1976
★Against the Repressive Hypothesis: Proliferation of
the Discourse of Sexuality
Sexuality was carefully confined; it moved into home. The conjugal
family took custody of it and absorbed it into the serious function of reproduction.
On the subject of sex, silence became the rule. The legitimate and procreative
couple laid down the law. The couple imposed itself as model, enforced the
norm, safeguarded the truth, and reserved the right to speak while retaining
the principle of secrecy. A single locus of sexuality was acknowledged in
social space as well as at the heart of every household, but it was utilitarian
and fertile one: the parents’ bedroom. (3)上のような”repression” をcapitalismに還元する論：if sex is so rigorously repressed, this is because it
is incompatible with a general and intensive work imperative. At a time when
labor capacity was being systematically exploited, how could this capacity be
allowed to dissipate itself in pleasure pursuits, except in those—reduce to a
minimum—that enabled it to reproduce itself? (6)“liberation”の幻想：If sex is repressed, that is, condemned to
prohibition, nonexistence, and silence, then the mere fact that one is speaking
about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression. . . . we are
conscious of defying established power, our tone of voice shows that we know we
are being subversive, and we ardently conjure away the present and appeal to
the future, whose day will be hastened by the contribution we believe we are
making. . . . What sustains our eagerness to speak of sex in terms of
repression is doubtless this opportunity to speak out against the power that
be, to utter the truths and promise bliss, to link together enlightenment,
liberation, and manifold pleasures. (6-7) “Repressive Hypothesis”に対する疑義：The question I would like to pose is not, why are we
repressed? But rather, why do we say, with so much passion and so much
resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against
ourselves, that we are repressed? (9) the techniques of power exercised over
sex have not obeyed a principle of rigorous selection, but rather one of
dissemination and implantation of polymorphous sexualities. (12) There was a steady
proliferation of discourses concerned with sex . . . : a discursive ferment
that gathered momentum from the eighteenth century and onward. . . . But more
important was the multiplication of discourses concerning sex in the field of
exercise of power itself: an institutional incitement to speak about it, and to
do so more and more; a determination on the part of the agencies of power to
hear it spoken about, and to cause it to speak through explicit articulation
and endlessly accumulated detail. 18/ Toward the beginning of the 18th
century, there emerged a political, economic, and technical incitement to talk
about sex. 23/ One had to speak of it [sex] as a thing to be not simply
condemned or tolerated but managed, inserted into systems of utility, regulated
for the greater good for all, made to function according to an optimum. Sex was
not something one simply judged; it was a thing one administered./ In the 18th
century, sex became a “police” matter . . . : not repression of disorder, but
an ordered maximization of collective and individual forces. 24-5/ Rather than
uniform concern to hide sex, rather thatn a general prudishness of language,
what distinguishes these last three centuries is the variety, the wide
dispersion of devices that were invented for speaking about it, for having it
spoken about, for inducing it to speak of itself, for listening, recording,
transcribing, and redistributing what is said about it. 34/
★Silence
There is not one but many silences, and they are an integral part of
the strategies that underlie and permeate discourses. 27
★Confessional Science
Christian pastoral, confession の伝統：the nearly infinite task of telling—telling oneself and another, as
often as possible, everything that might concern the interplay of innumerable
pleasures, sensations, and thoughts which, through the body and the soul, had
some affinity with sex. This scheme for transforming sex into discourse had
been devised so long before in an ascetic and monastic setting. 20/ Not only
will you confess to acts contravening law, but you will seek to transform your
desire, your every desire, into discourse. 21The confession became one of the
West’s most highly valued techniques for producing truth. . . . Western man has
become a confessing animal. 59/ The confession was, and still remains, the
general standard governing the production of the true discourse of the true
discourse on sex. 63/ A great archive of the pleasures of sex was gradually
constituted. 63/ Western societies thus began to keep an indefinite record of
these people’s pleasures. They made up a herbal of them and established a
system of classification. 64/ A confessional science/ The one who listened was
not simply the forgiving master, the judge who condemned or acquitted; he was
the master of the truth. . . . By no longer making the confession a test, but
rather a sign, and by making sexuality something to be interpreted, the
nineteenth century gave itself the possibility of causing the procedures of
confession to operate within the regular formation of a scientific discourse.
