this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
48 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
2825 readers
154 users here now
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because it is a kind of social control. People really need to read more Foucault.
Short version: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/#HistModeSexu On Foucault’s account, modern control of sexuality parallels modern control of criminality by making sex (like crime) an object of allegedly scientific disciplines, which simultaneously offer knowledge and domination of their objects. However, it becomes apparent that there is a further dimension in the power associated with the sciences of sexuality. Not only is there control exercised via other people’s knowledge of individuals such as doctors’ knowledge, for example; there is also control via individuals’ knowledge of themselves. Individuals internalize the norms laid down by the sciences of sexuality and monitor themselves in an effort to conform to these norms. Thus, they are controlled not only as objects of disciplines but also as self-scrutinizing and self-forming subjects.
Sex researchers are pretty universally the most sex positive people around. So you should probably elaborate on what you mean by "allegedly scientific disciplines for control"
Because sex researchers are not the one who decide on our education curriculum and more importantly, our cultural attitude towards sex in general.
Occasionally they are. But sure, so it could be phrased as power projection via the hijacking of mass education systems. That doesn't exactly track super well with the examples given in the text, but it would be more applicable.
I don't think the language used originally works well in a modern context, since the text is referencing the same sort of pseudoscience as phrenology and deviancy research, when how you're using it is to refer to dishonest educational takeover. While one can be used by the other, like Florida's use of prageru, it might be important to discussion to elaborate your points relevance to the modern context.