Lecture by Christina Hendricks for the "Remake/Remodel" theme. For more, see artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca/miche.... For a version of this video with slides, go to mediasitemob1.mediagroup.ubc.c....
Пікірлер: 153
@StefanoD4208 жыл бұрын
My left ear enjoyed this lecture!
@UBCArtsOne8 жыл бұрын
+StefanoD420 Oh geez...is it not in stereo? Not sure I can fix that. Probably was the original source video. However, you can also see it here: mediasitemob1.mediagroup.ubc.ca/Mediasite/Play/fa8e5caf862b4af9a833b7c86f157c891d Not sure if that's better (don't have my headphones at the moment)
@lolwhatyesme6517 жыл бұрын
it's just as bad
@UBCArtsOne7 жыл бұрын
Then it's probably the source video that was recorded not in stereo. This was done automatically in the room and we had no control over it, sadly! Sorry about that.
@tenqutia4 жыл бұрын
lol, I thought something was wrong with my earphones at first, but then I heard it blasting from the left side.
@b.c.slumber3694 Жыл бұрын
If you go into the accessibility options on your phone, you can change your audio to mono to watch this! :)
@PoseidonXIII7 жыл бұрын
This professor is awesome! She enabled such a tricky and complex subject to be extremely accessible. Philosophy like this can very easily just be chucked over students heads with no real intent to give students access to the material.
@UBCArtsOne7 жыл бұрын
We're so glad you found it useful! Thanks for letting us know.
@sizwehlophe54442 жыл бұрын
Your lecture is still appreciated in 2022
@danielfreeman6493 жыл бұрын
A lecture that feels more like a conversation than a lecture. A fascinating subject whose fascination is not ruined by the professor discussing it. Well done
@pressinbox696110 жыл бұрын
What a great lecturer - thanks for sharing this!
@thembluetube10 жыл бұрын
Brilliant introductory lecture. The lecturer really helped me get to grips with the book. More please! :)
@katelyntroastle40796 жыл бұрын
Really big help with my homework! Thank you for your clear explanations and comparisons
@nazlergun39984 жыл бұрын
I must express my gratitude because i couldn't take course examining Foucault althogugh i had interest. you opened your lecture and it helps people like me to learn more about him!
@thejunedempseyshow66010 жыл бұрын
Really helped me understand the book. Thanks for posting!
@MexTexican4 жыл бұрын
Wow this is great! Thanks so much for sharing your intelligent and very helpful analysis.
@jayd39687 жыл бұрын
thanks for uploading :) im currently in to philo ryy now studying philo by my self and i really enjoyed it.
@clawn61884 жыл бұрын
Good explanation miss. It's so helpful. Thanks a lot.
@shmemma55 жыл бұрын
Thanks for posting this lecture!
@albertkalson27925 жыл бұрын
Amazing lecture, tanks for uploading.
@die_schlechtere_Milch7 жыл бұрын
Thank you for uploading!
@3losh19489 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this great lecture :D It helped me alot.
@UndeadSeagullable8 жыл бұрын
Fantastic lecture!
@katiethomas4538 жыл бұрын
she is a great lecturer!
@sinemduyguylmaz35894 жыл бұрын
Love this lecture !
@cocoying32646 жыл бұрын
thank you so much for sharing!!
@mgnbrx9 жыл бұрын
She's so good , thankyouuuuu
@jessicacurrie71845 жыл бұрын
So helpful, thank you.
@XieYali9 жыл бұрын
She's wonderful on Mad Men!
@jschuler532 жыл бұрын
Xie this is the actress from Mad Men? She read Foucault over and over? WOW
@albanbokshi4818 Жыл бұрын
Does anyone know which Foucault interview from 1983 she is quoting? Around 18:00 - 19:00.
@StreamingStronghold7 жыл бұрын
good job. thanks.
@TheHachiketta4 жыл бұрын
Thank you from Italy!
