I wrote On sexuality and criminality: Foucault, Butler, and Zerilli for Gordon College’s Contemporary Social Theory with Daniel Johnson, Ph.D. The assignment tasked students with “articulating a theoretical vision of your own, in conversation with the thoughts of several other contemporary theorists.”
Professor
Daniel Johnson
SOC 411
Contemporary Social Theory
A Paper
Table of Contents
Foucault on the discourse of Sexuality
Zerilli on the political aim of feminism
Zerilli and the political aim of prison movements
Introduction
The purpose
of this paper is to find new questions on criminality. I am moving into a
correctional officer position this summer with the GEO Group, Inc., and I want
to evaluate the way that Berks county responds to kids who break laws. Michel
Foucault wrote many genealogies of the present, which explain how history
brought things to be the way they are in the present. As a result, the
historical subjects he chose related to pressing concerns of his time. His book
The Birth of the Clinic explains how the contemporary clinic came to be.
My paper will be structured as
follows. There are a few thinkers who I will examine in order to open new
questions related to crime. I will present some theory from Michel Foucault,
Judith Butler, and Linda Zerilli. My task is to track their discussion on the
particular phenomenon of sexuality, and in the course of presenting their
thoughts on this topic, I hope to illuminate their distinct theoretical
perspectives. Then, I will move into the second major section of the paper,
where I aim to develop a similar conversation around the phenomenon of
criminality, in other words, criminal behavior and incarceration. I will start
with Foucault’s understanding of incarceration and policing. Following that I
will present some of Judith Butler’s thoughts on criminology, and I will also
take some of her theory from the prior section, and
use it to analyze and examine crime. Finally, because I have not sought work of
Linda Zerilli’s on incarceration (if any exists, I am not sure), I will take
her theory, and use it to examine crime.
In the course of creating a conversation, my hope is that I
can open up new questions about incarceration, and that then I can take those
questions into my exploration of how I understand and respond to kids who break
the law.
Conversation on sexuality
These
authors swirl around a number of topics that they relate to sexuality:
subjectivity, sex categories, power, feminism, sexuality, identity, discourse,
language, plurality, political ramifications, gender, and freedom. I will go
through each author and text, presenting key ideas from that part, and then I
will go to the next person in the discussion. For each author I will also give
some bibliographic information to serve as context and backdrop for
understanding of where each person was, and what sort of influences that they had
in their lives.
I will start by pulling out a
phenomenon of today that these authors all in some way touch on. How does each
author conceive of the relationship between power and categorization? The way
that one conceives the general functioning of these two phenomena can apply to
both sexuality and criminality, so that examination will prove useful to examine
criminality from the perspective of Zerilli when I do not have any of her work
to directly use. Categorization happens in sexuality in a way that involves
power. People become labeled as men or women by others who possess the
authority to make that decision. A baby is born, and then the physician
identifies them as either male or woman. By the power vested in them, they announce,
"It’s a boy! It’s a girl!"
Sexuality is discussed from a few
different angles by these authors. Each author focuses on different phenomenon
primarily, but they end up all discussing some things related to categorization
and power. Foucault talks about the discourse on sexuality,
[1]
meaning the languages that
surround bodily categorization, what it means to be a particular sex,
[2]
the language of sex
itself, the measurement and increase conversation on these desires and
relationships,
[3]
and the increased control over these. Butler takes on the topic of gender and
explains it as socially constructed.
[4]
She observes gender and
the way that people perform their roles. Then Zerilli deals with some of the
political ramifications of breaking apart the unity of women as a category.
[5]
The phenomena she responds
to is the fact that the feminism movement has separated away from some of its
second-wave unity.
Foucault on the discourse of Sexuality
In
Foucault’s early years after college began to publish works in psychology.
[6]
But he was born in 1926 in
France, and he later moved to Paris. He eventually got a job as a professor at
the Collége de France. He was arguably the most
prominent thinker of France during the 60s and 70s. He was in the process of
writing a fourth volume of the History of Sexuality. In the early 1970s he became
part of a prison reform movement. It was called the Prison Information Group.
