Follow up: ‘On The Origin of Love and Sex’

From the earlier post, we see that sexuality is not a ‘subjective science’ as demanded by Freud and by Jacques Lacan. Sexuality is a discourse created merely, by the ‘repression’ of the individual against the ‘Power’ exercised on him by the society. This act of power produced some norms in individual for which the individual became both subject and object of the act. In short, the individual perform some practices and watch out himself further to make sure he/she is maintaing the norm, thus further strengthening this discourse. Thus sexuality came out as a entirely new animal as an act of ‘Power Exercise’ by the society. Society repressed an individual, insinuated some norms of sexual acts and sexuality and the sexual identities in his cognitive mind. For example, some part of the world, homosexuality is justified, in other parts, it is not. The existence of ‘Homosexuality, therefore, depends on the ‘society where you are situated’ not in the biological root or discourse.

This view of Michel Foucault ignited a ‘silent battle’ between him and Jacques Lacan for long years untill it was mediated through Jacques Derrida at later time. Michel Foucault believed that human body is ‘subject to pleasure’ and the bodily act of pleasure has nothing to do with morarility. It was the Christianity which imposed restrictions on body-pleasure. However, the issue that could be debated here, as it came down in my mind as a question: Why does human body need pleasure? What is the root of this desire that Foucault has isolated from the  morality? What is the ground that he was claiming an independent discourse for that pleasure? What if the pleasure is tied with the Lacanian concept of whole psychology? These  are some  issues against Michel Foucalut’s argument on sexuality for which I am still looking for some answers/evidence and anlyses from others.

If Sexuality is as such, a mere act of Power on individual, then how about love?Is it tied with some Power exercise as well? What is the very root of that exciting discourse, the endless passion for your partner? Does it exist in homosexuals in the very same way as heterosexuals? Is it a reactionary force of sexuality? Is it a ‘second sexuality’ in terms of Simone De Beauvoir? Or has it some other fundamental root or a silent discourse that is running for thousand years without being very explicit in nature?

According to the Freudian and Lacanian concept, we see that there are TWO roots that all human perceives in his/her life. One is the ‘Patriarchal root’,  the ‘Father’,  the ‘Law’ that govern and  drive  the symbolic world. The child ‘rejects’ the mother, identify with the ‘Father’  and come into the ‘being’ in the culture and language. The ‘abject mother’  is thus sacrificed, yet remembered in unconscious. It is the abject mother whose absence  produces the ‘sense of losses’ to the ‘body blob’ of human child at the very early stage. In the ‘real’ stage of Lacan, he calls it real because right before this stage , the  body blob was intimate with its mother, it did not have any lack of food, any desire, therfore, it did not have the LANGUAGE! It was this separation, the disassociation that caused  all the desires to be kicked-in. This lack, or the sense of lack driving all of us crazy, producing a monsterous lacking unconscious, allways thirsty for something, a relentless signifier in the system of life, that looks for a ‘significand’, a pointer looking for its ‘apparent target’, yet there is no complete, absolute target. The lack of mother, creates the desire for ‘Love’, love for your wife, a replacement, a broken replacement which is workable but not an absolute solution. The ‘Sex’ is an act of power as one can see this reflection of this definition on Milan Kundera’s writings where his characters used ‘sex’ as an act of ‘subjugation’ for their partners. Exercising sex with our partner, we exercise, the ownership of the Power, we follow the ‘Other’, the symbolic ‘Father’, the perceived source of the ‘Law’ and the ‘Power’. Society’s Power kicks-in into ourselves and leaveraged in terms of sexual acts. Sex is, another word, an implementation of the power, the  hidden force in individual, finally lands on the bed!

What is  ‘Love’ then? A force exists with its utter subordination, a passion for the partner, that drives towards sex or sometimes it does not. Love for the children, for the world, for the nature, for the world life are not driven to the sexuality or sex-acts? How this love is related to the love for your partner? The proposition that I am making here and could be debated further(and continually be studdied by myself to adjust the hypothesis) is that this love is connected to our ‘Matriarchal root’, the ‘lack of mother’ that we are carrying along our entire life, the desire, the passion arises from that lack. The ‘abject Mother’, a term coined by Julia Kristeva, is the root of the love. The ‘Mother’ in our symbolic world, is the like the ‘Moon’ in the presence of the patriarchial the ‘Sun’, less stronger desire to follow but yet a lot desirable. All our atempts in this life to grow, to be powerfull are rooted in following the ‘The other’, the ‘Father’. In doing so, we become far distant from another root, the mother, the most primitive source in our existence. The remnants of that disassociation, that separation yet allures us as a side-effects of our continual chasing for the ‘Father’, the ‘Patriarchal root’. So love will still shine in your life, arising from this very fact. We need to adjust these opposing forces in our  psyche. Love is the ‘sub-discourse’ that is essentially posited against the main ‘discourse of the Father, the law’ of the society. Human existence without ‘Love’ is impossible. If you dont love certain things, that is OK, but you have the ‘Love’ for other things, you have certain passions. The act of love is an attempt for you to return to your ‘maternal origin’. By exercising ‘Love’, we dont exercise the ‘Power’ against our partner or object, rather we exercise ‘the subordination’, a reactionary practices emerges as a side effect of our patriarchal root.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: