I have always been extremely intimidated by Foucault after first encountering him in a hostile class environment in undergrad and made to feel stupid for not understanding the finer points of his argument right away. After years of avoiding him I've found myself in a PhD program, and of COURSE for my qualifying exams I finally have to tackle his work once and for all. This video was so approachable and helpful to watch after reading through volume 1 on my own... It helped me succinctly recap his larger points in preparation for my first qualifying exam meeting. Great video, thank you so much!!!

@filmandmediastudieschannel

11 ай бұрын

hey thanks for sharing your story! I never read Foucault as an undergrad, or much theory for that matter, but if I had I would've been confused. I'm still often confused. I'm really glad to hear the video was helpful.

@natecalhoun4427

2 ай бұрын

I'm in my junior year of my undergrad degree, and seeing that it really takes ages to grasp Foucault makes me feel less dumb for not understanding passages at first glance 😂

DUDE this was so well explained, WHY aren't more people watching this

@therabbithat

2 жыл бұрын

because in philosophy 101 they say please don't look for explanations on youtube because most of them are wrong :*( This guy is a film studies professor though! We can trust him!

@joaquinlanza3423

Жыл бұрын

@@therabbithat Dude you've just made an argumentum ad hominem. Sure you fall asleep on that part of 101 class.

@glauciogilgoncalves7671

9 ай бұрын

Yes. So objective and didactic

@tadhgwagner517

4 ай бұрын

yeah this is well put together

@kk-om5zm

3 ай бұрын

because they are normal..

So well explained, thank you! Also very entertaining what the automatically generated subtitles did to Focault's name :D

SO helpful and explained in a phenomenal way. thank you!!

Easy to understand provided a foundation for approaching the text! I am going to refer to this before my lectures, thanks!

It's always wonderful when educational content can be shared and appreciated. Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality" is an influential work that has had a significant impact on the study of sexuality, power, and society. thanks

An incredible explanation, thank you! Totally gave me a hint for my essay.

Really informative, i liked the conversation btw Freud and Foucault the most.

These videos are so helpful. Thanks. It has happened that I am studying different topics and you happen to have videos about them. :))

Thank you very much, great video. Creative, informative, clear and entertaining.

Thanks for this concise and interesting synopsis of Foucault on Freud!

Great explanation! I read the text a while back and was gonna struggle through it again at some point. And I still might. But your video is/will be helpful either way.

Great analysis, good examples, really helped me out before starting the book!

thank you! helpful explanation

Thank you for this!

Great video, thanks!

This was SO damn helpful and clear! Thank you!!

Thank you for the explanation! A very interesting presentation of the material.

@filmandmediastudieschannel

2 жыл бұрын

thank you!

Thank you so much! You are helping me a lot with a paper that I am writing

Great presentation.

What an incredible video!! Thank you so much!

Super helpful!!

Very helpful, thanks

very helpful explanation, you're an angel

thanks! helpful teaching tool!

Amazing video

A very good starting point before delving into the book. Succinct and well structured!!

@filmandmediastudieschannel

5 ай бұрын

thank you! glad it was helpful.

this is amazing very well explained thank you !

THIS IS AMAZING THANK YOU

it was so helpful

So awesome!

Notes He focuses on one part of the argument The repressive hypothesis. It is: The Victorian Bourgeoise culture condemned sex, if there was less repression it would be enjoyed more. Foucault says this is false. Freud argued that repression reduces the enjoyment of sex. Freud said that the demands of civilisation repressed sex, the hiding of sexuality caused neurosis, so bringing them to the surface removed the repression. Freud argues that sex is kept secret by repression. Foucault argues that the scrutiny on it leads to it being more present in conversation and in peoples lives. Society telling us to keep sex private exaggerates it. There are two types of power. There is repressive / negative power, telling you not to do something Normalising power makes you want to do something, it’s still power because it’s influence, but it’s not violent. It’s often subtle instead of direct like repressive power. Normalising power made normative sexuality a discursive entity. People started defining identity through actions, so homosexuality was no longer a sinful action but an identity as a home sexual. The secrecy of sexuality has increased interest in it. For example, people are only confess to sexuality because it’s considered a sin.