He sought to help political prisoners. Soon after he began lecturing on the
topic of prisons. Then, in 1975 he published the book, Discipline and Punish:
The Birth of the Prison. Soon after that he began work on the history of
sexuality. In the 60s, he has some seeming grounding philosophical work – the
order of things, is a spot where he talks about the method of archaeology, where
one refers to power as not a function of people, but people as a function of
power. He was interested in the production of knowledge through much of his
life. He passed away in 1984 of disease after contracting AIDS. He is now the
most quoted thinker in humanities
[7]
, though not in Philosophy,
because he had a view that philosophical positions only come out of history,
which is somewhat controversial. On Google Scholar, Discipline and Punish is listed
as being cited in 52,929 texts.
[8]
Foucault shows the influence of some
key thinkers in his dissertation work, including Freud and Marx. He disagreed
with some parts of them and made his own suggestions about how things worked.
His dissertation work was on abnormal psychology, and it’s called Madness and
Unreason: A History of Madness in the Classical Age. Its focus on the labeling
of some people as mad, and the keeping them out of knowledge production because
their rationalities are understood as unreason. His title is a reference to a
work of Nietzsche’s, a major influence of his who has often been understood a
mad person, despite having thoughts which can well explain reality. Many of
Foucault’s works’ titles refer to works of Nietzsche’s.
Foucault rejected the term structuralist for himself. I’m not
sure how he would think about labeling himself a poststructuralist, but he does
conceive of changes in underlying power structures over time, a key
characteristic of poststructuralist thought. I see that characteristic in the
History of Sexuality, when before the incitement to discourse on sexuality,
there was more conversation about blood than about sex.
[9]
As a poststructuralist, he
tends to find people as functions of the system, or as functions of power, not
power as a function of people. And he finds the underlying power structures of
social reality as changing over time.
[10]
And so in this way, there
is power that is being worked out through people.
Foucault is identifying, in his
History of Sexuality, the phenomenon of the increased amount of talk and
discourse on sexuality that emerged in the 19th century and into the early 20th
century. He also works on examining the Victorian Repressive Hypothesis. Which
suggests that people are repressed sexually, and because of this, they are pushed
to talk about their sexuality. Then they will experience a sense of freedom
when they end up confessing their thoughts and feelings related to sexuality.
In Herculine Barbin,
in the introduction, Foucault identifies that Herculine Barbin
was ambiguous as to her sex at birth,
[11]
and so at birth she was
assigned to be female, but later in life, after confession and physician examination,
they were titled as a man. Herculine experienced a shift. This is another
phenomenon that he seeks to understand and explore within his introduction to
their journal.
Description of how power works comes
from Foucault’s work, The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. Here is where
Foucault examines the discourses on sexuality that was not always so prevalent.
He suggests that power is pushing people to discourse on sexuality. This is the
incitement to discourse. He in the end theorizes that the desire for power to
get people to talk about sexuality is that it can be measured, and, as I take
an interpretation from James Taylor, the soul is where the body and the way of
a person meet, and so if one understands the soul, then one can control and
transform a group of people. So this is what
power does.
Foucault moves into talking about the creation of
"sex" as a term and with its meaning that goes beyond the standard
ways of being. Sex means more than just biological functioning, or pleasure, or
desire, but it goes beyond that to mean more. So this
is what Foucault examines. He examines the social phenomenon of sexuality and
the increased discourse and the increase amount that people talk about it. He
explains why it is there by saying that it is a function of power, a power that
tries to get people to be understood, as the title explains, the will to
knowledge. That is a reference to Nietzsche’s Will to Power. So, he finds this,
and has a theory that talks about it.
Butler on gender
Judith
Butler is the next thinker we’ll examine. She was born in 1956 in Ohio.
[12]
Her upbringing had a
Jewish influence.
[13]
She apparently got in trouble and then had to go study privately with a Rabbi.
She was very happy to do this however, as she had a regimen, or an agenda of
what she wanted to study. She wanted to study existential theology, especially
the work of Martin Buber, and she wanted to know whether Nazism could be
derived from German idealism, and she wanted to know why Spinoza was
excommunicated from the synagogue. She went to undergraduate at Yale, and then
did her master’s and doctoral work there as well. Her doctoral dissertation
focused on Hegel and desire.
[14]
She then became a
university professor at multiple universities in the US. She came to write some
things that became very influential in feminism and queer theory.
