Lecture by Christina Hendricks for the "Remake/Remodel" theme. For more, see artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca/miche.... For a version of this video with slides, go to mediasitemob1.mediagroup.ubc.c....
+StefanoD420 Oh geez...is it not in stereo? Not sure I can fix that. Probably was the original source video. However, you can also see it here: mediasitemob1.mediagroup.ubc.ca/Mediasite/Play/fa8e5caf862b4af9a833b7c86f157c891d Not sure if that's better (don't have my headphones at the moment)
Then it's probably the source video that was recorded not in stereo. This was done automatically in the room and we had no control over it, sadly! Sorry about that.
This professor is awesome! She enabled such a tricky and complex subject to be extremely accessible. Philosophy like this can very easily just be chucked over students heads with no real intent to give students access to the material.
A lecture that feels more like a conversation than a lecture. A fascinating subject whose fascination is not ruined by the professor discussing it. Well done
I must express my gratitude because i couldn't take course examining Foucault althogugh i had interest. you opened your lecture and it helps people like me to learn more about him!
You can get the handout if you go to the Arts One Open page, and then click on "other resources": artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca/michel-foucault-the-history-of-sexuality-an-introduction/#Otherresources-3.
Arif. I've been in academia for 35 years and in a field in which Foucault is widely read, used, and tried to be applied. ALmost no one really understands Foucault. You also need to be familiar with Freud as he bases a lot of his concepts on his. You are definitely not the only one. Foucault uses a method I am not aware any other major theorist uses, his work is a. kind of historiography. He is interested in the historical contexts of meanings, and those are fluid. I find this book and the subsequent volumes are so critical for understanding non binary sexuality. I like the idea of there not being a universal. For one thing, it takes reproduction out of the concept. Maybe there was a time when sexuality for women was for pleasure in open air places and not the dark corners of "erotic porn for women."
Arts One Open Looking into it further, it seems that subtitles have to be transcribed and added manually... and we're afraid that at present we don't have the resources to do that.
I think an important nuance at 24:08 is that our will to knowledge is not so much a want for knowledge because sexuality is important for us, but the willing into existence of ''knowledge'' out of sheer will for power. We produce ''knowledge'' about it in order to obtain power over it. That knowledge is not the actual truth.
+Amaranta Gutierrez Hi, yes. Just go to artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca/michel-foucault-the-history-of-sexuality-an-introduction/ and click on "Other Resources."
At 24:25 I honestly wanted to answer so badly even though I’m not there lol. My definition of sexuality is that it is an innate part of the self that is fulfilled via projecting said desired onto performative parts of identity that can be easily molded to fit, most often in power dynamics and gender identity.
I was enjoying the book until I got to the bit where he said that children were requested to play a harmless game of "milk maid" by rubbing wandering adult men and that that was all ok?
Amal Audeh Maybe watch the whole video because the point is that "asexual" might merely be another category created by the state to help control society, as opposed to an approach that doesn't use these categories.
I did watch the whole video, and was pleasantly surprised for the mentioning of 'asexuality' even in the intended context. And asexuality is as she defines it in the video, a lack of sexual attraction, which does offer a new field in the study of human sexuality. It is a category that exists among humans.
The point of the video is to indicate that those categories may only exist in text books or studies, and we humans take them on, discuss them, but they are not real. Each has his/her individuality so categories don't work and besides as humans we are free to create who we are w/o those categories. You seem fixated on asexuality. Perfect example of how we eat up these categories.
It seems that Foucault wants to obliterate such categories. He seems to see them as referring to non-existing things, as they are merely creations of the state designed to provide a new form of control, as opposed to older forms of control based on the outright repression of sexuality. Asexuality thus, like homosexuality, and all other categories, don't reflect inherent qualities of individuals but simply roles individuals take on based on the menu that's served up. Humans are more creative than this. Life isn't about selecting which category we fit into. It's about creating our unique selves.
Thank you for the upload! Give a like if you too googled Foucault with hair during the lecture 😂 for one I would have to disagree about Foucault's science of sex, i mean scientific studies initially were very much inclined against sex, not promoting it. For the latter part, the scientific gaze worked as a shield for any personal involvement or 'confession', which hid the desires of the researcher. It is only the third party interpretation of empirical results that led to the promotion of sex in the modern world. Yet, it couldn't do away with the dogma that was outside the bounds of empirical analysis. Look at the sad defeat of Pro Sex feminism in te 1980s for example, just after the so called 'sexual revolution', which had failed before.
