Fashioning the Body: Versions of the Citizen, the Self, and the Subject

Maria

Concept Rhyming Paper #1

Foucault

    I chose the word discourse as the topic of my paper. I wasn't able to access the Old English Dictionary definition of the word so instead I'm using the Dictionary.com definition. Hopefully this doesn't make the result too different.

 Dictionary.com gave these definitions for the word discourse:

 1. communication of thought by words; talk; conversation: earnest and intelligent discourse.

2. a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing, as a dissertation, treatise, sermon, etc.

3. Linguistics. any unit of connected speech or writing longer than a sentence. 

-verb (used without object)

4. to communicate thoughts orally; talk; converse.

5. to utter or give forth (musical sounds).

    I think the two definitions given here which might be closest to what Foucault meant when he used the term in History of Sexuality are definitions two and five. I think he meant something more specific than just general communication (which is the way I most commonly hear the word used today), as the first and fifth definitions suggest or the vague, "anything longer than a sentence" explanation given as the third definition. I think he also meant something more than simply to utter or give forth, as definition six suggests. I'm not sure whether the "musical sounds" part of that definition is a poetic way of referring to words and speech in general, or whether it is actually alluding to a more musical or poetic type of speech or music quite literally, but if that is part of the definition I think Foucault meant something more technical than that.

    In Foucault for beginners they define Foucault's use of the word discourse more along the line of a technical mode of discussion complete with its own terminology and jargon. My interpretation of the term from reading History of Sexuality aligns with this definition.

    Foucault makes direct references in his work towards the desire to treat sex in a technical or clinical way when he describes our approach towards discourse about sex as a "scientia sexualis" or science of sexuality as opposed to an "ars erotica" or art of sexuality, which he says is the norm in other cultures.

    I think the second and fifth definitions given by the dictionary work with this interpretation in a general way because I see a link between something treated in a technical manner and also something which is officially studied or discussed as opposed to being more open to interpretation. Also specifying discourse as formal or official I think gives the impression of it having more of an effect towards shaping cultural norms and perspectives. If there is a formal statement about an issue there are probably others considered less normal or credible. The formal discourse seems like it would be the one used by authorities in power.

    I think the word "dissertation" used in that same definition is very much in the spirit of "scientia sexualis" because it involves a hypothesis and an expectation of defense or 'evidence' which I think goes back to the idea of this kind of discourse being treated as something loosely based off of a scientific model.

    I also thought that it was interesting that the word "sermon" was used in the dictionary's definition because of the ties Foucault makes to religion when he talks about the religious tradition of confession and how this ritual is carried on and used in more modern times, in for example, the psychiatrist's office. Although he is talking about a different kind of discourse perhaps there is a somewhat similar or related dynamic in sermons because the information in the discourse is presented as knowledge by a person in a position of power or authority. However I think the scientific or technical part of this is important to note. On page 64 Foucault talks about linking "the production of truth according to the juridico-religious model of confession, and the extortion of confidential evidence according to the scientific rules of discourse." In the Foucault for Beginners book it notes that Foucault sees the historical shift that took place when the focus of speculation on the world moved more and more towards a science of man as opposed to something focused on god.

   However Foucault also says many times in the introductory chapter that it is not through repression that sexuality is controlled but by the implementation of a structure of discourses surrounding sexuality. So it's not controlled simply by having people preach to us to repress ourselves in certain ways, but it's more enforced by how we talk about it. It is the "regime of discourses" as Foucault calls it on page 27, which influences how we think about the topic of sexuality and how it relates to ourselves and others.

    And confession is a vital step. As Foucault says on page 59, man is now turned into a "confessing animal". In the same manner confession was once given in church information is collected from individuals in the process of discourse. Foucault says "Rather than a massive censorship beginning with the verbal proprieties imposed by the age of reason, what was involved was a regulated and polymorphous incitement to discourse." (34) He went on to say on page 44 that the discourse it "required" worked through "questions that extorted admissions, and confidences that went beyond the questions that were asked", creating a panopticon like power dynamic where the one who was listening had the authoritative position in the relationship. This could be the religious leader, the psychoanalyst, the teacher or someone involved in the criminal justice system. There was no clear "center" of authority from, which all of this discourse was controlled. Instead, on page 30 Foucault says that in the nineteenth century one could find "many centers" of power. He says on page 33, "we are dealing with less a discourse on sex than with a multiplicity of discourses produced by a whole series of mechanisms operating in different institutions." The information given in confession is the data or as Foucault puts on page 26, "the object of analysis" used by these institutions to shape how we talk about and think about sexuality.

    However, Foucault points out that these discourses fall pitifully short of actual science. On page 54 he says, "when we compare the discourses on human sexuality with what was known at the time about the physiology of animal and plant reproduction we are struck by the incongruity." He goes on to say on page 55 that "the learned discourse on sex that was pronounced in the nineteenth century was imbued with age old delusions but also a systematic blindness."

    I think it's also interesting to look at the level of meticulousness and close attention to detail which was recorded in an effort to create a more realistic structure out of an abstract thing. Foucault says the system "compels everyone to transform their sexuality into a perpetual discourse" (33). This seems to be in an attempt to solidify or create tangible evidence out of something abstract, but it's easy to see how you could completely miss the point amidst too much data. The farm hand that pays a child for sex was a good example. In an effort to understand why he did this action according to Foucault he was kept under surveillance for the rest of his life where his "brainpan”,” facial bone structure" and other parts of his anatomy were searched for "possible signs of degenerescence". Of course there may be something we could learn about this individual and why he acted this way, but the level of inspection and insignificant details which made up the scientific discourses of the experts probably didn't yield much good information, certainly nothing you would want to base a real science on, and definitely a lot of meaningless excess information.

   I think it's interesting when Foucault says on page 43 "the homosexual was now a species". The statement for me seems to resonate with the inhumanity of the process where people were clinically studied and shaped into named scientific categories. The label, how we describe people (as what they are, and not just what they choose to do) suddenly becomes hugely important. While I do think things like sexual orientation can be a big part of a person's sense of self, especially when you consider all of the cultural importance of gay and other sexual communities, it is still interesting to remember, as a girl in seminar pointed out this week, that many of the terms still used today like "homosexual" where originally medical terms which where created by doctors who used them to describe what they felt was an illness. The use of the word "species" which Foucault uses in the quote above is especially chilling, since it takes people outside of their humanity and puts them into a whole separate category. But even the idea of a "person type" still seems a little creepy to me. We are people no matter what we do. Although the move from what we do to what we are is still commonly made today. Often people will ask or wonder "am I a _____?" or "are you a______?" without giving much thought to the form of the question.

Sexuality becomes more than just an action or something that is pursued for pleasure in this 'science'. It is something that has to be justified. There needs to be a reason for it as well as its 'peculiarities'. And even further, Foucault states on page 65 that psychiatrists could see it as a "cause for any and everything".

    I think the definitions given in the beginning of this essay are not perfectly descriptive of Foucault's usage of the term discourse. I think it is important to stress how technical the mode of discourse was and how it was attempting to impose a scientific type of authority and make knowledge claims. I think having knowledge of the power dynamics of institutions and the mechanisms of power within and also shaping the discourse itself are important to acknowledge in looking at how Foucault uses the term discourse.