As the Supreme Court contests the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a series of questions come to mind. For one, why does the institution of marriage have traces with heteronormativity? Is there hope for redefining legal marriage through discourse? And why is sexuality even a political issue? Michel Foucault provides answers to these questions. Foucault’s view on sexuality history sheds light to why government engages in matters of sexuality.
In the History of Sexuality, Foucault wrote on the shift from power based on the “right to take life or let live” to bio-power, the administration of life itself. Bio-power involves two forms of subjugations: discipline as to how body and energy is to be utilized, and regulations of populations. Sex allows for addressing “to the body, to life, [as with disciplinary power and] to what causes it to proliferate, to what reinforces the species [as with regulatory power]” (Foucault, pg 147). Hence, the state and institutions assert their bio-power, in one way, through restrictions on sexuality and its discourse.
So, it has been established the means through which the government legitimatize its right to oversee issues of sexuality and demark the legal boundaries of marriage. But what institution has had greater power in defining marriage? It lies in the Church and prevalence of ideology that continues to be perpetuated through discourse. From an orthodox religious view, marriage is seen in one form, that of heterosexuality. It is taught and reproduced as to create in more minds conforming to that view. However, there is hope for change. In blog entry When Morality Left the Gay Marriage Debate, David Fontana talks about how judges have used less moral denunciations in the debate of gay marriage. Previous debates had been seen in terms of morality and condemnation on moral grounds. However, Fontana considers the language used in early April to be neutral. For instance, Fontana mentions Charles Cooper using the argument that it is difficult to foresee consequences of gay marriage. It justified being cautious with legalizing gay marriage. The topic with mentions how the language used is a notable victory for allies and the LGTBQ community. It was mostly grounded on attempt to look at empirical consequences as opposed to moral standpoint.
How does this tie back Foucault concept of discourse? Foucault mentioned that those in power control the knowledge and the discourse. It also works the other way around. Discourse can help shape knowledge and redistribute power. So, the improvement in discussion during the Supreme Court discussion can signal two things. One, the discourse is being shaped differently. Since the language comes from influential individuals, the discourse can change the knowledge and view on the topic. Second, it can result in a ruling in favor of legalizing gay marriage. It is a possibility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fontana/when-morality-left-the-ga_b_2992284.html
In the History of Sexuality, Foucault wrote on the shift from power based on the “right to take life or let live” to bio-power, the administration of life itself. Bio-power involves two forms of subjugations: discipline as to how body and energy is to be utilized, and regulations of populations. Sex allows for addressing “to the body, to life, [as with disciplinary power and] to what causes it to proliferate, to what reinforces the species [as with regulatory power]” (Foucault, pg 147). Hence, the state and institutions assert their bio-power, in one way, through restrictions on sexuality and its discourse.
So, it has been established the means through which the government legitimatize its right to oversee issues of sexuality and demark the legal boundaries of marriage. But what institution has had greater power in defining marriage? It lies in the Church and prevalence of ideology that continues to be perpetuated through discourse. From an orthodox religious view, marriage is seen in one form, that of heterosexuality. It is taught and reproduced as to create in more minds conforming to that view. However, there is hope for change. In blog entry When Morality Left the Gay Marriage Debate, David Fontana talks about how judges have used less moral denunciations in the debate of gay marriage. Previous debates had been seen in terms of morality and condemnation on moral grounds. However, Fontana considers the language used in early April to be neutral. For instance, Fontana mentions Charles Cooper using the argument that it is difficult to foresee consequences of gay marriage. It justified being cautious with legalizing gay marriage. The topic with mentions how the language used is a notable victory for allies and the LGTBQ community. It was mostly grounded on attempt to look at empirical consequences as opposed to moral standpoint.
How does this tie back Foucault concept of discourse? Foucault mentioned that those in power control the knowledge and the discourse. It also works the other way around. Discourse can help shape knowledge and redistribute power. So, the improvement in discussion during the Supreme Court discussion can signal two things. One, the discourse is being shaped differently. Since the language comes from influential individuals, the discourse can change the knowledge and view on the topic. Second, it can result in a ruling in favor of legalizing gay marriage. It is a possibility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fontana/when-morality-left-the-ga_b_2992284.html