Will anybody speak openly about their sexual disease? That will who how strong stigma remains in our so-called modern society. Shame, right or wrong, remains as strong as it was in the 19th century. There is nothing like a chronic sexual ailment to alter one's sexual perception of oneself and others.
In the title, he spoke of why he doesn't give an alternative solution to any potentially conceived of problems, he is using some kind of very powerful metaphor. I've never heard such incredibly impact-full words hidden in such a plainly obfuscated manner. It was as though I could feel his own repression hiding inside every syllable, an entire lifetime of ridicule and anguish, raging furiously between the lines. He alludes to some phenomenological sense of having to face his own annihilation in the knowledge of what has been buried within. Death of the Dasein who's will is to be "other than."
Bravo lecturer....to this day sexuality is barely spoken of at non superficial levels and people generally go quiet in any forums....still a taboo topic
But why sexuality is hidden? Why aren't we just like other species? Why everything has to be complicated by us? The problem of awareness, I think, added more complicated issues to us, since we are aware of our inner self and not having any access to it. We all the time ACTING, HIDING AND ACTING . maybe civilization itself caused this problem too.
This is the type of question that I think most people should have just figured out by growing up. Civilization does "cause these problems" because you can only maintain civilization if sex is handled in a certain way. Only monogamous cultures can be maintained. There have been cultures that tried to other things and they grew weak and were easily defeated. So all sexual values are about maintaining monogamy. If you want to be a slut you have to do it unseen where it will not weaken higher values.
my own theory (work-in-progress) holds that humans are evolving away from a standard, mammalian dimorphism and thereby towards parity with its actual creators. this is to be a focus of the historical fiction i've been working on for nearly a decade and research for the same includes this very lecture/book.
Ah yes, evolution towards that cruel goddess of the void, Chaos herself. I think what you're describing is the eventual breakdown of all structures that is implied by our knowledge that everything is finite. That even the universe itself will reach a maximum entropy, that is its 'heat death'. Our creator is randomness, and to randomness we shall return
@@sandworm9528 though i like and agree with most of this, there may be a paradox or two somewhere in what you've said. i view theoretical principles of entropy as a platonic form or empirical pattern that lends us ideation of the essence of things, as opposed to any comprehensive understanding or 'knowledge', which we certainly lack. a similar problem arises with conceptualization of a term like 'universe'. to be concise; how about multiverse? what we call knowledge or fact is merely probabilistic; correct enough, for now. Einstein's postulation regarding infinite time/space seems to be holding up quite well, as opposed to Newtonian hypothesis, ie, entropy. key to this sphere (chaos, randomness) is the notion of a closed system. see the conflict? hence, paradox. last, consider that this tidbit may be better at pointing us back to an essential understanding: the only constant is change.
@@sandworm9528 who exactly is this 'we' that you claim knows this? heat death is merely an hypothesis, 100% void of any potential for proof or even any empirical evidence for solid theoretical support. also, saying anything is: "100% going to happen", is an indication that you are either not comprehending (intellectual immaturity), or perhaps not accepting of the probabilistic nature of human knowledge, precisely what i have learned from my study (see; The Dappled World) and understanding of physics!!! this is not to suggest that understanding even approximates 100%.
Watching this and the part of onanism, I am reminded by the quote by Voltaire 'This self-love is the instrument of our preservation; it resembles the provision for the perpetuity of mankind: it is necessary, it is dear to us, it gives us pleasure, and we must conceal it.' It seems that a lot of philosophical texts up to now, it seems that there are two main ways to deal with controlling something: (1) sovereign power and (2) a sort of deconstruction to understand it -- thus annihilating its power. It seems to me that the latter seems to have the longer-lasting effect, for good or for bad. Perhaps some societies deal with the fringes of society with a combination of the two. Perhaps this is an understandment on my part worthy of some scorn for being a bit abtuse. Or perhaps by doing so, I am merely doing the same thing as the latter, i.e. a form of deconstruction.
