In the modern age of sexuality there is a consistent shame associated with lying within the peripherals of passion and sexuality. With the general public growing more tolerant and less judgmental the possibilities of a new comprehension on the fundamentals associated with sexual preference are becoming actualized. Through the awareness of historical critique there can be the promotion of social justice. Michel Foucault has been at the forefront of reinterpreting history since the 20th century.
In Carolyn J. Dean’s article in History and Theory, “The Productive Hypothesis: Foucault, Gender, and the History of Sexuality” highlights and critiques on the technologies of sex, a theory of Foucault, aids in the separation of further reinforced social stigmas. Dean is a professor of cultural and intellectual history of modern Europe and history of gender and sexuality at Yale University. Dean examines scholarly literature about sexuality and clarifies the theoretical groundwork that has been laid prior.
She disagrees with Foucault’s theories and claims there is the category of gender missing. This further strengthens the question as to what historical experience does the concept of sexuality make meaningful? The ignominy regarding homosexual and exterior influences of sexuality shapes how the modern sexual self is produced. Dean reiterates the idea of Foucault by focusing on the concept he illustrates of how we are never outside of power and this includes our sexual liberation.
There is a ruse of power, and there is no escape of power and because of this, sexual liberation can never be accomplished. Any freedom of sexuality will only further tighten the grip of power on an individual from the people in control of the reigns. Foucault has designed a theory of the capitalist demand and how there is a need for healthy, productive workers within society. Hence why heterosexuality is the norm, because there is a need within the realms of society to keep populated and effective.
On the contrary, Dean ridicules this perspective in saying Foucault’s work emerged on the “historic-political critique of sexual repression and the exclusion of women from a social contract based on self-transforming bodies”(287) . This in turn reveals an “effort to restore a male self perceived as lost” (287) . There is this embedded concept within the article that sexuality equals liberation, and throughout the history of studying sexuality an increasing oppression of freedom has created a vibrational desire to become more progressive. Furthermore, the abundance f counterarguments formulated reassures me that Foucault’s theories have deep roots containing applicable context.
A contextual shift has occurred where things that were once considered strange and corrupt are now accepted and natural. When considering the foundation of sexuality there are perimeters one must lie in or scrutiny is associated. Now with everything growing more just, emergence of an underlying oppression comes forward revealing that nature and women are not the only factors in sexuality. Connecting back to the original question posed, what makes sexuality meaningful in relativity to historical context?
The answer I gathered is sexuality is always consequential, always relevant. Although the government and controlling forces over society wish to manipulate the outcome of peoples ideals, in the end as shared by Dean, “The sexual self is perpetually in formation because power is perpetually unsatisfied” (291) . An argument suggested is Foucault’s lack of women in his hypotheses. However, what is mentioned about men and the oppression of sexuality they are impelled to maintain, can be easily transmitted in regards to females as well.
Sexuality is not limited to a man, or a woman, it is a human experience that includes many alternatives. In addition, James A. Schultz’s article in Poetica, “Parzival, Courtly Love, and the History of Sexuality” analyses of various schemas on the regularity of sexuality that date back to the 15th century illustrates how these arrangements have perpetuated a specific idea of modern day love. Schultz, a professor of Germanic Language and Gender Studies at University of California, Los Angeles, founded the program of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies at the university.
His interest in medievalism and sexuality creates a foundation of questioning as to why sexuality has evolved in such a way. An understanding of the present day assumption that our exterior selves must declare our sex and gender type is discussed and examined. Due to the literary canon heterosexuality has stood at the standard norm when writing about the complexity of sexuality. Foucault has worded all other sexual preferences not falling into the category of “heterosexual monogamy” as “peripheral sexualities” , meaning those lying on the outside of the normal standard.
This idea of peripheral sexualities has reinforced an idea that love and sex must reside in a normal standard deviation. Schultz’s mentions that it is “the body that provokes love, and it is not marked by the sex of an individual” (39), the understanding of courtly love breaks the modern day stereotypes about the idea of love we have grown to become accustomed too. Courtly love as Shultz’s mentions is not determined by the sex of the individual but by how the body of said individual makes the lover feel.
Love has nothing to do with the sex, or gender, of a being, “Love begins when the lover sees the beloved, the image of the beloved enters through the eyes, lodges in the heart, and takes the lover captive” (43). Courtly love emphasizes the point that the body and the tug of desire to a person and the sexual inclination involved are directly related. In modern and medieval times this stands true. In the 15th century when courting someone was more common the standard definition of heterosexuality was not yet comprehended.
Therefore it is not the sex that attracts someone to another, it is the desire and pull they internally feel. In the body lies a power to promote and enhance sexual lust. Courtly love provides an outside investigation that highlights an era where there was not a standard norm for how someone should identify sexually. In todays world we desire instant gratification, and we think the body must declare its sex within the initial meeting. Schultz’s main point of focus is redefining our understanding that our exterior selves must declare our sex and gender type.
The convincing argument posits is courtliness is a language of love, and nowhere in this language are there genital restrictions that designate specific intimate relations or emotional intimacy. The overlap that ties these two powerful articles illuminating on sexuality is the intrinsic inclination any individual feel towards another. As stated in Shultz’s article in today’s world “Most Americans believe that the factors that determine their sex lives lie in themselves. This includes hormones, desires, and their own individual desires” (43).
However, as we can conclude there are an abundance of factors that influence the decisions people make in accordance to their sexual interests. With the increasing involvement of the media and government in the lives of ordinary citizens the perceptions people have on their own sexuality are skewed and tainted by a propagated comprehension that stands as the norm in todays modern society. The truth is the body is what provokes love. The sex and associated gender are not the imperative determinants. In Dean’s reiteration of Foucault’s theories there is a societal gaze that is affecting the way humans view themselves and the world.
Shultz’s is capturing the element of desire, chemistry, and intrinsic lust that inflames the lover to act on the beloved. The standards of sexuality people are expected to maintain in addition to the innate passions they are inclined towards are counter intuitive. The result is individuals are torn between being their true selves, and living up to what the media and society anticipates them to become. Consequently, meaning to everything is always socially constructed. There is always a political agenda, because the personal is political.
In both of the articles I reviewed I found myself in awe at the criticism of modern day propaganda and media. Foucault has a way of criticizing historical context to promote social justice I find these articles imperative to humans understanding of their own sexuality and personal liberation. The multitude of ways people of the world are influenced by a set of expectations relatively unattainable is unjust and ultimately savage. It is truly a simple concept we have made complicated: The body is the tool that provokes the lover to approach the beloved, sex and gender does not define this desire.
