“ফুকোর শৃঙ্গারতত্ত্ব (Foucault’s ‘History of Sexuality)”

Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay

দেবপ্রসাদ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়

 Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata          *

‘Foucault-er SniNgartOtto’.[Foucault’s ‘History of Sexuality’, Kolkata: Sur, Chiranjib ed.Alochanachakra Collection-XI, pp.33-56, 1998 .RN. 69543/87

After briefly introducing the Foucault’s History of Sexuality in three parts for Bengali readers, the author of this paper, did three things: [a] he translated ‘sexuality as srngara [one kind of primitive ‘rasa’ in Indian rasasastra or aesthetics] in reference to absolute law, confessions, care of self as well as about act-pleasure-desire embedded in the concept of sex; [b] he alleged that Foucault deployed Orientalist gaze when he discussed Eastern construct of sexuality; [c] he elaborated the last chapter of the first volume of the History of Sexuality by engaging the modern Bangla verses. Foucault said, ‘On the one hand, the societies – and they are numerous: China, Japan, India, Rome, the Arabo-Moslem societies – which endowed themselves with an ars erotica. In the erotic art, truth is drawn from pleasure itself, understood as a practice and accumulated as experience; pleasure is not considered in relation to an absolute law of the permitted and the forbidden, nor by reference to a criterion of utility, but first and foremost in relation to itself;’ (1978/90:57) The author did not think that at least in (the politico-administrative and metaphysical totality called) India, none could generalize like this. There is no absolute ars erotica as such which is drawn from pleasure only without any reference to absolute law. Foucault is constructing an oriental space that is merged only in erotica without any violent (penetration of) science! It is, in fact, a softer version of old oriental discourse. It is almost saying like, ‘We (white) have science and you (blacks) have arts.’ Foucault differentiates between two spaces: science and arts; Foucault did not find anything positive when he said that Western civilization possesses only science: ‘On the face of it at least, our civilization possesses no ars erotica. In return, it is undoubtedly, the only civilization to practice a scientia sexualis; or rather, the only civilization to have developed over the centuries procedures for telling the truth of sex which are geared a form of knowledge-power strictly opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secret;’. (ibid, 58)

In case of meta-geopolitical entity called India also, the author deployed the same statement by erasing the words with single quote: “the ‘only’ civilization to have developed over the centuries procedures for telling the truth of sex which are geared a form of knowledge-power strictly ‘not’ opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secret.’ The author had put the ‘only’ and ‘not’ under erasure, because western civilization is not ‘only’ civilization who developed such a thing and furthermore, there is [no] dividing line between art and science in each and every space and time. Eastern societies also have the procedures of telling the truth of ‘sex’ (in the sense of Foucault) and techniques of self care in Easterners own way in their literature, architecture, and in sastras like Kamasutra and Yoga darsana or in numerous treatises on sexual management (especially in smriti, tantra and agamsastras). Did Foucault have the knowledge of Eeasterners’ way of telling the truth of sex through kala and vidya (cf. Bandyopadhyay, 2000. Abstract Id. 015251) before commenting on ‘our’ domain? Did he know how did ‘we’ categorize ‘our’ domain of knowledge(s)? How dare he taxonomize a vast world of China, Japan, India, Rome, and the Arabo-Moslem societies apparently without knowing anything about it? Furthermore, he found traces of ars erotica in the white space: scientia sexualis versus ars erotica, no doubt. But it should be noted that the ars erotica did not disappear altogether from Western civilization; nor has it always been absent from the movement by which one sought to produce a science of sexuality.” (ibid: 70) Western civilization possesses both these two and Eastern societies have only one. Foucault himself is constructing a grandnarrative and he is keeping up the art-science dividing practice without any hesitation.

It must also be noted here that Foucault rectified himself in an interview. When the interviewer questioned him regarding the difference between western science of sexuality and oriental ars erotica, Foucault said, ‘One of the numerous points where I was wrong in that book was what I said about this ars erotica. I should have opposed our science of sex to a contrasting practice of our own culture.’ (Rabinow, 1984: 347-48). He then should give the title of the book as ‘The Western History of Western Sexuality’. India is not at all a homogenous space and Foucault did not know the vast plurality of concepts, attitudes regarding sex(-uality) of the people(s) living within this geopolitical area. And that does not necessarily also tally with those components/attributes of sexuality given by Foucault. [ cf. abstract Id. 2016682]


