Judith Butler vs. Michel Foucault

In this episode, I describe the similarities and differences between Butler and Foucault's understanding of sexuality's relationship to centers of power.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
TikTok: @theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/

[@nevernevernow]

this is such a great video. you have a real talent for summarizing complex ideas in a lucid and accessible way! I think it's a shame how so many ideas are hoarded away behind walls of jargon in the ivory tower & I really appreciate the effort you put into breaking those walls down, even a little! I would be so interested to see the behinds the scenes of how you go about approaching and breaking down these texts (both for your own comprehension & for organizing key points into videos)

[@Heyu7her3]

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

[@markrussell3428]

@@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.

[@hevalemin6520]

This was a really good explanation that helped me understand and form opinions about works that I hadn't taken the time to get to know so clearly before, despite being passingly familiar with them for years. Thanks!

[@whereisawesomeness]

I simply disagree with your reading of Foucault. There’s nothing in his work that suggests pleasure is “beneath” sexuality in some eternal manner. He offers pleasure as one possible means of resisting the dispositif of sexuality, but resistance is not a return to something beneath power relations. In Foucault’s account, a given act of resistance is an act made possible by the surrounding power relations (and hence only possible from certain positions within certain apparatuses during certain periods) which transforms the power relations that make it possible. If anything, his understanding of resistance necessarily implies that pleasure is a product of power relations. I’m thinking of passages in his work such as that on pp. 167-169 of Essential Works 1954-1984 volume one. Personally, I find it helpful to think of this as akin to Bergson’s notion of the problem, or Deleuze’s idea of the actual/virtual

[@fredwelf8650]

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."

[@john1boggity56]

Outstanding resource - a rich seam of analysis that is so needed in these complex spaces!! Thank you

[@chetanscore]

I love your videos please keep doing them!! I think there is a point to what Foucault is saying in his critique of simple acceptance of multiplicity of genders. Foucault I believe rightly recognises that a simple discourse of multiplicity will always be co-opted by power, in this context Foucault falls more on the side of Lacan than Butler. One can look at the debate between Alenka Zupancic and Butler where Zupancic responds to Butler in her book 'What is Sex' to explore this difference. I also think that Foucault's return to bodies and pleasure is Foucault not trying to find a zone outside of power. It probably would be more accurate to say that Foucault is asking us to pay attention to pleasure and bodies as he sees a possibility of a response to power in this that he does not see in the discourse of sexuality.

[@dstu8848]

Hi, really great videos and explanations. I was wondering about your interpretation of bodies and pleasure being outside of power for Foucault; I find myself disagreeing with you here. Foucault argued there was no outside to power relations, and I would take his point about sexuality as regarding the type of power, rather than its absence; he wants a power that is more open whereas you might say in seeking to make certain identities legitimate, Butler risks closing down alternatives. With regards to pleasure more specifically, I think he argued that rather than power working on desire (as with the Victorians - desire being the forms of orientation to the world and others, that constitute sexuality) it should work on pleasure in order to lead to new forms of desire and a sexuality defined by what can be found subjectively pleasurable. There is an interview with him called Sex, Power, and the Politics of Identity in the Ethics compilation of his work. In this, he states in relation to social movements, that these "have always spoken about desire, and never about pleasure. 'We have to liberate our desire.' they say. No! We have to create new pleasure. And then maybe desire will follow." Creation here seems to be an act of power. He also discusses S&M as a form of sexuality that emerges from new ways of experiencing pleasure by playing with power, but also as a form of power in that it creates and reworks strategic relations. Anyway, happy to be wrong, and thanks again for all your talks.

[@rattybabby]

I love your videos and work, thank you for these videos!

[@castellasants]

I just didcovered your channel, i love your calm voice and your videos. Thanks. Greetings from Catalonia.

[@lisalund6106]

This is great! Thank you for these videos! Subscribed!!!

[@LilVukie]

Hey, love your channel. You've been an immense help for me in my growth intellectually. Would you consider doing a video on the critics of Deleuze and Guattari, namely Badiou, Zizek, and McGowan? There is also an essay by Dan Smith which responds to them, so it may be cool/helpful.

[@gustavttt4148]

what is the title of Smith’s essay?

[@LilVukie]

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

[@animefurry3508]

Your description of Butlers understanding of seeing Sex through Gender first, is strangely Lacanian as that "The Real" Sex can only be accessed through "The Fantasy" Gender. Interesting?!

