What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of Sexuality #1
丕乇丕丿賴 亘賴 丿丕賳爻鬲賳
賳亘丕蹖丿 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 乇丕 丿丕丿賴鈥屫й� 胤亘蹖毓蹖 鬲氐賵乇 讴乇丿 讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丌賳 乇丕 賲胤蹖毓 賵 爻乇讴賵亘 讴賳丿貙 蹖丕 丨賵夭賴鈥屫й� 賲亘賴賲 讴賴 丿丕賳卮 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘賴鈥屫臂屫� 丌賳 乇丕 讴卮賮 讴賳丿. 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 賳丕賲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴 爻丕賲丕賳鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 丿丕丿: 賳賴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲蹖 倬賳賴丕賳 讴賴 鬲爻禺蹖乇 丌賳 丿卮賵丕乇 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賱讴賴 卮亘讴賴贁 亘夭乇诏賽 爻胤丨蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 亘乇丕賳诏蹖禺鬲賳 亘丿賳鈥屬囏ж� 鬲卮丿蹖丿 賱匕鬲鈥屬囏ж� 鬲丨乇蹖讴 亘賴 诏賮鬲賲丕賳貙 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 卮賳丕禺鬲鈥屬囏ж� 賵 鬲賯賵蹖鬲 讴賳鬲乇賱鈥屬囏� 賵 賲賯丕賵賲鬲鈥屬囏� 亘賴鈥屫焚堌� 夭賳噩蹖乇賵丕乇 賵 賲胤丕亘賯 亘丕 趩賳丿 丕爻鬲乇丕鬲跇蹖 丿丕賳卮 賵 賯丿乇鬲 亘賴 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 賲鬲氐賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�.
183 pages, Paperback
First published November 17, 1976
2,392 people are currently reading
50.4k people want to read
About the author
Michel Foucault
717听books6,119听followersPaul-Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, writer, political activist, and literary critic. Foucault's theories primarily address the relationships between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Though often cited as a structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels. His thought has influenced academics, especially those working in communication studies, anthropology, psychology, sociology, criminology, cultural studies, literary theory, feminism, Marxism and critical theory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lyc茅e Henri-IV, at the 脡cole Normale Sup茅rieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Coll猫ge de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lyc茅e Henri-IV, at the 脡cole Normale Sup茅rieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Coll猫ge de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,437 reviews
June 16, 2013
This is a perfect example of the kind of writing characterised by Clive James as prose that 鈥榮corns the earth for fear of a puncture鈥�. Foucault may be able to think 鈥� it's not easy to tell 鈥� but he certainly can't write.
Everywhere there is an apparent desire to render a simple thought impenetrable. When he wants to suggest that the modern world has imposed on us a great variety in the ways we talk about sex, he must refer to 鈥榓 regulated and polymorphous incitement to discourse鈥�. When he advances the theory that the nineteenth century focused less on marriage than on other sexual practices, he talks about 鈥榓 centrifugal movement with respect to heterosexual monogamy鈥�. When there is only one of something he calls it 鈥榤arkedly unitary鈥�.
It almost becomes funny, except that it tells us something about how loosely his ideas are rooted in reality. Some people seem to think that complex prose must conceal a profundity of thought, but good readers and writers know that the reverse is usually the case. A thought which is impenetrable is not easily rebutted, and so it may only seem correct by default.
For example, Foucault has the following idea: that talking more about sex is really an attempt to get rid of any sexual activity that isn't focused on having children. It wouldn't be hard to pick holes in that argument, partly because it uses terms we all immediately understand and which we can very quickly relate to reality. But Foucault puts the theory like this:
And you'll see from the square brackets that I've left half the sentence out! Here the argument is harder to refute, not because it's any stronger, but because it takes some effort to work out what the fucking hell the man is talking about.
Where he cannot think of a roundabout way of saying something, Foucault instead opts for words which might at least slow his readers down a bit, like erethism. And if no suitably obscure word is at hand, he simply makes one up, so we get a lot of these ugly formations which the postmodernists seem to love, such as discursivity, genitality, or pedagogization.
Here I should point out that from what I can tell, all of this complexity exists in the original French, and is not simply a fault in the translator (Robert Hurley, in my edition). In fact sometimes Rob helps us out a bit, such as when he translates the typical Foucaultism 茅迟补迟颈蝉补迟颈辞苍 as the more helpful phrase 鈥榰nrestricted state control鈥�. But there's only so much he can do. If he'd put all of Foucault's prose into natural English the book would be a quarter of the size.
On the few occasions when Foucault does deign to explain himself, he only makes matters worse. After several pages in which he makes much confusing use of the word 鈥榩ower鈥�, he finally defines this vague term as
My point is not that Foucault makes the reader do unnecessary work, although that's certainly an inexcusable flaw in anyone who wants their view to be taken seriously: a reader should be working to engage with an argument, not having to rewrite the whole damn thing in his head as he goes along. No, my point is that Foucault not only confuses the reader, he confuses himself. Having decided, as a mathematician decides that x equals four, that 鈥榩ower鈥� equals a whole range of 鈥榝orce relations鈥�, he then combines it with other comparably dense terms and juggles them around and puts them together until you have to at least suspect that the underlying reality has been lost to Foucault as well as to us.
Evidence of his own confusion therefore seems built into the texture of his sentences. He calls the family unit, for instance, 鈥榓 complicated network, saturated with multiple, fragmentary, and mobile sexualities鈥�. The idea of multiple sexualities is fairly clear: an assertion that, for example, homosexuality and paedophilia play their part in family life along with heterosexuality. He offers no evidence for it, but at least it is a proposition we can examine. But what about fragmentary sexualities? What on earth is a fragmentary sexuality? Perhaps one which is in some way both hetero and homo? How does a fragmentary sexuality manifest itself in terms of behaviour or desire? There are no answers. And then we also have the 鈥榤obile sexualities鈥�, which sounds like some kind of wonderful bus service but which presumably we are meant to understand as sexual feelings that keep changing. To deal with any one of these ideas is problematic. To deal simultaneously with all three, and then to imagine such concepts 鈥榮aturating鈥� a 鈥榥etwork鈥�, is just not a serious argument 鈥� it's a huge act of intellectual masturbation.
Anyone can play this game. The opposing view to Foucault's is the traditional idea that the Victorians were frightened and offended by their sexual feelings, and that consequently their society worked to repress sex. But if we wanted to protect the argument from attack we could easily rephrase it and say that the dominant narrative of Victorian social constructs was characterised by a repressive power projection whose motus was the twin stimuli of (psycho)logical terror and physiological disgust. This is harder to argue against, because it has less meaning. Similarly many of Foucault's arguments are, to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, so badly expressed that not only are they not right, they're not even wrong.
Everywhere there is an apparent desire to render a simple thought impenetrable. When he wants to suggest that the modern world has imposed on us a great variety in the ways we talk about sex, he must refer to 鈥榓 regulated and polymorphous incitement to discourse鈥�. When he advances the theory that the nineteenth century focused less on marriage than on other sexual practices, he talks about 鈥榓 centrifugal movement with respect to heterosexual monogamy鈥�. When there is only one of something he calls it 鈥榤arkedly unitary鈥�.
It almost becomes funny, except that it tells us something about how loosely his ideas are rooted in reality. Some people seem to think that complex prose must conceal a profundity of thought, but good readers and writers know that the reverse is usually the case. A thought which is impenetrable is not easily rebutted, and so it may only seem correct by default.
For example, Foucault has the following idea: that talking more about sex is really an attempt to get rid of any sexual activity that isn't focused on having children. It wouldn't be hard to pick holes in that argument, partly because it uses terms we all immediately understand and which we can very quickly relate to reality. But Foucault puts the theory like this:
For was this transformation of sex into discourse not governed by the endeavour to expel from reality the forms of sexuality that were not amenable to the strict economy of reproduction [...]?
And you'll see from the square brackets that I've left half the sentence out! Here the argument is harder to refute, not because it's any stronger, but because it takes some effort to work out what the fucking hell the man is talking about.
Where he cannot think of a roundabout way of saying something, Foucault instead opts for words which might at least slow his readers down a bit, like erethism. And if no suitably obscure word is at hand, he simply makes one up, so we get a lot of these ugly formations which the postmodernists seem to love, such as discursivity, genitality, or pedagogization.
Here I should point out that from what I can tell, all of this complexity exists in the original French, and is not simply a fault in the translator (Robert Hurley, in my edition). In fact sometimes Rob helps us out a bit, such as when he translates the typical Foucaultism 茅迟补迟颈蝉补迟颈辞苍 as the more helpful phrase 鈥榰nrestricted state control鈥�. But there's only so much he can do. If he'd put all of Foucault's prose into natural English the book would be a quarter of the size.
On the few occasions when Foucault does deign to explain himself, he only makes matters worse. After several pages in which he makes much confusing use of the word 鈥榩ower鈥�, he finally defines this vague term as
the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization; as the process which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them; as the support which these force relations find in one another, thus forming a chain or a system, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions which isolate them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.
My point is not that Foucault makes the reader do unnecessary work, although that's certainly an inexcusable flaw in anyone who wants their view to be taken seriously: a reader should be working to engage with an argument, not having to rewrite the whole damn thing in his head as he goes along. No, my point is that Foucault not only confuses the reader, he confuses himself. Having decided, as a mathematician decides that x equals four, that 鈥榩ower鈥� equals a whole range of 鈥榝orce relations鈥�, he then combines it with other comparably dense terms and juggles them around and puts them together until you have to at least suspect that the underlying reality has been lost to Foucault as well as to us.
Evidence of his own confusion therefore seems built into the texture of his sentences. He calls the family unit, for instance, 鈥榓 complicated network, saturated with multiple, fragmentary, and mobile sexualities鈥�. The idea of multiple sexualities is fairly clear: an assertion that, for example, homosexuality and paedophilia play their part in family life along with heterosexuality. He offers no evidence for it, but at least it is a proposition we can examine. But what about fragmentary sexualities? What on earth is a fragmentary sexuality? Perhaps one which is in some way both hetero and homo? How does a fragmentary sexuality manifest itself in terms of behaviour or desire? There are no answers. And then we also have the 鈥榤obile sexualities鈥�, which sounds like some kind of wonderful bus service but which presumably we are meant to understand as sexual feelings that keep changing. To deal with any one of these ideas is problematic. To deal simultaneously with all three, and then to imagine such concepts 鈥榮aturating鈥� a 鈥榥etwork鈥�, is just not a serious argument 鈥� it's a huge act of intellectual masturbation.
Anyone can play this game. The opposing view to Foucault's is the traditional idea that the Victorians were frightened and offended by their sexual feelings, and that consequently their society worked to repress sex. But if we wanted to protect the argument from attack we could easily rephrase it and say that the dominant narrative of Victorian social constructs was characterised by a repressive power projection whose motus was the twin stimuli of (psycho)logical terror and physiological disgust. This is harder to argue against, because it has less meaning. Similarly many of Foucault's arguments are, to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, so badly expressed that not only are they not right, they're not even wrong.
January 27, 2022
鈥庘€€璍a Volonte de Savoir鈥� = The Will to Knowledge, Michel Foucault
Michel Foucault's The Will to Knowledge is the first part of his influential trilogy of books on the history of sexuality. He argues that the recent explosion of discussion about sex in the West means that, far from being liberated, we are in the process of making a science of sexuality that is devoted to the analysis of desire rather than the increase of pleasure.
This is a brilliant polemic from a groundbreaking radical intellectual.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱2004賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕乇丕丿賴 亘賴 丿丕賳爻鬲賳貨 賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵貨 賲鬲乇噩賲賴丕: 賳蹖讴賵 爻乇禺賵卮貙 丕賮卮蹖賳 噩賴丕賳丿蹖丿賴貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 賳蹖貨 爻丕賱1383貨 丿乇183氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9789643127176貨 趩丕倬 賴卮鬲賲: 爻丕賱1392貨 賲賵囟賵毓 鬲丕乇蹖禺 - 乇賮鬲丕乇 噩賳爻蹖 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賴 - 爻丿賴20賲
賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵: 芦亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 噩丕蹖蹖讴賴 鬲丕 亘賴 丨丕賱 亘賴 丌賳 賳乇爻蹖丿賴鈥� 丕蹖賲 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 乇丕賴蹖 亘乇賵蹖賲 讴賴 鬲丕 亘賴 丨丕賱 丕夭 丌賳 乇丕賴 賳乇賮鬲賴鈥� 丕蹖賲.禄貨
毓賳賵丕賳 芦丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖禄 讴鬲丕亘 芦丕乇丕丿賴 亘賴 丿丕賳爻鬲賳禄貙 芦鬲丕乇蹖禺 噩賳蹖爻鬲禄 丕爻鬲貨 芦賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵禄 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丿乇 倬賳噩 亘禺卮 賳诏丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿貨 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮鈥屬囏� 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥� 蹖 噩賳亘賴鈥� 蹖 賵蹖跇賴丕蹖 丕夭 丨賳爻蹖鬲 乇丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丕蹖賳 倬賳噩 亘禺卮 毓亘丕乇鬲賳丿 丕夭 芦亘禺卮 丕賵賱: 賲丕 賵蹖讴鬲賵乇蹖丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖诏乇禄貨 芦亘禺卮 丿賵賲: 賮乇蹖囟賴鈥� 蹖 爻乇讴賵亘禄貨 芦亘禺卮 爻賵賲: 毓賱賲 噩賳爻蹖禄貨 芦亘禺卮 趩賴丕乇賲: 爻丕賲丕賳賴鈥� 蹖 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴禄貨 芦亘禺卮 倬賳噩賲: 丨賯 賲乇诏 賵 賯丿乇鬲 丕丿丕乇賴鈥� 讴賳賳丿賴鈥� 蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖禄貨
賳賯賱 丕夭 賲鬲賳: (丕夭 丿蹖乇 亘丕夭貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 丨丕讴賲貙 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 賲乇诏 亘賵丿貨 亘蹖 卮讴 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 氐賵乇蹖貙 丕蹖賳 丨賯 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 倬丿乇丕賳賴鈥� 蹖 賯丿蹖賲蹖貙 賲卮鬲賯 卮丿賴鈥� 亘賵丿貙 讴賴 亘賴 倬丿乇 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖 芦乇賵賲蹖禄貙 丨賯 芦丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賳禄 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳 禺賵蹖卮貙 賴賲趩賵賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘乇丿诏丕賳 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫ж� 倬丿乇 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 亘賴 丌賳丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 芦丿丕丿賴禄 亘賵丿貙 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 丌賳 乇丕 倬爻 亘诏蹖乇丿貨 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 賲乇诏貙 丌賳诏賵賳賴 讴賴 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥� 倬乇丿丕夭丕賳 讴賱丕爻蹖讴貙 氐賵乇鬲 亘賳丿蹖 賲蹖讴乇丿賳丿貙 卮讴賱蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 鬲禺賮蹖賮 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丕夭 丌賳 丨賯 亘賵丿貨 丿蹖诏乇 賳賲蹖卮丿 鬲氐賵乇 讴乇丿貙 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丨賯 丕夭 丨丕讴賲 鬲丕 丕鬲亘丕毓卮貙 亘賴 诏賵賳賴鈥� 丕蹖 賲胤賱賯 賵 亘蹖 賯蹖丿 賵 卮乇胤貙 丕毓賲丕賱 卮賵丿貨 亘賱讴賴 氐乇賮丕貙 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 丕毓賲丕賱 賲蹖卮丿 讴賴 丨丕讴賲貙 夭賳丿诏蹖卮 乇丕 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 禺胤乇 賲蹖鈥屫屫�: 賳賵毓蹖 丨賯 倬丕爻禺 诏賵蹖蹖貨 丕诏乇 丨丕讴賲 丕夭 爻賵蹖 丿卮賲賳丕賳蹖 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖貙 讴賴 賲蹖禺賵丕爻鬲賳丿 丕賵 乇丕 爻乇賳诏賵賳 讴賳賳丿貙 蹖丕 丨賯賵賯卮 乇丕 夭蹖乇 爻卅賵丕賱 亘亘乇賳丿貙 賲賵乇丿 鬲賴丿蹖丿 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖诏乇賮鬲貙 賯丕賳賵賳丕 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 噩賳诏 讴賳丿貙 賵 丕夭 丕鬲亘丕毓鈥� 禺賵蹖卮 亘禺賵丕賴丿貙 讴賴 丿乇 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 讴卮賵乇 卮乇讴鬲 讴賳賳丿貨 丕賵 亘丿賵賳 丌賳讴賴 芦賲爻鬲賯蹖賲丕 賲乇诏 丌賳丕賳 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賴丿禄貙 賯丕賳賵賳丕 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 芦夭賳丿诏蹖 丌賳丕賳 乇丕貙 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 禺胤乇 賯乇丕乇 丿賴丿禄貨 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳丕貙 丨丕讴賲 丨賯 芦睾蹖乇賲爻鬲賯蹖賲禄 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 賵 賲乇诏 乇丕貙 亘乇 丕鬲亘丕毓 禺賵蹖卮 丕毓賲丕賱 賲蹖讴乇丿貨 丕賲丕 丕诏乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕鬲亘丕毓卮貙 毓賱蹖賴 丕賵 賯丿 毓賱賲 賲蹖讴乇丿貙 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳卮 乇丕 夭蹖乇 倬丕 賲蹖诏匕丕卮鬲貨 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 賯丿乇鬲蹖 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賵 丕毓賲丕賱 讴賳丿: 丨丕讴賲 鬲丨鬲 毓賳賵丕賳 賲噩丕夭丕鬲貙 丕賵 乇丕 賲蹖讴卮鬲貨 亘丿蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘貙 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 賲乇诏貙 丿蹖诏乇 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭蹖 賲胤賱賯 賳亘賵丿貨 丕蹖賳 丨賯 賲卮乇賵胤 亘賵丿貙 亘賴 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 丨丕讴賲 賵 亘賯丕蹖 丕賵貨 丌蹖丕 亘丕蹖丿 丕蹖賳 丨賯 乇丕 賴賲趩賵賳 芦賴丕亘夭禄貙 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丨賯蹖 亘賴 倬丕丿卮丕賴貙 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳蹖賲貙 讴賴 賴乇 讴爻蹖 丿乇 賵囟毓蹖鬲 胤亘蹖毓蹖貙 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵丿貙 亘賴 賯蹖賲鬲 賲乇诏 丿蹖诏乇丕賳貙 丕夭 丌賳 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 丕爻鬲責 蹖丕 亘丕蹖丿 丌賳 乇丕 丨賯 禺丕氐蹖 亘丿丕賳蹖賲貙 讴賴 亘丕 卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖 丕蹖賳 賲賵噩賵丿 丨賯賵賯蹖 噩丿蹖丿貙 蹖毓賳蹖 丨丕讴賲貙 馗賴賵乇 賲蹖讴賳丿責 丿乇 賴乇 丨丕賱貙 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 賲乇诏貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 卮讴賱 賲丿乇賳貙 賵 賳爻亘蹖 賵 賲丨丿賵丿卮貙 賴賲趩賵賳 卮讴賱 賯丿蹖賲蹖 賵 賲胤賱賯卮貙 丨賯蹖 賳丕賲鬲賯丕乇賳 丕爻鬲貨 丨丕讴賲 丨賯 禺賵丿貙 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕 丕毓賲丕賱 賳賲蹖讴乇丿貙 賲诏乇 亘丕 丕毓賲丕賱 丨賯卮 亘乇 讴卮鬲賳貙 蹖丕 賲賲丕賳毓鬲 丕夭 讴卮鬲賳貨 丨丕讴賲 賯丿乇鬲卮 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕貙 賳卮丕賳 賳賲蹖丿丕丿貙 賲诏乇 亘丕 賲乇诏蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 丌賳 乇丕 胤賱亘 讴賳丿.)貨 倬丕蹖丕賳 賳賯賱
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 11/10/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 06/11/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Michel Foucault's The Will to Knowledge is the first part of his influential trilogy of books on the history of sexuality. He argues that the recent explosion of discussion about sex in the West means that, far from being liberated, we are in the process of making a science of sexuality that is devoted to the analysis of desire rather than the increase of pleasure.
