In the first sentence of the excerpt from The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, An Introduction, Foucault uses two terms we have encountered earlier in the current module on ideology/hegemony/power: “repression” and “bourgeois.” And we might be tempted to exclaim: “Aha! Marx and his successors! We must know something fundamental about Foucault’s coming discussion of the functioning of power!” Far from it, this assumption would be a grave simplification. While Marx previously presented us with an understanding of power characterized by an asymmetric power constellation, a clash of irreconcilable class interests, as well as an understanding that it is exactly that antagonism that propels history forward, Foucault pushes that idea to the periphery — perhaps even rejects it. He does this primarily by turning away from Marx’s materialism and the preoccupation with material conditions and instead focusing on language, discourse, and knowledge. Foucault says that with the emergence of bourgeois societies in the 17^th century, speaking about sex as it was practiced previously became highly regulated and restricted. On the one hand, talking about it became more and more difficult, and on the other hand, sex was dragged out of the realm of the practical and the relative obscure — the lights directed towards it. Suddenly everything related to sex mattered, had to be examined, and was accompanied by a “discursive explosion” (1421). According to Foucault, this sudden change doesn’t happen in a vacuum but concomitant with a broader epistemological break, in which a new constellation of ideas suddenly emerges and takes dominion. Power is here not understood as simply repressive but rather as a productive force that shapes discourse. Power is therefore not primarily exercised vertically (top-down), but much more equally distributed and functioning in all directions. As a result of taking us through several of those discursive breaks (confession/pastoral – political/economic/technical – population – schools), it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that Foucault argues for an understanding of history that is largely shaped by repeated discursive breaks, i.e. successions of power/knowledge constellations, that can go in all directions. It seems beyond question that this conveys a linear, let alone a progressive understanding of history, and I would argue that right here a problem of Foucauldian thought becomes clear. After all, it’s not unfair to say that Foucault draws a picture of society where “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” When it seems likely that one repressive regime will be replaced by another repressive regime, ad infinitum, it’s difficult not to feel defeated and hamstrung. I wonder whether we need to say goodbye to Papa Foucault. I’m struggling myself with the thought of having to let go of him. He’s been everywhere. Hugely influential in poststructuralist/postmodern thought — my entire undergrad experience was marked by him. And I loved it! I still enjoy writing papers that examine a text’s underlying discourses and dispersed power formations. But maybe he’s just not quite able to give us the tools we need for the current moment. Maybe it’s time we knocked him off the pedestal.