/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21793819]

I started reading this and what I get so far is that "sexuality wasn't repressed" but it's a pretty difficult read for me. Am I just stupid or is this unnecessarily difficult written? Especially when he starts talking about power being everywhere but nowhere with no concrete actor using it but still being imposed on everybody, I just get crazy...

I've got to note that this is my first book like that though.

[Anonymous No.21793861]

he literally said you have to make some of it incomprehensible on purpose in france to make it as a philosopher. characteristic of most french philosophers from this time. so i wouldnt worry about it.

[Anonymous No.21793864]

>power being everywhere but nowhere with no concrete actor using it but still being imposed on everybody
That's how it starts anon. Next thing you know you've chopped your cock off and you're voting democrat

[Anonymousn No.21793874]

>>21793819
He does write in a very difficult way. I don't know if it's unnecessarily difficult but it is extremely condensed and abstract. I remember also going kind of crazy trying to pin down exactly what he's saying, but when I stuck with it I found that the abstract discussions made me see all the empirical stuff in a different, more interesting light.

If it's Foucault you want to read rather than HoS specifically then check out Discipline and Punish, which reads closer to a straightforward history.

[Anonymous No.21793893]

>>21793861
Whut? Okay, that's weird... but I guess that explains some things.
>>21793874
Yeah, I guess it will get better when I am done with the more methodological stuff. I understood most of his points at the beginning when he tried to establish that this whole "our sexualities have been repressed" narrative was a lie. It got difficult now that he starts talking about what power is, etc.
But it was History of Sexuality specifically which I wanted to read, not particularly because it's by Foucault. But I guess it doesn't hurt, considering he's well-known.

[Anonymous No.21794146]

>>21793819
Like the others said he is being a bit cheeky by making it unnecessarily obtuse. However I’ve found that the more one reads of him the more his particular vocabulary becomes clearer. He has a lot of phrases that take on specific meanings in his work (I.e. “gaze” “bio politics” etc etc). He doesn’t really directly define any of them but eventually the continua buildup of context makes his terminology much clearer.
If you feel compelled to go through his work, he actually becomes pretty easy to understand when you learn his shorthand.

[Anonymous No.21794165]

>>21793819
have you read Lacan first Seminarium? I have similiar thoughts about him, whatever notes i did probably reads as common knowledge, it seems trivial yet convoluted