This is a brilliant polemic from a groundbreaking radical intellectual.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱2004賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕乇丕丿賴 亘賴 丿丕賳爻鬲賳貨 賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵貨 賲鬲乇噩賲賴丕: 賳蹖讴賵 爻乇禺賵卮貙 丕賮卮蹖賳 噩賴丕賳丿蹖丿賴貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 賳蹖貨 爻丕賱1383貨 丿乇183氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9789643127176貨 趩丕倬 賴卮鬲賲: 爻丕賱1392貨 賲賵囟賵毓 鬲丕乇蹖禺 - 乇賮鬲丕乇 噩賳爻蹖 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賴 - 爻丿賴20賲
賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵: 芦亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 噩丕蹖蹖讴賴 鬲丕 亘賴 丨丕賱 亘賴 丌賳 賳乇爻蹖丿賴鈥� 丕蹖賲 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 乇丕賴蹖 亘乇賵蹖賲 讴賴 鬲丕 亘賴 丨丕賱 丕夭 丌賳 乇丕賴 賳乇賮鬲賴鈥� 丕蹖賲.禄貨
毓賳賵丕賳 芦丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖禄 讴鬲丕亘 芦丕乇丕丿賴 亘賴 丿丕賳爻鬲賳禄貙 芦鬲丕乇蹖禺 噩賳蹖爻鬲禄 丕爻鬲貨 芦賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵禄 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丿乇 倬賳噩 亘禺卮 賳诏丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿貨 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮鈥屬囏� 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥� 蹖 噩賳亘賴鈥� 蹖 賵蹖跇賴丕蹖 丕夭 丨賳爻蹖鬲 乇丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丕蹖賳 倬賳噩 亘禺卮 毓亘丕乇鬲賳丿 丕夭 芦亘禺卮 丕賵賱: 賲丕 賵蹖讴鬲賵乇蹖丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖诏乇禄貨 芦亘禺卮 丿賵賲: 賮乇蹖囟賴鈥� 蹖 爻乇讴賵亘禄貨 芦亘禺卮 爻賵賲: 毓賱賲 噩賳爻蹖禄貨 芦亘禺卮 趩賴丕乇賲: 爻丕賲丕賳賴鈥� 蹖 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴禄貨 芦亘禺卮 倬賳噩賲: 丨賯 賲乇诏 賵 賯丿乇鬲 丕丿丕乇賴鈥� 讴賳賳丿賴鈥� 蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖禄貨
賳賯賱 丕夭 賲鬲賳: (丕夭 丿蹖乇 亘丕夭貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 丨丕讴賲貙 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 賲乇诏 亘賵丿貨 亘蹖 卮讴 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 氐賵乇蹖貙 丕蹖賳 丨賯 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲 倬丿乇丕賳賴鈥� 蹖 賯丿蹖賲蹖貙 賲卮鬲賯 卮丿賴鈥� 亘賵丿貙 讴賴 亘賴 倬丿乇 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 蹖 芦乇賵賲蹖禄貙 丨賯 芦丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賳禄 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳 禺賵蹖卮貙 賴賲趩賵賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘乇丿诏丕賳 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫ж� 倬丿乇 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 亘賴 丌賳丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 芦丿丕丿賴禄 亘賵丿貙 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 丌賳 乇丕 倬爻 亘诏蹖乇丿貨 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 賲乇诏貙 丌賳诏賵賳賴 讴賴 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥� 倬乇丿丕夭丕賳 讴賱丕爻蹖讴貙 氐賵乇鬲 亘賳丿蹖 賲蹖讴乇丿賳丿貙 卮讴賱蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 鬲禺賮蹖賮 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丕夭 丌賳 丨賯 亘賵丿貨 丿蹖诏乇 賳賲蹖卮丿 鬲氐賵乇 讴乇丿貙 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丨賯 丕夭 丨丕讴賲 鬲丕 丕鬲亘丕毓卮貙 亘賴 诏賵賳賴鈥� 丕蹖 賲胤賱賯 賵 亘蹖 賯蹖丿 賵 卮乇胤貙 丕毓賲丕賱 卮賵丿貨 亘賱讴賴 氐乇賮丕貙 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 丕毓賲丕賱 賲蹖卮丿 讴賴 丨丕讴賲貙 夭賳丿诏蹖卮 乇丕 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 禺胤乇 賲蹖鈥屫屫�: 賳賵毓蹖 丨賯 倬丕爻禺 诏賵蹖蹖貨 丕诏乇 丨丕讴賲 丕夭 爻賵蹖 丿卮賲賳丕賳蹖 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖貙 讴賴 賲蹖禺賵丕爻鬲賳丿 丕賵 乇丕 爻乇賳诏賵賳 讴賳賳丿貙 蹖丕 丨賯賵賯卮 乇丕 夭蹖乇 爻卅賵丕賱 亘亘乇賳丿貙 賲賵乇丿 鬲賴丿蹖丿 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖诏乇賮鬲貙 賯丕賳賵賳丕 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 噩賳诏 讴賳丿貙 賵 丕夭 丕鬲亘丕毓鈥� 禺賵蹖卮 亘禺賵丕賴丿貙 讴賴 丿乇 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 讴卮賵乇 卮乇讴鬲 讴賳賳丿貨 丕賵 亘丿賵賳 丌賳讴賴 芦賲爻鬲賯蹖賲丕 賲乇诏 丌賳丕賳 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賴丿禄貙 賯丕賳賵賳丕 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 芦夭賳丿诏蹖 丌賳丕賳 乇丕貙 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 禺胤乇 賯乇丕乇 丿賴丿禄貨 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳丕貙 丨丕讴賲 丨賯 芦睾蹖乇賲爻鬲賯蹖賲禄 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 賵 賲乇诏 乇丕貙 亘乇 丕鬲亘丕毓 禺賵蹖卮 丕毓賲丕賱 賲蹖讴乇丿貨 丕賲丕 丕诏乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕鬲亘丕毓卮貙 毓賱蹖賴 丕賵 賯丿 毓賱賲 賲蹖讴乇丿貙 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳卮 乇丕 夭蹖乇 倬丕 賲蹖诏匕丕卮鬲貨 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 賯丿乇鬲蹖 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賵 丕毓賲丕賱 讴賳丿: 丨丕讴賲 鬲丨鬲 毓賳賵丕賳 賲噩丕夭丕鬲貙 丕賵 乇丕 賲蹖讴卮鬲貨 亘丿蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘貙 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 賲乇诏貙 丿蹖诏乇 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭蹖 賲胤賱賯 賳亘賵丿貨 丕蹖賳 丨賯 賲卮乇賵胤 亘賵丿貙 亘賴 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 丨丕讴賲 賵 亘賯丕蹖 丕賵貨 丌蹖丕 亘丕蹖丿 丕蹖賳 丨賯 乇丕 賴賲趩賵賳 芦賴丕亘夭禄貙 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丨賯蹖 亘賴 倬丕丿卮丕賴貙 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳蹖賲貙 讴賴 賴乇 讴爻蹖 丿乇 賵囟毓蹖鬲 胤亘蹖毓蹖貙 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵丿貙 亘賴 賯蹖賲鬲 賲乇诏 丿蹖诏乇丕賳貙 丕夭 丌賳 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 丕爻鬲責 蹖丕 亘丕蹖丿 丌賳 乇丕 丨賯 禺丕氐蹖 亘丿丕賳蹖賲貙 讴賴 亘丕 卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖 丕蹖賳 賲賵噩賵丿 丨賯賵賯蹖 噩丿蹖丿貙 蹖毓賳蹖 丨丕讴賲貙 馗賴賵乇 賲蹖讴賳丿責 丿乇 賴乇 丨丕賱貙 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 賲乇诏貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 卮讴賱 賲丿乇賳貙 賵 賳爻亘蹖 賵 賲丨丿賵丿卮貙 賴賲趩賵賳 卮讴賱 賯丿蹖賲蹖 賵 賲胤賱賯卮貙 丨賯蹖 賳丕賲鬲賯丕乇賳 丕爻鬲貨 丨丕讴賲 丨賯 禺賵丿貙 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕 丕毓賲丕賱 賳賲蹖讴乇丿貙 賲诏乇 亘丕 丕毓賲丕賱 丨賯卮 亘乇 讴卮鬲賳貙 蹖丕 賲賲丕賳毓鬲 丕夭 讴卮鬲賳貨 丨丕讴賲 賯丿乇鬲卮 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕貙 賳卮丕賳 賳賲蹖丿丕丿貙 賲诏乇 亘丕 賲乇诏蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 丌賳 乇丕 胤賱亘 讴賳丿.)貨 倬丕蹖丕賳 賳賯賱
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 11/10/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 06/11/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
August 16, 2010
The History of Sexuality is not really a history of sexuality. It is rather a genealogical study of a specific historical, political & discursive construction called 鈥榮exuality鈥� 鈥� a construction that has been deployed since its inception to police bodies and to service the social, political & economic exigencies of power.
Foucault begins by questioning why we so ardently believe that our sexuality is repressed 鈥� why we think 'confessing our sex' is a liberatory or even revolutionary activity. Unlike most people writing in the 70鈥檚, he did not think confessing the 'secrets' of our sex would lead to a revolutionary utopia in which we all live happily after. In the HoS he explores how the idea of sexuality functions 鈥� what uses this idea has for the discourse(s) of power/knowledge and how sexuality retains its (false) emancipatory sheen even as it services the needs of power in an increasingly subtle and insidious fashion.
Before Foucault power had been conceived of as performing an almost entirely negative function: especially in relation to sex, the conventional wisdom held that power only had the power to say no, to censor, to deny. Power supposedly elided that which it wished to suppress (鈥榙o not appear if you do not want to disappear鈥�), and it had almost no 'productive' function. Foucault notes that on the contrary, since the 16th century, power has demanded instead that sex confess itself (beginning primarily but not exclusively in the form of the confessional) - and these confessions have been instrumental in creating the categories power wishes to police. Foucault shows that if to talk of sex as was done before was prohibited after the 16th century, not any less was said about it. On the contrary, 鈥榯hings were said in a different way; it was different people who said them, from different points of view, and in order to obtain different results鈥� (27). Sex was brought into new types of discourses: 鈥榥ot the rigor of a taboo, but the necessity of regulating sex through useful and public discourses鈥� (25). From the confessional, Foucault traces the beginnings of new forms of pedagogies and discursive practices: the codification of sex/desire into the field of rationality, the birth of the science of demography (along with demographic controls in the service of labor capacity), the medicalization of sex with all its pathologizing tendencies (the hysterization of women, the increased regulation of onanism, the intensification and normalization of the family unit and the discourse of marginal & 'perverse' sexualities). Clearly, all these discursive practices did not repress sex so much as incite it to discourse.
This is where Foucault articulates his extremely influential notion of bio-power. In tangent with the rise of capital, the exigencies of power have changed and evolved considerably over the past three centuries. In 'Madness and Civilization' and 'Discipline and Punish' Foucault traces the development of power from a few sovereign points of contact with the general population to its sublimation into the entire field of social relations 鈥� power is concerned no longer simply with extracting taxes or punishing criminals, it is now in the business of administering life itself. This is a considerable shift 鈥� and in the HoS Foucault argues that the deployment of sexuality was indispensable to this shift. For the deployment of the idea of sexuality is not really about sex 鈥� it is about bodies: specifically the policing, managing and control of bodies (hence 'bio-power'). Sexuality is not a stubborn drive 鈥榙isobedient to a power which exhausts itself trying to subdue it鈥� (103). It is rather an 鈥榚specially dense transfer point for relations of power. [...:] Not the most intractable element in power relations, but rather one of those endowed with the greatest instrumentality: useful for the greatest number of maneuvers and capable of serving as a point of support, as a linchpin, for the most varied strategies鈥� (103). Just as the legal-judicial system is no longer content to simply punish the criminal for the crime s/he has committed - postulating instead the need for disciplining the individual's entire existential being - the deployment of sexuality makes sex no longer simply something one does, but rather something one is. This deployment thus allows the policing of bodies in a way that was unimaginable before the advent of this interlocking network of discursive practices. Foucault argues that our innermost 'identity' has been tied to sex not to emancipate us from power鈥檚 regulatory demands - but in order to service its most urgent tactical exigencies.
Foucault's theory of power is clearly still incredibly relevant today (if not more so). The idea that power is productive, that it is exercised and not held, that it is immanent in all social relations, etc. seems to be the modus operandi of most regulatory mechanisms of power today (as well as being the foundation of almost all critical theory written since the 80's). This analytics of power is particularly useful in the post 9/11 era - where power has literally created and continues to create the categories necessary for the indefinite deployment of its hegemonizing, regulatory and disciplining technologies.
Of course, there are still more than a few critiques I could make of this text: the irritating refusal to let go of the exclusionary use of the male pronoun, the scant mention of women aside from their hysterization under new power regimes, the tendency to make power seem totalizing and omniscient, the bizarre contrasting of the West's science of sexuality with the Other's (the orient's?) erotic art, and the refusal to trace a genealogy of the body or even question how the body itself is discursively constructed for the demands of power/knowledge. One could and should make all of these critiques. But regardless - this is one of those seminal texts that should be read by everyone interested in how power functions today.
Foucault begins by questioning why we so ardently believe that our sexuality is repressed 鈥� why we think 'confessing our sex' is a liberatory or even revolutionary activity. Unlike most people writing in the 70鈥檚, he did not think confessing the 'secrets' of our sex would lead to a revolutionary utopia in which we all live happily after. In the HoS he explores how the idea of sexuality functions 鈥� what uses this idea has for the discourse(s) of power/knowledge and how sexuality retains its (false) emancipatory sheen even as it services the needs of power in an increasingly subtle and insidious fashion.
Before Foucault power had been conceived of as performing an almost entirely negative function: especially in relation to sex, the conventional wisdom held that power only had the power to say no, to censor, to deny. Power supposedly elided that which it wished to suppress (鈥榙o not appear if you do not want to disappear鈥�), and it had almost no 'productive' function. Foucault notes that on the contrary, since the 16th century, power has demanded instead that sex confess itself (beginning primarily but not exclusively in the form of the confessional) - and these confessions have been instrumental in creating the categories power wishes to police. Foucault shows that if to talk of sex as was done before was prohibited after the 16th century, not any less was said about it. On the contrary, 鈥榯hings were said in a different way; it was different people who said them, from different points of view, and in order to obtain different results鈥� (27). Sex was brought into new types of discourses: 鈥榥ot the rigor of a taboo, but the necessity of regulating sex through useful and public discourses鈥� (25). From the confessional, Foucault traces the beginnings of new forms of pedagogies and discursive practices: the codification of sex/desire into the field of rationality, the birth of the science of demography (along with demographic controls in the service of labor capacity), the medicalization of sex with all its pathologizing tendencies (the hysterization of women, the increased regulation of onanism, the intensification and normalization of the family unit and the discourse of marginal & 'perverse' sexualities). Clearly, all these discursive practices did not repress sex so much as incite it to discourse.
This is where Foucault articulates his extremely influential notion of bio-power. In tangent with the rise of capital, the exigencies of power have changed and evolved considerably over the past three centuries. In 'Madness and Civilization' and 'Discipline and Punish' Foucault traces the development of power from a few sovereign points of contact with the general population to its sublimation into the entire field of social relations 鈥� power is concerned no longer simply with extracting taxes or punishing criminals, it is now in the business of administering life itself. This is a considerable shift 鈥� and in the HoS Foucault argues that the deployment of sexuality was indispensable to this shift. For the deployment of the idea of sexuality is not really about sex 鈥� it is about bodies: specifically the policing, managing and control of bodies (hence 'bio-power'). Sexuality is not a stubborn drive 鈥榙isobedient to a power which exhausts itself trying to subdue it鈥� (103). It is rather an 鈥榚specially dense transfer point for relations of power. [...:] Not the most intractable element in power relations, but rather one of those endowed with the greatest instrumentality: useful for the greatest number of maneuvers and capable of serving as a point of support, as a linchpin, for the most varied strategies鈥� (103). Just as the legal-judicial system is no longer content to simply punish the criminal for the crime s/he has committed - postulating instead the need for disciplining the individual's entire existential being - the deployment of sexuality makes sex no longer simply something one does, but rather something one is. This deployment thus allows the policing of bodies in a way that was unimaginable before the advent of this interlocking network of discursive practices. Foucault argues that our innermost 'identity' has been tied to sex not to emancipate us from power鈥檚 regulatory demands - but in order to service its most urgent tactical exigencies.
Foucault's theory of power is clearly still incredibly relevant today (if not more so). The idea that power is productive, that it is exercised and not held, that it is immanent in all social relations, etc. seems to be the modus operandi of most regulatory mechanisms of power today (as well as being the foundation of almost all critical theory written since the 80's). This analytics of power is particularly useful in the post 9/11 era - where power has literally created and continues to create the categories necessary for the indefinite deployment of its hegemonizing, regulatory and disciplining technologies.
Of course, there are still more than a few critiques I could make of this text: the irritating refusal to let go of the exclusionary use of the male pronoun, the scant mention of women aside from their hysterization under new power regimes, the tendency to make power seem totalizing and omniscient, the bizarre contrasting of the West's science of sexuality with the Other's (the orient's?) erotic art, and the refusal to trace a genealogy of the body or even question how the body itself is discursively constructed for the demands of power/knowledge. One could and should make all of these critiques. But regardless - this is one of those seminal texts that should be read by everyone interested in how power functions today.
July 27, 2019
賮賵讴賵 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 丕乇丕丿賴 亘賴 丿丕賳爻鬲賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 亘賴 鬲亘丕乇卮賳丕爻蹖 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭丿. 讴賴 丿乇 爻丿賴 蹖 賴賮丿賴賲 賳賵毓蹖 乇讴 诏賵蹖蹖 丿乇 丕毓賲丕賱 噩賳爻蹖 賲鬲丿丕賵賱 亘賵丿. 賵賱蹖 丿乇 丿賵乇丕賳 賵蹖讴鬲賵乇蹖丕蹖蹖 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 賲丨亘賵爻 卮丿 丿乇 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴丕 賵 鬲賵賱蹖丿賲孬賱. 賵 賴賲蹖賳 爻乇讴賵亘 賴丕 亘丕毓孬 乇蹖丕讴丕乇蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 丿丕丿賳 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭賴丕蹖 賲孬賱 乇賵爻倬蹖 禺丕賳賴 賴丕貙 亘蹖賲丕乇爻鬲丕賳 賴丕蹖 乇賵丕賳蹖 卮丿.
賵賱蹖 爻丿賴 蹖 賴噩丿賴賲 噩丕賲毓賴 亘丕 鬲賳賵毓蹖 丕夭 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 爻讴爻 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿. 讴賲 讴賲 氐丨亘鬲 丕夭 爻讴爻 賵 賱匕鬲 賴丕蹖 丌賳 亘賴 蹖讴 丕賱夭丕賲 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿. 丿乇 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖 丕蹖賳 丕賱夭丕賲 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘賵丿. 賵 丿乇 賯乇賵賳 噩丿蹖丿 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕爻蹖 賵 倬夭卮讴蹖.
賮賵讴賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丕蹖賳 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕蹖 賵 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 爻讴爻 丕亘夭丕乇 賯丿乇鬲 噩丕賲賴 賴爻鬲賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 賳賮賵匕 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 亘丿賳 賵 賱匕鬲 賴丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳. 丕蹖賳 賯丿乇鬲 賳賴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賯丕賳賵賳 賵 賳賴 賲賲賳賵毓蹖鬲 亘賱讴賴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 鬲讴孬蹖乇 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 賴丕蹖 賳丕賲鬲毓丕乇賮 毓賲賱 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 賯丿乇鬲 丿乇 倬蹖 丨匕賮 賵 倬乇賴蹖夭 丕夭 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賱讴賴 鬲賳賵毓 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 乇賵 噩匕亘 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 賵 毓賱蹖乇睾賲 賴丿賮蹖 讴賴 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕 丕蹖賳 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 亘丕毓孬 丕卮丕毓賴 蹖 丕賳丨乇丕賮 賴丕蹖 噩賳爻蹖 卮丿賳丿.
倬爻 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 爻讴爻 丕夭 爻賴 爻丿賴 倬蹖卮 亘賴 噩丕蹖 讴賲 卮丿賳 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 诏乇趩賴 丕蹖賳 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕 亘丕 禺賵丿 丕賲乇 賵 賳賴蹖貙 賲卮乇賵毓 賵 賳丕賲卮乇賵毓貙賲噩丕夭 賵 睾蹖乇 賲噩丕夭 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 丕賵乇丿賴. 丕賲丕 亘賴 诏賵賳賴 蹖 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 鬲乇 丕爻鬲丨讴丕賲 賵 丕卮丕毓賴 賴賲賴 蹖 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳蹖 噩賳爻蹖 乇丕 鬲囟賲蹖賳 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丕夭 賱丨丕馗 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖貙 丿賵 乇賵卮 亘乇丕蹖听 鬲賵賱蹖丿丨賯蹖賯鬲 爻讴爻 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿:
郾. 噩賵丕賲毓蹖 賳馗蹖乇 趩蹖賳貙 跇丕倬賳貙賴賳丿貙乇賵賲 賵 噩賵丕賲毓 毓乇亘蹖 丕夭 "賴賳乇 讴丕賲噩賵蹖蹖" 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇賳丿. 蹖毓賳蹖 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丕夭 禺賵丿 賱匕鬲 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賲蹖 丌蹖丿 賱匕丕 亘賴 賲賳夭賱賴 蹖 毓賲賱 賵 鬲噩乇亘賴 賮賴賲 賲蹖 卮賵丿 賵 賳賴 賲毓蹖丕乇 賮丕蹖丿賴 賲賳丿蹖.
鄄.鬲賲丿賳 睾乇亘 賮丕賯丿 賴賳乇 讴丕賲噩賵蹖蹖貙 蹖诏丕賳賴 鬲賲丿賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 毓賱賲 噩賳爻蹖 乇丕 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿. 鬲賲丿賳蹖 讴賴 乇賵卮 賴丕蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 诏賮鬲賳 丨賯蹖賯鬲 爻讴爻 鬲賵爻毓賴 丿丕丿 讴賴 丿乇 丕爻丕爻 亘丕 卮讴賱蹖 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲-丿丕賳卮 賴賲丕賴賳诏 丕爻鬲.听 賵 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 鬲讴賳蹖讴 鬲賵賱蹖丿 丨賯蹖鬲 丿乇 睾乇亘 亘乇丿賱 卮丿. 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 "丨蹖賵丕賳 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 诏乇"
倬爻 賮賵讴賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 卮讴賱 诏蹖乇蹖 丿丕賳卮 丿乇亘丕乇賴 爻讴爻 乇丕 賳賴 亘賴 亘乇 丨爻亘 爻乇讴賵亘 賯丕賳賵賳 亘賱讴賴 亘乇 丨爻亘 賯丿乇鬲 鬲丨賱蹖賱 讴賳蹖賲.