@ahbarahad32032 жыл бұрын
only one channel audio aww cmon man, i was looking forward to watching this lecture
@sereneleaf536010 жыл бұрын
It would be nice if we could get a copy of the handouts ^_^ Thanks a lot
@jbmurray10 жыл бұрын
You can get the handout if you go to the Arts One Open page, and then click on "other resources": artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca/michel-foucault-the-history-of-sexuality-an-introduction/#Otherresources-3.
@zualichawngthu8806 жыл бұрын
Jon Beasley-Murray thank you
@JeremiaszCzeresniowiecki2 жыл бұрын
Lecture is very interesting but why in bad quality? Mono audio and we don' see slides clearly.
@LinneaRitland5 жыл бұрын
thanks from an old arts one alum :)
@ChristinaHendricksBC5 жыл бұрын
You're welcome! Always great to hear from alumni! :)
@AnimatedHooman10 ай бұрын
I so wanna be in this class and have like multiple cups of coffee and make sure I understand every word
@musics4me4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this because I thought I was the only one who felt his writing is complex
@jschuler532 жыл бұрын
Arif. I've been in academia for 35 years and in a field in which Foucault is widely read, used, and tried to be applied. ALmost no one really understands Foucault. You also need to be familiar with Freud as he bases a lot of his concepts on his. You are definitely not the only one. Foucault uses a method I am not aware any other major theorist uses, his work is a. kind of historiography. He is interested in the historical contexts of meanings, and those are fluid. I find this book and the subsequent volumes are so critical for understanding non binary sexuality. I like the idea of there not being a universal. For one thing, it takes reproduction out of the concept. Maybe there was a time when sexuality for women was for pleasure in open air places and not the dark corners of "erotic porn for women."
@sidjohnson94133 жыл бұрын
At 24:25 I honestly wanted to answer so badly even though I’m not there lol. My definition of sexuality is that it is an innate part of the self that is fulfilled via projecting said desired onto performative parts of identity that can be easily molded to fit, most often in power dynamics and gender identity.
@apexxxx109 жыл бұрын
Kiitos
@ekteboi4179 Жыл бұрын
I think an important nuance at 24:08 is that our will to knowledge is not so much a want for knowledge because sexuality is important for us, but the willing into existence of ''knowledge'' out of sheer will for power. We produce ''knowledge'' about it in order to obtain power over it. That knowledge is not the actual truth.
@tiagofonseca9216 жыл бұрын
Why's the sound only on left?
@UBCArtsOne6 жыл бұрын
Sadly, it seems to be the way it was recorded. I think the recording tools did not work correctly. Sorry about that!
@JeremiaszCzeresniowiecki2 жыл бұрын
Why don't you repair audio before uploading the video?
@ramkrishnadutta88366 ай бұрын
can I somehow get that handout?
@stavroskarageorgis48042 жыл бұрын
Why would anyone find it frustrating that the book does not offer a prescription as to how to think of, etc., "sexuality"?
@wpoltronieri439 жыл бұрын
Please... can you allow the subtitles?
@UBCArtsOne9 жыл бұрын
It wasn't me who uploaded this, but I'll see if I can figure out how to turn them on!
@UBCArtsOne9 жыл бұрын
I tried, but am not sure I know how to do it. Any suggestions are welcome!
@UBCArtsOne9 жыл бұрын
Arts One Open Looking into it further, it seems that subtitles have to be transcribed and added manually... and we're afraid that at present we don't have the resources to do that.
@TE-eu3rc8 жыл бұрын
+Arts One Open I think you can turn on the option now of letting others listen and add the subtitles themselves - and then you can approve them! :)
@UBCArtsOne8 жыл бұрын
+Tara Schlechter ah yes, I see that now--thanks for pointing it out! I just set it up to allow those.
@jamesdaimari8 жыл бұрын
Where can one get the handout?
