Hi guys, I am writing a paper and I struggle to grasp the subject.
There should be 3 things Foucault had to say on the topic. His first problem was that there was no actual evidence that any repression ever took place. My question here is if that is why is it believed to be a direct result of attempts of bourgeoisie, and capitalism in general. It seems like a perfect way to do, why should there even be a discourse? Could it his actions be taken as a way of expressing himself and some strange attempt no normalise the world?
I am completely lost, any help is appreciated thank you
https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/genderandsex/modules/foucaultrepressive.html
>>7620689
can you rephrase your questions? he doesnt state that no repression took place; he agrees that there were a lot of prohibitions and silences placed upon sexuality, but at the same time many different political, social, scientific, etc. institutions created new discourses on sexuality. for example, open discussion of sex became increasingly taboo, roughly after the council of trent - however, later in the 19th century, to give one example of one of those ''new discourses''i mentioned, you have psychiatry creating new sexual identities, endlessly recording testimonies about sexual experiences, and so on, producing scientific knowledge.
i dont really follow the rest of your post. he says its too simplistic to attribute the development of attitudes towards sexuality to capitalism, although he's definitely not dismissive of its effects (and the relation of capitalism to sexuality/biopolitics is hard to uncover in foucault's work, in my opinion, because he nuances the relationship continually in other works, notably his late 70s lectures)
>>7620776
Thank you for your answer, the exact question is in the picture.
>>7621343
do your homework kid
hint: IT'S LITERALLY ON THE FIRST PAGE
