Yesterday’s discussion of “unwanted sex” bumps up against topics we’ve already discussed so far in this class, but in a more complicated way than we have before. Thinking about unwanted sex is unsettling because, as we discussed in class, it is incredibly close to most of our experience as sexual subjects. This topic has forced me to think about my own choices and actions in a more complicated way, but it is Nicola Gavey’s piece and ‘dominant heteronormative discourse’ in light of Michel Foucault’s disciplinary power makes me especially anxious.
Gavey uses a Foucauldian analysis in order to demonstrate that “a nexus of the dominant discourses on heterosex can constitute women’s sexual subjectivity in complex ways” (150). Ultimately, she argues, it is through these dominant hetero discourses “‘compliant’ subjects” (and in turn unwanted sex) are produced. She makes it clear that subjects are somewhat cognizant of the ways in which their identities are constituted by these discourse, and make constrained choices on “complicated terrain” accordingly.
If we take serious Gavey’s claim that dominant heteronormative discourse functions through and as disciplinary power we must also acknowledge that, as Foucault theorizes, there is no outside to disciplinary power. This is what makes me anxious. It's inescapable! While Gavey’s analysis focuses on heteronormative pairings, similar constrained and compliant choices are made in non-normative pairings. Even the queerest relationships aren’t safe from discourses of sexual obligation and the different ways power manifests in choice. On the one hand, if queer relationships aren’t immune to the dominant hetero discourses that create compliant subjects (which I don’t think they are--or at least not totally), who is--or better yet, how can anyone be? But on the other hand, Foucault’s notion of power is capillary: we can create, re-create and move within it, so maybe resistance can be creative, playful and powerful too. And maybe we’re not hopeless.
No comments:
Post a Comment