What do we mean when we talk about “sex”? Are we talking about gender, genitals, intercourse? Foucault says no. According to him, though gender, genitals, and intercourse certainly relate to and have something to do with sex, these things are not exactly sex itself.
Indeed, to Foucault sex is a signifier that has a large quantity of signifieds. He says, “So we must not refer a history of sexuality agency of sex; but rather show how sex is historically subordinate to sexuality. We must not place sex on the side of reality, and sexuality on that of confused ideas and illusions; sexuality is a very real historical formation; it is what gave rise to the notion of sex” (p. 157).
Is Foucault correct? Is sex only a figment of our imagination created to help us talk about sexuality and all that it encompasses? And if so, what necessitated its creation?
In my opinion, that the human mind is largely image and memory based has caused uniquely individual signifieds to every signifier, meaning every person links a different image (signified) to the majority-accepted signifier. In the context of sex for example, hearing the word “sex” would likely cause a different image in my mind from yours. Not only this, but perhaps there are a variety of different images each of us draw upon automatically when we think of “sex.” Because of this, I think that sex is not solely a signifier of other things. Rather, it is that and also a signified itself that can fit into a variety of things and exist with them simultaneously.
I’m not sure if this is making sense or even if I interpreted Foucault’s argument completely correctly, but the main point is that I disagree with Foucault when he says the notion of “sex” is a social construct. I think that it has been a constant and has existed since the equally socially constructed notion of “sexuality.” Since we socially construct so many things, I think that it is difficult to identify the things that are not.
-Ziev
No comments:
Post a Comment