賵賱蹖 賯丿乇鬲 賳賴 亘賴 賲毓賳蹖 賲噩賲賵毓賴 賳賴丕丿賴丕 賵 丿爻鬲诏丕賴丕 賵 賳賴 亘賴 賲毓賳蹖 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵 丕爻鬲蹖賱丕 亘乇丕 丕賮乇丕丿. 亘賱讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 賯丿乇鬲 乇丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 趩蹖夭 亘賴 賲賳夭賱賴 讴孬乇鬲 賲賳丕爻亘丕鬲 賳蹖乇賵 丿乇讴 讴乇丿. 賯丿乇鬲 賴賲賴 噩丕 賴爻鬲 賳賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳蹖 讴賴 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 乇丕 丿乇亘乇賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿貙 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳丕 讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 丕夭 賴賲賴 噩丕 賲蹖 丌蹖丿鈥�.
"賯丿乇鬲 賳賴丕丿 賳蹖爻鬲" 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲貙 賳賵毓蹖 賯丿乇鬲 賲賳丿蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 丌賳 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮賳丿. 賯丿乇鬲 賳丕賲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 蹖讴 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲 丕爻鬲乇丕鬲跇蹖讴 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴 蹖 賲毓蹖賳 丕胤賱丕賯 賲蹖 卮賵丿.
賵 毓乇氐賴 丕蹖賳 賯丿乇鬲 丿乇 爻丿賴 蹖 賴噩丿賴賲 丿乇 趩賴丕乇 賲噩賲賵毓賴 丕爻鬲乇丕鬲跇蹖讴 丕爻鬲.丕. 賴蹖爻鬲乇蹖讴 卮丿賳 亘丿賳 夭賳 鄄鈥屫必ㄛ屫� 讴乇丿賳 爻讴爻 讴賵丿讴鄢.丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 讴乇丿賳 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賲孬賱蹖鄞 乇賵丕賳 倬夭卮讴丕賳賴 讴乇丿賳 賱匕鬲 賲賳丨乇賮.
賵 乇賵卮 賴丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 讴賴 丿乇 毓氐乇 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 丕賲乇 賳賲丕丿蹖賳 禺賵賳 亘賵丿(鬲爻賱胤蹖 讴賴 丨丕讴賲丕賳 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 丨賯 讴卮鬲賳 賵 賲乇诏 丿丕卮鬲賳) 亘賴 賯丿乇鬲 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 丿乇 賯乇賳 賳賵夭丿賲 乇爻蹖丿.
倬爻 爻讴爻 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲爻卅賱賴 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丕賴賲蹖鬲 夭蹖丕丿蹖 丿丕乇丿. 丕夭 蹖讴 爻賵貙 亘賴 丕賳囟亘丕胤 賴丕蹖 亘丿賳 賲乇亘賵胤 丕爻鬲: 鬲乇亘蹖鬲貙 鬲卮丿蹖丿 賵 鬲賵夭蹖毓 賳蹖乇賵. 丕夭 爻賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇 亘賴 爻丕賲丕賳 丿賴蹖 噩賲毓蹖鬲 賴丕 賲乇亘賵胤 丕爻鬲.
賵賱蹖 爻丿賴 蹖 賴噩丿賴賲 噩丕賲毓賴 亘丕 鬲賳賵毓蹖 丕夭 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 爻讴爻 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿. 讴賲 讴賲 氐丨亘鬲 丕夭 爻讴爻 賵 賱匕鬲 賴丕蹖 丌賳 亘賴 蹖讴 丕賱夭丕賲 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿. 丿乇 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖 丕蹖賳 丕賱夭丕賲 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘賵丿. 賵 丿乇 賯乇賵賳 噩丿蹖丿 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕爻蹖 賵 倬夭卮讴蹖.
賮賵讴賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丕蹖賳 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕蹖 賵 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 爻讴爻 丕亘夭丕乇 賯丿乇鬲 噩丕賲賴 賴爻鬲賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 賳賮賵匕 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 亘丿賳 賵 賱匕鬲 賴丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳. 丕蹖賳 賯丿乇鬲 賳賴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賯丕賳賵賳 賵 賳賴 賲賲賳賵毓蹖鬲 亘賱讴賴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 鬲讴孬蹖乇 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 賴丕蹖 賳丕賲鬲毓丕乇賮 毓賲賱 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 賯丿乇鬲 丿乇 倬蹖 丨匕賮 賵 倬乇賴蹖夭 丕夭 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賱讴賴 鬲賳賵毓 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 乇賵 噩匕亘 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 賵 毓賱蹖乇睾賲 賴丿賮蹖 讴賴 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕 丕蹖賳 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 亘丕毓孬 丕卮丕毓賴 蹖 丕賳丨乇丕賮 賴丕蹖 噩賳爻蹖 卮丿賳丿.
倬爻 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 爻讴爻 丕夭 爻賴 爻丿賴 倬蹖卮 亘賴 噩丕蹖 讴賲 卮丿賳 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 诏乇趩賴 丕蹖賳 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賴丕 亘丕 禺賵丿 丕賲乇 賵 賳賴蹖貙 賲卮乇賵毓 賵 賳丕賲卮乇賵毓貙賲噩丕夭 賵 睾蹖乇 賲噩丕夭 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 丕賵乇丿賴. 丕賲丕 亘賴 诏賵賳賴 蹖 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 鬲乇 丕爻鬲丨讴丕賲 賵 丕卮丕毓賴 賴賲賴 蹖 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳蹖 噩賳爻蹖 乇丕 鬲囟賲蹖賳 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丕夭 賱丨丕馗 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖貙 丿賵 乇賵卮 亘乇丕蹖听 鬲賵賱蹖丿丨賯蹖賯鬲 爻讴爻 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿:
郾. 噩賵丕賲毓蹖 賳馗蹖乇 趩蹖賳貙 跇丕倬賳貙賴賳丿貙乇賵賲 賵 噩賵丕賲毓 毓乇亘蹖 丕夭 "賴賳乇 讴丕賲噩賵蹖蹖" 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇賳丿. 蹖毓賳蹖 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丕夭 禺賵丿 賱匕鬲 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賲蹖 丌蹖丿 賱匕丕 亘賴 賲賳夭賱賴 蹖 毓賲賱 賵 鬲噩乇亘賴 賮賴賲 賲蹖 卮賵丿 賵 賳賴 賲毓蹖丕乇 賮丕蹖丿賴 賲賳丿蹖.
鄄.鬲賲丿賳 睾乇亘 賮丕賯丿 賴賳乇 讴丕賲噩賵蹖蹖貙 蹖诏丕賳賴 鬲賲丿賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 毓賱賲 噩賳爻蹖 乇丕 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿. 鬲賲丿賳蹖 讴賴 乇賵卮 賴丕蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 诏賮鬲賳 丨賯蹖賯鬲 爻讴爻 鬲賵爻毓賴 丿丕丿 讴賴 丿乇 丕爻丕爻 亘丕 卮讴賱蹖 丕夭 賯丿乇鬲-丿丕賳卮 賴賲丕賴賳诏 丕爻鬲.听 賵 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 鬲讴賳蹖讴 鬲賵賱蹖丿 丨賯蹖鬲 丿乇 睾乇亘 亘乇丿賱 卮丿. 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 "丨蹖賵丕賳 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 诏乇"
倬爻 賮賵讴賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 卮讴賱 诏蹖乇蹖 丿丕賳卮 丿乇亘丕乇賴 爻讴爻 乇丕 賳賴 亘賴 亘乇 丨爻亘 爻乇讴賵亘 賯丕賳賵賳 亘賱讴賴 亘乇 丨爻亘 賯丿乇鬲 鬲丨賱蹖賱 讴賳蹖賲.
賵賱蹖 賯丿乇鬲 賳賴 亘賴 賲毓賳蹖 賲噩賲賵毓賴 賳賴丕丿賴丕 賵 丿爻鬲诏丕賴丕 賵 賳賴 亘賴 賲毓賳蹖 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵 丕爻鬲蹖賱丕 亘乇丕 丕賮乇丕丿. 亘賱讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 賯丿乇鬲 乇丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 趩蹖夭 亘賴 賲賳夭賱賴 讴孬乇鬲 賲賳丕爻亘丕鬲 賳蹖乇賵 丿乇讴 讴乇丿. 賯丿乇鬲 賴賲賴 噩丕 賴爻鬲 賳賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳蹖 讴賴 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 乇丕 丿乇亘乇賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿貙 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳丕 讴賴 賯丿乇鬲 丕夭 賴賲賴 噩丕 賲蹖 丌蹖丿鈥�.
"賯丿乇鬲 賳賴丕丿 賳蹖爻鬲" 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲貙 賳賵毓蹖 賯丿乇鬲 賲賳丿蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 丌賳 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮賳丿. 賯丿乇鬲 賳丕賲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 蹖讴 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲 丕爻鬲乇丕鬲跇蹖讴 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴 蹖 賲毓蹖賳 丕胤賱丕賯 賲蹖 卮賵丿.
賵 毓乇氐賴 丕蹖賳 賯丿乇鬲 丿乇 爻丿賴 蹖 賴噩丿賴賲 丿乇 趩賴丕乇 賲噩賲賵毓賴 丕爻鬲乇丕鬲跇蹖讴 丕爻鬲.丕. 賴蹖爻鬲乇蹖讴 卮丿賳 亘丿賳 夭賳 鄄鈥屫必ㄛ屫� 讴乇丿賳 爻讴爻 讴賵丿讴鄢.丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 讴乇丿賳 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖 鬲賵賱蹖丿 賲孬賱蹖鄞 乇賵丕賳 倬夭卮讴丕賳賴 讴乇丿賳 賱匕鬲 賲賳丨乇賮.
賵 乇賵卮 賴丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 讴賴 丿乇 毓氐乇 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 丕賲乇 賳賲丕丿蹖賳 禺賵賳 亘賵丿(鬲爻賱胤蹖 讴賴 丨丕讴賲丕賳 亘乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 丨賯 讴卮鬲賳 賵 賲乇诏 丿丕卮鬲賳) 亘賴 賯丿乇鬲 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 丿乇 賯乇賳 賳賵夭丿賲 乇爻蹖丿.
倬爻 爻讴爻 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲爻卅賱賴 爻蹖丕爻蹖 丕賴賲蹖鬲 夭蹖丕丿蹖 丿丕乇丿. 丕夭 蹖讴 爻賵貙 亘賴 丕賳囟亘丕胤 賴丕蹖 亘丿賳 賲乇亘賵胤 丕爻鬲: 鬲乇亘蹖鬲貙 鬲卮丿蹖丿 賵 鬲賵夭蹖毓 賳蹖乇賵. 丕夭 爻賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇 亘賴 爻丕賲丕賳 丿賴蹖 噩賲毓蹖鬲 賴丕 賲乇亘賵胤 丕爻鬲.
June 15, 2021
Long review, brace yourselves. Ahem.
For the least glimmer of truth is conditioned by politics.
To begin with, Foucault points out the inherent contradiction in our attempts to negate sex in a manner that explicitly formulates it using the very terms and the positivity we are trying to hide - he postulates that this has the effect of revealing sex in its most naked reality. The discourse on sex was restricted in the nineteenth century so as to concentrate its dialogue in certain sites that were to be avoided. However, the increased awareness of the existence of these sites and the dangers they possessed paradoxically created further incentive to talk about them. Modern societies with their infinitely fuelled drive to cast sex within a web of shadows exploited the 'secret' and dedicated themselves to endlessly talking about it.
This attention to sex was also motivated by the emergence of 'population' as a political and economic problem - to reproduce and perpetuate labor capacity so that a sexuality that is economically useful and politically conservative could be constituted. However, Foucault also says that he isn't sure if this was the ultimate objective.
Modern society is perverse, not in spite of its puritanism or as if from a backlash provoked by its hypocrisy; it is in actual fact, and directly, perverse. In actual fact.
Foucault claims that modern industrial society has not actually repressed sexuality, but has enabled proliferation of specific pleasures and multiplication of disparate sexualties. With its centers of powers, the linkages between them and the network of mechanisms interconnecting the sites where pleasure and power are concentrated, modern society laid an intense, analytic emphasis on sex.
The biology of reproduction and the medicine of sex developed in very different ways throughout the nineteenth century and the disparity between them prevented the emergence of truth. At the same time the evolution of confession as a power enforcing ritual between the confessor and the listening authority figure and the subsequent expansion of its realm from religion to include the scientific domain of interrogation and psychoanalysis further altered the meaning ascribed to sex. Foucault says that a 'postulate of diffuse causality' that ascribed every event in one's sexual behaviour of being extremely consequential was developed. Since sexuality was posed as a domain susceptible to pathological processes, it also necessitated 'normalizing' interventions.
The nineteenth century bourgeoisie capitalist society produced entire machineries to postulate and confront the 'uniform truth' of sex. Foucault claims that towards the end of the eighteenth century family was made the locus of psychiatrization of sex. The aristocratic family medicalized feminine sexuality and problematized the sexuality of children/adolescents. This is the part I really liked. I liked how Foucault applied Marxist class theory in his formulation of the history of sexuality.
Foucault further claims that the deployment of sexual analysis was not carried out to renunciate pleasure or disqualify the flesh, rather it was a question of developing techniques to maximize life. The bourgeoisie has been occupied with creating its sexuality and forming a specific body based on it from the mid-eighteenth century. Its excessive preoccupation with eugenics and heredity also affected the growth and establishment of a ruling class hegemony and directly caused the nineteenth century racist, eugenic ordering of society.
There is little question that one of the primordial forms of class consciousness is the affirmation of the body; at least, this was the case for the bourgeoisie during the eighteenth century. It converted the blue blood of the nobles into a sound organism and a healthy sexuality. One understands why it took such a long time and was so unwilling to acknowledge that other classes had a body and a sex - precisely those classes it was exploiting. The living conditions that were dealt to the proletariat, particularly in the first half of the nineteenth century, show there was anything but concern for its body and sex: it was of little importance whether those people lived or died, since their reproduction was something that took care of itself in any case.
Foucault writes that modern society is preoccupied with sex in the same way that earlier societies where death through famine, epidemics and violence was imminent were preoccupied with blood. 'Sex' is historically subordinate to sexuality.
It's often hard to discern what Foucault is trying to get at and not just because of my own inexperience with critical theory, but also because the text is repetitive. Foucault seems to argue around in circles to arrive at different versions of the same conclusion over and over again. There are also certain problematic views that I had to wrestle with in order to continue my reading. For instance, Foucault writes about the case of a farmhand engaging in child sexual abuse who was later confined to a hospital for the rest of his life and was the subject of various studies by academics. Foucault refers to his act as "inconsequential bucolic pleasures." It also seemed like Foucault just made up arguments as he wrote and published them without further inspection and development.
On a more immature note, by finishing this book I completed 69% of my 2021 reading challenge. Blame my genZ-ness for this.
For the least glimmer of truth is conditioned by politics.
To begin with, Foucault points out the inherent contradiction in our attempts to negate sex in a manner that explicitly formulates it using the very terms and the positivity we are trying to hide - he postulates that this has the effect of revealing sex in its most naked reality. The discourse on sex was restricted in the nineteenth century so as to concentrate its dialogue in certain sites that were to be avoided. However, the increased awareness of the existence of these sites and the dangers they possessed paradoxically created further incentive to talk about them. Modern societies with their infinitely fuelled drive to cast sex within a web of shadows exploited the 'secret' and dedicated themselves to endlessly talking about it.
This attention to sex was also motivated by the emergence of 'population' as a political and economic problem - to reproduce and perpetuate labor capacity so that a sexuality that is economically useful and politically conservative could be constituted. However, Foucault also says that he isn't sure if this was the ultimate objective.
Modern society is perverse, not in spite of its puritanism or as if from a backlash provoked by its hypocrisy; it is in actual fact, and directly, perverse. In actual fact.
Foucault claims that modern industrial society has not actually repressed sexuality, but has enabled proliferation of specific pleasures and multiplication of disparate sexualties. With its centers of powers, the linkages between them and the network of mechanisms interconnecting the sites where pleasure and power are concentrated, modern society laid an intense, analytic emphasis on sex.
The biology of reproduction and the medicine of sex developed in very different ways throughout the nineteenth century and the disparity between them prevented the emergence of truth. At the same time the evolution of confession as a power enforcing ritual between the confessor and the listening authority figure and the subsequent expansion of its realm from religion to include the scientific domain of interrogation and psychoanalysis further altered the meaning ascribed to sex. Foucault says that a 'postulate of diffuse causality' that ascribed every event in one's sexual behaviour of being extremely consequential was developed. Since sexuality was posed as a domain susceptible to pathological processes, it also necessitated 'normalizing' interventions.
The nineteenth century bourgeoisie capitalist society produced entire machineries to postulate and confront the 'uniform truth' of sex. Foucault claims that towards the end of the eighteenth century family was made the locus of psychiatrization of sex. The aristocratic family medicalized feminine sexuality and problematized the sexuality of children/adolescents. This is the part I really liked. I liked how Foucault applied Marxist class theory in his formulation of the history of sexuality.
Foucault further claims that the deployment of sexual analysis was not carried out to renunciate pleasure or disqualify the flesh, rather it was a question of developing techniques to maximize life. The bourgeoisie has been occupied with creating its sexuality and forming a specific body based on it from the mid-eighteenth century. Its excessive preoccupation with eugenics and heredity also affected the growth and establishment of a ruling class hegemony and directly caused the nineteenth century racist, eugenic ordering of society.
There is little question that one of the primordial forms of class consciousness is the affirmation of the body; at least, this was the case for the bourgeoisie during the eighteenth century. It converted the blue blood of the nobles into a sound organism and a healthy sexuality. One understands why it took such a long time and was so unwilling to acknowledge that other classes had a body and a sex - precisely those classes it was exploiting. The living conditions that were dealt to the proletariat, particularly in the first half of the nineteenth century, show there was anything but concern for its body and sex: it was of little importance whether those people lived or died, since their reproduction was something that took care of itself in any case.
Foucault writes that modern society is preoccupied with sex in the same way that earlier societies where death through famine, epidemics and violence was imminent were preoccupied with blood. 'Sex' is historically subordinate to sexuality.
It's often hard to discern what Foucault is trying to get at and not just because of my own inexperience with critical theory, but also because the text is repetitive. Foucault seems to argue around in circles to arrive at different versions of the same conclusion over and over again. There are also certain problematic views that I had to wrestle with in order to continue my reading. For instance, Foucault writes about the case of a farmhand engaging in child sexual abuse who was later confined to a hospital for the rest of his life and was the subject of various studies by academics. Foucault refers to his act as "inconsequential bucolic pleasures." It also seemed like Foucault just made up arguments as he wrote and published them without further inspection and development.
On a more immature note, by finishing this book I completed 69% of my 2021 reading challenge. Blame my genZ-ness for this.
June 16, 2015
賯丿 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 賱丿賷 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賱賱廿丨丕胤丞 賵 賵氐賮 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲丨賳賰. 賱賰賳 毓賱賷 兀賳 兀卮賷乇 賱兀賰孬乇 丕賱賳賯丕胤 丕賱鬲賷 兀孬丕乇鬲 丿賴卮鬲賷.
兀賵賱賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 賮賷 賲賳賴噩賷丞 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 賲毓丕賱噩丞 賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵 丕賱噩賳爻( 賵賴賲丕 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 兀賲乇賷賳 賲禺鬲賱賮賷賳貨 丨賷孬 鬲卮賷乇 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賱賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱禺胤丕亘賷丞 賵 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳賲鬲 丨賵賱 賯囟賷丞 丕賱噩賳爻貙 兀賲丕 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賮鬲卮賷乇 賱賱睾乇賷夭丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱亘丨鬲 ) 賮賴賵 賷毓賲賱 亘卮賰賱 鬲兀乇賷禺賷 鬲賵賱賷賮賷 賮賷 鬲丨賱賷賱賴 賱禺賱賯 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇貙 賮賳噩丿賴 賷夭丕賵噩 兀賵 賷乇亘胤 亘賷賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵 丕賱賲鬲毓丞貙 兀賵 丕賱噩賳爻/丕賱賯賲毓貙 兀賵 丕賱爻賱胤丞/丕賱賲鬲毓丞貙 兀賵 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞/丕賱賲鬲毓丞. 賲賳 噩賴丞 兀禺乇賶貙 賱睾丞 賮賵賰賵 鬲胤賮丨 兀丿亘賷丞 賵 爻賱丕爻丞 賵 賮賷 匕賱賰 丿賵乇 賰亘賷乇 賱丨賲賱 孬賯賱 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賰孬賷賮丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷毓丕賱噩賴丕.
丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱兀禺乇貙 鬲賵囟賷丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賲丨賷胤 亘丨孬丞 賵 毓丿賲 丕 賱禺賵囟 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓賲賷賲丕鬲 丕賱禺乇賯丕亍貙 賮賴賵 賷丨丿丿 賲毓丕賱噩鬲賴 賱賴匕賴 丕賱馗丕賴乇丞 賮賷 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 賮賯胤 賵 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 賮鬲乇丞 夭賲賳賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱賵爻胤丞 鬲賯乇賷亘丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳... 賲賵囟丨丕 兀賳 賯囟賷丞 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳鬲 賵 鬲賰丕孬乇鬲 鬲丨鬲 馗乇賵賮 爻賷丕爻賷丞 兀賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 亘兀賲鬲賷丕夭. 賮丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 賯丿 賯丕賲鬲 毓賱賶 賲乇賰亘 丕賱噩賳爻 賱丿毓賲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賴丕 亘禺賱賯 賰孬丕賮丞 爻賰丕賳賷丞 毓丕賲賱丞 氐丨賷丨丞 丕賱亘丿賳 賵 胤亘賯丞 爻丕卅丿丞 匕丕鬲 氐丨丞 禺賱賯賷丞 賵 禺賱賵賯賷丞 (賲囟亘賵胤丞) 賵 賲賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賰丕賳鬲 鬲賳賲賵 毓賲賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賲乇丕賯亘丞 賵 丕賱丨馗乇 賵 丕賱鬲丨乇賷賲丕鬲 丕賱氐丕乇賲丞. 賵 亘兀賳賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 賲丨囟 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 賵 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 乇睾賲 丕賱氐賲鬲 丕賱亘丕丿賷 賮賷 丕賱爻胤丨貙 賮賱賯丿 兀毓鬲亘乇鬲 賱賵賯鬲 胤賵賷賱 丕賱爻乇 丕賱廿毓馗賲 毓賳 亘賳賷 丕賱亘卮乇貙 賵 丿禺賱鬲 賰賱 賲賳 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 賮賷 丿賵丕賲丞 賲賳 丕賱賲胤丕乇丿丕鬲.