67/ An ordered system of knowledge. 69
★ Discourse
of Sexuality
It is this deployment that enables something called “sexuality” to
embody the truth of sex and its pleasures. (68)/ “Sexuality”: the correlative
of that slowly developed discursive practice which constitutes the scientia sexualis. The essential
features of this sexuality . . . correspond to the functional requirement of a
discours that must produce its truth. (68)/ sexuality was defined as being “by
nature”: a domain susceptible to pathological processes, and hence one calling
for therapeutic or normalizing interventions; a field of meanings to decipher;
the site of processes concealed by specific mechanisms; a focus of indefinite
causal relations. . . (68)/ The society that emerged in the nineteenth century
. . . set out to formulate the uniform truth of sex (69)/ As if it was
essential that sex be inscribed not only in an economy of pleasure but in an
ordered system of knowledge. (69)/ The most important elements of an erotic art
linked to our knowledge about sexuality are in this multiplication and
intensification of pleasures connected to the production of the truth about
sex. (71)/The formidable pleasure of analysis. (71) Must we conclude that our
scientia sexualis is but an extraordinarily subtle form of ars erotica, and
that it is the Western, sublimated version of that seemingly lost tradtions?
71/ A knowledge of pleasure, a pleasure that comes of knowing pleasure, a
knowledge-pleasure. 77/ Sexuality must not be thought of as a kind of natural
given which power tries to hold in check, or as an obscure domain which
knowledge tries gradually to uncover. It is the name that can be given to a
historical construct: not a furtive reality that is difficult to grasp, but a
great surface network in which the stimulation of bodies, the intensification
of pleasures, the incitement to discourse, the formation of special knowledges,
the strengthening of controls and resistances, are linled to one another, in
accordance with a few major strategies of knowledge and power. (106)
★Population
Emergence of “population” as an economic and political problem. . .
.Governments perceived that they were not dealing simply with subjects, or even
with a “people,” but with a “population,” with its specific phenomena and its
peculiar variables: birth and death rates, life expectance, fertility, state of
health, frequency of illnesses, patters of diet and habitation./ At the heart
of this economic and political problem of population was sex: it was necessary
to analyze the birth rates, the age of marriage, the legitimate and
illegitimate births, the precocity and frequency of sexual relations, the ways
of making them ferile or sterile, the effects of unmarried life or of the
prohibitions, the impact of contraceptive practices. 25-6/ Transform sexual
conduct of couples into a concerted economic and political behavior—it was
essential that the state know what was happening with its citizens’ sex, and
the use they made of it, but also that each individual be capable of
controlling the use he made of it. Between the state and the individual, sex
became an issue, and a public issue no less./ regulatory controls: a bio-politics of the population (139)/ This
is the background that enables us to understand the importance assumed by sex
as a political issue. It was at the pivot of the two axes along which developed
the entire political technology of life. On the one hand it was tied to the
discipline of the body: the harnessing, intensification, and distribution of
forces, the adjustment and economy of energies. On the other hand, it was
applied to the regulation of populations, through all the far-reaching effects
of its activity. (145)/ Sex was a means of access both to the life of the body
and the life of the species. It was employed as a standard for the disciplines
and as a basis for regulations. This is why in the nineteenth century sexuality
was sought out in the smallest details of individual existences. (146) Broadly
speaking, at the juncture of the “body” and the “population,” sex became a
crucial target of a power organized around the management of life rather than
the menace of death. (147)
★Perversion/ Species
どうしてもこう考えたくなってしまうのだけど：Were these anything more than means employed to
absorb, for the benefit of a genitally centered sexuality, all the fruitless
pleasures? All this garrulous attention which has us in a stew over sexuality
is it not motivated by one basic concern: to ensure population, to reproduce
labor capacity to perpetuate the form of social relations: in short, to
constitute a sexuality that is economically useful and politically
conservative? ⇔The nineteenth century and our own have been rather
the age of multiplication: a dispersion of sexualities, a strengthening of
their disparate forms, a multiple implantation of “perversions” Our epoch has
