and place ourselves outside the effect of power. But for Foucault power can be operating when we are least aware of it. In Discipline and Punish the power of the panopticon is most effective when the ‘disciplinary individual’ is no longer conscious of being watched and is watching him or herself (1975).
Foucault’s broad depiction of power makes it difficult to define what it is that power constitutes . We cannot escape power. It is everywhere. Even if we free ourselves from our ‘historical wrongs’, and what was once to be perceived as a repression, the mechanics of power still function in their disciplinary, or self-disciplinary roles. Power is ever changing. It evolves with norms, as with the changes of ideologies. But the mere fact we are talking about sexuality is liberation even if it is an effect of power.
Foucault, M (1975) Discipline and Punish, Allen Lane, London.
Foucault, M (1978) The history of sexuality, Penguin.
Horrorshow, (2009) Lyric from Inside Story, Elefant Traks Records
Stone, A (2007) An Introduction to Feminist Philosophy, Polity.
Weeks, Jeffrey (2003) Sexuality, 2nd ed, Routledge. [NT14]