Incredible! ❤

you are AMAZING

I am convinced by Freud, less so than by Foucault. The word homosexual has been ' outcast ' because it can be used against you, but on the other hand it is a definition that encompasses emotional as well as sexual attraction to the same sex. Heterosexual emotions and sexuality are so ' normative ' that they are used without debate. There is nothing I have read of in Foucault that concentrates on the emotional/sexual, and the previous word Sodomy speaks of an act, but not of a total same-sex or opposite sex response in the emotional/sexual sense. Sodomy for heterosexuals was for a long time illegal, and as frowned upon as the homosexual act. I am a writer and prefer same sex desire, but as a seven year old when I saw the word homosexual named my yet unformed emotional/sexual desires, and my inner response on seeing this word was an immediate yes, and it was also a definition for me of a way of loving as well as the desire for the male body. It was not a word that imprisoned, but liberated. All this to say that knowledge of oneself in society and also in one's rejection of society is even vaster and deeper than Foucault, and by explaining the negative power too much of certain words he eliminates them, which can lead to a fluidity that has nothing to do with the freedom of the self.

@filmandmediastudieschannel

7 ай бұрын

Love this comment - beautifully put. I think there's a tendency in a lot of twentieth-century thought to see concepts/words, especially those that get attached to human identity and behavior, as inherently limiting, as restricting possibilities of the "freedom of the self" as you say. Foucault seems to feel this way about concepts of sexual identity - e.g. heterosexual, homosexual. But I'm very sympathetic to the story you're telling here, about concepts opening up possibilities (e.g. seeing the word homosexual).

I've been searching a lot but I cannot find who came up with the repressive hypothesis. Is it Foucault who created it or is it just criticized by him?

@Barrysound493

Жыл бұрын

i think it is just the way we think about sex now. It started in the 19th century, but now we have to deal with the remains of the social thinking from then. The discourse around sex even went its own way a little, but still between the boundaries of the repressive hypothesis. Correct me if im wrong :)

Would it be safe to say that Focault’s idea is akin to the whole “don’t think of a pink elephant” joke?

Wasn't sex already frowned upon in Christian doctrines? The suppression of lust and sexuality is already mentioned by ancient Greek philosophers (i.e. apathea).

What book or material i should use for this topic?

@filmandmediastudieschannel

Жыл бұрын

This video is about the beginning of Foucault's The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1.

is this this Panopticon fella?

@erikpina6041

10 ай бұрын

Not really, but he often refers to it in his work. Specially in surveiller et punir

It'd be nice if once and for all people across the globe would just embrace liberty.

not a great representation of Freud, otherwise good

Foucault's theories of discourse and sexuality are wrong because they only form a small distorted picture of the whole. It is very important to think for yourself and not get caught up in his strange world.

@thesmokecriminal5395

Жыл бұрын

How does sexuality work then?

@oliverread1060

Жыл бұрын

Hmm I think you're thinking in singular or binaries when refering to truth. Or using truth and 'strange' subjectivlely.

@yogi2436

Жыл бұрын

@@thesmokecriminal5395 Hi, that is a big question, but I think that the main thing is that sexuality is only a part of the human whole, and that Foucault, when he wrote this work was unhealthily obsessed with sex , and evidence for this comes from records of his pedophilic behaviour. Perhaps he could have come to grips with this if he had lived longer, but as it stands, this is a huge flaw. Spend some time to think it through and you may agree.

@yogi2436

Жыл бұрын

First it is necessary to step put of the thought bubble created by Foucault, and next. time , intellectual work and sincere effort is needed to make one's own categories, all things considered. When that point has been reached, then Foucault may seem quite problematic.

@thesmokecriminal5395

Жыл бұрын

@@yogi2436 i don't know what facoults take on sexuality is, I'm just amazed how different things were back in the day, for example in ancient Greece or Japan in 17th century, there's just so many questions that need to be answered

Isn't Focault accused of being a kiddy diddler? How would that factor into his philisophical explorations?

@benfisher1376

10 ай бұрын

It would help his activities I guess. He sounds like a creep.

@doru440

4 ай бұрын

The only somewhat credible story of him engaging in creep activities was when he had sexual intercourse with two boys aged 17 and 18 in Tunisia, he was like 42 at the time. Take from that what you will but it's not really "kiddy diddler" level, more like "really fucking odd" level.

boze masakra jakas z tym francuzem