Dreams and Penetration

Foucault points out something in his Use of Pleasure work that I have seen quite a few other places in modern discourse. In his chapter on the object of pleasure he goes into great detail about why paiderastia was such a huge topic for the ancient Greeks. The conclusions he draws, and I tend to agree with, are that in Greek society there was a strict notion of governance. That is to say, the society had many laws and dietetics concerning the organization of society in a master<->mastered type dichotomy. For the household this was structured as the man of the house was the supreme governor over all the people and property in the house. This included the wife, children and slaves. The notion was extended to public encounters and public governance. The king was ruler over all his subjects but in a strictly formulated way. The governing board or the governors were much the same as "less kings" for those societies in Greek culture that were democratic. In any case the hierarchy of power in this society was well formulated. This formulation encompassed ever aspect of a man's life. With this background this is how Foucault starts his chapter:

In order to understand how the use of the aphrodisia was problematized in reflection on the love of boys, we have to recall a principle, which is doubtless not peculiar to Greek culture, but which assumed considerable importance within it and exercised a decisive authority in its moral valuations. I am referring to the principle of isomorphism between sexual relations and social relations. What this means is that sexual relations—always conceived in terms of the model act of penetration, assuming a polarity that opposed activity and passivity—were seen as being of the same type of relationship between a superior and a subordinate, and individual who dominates and one who is dominated, one who commands and one who complies, one who vanquishes and one who is vanquished. Pleasure practices were conceptualized using the same categories as those in the field of social rivalries and hierarchies: an analogous agonistic structure, analogous oppositions and differentiations, analogous values attributed to the respective roles of partners. And this suggests that in sexual behavior there was one role that was intrinsically honorable and valorized without question: the one that consisted of being active, in dominating, in penetrating, in asserting one's superiority.

This principle had sever consequences relating to the status of those who were supposed to be the passive partners in this activity. Slaves were at the master's disposition, of course: their condition made them sexual objects and this was taken for granted—so much so that people could be astonished that the same law would forbid the rape of slaves and that of children. In order to explain this anomaly, Aeschines submits that the aim was to show, by prohibiting violence even in the case of slaves, what a serious thing was when directed at children of good birth. As for the woman's passivity, it did denote an inferiority of nature and condition; but there was no reason to criticize it as a behavior, precisely because it was in conformity with what nature intended and with what the law prescribed. On the other hand, everything in the way of sexual behavior that might cause a free man—to say nothing of someone who, by birth, fortune, and prestige, held or should hold one of the first ranks among men—to bear the marks of inferiority, submission to domination, and acceptance of servitude, could only be considered shameful: a shame that was even greater if he offered himself as the obliging object of another's pleasure

Foucault further goes into unwrapping the concern some of the Greek philosophers had about the relationship between a free man and a free boy in relationship. This type of relationship was accepted in Greek culture but with the tension that the free boy was submitting himself to a passive role. On the one side you have a culture praising the purity and physin (naturalness) of a man seeking a relationship with a youth. The honor in the desire for the beauty of a youthful man. On the other, the same culture felt the tension of the patriarchal power structures which were in place in society and in the bedroom that would render the boy as submissive and as such unable to govern or rule because he had taken a passive role in a sexual relationship. This type of tension can be seen in the work Against Timarchus. In this work Aeschines challenges the worth of Timarchus as a ruler, rather, as having the nature to be able to rule because as a youth he enjoyed the relationship of Cedonides, Autocleides, Thersandrus, Misgolas, Anticles, Pittalacus, and Hegesandrus. The challenge is brought up in the courts so the actual charge is prostitution (that is Timarchus was a prostitute) but the underlying assumption is that to the the passive, the penetrated, was dishonorable and disqualified a man from assuming any ruling position.

Now, I've read this notion in other writings that usually had a feminist slant to them. These works, though, were charging our society of the same structure. A society of the "fuckers and the fucked" are some words used to describe it. I would agree with the evaluation. There is still a taboo in our society of the passive role. Lord knows in many households in western culture the passive role of women is thought to be natural. The were made to bear. The were made to be penetrated. They were made to submit to the wisdom and advanced reason of men. Because of that passive role they are thought to be lesser than those who preform the active role.

Now if we take the understanding one step further, we can begin to see why queer folk are chastised in our society. There is the obvious notion of para physin (beside nature) for the act but we see that the nature that is being talk about is one of societal structure. The act of homogenital intercourse completely throws the active/passive structure into disarray. Two men together can't both be honorable. One has to be active (honorable) and the other has to be passive (dishonorable). Two women together can't both be dishonorable. One has to be active and the other passive. So, yes, homosexuality is completely un-socially-and-culturally-"natural". It completely messes with the system of oppression that our society has formed. Now, because it "breaks down all wall of oppression" when it comes to this particular power structure, those who have a vested interest in maintaining society as it is (e.g. those who have been made rich by the structures, those who have been given power [in the house or in the public square] by the structures, etc.) rail against those who would challenge the structure's "naturalness" and do everything in their power to dissuade society from moving in the direction that would take away the structures. We see this being enacted right now in the US with the movement of same-sex marriage. There is no logical reasoning for preventing the legal binding of two persons of the same sex. In fact the only reasoning given for disallowing same-sex marriage is that it is "non-traditional", it threatens "traditional marriage", it will "destroy the family", it will mean an "end of society". Do you see the connection? These arguments are all attempting to maintain the oppressive power structure of active/passive, of patriarchy.

What I see the queer movement accomplishing for us in the public square is exactly what I see the church needing to do the the local community. Too long has the church postured itself to maintain the oppressive power structures of the particular society in which it rests. It started in 312C.E. and has only become worse as the church has dulled its perception of just how radical Jesus and his followers were when it came to the understanding of how "power" worked in a Godly society. Christ came to free us from the bonds of this original sin in society but the church throughout history has been the one upholding and creating more of these sins of power. The church must remove the blinders from its eyes. In so doing I believe God has called the queers, those who challenge the societal norms, to rise up within God's Church and awaken the church on earth to the oppression and sinfulness it has sunk in to as it has grown the world over.

Wow, I didn't expect to end up there. Oh well, congratulations to the UCC church for its full acceptance of homosexuals in both ordination and marriage. This marks one of the largest mainline denominations in the country moving forward in God's call for society as it tears down the walls of oppression that we have built. But on to lighter matters. I had the craziest dream last night!!!