Gender and Foucault
Michael Foucault proposed a new theory of power that claimed “power is everywhere.” He said that power normalized people’s actions within society. Foucault specifically speaks of this power’s normalizing effect on heterosexuality, which has denigrated homosexuality. Foucault also proposes a way of challenging the heterosexual norm. However, Foucault did not explore to a large extent how this form of power has normalized masculinity, and denigrated femininity. This paper will explore how femininity is controlled by the same power structure as homosexuality, and will also explore certain forms of resistance femininity can partake in, in order to challenge gender norms.
To begin, a summary of Foucault’s concept of power is needed in order to understand how homosexuality, as well as gender, is constructed by liberal power. According to Foucault, “power is everywhere.” Power does not come from one source; rather, power is ingrained in every human relationship. Power exists between teacher and student, between mother and daughter, between friend and friend. David Halperin, author of Saint-Foucault, says that according to Foucault, “ . . . power is what characterizes the complex relations among the parts of a particular society—and the interactions among individuals in that society—as relations of ongoing struggle” (Halperin 16-17). Foucault would say power is not necessarily negative. Positive power exists: “It produces possibilities of action, of choice—and, ultimately, it produces the conditions for the exercise of freedom . . .” (Halperin 17). “Liberal Power” is the power of the “modern liberal state,” and is the type of power mentioned above. Halperin states that, “Liberal power does not simply prohibit; it does not directly terrorize. It normalizes, ‘responsibilizes,’ and disciplines” (Halperin 18). This power determines what will be positively or negatively sanctioned. Foucault would say that every human is within many different power relationships. In some relationships one may dominate, and in other relationships, one may be dominated. The dominant is the “norm.” Norms are established and perpetuated by those in relationships. A positive value is given to the dominant, while the dominated is seen as something other than the dominant. Those who are the dominant cannot maintain their position without the dominated, and the dominated cannot maintain their position without the dominant. Foucault believes liberal power is what creates and sanctions norms in order to maintain a power structure within society.
According to Foucault, homosexuality was constructed by liberal power. As mentioned before, liberal power “normalizes” certain aspects of society in order to maintain control over a population. Heterosexuality has become the norm within this liberal power structure. Anything that is different than heterosexuality is considered abnormal, unnatural, and disgusting in the eyes of normalized persons. Halperin says, “ ‘The homosexual’ is defined by negation and opposition as everything the heterosexual is not. In short, ‘the homosexual’ is an identity without and essence” (Halperin 61). The homosexual actually defines the heterosexual by showing what heterosexuality is not. These “abnormal” people are rejected from families, jobs, housing, etc., simply because society has deemed heterosexuality as the norm, and placed a negative value on actions outside of heterosexuality. Foucault is saying that homosexuality is not intrinsically bad, rather society has constructed a view of homosexuality that is negative.
Halperin does not specifically address why Foucault believes heterosexuality has become the norm (rather than homosexuality), but the arguments against gay marriage explain why heterosexuality is preferred. Robert Knight, author of How Domestic Partnerships and “Gay Marriage” Threaten the Family, explains that, “The purpose of [heterosexual] marriage is to stabilize sexuality and to provide the best environment in which to procreate and raise children” (Knight 302). In this example heterosexuality is preferred because children are often produced in this coupling. Society wants more children for the purpose of growth and for the purpose of control. A child is easily manipulated into conforming to the norms. Also, children are the continuum of kinship, which apparently strengthens society. Knight argues, “Kinship entails mutual obligations and a commitment to the future of the community. Homosexual relationships are a negation of the ties that bind—the continuation of kinship through procreation” (Halperin 302). So, it seems that heterosexuality is valued because children can be produced, and is what society needs in order to grow, but by embracing the advantages of heterosexuality, one has blinded his or herself of the advantages of homosexuality.
Gender is normalized in the same manner as sexuality: the male or the masculine is normalized, and the female or feminine is something outside of the masculine, and possesses a negative value. Halperin says, “The heterosexual/homosexual binarism is itself a homophobic production, just as the man/woman binarism is a sexist production. Each consists of two terms, the first of which is unmarked and unproblematized—it designates ‘the category to which everyone is assumed to belong’ . . . whereas the second term is marked and problematized . . . ” (Halperin 44). So, the feminine is the marked term, which defines masculinity, just as homosexuality is the marked term which defines heterosexuality.
