Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. An Introduction. Volume I. (trans: Ro ert Hurley!. "e# $or%: Vinta&e 'oo%s, ())*.

Foucault, Michel

From: Wikipedia and http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/history_of_sexuality.htm. In the late 1970s, political activism in France tailed off with the disillusionment of many left wing militants. A number of young aoists abandoned their beliefs to become the so!called "ew #hilosophers, often citing Foucault as their ma$or influence, a status about which Foucault had mi%ed feelings. Foucault in this period embar&ed on a ' volume pro$ect (he )istory of *e%uality, which he was never to complete. Its first volume, (he +ill to ,nowledge, was published in 197'. (he second and third volumes did not appear for another eight years, and they surprised readers by their sub$ect matter, -classical .ree& and /atin te%ts0 approach and style, particularly Foucault1s focus on the sub$ect, a concept he had previously neglected. ichel Foucault1s 2(he )istory of *e%uality2 pioneered 3ueer theory. In it he builds an argument grounded in a historical analysis of the word 2se%uality2 against the common thesis that se%uality always has been repressed in +estern society. 4uite the contrary5 since the 17th century, there has been a fi%ation with se%uality creating a discourse around se%uality. In the 70s, when the boo& was written, the se%ual revolution was a fact. (he past was seen as a dar& age where se%uality had been something forbidden. Foucault, on the other hand, states that +estern culture has long been fi%ated on se%uality. +e call it a repression. 6ather, the social convention, not to mention se%uality, has created a discourse around it, thereby ma&ing se%uality ubi3uitous1. (his would not have been the case, had it been thought of as something 3uite natural. In other words, what we now call homose%uality cannot e%ist outside our specific cultural context. (he same goes for all se%uality. *e%ual intercourse is necessary for
1

(he concept 2se%uality2 itself is a result of this discourse. And the interdictions, also have constructive power5 they have created se%ual identities and a multiplicity of se%ualities that would not have e%isted otherwise. It is this discourse that has created se%ual minorities.

procreation, but that does not mean that se%uality, comprising and theori7ing about all erotic behavior, is a natural or necessary category. *e%uality is more than se%ual behavior8 its real meaning lies in its cultural connotations9. Foucault began to spend more time in the :nited *tates, at :niversity at ;uffalo -where he had lectured on his first ever visit to the :nited *tates in 19700 and especially at :< ;er&eley. In *an Francisco of the 1970s and early 19=0s, Foucault participated in the subcultures of anonymous gay se% and sadomasochism > it is suspected that it was there that he contracted )I?, in the days before the disease was described as such. It is un&nown to what e%tent Foucault understood the cause of the disease or its transmission, but some biographers and critics have described his se% life at this time as the practical e%ploration of his ideas about normality and abnormality, and of the lin& between pleasure and death. Foucault died of an AI@*!related illness in #aris Aune 9'th, 19=B. The History of Sexuality. An Introduction. Volume I. +ART ,"-: .e /,ther Victorians0 (+ (1(2.! TH-SIS: By repressing sex, Western culture created a mosaic of ideas about it, built on taboos, which perpetuated the idea that sex is the essence of everything; however, this created a production of discourses and a propagation of knowledge around sex that undermines the judicial an political idea of repression as a form of power, making of this instance power! an active category which produces social labels" In other words, even when we believe that after the 17th century Cand especially during ?ictorian cultureDs two hundred years> se% was repressed, condemned and even associated with sin, and that during the 90th century we have been largely bothered with past centuryDs EhypocrisyF -=0, the previous centuriesD obsession with se%ual ErepressionF was a way of putting se% Einto discourseF -110 and creating a Escience of se%ualityF G -1G0.
9