intiated sexual heterogenities. 37/ deviations with respect to genitality/ A
centrifugal movement with respect to heterosexual monogamy—the legitimate
couple, with its regular sexuality, had a right to more discretion⇔on the other hand, what came under scrutiniy was the
sexuality of children, and men and women, and criminals; the sensuality of
those who did not like the opposite sex, etc etc 38/ This new persecution of
the peripheral sexualities entailed an incorporation of perversions and a new
specification of individuals. 42-43→有名なhomosexualityの誕生についての言及：The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the
homosexual was now a species/ The machinery of power that focused on this whole
alien strain did not aim to suppress it, but rather to give it an analytical,
visible, and permanent reality: it was implanted in bodies, slipped in beneath
modes of confuct, made into a principle of classification and intelligibility,
established as a raison d’etre and natural order of disorder. 44/ The growth of
perversions is not a moralizing theme that obsessed the scrupulous minds of the
Victorians. It is the real product of the encroachment of a type of power on
bodies and their pleasures. . . . The implantation of perversions is an instrument-effect:
it is through the isolation, intensification, and consolidation of peripheral
sexualities that the relations of power to sex and pleasure branched out and
multiplied, measured the body, and penetrated modes of conduct. 48/ There is no
question that the appearance in nineteenth-century psychiatry, jurisprudence,
and literature of a whole series of discourses on the species and subspecies of
homosexuality, inversion, pederasty, and “psychic hermaphrodism” made possible
a strong advance of social controls into this area of “perversity”; but it also
made possible the formation of a “reverse” discourse: homosexuality began to
speak in its own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or “naturality” be
acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which
it was medically disqualified. (101)
★Bourgeois
19th century “bourgeois” society . . . was a society of
blatant and fragmented perversion. 47/ For their part, the working classes
managed for a long time to escape the deployment of “sexuality” (121)/ sexuality
is originally, historically bourgeois, and that, in its successive shifts and
transformations, it induces specific class effects. (127) ブルジョワが自己規定のために正しいセクシュアリティを必要とした、と。それまでは純血がアリストクラシーの定義だったけれど、それがブルジョワになってhealthy sexualityに変わった。
★ New
methods of Power—bio-power
The new methods of power whose operation is not ensured by right but by
technique, not by law but by normalization, not by punishment but by control.
(89)/ The omnipresence of power (93)/ Power is everywhere; not because it
embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere. (93) Power comes
from below; that is, there is no binary and all-encompassing opposition between
rulers and ruled at the root of power relations, and serving as a general
matrix. 94/ One might say that the ancient right to take life or let live was
replaced by a power to foster life or
disallow it to the point of death
(138). / It is not surprising that suicide—once a crime, since it was a way to
usurp the power of death which the sovereign alone, whether the one here below
or the Lord above, had the right to exercise—became, in the course of the
nineteenth century, one of the first conducts to enter into the sphere of
sociological analysis; it testified to the individual and private right to die,
at the borders and in the interstices of power that was exercised over life.
This determination to die . . . was one of the first astonishments of a society
in which political power had assigned itself the task of administering life
(138-39)./ a power whose highest function was perhaps no longer to kill, but to
invest life through and through. (139) the administration of bodies and the
calculated management of life (140)/ there was an explosion of numerous and
diverse techniques for achieving the subjugation of bodies and the control of
populations, marking the beginning of an era of “bio-power.” (140) This
bio-power was without question an indispensable element in the development of
capitalism: the latter would not have been possible without the controlled
insertion of bodies into the machinery of production and the adjustment of the
phenomena of population to economic processes. (141) The adjustment of the
accumulation of men to that of capital, the joining of the growth of human
groups to the expansion of productive forces and the differential allocation of
profit, were made possible in part by the exercise of bio-power in its many
forms and modes of application. The investment of the body, its valorization,
and the distributive management of its forces were at the time indispensable.