The women’s movement in the United States and Europe has helped to reinforce the values placed on gender. The feminist movement has taken women and assimilated them into the “masculine norm”. For example, women have started wearing pants, which was previously a masculine form of dress, and cut their hair short in order to appear less feminine. While it is important that the women’s movement has enabled women to develop independence, femininity is still of less value than masculinity. For instance, it is socially unacceptable for a male to wear a dress, because the dress is associated with the feminine. However, it is socially acceptable for a woman to wear pants, which is associated with masculine. Here is another example: It is socially unacceptable for a man to wear makeup, for makeup is what women wear. However, it is socially acceptable for a woman not to wear makeup, for men do not wear makeup and represent the norm. Women are simply trying to identify themselves with what is acceptable, in order to avoid the pain and frustration of being outside the norm.
What the women’s movement and liberal power are saying about gender is that it is perfectly malleable. Femininity is typically associated with females, and masculinity is typically associated with males. However, norms would not exist if females were typically feminine and Males were typically masculine. These norms are put in place because people, in general, tend to stray from these feminine and masculine constructs. Liberal power acknowledges that males and females do not necessarily fit into categories, but in order to gain control, these categories are needed. This is also evident in the women’s movement, which has encouraged women to become more masculine. Women are manipulating their gender in order to fit the norm.
Gender norms prove to be confining and uncomfortable to many. Fortunately, Foucault has produced a form of resistance, although originally for homosexuals, which challenges the norm. This form of resistance is applicable to gender.
First, a breakdown of Foucault’s concept of resistance is needed in order to show how it can be applied to gender. Foucault believes that the best way to resist the norm is to create a self or an activity that challenges the norm, but is never embraced as the norm itself. The act of creation in order to challenge the norm should never end. When one activity shows signs of becoming the norm, one should move on and create a new activity. Halperin explains Foucault’s concept of resistance as, “That sometimes dizzyingly scary, and obviously risky, but also exhilarating personal experiment, performed on ourselves by ourselves, is what ultimately defined for Foucault—as it still defines for many lesbian and gay people today—the transformative practice of queer politics.” (Halperin 106)
Since masculinity is considered the norm, femininity is what needs to be played with in order to shake-up gender norms. Femininity defines masculinity (as mentioned before). So, by embracing femininity and creating new ways of relating and expressing femininity, the definition of masculinity will also change. Breast-feeding, giving birth, menstruation, and menopause are all specifically feminine activities. Although all females do not have to participate in breast-feeding or giving birth, they do (for the most part) have to participate in menstruation, and menopause, which should not be seen in a negative light. Otherwise a woman would have difficulties being comfortable within her own body. These feminine activities need new ways to be expressed, so that they are not seen in a negative light. A possible example of a new form of expression would be menstruating festivals, where all women involved must be menstruating, and the menstruating is celebrated. Men could also be involved so long as they were in some way celebrating menstruation. However, if menstruating festivals started becoming a usual activity, then a new festival or activity needs to be created to challenge the norm. Foucault also speaks of sculpting and creating a self that is purposefully contrary to the norm. In the same way women could sculpt a self that embraces aspects of femininity. For example one could mark the self, literally, to indicate that she is menopausal, by wearing a certain style of clothing, or partaking in an ancient rituals that celebrates menopause. But one must be constantly changing the self in opposition to the norm. These examples attempt to see femininity in a new and different light, and escape the negativity liberal power has dumped on femininity.
Foucault’s concept of liberal power has allowed a new way of thinking about power, not only in terms of homosexuality, but in terms of femininity as well. By understanding how liberal power controls society’s actions through normalizing, one can understand why homosexuality, as well as femininity, is negatively valued. Foucault indirectly has provided a way for women and men who do not fit the gender norms within society, to challenge these norms by adopting queer politics. Women menstruate, and experience menopause. There is no way of changing this, and there no logical reason why these things should be devalued. Embracing these feminine activities challenges the normal view of femininity by giving them a positive value, leaving the norm unsettled.
