Judith Butler vs. Michel Foucault 

Excerpt from p168-169 of Essential Works, v1. The example given here is lesbian S&M which has morphed into "Femdom" not to mention the explosion of rights and privileges for women, i.e. divorce, alimony, inheritance, child support, visitation scheduling, etc. Femdom and the legal codes restricting sexual harassment and domestic violence were somewhat prior to Foucault's time but smack in the middle of Butler's emergence by the 1990's. "Q. Politically speaking, probably the most important part of looking at power is that, according to previous conceptions, "to resist" was simply to say no. Resistance was conceptualized only in terms of negation. Within your understanding, however, to resist is not simply a negation but a creative process; to create and recreate, to change the situation, actually to be an active member of that process. M.F. Yes, that is the way I would put it. To say no is the minimum form of resistance. But, of course, at times that is very important. You have to say no as a decisive form of resistance. Q. This raises the question of in what way, and to what degree, can a dominated subject (or subjectivity) actually create its own discourse. In traditional power analysis, the omnipresent feature of analysis is the dominant discourse, and only as a subsidiary are there reactions to, or within, that discourse. However, if what we mean by resistance in power relations is more than negation, then aren't some practices like, say, lesbian S&M, actually ways for dominated subjects to formulate their own languages? M.F. Well, you see, I think that resistance is a part of this strategic relationship of which power consists. Resistance really always relies upon the situation against which it struggles. For instance, in the gay movement the medical definition of homosexuality was a very important tool against the oppression of homosexuality in the last part of the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth century. This medicalization, which was a means of oppression, has always been a means of resistance as well-since people could say, "If we are sick, then why do you condemn us, why do you despise us?" and so on. Of course, this discourse now sounds rather naIve to us, but at the time it was very important. I should say, also, that I think that in the lesbian movement, the fact that women have been, for centuries and centuries, isolated in society, frustrated, despised in many ways, and so on, has given them the real possibility of constituting a society, of creating a kind of social relation between themselves, outside the social world that was dominated by males. Lillian Faderman's book 'Surpassing the Love of Men' is very interesting in this regard. It raises the question: What kind of emotional experience, what kind of relationships, were possible in a world where women in society had no social, no legal, and no political power? And she argues that women used that isolation and lack of power. Q. If resistance is a process of breaking out of discursive practices, it would seem that the case that has a prima facie claim to be truly oppositional might be something like lesbian S&M. To what degree can such practices and identities be seen as challenging the dominant discourse? M.F. What I think is interesting now, in relation to lesbian S&M, is that they can get rid of certain stereotypes of femininity which have been used in the lesbian movement-a strategy that the movement has erected from the past. This strategy has been based on their oppression. But now, maybe, these tools, these weapons are obsolete. We can see that lesbian S&M tried to get rid of all those old stereotypes of femininity, of antimale attitude and so on. Q. What do you think we can learn about power and, for that matter, about pleasure from the practice of S&M-that is, the explicit eroticization of power? M.F. One can say that S&M is the eroticization of power, the eroticization of strategic relations. What strikes me with regard to S&M is how it differs from social power. What characterizes power is the fact that it is a strategic relation which has been stabilized through institutions. So the mobility in power relations is limited, and there are strongholds that a:r:e very, very difficult to suppress because they have been institutionalized and are now very pervasive in courts, codes, and so on. All this means that the strategic relations of people are made rigid. On this point, the S&M game is very interesting because it is a strategic relation, but it is always fluid. Of course, there are roles, but everybody knows very well that those roles can be reversed. Sometimes the scene begins with the master and slave, and at the end the slave has become the master. Or, even when the roles are stabilized, you know very well that it is always a game. Either the rules are transgressed, or there is an agreement, either explicit or tacit, that makes them aware of certain boundaries. This strategic game as a source of bodily pleasure is very interesting. But I wouldn't say that it is a reproduction, inside the erotic relationship, of the structures of power. It is an acting-out of power structures by a strategic game that is able to give sexual pleasure or bodily pleasure."

The biggest issue with understanding Foucault and other French theorists has been translating them into English.

@@Heyu7her3 Both are the authors of jibberish, regardless of the language it is printed in. What is gender really? It so weak Butler moved on to Queer Theory - another resounding bit of uselessness. Both are faux intellectuals that do little to contribute to society in a meaningful way, actually just the opposite and its disappointing they dont get exposed. One is the preeminent promoter of pedophilia, regarded by The Times of London as the predator of Tunisia. The other is the person that gets credit for teen girls having their breasts harvested out of confusion. She has done her best to disempower women and destroy any notion that motherhood as something to be cherished. If the "Thoughts on Things and Stuff" podcast is to be believed she is the, "modern queer theory guru that defends incest and struggles to understand feminist notions of consent". How any of this trash got to be believed is beyond me.

@rosmabebbi8702 Its a sad life of wasted abilities if you find anything meaningful in the works of these two intellectual frauds.

what is the title of Smith’s essay?

@@gustavttt4148”The Inverse Side of the Structure: Zizek on Deleuze on Lacan”

yes its a bit jarring at times, but also flips from sexuality to sex on occasion... for sure they are not synonyms, just entangled concepts

Go to college, I’m pretty sure that’s the best way to learn all of this.

If you use readers for influential thinkers, these are useful introductions to their thinking. David Rabinow reader of Foucault (I991)is a good book. But no, you don't need to go to college...

My thought precisely. In the opening section, surely he means sex, not sexuality. Sex is about biology, sexuality is about desire.

it sounds like an abolitionist stance, but yeah idk if he comes up with the best answers in light of that

Yeah, Foucault doesn’t actually read to me like he goes for an Archimedean point or a neutral space of reasons outside of power relations. I don’t think Foucault indicated any transcendent zone free from power was his aim.

If you are interested in observable reality and sensible objective debate you've come to the wrong place. These ideas only really apply to a tiny fraction of the population.

Can do!! (for free)--just send me a message on insta or email (check channel info for email)

it seems to me that discourse or epistemic regime works in two ways: the Gramscian way of culture hegemony and the operation of force by the state and other supra-actors like movement or party members which Foucault epitomized by the term 'dossier' which implies that there is a dossier on every single individual as can be understood from mass media's detective or police or crime movies and shows. The issue is how does discourse work to oppress and elicit resistance in the individual case as opposed to the class or group situation of exploitation and expropriation. There must be a Cartesian split between body and mind where the 'discourse in practice' can be turned against the individual's mind acausally - at a distance, psychologically or emotionally. We need to examine the disciplinary - cultural - mechanisms that impact individuals. Where Foucault posits 'resistance,' Butler probes the concepts and norms that normalize passivity and obedience, assumptions about social relationships and social arrangements especially in the household where children are socialized under various norms such as the "incest taboo."