Introduction
Michael Foucault authored the History of Sexuality, which is a three series book designed between 1976 and 1984. The scholar was a historian and a philosopher who tried to conceptualize the issues surrounding sexuality in the western culture (Foucault 1978, p 15). The first publication was titled An Introduction, whereas the second was titled The Use of Pleasure.
The final series was titled The Care of the Self. In the three publications, the author has one aim, which was to invalidate the popular believe that the western culture introverted sexuality before the enlightenment age. Various scholars report that the western society never talked about issues related to sexuality before the 17th century, something that Foucault rejected in his analysis.
The author analyzed the issues related to sexuality when the American society was going through a transformation in terms of sexual orientation. The society believed that before sexual revolution, the issue was considered sacred and was not be mentioned in the public.
In other words, the society disproved any other form of sex, which would not involve a man and a woman. Sexual relationships that did not respect societal rules and regulations were highly condemned and members found guilty were repressed.
In his analysis, the scholar asks three important questions that act as a guide to the understanding of his views. The scholar wonders whether it is in order for the society to trace the sexual injustices to the rise of private ownership of property (bourgeois) in the 17th century. Again, he questions the credibility of the claims that power in society in actually expressed solely in terms of regression.
In the view of the modern society, he asks whether the current events in terms of sexuality are a show of change since what is believed and practiced currently are different from what used to be exercised before. Upon this realization, this article will delve into the writings of Foucault regarding sexuality and further conduct a critical analysis as regards to his findings.
It should be understood in advance that the scholar aims at questioning the repressive conjecture. Therefore, he does not go against the popular believe that sexuality was viewed with suspicion in the ancient times. He also concurs with the popular believe that sexuality was a taboo in reality in the western society.
His main agenda is to establish the reasons why each person in society is interested in discussing issues related to sexuality. In this case, his focal point is “why do people have an interest in knowing much about sexuality”.
Views of Foucault
According to Foucault, repressive theory associates sexual injustices with the rise of private ownership of property in the seventeenth century. The owners of the means of production amassed wealth and became very rich to an extent that they controlled all forms of societal activities, including politics, ideas, markets and production.
This was different from the ruling class before the seventeenth century, since the aristocracy was not industrious as the new bourgeoisie. The new ruling class valued the work ethic and was against any individual who was perceived to waste time in work. In this regard, any person who wasted his or her energy engaging in unnecessary activities such as sex was condemned and ridiculed.
To the new ruling class, engaging in sex for pleasure was viewed to be a waste of time and resources. This was considered unproductive waste of energy. As earlier mentioned, the ruling class was in charge of every aspect of society meaning that they designed policies regarding sexual behaviours. They clearly drafted policies, which would govern how sex is exercised and when to speak about it.
As the ruling class of in control of ideas, it also determined which knowledge would be availed in society regarding sex. The main purpose was to govern sexual relationships since it could affect production and distribution of goods and services in society. In other words, their desire to control sexual links was aimed at controlling work force.
Foucault was never contented with the repressive conjecture and decided to write a book titled “The History of Sexuality” in order to expound the subject. The author did not just say that the theory was wrong but went a notch higher to explain how the theory came about, and why it was believed in society. In the subsequent volumes, the scholar evaluated the role of sex in the two states that is, Greek and Rome.
In these societies, sex was never considered as immoral but was treated as an erotic and normal occurrence. In this sense, he questions why sex was treated as an immoral subject in the western societies. The above book, the writer attempted to annul the hypothesis that western culture has always viewed repression of sexuality all the way from the seventeenth century. Before his writings, the ideas of Reich were held in high esteem.
Reich commented conserving one’s mental fitness required liberation from sexual energy. Due to this, the Dark Age was blamed for contributing to sexual injustices, where sexuality could not be mentioned in the public. According to Foucault, the western culture was fixated in a way. This is what sociologists refer to as repression. Sexuality has constructed a certain power, which has resulted to sexual identities.
