In giving us the history of sexuality, Foucault focuses on the policies that power structures during different times held regarding sexuality and how this affected and regulated sexuality itself. Part II of The History of Sexuality especially explores how the power structure affected and regulated the discourse of sex and the affect that this discourse had on sexuality.
Is it possible, though, that this power structure’s regulation of sexuality had the most acute affect on the power structure itself? We can assume that the power structure consisted of the Church and aristocracy. The Church dictated what sexual behavior was looked upon favorably, for example using it only to procreate, and not engaging in intercourse until marriage. With this cultural ideal established, and assuming that the reward of heavenly paradise was true, one would think that it is the aristocracy who adhered to this dictum most religiously and were therefore the group with the highest proportion of its members ascending to heaven rather than being punished for sexual deviation and promiscuity by the fiery embers of hell.
In this case, then, we assume that the lower classes who did not belong to this sexually pure aristocracy did not ascend into God’s hands as frequently. The lower classes were more promiscuous, and to the power structure, this is likely part of the reason as to why they were “low” in the first place. As we know through countless accounts in history and depictions in books and film of the aristocracy in the Victorian era, the sexual behavior of the aristocracy did not often adhere to the principals dictated by the church, and indeed the sexual nature of humans often won and resulted in mistresses, illegitimate children, and scandal.
Foucault must realize of course that the sexual doctrine of the Victorian era was not adhered to in any way besides discourse. I think there is an obvious difference between discourse and behavior, or discourse and action. The way I understand it, the reason Foucault devotes a whole chapter to discourse is because it was the only platform in which the sexual doctrine of the Victorian era was adhered to. Though sex outside the cultural doctrine of acceptability must have been constant, discourse is among what reflects the culture of a time and place most clearly. Of course I, like Foucault, am speaking in huge generalities about the West during a certain cultural era.
What this does in my mind is raise the question: If human sexual behavior has remained relatively constant despite differences in discourse and culture (proof: a steady exponential increase in human population for thousands of years), in what ways does analyzing this discourse reveal something about the sexuality of our own culture? I would be very interested in knowing the answer.
-Ziev
Ziev- I like a lot of the ideas in this post. The last part on how the discourse of sexuality was the only thing about sex that actually complied to the Victorian Purity during the Victorian era. That's a great idea I actually hadn't even thought of. I suppose I'd just always seen Victorian men and their mistresses as either a part of the system or just something happening outside of it, mostly due to the total secrecy of that kind of stuff.
ReplyDeleteOne question I had is, how literal or sarcastic are you being in talking about the Feudal aristocracy and having them be the most indoctrinated in the Church's ideology regarding sexuality? Interesting to think that these are the people who claimed to be ordained by God, yet, we know historically that tons of regents had mistresses or adulterous types of affairs. Hell, Henry VIII made up Anglicanism to basically do this! Just wondering.