Judith Butler describes the idea
that gender is performed (which is distinct from gender performativity).
[15]
Gender is something which
someone receives not out of an inner essence, but instead it is something that
one learns and acts out and then others register one’s behavior and person as
gender A, B, or whatever else. When someone learns to have their hair long, and
often cross their legs in particular ways, these are some ways of performing
the female gender, and then the concept of gender performativity comes in.
Gender performativity denotes the way that the continual performance of these
acts associated with a particular gender create and reinforce that gender in a
person. There are ways of acting that make it hard to fit someone into a
particular category, but the urge remains in many societies that commonly use
the gender binary of male and female. Through the discursive limits, that is,
the limits on conversation on what it is to be a particular gender, that shapes
the practices of a person, or of a body, and then those end up shaping that
person into possessing the particular gender that they have.
In the third chapter of Gender
Trouble, a book Judith Butler published in 1990, entitled Subversion of
identity, she talks about The History of Sexuality, the first volume, and she
contrasts this with the introduction that Foucault wrote in 1980 to the
journals of Herculine Barbin that he published. She points
out some discrepancies between what Foucault wrote in 1976 in the History of
Sexuality and in 1980 in the introduction.
[16]
Herculine Barbin was a 19th century hermaphrodite
who was part of a
group of people who had this as their way of being. She didn’t have other
people who were similarly intersexed as she was in her life. She was assigned
female status at first, but then later in her life reassigned as a male. That’s
when their name changed from Alexis to Herculine. She apparently had a body
part which was hard to identify as either a small penis or an enlarged
clitoris. The testis were still in the body, but they
didn’t seem to be ovaries. And their chest did not seem to have identifiable
breasts. Herculine today would be likely understood as intersex.
Butler points out contradiction
between Foucault’s implicit affirmation of emancipatory ideals in the Barbin introduction and his refusal of them in The History
of Sexuality. In the History of Sexuality, he tried to be purely descriptive,
and find the way that power operates in his archaeological method. Power has
subjects of people, people are subject to power, it is not that people have
power. This is a description which removes agency and instead understands
people as docile bodies. In that conception people are just functions of power.
And they haven’t much chance at changing or acting on what is going on. That
grinds against the emancipatory ideal. However, on the opposite end of the
spectrum, there is the emancipatory ideal that is pushed for in hidden ways in
the introduction to Barbin. Foucault identifies Barbin as at times, finding a happy limbo of nonidentity, which
Foucault seems to praise and celebrate. Yet then he pushes back and asserts
that this emancipatory ideal is not the way, yet that emancipatory ideal is
still striven for by him.
Furthermore, in the introduction to
Herculine, Foucault explains that he is questioning the category of sex and its
necessity. Is it really necessary for people? I see the way that power uses it
to subsume and falsely created category that can have a lot under it. Butler
goes on to point out that passage in the History of Sexuality where Foucault
explains the way that sex as a category artificially includes meanings that it
really does not contain. And she goes on to talk about the univocality of sex, as
opposed to a plurality of sex, meaning the acknowledgement of a variety of
meanings of sex.
Zerilli on the political aim of feminism
Linda
Zerilli was a professor of political science at Northwestern University in Illinois,
then she was director of Northwestern’s Center for the Study of Gender and
Sexuality. and now is a professor of Political Science at The University of
Chicago. She has published in 2009 a work called Feminism and the Abyss of
Freedom. She is now publishing more works on democracy and other political
topics. She is a political science professor, and she had higher education in
America. She also was born and raised in America.
She is coming out of a climate that focuses on the stages of
feminism. The first stage began in the bridge between the 19th and 20th century,
and focused on women’s suffrage. The second wave
began in the 60s, and focused on guaranteeing social
equality regardless of sex. Third stage feminism began in the 90s, and it
destabilized the construct of universal womanhood, body, gender, sexuality and
heteronormativity. Furthermore, she is writing in a sphere that has been
influenced by Monique Wittig, who was a French author of novels, a social
theorist, and a lesbian. She understood the category of lesbian as outside of
the male and female binary. A lesbian is not a woman, according to Wittig’s
essay, One is Not Born a Woman, and that is because to
be a woman is to be in specific social relations to men, which means economic
dependence, "forced residence", servitude, and other relational
qualities.