Foucault views sexuality in two major ways. He compares the Asian society with the western culture to distinguish the two categories of sexuality. In the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Roman societies, sexuality is viewed as an ars erotica. In this sense, sex is perceived as a formal art that is, something that is treasured, but not something that brings shame or a dirty thing.
The subject should be secret in the sense that it would lose its specialty in case it is spoken in public. Contrary to the Asian experience, the western perspective is different in that sexuality is termed as scientia sexualis, whereby sex is treated in the same way as science. This shows that the definition of sex in the western culture opposes the experience of the Asian culture.
Foucault elaborates that it is not simply the issue of Christian confession but the concern is about talking about it. In this case, a fixation is related to establishing the truth. In his view, the truth should be confessed in order to end this public debate. He claims that without confession, sexuality would be viewed as if it never existed before. The following statement would best explain his view (Foucault, M 1978, p. 46) “
From the above statement, it is evident that Foucault questions the credibility of the explanations offered by modern psychoanalysts. In his view, psychoanalysts try to legalize sexual confession. In this case, the psychologist would always be invited to interpret sexual repression.
The scholar points out that sexuality are no longer a secret in society. However, he underscores the fact that sexuality is a complex topic that cannot be understood through applying a single theory. Other theories should be applied in construing the meaning and practice of sexuality.
In this case, other scholars such as sociologists and those practicing theology should be invited to give their explanations regarding sexuality in society. In the western society, the society through civil groups and other societal organizations have frequently requested homosexuals to come out public and declare their sexual orientation.
Even though this urge was not present at the time Foucault publish his works, his works can be utilized in understanding this behaviour. In other words, this is an attempt by the western society to urge members to confess their sins. The society requests members to confess their sexual orientations in order to confirm that a certain sexual behaviour actually exists.
Contrary to this, the Asian society is different. People rarely disclose their sexual orientations in public since the same behaviour would lose meaning. Foucault also observes that western societies pressurize people to disclose their sexual orientations mainly because of Christianity. In his believe, disclosing sexuality is a trick that exposes people societal injustices such as discrimination, prejudice, stigma and ridicule.
Christianity compels its members to confess their sins in order to prevent members of society from getting off the road. However, the scholar laments that branding sexuality, a sin, did not cause its disappearance but in its place, it became even stronger meaning that it could be noticed everywhere.
Regarding sexuality in the Black Age, the element of social control was eminent. There was a power relationship between various individuals such as the clergy and the faithful, and between the doctor and the patient. The faithful could confess his or her sin to the clergy, of which sexuality was also considered a sin. According to Foucault, power relation is an important aspect in case society is to be understood.
In society that social differences exist, power relations are to be witnessed, just as was the case with the western society in earlier years. In Foucault’s view, power is not to be understood literally but it means something that is ubiquitous and could not be viewed as a twofold that is, something that creates a conflict between the ruled and the ruler. Power cannot be explained to mean something negative according to this scholar.
People in society view power to mean something that is oppressive, something that has caused pain and agony within many quarters. He only utilizes power to analyze the dynamics of western society. As applied to sexuality, power means the relationship between those who confess and the ones that access the confessions.
For instance, it could be the relationship between the instructor and the learner, between the father/mother and the child, and between the psychologist and the patient (Rubin 1993, p. 83).
Deriving from the works of Thomas Kuhn, what could be viewed as prejudice the modern society could perhaps be science. Similarly, enlightenment age shaped the way society defined sexuality. The idea that sexuality was sinful and it had to be confessed to the authorities such as the church in the case of society and parents in the case of the family could no longer be tolerated.
In the enlightenment age, sexuality was interpreted to mean science, as scholars tried to rationalize the sexual actions of individuals. Foucault distinguished between what could be termed as science in the modern society and the discriminatory principle based on human sexuality. He compared the human discourse on sexuality with animal reproduction and found out that major differences exited.
