I would've gone for the title, 'Natural and The Unnatural' but this title with Foucault is enough!. There won't be a better choice than Foucault's name to write in contrast with The Unnatural, especially when it comes to sexual morality. First I will make it clear how the terms The Natural and The Unnatural has been misinterpreted by our law/society/culture.
The Natural was and is always misrepresented as The Unnatural and vice versa. What is Natural could be simply defined as something that is happening around us(in the nature). Our Hon. SC had recently stroke down one section of the IPC 377 which criminalised homosexuality. The whole IPC 377 is termed as the Unnatural Offenses Act.This section of law includes bestiality, sodomy which are all very much from the natural order but misrepresented as unnatural. What really interests one is its validity after the amendment to IPC 376 after the Nirbhaya Case and it clearly raises questions of IPC 377 as it is. This is a whole different issue.
What I am concerned with is how the concepts of the Natural order and the Unnatural order had mixed up. It is a fact that us humans couldn't just leave this terms behind. This terms are the guiding principles to our existence as a society. So back to the Natural. Homosexuality is Natural. Even at some part of my life I was also confused with the terms. Now its clear, Homosexuality is visible in nature. Let's just focus on the other point of The Natural. Nature shows us its many faces of bestiality, incest, cannibalism etc. We are in a point of culture in human civilization that in no way this concepts could be taken into the unnatural order. Homosexuality in its case has sufficed into the order of The Unnatural so that its now part of our morality. It is immoral to hate, even in terms of sexuality. So that's solved now.
So the underlying principle is that humanity should be governed by a culture that accepts the unnatural, not the natural. That's how a society is hardwired to survive. So the question of being unnatural is not to be answered because it doesn't need to be answered. As humans we are different from the animals. We won't think of incest (even with the magical term of consent in it). It is difficult for us to accept the natural order because being human is being the Unnatural(Homosexuality is not part of the natural order now).
But what I really mean by this piece is Foucault. Why would I take Michel foucault to represent the natural order here. I'm going to be careful here because when Foucault lived in the 20th century, Homosexual was natural thus condemned. So basically i'm talking about a person who lived in the 20th century where social and moral codes were totally different from where I am today. Noam Chomsky could go on to call Foucault an amoral person which he did because he was a contemporary to Foucault(Chomsky still lives to tell the tales). Here, when writing about the Natural order of Foucault, I'm alluding to something other than his sexuality.
In Foucault, I would thus conclude the whole point in one term, Morality. Defining one's morality is of great importance today. Even the word morality might be raising brows but as you speak of your individuality it is equally important that you speak your morality. So was Foucault amoral?. Yes, he was amoral, no doubt about that. I am saying this because my type of morality speaks of responsibility. And where would one find responsibility in Foucault's sexual freedom. He was irresponsible, irresponsible for his life, for his partners. He never had that thought of being responsible. Must have lost it in his strong individuated thoughts.
I honestly wish Foucault had been here. Everytime you see Foucault debating Chomsky in youtube, it's like you wish he should have been here now. But he is not here. What he personally craved for himself was his sexual orgies. Selfishly focussed, one might say or, it's easy to judge people, the other might say. To conclude, I would also like to bring in Lacan's jouissance as it directly showcases Foucault. It would have been joyful for him at the start but surely it would have been painful for him at the end. Maybe Foucault never believed in anything. How could you then point fingers at him?. But people who believe in things should point their fingers, which is exactly what i'm doing. The kind of irresponsibility towards oneself is amoral. It is selfish. It is NATURAL!
Comments
Post a Comment