R103B Midterm 2 paper - Prof Samera Esmeir PDF

Preview

Summary

Prof Samera Esmeir...

Description

Tiffany Lo, Rhetoric 103B, March 21 2017 Professor Esmeir, GSI: Michael Dalebout Possibilities of Resistance Human beings like to think of themselves as outside of and free from the repressive constraints of power: even if power is applied to their existence, they believe that they can find a way to evade it. Because of the mentality that we are individuals rather than subjects, we view discourses as things that liberates us and gives agency, when in actuality discourses produce their truth to benefit their creators, in turn confine us to an identity and discourage us from resistance. Discourse is thus always entangled with power. How then, given that we can never fully escape power, do we break the cycle and reconfigure the workings of the current power relations we are dissatisfied with? I argue that in order to resist, we must stop remaining silent in conformity, but actively change the terms of the prevailing discourses. To talk and participate means to first understand the reigning power relations and the interested players involved in discourse. To explore this, I turn to Foucault’s The History of Sexuality and Said’s Orientalism to examine their perspectives of discourses and discuss the possibilities of resistance within each framework. Foucault’s genealogy on sexuality directs our attention to the production of sex through discourses of sexuality, on which power depends to operate, invisibly, in society. He explores sexuality as his discourse of interest precisely because he sees it as intimately intertwined with power. Ultimately, he is concerned with the way we are constructed as subjects as a consequence of these proliferating discourses. He makes it clear that the discourse of sexuality created sex, rather than represent a truth called “sex.” This creation was carried out by the bourgeois for the purposes of retaining their power and authority in society, through continuing family bloodlines and maintaining life, the functions of a type of power that Foucault terms biopower. The

discourse gradually became one of putative sexual repression, for reasons such as the rise of capitalism rendering sex incompatible with intense labor efforts, and the speaker’s benefit of feeling defiance toward and desiring liberation from established powers. The status of sex as a secret causes its discovery to seem imperative. In reality, the discourses of sexuality are found in countless centers of power, as power comes from everywhere. A particular example Foucault gives concerns secondary schools in the eighteenth century. He describes, “On the whole, one can have the impression that sex was hardly spoken of at all in these institutions. But one only has to glance over the architectural layout, the rules of discipline and their whole internal organization: the question of sex was a constant preoccupation” (Foucault, 27). This illustrates how, contrary to the assumption that discourse of sexuality has been always active and present, the discourse was created intentionally and put in the forms such as medical or academic counseling and educational projects. Revealed then is a multiplication and proliferation of discourse in different settings of implementation, by various speakers. Taking the topic of children’s sex, physicians in clinics, educators in schools, and parents at home all speak about it and induce the children to talk about it themselves (30). Discourses of sexuality thus shape and position us, branding us with the identity of sexual beings from a young age. We learn what is normal by identifying deviations; we develop and employ systems of language, analysis, and investigations about sex; we engage in constant confession - truth-production that seems like second nature. Not only do we accept and participate in them, we feel liberation and agency during and after. Recognition of sex as natural and “true” in turn leads to racist policies, elimination of defective individuals, constant monitoring of bodies, and other oppressive results. For Foucault, resistance of these powers is difficult if not futile: to begin with, most are unaware of powers inundating their environments, especially ignorant of the productive ones and

blinded by illusory freedom of confession. Unknowingly, they contribute to discourses through actions, discussions, and interactions, such as showing discomfort and using euphemisms when teaching children about sex, or disclosing to family, friends, and physicians about sexual orientation and activity. However, resistance is possible, given that certain specific conditions are fulfilled. Even though we are confined to the power relations in our lives and shaped by discourses that we have been taught and have encountered and engaged in, we may resist by first understanding and viewing the world as an unbreakable network of power relations, which may be reconfigured and are not only repressive but also generative. In regards to discourses, we may trace their origins, just like Foucault did with his history of sexuality and consider the interests involved in sustaining and reinforcing them. If one were to resist the discourse of sexuality declaring homosexuality a mental illness, he would need to recognize that the disciplinary power relation between the law and citizen concerning regulations based on relationship status cannot be escaped. That is to say, it is impossible to stop the state from caring about its subjects’ marital status in providing health benefits, or in designating tax filings, or in identifying parental obligations and rights. Yet, it is possible to change how the state defines legal marriage. In consideration of interests driving the insistence on marriage between a man and a woman: religious citations, personal preference, well-being of children etc., which contribute to and sustain the “truth” of the unacceptable same-sex couple, activists may participate in existing discourse by revealing the interests involved in perpetuating how we view proper marriage and the potentialities that are suppressed, whether through artistic campaigns showing all forms of love, or public figures opening up about their sexuality, or legal challenges to the status quo. Indeed, this was how discourse about same-sex marriage was slowly but surely reformed. It is not easy, but the point is that discourses are not immune to change and revolution.

Said introduces an argument quite similar to Foucault’s, with his focus on Orientalism, a way of thinking about and defining the Orient by the West. Said notes his usage of Foucault’s notion of discourse, emphasizing that one cannot comprehend how Europeans systematically managed in the Orients in various domains without understanding the deployment of discourse. Unlike Foucault’s subject, that is the produced discourse of sexuality, however, the discourse of Orientalism is a representation of the real place - the Orient, populated with real people. Said emphasizes that the Orient has its own history and traditions that should be acknowledged, instead of masked in concluding that the Orient is a mere “creation with no corresponding reality” (Said, 5). This representation is one distorted by ideology, by the greed, arrogance, superiority, and egocentrism of the Occidents. Similar to Foucault’s discourse of sexuality, then, Orientalism was produced to secure and further power. Created by Europeans and continued, albeit to a lesser extent, by Americans, Orientalism allows them to continue believing in their supremacy over the Orient and their intelligence in knowing the Orient better than the Orient knows itself. It enables them to justify their efforts to describe the Orient, teach it, settle on it, restructure it, dominate it - in sum, wield authority over it, intellectual, societal, territorial or otherwise. Moreover, Orientalism allows the Occidents to gain strength and identity through establishing the European not only distinct from, but opposite to the Orient. Said reminds us that the constraints of hegemonies are not only inhibiting, but also productive (14). He also highlights that in thinking about the Orient, we must take into account the “limitations on thoughts and actions imposed by Orientalism” (3). Both Europeans and people of the Orient are rendered unfree subjects of thought or action, indoctrinated with ideas of Occidental superiority and Oriental inferiority in realms such as knowledge, governance, and culture. “Orientalism is inevitably brought to bear on any occasion when ‘the Orient’ is in question” (3). Consequences

of Orientalism are considerable, permeating lives without our noticing, and remains a systematic way of interpreting and producing in academia, medicine, museums, military, etc. It discourages Europeans from resistance because they benefit from it, as well as discourages Orientals because their way of life and thought have been influenced by the discourses representing their home. Said and Foucault both introduced their subjects with a definition of what they are not in order to dispel the myths and misconceptions associated with them. This shared choice is revealing of their similar goals to critique underlying assumptions about discourses so deeply penetrated into our consciousness. While one is a discourse that produces its truth and the other is a contorted representation, both propagate power and are in turn stabilized by it. Foucault’s framework is pessimistic about the possibility of implementing change by transforming or modifying discourse, while Said’s model allows for such a shift. The attempt to disrupt the current order of power and reframe discourses is arduous and guarantees no success, but a determined individual with a solid grasp of the production or representation of truth in those discourses may succeed, through unmasking interests of their beneficiaries and resulting harms....