Both Foucault and Butler orient their respective philosophies towards the idea of the body, and its relationship to sexuality and gender. Foucault, in his book, “History and Sexuality, Vol. I” asserts that bodies are constituted within a specific network of cultural influences. Whereas Butler, in her book, “Gender Trouble”, agrees with Foucault that the body is only understandable within the context of gender and sexuality, she argues that Foucault’s theory implies that there is a materiality (or ontological independence) of the body outside of those specific cultural regimes; while the body is shaped and determined by cultural influences, its concrete substance is continued in, and outside of, that connection. While Foucault provides the basis …show more content…
In “History and Sexuality Vol. I”, Foucault concerns himself primarily with the idea of sex, and how sex is influenced by, and influencing society and individuals. Sex is traditionally viewed as a real, biological entity from which we conclude that there is such a thing as sexuality. Foucault disagrees, arguing that sex is an “imaginary thing” produced by the idea of sexuality in order to maintain a coherent image (Foucault, 155-156). The body is a conglomerate of culturally constituted meanings, and sex is an “imaginary point” (CITE)- the mere result of a materiality. Nonetheless, sex and gender are primary ways in which societies organize and police people’s bodies. The body is constituted through sex and gender- there is no core self that isn’t constructed by power and social relations. We discipline ourselves into outwardly performing our gender. When we are born we become a “docile body” (CITE) that takes on gender characteristics given by society; our bodies are produced through gender and sex …show more content…
Both Butler and Foucault believe that there is no interior truth to the self, and for Butler, gender identity. Gender is instead, “inscribed on the surface of bodies” through the repeated and ongoing performance of words and acts (Butler, 136), and discourses on power and culture. Butler explicates Foucault’s arguments and concludes that he takes for granted his assumption that the body is a stable entity before culture imposes on it. Foucault’s philosophies inadvertently surmise the existence of a body before discourses on power and performativity; that the body is its own entity, and culture acts upon that. If bodies are constituted within a specific network of cultural influencers (which Foucault argues that they are), this presupposes that there is a materiality -or ontological independence- of the body outside of those specific regimes. While the body is shaped and determined by cultural influencers, it maintains its concrete substance (a man’s penis, a woman’s vagina, etc) before, and outside of, that relationship. Foucault is supposed to assert that the body is a cultural construction, though his philosophies force him to commit to the denial of that claim, inadvertently “maintaining [that there is] a body prior to its cultural inscription” (Butler,
Are we really humans? What is the definition of a Human being? What makes us Humans? Society is so complicated that anything can be true these days. In Judith Butler’s essay, “Besides Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy”, she talks about how humans are vulnerable to life around us socially and physically, and humans are dependable on others. She also uses examples such as grief to define who we are because when humans go through the grief process it reveals who that person really is and it can change that person forever in. Some people go through the grief process differently because it affects everyone. Losing someone close to you can change your prospective about life and how you look at things. We live in a country where everyone is going to be judged and looked at differently no matter what gender a person is.
Foucault capitalizes that power and knowledge contribute to the discourse of sex; he discusses how people in power controlled this discourse to repress sex entirely. Foucault talks about the repressive hypothesis in his book. The repressive hypothesis states that whoever holds the power, also controls the discourse on sexuality. Specifically, those in power, according to the repressive hypothesis, exercise to repress the discussion of sex. In addition, Foucault comments that knowledge represents power. Whoever has the power can dictate the language of the population, thus this causes powerful people to also regulate the knowledge of the population. Although Foucault does not agree with every aspect that the repressive hypothesis exclaims, he agrees about the timing of when people started to repress sex. With rise of the bourgeoisie in the 17th century, a rise in tighter control about sex also took place. Foucault stated that the discourse of sex remained
I decided to focus my paper on the first volume, the most mentioned and most known, which is a deep analysis of the last two centuries of history of sexuality, particularly oriented in finding out why and how sexuality is an object of discussion. Foucault is not interested in sexuality itself, but he is interested in how it has become an object of knowledge. Why, in the past few centuries, have we increasingly come to see our identity as bound with our sexuality?
On account of cultural influences, gender roles are institutionalized and enacted at the levels of the family, community and society. Culture makes gender roles meet certain inescapable beliefs, assumptions, expectations, and obligations. Cultural practices are treasures of a social group as they are a mark of their identity and assertion. Moreover, certain cultural practices are gender specific and are mandatorymarks of a particular gender. Moreover, there is a lot of meandering in the name of culture that goes into the making of women by patriarchy,as "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" (Beauvoir 295). Gender politics camouflaged by cultural norms and governed by patriarchal interests and manifested in cultural practices like ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ or FGM, make the life of women difficult and burdensome. Alice Walker’s fifthnovel Possessing the Secret of Joy(1992)discusses a tabooed cultural practice called female genital mutilation, camouflaged by gender politics, that is used to subjugate women, to protect the interests of men. Walker through the novel has put forth the idea of Judith Butler of how“gender is performatively produced and compelled by regulatory practices of gender coherence . . . constituting the identity it is purported to be."
Irigaray, Luce. “That Sex Which is Not One.” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Ed. David H. Richter. Boston: Bedford Books, 1998. 1467-1471.
...am Victorian society, sexual liberalism transformed the ways in which people arranged their private lives. Shifting from a Victorian environment of production, separate sexual spheres, and the relegation of any illicit extramarital sex to an underworld of vice, the modern era found itself in a new landscape of consumerism, modernism and inverted sexual stereotypes. Sexuality was now being discussed, systemized, controlled, and made an object of scientific study and popular discourse. Late nineteenth-century views on "natural" gender and sexuality, with their attendant stereotypes about proper gender roles and proper desires, lingered long into the twentieth century and continue, somewhat fitfully, to inform the world in which we live. It is against this cultural and political horizon that an understanding of sexuality in the modern era needs to be contextualized.