Works Cited
Halperin, David. Saint Foucault. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Knight, Robert. “How Domestic Partnerships and ‘Gay Marriage’ Threaten the Family.”
Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. John Corvino. Lanham. MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
To begin, a summary of Foucault’s concept of power is needed in order to understand how homosexuality, as well as gender, is constructed by liberal power. According to Foucault, “power is everywhere.” Power does not come from one source; rather, power is ingrained in every human relationship. Power exists between teacher and student, between mother and daughter, between friend and friend. David Halperin, author of Saint-Foucault, says that according to Foucault, “ . . . power is what characterizes the complex relations among the parts of a particular society—and the interactions among individuals in that society—as relations of ongoing struggle” (Halperin 16-17). Foucault would say power is not necessarily negative. Positive power exists: “It produces possibilities of action, of choice—and, ultimately, it produces the conditions for the exercise of freedom . . .” (Halperin 17). “Liberal Power” is the power of the “modern liberal state,” and is the type of power mentioned above. Halperin states that, “Liberal power does not simply prohibit; it does not directly terrorize. It normalizes, ‘responsibilizes,’ and disciplines” (Halperin 18). This power determines what will be positively or negatively sanctioned. Foucault would say that every human is within many different power relationships. In some relationships one may dominate, and in other relationships, one may be dominated. The dominant is the “norm.” Norms are established and perpetuated by those in relationships. A positive value is given to the dominant, while the dominated is seen as something other than the dominant. Those who are the dominant cannot maintain their position without the dominated, and the dominated cannot maintain their position without the dominant. Foucault believes liberal power is what creates and sanctions norms in order to maintain a power structure within society.
According to Foucault, homosexuality was constructed by liberal power. As mentioned before, liberal power “normalizes” certain aspects of society in order to maintain control over a population. Heterosexuality has become the norm within this liberal power structure. Anything that is different than heterosexuality is considered abnormal, unnatural, and disgusting in the eyes of normalized persons. Halperin says, “ ‘The homosexual’ is defined by negation and opposition as everything the heterosexual is not. In short, ‘the homosexual’ is an identity without and essence” (Halperin 61). The homosexual actually defines the heterosexual by showing what heterosexuality is not. These “abnormal” people are rejected from families, jobs, housing, etc., simply because society has deemed heterosexuality as the norm, and placed a negative value on actions outside of heterosexuality. Foucault is saying that homosexuality is not intrinsically bad, rather society has constructed a view of homosexuality that is negative.
Halperin does not specifically address why Foucault believes heterosexuality has become the norm (rather than homosexuality), but the arguments against gay marriage explain why heterosexuality is preferred. Robert Knight, author of How Domestic Partnerships and “Gay Marriage” Threaten the Family, explains that, “The purpose of [heterosexual] marriage is to stabilize sexuality and to provide the best environment in which to procreate and raise children” (Knight 302). In this example heterosexuality is preferred because children are often produced in this coupling. Society wants more children for the purpose of growth and for the purpose of control. A child is easily manipulated into conforming to the norms. Also, children are the continuum of kinship, which apparently strengthens society. Knight argues, “Kinship entails mutual obligations and a commitment to the future of the community. Homosexual relationships are a negation of the ties that bind—the continuation of kinship through procreation” (Halperin 302). So, it seems that heterosexuality is valued because children can be produced, and is what society needs in order to grow, but by embracing the advantages of heterosexuality, one has blinded his or herself of the advantages of homosexuality.
Gender is normalized in the same manner as sexuality: the male or the masculine is normalized, and the female or feminine is something outside of the masculine, and possesses a negative value. Halperin says, “The heterosexual/homosexual binarism is itself a homophobic production, just as the man/woman binarism is a sexist production. Each consists of two terms, the first of which is unmarked and unproblematized—it designates ‘the category to which everyone is assumed to belong’ . . . whereas the second term is marked and problematized . . . ” (Halperin 44). So, the feminine is the marked term, which defines masculinity, just as homosexuality is the marked term which defines heterosexuality.