In the modern society according to Foucault, principles on sexuality had unnatural sexual actions, as opposed to the actions witnessed in the 16th century. In the Dark ages, the focus was on regulating the sexual actions of the married individuals. In this regard, other forms of relationships were to be ignored. In the contemporary world, other categories and issues related to sexual relationships have been identified.
For instance, there are issues such dealing with the sexual actions of children, criminals, psychologically challenged and homosexuals. The word perverse changed its meaning to mean a group but not an attribute of a single individual.
Some individuals could be identified through their sexual behaviours such as the gays and lesbians. In society, homosexuality had been viewed as an offense, which could be committed by an individual recurrently. However, the problem came in when the sin had become a norm to some members of society, which could be practiced from time to time (Foucault 1978, p. 56)
In the 19th century, Foucault reports that the homosexual turned out to be an individual with a particular history. It could also be an adolescent or a person with higher status in society. In other words, homosexuality could not be attributed to a particular class in society. In the modern society, Foucault observed that gays and lesbians could be viewed as a group, with distinct behaviour.
This was not the case in the 18th century since the origin of sexuality could not be discussed. Homosexuality was never perceived as a character that in inbuilt in an individual instead it was perceived as an action that somebody decides to perform. According to Foucault, homosexuality was not the only topic under contention as far as sexuality was concerned.
Other themes raised controversies whenever they were mentioned in the public. For instance, the female body was the major focus of sexuality since its function was mainly to bear children. In fact, some terminologies such as hysteria were identified due to issues related to sexuality.
Furthermore, the sexuality of children was viewed differently since there was pedagogization, meaning children had to be protected from all forms of sexual actions such as masturbation and other sexual behaviours that were perceived to be insecure to children. In society, members redefined reproduction by establishing some ways through which children could be socialized.
Children were given specific instructions regarding their sexual behaviours. Consequently, sexuality had to be made a topic in institutions of learning and was studied under population growth in many states. Finally, the sexuality of adults in the modern society has been made the subject of inquiry, whereby all forms of pervasiveness are regularized through introduction of rules and regulations (Lash & Friedman 1992, p. 33).
Foucault insisted that the main objective of the new ethical codes was never to do away with all forms of sexuality. However, the new rules aimed at preserving the health and of members of society. Furthermore, the regulations could aid in the procreation process. In many communities, other forms of sexualities were perceived to be dangerous to the very survival of humankind.
To preserve their races, communities decided to come up with laws that could ensure continuity of the race. The society justified its actions by arguing that other forms of sexualities could not guarantee population growth. Furthermore, other forms of sex could easily generate new diseases in society.
Foucault reports that sexual behaviours were carefully evaluated in society in order to establish their viability (Foucault 1978, p. 76)
From the above statement, Foucault could be perceived as a constructivist since he claimed that sexuality and sexual behaviours were not innate. To him, the whole issue of sexuality was a product of social construction meaning that it could only exist as far as the society existed. In fact, sexuality is understood differently, depending on various societies.
As earlier noted, the Asian society has a different view of sexuality as compared to that of west. To him, it could be irrational to talk about homosexuality in the ancient Greek society since it was understood differently. The scholar cautions that sexual relationships are needed for matters related to procreation.
However, he suggests that not all behaviours termed as erotic are natural or needed by members of society. To him, sexuality is an issue that is more than sexual behaviour. Therefore, sexuality is more of a cultural aspect than the sexual aspect.
Analysis of Foucault’s Ideas
In his writing, Foucault gives the rationality of enlightenment as regards to sexuality. Through analysis, it is established that Foucault was greatly hailed by other scholars due to his interpretation of the works of Kant on low modernity. Furthermore, he also interpreted the works of Charles Baudelarire concerning dandyism and modernity.
Even though his works on sexuality focused on history, he did not simply describe how the past was regarding sexuality. In its place, he gave clear analysis of how the issue of sexuality came about. He even made a comparative study on the past and present pertaining to sexuality. How works reignites the question of limited freedom in the contemporary world.
