Power plays a very important role in society and is closely tied to other key concepts such as knowledge and freedom. It is therefore important to investigate its origin and operation. The conventional view of power as something that is law-like and is primarily restrictive and negative is a limited view of its real form, which Foucault claims is far more dynamic and omnipresent. Power is not just contained in the state, its institutions, and the law but is a multiplicative force that is inherent in the relations existing at all levels of a society. It is complex and productive and circulates in every direction, producing all sorts of results. Foucault’s claim of power’s complex, productive, and relational nature versus the traditional top-down, coercive understanding of it is grounded in a larger argument regarding the relationship between knowledge and power. He uses the history of sexuality to explicate this relationship in which power and knowledge are inextricably entangled with each other. No power relation can exist without the “correlative constitution of a field of knowledge” and there is no knowledge “that does not …show more content…
By gathering data and obtaining knowledge about the population’s sexuality, scientific disciplines create norms about what sexuality is and what it should look like. This knowledge is not only used to exercise control over the population by the government but is also internalized in the form of norms by the individuals themselves. Individuals in possession of this knowledge, judge and monitor themselves in an attempt to conform to or rebel against the norms. Thus the power-knowledge bond in the realm of sexuality exists at every level where there exist individuals, granting it qualities characteristic of an elaborate network with a form as complex, multiplicative, and fluid as the innumerable permutations of relations influx within
Foucault capitalizes that power and knowledge contribute to the discourse of sex; he discusses how people in power controlled this discourse to repress sex entirely. Foucault talks about the repressive hypothesis in his book. The repressive hypothesis states that whoever holds the power, also controls the discourse on sexuality. Specifically, those in power, according to the repressive hypothesis, exercise to repress the discussion of sex. In addition, Foucault comments that knowledge represents power. Whoever has the power can dictate the language of the population, thus this causes powerful people to also regulate the knowledge of the population. Although Foucault does not agree with every aspect that the repressive hypothesis exclaims, he agrees about the timing of when people started to repress sex. With rise of the bourgeoisie in the 17th century, a rise in tighter control about sex also took place. Foucault stated that the discourse of sex remained
During this time the works on sexual power and dominance written by Michel Foucault informed the interpretation and analysis of historians on the subject of Two-Spirit sex roles. Foucault, esteemed for writing a comprehensive history of sexuality, informed many of the analysis on this subject following his work’s publication. In his volume the History of Sexuality published in 1972, Michel Foucault discusses the many aspects of sexuality and its use as a form of power. Specifically Foucault was imminent in interpreting the role of dominance and passivity in sex and in homosexual interactions. These discussions informed many of the works that followed, especially the work Long Before Stonewall (Rifkin, 2011).
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
Pierre Bourdieu was a highly influential theorist. He provides a unique and fascinating definition or understanding of power as well as an explanation and analysis into how power works. This work serves to outline what is this specific concept of power means and contains, how it is created, what are the various forms it takes on and in general, how power works. Power is a difficult concept to define conclusively or definitively however, Bourdieu explains power to be a symbolic construct that is perpetuated through every day actions and behaviours of a society, that manipulate power relations to create, maintain and force the conforming of peoples to the given habitus of that society (Bourdieu, 1977). Power, is a force created through the social conventions of a specific community that dictate what is expected or accepted by the people while also determining how they understand the world in which they live (Bourdieu, 1977).
In the article “An Anthropological Look at Human Sexuality” the authors, Patrick Gray and Linda Wolfe speak about how societies look at human sexuality. The core concept of anthology is the idea of culture, the systems of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors people acquire as a member of society. The authors give an in depth analysis on how human sexuality is looked at in all different situations.
In Sigmund Freud’s “Sexual Morality and Modern Nervousness”, contained in Sexuality and the Psychology of Love, the writer presents separate roles for men and women as it relates to sexuality, even referring to a “double code of morality” (22) for the genders. In his paper the former often takes the role of the subject while the former becomes the object. In fact, women are described as the “true sexual guardians of the race” glorified, it seems, instead of truly studied. However, in one particular section of the essay, Freud turns his focus onto the female sexuality. In specific he references the various factors that, in his eyes, can influence the female sexual formation. The primary influences being that of the society, primarily the institution of marriage, and that of the family, which would include both a woman’s parents and children. After discussing these elements, Freud then
Theory: Michel Foucault argues a number of points in relation to power and offers definitions that are directly opposed to more traditional liberal and Marxist theories of power. Foucault believed that power is never in any one person's hands, it does not show itself in any obvious manner but rather as something that works its way into our imaginations and serves to constrain how we act.... ... middle of paper ... ... Giddons, A. (2007). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'.
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
In the book History of Sexuality: An introduction, Volume 1 by Michel Foucault, he discusses the “repressive hypothesis” which he had developed. Sexual repression was due to the rise of the bourgeois. He suggests that the repressive hypothesis is important for discourse on the revolution of sexuality. Foucault has recognized the repressive hypothesis as a form of discourse. The repressive hypothesis has power to repress the debate of sexuality. Foucault mentions that society has created control over how people talk about sex over time. In the 17th century with the rise of the bourgeoisie, there had been control on the discourse of sex. In the 18th century, sex was studied for the means of regulating the demographic of the population. Sex lives
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
“Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse compartments may be realized.” (Foucault)
In “History and Sexuality Vol. I”, Foucault concerns himself primarily with the idea of sex, and how sex is influenced by, and influencing society and individuals. Sex is traditionally viewed as a real, biological entity from which we conclude that there is such a thing as sexuality. Foucault disagrees, arguing that sex is an “imaginary thing” produced by the idea of sexuality in order to maintain a coherent image (Foucault, 155-156). The body is a conglomerate of culturally constituted meanings, and sex is an “imaginary point” (CITE)- the mere result of a materiality. Nonetheless, sex and gender are primary ways in which societies organize and police people’s bodies. The body is constituted through sex and gender- there is no core self that isn’t constructed by power and social relations. We discipline ourselves into outwardly performing our gender. When we are born we become a “docile body” (CITE) that takes on gender characteristics given by society; our bodies are produced through gender and sex
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
This essay will discuss the ways sexuality is gendered and their impacts towards both men and women by exploring the contemporary heterosexual scripts from a sociological perspective on three main aspects; i.e. sex drive, desire and power. It studies how men are deemed to have a higher sexual edge than women, who acts as the relationship gatekeepers. This essay analyses the theory that women predictably pursuits love and relationships while men are more sexually controlled by lusts and cravings. Sexual dominance and passiveness is another traditional script inspected in this essay, focusing on how men are always expected to be the prevailing initiator thus devouring more power in relationships while women stays being the weaker, submissive receivers.
From birth, one's sexuality is shaped by society. Cultures institute behaviors that are to be seen as the societal norms, which work to constantly reinforce societal expectations of how genders should act in relation to one another. Although some may argue that one's sexuality is an innate characteristic resulting from genetic makeup, there is a large amount of evidence pointing to its social construction instead. Through the power differences between males and females, established gender roles, and drastic economic shifts, society establishes sexuality and reinforces the behaviors that are expected of its citizens.