I have always been extremely intimidated by Foucault after first encountering him in a hostile class environment in undergrad and made to feel stupid for not understanding the finer points of his argument right away. After years of avoiding him I've found myself in a PhD program, and of COURSE for my qualifying exams I finally have to tackle his work once and for all. This video was so approachable and helpful to watch after reading through volume 1 on my own... It helped me succinctly recap his larger points in preparation for my first qualifying exam meeting. Great video, thank you so much!!!
hey thanks for sharing your story! I never read Foucault as an undergrad, or much theory for that matter, but if I had I would've been confused. I'm still often confused. I'm really glad to hear the video was helpful.
I'm in my junior year of my undergrad degree, and seeing that it really takes ages to grasp Foucault makes me feel less dumb for not understanding passages at first glance 😂
because in philosophy 101 they say please don't look for explanations on youtube because most of them are wrong :*( This guy is a film studies professor though! We can trust him!
I'm going on a deep dive right now into sexuality, power, and repression. I really appreciated the articulation in this video of the difference between "repressive power" and "normalizing power". Thank you to everyone here who is being so thoughtful on this important topic. I feel very lucky to have access to all this knowledge that previously was locked up in ivory towers.
You've articulated a very complex idea that I've been working on unraveling for 22 years. I've been working on this as it pertains to the effects of sexual assault on sexual expression.
@VickyGRUENBLAT I'm curious to learn more about your work Vicky. This morning I learned about the story behind Nirvana's "Polly", never realized the layers of complexity that Kurt was writing about. That song is based on a very disturbing incident that involved sexual assault of children.
@LisaPellegrino I'd be glad to chat with you. I moved to Florida. I'm trying to get my work reassembled. I'm relooking at it. Foucaults 4th book, I'm hoping to get to shortly.
It's always wonderful when educational content can be shared and appreciated. Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality" is an influential work that has had a significant impact on the study of sexuality, power, and society. thanks
Notes He focuses on one part of the argument The repressive hypothesis. It is: The Victorian Bourgeoise culture condemned sex, if there was less repression it would be enjoyed more. Foucault says this is false. Freud argued that repression reduces the enjoyment of sex. Freud said that the demands of civilisation repressed sex, the hiding of sexuality caused neurosis, so bringing them to the surface removed the repression. Freud argues that sex is kept secret by repression. Foucault argues that the scrutiny on it leads to it being more present in conversation and in peoples lives. Society telling us to keep sex private exaggerates it. There are two types of power. There is repressive / negative power, telling you not to do something Normalising power makes you want to do something, it’s still power because it’s influence, but it’s not violent. It’s often subtle instead of direct like repressive power. Normalising power made normative sexuality a discursive entity. People started defining identity through actions, so homosexuality was no longer a sinful action but an identity as a home sexual. The secrecy of sexuality has increased interest in it. For example, people are only confess to sexuality because it’s considered a sin.
Great explanation! I read the text a while back and was gonna struggle through it again at some point. And I still might. But your video is/will be helpful either way.
Thanks for this concise and interesting synopsis of Foucault on Freud!
Год назад+1
I am convinced by Freud, less so than by Foucault. The word homosexual has been ' outcast ' because it can be used against you, but on the other hand it is a definition that encompasses emotional as well as sexual attraction to the same sex. Heterosexual emotions and sexuality are so ' normative ' that they are used without debate. There is nothing I have read of in Foucault that concentrates on the emotional/sexual, and the previous word Sodomy speaks of an act, but not of a total same-sex or opposite sex response in the emotional/sexual sense. Sodomy for heterosexuals was for a long time illegal, and as frowned upon as the homosexual act. I am a writer and prefer same sex desire, but as a seven year old when I saw the word homosexual named my yet unformed emotional/sexual desires, and my inner response on seeing this word was an immediate yes, and it was also a definition for me of a way of loving as well as the desire for the male body. It was not a word that imprisoned, but liberated. All this to say that knowledge of oneself in society and also in one's rejection of society is even vaster and deeper than Foucault, and by explaining the negative power too much of certain words he eliminates them, which can lead to a fluidity that has nothing to do with the freedom of the self.
Love this comment - beautifully put. I think there's a tendency in a lot of twentieth-century thought to see concepts/words, especially those that get attached to human identity and behavior, as inherently limiting, as restricting possibilities of the "freedom of the self" as you say. Foucault seems to feel this way about concepts of sexual identity - e.g. heterosexual, homosexual. But I'm very sympathetic to the story you're telling here, about concepts opening up possibilities (e.g. seeing the word homosexual).
I saw one big flaw in Foucault's writings as a historian. He doesn't date anything. He doesn't mention what year, decade, or century the events he mentions happened. It would be a lot easier to follow the chronology of events and map it with events one has learned from other sources if he would at least approximately dated things.
i think it is just the way we think about sex now. It started in the 19th century, but now we have to deal with the remains of the social thinking from then. The discourse around sex even went its own way a little, but still between the boundaries of the repressive hypothesis. Correct me if im wrong :)
Wasn't sex already frowned upon in Christian doctrines? The suppression of lust and sexuality is already mentioned by ancient Greek philosophers (i.e. apathea).
Foucault's theories of discourse and sexuality are wrong because they only form a small distorted picture of the whole. It is very important to think for yourself and not get caught up in his strange world.
@@thesmokecriminal5395 Hi, that is a big question, but I think that the main thing is that sexuality is only a part of the human whole, and that Foucault, when he wrote this work was unhealthily obsessed with sex , and evidence for this comes from records of his pedophilic behaviour. Perhaps he could have come to grips with this if he had lived longer, but as it stands, this is a huge flaw. Spend some time to think it through and you may agree.
First it is necessary to step put of the thought bubble created by Foucault, and next. time , intellectual work and sincere effort is needed to make one's own categories, all things considered. When that point has been reached, then Foucault may seem quite problematic.
@@yogi2436 i don't know what facoults take on sexuality is, I'm just amazed how different things were back in the day, for example in ancient Greece or Japan in 17th century, there's just so many questions that need to be answered
The only somewhat credible story of him engaging in creep activities was when he had sexual intercourse with two boys aged 17 and 18 in Tunisia, he was like 42 at the time. Take from that what you will but it's not really "kiddy diddler" level, more like "really fucking odd" level.
I have always been extremely intimidated by Foucault after first encountering him in a hostile class environment in undergrad and made to feel stupid for not understanding the finer points of his argument right away. After years of avoiding him I've found myself in a PhD program, and of COURSE for my qualifying exams I finally have to tackle his work once and for all. This video was so approachable and helpful to watch after reading through volume 1 on my own... It helped me succinctly recap his larger points in preparation for my first qualifying exam meeting. Great video, thank you so much!!!
hey thanks for sharing your story! I never read Foucault as an undergrad, or much theory for that matter, but if I had I would've been confused. I'm still often confused. I'm really glad to hear the video was helpful.
I'm in my junior year of my undergrad degree, and seeing that it really takes ages to grasp Foucault makes me feel less dumb for not understanding passages at first glance 😂
DUDE this was so well explained, WHY aren't more people watching this
because in philosophy 101 they say please don't look for explanations on youtube because most of them are wrong :*( This guy is a film studies professor though! We can trust him!
@@therabbithat Dude you've just made an argumentum ad hominem. Sure you fall asleep on that part of 101 class.
Yes. So objective and didactic
yeah this is well put together
because they are normal..
I'm going on a deep dive right now into sexuality, power, and repression. I really appreciated the articulation in this video of the difference between "repressive power" and "normalizing power". Thank you to everyone here who is being so thoughtful on this important topic. I feel very lucky to have access to all this knowledge that previously was locked up in ivory towers.
Thanks for this comment! That's one of the things I like best about RUclips.
So well explained, thank you! Also very entertaining what the automatically generated subtitles did to Focault's name :D
Thank you so much for this video - this is perfect to introduce to my students this autumn.
Are you going to discuss his defense of adults having sex with children?
You've articulated a very complex idea that I've been working on unraveling for 22 years. I've been working on this as it pertains to the effects of sexual assault on sexual expression.
@@VickyGRUENBLAT interesting! Thanks very much for sharing.
@VickyGRUENBLAT I'm curious to learn more about your work Vicky. This morning I learned about the story behind Nirvana's "Polly", never realized the layers of complexity that Kurt was writing about. That song is based on a very disturbing incident that involved sexual assault of children.
@LisaPellegrino I'd be glad to chat with you. I moved to Florida. I'm trying to get my work reassembled. I'm relooking at it. Foucaults 4th book, I'm hoping to get to shortly.
Really informative, i liked the conversation btw Freud and Foucault the most.
SO helpful and explained in a phenomenal way. thank you!!
It's always wonderful when educational content can be shared and appreciated. Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality" is an influential work that has had a significant impact on the study of sexuality, power, and society. thanks
An incredible explanation, thank you! Totally gave me a hint for my essay.
This was SO damn helpful and clear! Thank you!!
Notes
He focuses on one part of the argument
The repressive hypothesis.
It is: The Victorian Bourgeoise culture condemned sex, if there was less repression it would be enjoyed more. Foucault says this is false.
Freud argued that repression reduces the enjoyment of sex.
Freud said that the demands of civilisation repressed sex, the hiding of sexuality caused neurosis, so bringing them to the surface removed the repression.
Freud argues that sex is kept secret by repression. Foucault argues that the scrutiny on it leads to it being more present in conversation and in peoples lives.
Society telling us to keep sex private exaggerates it.
There are two types of power.
There is repressive / negative power, telling you not to do something
Normalising power makes you want to do something, it’s still power because it’s influence, but it’s not violent. It’s often subtle instead of direct like repressive power.
Normalising power made normative sexuality a discursive entity.
People started defining identity through actions, so homosexuality was no longer a sinful action but an identity as a home sexual.
The secrecy of sexuality has increased interest in it. For example, people are only confess to sexuality because it’s considered a sin.
Great analysis, good examples, really helped me out before starting the book!
These videos are so helpful. Thanks. It has happened that I am studying different topics and you happen to have videos about them. :))
Great explanation! I read the text a while back and was gonna struggle through it again at some point. And I still might. But your video is/will be helpful either way.
A very good starting point before delving into the book. Succinct and well structured!!
thank you! glad it was helpful.
Easy to understand provided a foundation for approaching the text! I am going to refer to this before my lectures, thanks!
Thank you very much, great video. Creative, informative, clear and entertaining.
Thank you! Such a great explanation video :)
Thank you so much! You are helping me a lot with a paper that I am writing
Thanks for this concise and interesting synopsis of Foucault on Freud!
I am convinced by Freud, less so than by Foucault. The word homosexual has been ' outcast ' because it can be used against you, but on the other hand it is a definition that encompasses emotional as well as sexual attraction to the same sex. Heterosexual emotions and sexuality are so ' normative ' that they are used without debate. There is nothing I have read of in Foucault that concentrates on the emotional/sexual, and the previous word Sodomy speaks of an act, but not of a total same-sex or opposite sex response in the emotional/sexual sense. Sodomy for heterosexuals was for a long time illegal, and as frowned upon as the homosexual act. I am a writer and prefer same sex desire, but as a seven year old when I saw the word homosexual named my yet unformed emotional/sexual desires, and my inner response on seeing this word was an immediate yes, and it was also a definition for me of a way of loving as well as the desire for the male body. It was not a word that imprisoned, but liberated. All this to say that knowledge of oneself in society and also in one's rejection of society is even vaster and deeper than Foucault, and by explaining the negative power too much of certain words he eliminates them, which can lead to a fluidity that has nothing to do with the freedom of the self.
Love this comment - beautifully put. I think there's a tendency in a lot of twentieth-century thought to see concepts/words, especially those that get attached to human identity and behavior, as inherently limiting, as restricting possibilities of the "freedom of the self" as you say. Foucault seems to feel this way about concepts of sexual identity - e.g. heterosexual, homosexual. But I'm very sympathetic to the story you're telling here, about concepts opening up possibilities (e.g. seeing the word homosexual).
What an incredible video!! Thank you so much!
Thank you for the explanation! A very interesting presentation of the material.
thank you!
Great presentation.
Thank you for this!
thank you! helpful explanation
I saw one big flaw in Foucault's writings as a historian. He doesn't date anything. He doesn't mention what year, decade, or century the events he mentions happened. It would be a lot easier to follow the chronology of events and map it with events one has learned from other sources if he would at least approximately dated things.
Great video, thanks!
I've been searching a lot but I cannot find who came up with the repressive hypothesis. Is it Foucault who created it or is it just criticized by him?
i think it is just the way we think about sex now. It started in the 19th century, but now we have to deal with the remains of the social thinking from then. The discourse around sex even went its own way a little, but still between the boundaries of the repressive hypothesis. Correct me if im wrong :)
very helpful explanation, you're an angel
Amazing video
Would it be safe to say that Focault’s idea is akin to the whole “don’t think of a pink elephant” joke?
Very helpful, thanks
THIS IS AMAZING THANK YOU
this is amazing very well explained thank you !
thanks! helpful teaching tool!
Super helpful!!
Wasn't sex already frowned upon in Christian doctrines? The suppression of lust and sexuality is already mentioned by ancient Greek philosophers (i.e. apathea).
it was so helpful
So awesome!
Incredible! ❤
He argued against age of consent laws.
What book or material i should use for this topic?
This video is about the beginning of Foucault's The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1.
you are AMAZING
It'd be nice if once and for all people across the globe would just embrace liberty.
Foucault's theories of discourse and sexuality are wrong because they only form a small distorted picture of the whole. It is very important to think for yourself and not get caught up in his strange world.
How does sexuality work then?
Hmm I think you're thinking in singular or binaries when refering to truth. Or using truth and 'strange' subjectivlely.
@@thesmokecriminal5395 Hi, that is a big question, but I think that the main thing is that sexuality is only a part of the human whole, and that Foucault, when he wrote this work was unhealthily obsessed with sex , and evidence for this comes from records of his pedophilic behaviour. Perhaps he could have come to grips with this if he had lived longer, but as it stands, this is a huge flaw. Spend some time to think it through and you may agree.
First it is necessary to step put of the thought bubble created by Foucault, and next. time , intellectual work and sincere effort is needed to make one's own categories, all things considered. When that point has been reached, then Foucault may seem quite problematic.
@@yogi2436 i don't know what facoults take on sexuality is, I'm just amazed how different things were back in the day, for example in ancient Greece or Japan in 17th century, there's just so many questions that need to be answered
Isn't Focault accused of being a kiddy diddler?
How would that factor into his philisophical explorations?
It would help his activities I guess. He sounds like a creep.
The only somewhat credible story of him engaging in creep activities was when he had sexual intercourse with two boys aged 17 and 18 in Tunisia, he was like 42 at the time. Take from that what you will but it's not really "kiddy diddler" level, more like "really fucking odd" level.
not a great representation of Freud, otherwise good
He was a pedophile. He wasn’t just arguing on behalf of sexual freedom he was arguing for pedophilia. Why is this ignored?
People will say he wasn’t a pedo. He just argued against age of consent laws because he was a nice guy I guess.
boze masakra jakas z tym francuzem