Linda Zerilli talks about the univocality
of sex. She has concern for the univocality of sex (that is, the meaning of sex
as one understanding). She realizes that out of Butler’s work stemmed a
critique of this idea of the univocality of sex, that instead there was a
plurality of sexes, this means that there are many different experiences of
being a woman and or a man. This is how some of the fallout of the discussions
lead by Butler resulted in the 90s. She went on to discuss the way that problems
come out of the idea that there is only one understanding of women. She wants
to figure out an answer to a problem.
She does not talk about power as
much as the other two. Her concern seems more related thinking of ideas
directly related to forming political movements and conceiving them. She is
concerned the political ramifications the conceptions of Butler and company had
on the way that feminism now can or cannot unify. She then goes on to talk
about freedom, which is a category discussed by the other authors in their
discussions about the constraints of the environments and the effect that those
enforcements have on the people that they are related to. Foucault’s History of
Sexuality understands environment as having a massive effect on people.
Furthermore, Butler understands that power has an effect on the identity constitution
of people, as I see in her critique that Foucault left out the acknowledgement
that power relations were involved in the constitution of Barbin’s
identity.
The problem Zerilli summarizes that
feminists pointed out in response to Butler’s negation of woman as unified
category, is that now feminism no longer has a single unitary subject. In whose
name is now feminism to be fought? In the name of
women? That category has now been problematized and expanded actions are now
said to be necessary. The racialized character of second stage feminism was
exposed. White women were the sole category, but now, there is a recognition that
there are many different understandings of being a woman, and many different
experiences, so now it is difficult to work for the sake of one of them.
Zerilli points out the problems with
the notion of a politics which is trying to form a universal theory, which
reminds me of some of what was discussed in Contemporary social theory in 2016,
that an impulse in postmodernism is to reject the possibility of directly
accessing and understanding absolute truth, which I find similar to the idea of
universal theories. Jacques Derrida finds the idea difficult that we could
fully understand what love is. There we need to cross it out, because it is a
problematic notion to think that we fully understood and have grasped the
objectivity of it, given our subjectivity. She wants, Zerilli wants judgments
to focus more on the particular.
Zerilli references Hannah Arendt in
suggesting a form of politics that is not based on a univocality of women, or a
unity of women as a category, but that can comprehend and function off of a
plurality of women. Her question is, how can we act in the interest of a group
that is so varied and different that we can hardly or can’t even call them a
unified group? Instead, we need to admit that there really are many different
groups we’re working for here.
Arendt, according to Zerilli,
proposes that we re-examine the subject of freedom, and that instead of seeking
to create freedom which is sovereignty for a will, instead we ought to look to
create freedom for people to act politically.
[17]
Also the freedom is for a
plurality of who’s, rather than of what’s, and that the action, once
controlled, is conceived as not being able to control the outcome, for once the
action has been made and put out into the world, then it goes and does its own
thing.
[18]
This is a different
conception of the individual and of freedom from what has long been understood
by modernism as the way. This who as opposed to what refers to keeping the
person in a high degree of complexity. They are not simplified into a what such
as woman or white.
Zerilli comes to suggest that
feminism is the pursuit of political freedom, and this butts heads with some of
Foucault’s work that suggests that we have docile bodies at work. However,
later in his work (early 1980s) we find some admission of some ability to draw
on cultural forms that allow us to cultivate the self.
[19]
There are some ancient
practices which are available to us through history, so it is a not totally
free understanding, but there is still agency and choice that can be made at
the individual level. Zerilli seems to have a very different assumption about
the extent to which people can act outside of their conditions have affected
them. She seems to suggest that the limits of the environment put on these
individuals is less than Foucault finds in his later work, in the latter
editions of the history of sexuality, where he turns attention more to ethics.
Conversation on criminality
In this
section, I will take some of the major themes presented in the last section, at
least the more abstract themes, and apply them to the work of this work, so,
there is power, and there is the formation of identity via that power. There is
also the goal of feminism as a political project. There is gender, and what
that category does. There is the social construction of gender. Some of these
themes can be taken and applied also to criminality.
By criminality I mean the breaking
of the law, and the way that a person becomes a criminal as a result of this.