It is this view that has given 2(he )istory of *e%uality2 its significance. For the first time, se%uality is analy7ed as a social construction, a perspective ma&ing it possible to study the origins and the development of our view of se%uality in a totally new way. G (he idea that se% had been repressed in previous years became so grounded into +estern thought that not even *igmund FreudDs research on psychoanalysis was able to free us from the Ee%pected se%ual behaviorF,

oreover, ?ictoriansD confinement of se% to the private sphere Cto the homeB> was not only a way of preserving Ethe familyF but an aim to perpetuate the endless creation of wor&ers -money producers0 in the newly born capitalist society. In other words, with the bourgeoisie, was also born the idea that se% was to be ErepressedF. )e states that Eat the beginning of the seventeenth century a certain fran&ness was still common, it would seem. *e%ual practices had little need of secrecy -H0 it was a period when bodies Emade a display of themselvesF -G0. "evertheless, after this period, Ethe Iputting into discourse of se%,D far from undergoing a process of restriction, on the contrary has been sub$ected to a mechanism of increasing incitement8 that the techni3ues of power e%ercised over se% have not obeyed a principle of rigorous selection, but rather one of dissemination and implantation of polymorphous se%ualitiesF -190. (o what he calls the Erepressive hypothesisF he opposes three basic doubts5 1. Is se%ual repression truly an established factM 9. @o the wor&ing of power, and in particular those mechanisms that are brought into play in societies such as ours, really belong primarily to the 6J#6J*I?J category of repressionM G. @id the critical discourse that addresses itself to repression come to unchallenged up to that point, or is it not in fact part of the same historical networ& that as the thing it denounces -H0 by calling it repressionM -#A.J 100 +ith this boo&, Foucault attempted to write the history of se%uality -its instances and transformations0 through the analysis of its Ediscursive production,F of the Epower productionF around it, and of the propagation of &nowledge -190. )e e%plains that the creation of se%ual discourses is a Epolymorphous techni3ue of powerF -110.
although FreudDs analysis on the subconscious is a primarily source of contemporary an%iety about the sub$ect. B +hen there was a need to Ema&e room to illegitimate se%ualityF, ?ictorian places to do so were the brothel and the asylum5 where if they would not be able to be reintegrated to society, they couldnDt be integrated into the circuits of production, at least into those of profit.

)K#L()J*I* act as a roadbloc& to a power mechanism that had operated

+ART T.,: The Re3ressi4e Hy3othesis (+ (516).! 7HA+T-R I: The Incitement to 8iscourse (+ (9125.! E+hat is peculiar of modern societies, in fact, is not that they consigned se% to a shadow e%istence, but that they dedicated themselves to spea&ing of it ad infinitum, while e%ploiting it as the secret.F -GN0 EAround and apropos of se%, one sees a veritable discursive e%plosionF that became a metaphor of spea&ing about se% CEthe whole rhetoric of allusion and metaphor was codifiedF -170>, and ended by reproducing different forms of se%uality. (he process by which spea&ing about se% became more difficult after the 17th century has two important moments5 1. 16th entury: #fter the $ouncil of %rent, the counterreformation $atholic pastoral5 when confession became mandatory for <atholics as aims to achieve .odDs .race. @uring this time, there was a great reserve when confessing and dealing with crimes against EpurityF -190. #erhaps not so much, Foucault e%plains that5 Ewhile the language may have been refined, the scope of the confession Cthe confession of the flesh> continually increased. -H0 A twofold evolution tended to ma&e the flesh into the root of all evil, shifting the most important moment of transgression from the act itself to the stirrings Cso difficult to perceive and formulate> of desireF -19!900. In this sense was sensual desire transformed into speech, and an unprecedented catalogue of Ese%ual aberrationsF emerged. E(he forbidding of certain words, the decency of e%pressions -H0 might well have been only secondary devices compared to that great sub$ugation5 ways of rendering it morally accepted and technically usefulF -910. Lne great e%ample of this is ar3uis de *ade, the libertine that records every se%ual encounter with a doctrinarian need, which he articulates in the form of confession. (he other e%ample comes from the penal system5 the need to record one by one catalogues of aberrations and crimes against the flesh. 9. !e"innin" of the 1#th entury: ;egan also a Epolitical, economic and