The women’s movement in the United States and Europe has helped to reinforce the values placed on gender. The feminist movement has taken women and assimilated them into the “masculine norm”. For example, women have started wearing pants, which was previously a masculine form of dress, and cut their hair short in order to appear less feminine. While it is important that the women’s movement has enabled women to develop independence, femininity is still of less value than masculinity. For instance, it is socially unacceptable for a male to wear a dress, because the dress is associated with the feminine. However, it is socially acceptable for a woman to wear pants, which is associated with masculine. Here is another example: It is socially unacceptable for a man to wear makeup, for makeup is what women wear. However, it is socially acceptable for a woman not to wear makeup, for men do not wear makeup and represent the norm. Women are simply trying to identify themselves with what is acceptable, in order to avoid the pain and frustration of being outside the norm.
What the women’s movement and liberal power are saying about gender is that it is perfectly malleable. Femininity is typically associated with females, and masculinity is typically associated with males. However, norms would not exist if females were typically feminine and Males were typically masculine. These norms are put in place because people, in general, tend to stray from these feminine and masculine constructs. Liberal power acknowledges that males and females do not necessarily fit into categories, but in order to gain control, these categories are needed. This is also evident in the women’s movement, which has encouraged women to become more masculine. Women are manipulating their gender in order to fit the norm.
Gender norms prove to be confining and uncomfortable to many. Fortunately, Foucault has produced a form of resistance, although originally for homosexuals, which challenges the norm. This form of resistance is applicable to gender.
First, a breakdown of Foucault’s concept of resistance is needed in order to show how it can be applied to gender. Foucault believes that the best way to resist the norm is to create a self or an activity that challenges the norm, but is never embraced as the norm itself. The act of creation in order to challenge the norm should never end. When one activity shows signs of becoming the norm, one should move on and create a new activity. Halperin explains Foucault’s concept of resistance as, “That sometimes dizzyingly scary, and obviously risky, but also exhilarating personal experiment, performed on ourselves by ourselves, is what ultimately defined for Foucault—as it still defines for many lesbian and gay people today—the transformative practice of queer politics.” (Halperin 106)
Since masculinity is considered the norm, femininity is what needs to be played with in order to shake-up gender norms. Femininity defines masculinity (as mentioned before). So, by embracing femininity and creating new ways of relating and expressing femininity, the definition of masculinity will also change. Breast-feeding, giving birth, menstruation, and menopause are all specifically feminine activities. Although all females do not have to participate in breast-feeding or giving birth, they do (for the most part) have to participate in menstruation, and menopause, which should not be seen in a negative light. Otherwise a woman would have difficulties being comfortable within her own body. These feminine activities need new ways to be expressed, so that they are not seen in a negative light. A possible example of a new form of expression would be menstruating festivals, where all women involved must be menstruating, and the menstruating is celebrated. Men could also be involved so long as they were in some way celebrating menstruation. However, if menstruating festivals started becoming a usual activity, then a new festival or activity needs to be created to challenge the norm. Foucault also speaks of sculpting and creating a self that is purposefully contrary to the norm. In the same way women could sculpt a self that embraces aspects of femininity. For example one could mark the self, literally, to indicate that she is menopausal, by wearing a certain style of clothing, or partaking in an ancient rituals that celebrates menopause. But one must be constantly changing the self in opposition to the norm. These examples attempt to see femininity in a new and different light, and escape the negativity liberal power has dumped on femininity.
Foucault’s concept of liberal power has allowed a new way of thinking about power, not only in terms of homosexuality, but in terms of femininity as well. By understanding how liberal power controls society’s actions through normalizing, one can understand why homosexuality, as well as femininity, is negatively valued. Foucault indirectly has provided a way for women and men who do not fit the gender norms within society, to challenge these norms by adopting queer politics. Women menstruate, and experience menopause. There is no way of changing this, and there no logical reason why these things should be devalued. Embracing these feminine activities challenges the normal view of femininity by giving them a positive value, leaving the norm unsettled.
Works Cited
Halperin, David. Saint Foucault. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Knight, Robert. “How Domestic Partnerships and ‘Gay Marriage’ Threaten the Family.”
Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. John Corvino. Lanham. MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
posted by Karen Jarboe at
11:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home