@ChristinaHendricksBC8 жыл бұрын
You can get it here (click on "other resources"): artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca/michel-foucault-the-history-of-sexuality-an-introduction/
@jamesdaimari8 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@shuammi8 жыл бұрын
anyway we can get the syllabus?
@shuammi8 жыл бұрын
with the quotes
@jbmurray8 жыл бұрын
+Amaranta Gutierrez Hi, yes. Just go to artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca/michel-foucault-the-history-of-sexuality-an-introduction/ and click on "Other Resources."
@shuammi8 жыл бұрын
Jon Beasley-Murray thank you kindly!
@gerry3432 жыл бұрын
Wasn't she in "Mad Men" ?
@Worshipsatch Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the upload! Give a like if you too googled Foucault with hair during the lecture 😂 for one I would have to disagree about Foucault's science of sex, i mean scientific studies initially were very much inclined against sex, not promoting it. For the latter part, the scientific gaze worked as a shield for any personal involvement or 'confession', which hid the desires of the researcher. It is only the third party interpretation of empirical results that led to the promotion of sex in the modern world. Yet, it couldn't do away with the dogma that was outside the bounds of empirical analysis. Look at the sad defeat of Pro Sex feminism in te 1980s for example, just after the so called 'sexual revolution', which had failed before.
@RkristinaTay6 жыл бұрын
Will anybody speak openly about their sexual disease? That will who how strong stigma remains in our so-called modern society. Shame, right or wrong, remains as strong as it was in the 19th century. There is nothing like a chronic sexual ailment to alter one's sexual perception of oneself and others.
@mmo50424 жыл бұрын
42:15 But who is "we"?
@amalaudeh72469 жыл бұрын
Very glad asexuality is mentioned in this very informative lecture, thank you for the upload!
@tobiasbrown18829 жыл бұрын
Amal Audeh Maybe watch the whole video because the point is that "asexual" might merely be another category created by the state to help control society, as opposed to an approach that doesn't use these categories.
@amalaudeh72469 жыл бұрын
I did watch the whole video, and was pleasantly surprised for the mentioning of 'asexuality' even in the intended context. And asexuality is as she defines it in the video, a lack of sexual attraction, which does offer a new field in the study of human sexuality. It is a category that exists among humans.
@tobiasbrown18829 жыл бұрын
The point of the video is to indicate that those categories may only exist in text books or studies, and we humans take them on, discuss them, but they are not real. Each has his/her individuality so categories don't work and besides as humans we are free to create who we are w/o those categories. You seem fixated on asexuality. Perfect example of how we eat up these categories.
@amalaudeh72469 жыл бұрын
The point of the video is to dicuss Foucault's views on sexuality, what you call my fixation is an interest in a category that is rarely explored.
@tobiasbrown18829 жыл бұрын
It seems that Foucault wants to obliterate such categories. He seems to see them as referring to non-existing things, as they are merely creations of the state designed to provide a new form of control, as opposed to older forms of control based on the outright repression of sexuality. Asexuality thus, like homosexuality, and all other categories, don't reflect inherent qualities of individuals but simply roles individuals take on based on the menu that's served up. Humans are more creative than this. Life isn't about selecting which category we fit into. It's about creating our unique selves.
@mlem4742 жыл бұрын
Grazie
@therabbithat5 жыл бұрын
I was enjoying the book until I got to the bit where he said that children were requested to play a harmless game of "milk maid" by rubbing wandering adult men and that that was all ok?
@chickenwing27 Жыл бұрын
“Vaginal discharge. Well, that one’s not so bad “ 😂😂😂
@briancarroll35413 жыл бұрын
my own theory (work-in-progress) holds that humans are evolving away from a standard, mammalian dimorphism and thereby towards parity with its actual creators. this is to be a focus of the historical fiction i've been working on for nearly a decade and research for the same includes this very lecture/book.