technical incitement to tal& about se%F not a moral but rational way. (his was nurtured by the emergence of a new social category5 Ethe populationH the population as wealth, as manpower or labor capacity, population balanced between its own growth and the resources it commanded. .overnments perceived that they were OHP dealing OHP with its specific phenomena and its peculiar variables5 birth and death rates, life e%pectancy, fertility, state of health, fre3uency of illness, patterns of diet and habitation.F -9N0 Inasmuch as it was recogni7ed that the source of a nationDs wealth was its population, the individual use of se% became capital in issues on health and life e%pectancy, and this pushed the analysis of modes of se%ual conducts, as well as their social uses. E(here also appeared those systematic campaigns which, going beyond the traditional means -H0 tried to transform the se%ual conduct of couples into a concerned economic and political behavior.F -9'0 J%amples of this are discourses around childrenDs se%ual education, medicine, psychiatry and criminal $ustice -97!G00H E(hese sites radiated discourses aimed at se%, intensifying peopleDs awareness of it as a constant danger, and this in turn created a further incentive to tal& about itF -G10. In conclusion, the development of the se%ual metaphoric discourses since the 1'th to the 1=th century -$ust before the ?ictorian period began0 evidences a tendency rather than to hide se%, to ma&e it the very basis of nations. 7HA+T-R II: The +er4erse Im3lantation (+ 2:16).! (he attention over genitally centered se%uality and the production of discourses on it aimed to produce a se%uality that was Eeconomically useful and politically conservativeF -G70. (he 19th century, with medical development, fostered the creation of Eperipheral se%ualitiesF Ci.e.5 what was until the 1=th century a ElibertineF became a EpervertF -G9!B00 in the following years. ;efore, when se% was an issue addressed mainly by the <hurch, it was matters of morality. /atter, when se%uality became the field of doctors Cphysicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists> it evolved into health concerns. +hat form of power was e%ercisedM 6ather than simple prohibition, power evolved in four different ways5

1.

EAn effort to elimination that was always destined to failF -B10. /i&e concerns about childrenDs se%uality, which gave the opportunity to an Eentire medico!se%ual regimeF to ta&e Ehold of the family milieuF -B90. EIn appearance, we are dealing with a barrier system8 but in fact, all around the child, indefinite lines of penetration were disposed.

9.

E(his new persecution of the peripheral se%ualities entailed an incorporation of perversions and a new specification of individuals -B9! BG0" In other words, annals of medicine created new labels and rubrics that didnDt e%isted before, a catalogue of deviations that were to be condemned and persecuted as Eunnatural.F E(he 19th century homose%ual became a personage, a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a type of life, a life form, and a morphology, with an indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mysterious physiology. -H0 )omose%uality appeared as one of the forms of se%ualities when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a &ind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. (he sodomite had been a temporary aberration8 the homose%ual was now a speciesF -BG0. In other words, se%uality was now matters of the body.

G.

As matters of the body -and a health issue0, se%uality needed to be constantly trac&ed. E ore than the old taboos, this form of power demanded constant, attentive, and curious presences for its e%ercise -H0 the medicali7ation of the se%ually peculiar was both the effect and the instrument of this OpowerP. Imbedded in bodies, becoming deeply characteristic of individuals, the oddities of se% relied on a technology of health and pathologies.F -BB0. In sum, the assumption that se%uality was as part of the body as the nose or the heart, inserted its discourse on a biological realm, and se%uality became matters of pathology.

B.

E(he manifold se%ualities -H0 all form the correlate of e%act procedures of powerF -B70. Instead of ruling out se%uality, ErepressionF made people thin& that se%uality was every humanDs essence.

E(he growth of perversions is not a morali7ing theme that obsessed the scrupulous

'