[@rosmabebbi8702]

what a wonderful coincidence! I am planning to write my bachelor's thesis on the pathologization of trans bodies with the help of foucault's concept of bio power and butler's ideas on heteronormativity so this video has been really helpful in summarizing some of their main points. it's quite easy to lose sight of the "bigger picture" when you're researching a topic so in depth, so this has really come in clutch.

[@markrussell3428]

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

[@MrLee192Gversion]

The problem when people refer to Foucault on this. Is they only refer to Volume 1. When from Volume 2 onwards he changed tact.

[@rohanabraham4903]

Hey David, I'm a new subscriber. I wanted to know what your study methods are and how you are able to condense a lot of these difficult texts into succinct and lucid explanations. If you could make a video on that it would help a philosophy beginner like me

[@dethkon]

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

[@marshall886]

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...

[@KriFFek]

Thanks for the video! You keep talking, such as at 4:10 about people’s sexuality. Isn’t it more precise to talk about “sex”? Sexuality sounds to me like “sexual desire”. I am a bit confused as to which terms Butler actually uses, I recall that being “sex” and not “sexuality”?

[@stiofanmacamhalghaidhau765]

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

[@mr.jellybean9117]

good video thank you for creating this

[@LifeofHum]

Thank you so much ❤

[@arcadedomination8006]

I do not think Foucault's solution of going a 'layer beneath' really works, but neither do I think that Butler is entirely right. As you highlighted, there is a great risk to purely legitimising new gender identities so that they can become accepted and part of mainstream sexuality. What we see more and more nowadays is the codifying of non-heterosexual gender into this elaborate system with clear rules. In the case of many movements for LGBTQ people there is even an insane amount of overcoding happening. This overcoding is not jarring the system, but actually welcomed by a system that is still quite repressive.

[@lunis8819]

I think a better solution could be to turn to what Deleuze meant by Life: a constant experiment, a constant becoming, that resists and fights against categorizations and power structures. This experimenting could also be read as becoming queer, becoming trans, as in starting to shape the own body and the own sexuality... i hope i formulated that somehow understandable. I would love to see a video of you taking on the concept of Life in Deleuze' Work, and maybe relating it to this debate :) thanks for the great video!

[@enlightenedanalysis1071]

Thanks for a great video. I like how you simplify complex ideas. I think the last 10 years of the "gender debate" in the US has shown Foucault was right to be cautious (in contrast with Butler). For example, while the concept of being gay or lesbian (or bi) has been more or less "normalised" into society in the past decade, being "trans" has not. In fact, we have seen a strong backlash against the trans movement in the past few years - as is evidenced by the likes of Jordan Peterson and the alt-right in the US. This is the danger that Foucault was warning about. As one of the people who commented on your video has said: "[Foucault] wants a power that is more open whereas you might say in seeking to make certain identities legitimate, Butler risks closing down alternatives."

[@bookerandavril]

Correct me if im wrong, but why does Foucault’s take on body seem quite ahistorically neutral? Do bodies just come to exist as what it is? yet, i still dont know how to understand body as a historical materialization. Any articles or books are welcome 🙏🙏 im so interested in this topic and want to learn more🙏🙏

[@pat1442]

I'm confused by the ending, when you ask us whose side we are on. I disagree with Butler and Foucalt's diagnosis. I'm just an interested third party. What broader ethical standard is informing Butler and Foucalt's solution to the problem they identified? Do you have any video on the moral philosophies of Foucalt, Butler, or others? It seems Butler is pragmatic, and maybe utilitarian, but Foucalt reject pragmatism, and opts for an ideal of liberation over direct pleasure, freedom from persecution etc. It seems like people bring their preexisting ethics to decide who to agree with, but what are Foucalt and Butler's ethical systems and their justification? Its also confuses me Foucalt would advocate for this liberation from power when what ive always admired him for his is thought on the inescapability of power.

[@doovstoover9703]

So would that make Foucault a gender abolitionist? His take on it makes a lot of sense, although the conclusion to just think about something else doesn't seem especially helpful lol

[@dannyferguson1427]

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

[@markrussell3428]

Maybe we should re-examine the motivations behind Foucalt's thought. Imagine how society might be configured if Foucalt were designing utopia. Its pretty clear that his idea of transcendence is something to be viewed from the perspective of being a preeminent pedophile. The Times of London is certainly calling for people to re-evaluate the predator of Tunisia. How much of this is influencing his ideation?

[@ilyastein7527]

Foucault never argued for an underlying transcendental 'truth' that the body encompassed. He made a doubly articulated critique both against the sexualities and identity/subject categories that were imposed and inscribed upon the body by society, and against the very 'fiction' of the body that emerged as a concept in the Enlightenment era.