What is it that makes them into a criminal? And how are their bodies controlled
then? These are some relevant questions to this topic. But the phenomenon
itself is the the process of people disobeying the
rules that the community they are a part of agreed to form. How are those
people treated? In the modern day US, rather, the
contemporary US, they are often incarcerated, which Foucault discusses in his
Discipline and Punish.
I will then take the ideas of Butler
and Zerilli, and take their theoretical perspective, and consider how that
theory would explain or provide understanding of the criminality, or of
criminal behavior. How would they understand it? What are the basic questions
that those theoretical orientations they have asking? And what part of
criminality do they draw our attention to? How are their perspectives different
from Foucault’s?
Exploring the relationship between
power and categorization is important in this context because it relates to
criminality and to sexuality. People’s sexuality, their identity gets assigned
to them by power around them (already, as I suggest this phenomenon, my
description is imbued with concepts of Foucault’s). Similarly, people become
categorized as criminals by people in positions of power, and that varies from
situation to situation. And the meaning of being a criminal varies from context
to context. The meaning of that has been socially constructed.
Foucault on the carceral
In 1971,
with a few other people, Foucault established a group called the Prisons
Information Group (PIG). This group sought to disseminate information about prisons.
Foucault stated that this was a dark social space in France. The prisons system
is not very visible to the majority of people in the France of the 70s, and
still today in the United States. This work involved interviewing prisoners,
families, and examining the ways that prisons worked. This work brought along
lawyers, social workers, physicians, and other thinkers, one of whom was Jean-Paul
Sarte. This work eventually culminated in the book, Discipline and Punish.
Foucault published Discipline and
Punish: The Birth of the Prison in 1975. In this text he goes through the
history of how we got to have our contemporary prison system. The system we
have today is different than the system that we had for dealing with criminals
1000 years ago. The system then was more about capital punishment, and about
inflicting physical pain, and often execution on the subject. Or on the person
who was transgressing the law. But now, in the contemporary time, or rather,
over history, there was a shift, especially starting in the 18th century. Where
there was a group of people who were punishing, and they started to lean
towards rehabilitative types of punishment and eventually leading up to the
contemporary prison system. These systems began to encouraging
various behaviors, this power, that is. Talking about power is very important
for Foucault. And in this text, he disciplines himself to talk about power as
not emanating from a particular subject, but instead as something which acts
and moves separately from just individuals. Sciences that sought to measure
people’s movements were part of these new systems. This was discipline. So the power was making effort to create various behaviors,
not only to repress them, as many people understand power in a flawed way,
according to Foucault.
Foucault suggests that the modern
carceral system was completed with the functioning of a particular school in
the mid 19th century France. This institution was for juvenile offenders, and
it combined many elements of different institutions into one. It did not only
hold prisoners while they served their sentences, but it also provided
education, and regimented their every hour. This school had nearly complete
control over the actions of the prisoner students.
Foucault explains this facility as
an apparatus of power. Power is instantiated here in this prison system. Here
it gets to produce particular behaviors and create the criminals into docile
bodies. Here we can see Foucault’s understanding of power as essentially
productive, and not as essentially repressive. The repressive actions of power
are secondary to the productive actions of power. And her in the prison, we see
that the regular daily discipline and schedule are being created in these
individuals
He talks about power making people
into a particular way or soul. Then there is an effect that these circumstances
have on the prisoners. In this way, the categorization actually transforms the
way that the people are and become. That is an extreme effect of the power that
does the categorizing. In Foucault’s conception, it is power who is acting to
categorizing the people into prisoners. Why does it do this? Because it wants
to effect an impact on them.
Butler and criminology
Butler wrote
on Discipline and Punish,
[20]
so we will examine those
comments here. He talks about the soul that happens to become part of the
person after much hard work and regimentation of the exterior institution that
is surrounding them. Their soul is for their bodies to signify the prohibitive
law. This means that they take on the manifestations of the law that tells them
no. So in some way the way that their bodies move and
exist communicates the message of the prohibitive law.
When we start to imagine what might
be said from Butler’s perspective, we can think that this criminality, that it
may conflict with something in the lectures that Foucault gave on Territory,
Security, and Population. She turned to Herculine and compared it with History
of Sexuality, exploring a difference there, but then also going on to give her
own critiques, furthering mentioning Herculine’s constructed identity by the
power relations that she had. There were the authority figures of the physician
and the pastor who she confessed to, and then they reassigned her legally, and
then she legally started needing to wear different clothing once he became
Herculine.