Note: Downloadable document is in Bengali

Number of Pages in PDF File: 13

Keywords: sringar, rasasastra, sex and sexuality, act-pleasure-desire, dispotif

Accepted Paper Series


About Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay

Debaprasad Bandyopdhyay (b. 1965), through his 25 years journey in the realm of institutionalized academics did 27 different types of works, which are someway different from the earlier paradigms or, one might say that those works are not only mere reproductions of his inherited institutionalized cultural capital or a mimicry of a colonially imposed model that leads to intellectual anorexia or rather a type falsification of earlier paradigms. However, that might be not only a lofty claim but it also hid the fact that all our information and knowledge are socially accumulated knowledge that was, it is matter of regret, posed as private property through the sign © and the wisdom is rarely available. Bandyopadhyay’s works and projects are the products of his social milieu. Bandyopadhyay is a local sub-altern public sphere academician, who avoids the technical intelligentsia (followers of Sahib’s models and they are not committed to the persons who are accommodating surplus work-time to them by performing surplus labour) or inorganic intellectuals and thus fails to be a part of academic tribe and its subsequent socialization process. Of course, that socialization process does not lead to legendary Socratic dialogue. He is also a political activist though he has not affiliated to any political parties as he was always talking about the corporatization of political parties within the money-sign-based democratic system. He is a regular participant in TV and radio talk-shows and documentary films, street-corners’ talks and International seminars on socio-political, psychological, linguistic, environmental and economic issues. He also writes editorial columns in newspapers. He is also a part of parallel academics as it is found in West Bengal’s Little Magazine Movement, though that was not counted as the part his academic pursuit by his parent institute. His parent institute justifiably does not believe in the domain of parallel academics as this unorganized sector does not directly contribute in the transactions of formal/organized print capitalist eco-enemy paper-publication. Though the dissemination of knowledge is also observed in this space of these parallel academics as all these writings in public sphere simultaneously influence the classroom-discourse and some of them are translated into English, French and Italian. Not only that, Bandyopadhyay also sought engagement with the people, who, by supplying their surplus labour, are sustaining his livelihood. Bandyopadhyay, a linguist by training and a Ph.D.-holder (1996), a junior lecturer (1999-2011) in an autonomous central government institute in India, tries his best for those from he has received and is receiving the manifestation of surplus labour by executing some self-funded projects on economic issues in West Bengal, India. Recently he has got a consolation promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. He has done following 27 research works: 1. Crippled Creativity: An inquiry into language, psyche, society: 2. VALENCY OF BANGLA VERB AND PROBLEM OF COMPOUND VERBS: 3. Archaeology of Bangla Grammar : 4. CAN COMPUTER SPEAK? 5. FUZZY LOGICAL EXPRESSION IN BANGLA : 6. FOLKLORE AND FOLK-LANGUAGE: MYTH OR REALITY? 7. HISTORICISM IN THE DISCOURSE OF BANGLA LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE 8. ABHABA, ECP, DELETION AND TRACE 9. SVATVA OR MY-NESS AND ECONOMIC ENTITLEMEMT 10. TRANSLATION STUDIES 11. MASCULINITY STUDIES 12. YAYATI & BABAR COMPLEX 13. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEYS IN AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY IN WEST BENGAL 14. CONCEPT OF BODY IN INDIAN PHILOSOPHY AND ARCHITECTURE 15. THE CONCEPT OF ERROR (KHYATI) IN MAD-(WO)MEN’S LANGUAGE 16. THE CONCEPT OF PERCEPTUAL TIME AND GRAMMATICAL TIME IN BANGLA 17. BANGLA CALLIGRAPHY, LANGUAGE ART AND LINGUISTIC PEDAGOGY 18. WO(L)D SPACES: NON-EXISTENCE OF WORDS 19. ANEKANTA METHODS 20. SILENCEME: SILENT OTHER IN LINGUISTICS 21. IMAGINED BOUDARIES AND PRE-COLONIAL INDIAN IMAGI-NATION 22. MAKING OF THE INDIAN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 23. SEGMENTING THE SUPRASEGMENTALS : MUSICKING IN SPEAKING 24. INTERPRETING GENETIC STRUCTURE BY DEPLOYING LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE 25. GLOTTOPOLITICS OF LINGUISTIC SUBALTERNITY OR AN AGENDA FOR PLANNING FROM BELOW 26. SEMIOTICS OF PHOTOGRAPHY 27. SOCIOLOGY OF CONTEMPORARY ACADEMICS
Link | This entry was posted in Academic Papers & Books and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s