minds of the ?ictorians. It is the real product of the encroachment OinfringementP of a type of power on bodies and their pleasures. -H0 (he implantation of perversions is an instrument!effect5 it is trough the isolation, intensification, and consolidation of peripheral se%ualities that the relations of power to se% and pleasure branched out and multiplied, measured the body, and penetrated modes of conductF -B=0. In other words, the power rests on that whom applies labels. <onse3uentially, Foucault says, that modern societies did not ushered in an age of se%ual repression, but in one that produced an unprecedented catalogue of se%ual perversions. +ART THR--: Scientia Sexualis (+ 52192.! EFor two centuries now the discourse on se% has been multiplied rather than rarefied8 and that if it has carried with it taboos and prohibitions, it has also, in a more fundamental way, ensured the solidification and implantation of an entire se%ual mosaic. Ket the impression remains that all this has by and large played only a defensive role. ;y spea&ing about it so much, by discovering it multiplied, partitioned off, and specified precisely where one has had placed it, what one was see&ing essentially was simply to conceal se%5 a screen!discourse, a dispersion!avoidance. :ntil Freud at least, the discourse on se%>the discourse of scholars and theoreticians>never ceased to hide the thing it was spea&ing about.F -NG0 Foucault e%plains latter that this was a science of EevasionsF because it refused to spea& bout se%, but rather concerned with its EaberrationsF -NG0. In sum, it was science concerned with morality, one that Epromised to eliminate defective individualsF -NB0. FoucaultDs thesis in this chapter is that *cientia *e%ualis Ein the name of biological and historical urgency, it $ustified the racisms of the state, which at the time were on the hori7on. It grounded them in ItruthDF -NB0. (herefore, *cientia *e%ualis is the conse3uence of 19th centuryDs concern with health and biology -where @arwin remains the biggest paradigm0, applied to the society5 science at moralityDs service. +e cannot forget that this was also the time of the establishment of the national states, and their theories that latter crashed in 90th!centuryDs social nationalisms. Foucault e%plains that in the 19th century se% was incorporated into tw different

Eorders of &nowledgeF -NB05 1. 9. A biology of reproduction. A medicine of se%.

AlasQ (here was no correlation between this two divisions. E(he learned discourse on se% that was pronounced on the 19th century was imbued with age!old delusions, but also with systematic blindnesses5 a refusal to see and to understand5 but further>and this is the crucial point>a refusal concerning the very thing that was brought to light and whose formulation was urgently solicited. For there can be no misunderstanding that is not based on a fundamental relation to truth.F -NN0 In other words, Foucault e%plains that the problem with the order of &nowledge that evolved around se% was that they fostered an Einterplay of truth and se%F -N70, nurturing the idea that se% was the essence of every human being. )istorically, there has been two ways of producing the Etruth of se%F -N705 (. Ars erotica (59!: a. Lr, Eerotic art E b. ainly the 6oman Jmpire and the Jastern cultures5 Aapan, India, <hina, etc. c. *e% is seen as an art and a special e%perience and not something dirty and shameful. d. (ruth they drawn from pleasure itself, which is understood as a practice of accumulated e%perience. e. *ecrecy is capital, but only because of the view that it would lose its power and its pleasure if spo&en about. f. It e%ists a relationship with the master, somebody that holds the secrets and guides the individual through self!illumination. g. In conse3uence, se% is ac&nowledge as a way of Etransfigure the one fortunate enough to receive its privileges5 an absolute mastery of the body, an individual bliss -H0F. ;. Scientia sexualis (5<!:

a. Lr, the Escience of se%uality.F b. +estern cultures. c. It is originally -17th century0 based on a phenomenon diametrically opposed to Ars erotica5 the confession. d. It is not $ust a 3uestion of the <hristian confession, but more generally the urge to tal& about it. A fi%ation with finding out the 2truth2 about se%uality arises, a truth that is to be confessed. It is as if se%uality did not e%ist unless it is confessed. E(he only civili7ation to have develop over the centuries procedure of telling the truth of se% which are geared to a form of &nowledge!power strictly opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secrets5 I have in mind the confessionF -N=0. e. <L"FJ**IL"5 (he /ateran <ouncil in 191N introduced the sacrament of penance. (hen, a whole paraphernalia of power was built around this EdogmaF5 confession itself, the In3uisition, royal power, etc. (o ac&nowledge oneDs act became the central role of introspection. E(he truthful confession was inscribed at the heart of the procedures of individuali7ation by power -H0 the confession became one of the +estDs most highly valued techni3ues for producing truth.F -N=!N90. f. E+e have since become a highly confessional society -H0 It plays part in $ustice, medicine, education, family relationships Oetc.P -H0 one confesses oneDs crimes, oneDs sins, oneDs thoughts and desires, oneDs illnesses and troubles, one goes about telling, with the greatest precision what is most difficult to tell. -H0 +estern man has become a confessing animal.F -N=!N90. g. +hence this way of philosophi7ing5 Esee&ing the fundamental relation to the true, not simply in oneself -H0 but in the self!e%amination that yields, through a multitude of fleeting impressions, the basic certainties of conciousness.F -'00. h. EFor us in confession that truth and se% are $oined, trough the obligatory and e%haustive e%pression of an individual secret. ;ut this

