I thought Foucault made an interesting point that power "comes from below" and dynamically creates itself among various social groups, with each person having varying degrees of power like everything in the universe has varying gravitational pulls on each other, however slightly. I think this is probably the proper way to view power rather than the "binary" opposition between rulers and ruled.
I recall reading somewhere that Foucault and a few other prominent French philosophers at the time petitioned to have age of consent laws abolished in France, although I'm not sure what the reasoning was. In The History of Sexuality he argues that the law is used to enforce power relations of sexuality. I guess he thinks replacing the law with a different realm of power to govern sexuality would be worth the potential ramifications.
1. Sex went from being an open conversation to a secret and seemingly something to be shameful of. For example kids used to be well educated and adults were okay with children talking about sex then it became a forbidden topic to be discussed. 2. Foucault mentions the repression of sexuality as far as knowledge and power go. Which is accurate and the secrecy about sex and sexuality creates a lot of shame for many people.
I found Foucault’s analysis of power quite reasonable; it reminded me of Sartre’s “existence precedes essence.” This is apparent to me when Foucault states that, “the analysis, made in terms of power, must not assume that the sovereignty of the state, the form of the law, or the over-all unity of a domination are given at the outset; rather, these are only the terminal forms power takes.” Foucault seems to be saying that power comes about after the fact and not before as some universal essence.
I see many similarities between Foucault and Deleuze in this piece. Foucault speaks of sex being “placed by power in a binary system” which reminds me if Deleuze’s “binary machines.” Deleuze’s conception of deterritorialization and reterritorialization is also found here when Foucault speaks about the “redistributions, realignments,” etc. of force relations. However, I don’t get the feeling that Foucault takes the idea of accidental associations as far as Deleuze does, at least in comparing this piece to 1000 Plateaus.
Foucault was a very intresting read and showed a connection the Deleuze and how this movement is simular while being about differnt topics. I founds Focualts argumanet about the power of sex to be intresting especialy how it devolped in the western world. Pointing out the cycle of prohibition was something I never thought about in society. That we limit women and tell them they cant experience plesures or day to day stuff men get to. I also found the logic of cencership intresting to. Where women arent allowed to talk about things that pretaine only to them. This is where women are limited in their speach or activities becuase it is forbiden or uncomfortable to talk about.
I agree with Foucault's notion that sex should be more widely talked about. For the majority of us, sex is still seen as a taboo (white wedding dress symbolises purity) and this tends to affect women more so than men
Some of his analysis seems a little Freudian for me. Sexuality might represent a great deal about character, however I don't think an individual has the right to choose their secual pervasions. They may choose how they act out those thoughts, but ultimately they may end up denying a huge aspect of the self and have to live with crippling consequences
While Foucault is talking about the effect Victorian prudishness had on the (French) world that he lived in, I think this sort of analysis applies equally well to us in The United States. Although historically we too were affected by the Victorian era’s attitudes toward sexuality, we also have a long standing history of Puritanical beliefs, as well as other religious that had very conservative opinions about sex and sexuality.
Foucault seems to head in the direction of discussing something all too common in the 21st Century. This thing is the paradox that despite not being able to talk about sexuality (in polite company) and without acknowledging it as a real feature of the human experience, we (as a society) almost never stop talking about it. For a culture that is “repressed” we care more about sexuality than most other cultures (that are not “repressed”) do. Sexuality is in our media, our advertisements, and colloquial communication, but only as a sort of vague impersonal phenomena.
While I do enjoy the direction Foucault takes when assessing power dynamics; specifically the notion of how the superstructure can effect the behavior of organism in the form of biopower. Today our world is rife with this kind of control; and such analysis is key to understanding the contemporary condition of human beings with relation to both oppressive systems of domination and technology.
The concept of biopower is however a terrifying truth to confront in the world around us. With some of the most scary implications being the effect of video games on the human animal.
I find Foucault's ability to break down our current society to be interesting. Sexuality is a taboo topic in todays world however once upon a time it was open discussion. I feel open discussion is better because people are more educated.
I thought Foucault's idea that their is power in sexuality to be interesting. He believes that is a reason it is not discussed much.
I think Foucault main message is quite obvious in that capitalism creates a suppressed and gate-kept society through subtle ques and power structures.
The levels in suppression and gate-keeping differ based on ones context and lens of the world, but in some structure there is a market and incentive to create a scarcity.
