So here is a thing that is stuck in my head from class last Wednesday (9/14): the fragmentation of sexuality. Thinking back to the list of paraphilias - the fact that these are so clearly defined and laid-out for us is yet another embodiment of the (presumably Victorian, at least initially) practice of controlling something through discourse rather than repression/taboo. These things aren't taboo in and of themselves, but by describing each paraphilia in such specific terms, and both by setting up a mechanism for talking about these specific fetishes and by providing a mechanism to decide what is "normal" and what is "abnormal," we have, through discourse, created a mechanism by which to judge sexuality that is infinitely more effective in labeling something "abnormal" or unacceptable, taboo, etc., than would be a mechanism created through actual taboo, repression, and/or silence.
Writing that out helps me wrap my head around the idea of controlling/hiding away/repressing various aspects of sexuality through talking about it, rather than refusing to talk about it. And in talking about it, we very naturally define ourselves in terms of our sexuality, because we can all identify with, or not identify with, certain aspects of sexuality.
So where does the fragmentation of sexuality come into this? (Took awhile to get to my actual point, didn't I.) The short version: by dividing sexuality into various paraphilias, permutations, and so-called abnormalities, we simultaneously sort ourselves into groups depending on which aspects we identify with. The simplest example of this is, perhaps, homosexuality, where being homosexual becomes an identifying characteristic for a rather large percentage of people, setting them apart.
But how much of that is perpetuated by sexuality and how much is perpetuated by people? Drawing from personal experience, I play for a roller derby team, and homosexuality is more or less traditionally part of the sport. There is a strong homosexual vein running through derby culture, and it's impossible to separate that out. And then, on some level, maybe we desire or intend to be divided into groups based on such characteristics - you get other derby leagues discriminating against heterosexual players and referees (in extreme cases, but it does happen), so to some extent, this group of people is deliberately separating themselves. Alternately, I suppose this could also be explained as a backlash to the forces which separated them as a population in the first place. Either way, "gay culture" as a whole is the most easily-identifiable example of sexual fragmentation, and I think it occurs both through the way we talk about sexuality and the way those defined by their sexuality as a fragmented group or population then go on to define themselves.
Here is the part where I change topics abruptly (because this is one I was having trouble with and then the light bulb suddenly went on).
Foucault says again and again things like: "The growth of perversions is not a moralizing theme that obsessed the scrupulous minds of the Victorians. It is the real product of the encroachment of a type of power on bodies and their pleasures" (48).
Okay. (That sounds you hear is me cracking my knuckles, mind.) The apparent explosion of the various types of perversions has nothing to do with society becoming more "moral" and identifying more and more perversions to stamp out and everything to do with our ability to put sexuality into words becoming a major force in "identifying" perversions. The "product" (that is, the growth of perversion" is the "product of the encroachment of power on bodies" - and I like the use of enroachment here because in a way, discourse is really a foreign idea to introduce to sexuality. I'm not sure how much (how many?) perversion(s) existed before discourse sought to shape it (and thereby control it), but surely much of it existed before its regulation. I guess what I really wonder is, how much? That is one long list of paraphilias I have sitting next to my laptop as I type. Did we figure these out as we figured out other things - that is, did we give words to define and control "autoandrophilia" (from Wikipedia: "a biological female imagining herself as a male") once we realized things like homosexuality and gender identity "existed"? These ideas naturally build on themselves, but what I'm getting from Foucault is that things like autoandrophilia already existed, but quietly, without being described through language.
Note to self: discuss language's constrictive power later on. It's amazing how it confines and effects sexuality.
No comments:
Post a Comment