Bauer's History

In last week’s post, I highlighted how there are both conscious (in autocratic states) and unconscious efforts to regulate sexuality in contemporary society. Following Foucault’s notion that such efforts constitute an exercise of power, it is also evident that these efforts encounter resistance. Foucault himself famously stated: “Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power” (Foucault 1976, 95). One interpretation of this is that certain forms of power inevitably give rise to specific forms of resistance—which remains true in Sweden today. In my own research, I have seen that sexuality was regulated in a repressive manner during the first three decades of the 20th century. At that time, contraceptives were considered a threat both to public morality and to the perceived need to increase Sweden’s population—both in quantitative and qualitative terms. This eventually led to the crim...

Following up on last week’s post, we can ask ourselves where questions of sexuality are being challenged in politics. From a contemporary perspective, I would argue that we are currently witnessing global attempts—particularly from conservative actors—to banish issues of sexuality from public discourse. In Foucauldian theory, we can speak of several forms of the exercise of power. Foucault uses the concept of biopower to analyze social views on sex, capitalism, and power. One of the central aspects of biopower is that it often operates through the individual, who is expected to internalize social norms rather than be externally forced to accept them. Yet, in the case of sexuality, we have over the past decades witnessed rather forceful attempts to silence it, thereby making people unaware of important aspects of their own sexuality. In such cases, the effort seems to lie in banishing "unwanted" expressions from public discourse, thereby limiting the individual’s scope for a...

This is the first part in a series of three posts in which I aim to discuss contemporary sexual politics from a more theoretical and research-based perspective than in my other posts. It forms part of a broader discussion on how sexuality can—and perhaps should—be understood as constituted by a multitude of actors. Therefore, we might not be able to speak of a single contemporary politics of sexuality, but rather of a range of political positions. During the 20th century, numerous philosophers and researchers attempted to write “the history of sexuality,” but the one who has influenced me the most is the French philosopher Michel Foucault. I have actually read all three of his original works on sexuality, but I believe the first book covers the essential foundations for discussing and understanding sexuality. Broadly, this can be said to consist of two levels of particular interest to this series of posts: a) the repressive hypothesis b) the discussion on power/knowledge and the multi...

 (If you are a white nationalist reading this and think that I somehow justifies your criticism of ”woke”: this has very little to do with your beliefs) A couple of days ago I finished reading Yellowface by R.F. Kuang. This book basically deals with a white struggling author who comes across an Asian, much more successful writers manuscript and steals it whilst the Asian writer dies from a accident. The only ”problem” is that this manuscript deals with a historical event revolving around Chinese persons, leading to the publication being labelled as cultural appropriation. Kuangs book actually opens for a lot of interesting discussions, such as those of race, gender and authencity (the writer who steals also edits the book). But what struck me as particularly interesting is the question of who owns history and from my point of view, Kuang committed a mistake with placing the stolen manuscript in the history genre. Starting with a classical philosophical dilemma, history might in its...

 The famous Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin once stated that ”where there is power, there is no freedom”. A child of his time, he dared to envision other societies than what existed in his own life at the turn of the century. His notion that power always lead to a limited freedom was relevant back then, and it is relevant today. For the past week I have read Jessamine Changs brilliant debute ”The school for good mothers”. The plot is set in a not far from know America, where a mother is charged for child abuse since she left her two year old daughter alone for two hours. Whilst this is a form of neglect, she is punished much harsher than we can see is fair. Instead of a slap on the wrist, she is sentenced to a one year education in a prison-like school, aiming to learn how to become a good mother. If she fails, she will loose custody forever.  Changs debute have been called a ”future feminist classic” and is in many ways compared to the handmaids tale by Margaret Atwood. A c...