We must construct an analytics of power that no longer takes law as a model and a code, says Michel Foucault in his

History of Sexuality (90). A new understanding of power must be formed, one that rejects the idea of a power as a purely binary and repressive force, and instead ensures its operation through control. This new power promotes its success establishing a sexual norm, a standard for individuals to strive for and operate under. In Foucaults model, the norm is the Malthusian couple, a heterosexual couple that has a socially responsible number of children. But how does this norm continue to exist; how does it make itself desirable? As the sexual norm, the Malthusian couple has used the other main elements of sexuality, the hysterical woman, the pervert, and the masturbating child, to perpetuate itself. To demonstrate this, I will first explain the transition from repressive power to normalized power. I will then show how normalized power used the Malthusian couple to create a norm. I will also discuss how the Malthusian couple was the germination point of the family, and thus the sexuality surrounding the family. I will finally show how each element of sexuality (the hysterical women, the masturbating child, the pervert) was regulated by, defined by, or originated from this norm. According to Foucault, a societal misperception is that power operates as a pure limit set on freedom. (86) The idea that power can only exist as a prohibition exists as a holdover from the system of juridical power, in which the law was the monarchic systems mode of manifestation, and the form of its acceptability. (87) The monarch, the one who held the power, used the law and the consequences of breaking the law to perpetuate his power. However, society transitioned from juridical power to new methods of power whose operation is ensured not by law but by normalization, not punishment, but by control, or what is called normalized power (89). Following this

model, the law became irrelevant without the conception of a norm to support it, individuals were more afraid of operating outside a norm than breaking a law. Thus, punishment in the way of the monarchic system was no longer necessary; only the creation of a norm and an incentive to follow that norm were needed. But with no sovereign power, the norm had to be able to perpetuate itself for normalized power to exist. In Foucaults model, this norm is the Malthusian couple, which was overtly a method to control population, but also the point of germination for the family. The Malthusian couple understands their reproductive habits affect society, a political socialization [was] achieved through the responsibilization of couples with regard to social body as a whole (105). In other words, their reproductive habits were no longer just their own. The Malthusian couple owed it to society to have the correct number of children, that number being dependent on the perceived needs of society. However, the Malthusian couple doesnt cease to exist at the birth of their childrenthey are the starting point for the nuclear family once they have children. Foucault states [the familys] role is to anchor sexuality and provide it with permanent support, thus the Malthusian couple is the root of the anchor of sexuality, and their role as parents is to regulate the sexuality of the family (108). If the Malthusian couple defines the sexual norm, the pervert is the antithesis of the norm and must be eliminated for the norm to continue to exist. (The primary example of a pervert is a homosexual, but it is anyone who deviates from the sexual norm.) Initially, these individuals are distinct because of their sexual actions. However, under the system of normalized power the most discrete event in ones sexual behaviorwhether an accident or a deviation, deficit or an excesswas deemed capable of entailing the most varied

consequences of ones existence. (65) This means ones sexual acts and behavior could define ones entire existence, so a way of life results from sexual behavior. Because they were the sexual norm, every action of the typical Malthusian couple can be perceived as a model for the rest of society. Conversely, the lifestyle of a pervert is defined by his or her sexual behavior and lies in direct contrast to that of the Malthusian couple. By establishing an accepted sexual behavior and extrapolating sexual behavior to an individuals lifestyle, it is possible to have correct and incorrect lifestyles. One could argue the norm does not work to eliminate everything outside the norm. However, the only way a norm can exist is if anything outside it is considered unacceptable; the norm itself must create a desire to follow the norm. For example, to correct aberrant sexualities, a clinical analysis was made of all the forms of anomalies by which [the sexual instinct] could be afflicted; it was assigned a role of normalization or pathologization with respect to all behavior; and finally a corrective technology was sought for these anomalies. (105) In more clear terms, all the ways in which someones sexual behavior was outside the norm were identified in a medical setting, and all the ways this perverse sexual behavior affected other behavior were also identified, showing the individual his or her lifestyle was incorrect because of that individuals sexual behavior. Thus, to have an accepted and correct lifestyleto be acceptedthe individual would have to allow his or her sexual behavior to be normalized. The Malthusian couples perceived responsibilities gave rise to the idea of the hysterical woman, which it used both as an agent of regulation and responsibility. After giving birth to a socially responsible number of children as part of a Malthusian couple, the woman was was assigned a new destiny charged with conjugal and parental obligations (121). New responsibilities with regards to the norm were layered onto the womans

reproductive responsibilities. A possible counter argument is that the concept of the hysterical woman developed independently from that of the Malthusian couple. But because the Malthusian couple is the root of the family, that would mean the idea of the hysterical woman developed separately from the family. That would be incorrect because Foucault states, the hysterization of women found its anchorage point in womens marital and maternal, or familial, obligations. The woman was held responsible for the life of the children, which it produced and had to guarantee, by virtue of a biologico-moral responsibility (104). In turn, she could be blamed anything wrong with her childrens sexualities. With this, the norm had both an agent of regulation and source to blame for sexual deviations in society. When a child masturbated, his parents were concerned he would not go on to follow their Malthusian model and their family line would not be carried on in a responsible manner. Under the assumption that sexual behavior affects all other behavior, this sexual activity posed physical and moral, individual and collective dangers (104). As a result, society took it upon itself to rather take hold of and shape the sexuality of children. To support this idea, Foucault states, parents, families, educators, doctors, and eventually psychologists would have to take charge, in a continuous way, of this precious and perilous, dangerous and endangered sexual potential (104). This meant an obsessive focus developed surrounding childhood sexuality. One could argue that this focus was merely about controlling childhood sexuality, not working to propagate the norm. However, the [masturbating] boy was in danger of compromising his intellectual capacity, his moral fiber, and the obligation to preserve a healthy line of descent for his family (121). In other words, the parents and those helping them raise their child (doctors,

teachers, etc.) feared the boy would grow up to exist outside the sexual norm because of his childhood sexual habits (he would not be part of a Malthusian couple and would not procreate responsibly). So, society as whole took precautions to ensure the child would grow to live inside the norm. The purpose of the focus on childhood sexuality was to ensure children grew up to be part of a Malthusian couple, to continue the norm. When normalized power supplanted juridical power, a norm was established. As the sexual norm, the Malthusian couple used the other main elements of sexuality, the pervert, the masturbating child, and the hysterical woman to perpetuate itself. The Malthusian couple was the germination point of the family, and therefore the root of sexuality. The perverts sexual behavior was outside the norm, and therefore his or her lifestyle was incorrect and unacceptable. To make his or her life acceptable, the pervert would have to change his or her sexual habits. Thus, perverts were not accepted until they began to operate within the sexual norm. The hysterical womans purpose was derived from motherhood, and she was responsible for the sexualities of her children. She served both as an agent of regulation and a party to blame with regards to her childrens sexualities. In addition, the childs sexuality was monitored, so that he or she could go on to live inside the sexual norm and therefore have an acceptable lifestyle. The norm became desirable because it led to acceptance. To live inside the sexual norm meant ones lifestyle was accepted. Because there existed a desire to live within the norm, there was also a desire to regulate the norm and to eliminate what was outside the norm.