[@wiilliampinar8051]

I’ve long been worried that Butler’s characterization of gender as forms of “performativity”- while indeed insightful - also risked behaviorism while her insight into the fluidity of gender and sexuality (and their constantly shifting even unstable interrelation) affirmed (if in different language) Freud’s appreciation of the perversity - and pervasiveness - of sexual desire. As for our man Michel: don’t you think that Foucault tended to overstate the social regulation of sexuality, as even in the most regulated societies (queer) sexualities still circulate if (socially) subliminally? Regarding sexual liberation I’m reminded of Marcuse’s theory of repressive desublimation. Has there ever been a time in the “West” when sexual desire has been less sublimated but more socially repressed, i.e. segregated into, confined to, “identity”?

[@joshsoffer]

Foucault never claims that subjects are able to escape power. The care of the self which Foucault, in his later works, offers as a means of resistance against social control, is itself a power that is directed, not against another exercise of power, but against itself.

[@raspberryberet4544]

its a bit odd to say gender is always changing. Generally it does not in most individuals. Maybe culturally or historically it morphs but in individuals it is more or less constant.

[@sof553]

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.

[@hanser5618]

I‘ll make the assertion though, that in times of war there most likely never has been any society that would send women into war before men. Til this day it remains like this. Wouldn’t you say that on average being physically stronger has some correlation with the cultural role of the protector? (Ofc our knowledge on men being stronger is only inductive, but so is the knowledge on the sun rising each day). Gender being fluid, meaning the expression of such is necessarily entirely variable, entails there are no visible constants throughout the history of gender expression, yet there are - crossculturally and throughout time stable differences regarding personality - i.e. their expression essentially-between men and women have been measured. How would that be compatible with Butlers narrative? That is to say all of this could be traced back to exactly what Butler is saying, yet I‘m highly sceptical there is any way of proving her theory true, thus it renders the whole project of hers less scientific than religious. Concerning Foucault: Me personally, I am not so much interested in sexuality. I don’t know what he means when he says „we are obsessed with sexuality“. Who is „we“? Every living human being in our society? These are such broad generalizations, they build their theories on. I’m not sure whether we can make such a normative claim. What about those who deviate from norm of minorities? Homosexual people who live their life just fine? Can they possibly have the experience of not being oppressed? It seems to me both butler and Foucault produce a system of normativity of minorities - how they ought to behave and so on -, yet that’s the last thing they wanna do.

[@saphone9758]

How do you put the two together?! Butler's garbage is still taken seriously?

[@reaceness]

Why are you using "Sexuality" and "sex" interchangeably?

[@andrewwhalley6172]

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

[@alexandreorion33]

C'est normal qu'il y a des divergences entre Foucault et Butler ; il y a un écart de 30 ans là. Non seulement Foucault a-t-il écrit à une autre époque, mais la société (sic) transformait, elle aussi, pendant tout ce temps. N'oublions pas les autres penseurs en relation au sujet d'axe : notamment Deleuze et la 'société de contrôle'. Bien sûr, Butler a une base plus large de quoi analyser (relativement parlant !) mais avec tout le débat, la discussion, le dialogue autour de sexualité et de gendre - quel que soit le cadre de référence - ces jours, on peut au moins soupçonner, comme tu l'avais remarqué dans cette vidéo, que, quelque-part, il opère une forme de contrôle social par justement cette transparence. Considérons aussi la notion de l'obscène chez Baudrillard : la mise en avant de la visibilité, la mise en avant du code (peu importe quel militantisme on exhibe) nous aveugle de quelque-chose de fondamental. Il ne reste pour nous qu'à attendre voir (mdr) ce qui se passe par la suite... ;-)

[@boaz1353]

i haven't read either text but i feel like Foucault would be contradicting like, all of his work to suggest that there is an underlying, transcendent zone that is free from power. isn't his thing that power is everywhere? could it be that he is talking specifically about the power structure we are currently in, and the idea of the body and pleasure is an attempt to remove these things from our binary notions of gender? like i said i haven't read either text but i feel like if you look at today's gender discourse with what pride has become, and pink washing and stuff it feels like foucault was right.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

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.

[@rzrwiresunrise]

The toughest thing about the discussion on sex & gender is how thin ppls’ understanding is of the actual science of biological sex. Bad premises, cum/post hoc arguments, conflation of terms, & a large measure of willful obtuseness to the constructed nature of Science™️ make for a really poor approach to truth.