(141) the law operates more and more as a norm, and that the judicial
institution is increasingly incorporated into a continuum of apparatuses
(medical, administrative, and so on) whose functions are for the most part
regulatory. A normalizing society is the historical ourcome of a technology of
power centered on life. (144)
★ Deployment
of Alliance/ Deployment of Sexuality
a deployment of alliance: a
system of marriage, of fixation and development of kinship ties, of
transmission of names and possessions. This deployment of alliance, with the
mechanisms of constraint that ensured its existence and the complex knowledge
it often required, lost some of its importance as economic process and
political structures could no longer rely on it as an adequate instrument or
sufficient support (106)/ the deployment
of sexuality: like the deployment of
alliance, it connects up with the circuit of sexual partners, but in a
completely different way. . . . The deployment of alliance is built around a
system of rules defining the permitted and forbidden, the licit and the
illicit, whreas the deployment of sexuality operates according to mobile,
polymorphous, and contingent techniques of power. The deployment of alliance
has as one of its chief objectives to reproduce the interplay or relations and
maintain the law that governs them; the deployment of sexuality, on the other
hand, engenders a continual extension of areas and forms of control. (106)/
Lastly, if the deployment of alliance is firmly tied to the economy due to the
role it can play in the transmission or circulation of wealth, the deployment
of sexuality is linked to the economy through numerous and subtle relays, the
main one of which, however, is the body—the body that produces and consumes. In
a word, the deployment of alliance is attuned to a homeostasis of the social
body, which it has the function of maintaining: whence its priviledged link
with the law; whence too the fact that the important phase for it is
“reproduction.” The deployment of sexuality has its reason for being, not in
reproducing itself, but in proliferation, innovating, annexing, creating, and
penetrating bodies in an increasingly detailed way, and in controlling
populations in an increasingly comprehensive way. (106-07)/ It is not exact to
say that the deployment of sexuality supplanted the deployment of alliance.
(107)/ Sexuality was taking shape, born of a technology of power that was
originally focused on alliance. Since then, it has not ceased to operate in
conjunction with a system of alliance on which it has depended for support. →familyへ / a plea for help in
reconciling these unfortunate conflicts between sexuality and alliance (111)/
The first phase corresponded to the need to form a “labor force” (hence to
avoid any useless “expenditure,” any wasted energy, so that all forces were
reduced to labor capacity alone) and to ensure its reproduction (conjugality,
the regulated fabrication of children). The second phase corresponded to that
epoch of Spätkapitalismus in which
the exploitation of wage labor does not demand the same violent and physical
constraints as in the nineteenth century, and where the politics of body does
not require the elision of sex or its restriction solely to the reproductive
function; it relies instead on a multiple channeling into the controlled
circuits of economy—on what has been called a hyperrepressive desublimation.
(114)/ The last stage came at the end of the nineteenth century with te
development of juridical and medical control over perversions, for the sake of
a general protection of society and the race. It can be said that this was the
moment when the deployment of “sexuality,” elaborated in its more complex and
intense forms, by and for the privileged class, spread through the entire
social body. (122)
★ Family
as a conjunction of alliance/sexuality
“Local centers” of power-knowledge (98)/ Thus the father in the family
is not the “representative” of the sovereign of the state; ant 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. But the family
organization, precisely to the extent that it was insular and heteromorphous
with respect to the other power mechanisms, was used to support the freat
“maneuvers” employed for the Marthusian control of the birthrate, for the
populationist incitements, for the medicalization of sex and the
psychiatrization of its nongenital forms. (100)/ The family cell, in the form
in which it came to be valued in the course of the eighteenth century, made it
possible for the main elements of the deployment of sexuality (the feminine
body, infantile precocity, the regulation of births, and to a lesser extent no
doubt, the specification of the perverted) to develop along its two primary
dimensions: the husband-wife axis and the parents-children axis. The family, in
its contemporary form, must not be understood as a social, economic, and
political structure of alliance that excludes or at least restrains sexuality,
that diminishes it as much as possible, preserving only its useful functions.
