12 Feb. Introduction
13 Feb. 
But I’m a Cheerleader
14 Feb. Jagose, Queer Theory, Ch. 1 & 2
Foucault, History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, Pts 1-3
12 Feb. Introduction
13 Feb. But I’m a Cheerleader
14 Feb. Jagose, Queer Theory, Ch. 1 & 2
Foucault, History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, Pts 1-3
The Invention of Homosexuality
Perhaps the most often-quoted passage from Foucault’s History of Sexuality is the part about what Jagose calls "the invention of homosexuality." How does Foucault talk about it, and what is his evidence? What do you make of this? (Feel free to move on to other interesting passages if this one is exhausted.)
Foucault talks about the invention of homosexuality through sexuality itself. He describes how sexuality moved from a very repressed topic, to something that was talked about in confession, to a topic used for science. Through all this, homosexuality was non-existant, but homosexual acts were present and reprimanded. Through the shift from sexuality going from repressed to talked about, homosexuality became more than just the acts -it became all the emotions and events that surrounded the act as well. This arguably changed homosexuality into a lifestyle.
I think that this is a very backwards way to think about it, but one that works. It makes sense to me that homosexuality didn’t exist, and excites me to think it might have been part of what Foucault alludes to as a sexual revolution.
Foucault describes sodomy as a precursor to homosexuality. He says that the 19th century man (who had initially just been a partaker of sodomy) was now transformed into a homosexual through the implantation of certain psychological aspects. These aspects made him more of a person, because he now possessed a past, childhood, and a “case history”. Foucault believed that this new homosexual was an entirely new species, with a unnatural anatomy and a mysterious physiology. According to Foucault, what brought about this change was when people began to talk about sex instead of repressing it. When sex stopped being an act used only for reproductive purposes, and began being more openly talked about within society, homosexuality was turned into a lifestyle, not just an act. I think it makes sense that Foucault believed homosexuality became a lifestyle when sex began to be more of an “open” topic in society, because once you start talking about sex, the underlying facets of sex and sexuality begin to become more pronounced as well.
Foucault discusses the practice of the Church of writing down in-depth accounts of sexual “sins” discussed in confession. These detailed lists served to compound a dictionary of sexual acts, preferences, etc., and ended up being used to label individuals as “deviants.” The alienation of sex from acceptable public discussion (through the over-analysis of the action) made these “deviants” seem all the more different and potentially frightening, creating a stigma around such ideas as homosexuality.
Foucault discussed the fact that some Victorian-age men wrote about almost every sexual encounter that they had had, but as long as they were not practicing homosexual behaviors, there did not seem to be any sort of repercussions and I thought that was strange. Granted, their accounts weren’t going to be anybody’s coffee table books, but they existed, and were used as parts of scientific studies. They simply added a short disclaimer on their actions, and society seems to have let them slide. Which is weird, for a society so concerned about the idea and limited practice of sexuality.
Foucault talked about homosexuality as being derived from a medical standpoint from sodomy while internally combining both masculine and feminine characteristics which has helped to define homosexuality as its own species. He provides evidence by claiming that it is something natural within the individual where all its actions, thoughts, feelings, etc. were driven by its sexuality. It was something that was unable to be hidden because it was natural to the individual yet unnatural and abnormal to society. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with homosexuals being characterized as a separate species as I think that all humans act in a way that is in some form natural to them and to ostracize those who go counter to that of the majority by claiming they are their one separate entity is inaccurate.
Foucault talks about homosexuality as peripheral to heterosexuality. It is considered dominant in every aspect of life. Foucault talks about homosexuality as being present in all actions performed by the person who is homosexual. He categorizes homosexuals as a new species. It seems that he does this partly due to their actions of sodomy, but also in part due to the idea that a homosexual’s life is dominated psychologically by same-sex orientation. I found it interesting that the idea of homosexuality seemed to evolve from the simple practice of sodomy through the combination of physical and psychological components. Though probably not a causation relationship, once the term homosexual was used, there appeared to be much more attention given to issue of sexuality in general.
I think Foucault’s argument on the emergence of a “homosexual identity” from “homosexual acts” provides a good explanation to why it seems (at least to me) that homophobic views tend to deal mostly with objection to “homosexual acts” themselves, as opposed to simple attraction. Homosexuality seems to originate from the act of sex itself, whereas heterosexuality is not based on the act of sex, but rather the family unit/procreation. I think this is a fundamental difference in the way much of society still views homosexual vs. heterosexual identities, and could be the source of many of issues surrounding gay rights today.
