Madness & Sexuality

From the French Theory course again.

Reading Foucault, responding to "In terms of Foucault’s approach to his subject matter, where do you similarities and differences between The History of Madness and The History of Sexuality?"

As I posted in my last post, one of the most significant similarities that I find in Foucault's approach of subject matter in the History of Madness and History of sexuality is his decision to work on marginalized bodies. A historical analysis of how such categories came to be created in the time period when knowledge production was taking place is the prime area that Foucault investigates. 

Another similarity is also his seeming triggers for these studies: "why are certain acts not acceptable in the society?" This question applies to both. In a way, Foucault is challenging the accepted 'code of conduct' for the society. Through his works, he questions the control that is exerted by an invisible societal force over a body that tries to be independent - over a body that the society constantly wants to appropriate and subsume. It gives a sense that he is discomforted with the way in which 'cultured' societies exclude certain groups and the way in which power relations are created. 

Power always resolves itself into hierarchy, and hierarchy goes ahead to define roles for different bodies in the society. In some ways, we are almost born into a culture where things are pre-decided for us: ways in which we are expected to lead and live our lives. Foucault's histories challenges institutionalized culture through its own past. This is what I find interesting about his works.

History of Sexuality opens up a whole range of 'industry' associated with the 'functions of body' and in the modern world, it's representations. These include reproduction(maternity), prostitution / pimping (brothels), censorship, sex education, ethical behaviour - which he terms 'sexual practice'. It almost implies that the body is tool through which one negotiates life, and sex is the most obvious characteristic of this tool. Similarly, history of Madness too opened up the discussion of various modern institutions of prisons, clinics, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, etc. 

The next common thread is his keen observation of the everyday. What constitutes the abnormalities of everyday is the subject matter for Foucault. Sex and madness both are closely associated with bodily conduct - very strongly controlled by the society. Extreme forms of sexuality (homosexuality, transgender-ing, etc.) or behaviour (madness, psychological behaviours) are stigmatised and quarantined, denouncing bodies their mental freedom to exist in society. The disconnect with the social sphere is repressing, and the fear of such separation pushes for secrecy or hypocrisy.

Foucault targets such (unwanted?) masking of truthfulness of the body to be itself. 
On thinking about the differences, I can only think of how he plunged into both these subjects in history. For madness, he looks at representations of mad people in art and literature. For sexuality, he looks at personal accounts and several forms of discourses (censorship, church confessions, essays, etc.).

I like what you say about one similarity between History of Madness and History of Sexuality being their focus on marginalized bodies. I would like to extend your point, though, and say that for me the works have in common, more specifically, a fixation on the ways in which discourses and meanings are created, and the ways in which, recursively, those meanings effectively reimagine bodies in themselves in the modern age. My main point is that with the drastic increase in the production of discourse surrounding sex that was concurrent with the industrial revolution, what was once at least a semi-permeable barrier between body and text was effectively dissolved. In that both History of Madness and H of S study the disapearance of this fissure between knowledge and bodies, their methodologies are very similar, drawn from this conviction that they share. What I mean to say is that much like Barthes was a mythologist, Foucault is essentially a master of a kind of anti-discourse, someone who uses historical context, scientific data, etc to effectively shift or extend the bounds of our understanding. For example, Foucault uses history to explain that the repressive hypothesis is misunderstood, (as opposed to any kind of 'first philosophy') because his is a critical enterprise. Talking about bodies, talking about history, talking about even a landscape, all of it, now requires the attitude of literary criticism. 

My personal favorite facet of Foucault's argument was when he described sex as being at once garrelous and elusive, a Mad Hatter-type character. This is, also, reminiscent of his description of the modern artist's desire to reconstitute something as it is in "What is Enlightenment?." This loquacious silence of the world is essential to Foucault's understanding of what it means to be modern. A thing speaks volumes about itself, except perhaps exactly what we feel we know it to be.  

---

Samuel Sullivan:

Dear Anuj, 

I like what you say about one similarity between History of Madness and History of Sexuality being their focus on marginalized bodies. I would like to extend your point, though, and say that for me the works have in common, more specifically, a fixation on the ways in which discourses and meanings are created, and the ways in which, recursively, those meanings effectively reimagine bodies in themselves in the modern age. My main point is that with the drastic increase in the production of discourse surrounding sex that was concurrent with the industrial revolution, what was once at least a semi-permeable barrier between body and text was effectively dissolved. In that both History of Madness and H of S study the disapearance of this fissure between knowledge and bodies, their methodologies are very similar, drawn from this conviction that they share. What I mean to say is that much like Barthes was a mythologist, Foucault is essentially a master of a kind of anti-discourse, someone who uses historical context, scientific data, etc to effectively shift or extend the bounds of our understanding. For example, Foucault uses history to explain that the repressive hypothesis is misunderstood, (as opposed to any kind of 'first philosophy') because his is a critical enterprise. Talking about bodies, talking about history, talking about even a landscape, all of it, now requires the attitude of literary criticism. 

My personal favorite facet of Foucault's argument was when he described sex as being at once garrelous and elusive, a Mad Hatter-type character. This is, also, reminiscent of his description of the modern artist's desire to reconstitute something as it is in "What is Enlightenment?." This loquacious silence of the world is essential to Foucault's understanding of what it means to be modern. A thing speaks volumes about itself, except perhaps exactly what we feel we know it to be.