兀賲乇 兀禺乇 賯丿 賷亘丿賵丕 賱賷 賲賲賷夭丕 賷賰賲賳 賮賷 鬲睾鬲賷胤 賮賵賰賵 賱爻胤丨 賵丕爻毓 賲賳 丕賱賲氐丕丿乇 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 亘丿兀 賲賳 兀毓鬲乇丕賮丕鬲 丕賱賳爻丕賰 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賵 丕賱鬲賯乇賷乇丕鬲 丕賱胤亘賷丞 賵 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 孬賲 丕賱廿賷乇賵爻賷丞 丕賱卮乇賯賷丞 賵 賮乇賵賷丿... 賮賷賰賵賳 亘匕賱賰 賯丿 丕賳噩夭 賲丐賱賮 賱丕卅賯 亘賯丿乇 兀賲賰丕賳賷丕鬲賴 賱鬲賵賱賷賮 賵 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵 賴賷 丕賱卮賷 丕賱匕賷 兀毓鬲亘乇賴 毓賳 毓亘賯乇賷丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賮賰乇.
兀賵賱賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 賮賷 賲賳賴噩賷丞 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 賲毓丕賱噩丞 賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵 丕賱噩賳爻( 賵賴賲丕 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 兀賲乇賷賳 賲禺鬲賱賮賷賳貨 丨賷孬 鬲卮賷乇 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賱賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱禺胤丕亘賷丞 賵 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳賲鬲 丨賵賱 賯囟賷丞 丕賱噩賳爻貙 兀賲丕 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賮鬲卮賷乇 賱賱睾乇賷夭丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱亘丨鬲 ) 賮賴賵 賷毓賲賱 亘卮賰賱 鬲兀乇賷禺賷 鬲賵賱賷賮賷 賮賷 鬲丨賱賷賱賴 賱禺賱賯 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇貙 賮賳噩丿賴 賷夭丕賵噩 兀賵 賷乇亘胤 亘賷賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵 丕賱賲鬲毓丞貙 兀賵 丕賱噩賳爻/丕賱賯賲毓貙 兀賵 丕賱爻賱胤丞/丕賱賲鬲毓丞貙 兀賵 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞/丕賱賲鬲毓丞. 賲賳 噩賴丞 兀禺乇賶貙 賱睾丞 賮賵賰賵 鬲胤賮丨 兀丿亘賷丞 賵 爻賱丕爻丞 賵 賮賷 匕賱賰 丿賵乇 賰亘賷乇 賱丨賲賱 孬賯賱 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賰孬賷賮丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷毓丕賱噩賴丕.
丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱兀禺乇貙 鬲賵囟賷丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賲丨賷胤 亘丨孬丞 賵 毓丿賲 丕 賱禺賵囟 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓賲賷賲丕鬲 丕賱禺乇賯丕亍貙 賮賴賵 賷丨丿丿 賲毓丕賱噩鬲賴 賱賴匕賴 丕賱馗丕賴乇丞 賮賷 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 賮賯胤 賵 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 賮鬲乇丞 夭賲賳賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱賵爻胤丞 鬲賯乇賷亘丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳... 賲賵囟丨丕 兀賳 賯囟賷丞 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳鬲 賵 鬲賰丕孬乇鬲 鬲丨鬲 馗乇賵賮 爻賷丕爻賷丞 兀賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 亘兀賲鬲賷丕夭. 賮丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 賯丿 賯丕賲鬲 毓賱賶 賲乇賰亘 丕賱噩賳爻 賱丿毓賲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賴丕 亘禺賱賯 賰孬丕賮丞 爻賰丕賳賷丞 毓丕賲賱丞 氐丨賷丨丞 丕賱亘丿賳 賵 胤亘賯丞 爻丕卅丿丞 匕丕鬲 氐丨丞 禺賱賯賷丞 賵 禺賱賵賯賷丞 (賲囟亘賵胤丞) 賵 賲賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賰丕賳鬲 鬲賳賲賵 毓賲賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賲乇丕賯亘丞 賵 丕賱丨馗乇 賵 丕賱鬲丨乇賷賲丕鬲 丕賱氐丕乇賲丞. 賵 亘兀賳賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 賲丨囟 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 賵 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 乇睾賲 丕賱氐賲鬲 丕賱亘丕丿賷 賮賷 丕賱爻胤丨貙 賮賱賯丿 兀毓鬲亘乇鬲 賱賵賯鬲 胤賵賷賱 丕賱爻乇 丕賱廿毓馗賲 毓賳 亘賳賷 丕賱亘卮乇貙 賵 丿禺賱鬲 賰賱 賲賳 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 賮賷 丿賵丕賲丞 賲賳 丕賱賲胤丕乇丿丕鬲.
兀賲乇 兀禺乇 賯丿 賷亘丿賵丕 賱賷 賲賲賷夭丕 賷賰賲賳 賮賷 鬲睾鬲賷胤 賮賵賰賵 賱爻胤丨 賵丕爻毓 賲賳 丕賱賲氐丕丿乇 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 亘丿兀 賲賳 兀毓鬲乇丕賮丕鬲 丕賱賳爻丕賰 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賵 丕賱鬲賯乇賷乇丕鬲 丕賱胤亘賷丞 賵 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 孬賲 丕賱廿賷乇賵爻賷丞 丕賱卮乇賯賷丞 賵 賮乇賵賷丿... 賮賷賰賵賳 亘匕賱賰 賯丿 丕賳噩夭 賲丐賱賮 賱丕卅賯 亘賯丿乇 兀賲賰丕賳賷丕鬲賴 賱鬲賵賱賷賮 賵 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵 賴賷 丕賱卮賷 丕賱匕賷 兀毓鬲亘乇賴 毓賳 毓亘賯乇賷丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賮賰乇.
January 4, 2008
A much more difficult Foucault - and not nearly as interesting as his history of madness. He seems to take a long time to get started and does seem to repeat himself an awful lot.
All the same, the ideas around the difference between Western and Eastern notions of sexuality are well with thinking about. Essentially Eastern sexuality is an erotic thing - something understood through experience. Western sexuality is 'scientific' in the sense that it only makes sense once we can talk about it.
Freud is interesting in this context. Foucault makes a remarkable observation that psychoanalysis serves much the same function in the Western tradition as the Catholic confession did. We can only be sure our sexuality is 'normal' once we have been able to verbalise our concerns and have these assessed and approved by an expert. Foucault has occasional insights that really are mind blowing.
But this book is hard work and it is hard to see what point is served by making it quite so difficult.
All the same, the ideas around the difference between Western and Eastern notions of sexuality are well with thinking about. Essentially Eastern sexuality is an erotic thing - something understood through experience. Western sexuality is 'scientific' in the sense that it only makes sense once we can talk about it.
Freud is interesting in this context. Foucault makes a remarkable observation that psychoanalysis serves much the same function in the Western tradition as the Catholic confession did. We can only be sure our sexuality is 'normal' once we have been able to verbalise our concerns and have these assessed and approved by an expert. Foucault has occasional insights that really are mind blowing.
But this book is hard work and it is hard to see what point is served by making it quite so difficult.
Read
January 3, 2021 賮賵讴賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 爻毓蹖 丿丕乇賴 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 賲丕 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 爻丕賲丕賳賴鈥屬� 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴 乇賵 丕氐賱丕丨 讴賳賴 賵 丕夭 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 賲蹖鈥屬矩必迟� 趩乇丕 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丕賲蹖丕賱 噩賳爻蹖鈥屫ж� 爻乇讴賵亘 卮丿賴 蹖丕 丿乇 诏匕卮鬲賴 爻乇讴賵亘 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賵 趩乇丕 丕賳爻丕賳賽 丕賲乇賵夭 丕丨爻丕爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賴乇 趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕賲蹖丕賱 噩賳爻蹖鈥屫ж� 乇賵 亘乇賵夭 亘丿賴 賵 亘 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 鬲亘丿蹖賱 讴賳賴貙 丌夭丕丿蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇賴.
亘賳丕亘乇 賳馗乇 賮賵讴賵 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮 丕夭 禺賵丕爻鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賴鈥屫簇� 亘賴 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 乇賵夭 賵丕亘爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賳賴 賮賯胤 賲孬賱 亘丕賯蹖 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賴 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賵丕亘爻鬲賴 讴賴 丕氐賱丕賸 讴丕賲賱丕賸 夭蹖乇 爻賱胤賴鈥屰� 丌賳 丕爻鬲 賵 丨鬲蹖 馗賴賵乇 卮禺氐蹖 賲孬賱 賮乇賵蹖丿 賳賴 氐乇賮丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賳亘賵睾 卮禺氐 丕賵貙 讴賴 賱丕夭賲賴鈥屰� 丿賵乇丕賳 爻蹖丕爻蹖 禺丕氐 禺賵丿 丕賵爻鬲. 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 亘丿賳賴鈥屰� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 乇丕 亘賴 爻賲鬲 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 蹖丕 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丿蹖诏乇 爻賵賯 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賵 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 賲丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳鈥屭┵� 亘賴 丕禺賱丕賯貙 賲匕賴亘 蹖丕 賳诏乇卮 禺賵丿賲丕賳 賲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕卮丿 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丿乇 丿爻鬲 賯丿乇鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丕 亘賴 噩丕蹖 丿乇丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賳 丨賯 賲乇诏貙 賲丿蹖乇蹖鬲 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 乇丕 亘賴 毓賴丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 賵 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丌賳鈥屭┵� 賳賯卮 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴鈥屫堌ㄛ� 丕蹖賮丕 讴賳丿貙 賮乇丿 賮乇丿 賲丕 乇丕 亘賴 爻賲鬲 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 爻賵賯 丿丕丿賴 讴賴 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴鈥屰� 賲丕 亘禺卮 亘爻蹖丕乇 诏爻鬲乇丿賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賴賵蹖鬲鈥屬呚з� 乇丕 鬲卮讴蹖賱 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕 賵 丕賮讴丕乇 賲丕 乇丿蹖 丕夭 丌賳 乇丕 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 賵 賲丕 乇丕 亘賴 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賵丕賲蹖鈥屫ж必� 鬲丕 丨丿蹖 讴賴 丨爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 丨鬲蹖 亘丕蹖丿 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 乇蹖夭鬲乇蹖賳 丕賮讴丕乇 噩賳爻蹖鈥屬呚з� 亘賴 亘丨孬 亘賳卮蹖賳蹖賲 賵 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏ж� 賮蹖賱賲鈥屬囏� 賵 賴乇 丕孬乇 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘賴 丌賳 乇噩賵毓 讴賳蹖賲. 賮賵讴賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 丿賱蹖賱 丕蹖賳鈥屬囐呝� 倬乇丨乇賮蹖 賳賴 爻乇讴賵亘 倬蹖卮蹖賳 丕賳爻丕賳 讴賴 讴丕賲賱丕賸 禺賵丕爻鬲 賯丿乇鬲 賲賵噩賵丿 丕爻鬲 賵 賲孬丕賱鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賳诏乇卮鈥屬囏й屬呚з� 乇丕 夭蹖乇賵乇賵 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丿乇 丌禺乇 丨丿爻 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀� 賴蹖趩 亘毓蹖丿 賳蹖爻鬲 丌蹖賳丿诏丕賳 亘賴 賳爻賱 讴賳賵賳蹖 亘禺賳丿賳丿 賵 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘倬乇爻賳丿 趩乇丕 丕蹖賳 賳爻賱 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 丿乇 賴乇 趩蹖夭 乇丿蹖 噩賳爻蹖 亘賴鈥屫ж池� 賵 賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賴賲丕賳鈥屬傌� 毓噩蹖亘 禺賵丕賴蹖賲 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲丕.
亘賳丕亘乇 賳馗乇 賮賵讴賵 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮 丕夭 禺賵丕爻鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賴鈥屫簇� 亘賴 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 乇賵夭 賵丕亘爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲 賵 賳賴 賮賯胤 賲孬賱 亘丕賯蹖 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 亘賴 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賵丕亘爻鬲賴 讴賴 丕氐賱丕賸 讴丕賲賱丕賸 夭蹖乇 爻賱胤賴鈥屰� 丌賳 丕爻鬲 賵 丨鬲蹖 馗賴賵乇 卮禺氐蹖 賲孬賱 賮乇賵蹖丿 賳賴 氐乇賮丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賳亘賵睾 卮禺氐 丕賵貙 讴賴 賱丕夭賲賴鈥屰� 丿賵乇丕賳 爻蹖丕爻蹖 禺丕氐 禺賵丿 丕賵爻鬲. 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 賯丿乇鬲 亘丿賳賴鈥屰� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 乇丕 亘賴 爻賲鬲 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 蹖丕 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丿蹖诏乇 爻賵賯 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賵 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 賲丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳鈥屭┵� 亘賴 丕禺賱丕賯貙 賲匕賴亘 蹖丕 賳诏乇卮 禺賵丿賲丕賳 賲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕卮丿 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丿乇 丿爻鬲 賯丿乇鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 毓氐乇 賲丕 亘賴 噩丕蹖 丿乇丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賳 丨賯 賲乇诏貙 賲丿蹖乇蹖鬲 丨賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 乇丕 亘賴 毓賴丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 賵 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丌賳鈥屭┵� 賳賯卮 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴鈥屫堌ㄛ� 丕蹖賮丕 讴賳丿貙 賮乇丿 賮乇丿 賲丕 乇丕 亘賴 爻賲鬲 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 爻賵賯 丿丕丿賴 讴賴 爻讴爻賵丕賱蹖鬲賴鈥屰� 賲丕 亘禺卮 亘爻蹖丕乇 诏爻鬲乇丿賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賴賵蹖鬲鈥屬呚з� 乇丕 鬲卮讴蹖賱 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕 賵 丕賮讴丕乇 賲丕 乇丿蹖 丕夭 丌賳 乇丕 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 賵 賲丕 乇丕 亘賴 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賵丕賲蹖鈥屫ж必� 鬲丕 丨丿蹖 讴賴 丨爻 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 丨鬲蹖 亘丕蹖丿 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 乇蹖夭鬲乇蹖賳 丕賮讴丕乇 噩賳爻蹖鈥屬呚з� 亘賴 亘丨孬 亘賳卮蹖賳蹖賲 賵 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏ж� 賮蹖賱賲鈥屬囏� 賵 賴乇 丕孬乇 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘賴 丌賳 乇噩賵毓 讴賳蹖賲. 賮賵讴賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 丿賱蹖賱 丕蹖賳鈥屬囐呝� 倬乇丨乇賮蹖 賳賴 爻乇讴賵亘 倬蹖卮蹖賳 丕賳爻丕賳 讴賴 讴丕賲賱丕賸 禺賵丕爻鬲 賯丿乇鬲 賲賵噩賵丿 丕爻鬲 賵 賲孬丕賱鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賳诏乇卮鈥屬囏й屬呚з� 乇丕 夭蹖乇賵乇賵 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丿乇 丌禺乇 丨丿爻 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀� 賴蹖趩 亘毓蹖丿 賳蹖爻鬲 丌蹖賳丿诏丕賳 亘賴 賳爻賱 讴賳賵賳蹖 亘禺賳丿賳丿 賵 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘倬乇爻賳丿 趩乇丕 丕蹖賳 賳爻賱 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 丿乇 賴乇 趩蹖夭 乇丿蹖 噩賳爻蹖 亘賴鈥屫ж池� 賵 賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳鈥屬囏� 賴賲丕賳鈥屬傌� 毓噩蹖亘 禺賵丕賴蹖賲 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲丕.
January 19, 2013
Disappointing, esp. after reading a masterpiece like Discipline and Punish. This book consists of a serious of loosely connected, and individually incomplete meditations on various topics, that are intended to serve (not very successfully, imo) as a prolgomena to a history of sexuality. Indeed, the project was abandoned (what was eventually publishd as vols. 2-3 was part of a newly and differently conceived project begun several years later), proving that the current work was a failure.
It should not have been published, and one can assume that MF may have felt the pressure to come out with another book fast to capitalize on the success of D&P.
Parts I-III contain suggestive hints on the relation of sex in the formation of the Self (whereas for Freud, the ego is constructed at the boundary between desire/id and reality, for Foucault the Self is constructed at the boundary where superego (i.e., the administrative gaze of Power/Knowledge) inscribes itself upon the body. This is a brilliant conception, and a fascinating answer to the inherited problem of the transcendental ego, but it is really only adumbrated in these chapters.
Part IV deals with method, and is long and dull, and can be "skimmed".
Part V then takes the topic of sex in the direction of MF's new interest in biopower, which was then the topic of the Coll猫ge de France lectures of these years (1976-1979), before he turned back, at the end of his life, both in the lectures of 1981-1984 and in vols 2-3 of Sexuality, to the problem of the constuction and the hermeneutics of the Self -- a topic that Dreyfus-Rabinow also discuss in detail at the end of their study...
It should not have been published, and one can assume that MF may have felt the pressure to come out with another book fast to capitalize on the success of D&P.
Parts I-III contain suggestive hints on the relation of sex in the formation of the Self (whereas for Freud, the ego is constructed at the boundary between desire/id and reality, for Foucault the Self is constructed at the boundary where superego (i.e., the administrative gaze of Power/Knowledge) inscribes itself upon the body. This is a brilliant conception, and a fascinating answer to the inherited problem of the transcendental ego, but it is really only adumbrated in these chapters.
Part IV deals with method, and is long and dull, and can be "skimmed".
Part V then takes the topic of sex in the direction of MF's new interest in biopower, which was then the topic of the Coll猫ge de France lectures of these years (1976-1979), before he turned back, at the end of his life, both in the lectures of 1981-1984 and in vols 2-3 of Sexuality, to the problem of the constuction and the hermeneutics of the Self -- a topic that Dreyfus-Rabinow also discuss in detail at the end of their study...
February 15, 2008
um. what can i say about this book that hasnt already been said? i read it my second year of college and it blew my mind, and in a good way, unlike kant, who made me cry actual tears in overwhelming frustration. foucaults ability to trace the burgeoning relationship between science and sexuality, the changes in the ways of perceiving a womans body, the notion of the creation of (a) sexuality, and, of course, the dynamics of power and discourse, are nothing short of brilliant in this classic study of poststructuralism.
one dissatisfaction, which is true of the majority of foucaults works: he implies, sometimes more vehemently than others, that everything starts in the modern era, which is, as known to numerous scholars, simply untrue.
i wish he were alive. id buy him a beer and beg him to love me, even though i am lacking the proper sexual organs that he was attracted to.
i love me some foucault.
one dissatisfaction, which is true of the majority of foucaults works: he implies, sometimes more vehemently than others, that everything starts in the modern era, which is, as known to numerous scholars, simply untrue.
i wish he were alive. id buy him a beer and beg him to love me, even though i am lacking the proper sexual organs that he was attracted to.
i love me some foucault.
May 9, 2017
丿乇丕爻丞 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 鬲丨賱賷賱賷丞 鬲賳丕賵賱鬲 賰賷賮賷丞 鬲卮賰賱 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱噩賳爻 賲賳匕 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 丨鬲賶 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 貙 賵賰賷賮 鬲囟丕毓賮鬲 丕賱賳賯丕卮丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 噩毓賱鬲賴 賲賵囟賵毓丕賸 賱賴丕 ( 丿禺賵賱 丕賱馗賵丕賴乇 丕賱禺丕氐丞 亘丨賷丕丞 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷 廿賱賶 爻賷丕賯 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞.) 賵毓賳 丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱鬲賷 噩毓賱鬲賳丕 賳毓胤賷 賯賷賲丞 鬲賰丕丿 鬲賰賵賳 禺乇丕賮賷丞 賱賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 鬲馗賳 亘兀賳賴丕 鬲賳鬲噩賴丕.
廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱爻賱胤丞 亘丕賱噩賳爻 賵丿賵乇賴丕 賮賷 鬲賲賰賷賳 囟賱丕賱丕鬲 賲賳賴噩賷丞 賰賲夭賱賯 賲賳 賲夭丕賱賯 廿乇丕丿丞 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞. 賰賲丕 賷胤賵賮 賮賵賰賵 毓亘乇 賲賵丕賯賮 賵禺賱賮賷丕鬲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賵丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丿賵乇賴丕 賮賷 禺賱賯 賲賮丕賴賷賲 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賮賷 賲噩丕賱 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞. 賲毓 毓賳丕賷鬲賴 亘噩賷賳丕賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱賮乇丿 賵 兀乇賰賷賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賳賮爻賷貙 賵賲爻丕賴賲鬲賴 賮賷 禺賱賯 亘賳賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賮賷 丕賱爻賷丕賯 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷 亘睾賷丞 賮賴賲 賵丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘 爻賱賵賰 丕賱賮乇丿 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲貙 賵廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱丌賱賷丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲夭毓賲 亘廿丿丕乇丞 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賵丕賱廿卮乇丕賮 毓賱賷賴丕.