Foucault refers to ‘homosexuality’ as a recent invention. By stating this, I think Foucault draws attention to the fact that previously there was no term or classification of people based on their performance of same-sex acts. Instead, Foucault points out that temptation was regarded as a common experience that everyone was vulnerable to. Identifying people by their sexuality was nonexistent, contrary to our current practice of relating sexual acts to identity. In the book Queer Theory,I appreciated that Jagose acknowledged the possibility that same-sex acts do not hold a ‘constant term.’ Jagose reminds us that before, as in today’s world, same-sex acts were understood and viewed differently in varying contexts, cultures and historical periods. This is important because our civilizations and cultures have never been, and are not, static and because we do not live in a uniform world.
In talking about the “invention of homosexuality,” Foucault makes an important distinction between homosexual behavior and homosexual identity. According to Foucault, while the former has existed for centuries (as evidenced by the civil and religious laws against it), the idea of internally identifying with outward homosexual behavior is a relatively recent phenomenon.
I think it’s important to examine the acceptance of the idea of homosexual identity in the context of sexual repression in general. For a long time, sexuality of any kind was a taboo topic unless one was referring to it as a means of procreation. In our modern society this is no longer the case, but perhaps the fact that heterosexual identity came from the “purposeful” sexual behavior necessary for procreation and homosexual identity came from “purposeless” sexual behavior can explain why we are still so hesitant to accept homosexuality as valid.
Foucault claims that since the seventeenth century, society has constructed sex as an enigma that needs to be solved. An enormous amount of time and energy has gone into talking about sex, analyzing sex, and developing new ways in which to do so. Over time, focus shifted from procreative sex between a married man and woman towards “deviant” sex. This shift caused “peripheral sexualities,” including homosexual acts, to become more visible, and society set about untangling each one, involving what Foucault describes as “a new specification of individuals.” In the quest to medicalize and demystify homosexual acts, society pored over individuals for answers, and began to see the acts as being part of the individuals, inextricably linked to their pasts and physiologies. Homosexual acts were no longer simply as deviant behavior, but emerged as a way to define individuals as deviants.
I agree with the general consensus that when Foucault refers to the “invention of homosexuality” he is referring to homosexuality being given a name, as it did not have before. I don’t think Foucault is disregarding men and women who might not be homosexuals, but that commit “homosexual acts”. It seems to me that he recognizes the distinction between sexual acts and sexuality. This, to me, is also strengthened by Halperin’s interpretation of Foucault.
I think we’ve sufficiently summarized Foucault’s point that modern homosexuality did not exist before the late 17th century (Oscar Wilde trials)– that homosexuality would have been considered a matter of actions instead of an identity marker.
The growing influence and concern of the state in organizing itself, which would mean organizing its people, creating systems of patterns to inform actions appropriate for the continuation of the state, certainly serves as supporting evidence.
In short and on the verge of over-simplification, the state wants more babies because babies become people. More people allows for more opportunity, more possibilities to exert power. States like having power, especially more than other states. So someone, some group that hurts the chances of creating new opportunities for power could be seen as an enemy to the state — here enters institutionalized homophobia.
Foucault discusses repression and homosexuality in depth. He states that homosexuality is an invention as it didn’t exist prior to the 17th century; to use the term “homosexual” to describe acts prior to this was an anachronism, as the behaviors and sexual decisions of the general public were not strictly categorized. There were deviant acts and sodomy, but no homosexuality.
People began to explore their sexual identities in the least-restrictive channels, and for many that was through confessional. Victorian morals and standards were rigid and judgmental, thus people sought out confessional exchanges to explore their profound feelings of guilt over their own sexual desires and behaviors. The spheres of right, wrong, and moral were defined by those in power, who were often religious leaders.
Foucault’s argument gives an interesting perspective to explore in regards to sexuality. It’s difficult for me to undo my understanding of the term “homosexuality” to accurately explore society and sexuality before the invention of the word. My conceptions about sexual identity make me want to ask “if not homosexual, what WERE those acts categorized as before?” To explore sexuality in a non-categorical way is a daunting task.
I agree with Rachel. Sexuality in the modern world, as Foucault points out, is tied to ideas of family and procreation. Since homosexuality deviates from the normal family and traditional conception of children, the sex acts themselves are seen as unnatural and thereby targeted. Homosexuality, instead of being based on creating families and fulfilling societal and religious norms like heterosexuality, was/is an act that deviated form these norms. These views have lasting impact today in the form of homophobia in spite of the creation of a “homosexual identity.”