6 Our Class’s Critical Responses

After diving into Foucault‘s volumes, we had critical discussions of the work. Here are some thoughts from members of our class.

Tristen – “Acknowledging his problematic background, however, is imperative to include his work. I continue to wonder how we might analyze our own case studies and the rest of the works we read having already been exposed to Foucault’s theory. Will we be able to separate ourselves from what he has already proposed?”

Jane – “Foucault’s discourse permeates all. It is a thing that can be acted on, a thing that is sustained (by regimes), and also a vessel for conversation. It is honestly pretty confusing and acts as a hydra- any resistance to discourse gets subsumed by it. If you want to skip trying to understand discourse- I wouldn’t blame you. In our discussions on discourse, we asked ourselves if it was even helpful to intellectualize discourse. If we want to call the concept pointless, it can liberate us from the constraints of Foucault’s theory. If you want to analyze discourse exhaustively, all the power to you- whatever project of theorization or analysis helps you understand yourself and your community is well worth it. For those interested in politics- I thought of discourse as a monolithic hydra- similar to how capitalism operated. Capitalism subsumes all that resists it. To be sustainable, people stop buying certain products, like plastic straws. But then corporate actors see this as an opportunity to make a profit- enter the metal straw industry. Real change in sustainability and protecting the ocean didn’t occur. My example may be a stretch when talking about Foucault, but it was helpful for me to understand discourse and try to conceptualize it as such a large concept.”

Mikayla – “I’m very interested in the economics of marriage and the nuclear family that Foucault brings up, especially how this relates to power, gender, and class. The Ancient Grecian stance on homosexuality is unclear since it seems permissible for men but only if there is an age gap between the lover and beloved. In Foucault’s theory, homosexuality seems either not talked about or not an option for women, who aren’t sexual beings except when it comes to bearing their husband’s children. I’m interested to see how these themes and social norms can be traced to contemporary times as well, as what we can learn about our current world from learning about the history of ancient Greece. I wonder how male privilege plays into this and what comparisons we can draw between antiquity and present times since I feel like there hasn’t been a huge difference in how I’ve personally seen lesbians versus gay men treated today.”

Lauren: “I think that the author himself is greatly problematic — raising the question as to whether or not we should even promote his work. Where I find myself ending up with this question is that I think we need to reference some of his ideas, but also preface the issues with the author and the need to take what he says with a grain of salt. I do think that the fact that he was the first person to talk about the history of sexuality is important, and thus must at least be mentioned, but not the center point of our discussions. Some of these ideas that we must address are the repressive hypothesis, the difference between sexuality in public and private, homosexuality, and more. Questions that remain unanswered to me are where we can find other sources that may not say that Ancient Greece is where we must start with the history of sexuality, as well as looking at the primary sources ourselves to further understand the ideas.”

Sophie: “I think one of the common themes I have enjoyed tracing throughout his works has been the idea of self-surveillance. Throughout Volume 2, Foucault constantly mentions the importance of moderation – or sophrosune, ‘master of one’s self.’ My group for workshop 2 dived deep into trying to understand his analysis of the meaning of morality, and the role of sophrosune in terms of morality. We noticed, however, that much like a lot of his analysis of Greek society, it only pertained to adult free men — a theme we see throughout Foucault’s writing. ”

Kevin: “I think Foucault makes a lot of incredibly valid critiques of the way that modern society conceives of sexuality and imposes those conceptions on antiquity. I think that the way he structures his conversation around the subject, though, can be incredibly grating and unpleasant to read. In particular, volume 1 seems entirely disconnected from volume 2. I felt that Foucault’s silence on discourse left volume 2 lacking, in that there’s a clear discourse connected to powerful institutions within many of these texts, particularly connected to governmental institutions and patriarchy. I also felt like Foucault’s discussion of pleasure and power, while insightful and interesting, also fades into the background by volume 2, resulting in a lackluster analysis of sexuality in antiquity.”