賮賱爻賮丞 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賲孬賷乇丞 賵鬲爻鬲丨賯 賰賱 丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 賵丕賱賳馗乇 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 卮丕卅賰 賮賷 亘丕胤賳賴 賵賷孬賷乇 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞.
廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱爻賱胤丞 亘丕賱噩賳爻 賵丿賵乇賴丕 賮賷 鬲賲賰賷賳 囟賱丕賱丕鬲 賲賳賴噩賷丞 賰賲夭賱賯 賲賳 賲夭丕賱賯 廿乇丕丿丞 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞. 賰賲丕 賷胤賵賮 賮賵賰賵 毓亘乇 賲賵丕賯賮 賵禺賱賮賷丕鬲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賵丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丿賵乇賴丕 賮賷 禺賱賯 賲賮丕賴賷賲 賵鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賮賷 賲噩丕賱 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞. 賲毓 毓賳丕賷鬲賴 亘噩賷賳丕賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱賮乇丿 賵 兀乇賰賷賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賳賮爻賷貙 賵賲爻丕賴賲鬲賴 賮賷 禺賱賯 亘賳賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賮賷 丕賱爻賷丕賯 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷 亘睾賷丞 賮賴賲 賵丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘 爻賱賵賰 丕賱賮乇丿 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲貙 賵廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱丌賱賷丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲夭毓賲 亘廿丿丕乇丞 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賵丕賱廿卮乇丕賮 毓賱賷賴丕.
賮賱爻賮丞 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賲孬賷乇丞 賵鬲爻鬲丨賯 賰賱 丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 賵丕賱賳馗乇 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 卮丕卅賰 賮賷 亘丕胤賳賴 賵賷孬賷乇 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞.
December 26, 2023
The first volume of a History of Sexuality, which its author will not have time to complete, The Will to Know, remains fascinating. All that remains is an introduction.
Foucault, through the prism of sexuality, conducts a study that relates to sociology, philosophy, History, and many other fields, all at the same time. This introduction is the specificity of Foucault; from what I know of him, he has an incredible knowledge of all these disciplines, which allows him to carry out his work with the perspective that each of these brings, the one enabling nuance that of the other.
He first attempts to demonstrate that the sexuality of a people had adapted to its needs; ours would be dominated by a "will to know" of power. One of the examples allowing him to support this thesis is that of confession, which is omnipresent in all areas of our life, a growing phenomenon since the Church, in the 13th century, asked its subjects to kneel once a year to confess all their sins. We realize that this need to confess had prepared to take root in our way of life for a long time. There are many justifications to push us to confess. One of the most fashionable, since the popularization of psychology, is the confession allowing, not to offer to the one to whom we confess our truth, but to allow the one there, through our confession and what it engenders, to offer us our reality, which had refused to us at first glance, which requires an external interpretation to revealed; we are at the point where, as Foucault says so well, people rent their ears, to listen to us speak and speak about us.
You will have understood, and you will have doubted it even before reading me; this History of sexuality is in no way a history of sexual practices - although they had addressed it as a History of perversion or a history of eroticism. Sexuality and how we consider it reflects how our society organizes.
But this first volume only sets out the work's relevance; it needs to be more in-depth. It is only there to teach us to speak, or at least to understand, the language that Foucault uses in the following books and allow him the precision he needs to evoke such complex subjects; not teaching us this language would relegate us to incomprehension or the abstract, at best, to misinterpretation, at worst. Such subjects require painting with tiny brushes, not huge paint rollers.
It is a fascinating first volume and already very informative, but it only exists to prepare the following ones. It is insufficient in itself or, at least, can only express its full potential by reading the following.
Foucault, through the prism of sexuality, conducts a study that relates to sociology, philosophy, History, and many other fields, all at the same time. This introduction is the specificity of Foucault; from what I know of him, he has an incredible knowledge of all these disciplines, which allows him to carry out his work with the perspective that each of these brings, the one enabling nuance that of the other.
He first attempts to demonstrate that the sexuality of a people had adapted to its needs; ours would be dominated by a "will to know" of power. One of the examples allowing him to support this thesis is that of confession, which is omnipresent in all areas of our life, a growing phenomenon since the Church, in the 13th century, asked its subjects to kneel once a year to confess all their sins. We realize that this need to confess had prepared to take root in our way of life for a long time. There are many justifications to push us to confess. One of the most fashionable, since the popularization of psychology, is the confession allowing, not to offer to the one to whom we confess our truth, but to allow the one there, through our confession and what it engenders, to offer us our reality, which had refused to us at first glance, which requires an external interpretation to revealed; we are at the point where, as Foucault says so well, people rent their ears, to listen to us speak and speak about us.
You will have understood, and you will have doubted it even before reading me; this History of sexuality is in no way a history of sexual practices - although they had addressed it as a History of perversion or a history of eroticism. Sexuality and how we consider it reflects how our society organizes.
But this first volume only sets out the work's relevance; it needs to be more in-depth. It is only there to teach us to speak, or at least to understand, the language that Foucault uses in the following books and allow him the precision he needs to evoke such complex subjects; not teaching us this language would relegate us to incomprehension or the abstract, at best, to misinterpretation, at worst. Such subjects require painting with tiny brushes, not huge paint rollers.
It is a fascinating first volume and already very informative, but it only exists to prepare the following ones. It is insufficient in itself or, at least, can only express its full potential by reading the following.
November 22, 2021
Clarification for anyone considering this book based off of the title: Foucault was a philosopher, and The History of Sexuality is therefore far less a 'history' than a genealogical exploration of sexuality as a construct and a technology of power.
Further developing the thesis first presented in his 1975 book , Foucault in this first volume introduces to readers the idea of biopower, which in simpler terms equals power exercised through discipline (directed at individual bodies) and regulation (of the wider population). Ultimately, what the guy tries to get at here is that the last few centuries' worth of increase in discourses around sexuality, sex, and the body as an object that indulges and is made up of them is not about liberation, but rather further codification, classification, and social control.
This idea is quite interesting when read against the everyday politics of neoliberalism, but much less so in terms of the language Foucault expresses it in. In fact, in context of how given he is here to dense academese and near-ceaseless repetitions, I would recommend skipping the first four sections and diving straight into the (quite excellent) final essay, "Right of Death and Power over Life" 鈥� read it in conjunction with Discipline and Punish and his lectures on Governmentality (1978) instead. More importantly, read it in light of all the criticism that follows, especially from the Global South: I for one think it is incredibly French of him to talk of the historical construction of sexuality in relation to power without once mentioning colonialism.
Further developing the thesis first presented in his 1975 book , Foucault in this first volume introduces to readers the idea of biopower, which in simpler terms equals power exercised through discipline (directed at individual bodies) and regulation (of the wider population). Ultimately, what the guy tries to get at here is that the last few centuries' worth of increase in discourses around sexuality, sex, and the body as an object that indulges and is made up of them is not about liberation, but rather further codification, classification, and social control.
This idea is quite interesting when read against the everyday politics of neoliberalism, but much less so in terms of the language Foucault expresses it in. In fact, in context of how given he is here to dense academese and near-ceaseless repetitions, I would recommend skipping the first four sections and diving straight into the (quite excellent) final essay, "Right of Death and Power over Life" 鈥� read it in conjunction with Discipline and Punish and his lectures on Governmentality (1978) instead. More importantly, read it in light of all the criticism that follows, especially from the Global South: I for one think it is incredibly French of him to talk of the historical construction of sexuality in relation to power without once mentioning colonialism.
April 26, 2017
::::: )))))))) he literally writes like a pretentious douche
September 7, 2018
Having finished all the books I had to read, I finally got around to reading 鈥渢he History of Sexuality鈥�, a book I have been meaning to read for years. Quite frankly, I was totally knocked out by it. Foucault begins by describing the way most of us have understood the history of sexuality over the last three hundred years, as a period of growing repression finally leading to liberation from the second half of the twentieth century onward, and then he starts to reassess this view and reinterpret the period from a completely different position. A really good intro that gave me a clearer picture of what he meant by biopower and had me re-evaluating my own thoughts in so many areas, from psychoanalysis to racism. It may seem to be easy to read, but it is not an easy read, and I needed a couple of commentaries to help clear up parts of it. The gain was certainly worth the pain.
January 12, 2011
I am a philosopher, and (analytic) philosophers do not consider Foucault to be a philosopher. I read this b/c I was part of an interdisciplinary class in which it was assigned. I'm glad I have now read something by Foucault, but I did not find him to be very interesting, and his confusions were a constant bother to me. His favorite method of argument is to find an example or an anecdote and treat it as though it shows something. Generalizations are constantly being made from mere illustrations. I'm not sure what all his fans see in him. I guess he stokes in people a sense of suspicion or cynicism that things are not what they seem. Some people have a temperament for thinking like that. You can't prove it or disprove it. It's not to my taste, I guess.
April 22, 2017
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 氐毓亘 賵賱賲 鬲毓噩亘賳賷 胤乇賷賯丞 賲賷卮賷賱 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 卮乇丨 兀賮賰丕乇賴貙 賵賰丕賳 亘廿賲賰丕賳賴 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 兀賰孬乇 賵囟賵丨賸丕 賵丕禺鬲氐丕乇賸丕..賱丕 兀丿乇賷 廿賳 賰丕賳鬲 賴匕賴 胤乇賷賯鬲賴 兀賵 兀賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 (丿丕乇 丕賱鬲賳賵賷乇) 賴賷 賲賳 兀賵丨鬲 賱賷 亘匕賱賰.
鈥ㄙ娯簇必� 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘 賲賳匕 馗賴賵乇 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 丕賱賮賷賰鬲賵乇賷丞 賷購毓丕賲賱 賰兀賲乇 禺丕氐 亘賷賳 丕賱夭賵噩賷賳 丕賱卮乇毓賷賷賳 兀賲丕 賲丕賷賯毓 禺丕乇噩 賴匕丕 丕賱賳胤丕賯 賮賴賵 鬲丨鬲 "丕賱賯賲毓"貙 賱賰賳 賲毓 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕鬲噩賴 丕賱賮賷賰鬲賵乇賷賵賳 賲賳 "丕賱氐賳賮 丕賱丌禺乇" 廿賱賶 賲爻丕乇丕鬲 兀禺乇賶 賰亘賷賵鬲 丕賱丿毓丕乇丞 賵丕賱胤亘賷亘 丕賱賳賮爻賷. 賵亘毓丿賴丕 馗賴乇 賮乇賵賷丿 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 -亘毓丿賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱兀胤亘丕亍 丕賱賳賮爻賷賵賳 賷毓鬲匕乇賵賳 廿匕丕 匕賰乇賵丕 丕賱噩賳爻 賮賷 丨丿賷孬賴賲- 賷鬲丨丿孬 亘胤乇賷賯丞 氐乇賷丨丞 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻. 賵賷鬲爻丕卅賱貙 賱賲 賰丕賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賲丿丕賳賸丕 賵賲乇鬲亘胤賸丕 丿丕卅賲賸丕 亘丕賱禺胤賷卅丞責 賵賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賰丕賳 賱賴丕 丿賵乇 賮賷 賯賲毓 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丕賱鬲丨賰賲 亘賴貙 廿賱丕 兀賳 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賰丕賳鬲 毓賰爻 匕賱賰. 鈥ㄙ堎冑娰� 爻丕賴賲 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賮賷 丕賱賰賳賷爻丞 賮賷 賮鬲丨 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賱賱賳賯丕卮 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻貙 孬賲 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳賴 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱氐丨丞 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱兀爻乇貙 孬賲 丕賱噩賳爻 毓賳丿 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賵丕賱賲乇丕賴賯賷賳 賰賵賳賴 賯囟賷丞 賴丕賲丞 賱丿賶 丕賱兀賴丕賱賷 賵賲丕賷鬲亘毓賴 匕賱賰 賲賳 賮氐賱 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷賳 賮賷 丕賱賲丿丕乇爻. 孬賲 賰賷賮 兀丿賶 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻 廿賱賶 賮鬲丨 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賱賱賳賯丕卮 毓賳賴 亘卮賰賱 兀賵爻毓. 孬賲 乇賮囟 丕賱廿賳丨乇丕賮丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賰賵賳賴丕 賱丕鬲丐丿賷 廿賱賶 丕賱禺氐賵亘丞 賮兀賱丨賯鬲 亘丕賱兀賲乇丕囟 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞.
兀丿賶 鬲禺賵賷賮 丕賱兀賴丕賱賷 賲賳 噩賳爻 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 廿賱賶 夭乇毓 爻賵亍 丕賱馗賳 亘兀胤賮丕賱賴賲 賵丕賱卮賰 亘賴賲貙 賰賲丕 兀丿鬲 丕賱賲胤丕乇丿丕鬲 賱賱賲賲丕乇爻丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 廿賱賶 鬲噩乇賷賲 "丕賱爻丿賵賲賷丞" 兀賲丕賲 丕賱賯囟丕亍 賵乇亘胤 賲賲丕乇爻賴丕 亘賲丕囟賷賴 賵胤賮賵賱鬲賴貙 賵亘毓丿 匕賱賰 兀禺匕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 毓賱賶 毓丕鬲賯賴丕 丕賱賮丨氐 丕賱胤亘賷 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賯氐丕亍 丕賱賳賮爻賷 賲賲丕 兀丿賶 廿賱賶 丕夭丿賷丕丿 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丨賵賱 丕賱噩賳爻 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賱匕丞. 鈥�
兀賲丕 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賮賱賲 賷亘丿兀賴丕 丕賱睾乇亘貙 亘賱 賰丕賳鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賲賵噩賵丿丞 爻丕亘賯賸丕 賮賷 丕賱賷丕亘丕賳 賵丕賱氐賷賳 賵丕賱賴賳丿 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷丞 "賰賮賳 廿亘丕丨賷| 噩賳爻賷"貙 賱賰賳 丕賱睾乇亘 賷禺鬲賱賮 賮賷 匕賱賰 賰賵賳賴 亘丿兀 亘丕賱廿毓鬲乇丕賮 丕賱賰賳爻賷 賱賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丨鬲賶 賵氐賱 廿賱賶 "丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱噩賳爻賷".
孬賲 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 禺氐丕卅氐 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞: 鈥ㄘз勜官勜з傌� 丕賱爻賱亘賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞: 丕賱噩賳爻 丿丕卅賲賸丕 鬲丨鬲 爻賷胤乇丞 賲賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞. 鈥ㄙ佖必� 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞: 賰賷賮 鬲囟毓 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賷丿賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱噩賳爻 亘氐賮丞 賯丕賳賵賳賷丞.
丨賱賯丞 丕賱賲賲賳賵毓: 賰賷賮 鬲賯賲毓 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱噩賳爻.鈥�
賲賳胤賯 丕賱乇賯丕亘丞: 賲丕賴賵 睾賷乇 賲爻賲賵丨貙 賵賲丕賷噩賵夭 丕賱鬲賰賱賲 毓賳賴貙 賵賲丕 鬲賱睾賷賴 丕賱乇賯丕亘丞.
鈥ㄙ堌� 丕賱鬲噩賴賷夭丕鬲: 鬲丿禺賱丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 毓賱賶 丕賱噩賳爻 賲賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲爻鬲賵賷丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱丿賵賱丞 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞貙 賲賳 丕賱兀賲賷乇 廿賱賶 丕賱兀亘.
孬賲 賷卮乇丨 賰賷賮 兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賱丕 鬲鬲毓賱賯 賮賯胤 亘爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲 賵丕賱兀噩賴夭丞貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賷噩亘 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳丿乇爻 毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱賲賳賴噩賷丞貙 賰兀賳 賳毓乇賮 鬲賯爻賷賲丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞.. 賲賳 亘賷丿賴 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丿丕禺賱 賳爻賯 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 (丕賱乇噩丕賱貙 丕賱亘丕賱睾賵賳貙 丕賱兀賴賱貙 丕賱兀胤亘丕亍) 賵賲賳 賴賵 丕賱賲丨乇賵賲 賲賳賴丕 (丕賱賳爻丕亍貙 丕賱賲乇丕賴賯賵賳貙 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱貙 丕賱賲乇囟賶..).鈥ㄘ� 賰賷賮 爻丕賴賲鬲 兀乇亘毓丞 賲噩賲賵毓丕鬲 丕爻鬲乇丕鬲賷噩賷丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲胤賵賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞/
鈥ㄙ�- 廿賱亘丕爻 噩爻丿 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱亘賵爻 丕賱賴爻鬲乇丞: 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賰賵賳 噩爻丿賴丕 賰賲卮亘毓 賱賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞.
佗- 廿賱亘丕爻 丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷 賱賱胤賮賱 丕賱賱亘賵爻 丕賱鬲乇亘賵賷: 賴賲 禺丕乇噩 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丿丕禺賱賴 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲貙 賱兀賳賴賲 賯丿 賷賳爻丕賯賵賳 廿賱賶 賳卮丕胤 噩賳爻賷.
伲- 廿賱亘丕爻 丕賱爻賱賵賰賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲賳丕爻賱賷丞 丕賱賱亘賵爻 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷: 賮乇囟 丕賱賯賷賵丿 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 兀賵 丕賱囟乇賷亘賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱夭賵噩賷賳
.鈥ㄙ�- 廿賱亘丕爻 丕賱賱匕丞 丕賱卮丕匕丞 賱亘賵爻 丕賱賲乇囟 丕賱賳賮爻賷: 兀賷 賲賲丕乇爻丕鬲 卮丕匕丞 賴賷 兀賲乇丕囟 賳賮爻賷丞.
鬲丨丿孬 賲賷卮賷賱 賮賵賰賵 賰賷賮 兀賳 丌賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賯賲毓 賴匕賴 亘丿兀鬲 鬲鬲乇丕禺賶 賲賳 亘毓丿 兀賳 丕亘鬲毓丿鬲 毓賳 丕賱賰賳賷爻丞貙 賮兀氐亘丨鬲 賯囟賷丞 丿賵賱丞 賵賱賷爻鬲 賲噩乇丿 賯囟賷丞 毓賱賲丕賳賷丞 賱兀賳賴丕 鬲鬲胤賵乇 毓賱賶 孬賱丕孬丞 賲乇丕丨賱: 賲丨賵乇 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱胤賮賱貙 賵賲丨賵乇 丕賱胤亘貙 賵賲丨賵乇 丕賱賳賲賵 丕賱爻賰丕賳賷. 兀賲丕 廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲 丕賱廿卮乇丕賮 丕賱噩賳爻賷 賮賱賲 鬲購賲丕乇爻 毓賱賶 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賮賯賷乇丞 -毓賱賶 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲賵賯毓- 賵賱賰賳賴丕 亘丿兀鬲 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 丨賷孬 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 賱丿賷賴丕 丕賱鬲夭丕賲丕鬲 夭賵噩賷丞 賵毓丕卅賱賷丞貙 賵丨賷孬 丕賱胤賮賱 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷 丕賱賲丨丕胤 亘丕賱禺丿賲 賵丕賱賲鬲賵賯毓 兀賳 賷丨賮馗 賱毓丕卅賱鬲賴 賵賱胤亘賯鬲賴 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 匕乇賷丞 爻賱賷賲丞. 賱匕賱賰貙 賵賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 匕乇賷鬲賴丕 賵亘賯丕卅賴丕貙 丕賴鬲賲鬲 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 亘丕賱鬲噩賴賷夭丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丿賲 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱廿乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞 "賱賱丿賱丕賱丞 毓賱賶 夭賵丕噩丕鬲 丕賱賳亘賱丕亍" 賴賵 丕賱賵爻賷賱丞 賱賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賲賷夭 丕賱賳賵毓賷 賱賱噩爻丿.
賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 賮賵賰賵 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱兀亘賵賷丞 賲鬲賲孬賱丞 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賴賱 丕賱賲賱賰賷 賱丿賷賴 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 毓賱賶 丨賷丕丞 賵賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕爻. 兀賲丕 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱乇丕賴賳 兀氐亘丨鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賲鬲賲乇賰夭丞 毓賱賶 丕賱噩爻丿 "亘賷賵- 爻賱胤丞" 賵兀氐亘丨 賷購毓丕賲賱 賰丌賱丞 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿 賵囟亘胤 丕賱馗賵丕賴乇 丕賱爻賰丕賳賷丞. 賮噩賳爻賳丞 丕賱胤賮賱 賵賴爻鬲乇丞 丕賱賳爻丕亍 賰丕賳丕 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱鬲賳馗賷賲 賵丕賱囟亘胤貙 賵賰匕賱賰 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賵賱丕丿丞 賵丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丕鬲 丕賱卮丕匕丞 賰丕賳 丕賱鬲丿禺賱 賮賷賴丕 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱爻賰丕賳賷. 兀賲丕 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 "丕賱丿賲" 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 乇賲夭丕 賱賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞貙 賵囟乇亘 賲孬丕賱 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 丕賱賳丕夭賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇賷賯 丕賱丿賲丕亍 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 賳賯丕亍 丕賱丿賲 賵丕賳鬲氐丕乇 丕賱毓乇賯.
亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇 賷丿毓賵 賮賵賰賵 廿賱賶 丕賱賳賯丕卮 丨賵賱 丕賱噩賳爻 丨鬲賶 賳鬲賰爻亘 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞貙 賮賰賱賲丕 鬲丨丿孬賳丕 毓賳賴 兀賰孬乇 賰賱賲丕 兀氐亘丨賳丕 兀賰孬乇 鬲丨乇乇賸丕.
