Ακατάσχετη φλυαρία, παλιλλογία και κενολογία.

77
اگر سکس با سخت گیری بسیار سرکوب می شود، از آن رو است که با کار عمومی و متمرکز مغایرت دارد. در دوره ای که به طور نظام مند از نیروی کار بهره کشی می شود، آیا می شود اجازه داد که نیروی کار در لذت ها هرز رود، مگر آنکه در لذت هایی صرف شود که به حداقل کاهش یافته اند و به نیروی کار امکان بازتولید می دهند؟ شاید سکس و تاثیراتش به سادگی قابل رمزگشایی نباشد، اما در عوض سرکوب آن ها که بدین سان بازسازی می شود به راحتی قابل تحلیل است. و علت سکس علت آزادی اش و نیز علت شناخت از آن و حق سخن گفتن از آن با مشروعیت تمام به عزت علتی سیاسی پیوند می خورد: سکس نیز در دستور کار آینده قرار می گیرد

Foucault's analysis of sexuality in this volume is excellent and imbued with so many epistemic breaks to show us how the very notion of ‘truth’ is implied over and over again in this monstrous production of discourses regarding sexuality. Of course, like so many of Foucault's writings, here as well we see that power-knowledge relation. One of the things that I found the most interesting was how the very presumption of sexuality being repressed in our society is challenged. The silences, taboos regarding sexual act don't actually stop the function of sexuality in our society, rather the weight of the silence is powerful enough to give us an alternative revolutionary idea of sexual liberty. Foucault argues that sexuality as something which is suppressd through laws and rules is a discourse which has been produced during seventieth century victorian age. Foucault also reflects on how sexuality is not only centered around pleasure,but the production of ‘truth’ as well. Sexuality was made to be showed as some hidden treasure or truth which had to be explored through science. Thus what we see so as called sexual liberty during eightieth century till now. Foucault writes: “The essential point is that sex was not only a matter of sensation and pleasure, of law and taboo, but also of truth and falsehood, that the truth of sex became something fundamental, useful, or dangerous, precious or formidable: in short, that sex was constituted as a problem of truth.”

Also what I found interesting was how the notion of ‘sex’ itself is nothing outside the discourse of the deployment of sexuality through power. Rather the idea of having a distinct or concrete biological body is produced through the practice of sexuality in a particular historical period. The rise of sex education also gave birth to a completely new discourse,which is that of child sexuality. That's why even now we perceive sex of a person as something which is universal. How the idea of life, administration of life,study of life processes are connected with sexuality was also fun to read. How rather than giving someone death penalty,it happens that their very life is controlled and administered through the state.

Fun and great. Lets see what happens in the upcoming volumes.

the better gender trouble?

First off, let me just say that if you are confused by this book (you are not alone), there are SPARKNOTES on it - accompanied by Harry Potter memes. That blew my mind. I was confused, but I soldiered through because life is short and I foresaw diminishing returns.

Foucault's doesn't write a history of sexuality the way a normal person would, starting at the beginning of history. He writes about stuff that he's interested in, in any random order, because he's an interesting guy who knows a lot and he'll talk about what he pleases. He's a dancer, a poet; not a bean-counting social scientist. The first section is about Victorians, pushing back against Steven Marcus' book  The Other Victorians: A Study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid-Nineteenth-Century England. I was a little confused about the point, it seems to be that rather than being repressive about sex as we think of them (and hence of ourselves as liberated in contrast), the Victorians were all about sex, as long as it was studied in a scientific, not a pleasurable, way. This he traces back to the Christian practice of confession, which was heightened during the Counter-Reformation. An anonymous Victorian guy wrote an incredibly detailed book about his sex life, which you can read online. Then there is a lot of stuff about power, and about how sexuality isn't only about Capitalism, which you would have assumed because of course you would, you're reading Foucault.