On the contrary, its role is to anchor sexuality and provide it with a
permanent support. It ensures the production of a sexuality that is not
homogenous with the privileges of alliance, while making it possible for the
system of alliance to be imbues with a new tactic of power which they would
otherwise be impervious to. The family is the interchange of sexuality and
alliance: it conveys the law and the juridical dimension in the deployment of
sexuality; and it conveys the economy of pleasure and the intensity of
sensations in the regime of alliance. (108)./ This interpenetration of the
deployment of alliance and that of sexuality in the form of the family allows
us to understand a number of facts: that since the eighteenth century the
family has become an obligatory locus of affects, feelings, love; that
sexuality has its privileged point of development in the family; that for this
reason sexuality is “incestuous” from the start (108). in a society such as
ours, where the family is the most active site of sexuality . . . incest
occupies a central place; it is constantly being solicited and refused; it is
an object of obsession and attraction, a dreadful secret and an indispensable
pivot. It is manifested as a thing that is strictly forbidden in the family
insofar as the latter functions as a deployment of alliance; but it is also a
thing that is continuously demanded in order for the family to be a hotbed of
constant sexual incitement (109). / the deployment of sexuality which first
developed on the fringes of familial institutions (in the direction of
conscience and pedagogy, for example) gradually became focused on the family:
the alien, irreducible, and even perilous effects it held in store for the
deployment of alliance . . . were absorbed by the family, a family that was
reorganized, restricted no doubt, and in any case intensified in comparison
with the functions it formerly exercised in the deployment of alliance. In the
family, parents and relatives became the chief agents of a deployment of sexuality
which drew its outside support from doctors, educators, and later
psychiatrists, and which began by competing with the relations of alliance but
soon “pathologized” or “psychiatrized” the latter (110)/ It was as if it had
suddenly discovered the dreadful secret of what had always been hinted at and
inculcated in it: the family, the keystone of alliance, was the germ of all the
misfortunes of sex. And lo and behold, from the mid-nineteenth century onward,
the family engaged in searching out the slightest traces of sexuality in its
midst, wrenching from itself the most difficult confessions, soliciting an
audience with everyone who might know something about the matter, and opening
itself unreservedly to endless examination. The family was the crystal in the
deployment of sexuality: it seemed to be the source of a sexuality which it
actually only reflected and diffracted. (111)
★ Psychoanalysis—reconciling
sexuality and alliance
The therapist only intervened in order to return to them individuals
who were sexually compatible with the family system; and while this
intervention manipulated the sexual body, it did not authorize the latter to
define itself in explicit discourse. 112/ psychoanalysis, whose technical
procedure seemed to place the confession of sexuality outside family
jurisdiction, rediscovered the law of alliance, the involved workings of
marriage and kinship, and incest at the heart of this sexuality, as the
principle of its formation and the key to its intelligibility. The guarantee
that one would find the parents-children relationship at the root of everyone’s
sexuality made it possible . . . to keep the deployment of sexuality coupled to
the system of alliance. There was no risk that sexuality would appear to be, by
nature, alien to the law: it was constituted only through the law. . . .