鈥ㄙ娯簇必� 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘 賲賳匕 馗賴賵乇 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 丕賱賮賷賰鬲賵乇賷丞 賷購毓丕賲賱 賰兀賲乇 禺丕氐 亘賷賳 丕賱夭賵噩賷賳 丕賱卮乇毓賷賷賳 兀賲丕 賲丕賷賯毓 禺丕乇噩 賴匕丕 丕賱賳胤丕賯 賮賴賵 鬲丨鬲 "丕賱賯賲毓"貙 賱賰賳 賲毓 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕鬲噩賴 丕賱賮賷賰鬲賵乇賷賵賳 賲賳 "丕賱氐賳賮 丕賱丌禺乇" 廿賱賶 賲爻丕乇丕鬲 兀禺乇賶 賰亘賷賵鬲 丕賱丿毓丕乇丞 賵丕賱胤亘賷亘 丕賱賳賮爻賷. 賵亘毓丿賴丕 馗賴乇 賮乇賵賷丿 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 -亘毓丿賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱兀胤亘丕亍 丕賱賳賮爻賷賵賳 賷毓鬲匕乇賵賳 廿匕丕 匕賰乇賵丕 丕賱噩賳爻 賮賷 丨丿賷孬賴賲- 賷鬲丨丿孬 亘胤乇賷賯丞 氐乇賷丨丞 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻. 賵賷鬲爻丕卅賱貙 賱賲 賰丕賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賲丿丕賳賸丕 賵賲乇鬲亘胤賸丕 丿丕卅賲賸丕 亘丕賱禺胤賷卅丞責 賵賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賰丕賳 賱賴丕 丿賵乇 賮賷 賯賲毓 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丕賱鬲丨賰賲 亘賴貙 廿賱丕 兀賳 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賰丕賳鬲 毓賰爻 匕賱賰. 鈥ㄙ堎冑娰� 爻丕賴賲 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賮賷 丕賱賰賳賷爻丞 賮賷 賮鬲丨 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賱賱賳賯丕卮 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻貙 孬賲 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳賴 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱氐丨丞 賵鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱兀爻乇貙 孬賲 丕賱噩賳爻 毓賳丿 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賵丕賱賲乇丕賴賯賷賳 賰賵賳賴 賯囟賷丞 賴丕賲丞 賱丿賶 丕賱兀賴丕賱賷 賵賲丕賷鬲亘毓賴 匕賱賰 賲賳 賮氐賱 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷賳 賮賷 丕賱賲丿丕乇爻. 孬賲 賰賷賮 兀丿賶 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻 廿賱賶 賮鬲丨 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賱賱賳賯丕卮 毓賳賴 亘卮賰賱 兀賵爻毓. 孬賲 乇賮囟 丕賱廿賳丨乇丕賮丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賰賵賳賴丕 賱丕鬲丐丿賷 廿賱賶 丕賱禺氐賵亘丞 賮兀賱丨賯鬲 亘丕賱兀賲乇丕囟 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞.
兀丿賶 鬲禺賵賷賮 丕賱兀賴丕賱賷 賲賳 噩賳爻 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 廿賱賶 夭乇毓 爻賵亍 丕賱馗賳 亘兀胤賮丕賱賴賲 賵丕賱卮賰 亘賴賲貙 賰賲丕 兀丿鬲 丕賱賲胤丕乇丿丕鬲 賱賱賲賲丕乇爻丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 廿賱賶 鬲噩乇賷賲 "丕賱爻丿賵賲賷丞" 兀賲丕賲 丕賱賯囟丕亍 賵乇亘胤 賲賲丕乇爻賴丕 亘賲丕囟賷賴 賵胤賮賵賱鬲賴貙 賵亘毓丿 匕賱賰 兀禺匕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 毓賱賶 毓丕鬲賯賴丕 丕賱賮丨氐 丕賱胤亘賷 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賯氐丕亍 丕賱賳賮爻賷 賲賲丕 兀丿賶 廿賱賶 丕夭丿賷丕丿 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丨賵賱 丕賱噩賳爻 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賱匕丞. 鈥�
兀賲丕 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賮賱賲 賷亘丿兀賴丕 丕賱睾乇亘貙 亘賱 賰丕賳鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賲賵噩賵丿丞 爻丕亘賯賸丕 賮賷 丕賱賷丕亘丕賳 賵丕賱氐賷賳 賵丕賱賴賳丿 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲賷丞 "賰賮賳 廿亘丕丨賷| 噩賳爻賷"貙 賱賰賳 丕賱睾乇亘 賷禺鬲賱賮 賮賷 匕賱賰 賰賵賳賴 亘丿兀 亘丕賱廿毓鬲乇丕賮 丕賱賰賳爻賷 賱賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丨鬲賶 賵氐賱 廿賱賶 "丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱噩賳爻賷".
孬賲 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 禺氐丕卅氐 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞: 鈥ㄘз勜官勜з傌� 丕賱爻賱亘賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞: 丕賱噩賳爻 丿丕卅賲賸丕 鬲丨鬲 爻賷胤乇丞 賲賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞. 鈥ㄙ佖必� 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞: 賰賷賮 鬲囟毓 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賷丿賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱噩賳爻 亘氐賮丞 賯丕賳賵賳賷丞.
丨賱賯丞 丕賱賲賲賳賵毓: 賰賷賮 鬲賯賲毓 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱噩賳爻.鈥�
賲賳胤賯 丕賱乇賯丕亘丞: 賲丕賴賵 睾賷乇 賲爻賲賵丨貙 賵賲丕賷噩賵夭 丕賱鬲賰賱賲 毓賳賴貙 賵賲丕 鬲賱睾賷賴 丕賱乇賯丕亘丞.
鈥ㄙ堌� 丕賱鬲噩賴賷夭丕鬲: 鬲丿禺賱丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 毓賱賶 丕賱噩賳爻 賲賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲爻鬲賵賷丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱丿賵賱丞 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞貙 賲賳 丕賱兀賲賷乇 廿賱賶 丕賱兀亘.
孬賲 賷卮乇丨 賰賷賮 兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賱丕 鬲鬲毓賱賯 賮賯胤 亘爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲 賵丕賱兀噩賴夭丞貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賷噩亘 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳丿乇爻 毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱賲賳賴噩賷丞貙 賰兀賳 賳毓乇賮 鬲賯爻賷賲丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞.. 賲賳 亘賷丿賴 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丿丕禺賱 賳爻賯 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 (丕賱乇噩丕賱貙 丕賱亘丕賱睾賵賳貙 丕賱兀賴賱貙 丕賱兀胤亘丕亍) 賵賲賳 賴賵 丕賱賲丨乇賵賲 賲賳賴丕 (丕賱賳爻丕亍貙 丕賱賲乇丕賴賯賵賳貙 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱貙 丕賱賲乇囟賶..).鈥ㄘ� 賰賷賮 爻丕賴賲鬲 兀乇亘毓丞 賲噩賲賵毓丕鬲 丕爻鬲乇丕鬲賷噩賷丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲胤賵賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丕賱爻賱胤丞/
鈥ㄙ�- 廿賱亘丕爻 噩爻丿 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱亘賵爻 丕賱賴爻鬲乇丞: 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賰賵賳 噩爻丿賴丕 賰賲卮亘毓 賱賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞.
佗- 廿賱亘丕爻 丕賱卮兀賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷 賱賱胤賮賱 丕賱賱亘賵爻 丕賱鬲乇亘賵賷: 賴賲 禺丕乇噩 丕賱噩賳爻 賵丿丕禺賱賴 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲貙 賱兀賳賴賲 賯丿 賷賳爻丕賯賵賳 廿賱賶 賳卮丕胤 噩賳爻賷.
伲- 廿賱亘丕爻 丕賱爻賱賵賰賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲賳丕爻賱賷丞 丕賱賱亘賵爻 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷: 賮乇囟 丕賱賯賷賵丿 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 兀賵 丕賱囟乇賷亘賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱夭賵噩賷賳
.鈥ㄙ�- 廿賱亘丕爻 丕賱賱匕丞 丕賱卮丕匕丞 賱亘賵爻 丕賱賲乇囟 丕賱賳賮爻賷: 兀賷 賲賲丕乇爻丕鬲 卮丕匕丞 賴賷 兀賲乇丕囟 賳賮爻賷丞.
鬲丨丿孬 賲賷卮賷賱 賮賵賰賵 賰賷賮 兀賳 丌賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賯賲毓 賴匕賴 亘丿兀鬲 鬲鬲乇丕禺賶 賲賳 亘毓丿 兀賳 丕亘鬲毓丿鬲 毓賳 丕賱賰賳賷爻丞貙 賮兀氐亘丨鬲 賯囟賷丞 丿賵賱丞 賵賱賷爻鬲 賲噩乇丿 賯囟賷丞 毓賱賲丕賳賷丞 賱兀賳賴丕 鬲鬲胤賵乇 毓賱賶 孬賱丕孬丞 賲乇丕丨賱: 賲丨賵乇 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱胤賮賱貙 賵賲丨賵乇 丕賱胤亘貙 賵賲丨賵乇 丕賱賳賲賵 丕賱爻賰丕賳賷. 兀賲丕 廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲 丕賱廿卮乇丕賮 丕賱噩賳爻賷 賮賱賲 鬲購賲丕乇爻 毓賱賶 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賮賯賷乇丞 -毓賱賶 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲賵賯毓- 賵賱賰賳賴丕 亘丿兀鬲 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 丨賷孬 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 賱丿賷賴丕 丕賱鬲夭丕賲丕鬲 夭賵噩賷丞 賵毓丕卅賱賷丞貙 賵丨賷孬 丕賱胤賮賱 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷 丕賱賲丨丕胤 亘丕賱禺丿賲 賵丕賱賲鬲賵賯毓 兀賳 賷丨賮馗 賱毓丕卅賱鬲賴 賵賱胤亘賯鬲賴 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 匕乇賷丞 爻賱賷賲丞. 賱匕賱賰貙 賵賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 匕乇賷鬲賴丕 賵亘賯丕卅賴丕貙 丕賴鬲賲鬲 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 亘丕賱鬲噩賴賷夭丕鬲 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丿賲 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱廿乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞 "賱賱丿賱丕賱丞 毓賱賶 夭賵丕噩丕鬲 丕賱賳亘賱丕亍" 賴賵 丕賱賵爻賷賱丞 賱賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賲賷夭 丕賱賳賵毓賷 賱賱噩爻丿.
賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 賮賵賰賵 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱兀亘賵賷丞 賲鬲賲孬賱丞 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賴賱 丕賱賲賱賰賷 賱丿賷賴 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 毓賱賶 丨賷丕丞 賵賲賵鬲 丕賱賳丕爻. 兀賲丕 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱乇丕賴賳 兀氐亘丨鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賲鬲賲乇賰夭丞 毓賱賶 丕賱噩爻丿 "亘賷賵- 爻賱胤丞" 賵兀氐亘丨 賷購毓丕賲賱 賰丌賱丞 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿 賵囟亘胤 丕賱馗賵丕賴乇 丕賱爻賰丕賳賷丞. 賮噩賳爻賳丞 丕賱胤賮賱 賵賴爻鬲乇丞 丕賱賳爻丕亍 賰丕賳丕 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱鬲賳馗賷賲 賵丕賱囟亘胤貙 賵賰匕賱賰 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賵賱丕丿丞 賵丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丕鬲 丕賱卮丕匕丞 賰丕賳 丕賱鬲丿禺賱 賮賷賴丕 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱爻賰丕賳賷. 兀賲丕 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 "丕賱丿賲" 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 乇賲夭丕 賱賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞貙 賵囟乇亘 賲孬丕賱 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 丕賱賳丕夭賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇賷賯 丕賱丿賲丕亍 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 賳賯丕亍 丕賱丿賲 賵丕賳鬲氐丕乇 丕賱毓乇賯.
亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇 賷丿毓賵 賮賵賰賵 廿賱賶 丕賱賳賯丕卮 丨賵賱 丕賱噩賳爻 丨鬲賶 賳鬲賰爻亘 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞貙 賮賰賱賲丕 鬲丨丿孬賳丕 毓賳賴 兀賰孬乇 賰賱賲丕 兀氐亘丨賳丕 兀賰孬乇 鬲丨乇乇賸丕.
November 6, 2015
I was unsure how many stars to give it, but after reading the critiques of it by some readers I need to give it a lot of stars because the critiques just don't make sense. It does lose a star from this subjective and biased reader for consistantly using terms like "man" and "men" for humans even though there IS an awareness of misogyny in the history. I do think the author could have worded that better (quite probably I have the translator to blame).
This book is hard to understand, densely and complexly written and seems to meander off topic and around the point at times but if you follow it it draws the connection back in to show all the ways that sexuality and "sex" itself are constructs of human society and imbued with power relationships- not by accident or as a side effect but as constituent parts of what "sex" is. I got into a sort of incoherent argument with a girl at a pub immediately after reading this because (we were both drunk) I agree with Foucault and I think I came across as thinking sex is bullshit or bad or something. I don't think Foucault's argument is that we should dismantle "sex" or anything...pleasure and connection are things that people like and want and need but just that sex is one way of putting pleasure and connection together and also contains other ingredients and that maybe we can invest less strongly in some of the myths around sex (eg that it is a "natural" or the "only" way to enjoy pleasure and connection).
I do think that humans need societies and social constructions have a function YES for power but also for other things so to transform a social construction like "sex" does not necessarily mean being prohibitive towards it or banning it or even overthinking it (particularly in the moment when connection and pleasure are happening).
I don't think I understood every sentence and every paragraph perfectly and I will have to come back to the book in order to understand it better. Some of the ideas in it are transferrable to other fields of power not just sexuality. On p43 I learned some knew words that I had to google.
Do you know what a gynecomast was? Even google can't tell me what mixoscophiles are!
Anyway a fun read for arainy afternoon long drawn out couple of months of stretching your brain.
This book is hard to understand, densely and complexly written and seems to meander off topic and around the point at times but if you follow it it draws the connection back in to show all the ways that sexuality and "sex" itself are constructs of human society and imbued with power relationships- not by accident or as a side effect but as constituent parts of what "sex" is. I got into a sort of incoherent argument with a girl at a pub immediately after reading this because (we were both drunk) I agree with Foucault and I think I came across as thinking sex is bullshit or bad or something. I don't think Foucault's argument is that we should dismantle "sex" or anything...pleasure and connection are things that people like and want and need but just that sex is one way of putting pleasure and connection together and also contains other ingredients and that maybe we can invest less strongly in some of the myths around sex (eg that it is a "natural" or the "only" way to enjoy pleasure and connection).
I do think that humans need societies and social constructions have a function YES for power but also for other things so to transform a social construction like "sex" does not necessarily mean being prohibitive towards it or banning it or even overthinking it (particularly in the moment when connection and pleasure are happening).
I don't think I understood every sentence and every paragraph perfectly and I will have to come back to the book in order to understand it better. Some of the ideas in it are transferrable to other fields of power not just sexuality. On p43 I learned some knew words that I had to google.
Do you know what a gynecomast was? Even google can't tell me what mixoscophiles are!
Anyway a fun read for a
January 11, 2021
Reassessed, in light of re-reading : Author lays down the gauntlet against received wisdom that sexual liberty was destroyed by 鈥渢he monotonous nights of the Victorian bourgeoisie鈥� (3), wherein 鈥渟ilence became the rule,鈥� 鈥渁 single locus of sexuality was acknowledged in social space,鈥� and 鈥減roper demeanor avoided contact with other bodies and verbal decency sanitized one鈥檚 speech鈥� (id.). In this system of 鈥渢aboo, nonexistence, and silence鈥� (5), there was surreptitious transfer of 鈥減leasures that are unspoken into the order of things that are counted鈥� (4). Author raises doubts against this 鈥榬epressive hypothesis,鈥� with a purpose of defining 鈥渢he regime of power-knowledge-pleasure that sustains the discourse on human sexuality鈥� (11), taking care to 鈥渁ccount for the fact that it is spoken about, to discover who does the speaking, the positions and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions that prompt people to speak about it and which store and distribute the things that are said鈥� (id.).
In order for the bourgeois to 鈥済ain mastery over [sex], in reality, it had first been necessary to subjugate it at the level of language, control its free circulation in speech, expunge it from the things that were said, and extinguish the words that rendered it too visibly present鈥� (17). Despite these imperatives, 鈥渨hen one looks back over these last three centuries with their continual transformation [鈥 one sees a veritable discursive explosion鈥� regarding sex, even with an 鈥渆xpurgation鈥� of 鈥渁uthorized vocabulary鈥� (id.).
Foucault鈥檚 primary model of the 鈥減roliferation of discourses鈥� (18) is the 鈥渘akedness of the questions formulated by the confession manuals of the Middle Ages鈥� (id.), wherein the detail 鈥渂elieved indispensable for the confession鈥� included: 鈥渄escription of the respective positions of the partners, the postures assumed, gestures, places touched, caresses, the precise moment of pleasure鈥� (19). Though the 17th century may have stepped back from the level of detail, 鈥渢he language may have been refined,鈥� confession鈥檚 extent increased, 鈥渢he confession of the flesh,鈥� inclusive of 鈥渢houghts, desires, voluptuous imaginings, delectations, combined movements of the body and soul鈥� (id.). 鈥淓xamine even unto your dreams, to know if, once awakened, you did not give them your consent鈥� (20). Author regards this period as laying down an 鈥渋njunction鈥� (id.) of 鈥渢elling oneself and another, as often as possible, everything that might concern the interplay of innumerable pleasures, sensations, and thoughts which, through the body and the soul, had some affinity with sex鈥� (id.). This is a 鈥渟cheme for transforming sex into discourse鈥� and had been the province of 鈥渁scetic and monastic鈥� persons (id.), here generalized as an 鈥渙bligation鈥� and a Christian 鈥渋mperative鈥� (21): 鈥淣ot only will you confess to acts contravening the law, but you will seek to transform your desire, your every desire, into discourse鈥� (id.). (This process is to be parodied in de Sade鈥檚 120 Days of Sodom, it is noted. (id.))
Through the generalized prescription to produce discursive products regarding sex, it became 鈥渘ot something to be judged,鈥� but rather 鈥渁 thing one administered鈥� (24), a matter for biopolitical management, a 鈥減olice matter鈥� (id.), an 鈥渆conomic and political problem of population鈥� (25). The transformation 鈥渨ent from ritual lamenting over the unfruitful debauchery of the rich, bachelors, and libertines to a discourse in which the sexual conduct of the population was taken both as an object of analysis and as a target for intervention鈥� (26).
Different institutional mechanisms arose, such as 鈥渄iscursive orthopedics鈥� (29) as a pedagogy, and the 鈥渟exual perversions鈥� (30), handled by medicine and law鈥攅ven inspections for 鈥渄egenerescence of anatomy鈥� (31)鈥攁 鈥渒ind of generalized discursive erethism鈥� (32). Contrary to a great repression, 鈥渟ex was driven out of hiding and constrained to lead a discursive existence,鈥� 鈥渁 singular imperialism that compels everyone to transform their sexuality into a perpetual discourse鈥� (33).
Part of the project may have been to 鈥渆xpel from reality the forms of sexuality that were not amenable to the strict economy of reproduction鈥� (36), a straightforward part of the natalist biopolitical interest. The expulsion involved 鈥減rohibitions [鈥 of a juridical nature鈥� (38): 鈥淔or a long time hermaphrodites [sic] were criminals, or crime鈥檚 offspring, since their anatomical disposition, their very being, confounded the law that distinguished the sexes and prescribed their union鈥� (id.). Non-heteronormative desire and conduct 鈥渨as transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species鈥� (43). (Coke鈥檚 comments in the Institutes regarding 鈥榣epers of the soul鈥� come to mind here.) Other species were made of 鈥渁ll those minor perverts鈥� of the 19th century:
The most interesting conceptual distinction drawn herein is ars erotica v. scientia sexualis. In what might be a generalized model of 鈥榮cience鈥� as such, the science of sex 鈥渨as in fact made up of evasions since, given its inability or refusal to speak of sex itself, it concerned itself primarily with aberrations, perversions, exceptional oddities, pathological abatements, and morbid aggravations鈥� (53). This science 鈥渟ubordinated in the main to the imperatives of amorality whose divisions it reiterated under the guise of a medical norm鈥� (id.), which is the process described in Fine鈥檚 Delusions of Gender and Fausto-Sterling鈥檚 Sexing the Body, incidentally.
Science produced 鈥渁n entire pornography of the morbid鈥� (54), and was 鈥渋ncorporated into two very distinct orders of knowledge: a biology of reproduction [鈥 and a medicine of sex鈥� (id.). In the 鈥渃ontinuous incitement to discourse and to truth that the real mechanisms of misunderstanding operated [鈥 an immense apparatus for producing truth, even if this truth was to be masked at the last moment鈥� (56). In distinction to the science is the ars erotica of ancient societies, wherein 鈥渢ruth is drawn from pleasure itself, understood as a practice,鈥� closely held as secrets to be transmitted by masters to students (57). We have the scientia sexualis, 鈥渁 form of knowledge-power strictly opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secret鈥� (58), rooted in the confession. I recall sex education in school in 5th grade, and it really didn鈥檛 involve the confession, but it simply laid out the operability of pregnancy and then tried to scare the fuck out of all of us with images of sexually transmitted infections. There was no instruction in the praxis of sex鈥擨 had to be instructed viscerally, for instance, in manual stimulation by an eager master later in life. Quite a bit on the permutations here, including how the scientia sexualis might react back and become the ars erotica of our society.