Foucault, Miachael. "We 'Other Victorians'" and "The Repressive Hypothesis."The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction.Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage, 1980.
In the featured article, “Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy,” the author, Judith Butler, writes about her views on what it means to be considered human in society. Butler describes to us the importance of connecting with others helps us obtain the faculties to feel, and become intimate through our will to become vulnerable. Butler contends that with the power of vulnerability, the rolls pertaining to humanity, grief, and violence, are what allows us to be acknowledged as worthy.
In The Introduction to the History of Sexuality, Foucault explains how during the 19th century with the raise of new societies, the discourse or knowledge about sex was not confronted with repulsion but it “put into operation an entire machinery for producing true discourses concerning sex” (Foucault 69). In fact, this spreading of discourse on sexuality itself gives a clear account of how sexuality has been controlled and confined because it was determined in a certain kind of knowledge that carries power within it. Foucault reflects on the general working hypothesis or “repressive hypothesis,” and how this has exercised power to suppress people’s sexuality. It has power on deciding what is normal or abnormal and ethical or unethical about sexuality. Through discourses of life and sexuality, power is exercised because humans learned how to behave in relation to sexuality, which method keep individuals controlled and regulated. This explains why people experience that sense of behaving inappropriate when we talk about sex in a different way than the whole society. Foucault points up how sexuality is not just treated in terms of morality, but it is a matter of knowledge and “truth.” However, these discourses, including sexual discourses are not true or false, but they are just understood to be the truth or falsehood to control society. As a result, sexuality begins to be explored in a scientific way, developing the “truth” science of sex (Foucault 69). For Foucault, he asserts that sexuality has developed as a form of science that keeps us all afraid of such phenomena, which people think to be true, thus this science helps society to discipline and control individuals’ behaviors.
Foucault, Michel. “Power and Sex.” Politics. Philosophy. Culture-Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984. Ed. Lawrence D. Kritzman. New York, New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc., 1988. 110-124.
Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” focused on the history of sexuality and sexual persecution. Gayle Rubin recognizes the idea of sex as a natural force that exists prior to social life and which shapes institutions and society. First, Rubin, emphasizes the idea of negative sex, by showcasing views by other scholars. Rubin notes Foucault in his 1978 publication “The History of Sexuality”, as “sex as the natural libedo wearing to break free of social constraint” (Rubin, 149). This leads Rubin to her understanding of sex negativity. Sex, as Rubin depicts, is dangerous, destructive and a negative force and sex negativity is any negative sexual behaviour other than married or reproductive sex. Many Western religious believe that sex should only be for reproductive reasons and that pleasure and anything outside of martial sex should not be experienced. Third, Rubin goes on to construct the charmed circle, distinguishing good and bad sex. Resulting from sex negativity, Rubin develops an illustration of good and bas sex, better known as the charmed circle. Instances of bad sex include; casual,
Historically, power has been manifested hierarchically within the social training of genders. Simone De Beauvoir’s concept of ‘otherness’ has theorized how individuals’ personal manifestations of self are influenced deeply by their social position and the available power to them within these circumstances (2000:145). She remains one of the first to develop a feminist philosophy of women. In her book The Second Sex (1950), Beauvoir provides “a philosophical account of the development of patriarchal society and the condition of women within it” (Oliver, 1997:160). Beauvoir’s fundamental initial analysis begins by asking, “what is woman” and concludes woman is “other” and always defined in relation to man (Beauvoir, 2000:145). “He is the Subject,
There has been a long and on going discourse on the battle of the sexes, and Simone De Beauvoir’s The Second Sex reconfigures the social relation that defines man and women, and how far women has evolved from the second position given to them. In order for us to define what a woman is, we first need to clarify what a man is, for this is said to be the point of derivation (De Beauvoir). And this notion presents to us the concept of duality, which states that women will always be treated as the second sex, the dominated and lacking one. Woman as the sexed being that differs from men, in which they are simply placed in the others category. As men treat their bodies as a concrete connection to the world that they inhabit; women are simply treated as bodies to be objectified and used for pleasure, pleasure that arise from the beauty that the bodies behold. This draws us to form the statement that beauty is a powerful means of objectification that every woman aims to attain in order to consequently attain acceptance and approval from the patriarchal society. The society that set up the vague standard of beauty based on satisfaction of sexual drives. Here, women constantly seek to be the center of attention and inevitably the medium of erection.
Sexuality gained a connection to the truth. This results into the idea that sexuality is a part of identity and a key aspect in understating who we are individual. And all of this is only possible due to the discourse of sexuality, which is determined by social culture and time. However, the idea that sexuality objectively defines who you are is false, because the idea where this is based on, the “repressive hypothesis” also is
Beauvoir’s definition reinforces the construction of gender by proposing that one must, and should, “become” a woman, that one must purposefully acquire and the skill sets connected to female identity. Although both Butler and de Beauvoir understand that gender is not innate, but rather something to be acquired, Butler further problematizes this social phenomenon. As Butler explains, “social agents constitute social reality through language, gesture, and all manner of symbolic sign” (Butler 519).While de Beauvoir’s supports the aim of acquiring gender, and becoming a woman, Butler’s argument aims to point out the social construction of gender, and deconstruct that