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

Mother seeks girl's hysterectomy Hey, here is an interesting article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7032736.stm

     Language obfuscates into every social aspect, for not only is one no longer conscious of one’s words to convey ideas, but one thinks one expresses the ideas themselves.  Given language’s pervasive boundaries, discourse, as a form of the language technique becomes problematic.  Through time, the meaning of discourse decentralized and incorporated various conceptions; Michel Foucault uses the word to deconstruct its connotation, causing an expansion of its meaning in which one explores power dynamics.

     Perpetual use of a word causes assumption of its meaning. Inquiring into its meaning passes for a continuation of reading. One only knows around the word. When one pauses and attempts to define the word, momentary silence persists until a process begins which shifts from assumptions to actually looking at the word.  Discourse describes dialogue, academic analysis, fields of study, the act of conversation, speech, the use of reason and rationality, and a path for knowledge.[1]  Given its variance in meaing, Foucault shapes the word, discourse, into an inclusive, complex concept, which not only describes the term but also explores the background, the depth of its function in society.

Here is my paper.

Over the years, I've been increasingly curious about assumptions. Why do people make assumptions? Who are they making these assumptions about? What are they trying to accomplish by making assumptions? How do they arrive at these assumptions? I suppose one answer is the need or urge to categorize other people based on their appearance or behavior. Another reason could be a need or urge to have an "us" and a "them". When making assumptions based on a person's appearance it is far too easy to judge too harshly and far too quickly.

On the other hand, I believe that there are some assumptions that one can safely make. However, they involve aspects of a person's personality that they are comfortable revealing. For example, if someone is wearing a shirt/button/carrying a bag/some other item of clothing that says I love my (fill in the blank), it can be assumed that they really love their (fill in the blank). The same can be assumed about any other visual representations of popular culture. If someone is wearing a picture of it, it's safe to assume that they like it.

Blythe
Professor Zay
October 3rd, 2007
Concept Rhyming Essay #1


Assuming I know nothing of the word ‘knowledge’, have never heard of it and have no sense of it in any context, and I were to gain awareness of this word based solely on the first seventy three pages of Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, Vol I: An Introduction, my initial observations would be something along the lines of the following:
Knowledge is a thing that can be gained from the act of sex, and is linked to both power and sexuality through ‘repression’. Knowledge contains an element of extreme intensity of emotion (fervor), or there is fervor present when one first gains knowledge, or fervor always surrounds knowledge. Knowledge was formed as a result of the linkage between discourse, the effects of power, and pleasures invested by them. Together with power and pleasure, knowledge forms a regime that sustains the discourse on human sexuality. There is something called a ‘will to knowledge’. This ‘will’ leads to ‘knowledge’. Knowledge may be the term for a human being’s desire to quantify and explain the world. Knowledge involves an accounting system. Knowledge is a very carefully controlled, important and valuable thing. Knowledge is practical. Knowledge is an institution with a history.
Foucault does not seem set on defining ‘knowledge’ as something specifically new. The word ‘knowledge’ itself in this particular text does not appear to be of huge concern except for in its relationship to other terms such as ‘power’ and ‘discourse’, and for its use in the de-bunking of Foucault’s ‘repressive hypothesis’.
The conception of knowledge as an institution is not present in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)’s definition. The OED lists a sixteen-part definition of the word, but nowhere is knowledge defined specifically as an institution. The phrase in which Foucault thus refers to knowledge comes after the story of the farm hand from Lapcourt who obtained “a few caresses” (31) from a little girl: “One can be fairly certain that during this same period the Lapcourt schoolmaster was instructing the little villagers to mind their language and not talk about all these things aloud. But this was undoubtedly one of the conditions enabling the institutions of knowledge and power to overlay this everyday bit of theatre with their solemn discourse.” (32)

Kendall

Julia Zay

Fashioning the Body

05 October 2007

Foucault’s Power

The definition of the word “power” is something that most wouldn’t ponder unless provoked to do so. Michel Foucault prompts the reconsideration of our understanding of this word throughout his work The History of Sexuality. By using “power” in new contexts throughout this volume the meaning comes to seem complicated, or at least to take on new forms.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word power as “the ability to act or affect something strongly; physical or mental strength; might; vigor; energy; effectiveness.” Another definition provided is that of “political or national strength,” which comes as no surprise. Many of us think of power in a hierarchical sense, which is linear and coming from “above” to bear down on us. It seems to give us little choice, and impedes our agency. It comes from institutions of the state such as the hospital, the asylum, our government, the school.

Foucault, however, does not feel that power is such a limiting, linear act that leaves us with little control. On the contrary he maintains that we all are participants in the mechanisms of power that run throughout our lives. “If there was no resistance, there would be no power relations, because it would simply be a matter of obedience.” (Fillingham, 151)

Lois Shawver tells us in her online Foucault Dictionary that he is making the point that “power is exerted implicitly by the way in which our conversation (i.e., discourse) is formed, and it is often exerted by denying its own truth, or by myths that misrepresent the source of power by pointing to less powerful sources.” Though I think this is true, I do not think that it encompasses all that Foucault is saying about power in The History of Sexuality.