Text thereafter traces the 鈥榙eployment鈥� of the knowledge-power sex system. Its objective is usefully summed up as 鈥渨here there is desire, the power relation is already present鈥� (81). Some readers get very annoyed with his proclamation that 鈥渢here is no escaping from power, that it is always-already present, constituting the very thing which one attempts to counter it with鈥� (82). The explanation is nuanced: 鈥渢he problem is not to know whether desire is alien to power, whether it is prior to the law as is often thought to be the case, when it is not rather the law that is perceived as constituting it鈥� (89). He wants moreover to 鈥渃onstruct an analytics of power that no longer takes law as a model and a code鈥� (90), and to 鈥渞id ourselves of a juridical and negative representation of power, and cease to conceive of it in terms of law, prohibition, liberty, and sovereignty鈥� (id.). Plain that 鈥減ower is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere鈥� (93). Resistance is accordingly 鈥渘ever in a position of exteriority in relation to power鈥� (95). The deployment of sexuality therefore has four rules as its 鈥榤ethod鈥�: immanence (鈥渘o exteriority鈥� (98)), continual variations (鈥渢he pattern of the modifications [鈥 relations of power-knowledge are not static forms鈥� (99)), double conditioning (鈥渢wo different levels (one microscopic and the other macroscopic) [鈥 the family does not duplicate society鈥� (99-100)), and tactical polyvalence of discourses (鈥渄iscourse as a series of discontinuous segments [鈥 a multiplicity of discursive elements that can come into play in various strategies鈥� (100)).
The 鈥榙omain鈥� of the deployment is further differentiated into four institutional loci: 鈥渉ysterization of women鈥檚 bodies,鈥� 鈥減edagogization of children鈥檚 sex,鈥� 鈥渟ocialization of procreative behavior,鈥� and the 鈥減sychiatrization of perverse pleasure鈥� (104 ff.). All of this is periodized along a discontinuous chronology, showing ruptures in the 17th and then again in the 20th century, insofar as their development was not triumphant march of progressively unfolding awesome (see 115 ff.).
The final section shifts gears to more obviously biopolitical concerns, how 鈥渙ne of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death鈥� (135). Notes a political dream of genocide (137), to go with the dreams of the leper and plague and panopticon in Discipline & Punish. Transformations in power noted as a shift from sanguinity to sexuality (147). A 鈥渇austian pact鈥�: 鈥渢o exchange life in its entirety for sex itself鈥� (156). Plenty more here, especially for readers of Agamben.
Underlying all of Foucault鈥檚 work is the fiction of the 鈥渋ndividual,鈥� even while he works to critique the ideology of the 鈥榮ubject,鈥� such as, for instance, in the proclamation that 鈥淚t was essential that the state knew what was happening with its citizens鈥� sex, and the use they made of it, but also that each individual be capable of controlling the use he made of it鈥� (26). Huh? Some work to be done here, I think.
One of the more interesting notes was the tracking of sexual norms as class-bound, inhering in the aristocracy and only later escaping the country club and the debutante ball to infect the rest of the world. Much like the early affliction of Christianity on Europe (see The Barbarian Conversion), the ruling class was transformed first and only thereafter using the regular ideological state apparatus remade the world in its image. Basic German Ideology Marxism there.
Recommended for demographers on the eve of the revolution, those who say that there are class sexualities, and readers under the sway of a logic of concupiscence and desire.
my 3* review from 2011, recalling it as read from 1997: "a good book to read in a public caf茅, wherein meatheads of any gender might discern the title and proclaim, as happened to me, that "y'all don't need no books for that because I can teachy'all." I can affirm that, whereas a picture is worth a thousand words, a meathead is worth a thousand books."
In order for the bourgeois to 鈥済ain mastery over [sex], in reality, it had first been necessary to subjugate it at the level of language, control its free circulation in speech, expunge it from the things that were said, and extinguish the words that rendered it too visibly present鈥� (17). Despite these imperatives, 鈥渨hen one looks back over these last three centuries with their continual transformation [鈥 one sees a veritable discursive explosion鈥� regarding sex, even with an 鈥渆xpurgation鈥� of 鈥渁uthorized vocabulary鈥� (id.).
Foucault鈥檚 primary model of the 鈥減roliferation of discourses鈥� (18) is the 鈥渘akedness of the questions formulated by the confession manuals of the Middle Ages鈥� (id.), wherein the detail 鈥渂elieved indispensable for the confession鈥� included: 鈥渄escription of the respective positions of the partners, the postures assumed, gestures, places touched, caresses, the precise moment of pleasure鈥� (19). Though the 17th century may have stepped back from the level of detail, 鈥渢he language may have been refined,鈥� confession鈥檚 extent increased, 鈥渢he confession of the flesh,鈥� inclusive of 鈥渢houghts, desires, voluptuous imaginings, delectations, combined movements of the body and soul鈥� (id.). 鈥淓xamine even unto your dreams, to know if, once awakened, you did not give them your consent鈥� (20). Author regards this period as laying down an 鈥渋njunction鈥� (id.) of 鈥渢elling oneself and another, as often as possible, everything that might concern the interplay of innumerable pleasures, sensations, and thoughts which, through the body and the soul, had some affinity with sex鈥� (id.). This is a 鈥渟cheme for transforming sex into discourse鈥� and had been the province of 鈥渁scetic and monastic鈥� persons (id.), here generalized as an 鈥渙bligation鈥� and a Christian 鈥渋mperative鈥� (21): 鈥淣ot only will you confess to acts contravening the law, but you will seek to transform your desire, your every desire, into discourse鈥� (id.). (This process is to be parodied in de Sade鈥檚 120 Days of Sodom, it is noted. (id.))
Through the generalized prescription to produce discursive products regarding sex, it became 鈥渘ot something to be judged,鈥� but rather 鈥渁 thing one administered鈥� (24), a matter for biopolitical management, a 鈥減olice matter鈥� (id.), an 鈥渆conomic and political problem of population鈥� (25). The transformation 鈥渨ent from ritual lamenting over the unfruitful debauchery of the rich, bachelors, and libertines to a discourse in which the sexual conduct of the population was taken both as an object of analysis and as a target for intervention鈥� (26).
Different institutional mechanisms arose, such as 鈥渄iscursive orthopedics鈥� (29) as a pedagogy, and the 鈥渟exual perversions鈥� (30), handled by medicine and law鈥攅ven inspections for 鈥渄egenerescence of anatomy鈥� (31)鈥攁 鈥渒ind of generalized discursive erethism鈥� (32). Contrary to a great repression, 鈥渟ex was driven out of hiding and constrained to lead a discursive existence,鈥� 鈥渁 singular imperialism that compels everyone to transform their sexuality into a perpetual discourse鈥� (33).
Part of the project may have been to 鈥渆xpel from reality the forms of sexuality that were not amenable to the strict economy of reproduction鈥� (36), a straightforward part of the natalist biopolitical interest. The expulsion involved 鈥減rohibitions [鈥 of a juridical nature鈥� (38): 鈥淔or a long time hermaphrodites [sic] were criminals, or crime鈥檚 offspring, since their anatomical disposition, their very being, confounded the law that distinguished the sexes and prescribed their union鈥� (id.). Non-heteronormative desire and conduct 鈥渨as transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species鈥� (43). (Coke鈥檚 comments in the Institutes regarding 鈥榣epers of the soul鈥� come to mind here.) Other species were made of 鈥渁ll those minor perverts鈥� of the 19th century:
Krafft-Ebing鈥檚 zoophiles and zooerasts, Rohleder鈥檚 auto-monosexualists; and later, mixoscopophiles, gynecomasts, presbyophiles, sexoesthetic inverts, and dyspareunist women. These fine names for heresies referred to a nature that was overlooked by the law, but not so neglectful of itself that it did not go on producing more species, even where there was no order to fit them into. (id.)Perhaps an aporia in the argument there, if the system produces them but can鈥檛 fit them anywhere? (The reference to 鈥榟eresy鈥� no doubt reinforces the connection to Coke.)
The most interesting conceptual distinction drawn herein is ars erotica v. scientia sexualis. In what might be a generalized model of 鈥榮cience鈥� as such, the science of sex 鈥渨as in fact made up of evasions since, given its inability or refusal to speak of sex itself, it concerned itself primarily with aberrations, perversions, exceptional oddities, pathological abatements, and morbid aggravations鈥� (53). This science 鈥渟ubordinated in the main to the imperatives of amorality whose divisions it reiterated under the guise of a medical norm鈥� (id.), which is the process described in Fine鈥檚 Delusions of Gender and Fausto-Sterling鈥檚 Sexing the Body, incidentally.
Science produced 鈥渁n entire pornography of the morbid鈥� (54), and was 鈥渋ncorporated into two very distinct orders of knowledge: a biology of reproduction [鈥 and a medicine of sex鈥� (id.). In the 鈥渃ontinuous incitement to discourse and to truth that the real mechanisms of misunderstanding operated [鈥 an immense apparatus for producing truth, even if this truth was to be masked at the last moment鈥� (56). In distinction to the science is the ars erotica of ancient societies, wherein 鈥渢ruth is drawn from pleasure itself, understood as a practice,鈥� closely held as secrets to be transmitted by masters to students (57). We have the scientia sexualis, 鈥渁 form of knowledge-power strictly opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secret鈥� (58), rooted in the confession. I recall sex education in school in 5th grade, and it really didn鈥檛 involve the confession, but it simply laid out the operability of pregnancy and then tried to scare the fuck out of all of us with images of sexually transmitted infections. There was no instruction in the praxis of sex鈥擨 had to be instructed viscerally, for instance, in manual stimulation by an eager master later in life. Quite a bit on the permutations here, including how the scientia sexualis might react back and become the ars erotica of our society.
Text thereafter traces the 鈥榙eployment鈥� of the knowledge-power sex system. Its objective is usefully summed up as 鈥渨here there is desire, the power relation is already present鈥� (81). Some readers get very annoyed with his proclamation that 鈥渢here is no escaping from power, that it is always-already present, constituting the very thing which one attempts to counter it with鈥� (82). The explanation is nuanced: 鈥渢he problem is not to know whether desire is alien to power, whether it is prior to the law as is often thought to be the case, when it is not rather the law that is perceived as constituting it鈥� (89). He wants moreover to 鈥渃onstruct an analytics of power that no longer takes law as a model and a code鈥� (90), and to 鈥渞id ourselves of a juridical and negative representation of power, and cease to conceive of it in terms of law, prohibition, liberty, and sovereignty鈥� (id.). Plain that 鈥減ower is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere鈥� (93). Resistance is accordingly 鈥渘ever in a position of exteriority in relation to power鈥� (95). The deployment of sexuality therefore has four rules as its 鈥榤ethod鈥�: immanence (鈥渘o exteriority鈥� (98)), continual variations (鈥渢he pattern of the modifications [鈥 relations of power-knowledge are not static forms鈥� (99)), double conditioning (鈥渢wo different levels (one microscopic and the other macroscopic) [鈥 the family does not duplicate society鈥� (99-100)), and tactical polyvalence of discourses (鈥渄iscourse as a series of discontinuous segments [鈥 a multiplicity of discursive elements that can come into play in various strategies鈥� (100)).
The 鈥榙omain鈥� of the deployment is further differentiated into four institutional loci: 鈥渉ysterization of women鈥檚 bodies,鈥� 鈥減edagogization of children鈥檚 sex,鈥� 鈥渟ocialization of procreative behavior,鈥� and the 鈥減sychiatrization of perverse pleasure鈥� (104 ff.). All of this is periodized along a discontinuous chronology, showing ruptures in the 17th and then again in the 20th century, insofar as their development was not triumphant march of progressively unfolding awesome (see 115 ff.).
The final section shifts gears to more obviously biopolitical concerns, how 鈥渙ne of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death鈥� (135). Notes a political dream of genocide (137), to go with the dreams of the leper and plague and panopticon in Discipline & Punish. Transformations in power noted as a shift from sanguinity to sexuality (147). A 鈥渇austian pact鈥�: 鈥渢o exchange life in its entirety for sex itself鈥� (156). Plenty more here, especially for readers of Agamben.
Underlying all of Foucault鈥檚 work is the fiction of the 鈥渋ndividual,鈥� even while he works to critique the ideology of the 鈥榮ubject,鈥� such as, for instance, in the proclamation that 鈥淚t was essential that the state knew what was happening with its citizens鈥� sex, and the use they made of it, but also that each individual be capable of controlling the use he made of it鈥� (26). Huh? Some work to be done here, I think.
One of the more interesting notes was the tracking of sexual norms as class-bound, inhering in the aristocracy and only later escaping the country club and the debutante ball to infect the rest of the world. Much like the early affliction of Christianity on Europe (see The Barbarian Conversion), the ruling class was transformed first and only thereafter using the regular ideological state apparatus remade the world in its image. Basic German Ideology Marxism there.
Recommended for demographers on the eve of the revolution, those who say that there are class sexualities, and readers under the sway of a logic of concupiscence and desire.
my 3* review from 2011, recalling it as read from 1997: "a good book to read in a public caf茅, wherein meatheads of any gender might discern the title and proclaim, as happened to me, that "y'all don't need no books for that because I can teachy'all." I can affirm that, whereas a picture is worth a thousand words, a meathead is worth a thousand books."
April 25, 2017
"The aim of this series of studies? To transcribe into history the fable of Les Bijoux indiscrets. Among its many emblems, our society wears that of the talking sex. In the space of a few centuries, a certain inclination has led us to direct the question of who we are, to sex 鈥� The West has managed 鈥� to bring us almost entirely鈥攐ur bodies, our minds, our individuality, our history鈥攗nder the sway of a logic of concupiscence and desire. . . . Sex, the explanation for everything.鈥� (pp. 77-78)
In the mid-nineteen-seventies Foucault published this powerful introductory volume, an in-depth analysis that overturned then-accepted notions. He saw 鈥渟exuality鈥� as a construct of power, instrumental in the transformation, in the Western world, from a society of 鈥渂lood鈥� whose primary power was to take life or let live, to a society of 鈥渟exuality鈥� with a new form of power: 鈥渂io-power鈥� which exercised ever-increasing surveillance and control at the minute level of individual bodies as well as populations. This power began, he says, as the effort of the rising bourgeois classes to enhance their own strength, health, and dominance over the nobility, which formed the basis for the rise of 鈥渂iological鈥� racism in the 19th century, and with it the ability to dominate and exploit the working classes. Its 鈥渟trategies鈥� within the field of sexuality were four-fold: 鈥渢he hysterization of women, which involved a thorough medicalization of their bodies and sex, was carried out in the name of the responsibility they owed to the health of their children鈥�; 鈥渢he sexualization of children [i.e. campaign to prevent sexual activity in children, including masturbation] was accomplished in the form of a campaign for the health of the race鈥�; the regulation of fertility; and the psychiatrization of perversions. (pp. 146-147)
Laying the foundations for the invasive medical, psychiatric, and governmental scrutiny and control of the sexuality of women, children, married couples and people with sexual "perversions" (Foucault's term), right up through today's endless, excessive discourse about sex, were changing practices of confession and spiritual direction in the Christian Church dating from the 16th century, where, Foucault believed, talking about sex created dynamics of power and pleasure for both the confessor and the one making the confession.
Through the 鈥渄eployment of sexuality鈥� for the purposes of power and control, we have now come to the bizarre place where, according to Foucault, 鈥淚t is through sex 鈥� that each individual has to pass in order to have access to his own intelligibility, to the whole of his body, to his identity. Through a reversal that doubtless had its surreptitious beginnings long ago 鈥� we have arrived at the point where we expect our intelligibility to come from what was for many centuries thought of as madness; the plenitude of our body from what was long considered its stigma and likened to a wound; our identity from what was perceived as an obscure and nameless urge. 鈥or centuries [sex] has become more important than our soul, more important almost than our life 鈥� Sex is worth dying for. 鈥� When a long time ago the West discovered love, it bestowed on it a value high enough to make death acceptable; nowadays it is sex that claims this equivalence, the highest of all. (p. 156)
鈥淲e must not think that by saying yes to sex, one says no to power; on the contrary, one tracks along the course laid out by the general deployment of sexuality. It is the agency of sex that we must break away from, if we aim 鈥� to counter the grips of power with the claims of bodies, pleasures, and knowledges 鈥� The rallying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality ought not to be sex-desire, but bodies and pleasures.鈥� (p. 157) In this first volume Foucault does not delve into what he might mean by 鈥渂odies and pleasures鈥� nor how they might be a 鈥渞allying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality.鈥� Is it possible that Foucault himself died for sex, or would it be more accurate to say he died for bodies and pleasures? I don鈥檛 know.
This is the first book I鈥檝e read by Foucault; I wanted to read his work because of its enormous influence on Western culture and its intelligent, original, controversial analysis. I am not saying that I agree with his conclusion; I would be much more inclined to see the only possible rallying point as that of love in the Christian sense of agape or caritas - caring for one another. (By this I do not mean to imply that Foucault did not care for others; I believe he did.) I would also like to see contemporary (i.e. the 2000s) critique, and feminist critique, of what he said. For instance, writing pre-sexual abuse crisis, he seems quite insensitive to issues like sexual molestation of children, including parental incest, and in expounding his views of the deployment of sexuality as strategies of sovereign power, he never mentions (and to be fair, it is not his focus) the many benefits to women and children of programs of public health and other aspects of 鈥渂io-power.鈥�
A final note: I find Foucault鈥檚 writing to be very well-organized, clear, and intelligible - a breath of fresh air in a field where so much of the writing is so very difficult to decipher. (I'm utterly puzzled by those who think his writing is unclear.) He also seems to me quite non-polemical 鈥� he does not engage in emotional attacks, but in quiet, powerful analysis 鈥� something I also appreciate.
In the mid-nineteen-seventies Foucault published this powerful introductory volume, an in-depth analysis that overturned then-accepted notions. He saw 鈥渟exuality鈥� as a construct of power, instrumental in the transformation, in the Western world, from a society of 鈥渂lood鈥� whose primary power was to take life or let live, to a society of 鈥渟exuality鈥� with a new form of power: 鈥渂io-power鈥� which exercised ever-increasing surveillance and control at the minute level of individual bodies as well as populations. This power began, he says, as the effort of the rising bourgeois classes to enhance their own strength, health, and dominance over the nobility, which formed the basis for the rise of 鈥渂iological鈥� racism in the 19th century, and with it the ability to dominate and exploit the working classes. Its 鈥渟trategies鈥� within the field of sexuality were four-fold: 鈥渢he hysterization of women, which involved a thorough medicalization of their bodies and sex, was carried out in the name of the responsibility they owed to the health of their children鈥�; 鈥渢he sexualization of children [i.e. campaign to prevent sexual activity in children, including masturbation] was accomplished in the form of a campaign for the health of the race鈥�; the regulation of fertility; and the psychiatrization of perversions. (pp. 146-147)
Laying the foundations for the invasive medical, psychiatric, and governmental scrutiny and control of the sexuality of women, children, married couples and people with sexual "perversions" (Foucault's term), right up through today's endless, excessive discourse about sex, were changing practices of confession and spiritual direction in the Christian Church dating from the 16th century, where, Foucault believed, talking about sex created dynamics of power and pleasure for both the confessor and the one making the confession.
Through the 鈥渄eployment of sexuality鈥� for the purposes of power and control, we have now come to the bizarre place where, according to Foucault, 鈥淚t is through sex 鈥� that each individual has to pass in order to have access to his own intelligibility, to the whole of his body, to his identity. Through a reversal that doubtless had its surreptitious beginnings long ago 鈥� we have arrived at the point where we expect our intelligibility to come from what was for many centuries thought of as madness; the plenitude of our body from what was long considered its stigma and likened to a wound; our identity from what was perceived as an obscure and nameless urge. 鈥or centuries [sex] has become more important than our soul, more important almost than our life 鈥� Sex is worth dying for. 鈥� When a long time ago the West discovered love, it bestowed on it a value high enough to make death acceptable; nowadays it is sex that claims this equivalence, the highest of all. (p. 156)
鈥淲e must not think that by saying yes to sex, one says no to power; on the contrary, one tracks along the course laid out by the general deployment of sexuality. It is the agency of sex that we must break away from, if we aim 鈥� to counter the grips of power with the claims of bodies, pleasures, and knowledges 鈥� The rallying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality ought not to be sex-desire, but bodies and pleasures.鈥� (p. 157) In this first volume Foucault does not delve into what he might mean by 鈥渂odies and pleasures鈥� nor how they might be a 鈥渞allying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality.鈥� Is it possible that Foucault himself died for sex, or would it be more accurate to say he died for bodies and pleasures? I don鈥檛 know.
This is the first book I鈥檝e read by Foucault; I wanted to read his work because of its enormous influence on Western culture and its intelligent, original, controversial analysis. I am not saying that I agree with his conclusion; I would be much more inclined to see the only possible rallying point as that of love in the Christian sense of agape or caritas - caring for one another. (By this I do not mean to imply that Foucault did not care for others; I believe he did.) I would also like to see contemporary (i.e. the 2000s) critique, and feminist critique, of what he said. For instance, writing pre-sexual abuse crisis, he seems quite insensitive to issues like sexual molestation of children, including parental incest, and in expounding his views of the deployment of sexuality as strategies of sovereign power, he never mentions (and to be fair, it is not his focus) the many benefits to women and children of programs of public health and other aspects of 鈥渂io-power.鈥�
A final note: I find Foucault鈥檚 writing to be very well-organized, clear, and intelligible - a breath of fresh air in a field where so much of the writing is so very difficult to decipher. (I'm utterly puzzled by those who think his writing is unclear.) He also seems to me quite non-polemical 鈥� he does not engage in emotional attacks, but in quiet, powerful analysis 鈥� something I also appreciate.