Whence, after so many reticences, the enormous consumption of analysis in
societies where the deployment of alliance and the family system needed
strengthening. . . . with psychoanalysis, sexuality gave body and life to the
rules of alliance by saturating them with desire (113) 精神分析の始まりがsexualityとallianceの衝突を緩和するためだった、というのは本当に面白い。この二つの衝突というのはたぶん19世紀末に顕著なのだと思う。だからこそ家族法の改正が怒っていたのだろうし。過渡期だったんだろう。しかし、改めて、なぜこの二つはぶつかるの？allianceが禁止や法という旧来の力に依拠しているから？/The
sexualization of children, the hysterization of women, the specification of the
perverted, and the regulation of populations—all strategies that went by way of
a family which must be viewed, not as a powerful agency of prohibition, but as
a major factor of sexualization. 114/ 精神分析の擁護？Ad the strange position of psychiatry at the end of the nineteenth
century would be hard to comprehend if one did not see the tupture it brought
about in the great system of degenerescence: it resumed the project of medical
technology appropriate for dealing with the sexual instinct; but it sought to
free it from its ties with heredity, and hence from eugenics and the various
racism. It is very well to look back from our vantage point and remark upon the
normalizing impulse in Freud; one can go on to denounce the role played for
many years by the psychoanalytic institution; but the fact remains that in the
great family of technologies of sex. . . it was the one that, up to the decade
of the forties, rigorously opposed the political and institutional effects of
the perversion-heredity-degenerescence system. (119) We must not forget that
the discovery of the Oedupus complex was contemporaneous with the juridical
organization of loss of parental authority (in France, this was formulated in
the laws of 1889 and 1898). At the moment when Freud was uncovering the nature
of Dora’s desire and allowing it to be put into words, preparations were being
made to undo those reprehensible proximities in other social sectors; on the
one hand, the father was elevated into an object of compulsory love, but on the
other hand, if he was a loved one, he was at the same time a fallen one in the
eyes of the law. (130) The history of the deployment of sexuality, as it has
evolved since the classical age, can serve as an archeology of psychoanalysis.
We have seen in fact that psychoanalysis plays several roles at once in this
development: it is a mechanism for attaching sexuality to the system of
alliance; it assumes an adversary position to the theory of degenerescence; it
functions as a differentiating factor in the general technology of sex (130)
★ Racism—blood
While it is true that the analytics of sexuality and the symbolics of
blood were grounded at first in two very distinct regimes of power, in actual
fact the passage from one to the other did not come about . . . without
overlappings, interactions, and echoes. In different ways, the preoccupation
with blood and the law has for nearly two centuries haunted the administrations
of sexuality. . . . Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, the
thematics of blood was sometimes called on to lend its entire historical weight
toward revitalizing the type of political power that was exercised through the
devices of sexuality. Racism took shape at this point (racism in its modern,
“biologizing,” statist form): it was then that a whole politics of settlement,
family, marriage, education, social hierarchization, and property . . .
received their color and their justification from the mythical concern with
protecting the purity of the blood and ensuring the triumph of the race. (149) 優生学やヒトラーに反して At the opposite extreme, starting from this same end
of the nineteenth century, we can trace the theoretical effort to reinscribe
the thematic of sexuality in the system of law, the symbolic order, and
sovereignty. It is to the political credit of psychoanalysis . . . that it
regarded with suspicion (and this from its inception, that is, from the moment
it broke away from the neuropsychiatry of degenerescence) the irrevocably
proliferating aspects which might be contained in these power mechanisms aimed
at controlling and administering the everyday life of sexuality: whence the
Freudian endeavor (out of reaction no doubt to the great surge of racism that
was contemporary to it) to ground sexuality in the law—the law of alliance,
tabooed consanguinity, and the Sovereign-Father, in short, to surround desire
with all the trappings of the old order of power. これは面白い問題なのだけれど、どうして精神分析がracismに対抗するものなのか、そのロジックがどうしても見えてこない。血やヘレディティではなく、「法」に依拠しているから？精神分析がどこかアナクロニスティックだというのは面白い。あと、やっぱりrace suicideとdeath
driveは繋がっていると思う。
★ Primacy
of Sex
it staked its life and its death on sex by making it responsible for
its future welfare; it placed its hopes for the future in sex by imagining it
to have ineluctable effects on generations to come; it subordinated its soul to
sex by conceiving of it as what constituted the soul’s most secret and
determinant part. (124) It is apparent that the deployment of sexuality, with
its different strategies, was what established this notion of “sex.” (154)/ It
is through sex—in fact, an imaginary point determined by the deployment of
sexuality—that each individual has to pass in order to have access to his own
intelligibility (seeing that it is both the hidden aspect and the generative
principle of meaning), to the whole of his body (since it is a real and
threatened part of it, while symbolically constituting the whole), to his
identity (since it joins the force of a drive to the singularity of a history).
