The Biopolitics of Masturbation: Masculinity, Complexity, and Security

Abstract

Masturbation is a neglected topic in debates around biopower and biopolitics. This article takes Michel Foucault's recasting of the idea of a regulatory, population-level form of biopower in terms of 'mechanisms of security' as its starting point for an investigation into the ways in which bodies enter into and are reshaped by biopolitical discourses on masturbation. While the notion of security faded from view in favour of Foucault's better known focus on governmentality, this article argues that there is value in recovering the concept of security in the context of a genealogy of modern bodies. Specifically, it explores the possibility that a biopolitical perspective on security operates not only above, but also below the disciplining of individual masturbating bodies. The article proceeds, initially, via an examination of contemporary studies of masturbation, arguing that they largely neglect the material dynamism of bodies. The main focus, however, is on rereading some of the key works in the historical antimasturbation literature from a complexity perspective. It is shown that these texts engage with a 'population' of vital forces and affects that must be regulated if life is to remain secure, and which circulate below the level of individual bodies in relation to a complex milieu. Finally, the article claims that men's bodies appear as crucial sites of biopolitics, and that normative forms of masculinity can be regarded as interventions into embodiment that are designed to nullify or regulate complexity.

Social bodies and social justice

“…Reflecting upon this and the work of Claire Blencowe, Steve Garlick writes: ‘[T]he discourses and techniques of the anti-masturbation campaigns were central to modern biopolitical experience via the production of “trans-organic embodiment”. This “trans-organic body” linked the bodies of children to those of the family and population’ (2014, p. 4).…”

“…In rereading Foucault, Garlick recuperates the neglected place of security within his biopolitical framework. He argues that, whilst anti-masturbation tracts were aimed ostensibly at banishing masturbation, in reality, they were more concerned with enabling the mobilisation of mechanisms of security: ‘From this perspective, masturbating bodies emerge as key sites for modern biopolitics, and as important figures in the genealogy of modern bodies’ (Garlick, 2014, p. 6).…”

“…Parsing Garlick (2014), during the last three decades, the developing infant brain has emerged as a key site for modern biopolitics, as the ‘trans-organic brain’ links the actions of mothers to children's brain development and the well-being of the wider population. These developments – a form of biopolitical governing through the brain (Rose and Abi-Rached, 2014) – continue a long tradition of governmental strategies to regulate children and families and are controversial for multiple reasons, not least the scientific basis underpinning many arguments (Rose and Abi-Rached, 2013; Bruer, 1999; 2011; Lowe et al , 2015; Wastell and White, 2017).…”

“…She also linked individual brain development to the healthy parenting of future generations and the overall security of society, suggesting that experiences during ‘the first three years’ of life ‘can determine whether children will grow up to be peaceful or violent citizens, focused or undisciplined workers, attentive or detached parents themselves’ (Clinton, 1997). As Garlick notes (2014, p. 6), early responses to the masturbating child, and in particular the production of ‘trans-organic embodiment’, provide a genealogical context for modern bodies and biopolitical interventions.…”

The biopolitics of masculinity (studies)

“…Also in regard to men's lifestyle magazines Paul Crawshaw argues that they construct a male 'subject who is interested in managing their own health and engaging in an ongoing body project' thus shifting the responsibility for health from health care institutions to the individual (Crawshaw, 2007(Crawshaw, , p. 1616. In a more recent contribution to the discussion of biopolitics and masculinity, Steve Garlick also points to the centrality of male bodies for the workings of biopolitical governance (Garlick, 2014(Garlick, , 2019. Harriet Gray shows how biopolitical forms of governance converge with state militarism in trauma management programs for soldiers (Gray, 2015), and, in my own work on men, masculinities, and reproductive technologies, I have suggested to think of the subjectivation of men into biopolitical regimes of governance in terms of the enticement of gender, that is, enjoyable and enticing forms of gender normativity that bind men to the objectives of biomedical reasoning and biopolitical responsibility (Mohr, 2018).…”