Sexuality as a Modern Concept

  • Roger Horrocks


It seems necessary, after spending three chapters discussing the psychoanalytic contribution to the study of sexuality, that we now turn to a more sociological and historical view. For if psychoanalysis has been probably the most important theory of sexuality in the twentieth century, its drawbacks are palpable. I have already described some of them: the pervasive masculinism; the biological bias; the conservatism of psychoanalytic institutions; and above all, the trans-historical tendency to reify certain categories of sexual relations, for example the Oedipus complex.


Sexual Desire Single Mother Modern Concept Moral Panic Female Orgasm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 3.
    David Halperin, ‘Is there a history of sexuality?’, in H. Abelove, M.A. Barale and D.M. Halperin (eds), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (New York and London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 416–31.Google Scholar
  2. 9.
    Alexandra Kollontai, ‘Sexual relations and the class struggle’, Selected Writings (London: Alison & Busby, 1977), pp. 237–49.Google Scholar
  3. 11.
    Leon Trotsky, Women and the Family (New York: Pathfinder, 1973), p. 53.Google Scholar
  4. 12.
    Maurice Florence, ‘Foucault, Michel, 1926-’, in Gary Gutting (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (Cambridge: CUP, 1994), p. 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 15.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), pp. 29 and 154.Google Scholar
  6. 16.
    James Miller, The Passion of Michel Foucault (London: Flamingo, 1994), p. 67.Google Scholar
  7. 21.
    R. Barthes, ‘Myth today’, in Mythologies (London: Vintage, 1993), pp. 109–59.Google Scholar
  8. 25.
    Lois McNay, Foucault: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994), p. 70.Google Scholar
  9. 31.
    Carole S. Vance, ‘Negotiating sex and gender in the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography’, in L. Segal and M. Mcintosh (eds), Sex Exposed: Sexuality and the Pornography Debate (London: Virago, 1992), p. 41.Google Scholar
  10. 32.
    Cate Haste, Rules of Desire: Sex in Britain: World War I to the Present (London: Pimlico, 1992), pp. 178–82.Google Scholar
  11. 41.
    See J. Weeks, ‘Uses and abuses of Michel Foucault’, in Against Nature: Essays on History, Sexuality and Identity (London: Rivers Oram, 1991), pp. 157–69.Google Scholar
  12. 42.
    Thomas Laqueur, The Making of Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  13. 45.
    Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York and London: Routledge, 1990), p. 31.Google Scholar
  14. 47.
    See Celia Kitzinger, ‘Problematizing pleasure: Radical feminist decon-structions of sexuality and power’, in H.L. Radtke and H.J. Stam (eds), Power/Gender: Social Relations in Theory and Practice (London: Sage, 1994), pp. 194–209.Google Scholar
  15. 48.
    I.M. Lewis, Social Anthropology in Perspective: The Relevance of Social Anthropology (CUP, 1985), p. 238.Google Scholar
  16. 56.
    See Linda Williams’ discussion of pornography: Hard Core: Power, Pleasure and the ‘Frenzy of the Visible’ (London: Pandora, 1991).Google Scholar
  17. 57.
    Caroline Ramazanoglu, Feminism and the Contradictions of Oppression (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), pp. 138–70.Google Scholar
  18. 58.
    These issues are discussed in Don Milligan, Sex-Life: A Critical Commentary on the History of Sexuality (London: Pluto, 1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Roger Horrocks 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger Horrocks

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations