There is a social element to our sexuality. I have tried to address that in some sort of introductory form here, but Michel Foucault sees that relationship in a completely different sort of way. In his classic work The History of Sexuality, Volume 1 he unpacks his socio-pshycological philosophy of sexuality. The book is often maddeningly unclear and dense, but one thing is for certain: Foucault believes our sexuality is a social construct. Without God in the picture this leads to an ever-changing understanding of sexuality with socially defined boundaries.
The History of Sexuality is not so much about sex or sexuality as it is about discourse on sexuality. Foucault isn’t so interested in defining sexuality or discussing its evolution, per se, as he is interested in discusses the way in which conversation about sexuality has evolved over history. He wants to know why, since the 17th Century, discourse on sex has exploded and why we have come to see our identity as so wrapped up in our sexuality? How did this happen? Some talk about a sexual repression that happened in these years that was countered and challenged by a liberation movement, particularly noting the work of Freud in this area. Foucault doesn’t buy into this narrative. He argues that the “repressive hypothesis” is only part of a larger picture of sexuality, and one that doesn’t clearly see the relationship between power and sex.
Taking cues from his earlier works on the nature of power he talks about power not simply as a force of control and domination, but as a creative force. When we understand power not from the usual one-sided dimension we see can see a more accurate history of sexuality. Particularly, he argues that sexuality is social-construct deriving from its unique relationship to power. Our desire to understand sex, to pursue it as a knowledge-based-power (Scientia Sexualis, something Foucault argues is unique to modern Western societies) has created a view of sexuality that says we know ourselves only truly through sex. Foucault writes:
It is through sex…that each individual has to pass in order to have access to his own intelligibility…,to the whole of his body…,to his identity…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, miniscule in each of us, but of a density that makes it more serious than any other. (156)
For Foucault sex now defines who we are, and yet sexuality itself is defined by us.
This is generally the reality that much of our world has bought into. As we look around us we see a world that defines sexuality however it wants; the social norms for sexual expression are constantly being challenged and changed. And we see a world that believes, in many ways, sex is the most important part of who we are. But from a Christian perspective this is not only sinfully wrong, but it is sadly deficient. The Bible says that God defines who we are; we are made in his image which has far more depth and beauty to it than a sexually-defined human being. The Bible also says that God defines sexuality. In fact the description in Romans 1 paints a picture for us of a people who are so consumed with sex and have defined the boundaries of sex themselves, and it is not a pretty picture. Sex is not a social construct, and if we treat it as such we will reap the consequences of that sinful living.
Foucault never really explains what “power” is. He talks about its relationship to sexuality throughout the middle part of the book, and he is quick to point out that it is not simply defined by the “juridico-discursive,” but he never really tells us what it is or how we experience it. He has lots of interesting ideas about sex and sexuality, and I admit there are moments where the book is utterly fascinating. But as a whole Foucault doesn’t make sense, and isn’t convincing. He gives us a “history of sexuality,” but it’s more of a patchwork history. He is selective in his observations, none of which are rooted in any kind of documentation, we are merely to take his word for it. I might agree with him that we haven’t been as nearly a sexually repressed culture as some interpretations claim, but I don’t draw the same conclusions about our sexual history as Foucault does. Ultimately without God defining us and defining our sexuality I not only think we are less human, but I think we will enjoy sex less too. Foucault is interesting, but I think he’s wrong.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 