time, it is truth that serves as a medium for se% and its manifestations -'00N. (he reason se%uality should be confessed is to be found in the <hristian view of it. It was not, as it is today, seen as a strong, obvious force, but as something treacherous, something only to be found by careful introspection. (herefore, every detail had to be laid forth in confession8 every trace of pleasure e%perienced had to be e%amined to find the traces of sin. i. In this attention to details the reason se%uality is given such importance in our society is to be found. a&ing se%uality something sinful did not ma&e it disappear. 4uite the contrary5 it was reinforced and became something to be noticed everywhere. $. E+e belong to a society which has ordered se%Ds difficult &nowledge, not according to the transmission of secrets, but around the slow surfacing of confidential statementsF. -'G0 (his immense and traditional e%tortion of the se%ual confession came to e constituted in scientific terms trough five devices -'N!'705 1. %hrough a clinical codification of the inducement to speak -combining confession with e%amination0. 9. %hrough the postulate of a general and diffuse causality -se%Ds most discrete event may have been the cause for a series of conse3uence in oneDs life0. G. %hrough the principle of a latency intrinsic to sexuality -se% was ac&nowledge as Eelusive by natureF0. B. %hrough the method of interpretation -which validated scientifically the power position of that whom listens the confession0. N. %hrough the medicali&ation of the effects of confession -the idea that truth heals0.

2<oming out2 as a concept did not e%ist when Foucault wrote 2(he )istory of *e%uality2, but this process of confessing homose%uality can surely be interpreted as an e%pression of this urge to confess. (here seems to be a compulsion to reveal one1s se%uality to confirm its e%istence in our society. In Ars erotica, a very different view is held, and people are content to let it remain a secret in the positive sense of the word.

10

+ART F,=R: The 8e3loyment of Sexuality (+ 951(2*.! 7HA+T-R I: , >ecti4e (+ <(1)(.! (he aforementioned forms a strong criticism of psychoanalysis, representing the modern, scientific form of confession. Foucault sees psychoanalysis as a legitimi7ation of se%ual confession. In it, everything is e%plained in terms of repressed se%uality and the psychologist becomes the sole interpreter of it. *e%uality is no longer $ust something people hide, but it is also hidden from themselves, which gives the theological, minute confession a new life. +o#er relations: (here was also an element of social control in this. A power relation was created between the preacher and the confessant, between the psychoanalyst and his patient. #ower relations are to Foucault central to any analysis of society, and this is especially true for se%uality. #ower relations are formed in all relations where differences e%ist. +hat Foucault means by power is not necessarily what is ordinarily meant by the word. It is something ubi3uitous and cannot be thought of as dual, as creating a division between those dominating and those being dominated. #ower in Foucault1s meaning of the word is not an e%clusively negative force. 'e claims that we have had a juridical view of power in our society; we tend to see it as something negative, oppressing, defining what is not to be done" (nstead, power is the basis of )oucault*s analysis of society" $ommon power relations related to sexuality are, in addition to the ones mentioned between the one who confesses and the one that receives the confession, those between teacher and pupil, between parent and child, and between doctor and patient" E+hat distinguishes the analysis made in terms of repression of instincts from that made in terms of the law of desire is clearly the way in which they each conceive of the nature and dynamics of the drives, not the way in which they conceive of powerF -=9!=G0. Ket, this is not a representation uni3ue to the relations of powers with se%, but in +estern political analyses of power. E(hese are some of its principal features5F 1. %he negative relation+ establishing negative connections between power and se% -re$ection, mas&, refusal, e%clusion, etc.0