. . . Hence the importance we ascribe to it, the reverential fear with which we
surround it, the care we take to know it. Hence the fact that over the
centuries it has become more important than our soul, more important almost
than our life; and so it is that all the world’s enigmas appear frivolous to us
compared to this secret. minuscule in each of us, but of a density that makes
it more serious than any other. (156) to exchange life in its entirety for sex
itself, for the truth and the sovereignty of sex. Sex is worth dying for. It is
in this (strictly historical) sense that sex is indeed imbued with the death
instinct. (156) By creating the imaginary element that is “sex,” the deployment
of sexuality established one of its most essential internal operating
principles: the desire for sex—the desire to have it, to have access to it, to
discover it, to liberate it, to articulate it in discourse, to formulate the
truth. It constituted “sex” itself as something desirable. (156) We must not
think that by saying yes to sex, one says no to power; on the contrary, one tracks
along the course laid out by the general deployment of sexuality. It is the
agency of sex that we must break away from, if we aim to—through a tactical reversal
of the various mechanism of sexuality—to counter the grips of power with the
claims of bodies, pleasures, and knowledges, in their multiplicity and their
possibility of resistance. (157) we need to consider the possibility that one
day, perhaps, in a different economy of bodies and pleasures, people will no
longer quite understand how the ruses of sexuality, and the power that sustains
its organization, were able to subject us to that austere monarchy of sex, so
that we became dedicated to the endless task of forcing its secret, of exacting
the truest of confessions from a shadow. (159)
1.
Headlessなもの、ubiquitousなものとして権力を想像しなければならない。それはMonarchyの権力とは別種の、insidiousなものである。しかし、それではその権力の目的とはなんなのか。なんのためにdiscourse of sexualityが必要なのか。Regulartoryであるという。ではなにをどのようになににむけてregulateするのか。Populationのregulationのため、という。でもそれは、通常我々が想像するような、労働力の増進のためのものではない。ではpopulationを管理するというのはどういうことなのか。Power
of lifeはなにを目指す権力なのか。資本主義とセクシュアリティ言説の関係についてはフーコーは歯切れが悪い気がする。
2.
Possible
answer?—the interest of capitalism in sex is not in its prohibition and
silencen in order to prevent misdirection of energies from production, but in
its regulation, efficiency, and maximization adjusted to the rate of production
in order to ensure reproduction of forces appropriate to the current level of
the organization of production.
3.
Efficient
production requires, for example, bodies of greater force and yet with greater
docility, and efficient consumption (as a basis of production) calls for
demographic regulations. The overall context for the rise of bio-power is the
convergence of population-increase, the beginning of mass economy and
industrialization, and (what is considered the remote origin of bio-power)
intensified interstate competition.
4.
The attempt of
the bourgeoisie to maximize its productive power in order to maintain
capitalistic hegemony. (class degenerationに対する恐怖—では現在は？)
5.
Power thus has
two aims: the increase of productivity and normalization
6.
Prohibitionとregulationの差はなんなのか。もしproductivity増進が目的ならば性器中心的、再生産を目的とした性行為以外は無意味だからそれ以外をnormalizeしたりregulateしたりするわけで、そうするとprohobitionとの差がよくわからなくなるのだ。つまりsex
was repressed because it was incompatible with the work ethic demanded by the
capitalist order. All energies had to be harnessed to production.というrepressive hypothesisとの違いは？
