In spite of the fact that the history has shown not once that a human being is a versatile creature that does not adhere to such notion as “norm”, there have been heavy arguments about what the notorious norm is supposed to be. These are only the recent times when a man’s personal life was considered the holy of the holies. Still the arguments on the way people should lead their lives are going on and do not seem to cease.
The question of norm, well discussed so far, still turns into a problem to keep silent about as it touches upon a man’s sexual life.
Indeed, it is quite reasonable that people are not supposed to know the details of one’s personal life as long as these details do not interfere the others’ safety.
However, the debates that have been going on as people touched upon the question of homosexuality as not a deviation, but something that has the right to exist, the reaction was bios and very emotional. Most people tended to treat the new idea with disgust or resentment, and there was a long way to go to convince them that the new ideas posed no threat to their personal space and safety.
This was a huge step towards the democratic principles, since homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disease, but a form of a person’s sexuality that was shaped under the influence of certain factors. In other words, this was not a mental illness to be treated in the hospital.
The scale of the event could be equal to a revolution. Indeed, the forces that it took to make people recognize homosexuality as a shape of norm are indescribable. Sometimes people can be very stubborn about their prejudice, and this was the very case.
The indignation that the society met the news with was worth being called a revolt, not an armed one, of course, but the moral one, which might have been ever harder to take. This is where the concept of multitude as the blind force that night take over and which the government should take into account comes to mention.
The clue of this small revolution is that the norms that have been internalized and that have crawled into our body and mind, making it ossified, literally, while admitting that these norms are something that can be regulated and adjusted to the new stages of human’s development makes people more flexible and gives the additional survival ability.
Although the ideas that concern sexuality seem to be more appropriate to discuss in private, one cannot but admit that there is a certain link between the social and the private life.
It has been clearly expressed by Foucault, who said that “The law always refers to the sword. But a power whose task is to take charge of life needs continuous regulatory and corrective mechanisms” (144).
Indeed, the problem of democracy that underlies the one of considering homosexuality a crime is something that needs to be spoken of. This is also the issue of the biopower and the immaterial labour that this democratic step is about. The connection is quite understood and easy to explain.
Suppressing their inner needs and inclinations, people feel that they are missing on an important part of their life, and thus they lose on the biopower that they possess originally. With no opportunity to give way to the emotions and feelings, people start fading away.
Of course, the ideas of that kind should not contradict people’s overall life security and make the others feel uncomfortable. But the understatement of the problem drives to its pouring over the edge, and fighting people, but not the very problem will cause nothing but the common resentment, with all the negative consequences applied.
To sum up, people need to live in harmony with themselves and with the rest of the world, and the government should help them to, instead of silencing the unwated facts.
Works Cited
Foucault, Michel. The History of the Sexuality: the Use of Pleasure. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1990. Print.