It is established through his analysis that sexuality is an issue power whereby the rich uses it to dominate and suppress the poor. Through his writings, many groups have risen to challenge their positions in society.
Debates such as feminism debate on gender equality, sexual orientation, as claimed by gays and lesbians, personalized aesthetics and individual freedom trace their origins from the works of Foucault (McNay 1994, p. 97).
Many scholars have accused Foucault for criticizing the findings of Kant on enlightenment. He evaluated the conclusions of Kant and found out that the results were not credible and rational. He argued that people were not as liberal as Kant believed mainly because of issues related to sexuality. In this sense, Foucault was misplaced because human life is not about sexuality alone in society.
Other factors influence the existence of human beings in society. Foucault believed that the only way to achieve enlightenment was through reviewing the past and arriving at conclusions. In reality, enlightenment is achieved through researching the contemporary topics and drawing conclusions.
The past does not offer much to scholars since the world has changed in many aspects such as socio-culturally, economically and politically. Sexuality cannot be understood through reviewing historical data. For instance, sexuality was considered a taboo in the western culture yet it is accepted in the modern society as a way of life. Indeed, gay marriages are accepted in many western countries.
In this sense, homosexuality is accepted as one form of social organization. From the works of Kant, enlightenment was interpreted to mean personal effort to liberate oneself from societal injustices. According to Kant, an individual had a role to play in order to free him or herself from the cultural chains. In this case, it was the role of an individual to change his or her perception regarding sexuality.
According to Foucault, enlightenment could be interpreted to mean a paradigm. In other words, enlightenment could mean shifting orders of language use in society. Through his understanding, rationality is not embraced since the society could be in charge of individual decisions. In other words, individuals conform to the expectations of society mainly because people follow the dynamics of society.
Foucault suggested that people are consumers of societal rules but they do not attempt to change anything, including the definition of sexuality. He claimed that there are various rationalities in society, which sometimes mesh while at times, contradict. In contrary, individuals are free to do whatever they wish in modern society. Foucault failed to capture this aspect of modernity (Weeks 1989, p. 46).
Foucault surprised many scholars when he attempted to merge the works of Kant on enlightenment and the postulations of Baudeleire on modernity. This is one of the strength of his works because modernity could be compared to enlightenment to gain familiarity of the current society. He supported the works of Baudelaire mainly because of two reasons.
Modernity could be understood to mean a break from tradition, which is accurate according to many scholars. However, Foucault went against the views of many when he supported the claims of Baudelaire that something always links the past with the present. He referred to this thing as eternity. In the view of the two scholars, eternity can never go beyond the current life.
In this sense, eternity is something can be understood by analyzing the dynamics of the current state of affairs. To comprehend the present events, the scholar recommended that people should revisit the past. To understand sexuality therefore people must review past sexual behaviours. Baudelaire claimed that human beings are always interested in fulfilling their interests.
Due to this, the learned in society would always associate themselves with the works of art, what he referred to as dandy. Foucault observed that dandyism referred to the attempt by people to beautify their personalities in order to feel good and relaxed.
This would require people to be passionate and to think beyond their cultural precincts. Due to this urge, people would define their sexuality differently. Foucault believed that this would lead to a personal cult whereby an individual tends to develop a character that goes against the norms of society (Kaja 1996, p. 36).
Even though Foucault focused on giving historical aspects of sexuality, his works especially on The Use of Pleasures (1984), the society we live in is a product of technologies of power that are probably cantered on social life. In this case, people should not allow the various laws and establishments in society to derail their potentials.
Furthermore, people should try as much as possible to determine their destinies because the laws formulated in society are meant to protect those in power, not the poor. According to him, the ruling class has changed from whereby it uses the law to perpetuate and oppress the poor. Before the laws and constitutions, the ruling class used wealth and political influence to repress the poor.
During those times, sexuality was made a taboo. In the current society, there are so many laws that protect sexual behaviours.