@sandworm95282 жыл бұрын
Ah yes, evolution towards that cruel goddess of the void, Chaos herself. I think what you're describing is the eventual breakdown of all structures that is implied by our knowledge that everything is finite. That even the universe itself will reach a maximum entropy, that is its 'heat death'. Our creator is randomness, and to randomness we shall return
@briancarroll35412 жыл бұрын
@@sandworm9528 though i like and agree with most of this, there may be a paradox or two somewhere in what you've said. i view theoretical principles of entropy as a platonic form or empirical pattern that lends us ideation of the essence of things, as opposed to any comprehensive understanding or 'knowledge', which we certainly lack. a similar problem arises with conceptualization of a term like 'universe'. to be concise; how about multiverse? what we call knowledge or fact is merely probabilistic; correct enough, for now. Einstein's postulation regarding infinite time/space seems to be holding up quite well, as opposed to Newtonian hypothesis, ie, entropy. key to this sphere (chaos, randomness) is the notion of a closed system. see the conflict? hence, paradox. last, consider that this tidbit may be better at pointing us back to an essential understanding: the only constant is change.
@sandworm95282 жыл бұрын
@@briancarroll3541 the heat death of the universe is 100% going to happen. We know this.
@sandworm95282 жыл бұрын
I think you need to go study physics if this interests you, so that you've got a theoretical foundation for your 'theories'
@briancarroll35412 жыл бұрын
@@sandworm9528 who exactly is this 'we' that you claim knows this? heat death is merely an hypothesis, 100% void of any potential for proof or even any empirical evidence for solid theoretical support. also, saying anything is: "100% going to happen", is an indication that you are either not comprehending (intellectual immaturity), or perhaps not accepting of the probabilistic nature of human knowledge, precisely what i have learned from my study (see; The Dappled World) and understanding of physics!!! this is not to suggest that understanding even approximates 100%.
@thetruthoutside84232 жыл бұрын
But why sexuality is hidden? Why aren't we just like other species? Why everything has to be complicated by us? The problem of awareness, I think, added more complicated issues to us, since we are aware of our inner self and not having any access to it. We all the time ACTING, HIDING AND ACTING . maybe civilization itself caused this problem too.
@NotRegret Жыл бұрын
This is the type of question that I think most people should have just figured out by growing up. Civilization does "cause these problems" because you can only maintain civilization if sex is handled in a certain way. Only monogamous cultures can be maintained. There have been cultures that tried to other things and they grew weak and were easily defeated. So all sexual values are about maintaining monogamy. If you want to be a slut you have to do it unseen where it will not weaken higher values.
@adrienv90755 жыл бұрын
In the title, he spoke of why he doesn't give an alternative solution to any potentially conceived of problems, he is using some kind of very powerful metaphor. I've never heard such incredibly impact-full words hidden in such a plainly obfuscated manner. It was as though I could feel his own repression hiding inside every syllable, an entire lifetime of ridicule and anguish, raging furiously between the lines. He alludes to some phenomenological sense of having to face his own annihilation in the knowledge of what has been buried within. Death of the Dasein who's will is to be "other than."
@TheSteinmetzen8 жыл бұрын
Watching this and the part of onanism, I am reminded by the quote by Voltaire 'This self-love is the instrument of our preservation; it resembles the provision for the perpetuity of mankind: it is necessary, it is dear to us, it gives us pleasure, and we must conceal it.' It seems that a lot of philosophical texts up to now, it seems that there are two main ways to deal with controlling something: (1) sovereign power and (2) a sort of deconstruction to understand it -- thus annihilating its power. It seems to me that the latter seems to have the longer-lasting effect, for good or for bad. Perhaps some societies deal with the fringes of society with a combination of the two. Perhaps this is an understandment on my part worthy of some scorn for being a bit abtuse. Or perhaps by doing so, I am merely doing the same thing as the latter, i.e. a form of deconstruction.
@dogchaser5208 жыл бұрын
+C. Nathan Chavez I was just getting into what you were saying. Did you cut it off intentionally?
