Concept Rhyming paper #1Foucault and DiscourseFoucault argues that the topic of sex and sexuality have not been repressed through the last few centuries by being forced to be silenced.In his History of Sexuality he explores the ways that sexuality has been talked about and represented through the western past.Foucault focuses on the word discourse to depict an action of sex being construed into speech to show the way sexuality has always been talked about through the past. He uses examples of discourse being encouraged simultaneously with demonstration of the notion of repression to human sexuality.In Foucault’s writing the word discourse seems to carry ample baggage. It stands to be augmented by the surrounding words that serve a function of implying power dynamics in speech or writing. He is not interested talking about the way members of society talk about sex with one another, but with speech that serves to imply a hierarchy. Foucault lays out his the meaning behind his use of the word when he writes.“But more important was the multiplication of discourses concerning sex in the field of exorcize of power itself: an institutional incitement to speak about it, and to so more and more; a determination on the part of the agencies to of power to hear it spoken about (Foucault, 18).”Here he explains that his interest in discourse is in its relationship to institutional power. Thinking of dialogue in this way allows Foucault to explore the way that society is fashioned by language from the way the society itself is structured.In Foucault's discourse on discourse power is always in the mixture. This quote acknowledges the presence of a difference in implication between the standard use of the word and in his own.He shows this by pointing out what was important to his own unique exploration of the discourses of sex.Foucault also demonstrates the power of this discourse he writes of. Using speech in these institutionalized ways reinforces the implied hierarchal structures. “Trough the various discourses, legal sections against minor perversions were multiplied; sexual irregularity was annexed to mental illness… (Foucault, 36). Foucault is describing ways that the “repression” of sexuality that Foucault argues was erroneously associated with a notion of sexual censorship, is in reality perpetuated by the discourses already installed in societal power structures. This repression through discourse seems to be a foreign idea regarding the everyday use and associations of these to terms. The word discourse in many settings brings about images of dialogue and exchange, an exchange meaning that there is a possibility for both parties involved to share equally. Leaving room for verbal exchanges seems to be an idea traditionally opposed to repression, from the direction that repression is perpetuated through one-sided exposure maintained by lack of opportunity for dialogue or discourse. Foucault uses the term discourse to show something purposefully placed in society to allow repression by using the word to in many cases exclude dialogue that has anything to do with equal reciprocation due to the hierarchal structure already in place that Foucault's discourse is touching diving into. This monitored form of dialogue that Foucault is writing about can only be allowed to maintain to the established order of its society it is operating within. The acceptance of discourse into power is maintained in these societal structures. Foucault talks about confessions being one such form. “To be more precise, it has pursued the task of producing true discourse concerning sex, and this by adapting – not without difficulty – the ancient procedure of confession to the rules of scientific discourse (Foucault 67-68).” Foucault looks at confession as being a part of the cycle of discourse in the form of a mechanism ingrained in our society that gives us relief through discourse. If something is talked about out of hiding it becomes truth. When Foucault talks about discourse through confession it is the listener of the confession that is taking the more active role in the exchange. “where certain major mechanisms had to be found for adapting them to one another (the listening technique, the postulate of casualty, the principle of latency, the rule of interruption, the imperative of medicalization) (Foucault, 68).”The confessor is only a passive part of this ingrained cultural process of confession. There is this idea of confession being a honed machine to reinstate oppressive positions by learning about sexuality. Foucault looks at a part of society that we take for granted as the need to confess and examines it along with the role of the person monitoring the confession. He uses words like technique and rule that show the pointedness of this position. These words are able to break down and show a sterilized process that serves to further the operative device it comes from. Foucault shows the listener as serving this machine. This confuses the common thoughts surrounding the terms of confessing and listening. The words listen cannot be passive in Foucault’s use nor can confessing be active. Confession is an ingrained process that the listener can use to control and enable discourse on sex. There is a understanding in his language that, like repression, discourse is something you are to be subjected to.Effects of discourse such as sexuality to be constricted by laws or confined to terms and separations of mental illness are things because of one’s sexuality one can be confined by. These are terms once again that oppose the connection of discourse and liberation. A question that comes to mind is: why might Foucault turn common uses and notions of these words and their relations to one another on their sides?One possible answer that comes to mind is for the reason of complicating the way use and hear words might also complicate our acceptance of easy binary ways we see these concepts depicted in society. Works CitedFoucault, Michel. The history of Sexuality. New York: Random House, 1978.
