Response to: Peiss' Chapter 11 Documents 1-2, 4, and essay by Escoffier; Nabokov's Lolita Part 2
Alfred Kinsey's Reports from 1948 and 1953 has been enlightening on the topic of sexual behaviors in men and women. One thing I found interesting is that the subjects were willing to disclose what behaviors they did and did not partake in. As one woman wrote in defense of Kinsey's study, "The questions are so... asked that it would be harder to lie than to come out with the simple truth." This sounds very similar to the confessional culture that has been around since the Middle Ages and adapted into psychoanalysis around the 19th Century. However, unlike psychoanalysis where sexual behaviors were examined for medical purposes, Kinsey's studies were more statistical and compiled in order to educate people on these same behaviors.
Nabakov's Lolita also embodies the confessional culture throughout the whole novel. H.H's narration in the novel is like that of a person admitting his deepest darkest secrets, which is effective in the first person perspective Lolita takes. Storywise, H.H. did not have to reveal every sin he committed to the reader. However, he says near the end of the novel that he first wrote up his account "to save not my head... but my soul." This is very much in line with the Catholic Church's belief that by confessing every wrong one person has done, that person can be cleansed spiritually.
The other aspect I liked about Kinsey's reports was how the information questioned conventional standards in terms of sexuality. He did not define sexuality as "normal" or "abnormal," unlike many of the medical literature from the 19th Century. In fact, Kinsey states:
"Nothing has done more to block the free investigation of sexual behavior than the almost universal acceptance, even among scientists, of certain aspects of that behavior as normal, and of other aspects of that behavior as abnormal."
In other words, defining sexuality in terms of what is right or wrong, normal or abnormal, does not help us understand sexuality. In fact, it does just the opposite: limit our knowledge of what sexuality is. His view was very insightful for his time, which was why it was probably controversial among readers.
And yet, for some people, these discourses in sexuality were the only way in which they could understand who they were. Jeffrey Escoffier learned about his homosexuality through popular sociology texts and other literature about homosexuals. But, instead of accepting everything he read as truth, he examined the various representations critically and accepted what described him best. In this way, sexual discourse is useful because it is used to enhance one's knowledge of sexuality instead of limiting it.
Comments
Fae, your discussion of the
Fae, your discussion of the ways in which the several readings participate in Confessional discourse is a crucial insight for the how sexuality functions within the deployment that Foucault describes. And, as you point out, not all confessions are the same. I would go further in this regard that you do, however. Even when HH seeks to “save his soul,” he is not seeking absolution from an appointed official who is deemed to have the power of forgiveness. So, although we have a confession of sorts, it resists certain of the tenets of the religious form. HH typically veers away from graphic details, for instance, which is why the novel isn’t considered pornographic and why it doesn’t fit with the religious query for details. And, importantly, the power dynamic shifts out of the hands of the priest and into the hands of the readers of the novel. Reading as an act can also be a means to resist homophobia, and as you point out for Escoffier it became an enabling act of identity. In this way, both he and HH write memoiristic accounts that turn to artistic endeavors rather than confessions per se.