Discourses of sex have greatly changed over the centuries. In the 18^th century sexuality was greatly under wraps. Over time sexuality gradually become more and more acceptable. Foucault argues that sexuality obtained more discourses and acceptance through its original censorship.

In the 18^th century, there was an censorship on sexuality. In order to control sex, they used language as the barrier of containment. Through the policing of words, it created a restrictive economy of words and speech on the topic of sexuality.

Over time the Catholic Church confessions talked about sex in great detail. The church believed in censorship until Sanchez and Tamburini thought that sex was an important part of confessions. They shifted the act of sex into a desire. It was no longer about the sexual act but the rationality of sex. The church’s confessions transitioned sex from indecency into moral and rational means. The west picked this up and men began to talk about sex to themselves and to others. Conversations about sex had become more useful and acceptable. Soon men’s character was determined by his recounting of sex in great detail transformed sex into discourse. It was no longer an indecent topic but a subject talked about in intelligence. The connection to the church gave sex the power to shift into this discourse by creating a moral and rational use of sex. There was longer any division between illicit and licit. It was no longer taboo but it was regulated through useful and public discourse.

Discourse of sex no longer fought for more space but it grew bigger in its own space. Sex was no longer hiding or constrained. It transformed their sexuality into perpetual discourse, to mechanisms where economy, medicine, justice incite and institutionalize the sexual discourse. Sexual discourse had the largest growth. The constraints on sex caused enthusiasm in sex that caused sex to be further analyzed. Sex discourses grew from operating in different institutions. The beginning eras sexually discourse had uniformity. The uniformity was broken down over time in to other discourses. Church confessions were the first step to breaking apart the discourse. The confessions made sex rational which cause a mass growth of discourse. The large censorship over sex led to many different enthusiasms to different discourse of sex.

Through out the 18^th century, they discovered problems that occurred from sex like population. This lead to an analysis of sexual problems like birthrate, contraceptive practices, and etc. Society started to credit population to how individuals used sex. Sex had become an object of analysis. It transformed sexual conduct into an economic and political behavior. Sex then became a public issues with critical knowledge. These fundamental necessities of economic pressure and political requirements lifted the prohibition on sex and freed the limited discourses on sex. Previously sex was an object of secrecy. Only by breaking that secret could it be precisely examined. Speaking of sex didn’t lead to the growth of the discourses; instead it was secrecy of sex.  The combination of men who dedicated themselves to speaking about it and infinitum while exploiting it as the secret created the many discourses. These discoveries led to the discourse of medicine, criminal justice and many more in the 19^th century.

According to Barbara Johnson, there are different ways to read Melville’s Fist. Each character offers a unique perspective if read from their point of view. Two ways to read Melville’s Fist is Literal and figural.

Most people read Melville’s Fist from Billy Budd perspective. Billy Budd is the literal perspective. The story is a battle between good and evil. The significant details of the plot are certain and simple. The characters are one dimensional and straightforward. Billy is admired for his physical and moral qualities. He is handsome, good-natured, straight forward, and simple. Billy’s least favorite qualities are that he stutters, illiterate, and unintelligent.  On the other hand Claggart is intelligent and articulated but is evil. His physical features imply mistrust and uneasiness. The other character Vere has the welfare of his men on his mind. He’s unaffected and resolute. He has no tolerance on infraction or discipline. The reason Billy’s version of the reading is literal is because of his qualities. Billy is simple and straightforward just like the plot of the story. He is also illiterate and unintelligent which the story is if not read closer and analyzed for its true meaning. Instead it finds the simple message; the child like meaning of good vs. evil.

On the other hand Claggart reading is the figural reading. Claggart’s perspective flips the relationship between the sign and signified. There is a discrepancy between nature and action. Billy’s character is described as good but is the killer. Claggart is supposedly evil but is the victim. Vere appears to be responsible but allows a man whom he thinks is innocent to be hung. Claggart assumes the sign to be arbitrary, reversing the value of the signs appearance. Billy also hits and Claggart in defense of not being able to answer his question. The lack of knowledge leads to a deadly act. Not being able to do something leads to a significant action. In addition Billy maintains his innocence and simplicity through filtering his answers. He retains his blank ignorance only by a vigorous act of erasing. He maintains his innocence through censorship. Billy’s straightforward nature is a false sign because of his partial lies to keep his innocence. He is not outright lying but withholding information to trick people into thinking he is innocent. The Figural reading is Claggart’s perspective because of his characteristics. Claggart is described as intelligent and articulated. This leads to a deeper analyze of the reading.  This analysis gives a deeper understanding of the signs and signified which are continuously flipped. Claggart appearance also portrays uneasiness and mistrust. The book is unable to be taken at face value because of this mistrust. Signs that are usually point blank also have another meaning.

Tradition is commonly defined in the form where the generation passes down to the next generation. Elliot strongly discouraged this form of tradition. Tradition to Elliot is a poet or artist who is a part of their subjects’ culture as a whole.

Tradition in nature is vague, it isn’t agreeable without a comfort reference. Individuals have their own personal thought, which causes them to have different reference points. This is what leads to vagueness of tradition. This reference point is what brings all the pieces of the puzzle together. Tradition has a wide significance. It has to be able to call anyone indispensably who is a poet over 25 years old. Man doesn’t write for how own generation, but has to write with the feeling of the whole literature of his own culture. He has to be a part of the entire literature culture. There are no generations but one whole collected culture filled with the ancestors of writers. Traditional writers have a sense of timelessness. Their writing breaks through the barrier of time and fits in at any time period.

Tradition is a sequence of all traditional work. This sequential order is complete before the new work because for the order to persist after supervention of novelty. The order is determined by its significance. Significance is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets. No writing has complete meaning without anything to compare it to. Therefore writing has no value alone and must compare to the ancestors of writing. Literatures works significance gets determined on its own, modified by new work that is created.

For writers become traditional he must be aware of the past culture of literature and its ancestors. With this knowledge the poet is a ware of the responsibilities and the difference of his work will be judged. This comparison must live up to the standard of the work of the dead poets. In Order to become a new work, the writer must conform to these ideals. Not conforming would live up to this standard and become a new work. New works are never more valuable than the previous works. This new work just fits in with the ancestors work. It is impossible for knowledge to become easily translated into useful material. Therefore art never improves, just material changes. New work most likely has both features; conforms and is individual. This occurs s by continual surrendering himself, causing an extension of his personality. Traditional work is slowly and cautiously applied, because time is a better judge than us. Time has the capability of testing historical sense, which leads to the standard of traditional writing.