In “The History of Sexuality, Volume I” by Michel Foucault and “A Theory of Sexual Interaction” by Randall Collins, the authors each address sociological issues in sex and sexuality, yet do so from a very different perspective. Both authors view sex as socially constructed, although Foucault believes that the concept of sexuality was often a result of political control over societal lifestyle while Collins avers that it is essential to human life. This key difference supports very opposing viewpoints in the examination of sex and sexuality in society.
Foucault’s work, “The History of Sexuality” makes the assertion that it was political power which effectively repressed the act and discussion of sex beginning in the Victorian era, or the repressive hypothesis, and that this repression carried over into the subsequent centuries. Conversely, in “A Theory of Sexual Interaction” Collins argues that both the sources and objects of sexual pleasure which humans seek have increased in number as well becoming more diversified in type. He states that a couple who shares and achieves mutual solidarity during sexual interaction creates sexual excitement in their relationship.
According to Foucault, sexuality was forbidden in polite discussion and only overtly allowed between married couples as a means of reproduction during the nineteenth century. Due to this repressive attitude, Victorian society often acted as if sexuality did not exist. Foucault cites the increasing number of discourses on sexuality over the past few century as the basis for stating that the repressive hypothesis contains an essential flaw, “If sex is repressed, that is condemned to prohibition, nonexistence, and silence, the mere fact that one is speaking about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression” (Foucault, 6).
Foucault links the repressive hypothesis to socio-economic history; he criticizes those who analyze the history of sexuality as the history of repression due to the emergence of the bourgeois faction of society, a development of Capitalism. According to members of the bourgeois, sexuality was a useless action which negatively affected productivity, especially when practiced as a pleasure-seeking activity. This assertion by Foucault is contrary to the theory presented by Collins’ study.
Collins found that regular and healthy sexual interaction with partner actually enhances performance at work as well as creating a strong relationship bond amongst couples. Like Foucault, Collins compared sexuality within the context of two time periods: the seventeenth century, a period in which the topics of sex and sexuality were openly discussed and favored by society; and the nineteenth century, a period defined by secrecy and silence regarding sex and sexuality.
The changing attitude towards sex was demonstrated by Collins by comparing fashions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries considered “sexy”. According to the author’s study, fashion which revealed a woman’s shoulder was considered risque in the nineteenth century, hence during this time a woman’s shoulders were thought to be sexy. In the twentieth century, women’s legs were revealed for the first time and the hemlines of women’s skirts continued to rise over time, thus displaying a new feature considered sexy.
In this manner, the definition of sexually arousing body parts has changed over time and continues to change along with fashion standards. Collins summarizes his theory of sexuality by dividing sexual behavior into three dynamics. The first dynamic involves the act of sex for the purpose of individual pleasure-seeking, explained by citing the interaction between prostitutes and their customers. There is a certain contingent of society who will pay money to prostitutes in order to meet their sexual needs and to seek pleasure.
This refutes the hypothesis that “sex is motivated by pleasure in the genitals” (Collins, page? ) since sexual pleasure can be achieved not only through genital stimulation but also by such factors as hearing a prostitute moan and even merely touching her hair. Collins’ second dynamic regarding sexual behavior is the “sex as interaction ritual” (Collins, page? ). This model claims the best outcome occurs in sexual interaction if all ritual ingredients (bodily co-presence, mutual focus of attention, shared mood, and a barrier to outsiders) are available.
Among the many possible outcomes of sexual rituals, group solidarity, which represents love, is one of most important. Based on this Interaction Ritual Model, Collins established many hypotheses regarding not only the basic form of sexual behavior (two persons) but group sexual behavior, or an orgy, as well as oral sex. In referring to the oral sex act, Collins spends little time examining the reasons a recipient experiences pleasure, however, he does attempt to explain why someone performing oral sex on a partner finds it sexually exciting (at least in some cases).
The author avers oral sex is considered exciting to many because it has long been considered forbidden and the act kept secret. Extrapolating this concept further, it would be appropriate to consider that, in the nineteenth century when sexuality was repressed and forbidden, much of society found sexual interaction with a partner other than a spouse exciting simply because it was forbidden to do so outside of a conjugal relationship. The third dynamic Collins uses to explain sexual behavior is that of erotic prestige.
With the wealth of easy accessible eroticized images available in mass media, schools, and the streets, members of society are encouraged to rank those of the opposite sex according to their level of eroticism. One problematic feature of this concept of erotic ranking is the tendency of society to create derogatory nicknames based on this scale, including informal slang such as “nerds”, “dogs”, “plain Jane”, etc. Of the many sociologists and psychologists whose work was cited in “A Theory of Sexual Interaction”, Collins referred most to the theories of Emile Durkheim.
Durkheim contends that solidarity, as well as the other outcomes of rituals, must be repeated often in order to maintain its benefits. Likewise, Collins asserts that sexual interaction rituals require regular repetition to preserve the sexual bond within couples. The examples and explanations used by Collins are extremely detailed and descriptive; it is this precision which serves to eliminate doubt in the readers regarding his theories.
Foucault’s “The History of Sexuality”, on the other hand, contains far less detailed descriptions in supporting his theory of sexual regression over the past three hundred years, his main argument for the “Repressive Hypothesis” (Foucault, page? ). One concept becomes clear, however, after reading both authors’ works, and that is the fact that sex and sexuality have been shaped by the social construction of each era. It brings up the question as to what the next transition in sexual behavior will be as peculiar styles of sexual behavior in modern life continue to evolve.