Foucault, Part II: The Repressive Hypothesis
In The History of Sexuality, Foucault studies the interplay between discipline, discourse, and power, specifically in the context of the evolution of sexuality that has occurred throughout the past several centuries. He questions the common misconception, which he calls the repressive hypothesis, that sexuality has been repressed since the Victorian Era. Although Foucault understands how one can believe this conjecture, he offers an opposing claim. According to Foucault, this time period was one in which, through the interaction between power, pleasure, and knowledge, the presence and significance of sexuality proliferated. Although there was an increase in power exerted by specific institutions in Western society at the time, this power was not inherently repressive and actually bolstered discourse on sexuality. Nonetheless, Foucault’s intent in writing this text was not to pinpoint the time periods in which Western society was permissive or repressive of sex, but rather to explore the diverse outlets and participants through which discourse on sexuality arose.
In Part II of his book, Foucault more thoroughly explores the repressive hypothesis. Starting in the 17th century, there was a censorship of sexuality in language; however, this change did not necessarily entail the elimination of sexual discourse in its entirety. Contrary to the repressive hypothesis, Foucault claims that the power that was used to repress discourse actually encouraged more it through institutions such as the Church and government. Ironically, in attempting to veil a subject by claiming that it is taboo, a power wielding institution is explicitly acknowledging its existence. The example of the role of the confessions of sexual sins in the Church solidifies this claim. Although censorship made confessions more vague and less sexually explicit, with this increase in abstractness came an increase in the scope of confession. No longer was the act of sex the only topic deemed worthy of confession, but anything related to the sexual corruption of the flesh, mind, or soul was now considered sinful. Therefore, while the implementation of censorship was meant to be a sexually repressive act of power, it amplified discourse on sex, since, in the context of the Church, confession necessitated the transformation of every sexual desire into a piece of sexual discourse.
In the 18th century, this branching out of sexual discourse continued with the emerging influence of public institutions such as those related to medicine and politics. Subsequently, sex moved away from the Church and went from being a moral subject matter to a more institutional subject matter. Officials incorporated sex into societal interest by proposing the control of sex as a means of regulating population size, treating psychiatric illnesses, and punishing those criminals with sexual perversions. The selective use of discourse on sexuality by these institutions led to the emergence of a classification of sexualities, creating a definite distinction between what is natural or legal and what is unnatural or illegal. Heterosexual monogamy became the societal norm, whereas the sexuality of children, the mentally ill, criminals, and homosexuals came into question. However, as Foucault states, it is difficult to decide whether the creation of a sexual hierarchy is a result of the repression of sexuality or the relaxing of sexual codes, seeing as how this hierarchy actually legitimizes “illegitimate” sexual identities by recognizing their existence.
One part of Part II of this text that confused me a bit was Foucault’s explanation of the interaction between pleasure and power. I can conceive of the idea that pleasure and power reinforce one another; however, I don’t completely understand Foucault’s explanation of that happens. Do oppressors feel pleasure in their attempts to repress sexuality, because in doing so they are given partial ownership over the bodies of others? Or does the power that is imposed on sexuality to classify certain sexual behaviors as taboo make those prohibited behaviors more pleasurable and enticing?