Also, we can take Butler’s question
about the construction of identity via power relations and apply it to the
prisoner or the criminal. A person does not become a criminal until they either
confess to an authority that they broke the law, which rarely happens in
comparison to the amount that people get caught doing something wrong, and
are then labeled as criminals. They become
criminals, and that identity seems to go beyond just a label that is used to
describe them. It is an identity that seems to be given. If someone becomes a
criminal not only in label, but in identity (created by the incarceration and
law enforcement systems), then Discipline and Punish’s
thesis that the carceral system pushes and creates crime seems to be confirmed.
I would not have considered this so much though without the way that Butler had
pointed out the construction of identity according to power. Power redefined
these individuals once they were caught by the law enforcement. They have the
power to allow the state to back them up in their use of force.
As Butler talks about the formation
of power showing up in sex and gender relations, so too can the formation of
power show up in the criminal. That identity can be conceived of as a power
manifestation. Again, Butler seems to be concerned about power and its
manifestations in a way that is similar to Foucault. She seeks to do a genealogical
critique, which she understands like Foucault as the founder of, and she
understands this critique as looking not for the origin of gender and desire,
but as searching for the political effect and use of gender. And so in the
same way, we can consider, what are the political
effect of labeling people prisoners? Michelle Alexander, in the New Jim Crow:
Incarceration in an age of Colorblindness, wrote that parolees are not allowed
to vote. People labeled criminals do not need to be appealed to by people
running for various governmental positions that require election. That is to
the advantage of people looking to maintain the prison system. If those in
prison could vote, that would lead to a much greater amount
of votes for political candidates who are going to work to shorten the votes of
the people who are incarcerated or still in very surveilled statuses, such as
probationers an parolees.
For power and categorization, there
is an effect here of the person having their identity built by the power. There
is a focus here on identity construction by power that is not explicit in
Butler. At least, that was the case in the contrast between History of Sexuality
and Gender Trouble, and we’ll assume a similar discrepancy here.
Zerilli and the political aim of prison movements
When we take
on Zerilli’s comments and imagine how she might talk about criminality, the
social phenomenon, she might point to ask, how much are really
free to be outside of their limitations that their environment puts on
them? The prison examines nearly every movement of the person. There is the
allowing them out to shower which is facilitated by a guard. That is tight
surveillance. How much freedom do they have in this intensely viewed and
watched system? It seems small. Though they still have the option to follow
orders or not. They have the ability to comply with the program or not.
however, if they want to leave, they only have one option, and that’s to
comply. They must conform their behavior to the behavior that is required by
the institution. And in this way, we are seeing that power cultivates
particular behaviors, not only represses some behaviors. The behaviors here
that are being cultivated are regularity, discipline, an ordered life, and the
prison institution is seeking to transform these people into a particular way
that can be used to maximize the life of the system that is creating them.
Zerilli may push back and suggest that there are more options to them than
simply conform to be created in the behaviors that the institution is pushing
to give to these people. Perhaps she would suggest that they are a project
and they can take part in their own self creation,
which is a greater view of their subjectivity and freedom to act in various
ways, rather than understanding them as docile bodies.
Zerilli might ask, can criminals be
considered a unified group who can form the basis of a political project?
Furthermore, she may go on to ask, do we need a unified group in which to fight
for a political cause? Do we need a group’s name to fight in and for? The
alternative to fighting for a particular group’s freedom is fighting for
freedom in general. Contrary to Foucault’s analysis of people as docile bodies,
including those in prison, who are being controlled their every movement to
create particular behaviors in them, there these people need freedom just as
women do too. Women and criminals both need freedom.
The incarcerated group, similarly to women, could be difficult to find a unifying
definition for. Someone could be considered a criminal if they have a criminal
history, while someone maybe only could be considered incarcerated in a narrow
definition that understands the people who are currently in jail as
incarcerated. Some people could make a broader definition of incarceration to
include those in the birdcage as Marilyn Frye discusses.
Again, Zerilli is not as focused on
power as much as she is on the way that politics and freedom is conceived. In
this context of criminality, we may be quick to think of freedom merely as
being set free from the prison, but she goes on to suggest, in light of Arendt,
that freedom should be conceived as the who rather than the what. In this way,
there is a rejection of some of the categorization that happens to the subjects
of the political agenda or movement. Instead, their
who-dom is focused on and supported so that they can
participate politically, instead of there being a single name or category, a
what being focused on.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, I have discussed the arc of conversation on similar topics of sexuality
from Foucault, Zerilli, and Butler. Foucault suggested that sexuality was a
discourse that was caused by power, in order that power might maximize the
productivity of populations. Butler
questioned the category of women as a comprehensive group,
and recognized the difference present within that group. Zerilli picked
up on the political ramifications of problematizing women as a coherent,
unified group. She suggested then an alternative political way which is
characterized not by a pursuit of the good of a particular group, but instead
she defined feminism as the pursuit of freedom, and she accepted Arendt’s
description of freedom as political action rather than as theory.
I then imagined what the arc might
look like on the topic of criminality. Foucault starts with his actually
written Discipline and Punish, suggesting that the prison system creates
criminals. I imagine that Butler would go on to say that criminals as a
coherent group is a problematic category. Furthermore, Zerilli’s idea of a
politics that fights for freedom instead of a particular group is more
powerful, and that idea can be applied to political projects that move in the
name of criminals. The goal there is for them to be freed and treated well, but
instead, Zerilli’s idea calls me to think that a political project pursuing freedom
generally is better, and a political project that conceives of freedom as
political action, rather than as theory.
Some of the new questions that this
opens up are the following: What sort of effect does constitution as a criminal
have on a person? What does power have to do with the creation of a criminal? What
downfalls exist to a political project seeking the good of prisoners? Such as
the project that Foucault worked on, PIG? How might Zerilli be wrong about
suggesting that politics in the name of a group might be bad?
Is the category of criminal, or incarcerated
a coherent group? How has the category criminal been constructed? What
ramifications does our conception of incarceration have on our response to it?
Bibliography
Alexander, Michelle. 2010. Book. The New Jim Crow: Incarceration in an
age of Colorblindness.
Armstrong, Aurelia. no date. Michel Foucault: Feminism. Accessed on May
8, 2016, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, from:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/foucfem/.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of
identity. 1990. Routledge. New York.
—–. 2015. Your Behavior Creates Your Gender. Accessed on May 11,
2016: http://bigthink.com/videos/your-behavior-creates-your-gender
—–. 2015. The Difference Between Sex and Gender. Article. Big Think.
Website. Accessed on May 11, 2016:
http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/the-difference-between-sex-and-gender
—–. 2012, Apr. 1. Subjects of
Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-century France. Columbia University
Press: New York.
Butler, Judith, and Jonathan Judaken. April
4, 2014. Judith Butler on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Anti-Semitism, and
Cohabitation. Podcast.
Discipline and Punish. Google Scholar. Accessed on May 10, 2016.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4146705678256185555&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22&hl=en.
Duigan,
Brian. 2012. Judith Butler: American Philosopher. Article on Encyclopædia
Britannica. Accessed on May 11, 2016: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Judith-Butler Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: The Will
to Knowledge. 1976.
—–. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 1975. Pantheon
Books: New York.
Frye, Marilyn. The Systemic Birdcage of Sexism essay from the book The
Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory. 1983. Crossing Press:
California.
Johnson, Daniel and class. SOC 411. Contemporary Social Theory. Spring
2016. Gordon College.
Kelly, Mark. no date. Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984). Accessed on May 8,
2016 from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic
Resource. http://www.iep.utm.edu/foucault/
Rampton, Martha. 2015. Four Waves of Feminism. Accessed from the
following on May 10, 2016:
http://www.pacificu.edu/about-us/news-events/four-waves-feminism
Sparknotes.
Discipline and Punish: Michel Foucault. Accessed on May 11, 2016.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/disciplinepunish/summary.html
Taylor, James. Course seminar. Philosophical and Theological
perspectives on War and Peace. Fall 2015. Center for the Study of War and
Peace.
Wittig, Monique. 1993. One is Not Born a Woman. Essay within the book,
The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Edited by Henry Abelove,
et. al. Routledge: New York.