@TheSteinmetzen8 жыл бұрын
Oh, no. Sorry. I was just rambling. It made me think of some other things. I really enjoy these lectures. Quite interesting. ;)
@richardsanderson8772 жыл бұрын
Bravo lecturer....to this day sexuality is barely spoken of at non superficial levels and people generally go quiet in any forums....still a taboo topic
@anguslyall8 жыл бұрын
Characterizing Foucualt's views as Marxist and liberal is misguided on both accounts -- not just in the conflation of revolutionary Marxist views and reformist liberalism, but principally because Foucault had much different political and ontological commitments, perhaps more akin to anarchism. Yet, he eludes these categories in the continual development of his thought. He was a Nietzschean, if he could ever be pinned down.
@ArcanusLibero8 жыл бұрын
+AngusNancyLuna A nihilist then?
@ArcanusLibero8 жыл бұрын
His outcomes.
@ArcanusLibero8 жыл бұрын
I think these sources define my understanding of nihilism and Nietzsche. ni·hil·ism ˈnīəˌlizəm,ˈnēəˌlizəm/Submit noun noun: nihilism the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. synonyms: skepticism, negativity, cynicism, pessimism; More PHILOSOPHY extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence. historical the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party circa 1900, which found nothing to approve of in the established social order. Nihilism Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.
@ArcanusLibero8 жыл бұрын
;)-
@awhodothey6 жыл бұрын
That's true, but that's only one aspect of Marxism. While there is a clear rejection of some of Marx's most central beliefs, the vast majority of Marx's writing was a historical critique of capitalism, not the lofty predictions of the communist manifesto which had mostly been proven false by foucault's time. I think he gets lumped in with Marx because he repeats a very similar style of philosophical critique and makes logically identical fallacies to Marx. Both incorrectly assume that because prices/sexuality are constructed from subjective, historically relevant perspectives, those things cannot possibly have any underlying objective base and can be disregarded without negative consequence. They both make similar arbitrary moral claims and assumptions, and foucault uses the same reasoning and draws similar conclusions about social structures that Marx made about economic structures. Amd it's impossible to overlook the attractiveness of foucault's philosophy to admirers of Marx and the equally obvious rejection of his philosophy from admirers of nietzsche. Regardless of terminology, his philosophy is mostly not very similar to Nietzsche's.
@kennorris13184 жыл бұрын
Wow thank you - you first two minutes earned me your respect. Thank you for pointing our that even science is subjective.
@JAYDUBYAH293 жыл бұрын
It’s not though.
@muanliantonsing94613 жыл бұрын
My right ear piece doesn't support Foucault...
@malvikapant76227 ай бұрын
Anybody's else found it repetitive after second half of video
@kk-om5zm4 ай бұрын
Just one word........Rosaria Butterfield........
@dandantheman7493 Жыл бұрын
It's important to note that Foucault lived and taught in Tunisia for a brief period of time before 1968. He supported the revolutionary activities of some students and even went to prison in place of a student who was arrested while protesting. This should be set against the protests of 1968, yes, but also the October massacre of several Algerians protesting French presence in Algeria (which Foucault and many other French intellectuals did not acknowledge).
@TubeYawk5007 жыл бұрын
Science? What Science? According to the lecture Foocault gains reflected glory as a scientist because of his special relationship with Freud. The problem is that Freud was a 19th century-style scientist. By the end of the 20th century Freud was no longer considered a scientist. He was unceremoniously drummed out of the corps of scientists by the 1970s. As fascinating as his work is, it missed the cut and has fallen out of fashion. Most of his vocabulary -- like 'Oedipal complex' -- is no longer used. It is a quaint antique to the contemporary reader. Fooqault attached himself to Freud just as Freud was transitioning into oblivion. (PS I once considered myself a fervent Freudian. No mo') '
@ianmendham66717 жыл бұрын
Sidney Raphael there is such thing as social science y'know?
