History of Sexuality, pt. 2

[synapticjava]

What!? Foucault states that power and sex are intertwined, which I have to agree with. But his theories on power are mind-bending, and as far as I can see, WRONG. He states that, "...the father in the family is not the 'representative' of the sovereign or the state; and the latter are not projections of the father on a different scale. The family does not duplicate society, just as society does not imitate the family."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't societies, just like families, built with an innate hierarchy of power? One person, or group of persons, holds all of the power (even though Foucault's idea of power is much more tangible than what we think of it as), theoretically, and with that power directs the lives, activities, and structure of those "beneath" them?

Um...did I just challenge theory? I think I did.

oh no! i'm becoming one of them!

Comments

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

I think, and God's it's been a long time since I"ve read this crap, I think Foucault is arguing against the Aristotelian model of the state in which the ruler is seen as a father figure. I think he's arguing more against that position than that fathers have historically ruled families.

[chocgood84.livejournal.com]

But, um...fathers have historically ruled families.

Unless my history is not actually history, but rather an elaborate and intricate web of lies I've implimented as a psychosomatic defense to a cruel and unjust world.

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

fathers have historically ruled families.

Yes, yes. This is not in dispute. What I mean is that King George should not be looked on as a father figure who has the best interest of his citizen children in mind. Does that make sense? Calling a king or other ruler a father implies a lot of things about that ruler that aren't necessarily so.

[chocgood84.livejournal.com]

Ohhhh. Okay, now I get it.