February 6, 2017
螒魏伪蟿维蟽蠂蔚蟿畏 蠁位蠀伪蟻委伪, 蟺伪位喂位位慰纬委伪 魏伪喂 魏蔚谓慰位慰纬委伪.
February 3, 2017
Cuando me recomendaron leer a Foucault vinieron con un aviso: 骋补蝉迟贸苍, mir谩 que te va a cambiar la cabeza. Hay un antes y un despu茅s de leerlo. Lo bueno es que no se equivocaron.
Este es el primer tomo de lo que llam贸 La historia de la sexualidad que bien podr铆a llamarse de otra forma porque de historia tiene poco. Es una mezcla entre estudio sociol贸gico y ensay铆stico sobre el sexo. Explica la formaci贸n e imposici贸n de los discursos en Occidente, c贸mo las ideas mutan o cambian y c贸mo se cree en la libertad aunque estemos sujetos.
La voluntad de saber explica la manera en que los discursos sobre la sexualidad se formaron y utiliza como punto de partida el siglo XVIII. Va develando el lugar del sexo en nuestra cultura. Muestra c贸mo se ve en todos lados y que no es algo reprimido: hay sexo en la tv, se habla de sexo entre amigos e incluso la familia. El giro y gran hallazgo es lo que se hace con esos discursos. Ya que no se habla del sexo en sus variadas formas sino que se lo normaliza, se lo encastra dentro de ciertos par谩metros. Lo que no est谩 dentro de esos l铆mites es anormal, extra帽o y hasta perverso. Tambi茅n explica c贸mo el saber cient铆fico, el de la medicina en especial, moldea lo que se dice, lo que no y c贸mo esto es dicho.
El estudio del sexo en manos del poder genera un discurso positivista, enclaustrado y normalizador, donde las diferentes instituciones (medicina, familia, escuela, relaciones entre personas) delimitan qu茅 es lo correcto y qu茅 no, qu茅 hay que hacer con lo denominado anormal y c贸mo seguir normalizando pr谩cticas que antes pertenec铆an a los sectores relegados.
Este es el primer tomo de lo que llam贸 La historia de la sexualidad que bien podr铆a llamarse de otra forma porque de historia tiene poco. Es una mezcla entre estudio sociol贸gico y ensay铆stico sobre el sexo. Explica la formaci贸n e imposici贸n de los discursos en Occidente, c贸mo las ideas mutan o cambian y c贸mo se cree en la libertad aunque estemos sujetos.
La voluntad de saber explica la manera en que los discursos sobre la sexualidad se formaron y utiliza como punto de partida el siglo XVIII. Va develando el lugar del sexo en nuestra cultura. Muestra c贸mo se ve en todos lados y que no es algo reprimido: hay sexo en la tv, se habla de sexo entre amigos e incluso la familia. El giro y gran hallazgo es lo que se hace con esos discursos. Ya que no se habla del sexo en sus variadas formas sino que se lo normaliza, se lo encastra dentro de ciertos par谩metros. Lo que no est谩 dentro de esos l铆mites es anormal, extra帽o y hasta perverso. Tambi茅n explica c贸mo el saber cient铆fico, el de la medicina en especial, moldea lo que se dice, lo que no y c贸mo esto es dicho.
El estudio del sexo en manos del poder genera un discurso positivista, enclaustrado y normalizador, donde las diferentes instituciones (medicina, familia, escuela, relaciones entre personas) delimitan qu茅 es lo correcto y qu茅 no, qu茅 hay que hacer con lo denominado anormal y c贸mo seguir normalizando pr谩cticas que antes pertenec铆an a los sectores relegados.
March 10, 2014
丕賱胤賯爻 丕賱賯乇丕卅賷:-
鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱氐毓亘丞貙 丕賱毓賲賷賯丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨鬲丕噩 賱賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丨賱賷賱賷丞 禺丕賱氐丞貙 禺氐賵氐丕 賱賲賳 賱賲 賷鬲毓賵丿 毓賱賶 兀爻賱賵亘 賴賵噩賵. 丕賱廿卮賰丕賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 禺亘乇鬲賴丕 兀賳 丕賱廿賳賯胤丕毓 毓賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賰孬乇丞 鬲噩夭賷卅賴 賱賵丨丿丕鬲 氐睾賷乇丞 賷囟乇 兀賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賷賳賮毓貙 賵賷禺賱賯 鬲卮鬲鬲丕 賮賷 匕賴賳 賷丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賶 鬲乇丕亘胤 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇貙 賵賱賵 賱賲 賷賰賳 孬賲 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 丿賵賳鬲賴丕 毓賳 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵賲丕 賮賴賲鬲賴 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賱卮乇丿鬲 賵鬲亘禺乇鬲.
- 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱禺胤丕亘 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 賵賲丕 賷賱賷賴貙 賰丕賳 丨賷賳賴丕 丨匕乇貙 賵賱丕 賷購鬲丨丿孬 毓賳賴 廿賱丕 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 丕賱賳氐賷丨丞 (賰賳賷爻丞貙 賲丿乇爻丞). 鬲亘賽毓賻 賴匕丕 丕賱禺胤丕亘賻 丕賱氐丕賲鬲賻 丕賱丨匕乇賻 乇丿丞 賮毓賱 賲囟丕丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇 (丨賷丕鬲賷 丕賱爻乇賷丞 賳賲賵匕噩丕).
- 賱毓亘丞 丕賱爻賱胤丞/ 丕賱賲鬲毓丞. 亘毓丿 兀賳 賰丕賳 馗丕賴乇賷丕 兀賳賾 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇 賴賵 毓氐乇 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賲卮乇賵毓丞貙 馗賴乇鬲 賴賳丕賱賰 毓賱丕賯丕鬲 卮丕匕丞 鬲賵賱丿鬲 賲賳 賮賽毓賿賱賽 丕賱爻賱胤丞. 兀氐亘丨鬲 賴賷 丕賱賲鬲丨賰賲丞 賵丕賱乇丕睾亘丞 賮賷 匕賱賰 貙 賵丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱匕賷 噩毓賱 賲賳 丕賱廿毓鬲乇丕賮 爻賱胤丞 賷禺囟毓 賱賴丕 丕賱賲乇亍 (禺胤丕亘 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱亘賳賷賵賷丞 丕賱賲氐丕丨亘丞 賱賴)
鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱氐毓亘丞貙 丕賱毓賲賷賯丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨鬲丕噩 賱賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丨賱賷賱賷丞 禺丕賱氐丞貙 禺氐賵氐丕 賱賲賳 賱賲 賷鬲毓賵丿 毓賱賶 兀爻賱賵亘 賴賵噩賵. 丕賱廿卮賰丕賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 禺亘乇鬲賴丕 兀賳 丕賱廿賳賯胤丕毓 毓賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賰孬乇丞 鬲噩夭賷卅賴 賱賵丨丿丕鬲 氐睾賷乇丞 賷囟乇 兀賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賷賳賮毓貙 賵賷禺賱賯 鬲卮鬲鬲丕 賮賷 匕賴賳 賷丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賶 鬲乇丕亘胤 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇貙 賵賱賵 賱賲 賷賰賳 孬賲 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 丿賵賳鬲賴丕 毓賳 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵賲丕 賮賴賲鬲賴 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賱卮乇丿鬲 賵鬲亘禺乇鬲.
- 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱禺胤丕亘 毓賳 丕賱噩賳爻 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 賵賲丕 賷賱賷賴貙 賰丕賳 丨賷賳賴丕 丨匕乇貙 賵賱丕 賷購鬲丨丿孬 毓賳賴 廿賱丕 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 丕賱賳氐賷丨丞 (賰賳賷爻丞貙 賲丿乇爻丞). 鬲亘賽毓賻 賴匕丕 丕賱禺胤丕亘賻 丕賱氐丕賲鬲賻 丕賱丨匕乇賻 乇丿丞 賮毓賱 賲囟丕丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇 (丨賷丕鬲賷 丕賱爻乇賷丞 賳賲賵匕噩丕).
- 賱毓亘丞 丕賱爻賱胤丞/ 丕賱賲鬲毓丞. 亘毓丿 兀賳 賰丕賳 馗丕賴乇賷丕 兀賳賾 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇 賴賵 毓氐乇 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賲卮乇賵毓丞貙 馗賴乇鬲 賴賳丕賱賰 毓賱丕賯丕鬲 卮丕匕丞 鬲賵賱丿鬲 賲賳 賮賽毓賿賱賽 丕賱爻賱胤丞. 兀氐亘丨鬲 賴賷 丕賱賲鬲丨賰賲丞 賵丕賱乇丕睾亘丞 賮賷 匕賱賰 貙 賵丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱匕賷 噩毓賱 賲賳 丕賱廿毓鬲乇丕賮 爻賱胤丞 賷禺囟毓 賱賴丕 丕賱賲乇亍 (禺胤丕亘 丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱亘賳賷賵賷丞 丕賱賲氐丕丨亘丞 賱賴)
August 9, 2018
First off, let me just say that if you are confused by this book (you are not alone), there are 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 . 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 , 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.
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 . 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 , 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.
March 7, 2017
A popular quote goes by: "everything is about sex, except sex; sex is about power". While this can be interpreted in many ways, one of the most interesting approaches is the one presented in this book.
Foucault investigates not so much the history (if you're looking for a historiographical view of sex, this is not the book for you) but a -post- structuralist genealogy of sex; a study of the lineage and evolution of sexuality the last four centuries, examined under the dominant notion of Power.
In this context, Foucault defines Power not as an authority exerted through centralised forces by political or legal means but instead as a set of multiple and intertwined discourses, acting on multiple levels forming sources of both oppression and resistance. The need for knowledge and the exhortation to confess every detail about sex, as expressed in multiple and completely diverse environments shape the new discourses that, in turn, form the complex and constantly shifting forms of Power (the power-knowledge paradigm as postulated in the book).
Four sexual identities, originating from these new knowledge-fuelled discourses, play a central role to the analysis: the hysterical woman, the masturbating child, the Malthusian couple and the perverse adult. Foucault uses these four types as the anchoring points between which the knowledge-power forces circulate, in the contexts of therapy, clergy, family, policy and science.
The book in my eyes was very pleasant to read (it is not as difficult as many people claim, especially after you start adapting to Foucault's way of writing) and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.
Foucault investigates not so much the history (if you're looking for a historiographical view of sex, this is not the book for you) but a -post- structuralist genealogy of sex; a study of the lineage and evolution of sexuality the last four centuries, examined under the dominant notion of Power.
In this context, Foucault defines Power not as an authority exerted through centralised forces by political or legal means but instead as a set of multiple and intertwined discourses, acting on multiple levels forming sources of both oppression and resistance. The need for knowledge and the exhortation to confess every detail about sex, as expressed in multiple and completely diverse environments shape the new discourses that, in turn, form the complex and constantly shifting forms of Power (the power-knowledge paradigm as postulated in the book).
Four sexual identities, originating from these new knowledge-fuelled discourses, play a central role to the analysis: the hysterical woman, the masturbating child, the Malthusian couple and the perverse adult. Foucault uses these four types as the anchoring points between which the knowledge-power forces circulate, in the contexts of therapy, clergy, family, policy and science.
The book in my eyes was very pleasant to read (it is not as difficult as many people claim, especially after you start adapting to Foucault's way of writing) and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.
June 2, 2010
Why one more review?
Reading our comrades' review, one is very surprised. First of all, many seem to think this book "outdated", which is quite surprising - towards Foucault's writings, the question probably is if we failed the test of time, rather than if he did...
More interesting, most seem to be deceived by the title, and assume this is a book about "sexuality".
Indeed, the discourse on sexuality (Victorian Era, confession, psychoanalysis, etc.) forms its background. The real subject, however, is power and the subject : this book was written just after Discipline and Punish where his thesis on power were already outlined.
As such, it contains Foucault's famous criticism of the sovereign theory of power. It also deeply contested the conception of power as being exclusively a censorship machine, which says what is right and what is wrong, what is legal and what is illegal. Power is also something which produces stuff - the last chapter on populations and nazism should be enough for readers to understand that this book is concerned with something much larger than "sexuality".
Reading our comrades' review, one is very surprised. First of all, many seem to think this book "outdated", which is quite surprising - towards Foucault's writings, the question probably is if we failed the test of time, rather than if he did...
More interesting, most seem to be deceived by the title, and assume this is a book about "sexuality".
Indeed, the discourse on sexuality (Victorian Era, confession, psychoanalysis, etc.) forms its background. The real subject, however, is power and the subject : this book was written just after Discipline and Punish where his thesis on power were already outlined.
As such, it contains Foucault's famous criticism of the sovereign theory of power. It also deeply contested the conception of power as being exclusively a censorship machine, which says what is right and what is wrong, what is legal and what is illegal. Power is also something which produces stuff - the last chapter on populations and nazism should be enough for readers to understand that this book is concerned with something much larger than "sexuality".
October 12, 2021
袙械谢懈泻芯谢械锌薪芯 褋褗褖械褋褌胁芯 械 褌芯蟹懈 褌芯屑!
袧械 褋褗屑 屑懈褋谢懈谢邪, 褔械 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎, 锌褉懈 褌芯胁邪 卸懈胁褟谢 写芯褋褌邪 锌芯-斜谢懈蟹泻芯 写芯 屑芯械褌芯 胁褉械屑械, 褖械 屑懈 写芯锌邪写薪械 褌邪泻邪 褋懈谢薪芯 懈 芯褌 褉邪蟹, 泻邪泻褌芯 褋褌邪薪邪 褋 袧懈褑褕械 懈 袣懈褉泻械谐芯褉. 袦懈褕械谢 肖褍泻芯 械 小歇袘袠孝袠袝! 小谢邪胁邪 袘芯谐褍, 胁 褞褌褞斜 写芯褉懈 懈屑邪 懈薪褌械褉胁褞褌邪 懈 写械斜邪褌懈 褋 薪械谐芯胁芯 褍褔邪褋褌懈械.
孝褍泻 写邪谢械褔 薪械 褋褌邪胁邪 写褍屑邪 褋邪屑芯 蟹邪 褋械泻褋褍邪谢薪芯褋褌, 褌芯泄 谐芯胁芯褉懈 蟹邪 胁谢邪褋褌褌邪, 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯褌芯, 褉械谢懈谐懈褟褌邪 - 胁褋懈褔泻芯. 袠蟹谐褉邪写懈谢 械 懈褋褌懈薪褋泻邪 褋懈褋褌械屑邪 (斜械蟹 胁褗芯斜褖械 写邪 锌褉械褌械薪写懈褉邪屑, 褔械 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪屑 芯褌 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎褋泻懈 褋锌芯褋芯斜懈 懈 薪邪褔懈薪懈 薪邪 锌芯褋褌褉芯褟胁邪薪懈褟), 胁 泻芯褟褌芯 蟹胁械薪邪褌邪 懈 薪懈褕泻懈褌械 褋械 胁谢懈胁邪褌 懈 胁屑械褋褌胁邪褌 械写薪芯 胁 写褉褍谐芯. 鈥炐氀€懈褌懈泻邪 懈 褏褍屑邪薪懈蟹褗屑鈥� 褋邪 褋械 蟹邪械谢懈 写邪 懈蟹写邪写邪褌 褌胁芯褉褔械褋褌胁芯褌芯 屑褍 薪邪 斜褗谢谐邪褉褋泻懈 械蟹懈泻. 袩褉械胁芯写邪褔泻邪褌邪, 袗薪褌芯邪薪械褌邪 袣芯谢械胁邪, 褉邪斜芯褌懈 胁褗褉褏褍 薪械谐芯 懈 谐芯 懈蟹褋谢械写胁邪 懈 锌褉械胁械卸写邪 芯褌 谐芯写懈薪懈, 锌褉械胁芯写褗褌 褲 械 泻邪褌芯 锌械褋械薪.
袘懈卸褍 胁 斜懈斜谢懈芯褌械泻邪褌邪 屑懈, 褌芯胁邪 械 褌邪蟹懈 泻薪懈谐邪. 校褋械褖邪 褋械 泻邪褌芯 褏褍写芯卸械褋褌胁械薪邪 谢懈褌械褉邪褌褍褉邪, 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 褋褌褉邪褏芯褌薪芯 锌懈褕械 肖褍泻芯. 袙懈薪谐懈 褋褗屑 褔褍胁褋褌胁邪谢邪, 褔械 褌芯泄 褖械 屑懈 写芯锌邪写薪械, 薪褟屑邪屑 褌褗褉锌械薪懈械 写邪 褋械 蟹邪锌芯蟹薪邪褟 写芯泻褉邪泄 褋 薪械谐芯 懈 胁褗蟹谐谢械写懈褌械 屑褍. 袨褌写邪胁薪邪 褋褗屑 蟹邪锌芯褔薪邪谢邪 写邪 褋褗斜懈褉邪屑 胁褋懈褔泻芯 薪械谐芯胁芯 褌褗泄 懈谢懈 懈薪邪褔械.
袧械 褋褗屑 屑懈褋谢懈谢邪, 褔械 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎, 锌褉懈 褌芯胁邪 卸懈胁褟谢 写芯褋褌邪 锌芯-斜谢懈蟹泻芯 写芯 屑芯械褌芯 胁褉械屑械, 褖械 屑懈 写芯锌邪写薪械 褌邪泻邪 褋懈谢薪芯 懈 芯褌 褉邪蟹, 泻邪泻褌芯 褋褌邪薪邪 褋 袧懈褑褕械 懈 袣懈褉泻械谐芯褉. 袦懈褕械谢 肖褍泻芯 械 小歇袘袠孝袠袝! 小谢邪胁邪 袘芯谐褍, 胁 褞褌褞斜 写芯褉懈 懈屑邪 懈薪褌械褉胁褞褌邪 懈 写械斜邪褌懈 褋 薪械谐芯胁芯 褍褔邪褋褌懈械.
孝褍泻 写邪谢械褔 薪械 褋褌邪胁邪 写褍屑邪 褋邪屑芯 蟹邪 褋械泻褋褍邪谢薪芯褋褌, 褌芯泄 谐芯胁芯褉懈 蟹邪 胁谢邪褋褌褌邪, 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯褌芯, 褉械谢懈谐懈褟褌邪 - 胁褋懈褔泻芯. 袠蟹谐褉邪写懈谢 械 懈褋褌懈薪褋泻邪 褋懈褋褌械屑邪 (斜械蟹 胁褗芯斜褖械 写邪 锌褉械褌械薪写懈褉邪屑, 褔械 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪屑 芯褌 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎褋泻懈 褋锌芯褋芯斜懈 懈 薪邪褔懈薪懈 薪邪 锌芯褋褌褉芯褟胁邪薪懈褟), 胁 泻芯褟褌芯 蟹胁械薪邪褌邪 懈 薪懈褕泻懈褌械 褋械 胁谢懈胁邪褌 懈 胁屑械褋褌胁邪褌 械写薪芯 胁 写褉褍谐芯. 鈥炐氀€懈褌懈泻邪 懈 褏褍屑邪薪懈蟹褗屑鈥� 褋邪 褋械 蟹邪械谢懈 写邪 懈蟹写邪写邪褌 褌胁芯褉褔械褋褌胁芯褌芯 屑褍 薪邪 斜褗谢谐邪褉褋泻懈 械蟹懈泻. 袩褉械胁芯写邪褔泻邪褌邪, 袗薪褌芯邪薪械褌邪 袣芯谢械胁邪, 褉邪斜芯褌懈 胁褗褉褏褍 薪械谐芯 懈 谐芯 懈蟹褋谢械写胁邪 懈 锌褉械胁械卸写邪 芯褌 谐芯写懈薪懈, 锌褉械胁芯写褗褌 褲 械 泻邪褌芯 锌械褋械薪.
袘懈卸褍 胁 斜懈斜谢懈芯褌械泻邪褌邪 屑懈, 褌芯胁邪 械 褌邪蟹懈 泻薪懈谐邪. 校褋械褖邪 褋械 泻邪褌芯 褏褍写芯卸械褋褌胁械薪邪 谢懈褌械褉邪褌褍褉邪, 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 褋褌褉邪褏芯褌薪芯 锌懈褕械 肖褍泻芯. 袙懈薪谐懈 褋褗屑 褔褍胁褋褌胁邪谢邪, 褔械 褌芯泄 褖械 屑懈 写芯锌邪写薪械, 薪褟屑邪屑 褌褗褉锌械薪懈械 写邪 褋械 蟹邪锌芯蟹薪邪褟 写芯泻褉邪泄 褋 薪械谐芯 懈 胁褗蟹谐谢械写懈褌械 屑褍. 袨褌写邪胁薪邪 褋褗屑 蟹邪锌芯褔薪邪谢邪 写邪 褋褗斜懈褉邪屑 胁褋懈褔泻芯 薪械谐芯胁芯 褌褗泄 懈谢懈 懈薪邪褔械.
October 24, 2020
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.
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.
Read
January 5, 2017You ever met some idiot hippie who says something along the lines of "Western culture and modernity have just repressed our natural sexuality," and then wanted to take them to some village in rural Bangladesh or Laos and see how their "open sexuality" is received? Foucault saw that there was nothing innately "liberatory" in the expression of human sexual urges, and conversely, that society was not as "repressive" as was so often claimed by the Freudians and their followers. Foucault argues that this is not the case, and Foucault takes his genealogical method to the ways in which human sexuality was made a subject of study, and then classed, organized, and diagnosed. Pretty much classic Foucault, and while there were some flaws in method, I'm looking quite forward to Volume 2.
November 30, 2020
噩夭賵 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲毓鬲賯丿賲 丨鬲賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵丕賳丿賴 卮賵丿.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,437 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.