Repressive Hypothesis holds
that through the European history, human beings moved from the society where
the lively talk and expression about sex and sexuality were freely expressed,
into the period where all these free expressions were repressed and became
forbidden. We moved from the end of Ranaissance period into the Victorian
period of 17th century. In this period, sexuality was confined only
within a home. The vocabulary and what can be said, when and where, were more
strictly defined by the society. It was the way for authority and society to
gain control over sex and to be able to regulate it. It was the beginning of
censorship which acted as a ban on sexuality.
One of the reasons why this
occurred, asserted Foucalt, is the rise of capitalism during that time.
Production is at the heart of capitalism and hence any kind of unproductive
activity would be viewed as something incompatible with the work ethics. All
energy should be harnessed into work and therefore these activities should be
corrected and disciplined. When science had taken a prominent place in society
and productivity became what to concern for, all social aspects of human beings
were then scrutinised in order to improve capitalism productiveness. Madness
which was once viewed as kind of ingenious and was an integrated part of the
society, became excluded. It was viewed as a pathology that impaired social
productivity and should be put away from others. This gave birth to asylum and
mental hospital. Similarly, when sexuality was looked at, any form of sexuality
that was not productive was to be corrected. Under this light, adultery was
more wrongful than ever, while homosexuality became another species. It was put
under state attention especially when it was viewed as having some correlation to
population statistic, marital problem or the demography which was again
directly related to the efficiency of the society. Any sexuality which is not
for procreation was viewed as inessential to society and should be suppressed
in every way. These thoughts and
controls were put into all disciplinary institutes like prisons, hospitals or
even schools and universities.
The church also played an
important part during the period when repression took place, starting even
earlier than the beginning of capitalism. The Christianity pastoral determined
which acts are illicit according to marital obligation. Heterosexual monogamy
was promoted as the only acceptable sexuality where as homosexuals or
hermaphrodites were criminals and that was when sex had become associated with
sin. We are now so passionate against sex, against our own human nature and
this is what Foucalt is interested in rather than in the reason why we are
repressed, and his answer should seem to have something to do with the way
society at particular time wanted it to be.
For example, the church in the 17th century made into an
obligation for everyone to confess regularly of his or her sin. Foucalt viewed
this as a tool that controlled the sexuality of people in the form of
discourse. All details of their thoughts, fantasies, acts and movements had to
be told.
This tradition and
conventional value on sexual discourse is devised to allow sex no obscurity and
became a rule in 17th century. It is what Foucalt calls,
transformation of sex into discourse. This somehow has become essential to
society. In the modern time, repression continues, but so does the
transformation of sex into discourse, with even greater quantity under the
repression. It has been more widespread in many different forms. From
confession to psychoanalysis where patients are supposed to tell all secrets of
their desire and fantasy, we even have modern literature and films as other
forms of transformation. The centre of transformation has splitted from the
church and is now even more easily accessible.
Repressive Hypothesis works
as a supportive argument for Foucalt’s assertion that sexuality is socially
constructed, in contrary to Sigmund Freud who rather emphasizes on biological
aspect of human. Freud explained human behaviour by referring to unconsciousness
and ego. This means that psychological aspect of the mind, including sexuality,
is biologically determined and consequently, madness, neurosis, and sexual
perversion are viewed as pathological. This is what happened from the 17th
century, up to Freud, and into the modern time. Also became under scrutiny were
sexuality of children, mad men and women. Their sensuality were studied,
analysed, categorised and became formalised. With emphasis on scientific knowledge, all
symptoms, abnormal behaviour and perversion are studied, investigated, analysed.
Different kinds of symptoms have been labelled differently. Things which in
fact did exist in the past but never been labelled, become something different
because people then have different view and feeling towards such things.
Foucalt criticised this idea. He did not deny the relation of sexuality to the
biology of human but he rather places significance on social aspect with
supporting argument such as an example of Repressive Hypothesis. The way people
in the Victorian age perceived sex is very much different from that in older
period. The term sexuality was born to initiate the series of sexual categories
and labels. Sex is perceived with more repression and becomes a private matter
which is to be hidden from public. Compared to the older era, a naked body was
just flesh whereas from Victorian age to now, it would give a somewhat
different feeling and perception. How people in certain time and society view
sex and sexuality therefore largely depends on the collective social view.
One point that Foucalt is
making seems to be the doubt over the conventional values regarding, for
example, sex and sexuality. He wonders why a society can speak so loudly of its
own silence, promises to liberate itself from the very law that make it
function. Basically, the rational western society in which he lived in seemed
be more like a hypocrite. He is very much influenced by Nietzsche, who also
doubts the values of rational western society. Having said that sexuality is
constructed by society, Foucalt then doubts the values built by this rational
western society on the issue of sex. Even though he believes that many people
in the society look forward to sexual liberation which should come when the
truth is exposed and used against the authoritarian power, he still criticised
the way poeple in western society in general deny his/her own nature. It is just
like what Nietzsche does when he talks about Dionysian characteristic(the
irrational or creative one), which is suppressed by the Apollonion(the rational
one), in the rational western society Here, what is criticised by Foucalt is
the way society exercises power over these issues and people just accept this
convention. From his point of view, the social values in the “rational” society
can be merely a hypocrisy and self denial, which is constructed only to gain
control over people in the society with the belief that the society is better
with these perceptions and rules. The power has been exercised in the form of
authority and the educated or the so-called-themselves experts. In the area of
pathology, during his time, doctors and researchers did not see human with
unnatural behaviour or appearance as human just like any of us, but instead were
interested only in the disease which is assumed to have caused it. Their
opinions had a strong influence on the public and affect greatly the way people
in a society perceive things.
From all criticisms above, the
way authority decides what is illicit, for example, on sexuality may indeed be
viewed as an act which is against our nature and should be viewed with care and
doubts. Though the values and perception that society have created through time
by some mechanism do affect us all, but doubting social convention is the way
to be authentic, by not letting ourselves flow with the herd. However, a social
liberation, say on sexuality, that is not accompanied by consideration and some
right mix of rational thinking and empathy, I believe, will not do any better
than a society that only talks rationally but against its own nature.