@BobanOrlovic6 жыл бұрын
Freud was always a clown
@huntermead8592 жыл бұрын
Vocabulary from Freud that is still used: The unconscious. And it is a seriously important contribution. Sure, a lot of the extensions of his core theories are incorrect, but Freud still has value (or at least those who learned from him took his work and gave it residual value).
@francescocerasuolo40642 ай бұрын
@@huntermead859true.
@saimak70797 жыл бұрын
She sounds like Tea Leoni. Tonight, I'm an onanist.
@doublenegation78705 жыл бұрын
Foucault would shudder at the explosion in sexual categories today.
@jschuler532 жыл бұрын
double he would pick his demonic teeth in joy and yalp in jubilation for the creativity growing around sexuality. A straight female having sex with a cross dresser is interesting. Kinks are great ways to work out repressed traumas in a safe environment through BDSM organizations. Foucault would love what's going on today, except for the incessant categorizations.
@francescocerasuolo40642 ай бұрын
the explosion in sexual categories is a good thing. Foucault was wrong about that.
@francescocerasuolo40642 ай бұрын
he acknowledged it as well, after taking LSD he "burned" the first volume of the history of sexuality
@wovfm5 жыл бұрын
What a black comedy this is. Mikey knew everything about sex except how to use a condom or dental dam and dies of AIDS. Reality bites and MF bit the dust. The End, roll credits, play a Satie gymnopedie.
@ivandate997210 жыл бұрын
sexuality does not always for reaching sexual pleasure ...
@Xcalator3510 ай бұрын
This lady should lear something about Foucault!! She says he was always 'very left'!! Wrong!!! After his very brief flirt with the Communist Party (something almost ALL french intelectuals did at that time) he became a fierce anti-communist and anti-marxist. He considered himself as being right-wing and a gaulist until the events of May 68 when he 'mutated' into a maoist for some time. By the time he died he had shifted again, this time into pro-capitalist liberalism!!
@francescocerasuolo40642 ай бұрын
very based! the left shouldn't be monopolized by Marxists, Communists, Stalinists and Maoists, who have been good for nothing but repress our liberties!
@wordscapes569010 ай бұрын
“Sexual choices” 😂
@francescocerasuolo40642 ай бұрын
okay
@Xcalator3510 ай бұрын
This lady is really bad!! She even had to check in her notes what 'voyarism' is for god sake!!!!!!!
@mudchair167 жыл бұрын
It's astonishing to see this dross spread throughout the West.
@BobanOrlovic6 жыл бұрын
The homosexual who died of aids is gonna tell us about how we can choose our own sexuality, and then call it philosophy
@shreya42653 жыл бұрын
Yes and ??
@wadihoueldchaib9903 жыл бұрын
@@shreya4265 period Queen
@pipersolanas33223 жыл бұрын
Homophobe
@BobanOrlovic3 жыл бұрын
@@pipersolanas3322 Idiot
@user-yh9sn1ye1j9 ай бұрын
Correct up to a point By the omission of his paedophilia In layman's terms He was a poxy nonce
@charlesnwarren6 жыл бұрын
Freud? You' re introducing Freud into an an academic discussion? Why? There is no hidden secret, dear. There is nothing that's been repressed.
@majatopic59155 жыл бұрын
Charles Warren because Freud plays a huge role in the history of the concept of sexuality which is crucial to the subject matter being discussed you moron
@mythnow6 жыл бұрын
ghees so boring.. great subject poor presentation
@user-yh9sn1ye1j9 ай бұрын
Can't wait for the Jimmy saville and gary glitter lectures More noncesense. Bravo
@cpolychreona3 жыл бұрын
I endured the whole thing, as part of my effort to figure out why this guy was recently the most cited author in the humanities (not my line of work, I am in the "hard" sciences). Apart from some gobbledygook that the lecturer herself admitted not to understand (but recited with respect, anyway), I didn't hear anything about sexuality that is not widely known and discussed both (at different levels) in academia and in popular culture. The inanities he said about sexuality made Freud's pseudoscience sound interesting by comparison