Basically if Foucault has a programme, it seems to be that we shouldn't try to taxonomise sexuality in any way, and that constructs such as homo/heterosexual, licit/illicit sex, childhood sex, incest, deviance etc, are all unnecessary labels. If we all have power, instead of the state, then we can just be happy and satisfied and not stress about how our sexuality should be expressed. You might think that this raises a lot of concrete practical questions, but they aren't discussed here. The word "discourse" is used unironically. Like, A LOT.

I would love to read a book as erudite and historically informed as this one, but one that was not written by an alien, that deigned to engage with questions about consent, about the digital Porntopia, about real-life sexual identities and how they have changed over time. This is often a very interesting book, but it is mired in outmoded ideas (there's a lot about Freud), and even in its time I suspect it can't have illuminated too much to anyone.

[να μην πιστέψουμε ότι λέγοντας ναι στο σεξ λέμε όχι στην εξουσία // υπογραμμίσεις και κίτρινοι σελιδοδείκτες διάσπαρτοι σε ένα βιβλίο που με τον έναν ή με τον άλλον τρόπο ήταν σαν να έχω διαβάσει ήδη]

This is maybe one of the most misused, if not misunderstood, books ever.

ازپایان سده شانزدهم بدین سو، "به گفتمان درآوردن" سکس نه از فرایند محدودیت، بلکه برعکس از سازوکار تحریک فزاینده تبعیت می کند، که نشان می دهد تکنیک های قدرتی که بر سکس اعمال می شود، نه از اصل انتخاب سختگیرانه، بلکه از اصل انتشار و اشاعه سکسوالیته های چند ریختی تبعیت می کند و نشان می دهد که اراده به دانستن دربرابر تابویی رفع ناشدنی متوقف نشده است، بلکه برساخت علمی از سکسوالیته اصرار داشته است. ...صفحه20

The ideas in this book can be applied to anything, what was in the past a taboo topic could be normalized just by creating a discourse around it. Talking about something simply gives it power. The binary of power/knowledge is what attracted me to this book and it delivered.

Update 10.2020 - after starting reading de Beauvoir's book, I realised what a pretentious and superficial book this one is.
The guy just wanted to justify his "hidden" gay-ness and sadomasochistic behaviour.

A very interesting book, almost an eye-opener when it comes to sexuality. Ever asked yourself what sexuality actually is and when the human behavior regarding sex became a name? Why masturbation is such a hard theme to talk about? when sex other than "marital relation aimed at producing children" became taboo? You will find some answers in this great book.
It didn't get 5 full stars because I have to say, the way Foucault expresses his opinions is sometimes so twisted, construction of the sentence is so strange, that even if you read it four times with a pencil in your hand, you still don't understand where he is getting at.
Still a very good book and I can wait to read his other work.