For instance, it is a criminal offence to talk about sexuality at work place. According to him, the bitter pill has just been coated with sugar. The chains used before the enlightenment age were made of iron while the present chains are made of gold. However, the fact remains that individuals are still under the ruling class (McHoul & Gracey 1995, p. 76)
Due to influences of modernity, Foucault observed that many women would turn their bodies into docile bodies whereby they would receive power the way it comes, without questioning its credibility and base. Due to sexuality, the works of Foucault are valid because many individuals have gone through plastic surgeries to improve their sexuality.
Celebrities are known to perform plastic surgeries on their bodies from time to time. For instance, Michael Jackson wanted to turn himself into a woman. He went through various plastic surgeries unsuccessfully (Bristow 1997, p. 42). However, he managed to behave like a woman. In the modern society, people go through personalized trainings on how to balance their diets in order to improve or maintain their body figures.
The society has come up with various demands that certain sexualities should fulfil. For instance, women are supposed to be slip while men are supposed to have muscles to show masculinity. All these are results of societal stereotyping but they do not signify anything important.
However, individuals must conform to these stereotypes in case they are to be accepted comfortably in society. To prove that human bodies are docile, many commercial advertisements are designed according to societal demands. It is not surprising that women are commonly used in advertising products in the western world (Butler 1990, p. 13).
Foucault’s works are also important as far as modern feminism is concerned. Feminist organizations have utilized the findings of this scholar to claim their socio-political and economic space in society. In this analysis, four pints are identified as being important to feminist groups. Foucault actively discusses the status of women, which was never recognized in prior years.
The scholar mentions that there is no substantial relationship between an individual and societal rules. Due to this, women have risen to the accession to challenge their position in society. In this view, women are encouraged to stand up and demand for their rights, just as other members of society. Sexuality should never be said as a yardstick for measure of success, ability or achievement.
In the US and in many western countries, laws have been formulated, which protect women against injustices such as rape, domestic violence and work harassment. Women are supposed to compete for limited positions without being discriminated. The second point is that the findings of Foucault shed light to modern feminism.
Individuals can now claim for their rights based on the current events, not the past as claimed by classical feminism. However, some feminist scholars accuse Foucault for being gender insensitive in her postulations.
He never recognized that gender differences can actually an individual’s understanding of sexuality. Sexuality is not a universal concept that should be understood uniformly. In his works, there are no female examples. He only used men implying that his theory is gender blind (Jana 1991, p. 56).
Conclusion
Foucault produced some of the most inspiring materials about sexuality. He traced the origin of sexuality, by giving it a historical explanation through theory. He went ahead to narrate how sexuality came about. He noted that it came about due to private ownership of property. The bourgeoisie prohibited people from talking about sexuality since it could hinder production.
Throughout history, the concept has been affected by society since the society awards meaning to it. The meaning keeps on changing. In this view, the meaning is completely different in the modern society. In the Indian society, the term was viewed to be normal since it was something that went on in society. In the western society however, it was not talked about since it was associated to sin.
People were supposed to confess whenever they felt that they misused the word. In the modern society, the meaning and perception of the word is changing. Other forms of sexualities are now accepted in many western societies.
Finally, groups such as feminist groups and the minority in society have utilized the findings of Foucault to justify their actions. For instance, women have interpreted the writings of Foucault to demand for their political and economic freedoms.
List of References
Bristow, J 1997, Sexuality, London, Routledge.
Butler, J 1990, Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge, New York.
Foucault, M 1978, The Will to Knowledge: History of Sexuality, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
McNay, L 1994, Foucault: A Critical Introduction, Policy, Cambridge.
Jana, S 1991, Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body, Routledge, New York.
Kaja, S 1996, The Threshold of the Visible World, Routledge, New York.
Lash, S & Friedman, J 1992, Modernity and Identity, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
McHoul, A & Gracey, W 1995, A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject, UCL Press, London.
Rubin, G 1993, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” ,The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, Vol. 2, no. 3, pp 78-90.
Weeks, J 1989, Sex, Politics and Society, Longman, London.