11

9. %he insistence of the rule+ #ower dictates its law to se% through binary systems CElicit and illicit, permitted and forbiddenF -=G0> and through the idea that it has to be EdecipheredF -=G0. G. %he cycle of prohibition+ E@o not appear if you do not want to disappear. Kour e%istence will be maintained only at the cost of your nullification. #ower constrains se only through a taboo that plays on the alternative between two none%istencesF -=B0. B. %he logic of censorship+ ;ased on a logic of power that, applied to se%, wor&s through a parado%ical logic of silence5 it denies its e%istence at the same time it gives se% the power to define humanDs essence. N. %he uniformity of the apparatus+ eaning that power over se% is defined and e%ercised the same way at all levels. In other words, the relation of power and se% is ciphered through the management of taboos. In western societies, the representation of power is still tied to the spell of the monarchy, what Foucault calls Ethe $uridical monarchyF -=90. (he French author demands that it is time to conceive power in a different way5 E+e must at the same time conceive of se% without the law, and power without the &ingF -910. 7HA+T-R II: Method (+ );1(*;.! Foucault says that his ob$ective is to analy7e a Ecertain form of &nowledge regarding se%F -990, that transcends the ideas of repression and law, and that is grounded on the definition of power. #ower5 EOIsP the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organi7ation8 as the process which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them8 as the support which this force relations fin in one another, thus forming a chain or a system, or on the contrary, the dis$unctions and contradictions which isolate them from one another8 and lastly, as the strategies in which they ta&e effect, whose general design or institutional crystalli7ation is embodied in a state apparatus, in the formulation of the law,

19

in the various social hegemoniesF-99!9G0. 1. 9. G. B. N. #ower comes from everywhere, and is the conse3uence of a social and cultural system -9G!9B0. #ower relations are immanent, not e%terior. #ower comes from below. #ower is both intentional and nonsub$ective. E+here there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather conse3uentially, this resistance is never in a position of e%teriority in relation to powerF -9N0. 6ules of #ower5 1. ,f immanence+ #ower and se% are everywhere, because they are inherent to culture. 9. ,f continual variations+ 6elations between power and &nowledge are Ematrices of transformationF. G. ,f double conditioning+ (here is no center of power is rather an issue of over!all strategy. B. ,f tactical polivalence of discourses+ (here is no special EhistoricalF moment for something, usually things happen as a set of acts. 7HA+T-R III: 8omain (+ (*21((6.! (he doctrines on se%uality postulated several 2unnatural2 se%ual behaviors. In the 1'th century, the focus was on regulating the se%uality of the married couple, ignoring other forms of se%ual relations, but now other groups were identified5 the se%uality of children, criminals, mentally ill and gays. *eeing gays as a group is now ta&en for granted, but before the 1=th century the idea would never had occurred to as& the 3uestion whether homose%uality is a function of heredity or of upbringing. It was simply not seen as being a fundamental part of the person, but instead as an action, something sRhe did. ;ut, homose%uality was not the only ob$ect of study for the medical 2science2. Foucault identifies four reoccurring themes5 1. (he body of women became se%uali7ed because of its role as a child bearer. (he concept 2hysteria2 was invented and seen as a result of se%ual problems.

1G

9.

(he pedagogi7ation of the se%uality of children. <hildren should at all costs be protected from the dangers inherent in masturbation and other se%uality.

G. (he sociali7ation of reproduction. (he importance of se%uality for reproduction is recogni7ed and put into conte%t in the study of population growth. B. (he se%uality of adults becomes an ob$ect of study and all forms of 2perverse2 aberrations are seen as dangers. Foucault emphasi7es that the aim of these new moral codes was not to abolish all forms of se%uality, but instead to preserve health and procreation. any forms of se%uality were seen as harmful and they wanted to protect health and the purity of the race. A mi%ture of ideas on population growth, venereal diseases and heredity -2degeneration2 was to be avoided0 created the idea that many forms of se%ual conduct where dangerous. 7HA+T-R IV: +eriodi?ation (+ ((51.! (he mechanisms of repression suppose to ruptures during the history of se%uality5 1. i. 1$th entury: Advent of great prohibitions to tal& about se% and promotion of adult marital se%uality. edieval <hristianity and its Etraditional technology of se%.F -11'0 pastoral dimension. iii. In the 1=th century it emerged a new technology of se%, escaping the religious thematics of sin5 1. (he 1=th century medicine of nerves and vapors. a. Isolated medicine of Ese%F from medicine to the body5 *e%ual instinct became a catalogue of perversions. Also, se% was ac&nowledge as a device to transmit diseases. 9. (he campaigns a propos of the birthrates. G. E(he flesh was brought down to the level of the organismF -1170. ii. <atholic and #rotestant methods of e%amination of conscience and

1B

9. i.