[@azcosgrove511]

I haven’t read either of these in full, so don’t have a super solid conclusion .., I think I err on the side of butler but I get what Foucault is saying and think it is partly true. It’s why I always choose to self identify as “queer” as I think the ever lengthening LGBTQIA acronym is just creating more boxes, which are a means of social control. BUT if Foucault was 100% right, gender would be purely constructed, which I really disagree with! 🤔

[@Charles3x7]

Hey man I appreciate the video. Not to nitpick, but that account of monks doing all the cooking, and then only at the onset of industrial society did cooking become understood as a woman's role just doesn't stand to scrutiny. This is for two reasons: One, monks by definition live in all-male communities, and thus, by logical necessity do all the work in the community. This also means however, that they cook primarily for their own sustenance and not for surrounding families (as a rule, perhaps there are exceptions). That said, there is no reason to believe that gender roles in families and village communities--or even going back to hunter-gatherer tribes, weren't still established roughly as they were seen in the industrial age. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but it seemed that this is what you were implying, which does not follow.

[@lukedmoss]

In response to the end, I'm under the impression that Butler prefers a "turtles all the way down" approach, or perhaps a "turtles all around" approach in terms of sexual validation, whereas Foucault says "no, it's just one big turtle" Edit: is this a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding ? I find I'm often too eager to draw sweeping comparisons...

[@fredwelf8650]

Aside from Butler's main emphasis on construction of gender and performance, or performativity which sounds a bit like 'implicature,' your discussion of David Page's research from p145-147 in Gender Trouble does not quite describe the chestnut he faced: there were males with XX chromosomes, who were sterile and did not produce sperm (semen?) but who were anatomically male. He posited the transposition of the Y chromosome. Is this a twist? Much more detail is needed about this particular genetic form but today everyone is familiar with the various forms of hermaphroditism which easily implies that every person is different and that the binary assumption fails to consider 'variations.' Foucault could be understood as claiming that the variations are lumped into "normalized" desiring subjects. The key difference between Butler and Foucault is that where Foucault discusses genealogies designed to incite rebellions against pernicious disciplinary productions and to open a space for critique and a revised understanding of autonomy. For example, Foucault joined Sartre and many other intellectuals in Paris, 1968 to object to the age limits between sex partners, namely, the ridiculous cut where anyone under 18 was insulated from sexuality via the statute of statutory rape which implicated the problematic of pedophilia. So, what happens when the subject turns 18?? Where Foucault focused on specific identities and the conditions of their emergence, Butler on the other hand presumes that the logic of identity is exclusionary. Butler posits a 'queer subject' of history - a principle of destabilization - at the heart of the subject. "Queer" meaning a reaction against the traditional sex categories and opposition to binary impositions.

[@kayetaylor5551]

Hello

[@athousandIQ]

Check Norman Finkelstein to cut through the crap!

[@Heyu7her3]

Chromosomes deal with male and female, no? So while we could have a "third sex" for those with Turner Syndrome, Klinefelter, etc., that would not apply to the majority of people who gender identify as queer or non-binary. _(since sex and gender and sexuality are different)_

[@Valkyri3Z]

I think from what I understand from your talk , Butler is more political and Foucault is more spiritual. To be honest there is already certain signs of power structures and controlling systems that Foucault talks forming inside LGBTQ communities. I hear trans people discriminate each other based on who transitioned , who did not , who is behaving which way. And this is the problem of making what is essentially a deeply personal condition into a political one. Instead of putting people in boxes and political identities if you focus more on creating an atmosphere in society where various forms of pleasure , sexuality etc are openly tolerated encouraged people start accepting each other more. I dont know if I am saying it right but to me Foucault makes more sense. A lot of early tribal societies had precisely this , they did not make fuss about who is who rather they welcomed everyone as same and the fluidity was naturally became normal.

[@lewissmart7915]

They both had good points, need synthesis. He was right that the establishment of new norms leads to denial of other possible ways of being. Groups strengthen themselves by Othering, and this is true of the communities that form around various notions of gender and identity. We're at the point now where if you fail to express your psycho/sociosexual alterity outside the tropes of pop queer culture, you'll likely be identified as normative by those who see the world through that lense. Meanwhile normatives will see you as queer, or just some kind of freak.

[@martylovejoy]

Maybe I'm too new to the subject matter, or not currently submersed in current academic theory, but I wonder if you use the term "sexuality" correctly in this vid. I don't recall your using the term "sex" in this vid. I took Human Sexuality in college in the mid-80's and am familiar with the use of the word "sex" as the biological/chromosomal make up of a person, while the word "sexuality" refers to one's romantic or sexual interest (aka: sexual orientation). Your use of the words "sexuality" throughout this vid confuses me and muddles your conversation. I appreciate your thoughts however.

