Upon reading Foucault’s text this week, I found myself intrigued because it didn’t feel like I was reading a typical work of philosophy. I think it was summed up during lecture when Christina said that Foucault never attempted to suggest new ways of thinking, but more so leaves it up to the reader to take action for themselves. While I found parts of the text dry and wordy, his overall argument is intriguing and I especially enjoyed that he did not give off a tone where he was forcing his opinion on me. I find this style a bit reminiscent of Black Skin, White Masks in that Fanon also left the action up to his readers. Either way, I think this is the first time when I would like to read more of a philosopher’s work.
I understand Foucault’s arguments against the “repression hypothesis,” but I am confused by his stance on identity, particularly in the last quote that was brought up during lecture. I can’t tell if Foucault has a problem with people considering their sexuality to be an intrinsic part of their identity, or if he’s ok with it and would just prefer that people look at their identity from a creative standpoint. Perhaps this is the part where he’s left it up to the readers to decide which route they want to take.
Overall I think this topic is incredibly deep and interesting and I’m enjoying the works we have studied so far this semester. I’m sure that our seminar will harbour some interesting discussion about the chronological history of sexuality (as opposed to Foucault’s view of history) and some modern views on the subject as well.
One reply on “Thoughts on Foucault”
Good question about his view of identity. I take it to be that we shouldn’t try to find something that would constitute our “true identity,” especially not through trying to find out what our “true sexuality” is really like. The idea of turning to science to tell us who we are and what we are like suggests that there is some kind of inalterable truth about us, when instead Foucault wants us to think of identity and sexuality as up to us to create. We don’t have to think of ourselves according to some particular category of sexuality defined from the outside as if that were a stable description of ourselves; rather, we can create our own identities and our own view of the sexual aspects of our being. The problem with thinking, for example, that one is a homosexual or a heterosexual is that those categories come with a certain sort of understanding of what it means to be those things, and that boxes you in. We should be able to be free to choose our forms of relationships, of love, of sexual behaviours without being told what sort of person we are. I’m sure we’ll talk about this more in seminar!