%&th entury: +hen mechanisms of repression were seeing as loosing the grip. +ith Freud. children and adolescents was first problemati7ed, and feminine se%uality medicali7edHF -1900. EO(he bourgeois classP sta&ed its life and its death on se% by ma&ing it responsible for its future welfareF -19B0. iii. E(he wor&ing classes managed for a long time to escape the Ideployment of se%ualityF. -1910 It penetrated them in three successive stages5 1. #roblems of birth control. 9. (he organi7ation of the EconventionalF family -1=G0s0. G. @evelopment of $uridical and medical control of EperversionsF. iv. (he deployment of se%uality aimed to ma%imi7e life5 Ethe primary concern was not repression of the se% of the classes to be e%ploited, but rather the body, vigor, longevity, progeniture, and the descent of the classes that IruledD.F -19G0 9(he bourgeois IbloodD was its se%F -19B0. ii. EIt was in the IbourgeoisD or IaristocraticD that the se%uality of

+ART FIV-: Ri&ht of 8eath and +o#er o4er @ife (+ (251(5).! E(he right which was formulated as the Ipower of life and deathD was in reality the right to take life or let live. Its symbol, after all was the sword. #erhaps, this $uridical form must be referred to a historical type of society in which power was e%ercised as a means of deduction -pr-l-vement0, a subtraction mechanism, a right to appropriate a portion of the wealth, a ta% of products, goods and services, labor and blood, levied on the sub$ects.F -1G'0 In other words, since the 17th century +estern society ac&nowledged the body as a

1N

machine, as a means of development, a development that had implicit the care for the body, and the se%uality as aims of the body. (his is the genesis of the bio!power, which Foucault says was an Eindispensable element in the development of capitalismF -1B0! 1B10. EIf one can apply the term bio.history to the pressures through which the movements of life and the processes of history interfere, with one another, one would have to spea& of bio.power to designate what brought life and its mechanisms into the realm of e%plicit calculations and mad &nowledge!power an agent of transformation of human life. It is not that life has been totally integrated into techni3ues that govern and administer it8 it constantly escapes them. Lutside the +estern world, famine e%ists, on a grater scale than ever8 and the biological ris&s confronting the species are perhaps greater, and certainly more serious, than before the birth of microbiology. ;ut what might be called a societyDs Ithreshold of modernityD has been reached when life of the species is wagered on its own political strategies. For millennia, man remained what he was for Aristotle5 a living animal with the additional capacity for a political e%istence8 modern man is an animal whose politics palces his e%istence as a living being in 3uestionF -1BG0. <onse3uences of this transformation5 1. (he development of political technologies that ensued, investing the body, health, modes of subsistence and habitation, living conditions, the whole space of e%istence. 9. (he growing importance assumed by the action of the norm, at the e%pense of the $uridical system of the law. G. (he right to discover Ewhat one is -H0 Owas theP political response to all these new procedures of power which did not derive, either, from the traditional right of sovereigntyF -1BN0. In sum, bio!power was Etied to the disciplines of the bodiesF and Ewas applied to the regulation of populationsF -1BN0. E*e% became a crucial target of a power organi7ed around the management of life rather than the menace of deathF -1B70. E6acism too& shape at this point -racism in its modern Ibiologi7ing,D statist form05 it was then that a whole politics of settlement -peuplement0, family, marriage, education, social hierarchi7ation, and propierty, accompanied by a long series of permanent

1'

interventions at the level of the body, conduct, health, and everyday life, received their color and their $ustification from the mythical concern with protecting the purity of the blood and ensuring the triumph of the raceF -1B90. Finally, Foucault e%plains that what was once the issue of defending blood8 Is now the issue of defending se%, as the essence of human being, but stresses that se%uality is a cultural phenomenon of +estern societies.

17