Introduction to Herculine Barbin's memoir

On our session on 3/15/2018, we discussed Foucault's introduction to Herculin Barbin's memoir and had the following thoughts: 

v  why does the date of Herculine’s case matter for Foucault and how does it matter? Why does the time stamp distinguish the story from other possibly “banal” stories? (p.11)

• Ø  Proliferation of texts
• Ø  Maybe the fact of being intersex in early 19^th century would be "banal" in the sense that people could choose their sex
• Ø  Why does Foucault characterize the problem as having started in the 16^th century (p.119)? Why would it be then “banal” in that period?
• Ø  This particular form of transformation wouldn’t be possible any other time before or after mid-19^th century
• Ø  If a similar story happens now, would we call it banal? Why? Maybe because it’s expected.
• Ø  Maybe the interesting character of Herculine’s case:  she/he was not expecting to be assigned a true sex but it happened: the case can expose the emergence of the power relations tied to Biopolitics. We can also see in this case maybe not the opportunity but the demand for resistance. Analysis of similar contemporary cases cannot show the emergence of the power relations
• Ø  Parallels to Merleau-Ponty’s and Freud’s analysis → they’re not really interested in the historical moment. For Freud the problem of gender seems to have a universal character

v  Last sentence (p.17) and three mentioned categories interesting: What is the connection of the “unhappy memory” to the parts of the memoir?

v  What is the role of the description of “Curiosity and tenderness” and its connection to the doctors in this narrative? (p.12)

Is Foucault only describing and not being normative about these affects? Is his method of reading the archive without normative evaluation of the affects?

v  How can we map the various ways he reads the texts and situate the different ways of reading and their relationship to the other texts? (p.12-13)

v  What is the meaning and function of the description “Limbo of non-identity” in Foucault’s analysis? Why talking about “non-identity” while Herculine was seen as a girl(/homosexual?) at school? Is Foucault making a romanticization/normative evaluation about Herculine’s experience?

• Ø  Butler’s reading: Foucault’s analysis in contradiction with his framework in The history of sexuality. He doesn’t see here sexuality as a product of power relations → we have to read Foucault against Foucault
• Ø  Also Butler: The term “non-identity” functions as a normative endorsement of the progressive aspects of Homosexuality for Foucault
• Ø  But is Foucault trying to overthrow the category of sex? What is the status of Foucault’s reference about feelings?
• Ø  But maybe he is not endorsing the moments of “happy limbo” normatively but making historical references to Herculine’s narrative?

§  But if Herculine is the one who is doing the romanticization, what is the function of this nostalgia/romanticization for him/her?

• Ø  Parallels to Foucault’s discussion of BDSM scene as a sphere outside of power?

v  Is he confusing gender and sexuality?  (P.14: what does “bisexual world” mean here?)

v  Is there a parallel to Lives of infamous men in the modes of living that are exposed to power? Is the discourse about them possible because of power, but at the same time not irreducible to it?

v  Do we need a true sex?

• Ø  The notion of “true sex” implies: 1. Everyone has only one 2. Relationship between sex and truth 3. Sex is most profound thing about individual
• Ø  Why is the shift from two gender identities to one the problem? (P.7-8) Does the notion of choice play a central role?