The "
Repressive Hypothesis" is the name given to our
prejudice against our
Victorian ancestors, giving us the
misguided belief that they were
sexually
repressed. Coined by
Michel Foucault in the first
volume of
The History of Sexuality, the
hypothesis is subjected to telling
criticism by Foucault.
To those who maintain what he calls the "Repressive hypothesis," Foucault raises three challenges.
1: Foucault asks whether the establishment of a repressive sexual regime can actually be demonstrated historically. Foucault, apparently, thinks not. Actually, the Victorians talked more about sex than any previous generation.
2: When we think we see "repression" in action, is it possible that there is another intention? In other words, is the application of power in this case really to repress, or does it have another, positive effect? Is there a reason the Victorians chose to relate to sexuality in the way they did? We say it had to do with "prudery" but did it really?
3: Does our talking so much about (and against) repression really stop the repression? Isn't it part of the same treatment of cultural ideas which gave rise to the "repression" in the first place -- namely, the idea that we have to talk honestly and openly about sexuality?
People say that the reason we must harp on and on so much about sexuality is that we still have a long way to go in repairing the damage of the Victorians. But, Foucault proposes, the real reason is that it fits in to a tradition in Western civilisation of telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in sexual matters. This trend is most observable in the tradition of confession, whereby Christians (and especially monks) were encouraged to divulge the least craving, the most innocent caress, with soul-wrenching scrutiny.
Foucault says that the Victorian discourse on sexuality went something more like this:
Firstly, the Victorians were heirs to the tradition of confession -- but with the advent of psychiatry, they combined the authority of a confessional officer with the persistence of a scientist.
The Victorians also postulated that sex and sexuality could have a foundational causality. Every little ailment known to Victorian medicine and sociology was attributed to aberrant sexual proclivities. Therefore, it was imperative to have a specialist identify and diagnose any and all personal aberrations before they begin to have adverse effects on your health and social standing. Sex was the cause of everything and could be the cause of anything; therefore swift and thorough identification was important.
Sex, to the Victorians was latent -- it was not simply that which the patient/subject wished to hide from the questioner, but actually that which was hidden from the patient himself. Because of its mysterious and pervasive nature, it had to be extracted carefully.
Therapists were scientists, and in order for something to be true, it had to be treated as data by a scientist. Therefore, in order for your personal sexual desires to be a reflection of truth, it had to be confessed to a scientist. Psychiatrists had hermeneutical authority. Furthermore, Foucault tells us, sexuality was not conceived in terms of error, sin, or excess, so much as in terms of deviance and pathology. Confession in a therapy setting, however, was considered cathartic and therefore required to keep reign on abnormal impulses.
Obviously, "freeing" discourse on sex doesn't really answer the hypocrisy of the Victorians, since they actually talked about sex more often. But, of course, since we're still Westerners, it's quite natural for us to misconstrue the problem as being one of silence.
Nowadays, of course, we aren't really looking for absolution or normalisation. And yet, we don't shut up....
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. Vintage Books, New York: 1978.