Characterizing Foucualt's views as Marxist and liberal is misguided on both accounts -- not just in the conflation of revolutionary Marxist views and reformist liberalism, but principally because Foucault had much different political and ontological commitments, perhaps more akin to anarchism. Yet, he eludes these categories in the continual development of his thought. He was a Nietzschean, if he could ever be pinned down.
I think these sources define my understanding of nihilism and Nietzsche. ni·hil·ism ˈnīəˌlizəm,ˈnēəˌlizəm/Submit noun noun: nihilism the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. synonyms: skepticism, negativity, cynicism, pessimism; More PHILOSOPHY extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence. historical the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party circa 1900, which found nothing to approve of in the established social order. Nihilism Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.
That's true, but that's only one aspect of Marxism. While there is a clear rejection of some of Marx's most central beliefs, the vast majority of Marx's writing was a historical critique of capitalism, not the lofty predictions of the communist manifesto which had mostly been proven false by foucault's time. I think he gets lumped in with Marx because he repeats a very similar style of philosophical critique and makes logically identical fallacies to Marx. Both incorrectly assume that because prices/sexuality are constructed from subjective, historically relevant perspectives, those things cannot possibly have any underlying objective base and can be disregarded without negative consequence. They both make similar arbitrary moral claims and assumptions, and foucault uses the same reasoning and draws similar conclusions about social structures that Marx made about economic structures. Amd it's impossible to overlook the attractiveness of foucault's philosophy to admirers of Marx and the equally obvious rejection of his philosophy from admirers of nietzsche. Regardless of terminology, his philosophy is mostly not very similar to Nietzsche's.
It's important to note that Foucault lived and taught in Tunisia for a brief period of time before 1968. He supported the revolutionary activities of some students and even went to prison in place of a student who was arrested while protesting. This should be set against the protests of 1968, yes, but also the October massacre of several Algerians protesting French presence in Algeria (which Foucault and many other French intellectuals did not acknowledge).
Science? What Science? According to the lecture Foocault gains reflected glory as a scientist because of his special relationship with Freud. The problem is that Freud was a 19th century-style scientist. By the end of the 20th century Freud was no longer considered a scientist. He was unceremoniously drummed out of the corps of scientists by the 1970s. As fascinating as his work is, it missed the cut and has fallen out of fashion. Most of his vocabulary -- like 'Oedipal complex' -- is no longer used. It is a quaint antique to the contemporary reader. Fooqault attached himself to Freud just as Freud was transitioning into oblivion. (PS I once considered myself a fervent Freudian. No mo') '
Vocabulary from Freud that is still used: The unconscious. And it is a seriously important contribution. Sure, a lot of the extensions of his core theories are incorrect, but Freud still has value (or at least those who learned from him took his work and gave it residual value).
double he would pick his demonic teeth in joy and yalp in jubilation for the creativity growing around sexuality. A straight female having sex with a cross dresser is interesting. Kinks are great ways to work out repressed traumas in a safe environment through BDSM organizations. Foucault would love what's going on today, except for the incessant categorizations.
What a black comedy this is. Mikey knew everything about sex except how to use a condom or dental dam and dies of AIDS. Reality bites and MF bit the dust. The End, roll credits, play a Satie gymnopedie.
This lady should lear something about Foucault!! She says he was always 'very left'!! Wrong!!! After his very brief flirt with the Communist Party (something almost ALL french intelectuals did at that time) he became a fierce anti-communist and anti-marxist. He considered himself as being right-wing and a gaulist until the events of May 68 when he 'mutated' into a maoist for some time. By the time he died he had shifted again, this time into pro-capitalist liberalism!!
very based! the left shouldn't be monopolized by Marxists, Communists, Stalinists and Maoists, who have been good for nothing but repress our liberties!
Charles Warren because Freud plays a huge role in the history of the concept of sexuality which is crucial to the subject matter being discussed you moron
I endured the whole thing, as part of my effort to figure out why this guy was recently the most cited author in the humanities (not my line of work, I am in the "hard" sciences). Apart from some gobbledygook that the lecturer herself admitted not to understand (but recited with respect, anyway), I didn't hear anything about sexuality that is not widely known and discussed both (at different levels) in academia and in popular culture. The inanities he said about sexuality made Freud's pseudoscience sound interesting by comparison