فوکو در این کتاب سعی داره بعضی از باورهای اشتباه ما در مورد سامانه‌ي سکسوالیته رو اصلاح کنه و از خواننده می‌پرسه چرا فکر می‌کنه امیال جنسی‌اش سرکوب شده یا در گذشته سرکوب می‌شده و چرا انسانِ امروز احساس می‌کنه هر چه بیشتر امیال جنسی‌اش رو بروز بده و ب گفتمان تبدیل کنه، آزادی بیشتری داره.
بنابر نظر فوکو این بخش از خواسته‌های انسان به‌شدت به نهادهای قدرت و سیاست روز وابسته است و نه فقط مثل باقی بخش‌های زندگی یک انسان به سیاست وابسته که اصلاً کاملاً زیر سلطه‌ی آن است و حتی ظهور شخصی مثل فروید نه صرفا به خاطر نبوغ شخص او، که لازمه‌ی دوران سیاسی خاص خود اوست. نهادهای قدرت بدنه‌ی اجتماع را به سمت این دیدگاه یا دیدگاه دیگر سوق می‌دهند و باورهای ما بیش از آن‌که به اخلاق، مذهب یا نگرش خودمان مرتبط باشد کاملاً در دست قدرت است که در عصر ما به جای دراختیار داشتن حق مرگ، مدیریت حق زندگی اجتماع را به عهده گرفته و به خاطر آن‌که نقش خود را به‌خوبی ایفا کند، فرد فرد ما را به سمت این دیدگاه سوق داده که سکسوالیته‌ی ما بخش بسیار گسترده‌ای از هویت‌مان را تشکیل می‌دهد و در تمامی رفتارها و افکار ما ردی از آن را پیدا می‌کند و آن را به گفتمان می‌گذارد و ما را به اعتراف وامی‌دارد تا حدی که حس می‌کنیم حتی باید درباره‌ی ریزترین افکار جنسی‌مان به بحث بنشینیم و در کتاب‌ها، فیلم‌ها و هر اثر دیگری به آن رجوع کنیم. فوکو می‌گوید دلیل این‌همه پرحرفی نه سرکوب پیشین انسان که کاملاً خواست قدرت موجود است و مثال‌های تاریخی می‌آورد و بسیاری از نگرش‌هایمان را زیرورو می‌کند و در آخر حدس می‌زند هیچ بعید نیست آیندگان به نسل کنونی بخندند و از خود بپرسند چرا این نسل از انسان‌ها اعتقاد داشتند در هر چیز ردی جنسی به‌جاست و ما برای آن‌ها همان‌قدر عجیب خواهیم بود که انسان قرون وسطی برای ما.

I have changed my view on Foucault completely. It seems difficult to read this without having read Freud's Civilization and its Discontents, as the entire book is directly a critique on psychoanalytic notions of the subject (or the topography of the ego for Freud) in favour of Foucault's analysis of power. In particular, Freud's final chapter in the book appears to me, to be the main target of Foucault's critique. After reading it this time, I have lost a lot of the value I found for the book when I first began reading Foucault. Instead of repression for Foucault, there is oppression. Instead of the subject, there is the body. There is no desire or the subject, there are only bodies and pleasure.

First off, I should say, that the repercussions of a Foucaultian type of view on the world is an empowering one, in a sense. To be skeptical, (and if you read later Foucault, I think he has no problem with skepticism), of the "power-at-be" and the discursive forces they use to subjugate bodies, is actually a very empowering stance. This is why Foucault's critique will find home in LGBTQ+ communities, and people who are concerned with racism. Even for myself, I am thankful for the level of skepticism that Foucault provided me, as it did not let me naively take diagnoses from pastoral powers that we confront within our every day lives.

On a more theoretical level, and why it is a problematic stance, one needs to question any theory that makes someone else the "heavy". To reduce everything to power, and that power is everywhere at all times, in my view, eliminates any chance of solidarity. This type of reasoning is the same kind that we find people protesting outside a Dave Chapelle stand-up performance, claiming that he is in somehow "oppressing" other people by talking about his own experience. To reduce everything to discourses, seems to me today, to be a little bit crude.

Not only is this book an attack on Freud, but it is also an attack on Marxism. I am not one to say that Marxist ideology isn't flawed, however, to completely throw it out the window in favour for a discursive war seems to throw away the fundamental things we can learn from Marxism. We are alienated from our labour, surplus value is a valuable concept, however it appears to me that Foucault has no intention of giving these valuable insights any credence.

I am left a bit shocked after reading it this time around... unimpressed to say the least. I would even go as far to say that in the very act of turning everything into an oppression, Foucault represses sexuality, and therefore oppresses people further. I mean it is an exciting read with lots of loaded words like "bio-power" and others words that give it the air of a technical validity. However, and perhaps because I am taken by the Lacanian and Hegelian train of thought, I think the Master-slave dialectic is something that should be seen as true. Please refer to the Master-slave dialectic regarding skepticism, I think there is a potential critique here to awaken yourself from the Foucaultian trance.