[@shrayanahaldar8003]

Very much on Butler’s side. This yearning for some prediscursive body and pleasure doesn’t make sense to me. Nothing’s prediscursive. Even this body and its pleasures are created by discourse. Even a “simple” table can’t be a table without discourse. No way, then, that there can some body, beneath the discourse, whence subjecthood can emerge and which subjects can experience and enjoy. We already need the discourse to discern this body qua a body and the mere possibility of pleasure qua pleasure. X is one thing but x qua x is entirely another. We can’t just have a body not qua a body. That’s just space-time. We as subjects do way more abstraction on space-time to exist within it. Those abstractions, those discernments are the text, the discourse. So, basically, “there’s nothing outside the text.” When we say, “Ah, we’ve found the transcendent body and all its unconstrained pleasures,” we’re saying that precisely because the text has given us the language to see the body, to see the pleasure. Seeing is the discourse. It’s impossible to be outside it. I’m completely Derridean about these things.

[@fredwelf8650]

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."

[@bksocha292]

female monks would be nuns

[@austinphillip2164]

When you talk about the David Paige studies of XY/XX chromosomes not conforming to norms. Are you talking about transgender people or are you talking about intersex people? Or is it something else? Sorry if this seems pedantic; I'm genuinely confused as to what you mean here.

[@StrangeCornersOfThought]

I guess this comes down to whether we believe there is a mind-independent reality. Like, I agree that you can't really make sense of things without the artifice of language. But, at the same time, if I throw a rock at someone's head hard enough, it could kill them regardless of whether they have the language or even the awareness to signify it. If you look at something like evolution, it's clear things existed for billions of years without any humans around to signify it. I don't know. How do you square the two?

[@alfonsotech]

You are conflating sexuality and sex, and Butler's theory is not a nature/nurture argument. You then conflate gender and sex. Let me know if you want some help understanding Butler, and / ore Foucault.

[@alonewithmythoughts5035]

Sooooo many ads

[@__august__]

I'm pretty sure Judith Butler is a they/them, heads up. haven't finished the book, but Joan Copjec's "Read my desire: Lacan Against the Historicists" has really shaped how I engage with Foucauldian theory. I think that she argues via psychoanalytic theory that a lot of people have taken Foucault's work to be overly determinate of the subject, where by the inner subject, which an unstable relationship to the symbolic order, is erased. In addition, I've been reading a little Baudrillard too and so I share this skeptism for the approach of returning to the body and its pleasures

[@user-lp5bi4mc9u]

Thank you for this! I'm a trans woman writing her D.Min. dissertation on ethical discernment, grounded (in part) on Judith Butler's writings on subjectivity. This distinction you've made between Butler vs. Foucault around the nature of how much embodied sexual/sensual desire is beyond the control of power/discourse is fascination. If you could point me to the specific places Foucault writes about this or Butler tackles it (and any other thinkers who grapple with this divergence), I'd be grateful. Happy to either compensate you for the energy expended or, perhaps less transactionally, gift you with something. I apologize if that comes off as crassly transactional. I just want to express value and appreciation for your intellectual labor.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

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

[@johnp.garryiii8435]

A male monk is a nun.

[@patriciocantu5587]

I think today we live in a world where voicing Butler’s ideas could really help us become more inclusive. If gender is performance, cultural, and fluid, a central part of self-expression, then gender should not be a factor when determining if someone’a rights should be respected or not. I personally don’t like how Foucault’s ideas ring my ears, knowing right-wing extremists like to talk about how power hierarchies are natural as a justification for political persecution.

[@ivtch51]

Thanks. I am of the opinion that there could be such a thing as the gay soul (in my case) from early age. As life has unfolded, I have become more aware of who I am and where I feel more myself and at home. Despite of my largely anti-body, homophobic, religious upbringing I have found within what my often hostile culture and society places where I feel more like I was meant to be. In this I do not see my sexuality as a conscious choice. It is more of n innate potential. We all tend to lie somewhere along Kinsey's line-spectrum of sexualities. Giving sexuality only a cultural or conscious-decision origin gives bigots the hope that they will change us.

[@adamseward4713]

It was over ten minutes before you even brought up Foucault. I came here for the click-bait title, not a via dolorosa of opinionating

[@Firmus777]

Long live Foucault, communism and the Islamic Republic of Iran! Any plans on covering the latter volumes of The History of Sexuality?

[@fetishmagic2419]

three butch queens stand before me.........