Wolters, Eugene. 2014. "43 Years Ago Today: Foucault’s Statement
on French Prisons". Accessed on May 10, 2016 from:
http://www.critical-theory.com/43-years-ago-today-foucaults-statement-on-french-prisons/
Zerilli, Linda. 2005. Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom. Print. The
University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
—–. Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom: Rejoinder to Ferree, Glaeser,
and Steinmetz. 2009. Sociological Theory 27:1. American Sociological
Association: Washington, DC.
Notes
[1] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: Volume I: An Introduction. 17. In this chapter, the Incitement to discourse, Foucault presents the way that there was much censorship to begin with in the 17th century, but then people began to feel a liberated feeling when they would share something about sex.
[2] Foucault, The History of Sexuality. 152-153. Here Foucault discusses the additional meaning that has been added on to the term, sex. "one sees the elaboration of this idea that there exists something other than bodies, organs, somatic localizations, functions, anatomo-physiological systems, sensations, and pleasures; something else and something more, with intrinsic properties and laws of its own: "sex."
[3] Foucault, The History of Sexuality. 53. Foucault states that there has been a multiplication of discourse on sex over the last two centuries.
[4] Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 4-5. "gender is not always constituted coherently or consistently in different historical contexts, . . . it becomes impossible to separate out "gender" from the political and cultural intersections in which it is invariably produced and maintained."
[5] Linda Zerilli, Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom, 33.
[6] Mark Kelly. Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984).
[7] Kelly, Michel Foucault.
[8] Discipline and Punish. Google Scholar.
[9] Foucault, The History of Sexuality. 148. In the time of kings through the middle ages and Renaissance, there was a discourse on the symbolics of blood. "The new procedures of power that were devised during the classical age and employed in the nineteenth century were what caused our societies to go from a symbolics of blood to an analytics of sexuality." We can even see this in the language of the Bible and its heavy discussion on blood.
[10] Daniel Johnson. SOC 411 Contemporary Social Theory. Spring 2016.
[11] Michel Foucault. Introduction to Herculine Barbin: Being the Recently Discovered Memoirs of a Nineteenth-Century French Hermaphrodite. xi. "Brought up as a poor and deserving girl in a milieu that was almost exclusively feminine and strongly religious, Herculine Barbin, who was called Alexina by her familiars, was finally recognized as being "truly" a young man."
[12] Brian Duigan. 2012. Judith Butler: American Philosopher. Article on Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed on May 11, 2016: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Judith-Butler
[13] Butler, Judith, and Jonathan Judaken. April 4, 2014. Judith Butler on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Anti-Semitism, and Cohabitation
[14] Judith Butler. 2012. Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-century France. vii. "Subjects of desire is the work that emerged from Judith Butler’s dissertation thesis . . . on the reception of Hegel in twentieth-century French thought."
[15] Butler. Your Behavior Creates Your Gender. Video.
[16] Butler. Gender Trouble. 131. Here is the contrast that Butler points out, which is between Foucault’s repression of emancipatory discourse in History of Sexuality, and his indulgence in that discourse in the introduction to Herculine Barbin. "The sexual world in which Herculine resides, according to Foucault, is one in which bodily pleasures do not immediately signify "sex" as their primary cause and ultimate meaning; it is a world, he claims, in which ‘grins hung about without the cat’ (xiii). Indeed these are pleasures that clearly transcend the regulation imposed upon them, and here we see Foucault’s sentimental indulgence in the very emancipatory discourse his analysis in The History of Sexuality was mean to displace."
[17] Zerilli. 2009. Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom: Rejoinder to Ferree, Glaeser, and Steinmetz. 91.
[18] Zerilli. 2005. Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom. 13-14. "Who someone is, by contrast with what she is (for example, a white middle-class American woman, qualities she necessarily shares with others like her) is the unique disclosure of human action in Arendt’s view (HC, 184). This "who" is no substance that can be cognized or in any way known; it can only show itself through ‘manifest signs’ (HC, 182). Although any attempt to capture the ‘who’ in language always risks reducing it to a ‘what,’ the ‘who’ lives on from the stories, narratives, and other human artifacts which speak of it and without which it would vanish without a trace (HC, 184)."
[19] Kelly. Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984)
[20] Butler, Gender Trouble 183.
Here is the syllabus for Contemporary Social Theory.