Not only does he refer to power in and of itself, but he also discusses “knowledge-power,” and the power/ pleasure relationship in which the two are linked in “perpetual spirals.” (Foucault, 45) There are the mechanisms and techniques of power, and then there is the role that power plays in confession which is part of discourse. Not to mention the shifting and fluid power relationships that exist at any given time. Power no longer seems such a simple word. The idea that power comes simply and linearly from above must be discarded. There is power all around us, happening and being produced through many mechanisms, techniques, relationships and discourses which are all linked inextricably together feeding in and influencing one another.

I had some problems loading this as a file because I was having problems converting a Word document to PDF format.Finally was able to do so by a program my SO found online. It's called pdf995. It's freeware but it does come with ads.

Liz

Fashioning the Body

10/4/07

Knowledge

Before I started my analysis on the term, “knowledge”, I decided to think about what my thoughts about this term were. Specifically, what my definition of the term was, before reading Foucault. I asked myself to define knowledge.

If you asked me to define this term a week ago, I probably would have said that knowledge is something smart people have. It is full of facts, history, and education. This is just one perspective out of millions. It is hard to say what others think about knowledge, but for purposes of this paper I’m just going to pretend/assume that people have a similar perspective about this term and its meaning.

I always thought that you got “knowledge” from factual texts, from studying for hours and being tested. Sure, you retain information when you do activities like this, but are you gaining knowledge? Are these experiences giving you knowledge? And what other, if any, experiences besides educational, make one knowledgeable or have knowledge?

I want to point out the phrase, “gaining knowledge.” It is interesting to me, because the word “gain” isn’t usually associated with something positive. Foucault deploys the term knowledge to me, as something you can’t gain. You can’t immediately gain knowledge, you have to go on a journey to obtain knowledge.

In the History of Sexuality, Foucault presses the issue of the knowledge of sex. I thought about my own experience with sex/sexuality, and I asked myself: how did I retain my knowledge about sex? The answer I came up with was this; through experience and expression. I learned the facts about sex from educators in elementary school, but that is not how I became knowledgeable about sex or my sexuality. I think one could argue with me here, saying no, actually you learned facts and obtained knowledge on this subject from your educators. But, I think Foucault would be on my side, saying how ordinary of you.

Molly
Fashioning the Body
October 2nd, 2007
Concept Rhyming Essay #1



Michel Foucault explains to us in the introductory chapter of The History of Sexuality that he wishes to “...write the history of what has been said concerning sex in the modern epoch.” The key word in this sentence is “said”. In the rest of his book, Foucault uses the word “discourse” to tell his history of what has been “said” about sexuality, mainly regarding the sexual prudishness of the 19th century, he goes on to say “I would like to write a history of these instances and their transformations”(12). Foucault employs the word “discourse” in a variety of different ways throughout the book, which is appropriate because of the ambiguity that surrounds the term, which can suggest many different ways of communication.What is concrete about the term is that it expresses a form of communication, and in conjunction with the word “sexual” Foucault uses it to tell us exactly what has been communicated regarding sex in the modern epoch. These things that have been said, or more appropriately, these discourses range from the sexually illicit confessions of the Marquis de Sade and his 120 Days of Sodom to the scientific system that names and categorizes “people” like the Marquis and their “disorders”.
As stated in The Oxford English Dictionary, “discourse” comes from the latin “discursus” which means “running to and fro”, this root explains the connection the word has to communication, which is essentially a verbal “to and fro” between two people. According to Fillingham, Foucault has a broad meaning for this term “discourse” that is innately “...anything written or said or communicated using signs, and marks another connection to structuralism and its dominant focus on language” (100). Foucault also has a more particular way of using “discourse” and this is also pointed out in the text by Fillingham. She relays that “discourse” “...has a very specific meaning: writings in an area of of technical knowledge--that is, areas in which there are specialists, specialized or technical knowledge, and specialized or technical vocabulary” (101). An example of Foucault using the term “discourse” in this specific way in The History of Sexuality is as follows: “And not so much in the form of a general theory of sexuality as in the form of analysis, stocktaking, classification, and specification, of quantitative or causal studies. This need to take sex “into account” to pronounce a discourse on sex that would not drive from morality alone but from rationality as well,...”. In this quote Foucault uses the term to express the development of a more formal and technical use of the word discourse, as it relates to western sexual history. In the Oxford English dictionary, there is no specific definition that matches up to this interpretation of what Foucault means when he uses the word “discourse” in this way, but many can blanket this specific form of verbal or written communication. The fifth definition in the dictionary of the noun “discourse” seems to be the best match, it explains “discourse” as: “a spoken or written treatment of a subject, in which it is handled or discussed at length; a dissertation, treatise, homily, sermon, or the like.” This definition seems to make sense with Foucault’s denotation of the word, but it doesn't really grasp it exactly.

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.