I thought Foucault made an interesting point that power "comes from below" and dynamically creates itself among various social groups, with each person having varying degrees of power like everything in the universe has varying gravitational pulls on each other, however slightly. I think this is probably the proper way to view power rather than the "binary" opposition between rulers and ruled.
ReplyDeleteI recall reading somewhere that Foucault and a few other prominent French philosophers at the time petitioned to have age of consent laws abolished in France, although I'm not sure what the reasoning was. In The History of Sexuality he argues that the law is used to enforce power relations of sexuality. I guess he thinks replacing the law with a different realm of power to govern sexuality would be worth the potential ramifications.
1. Sex went from being an open conversation to a secret and seemingly something to be shameful of. For example kids used to be well educated and adults were okay with children talking about sex then it became a forbidden topic to be discussed.
ReplyDelete2. Foucault mentions the repression of sexuality as far as knowledge and power go. Which is accurate and the secrecy about sex and sexuality creates a lot of shame for many people.
I found Foucault’s analysis of power quite reasonable; it reminded me of Sartre’s “existence precedes essence.” This is apparent to me when Foucault states that, “the analysis, made in terms of power, must not assume that the sovereignty of the state, the form of the law, or the over-all unity of a domination are given at the outset; rather, these are only the terminal forms power takes.” Foucault seems to be saying that power comes about after the fact and not before as some universal essence.
ReplyDeleteI see many similarities between Foucault and Deleuze in this piece. Foucault speaks of sex being “placed by power in a binary system” which reminds me if Deleuze’s “binary machines.” Deleuze’s conception of deterritorialization and reterritorialization is also found here when Foucault speaks about the “redistributions, realignments,” etc. of force relations. However, I don’t get the feeling that Foucault takes the idea of accidental associations as far as Deleuze does, at least in comparing this piece to 1000 Plateaus.
Foucault was a very intresting read and showed a connection the Deleuze and how this movement is simular while being about differnt topics.
ReplyDeleteI founds Focualts argumanet about the power of sex to be intresting especialy how it devolped in the western world. Pointing out the cycle of prohibition was something I never thought about in society. That we limit women and tell them they cant experience plesures or day to day stuff men get to. I also found the logic of cencership intresting to. Where women arent allowed to talk about things that pretaine only to them. This is where women are limited in their speach or activities becuase it is forbiden or uncomfortable to talk about.
I agree with Foucault's notion that sex should be more widely talked about. For the majority of us, sex is still seen as a taboo (white wedding dress symbolises purity) and this tends to affect women more so than men
ReplyDeleteSome of his analysis seems a little Freudian for me. Sexuality might represent a great deal about character, however I don't think an individual has the right to choose their secual pervasions. They may choose how they act out those thoughts, but ultimately they may end up denying a huge aspect of the self and have to live with crippling consequences
While Foucault is talking about the effect Victorian prudishness had on the (French) world that he lived in, I think this sort of analysis applies equally well to us in The United States. Although historically we too were affected by the Victorian era’s attitudes toward sexuality, we also have a long standing history of Puritanical beliefs, as well as other religious that had very conservative opinions about sex and sexuality.
ReplyDeleteFoucault seems to head in the direction of discussing something all too common in the 21st Century. This thing is the paradox that despite not being able to talk about sexuality (in polite company) and without acknowledging it as a real feature of the human experience, we (as a society) almost never stop talking about it. For a culture that is “repressed” we care more about sexuality than most other cultures (that are not “repressed”) do. Sexuality is in our media, our advertisements, and colloquial communication, but only as a sort of vague impersonal phenomena.
While I do enjoy the direction Foucault takes when assessing power dynamics; specifically the notion of how the superstructure can effect the behavior of organism in the form of biopower. Today our world is rife with this kind of control; and such analysis is key to understanding the contemporary condition of human beings with relation to both oppressive systems of domination and technology.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of biopower is however a terrifying truth to confront in the world around us. With some of the most scary implications being the effect of video games on the human animal.
I find Foucault's ability to break down our current society to be interesting. Sexuality is a taboo topic in todays world however once upon a time it was open discussion. I feel open discussion is better because people are more educated.
ReplyDeleteI thought Foucault's idea that their is power in sexuality to be interesting. He believes that is a reason it is not discussed much.
I think Foucault main message is quite obvious in that capitalism creates a suppressed and gate-kept society through subtle ques and power structures.
ReplyDeleteThe levels in suppression and gate-keeping differ based on ones context and lens of the world, but in some structure there is a market and incentive to create a scarcity.