“The Education Of Desire and The Repressive Hypothesis” by Ann Laura Stoler: Summary and Critique

1. Desire is Constituted by Power and the Law

• Stoler highlights that, contrary to Freud’s notion of repression, Michel Foucault argues that desire is not something repressed by law but rather constituted by it. As Stoler explains, “Where there is desire, the power relation is already present,” meaning that power is intrinsic to the creation of desire, and repression comes after the fact. This challenges the Freudian idea of an innate, primal desire that civilization represses.

2. Foucault’s Rejection of “Original” Desire

• Foucault disputes the idea of an “original” desire that predates law, as Stoler references Foucault’s assertion: “desire follows from, and is generated out of, the law.” Instead of repression, law actively constructs the very desires it appears to regulate, thus aligning with Judith Butler’s view that “the law succeeds rather in naming, delimiting, and thereby giving social meaning” to desires (Butler, Subjects of Desire, 218).

3. Sexuality and Identity in 19th-Century Europe

• Foucault’s analysis focuses on how the 19th century produced sexuality as an index of individual and collective identity. Stoler notes, “the cultural production of the notion of ‘sexual desire’ as an index of individual and collective identity” became a key element of control. Desire was tied to notions of racial and bourgeois identity, cementing a link between sexuality and social order.

4. Colonial Power, Sexual Desire, and Regulation

• Stoler critiques how colonial power relations have often been explained through a Freudian lens of sublimated desires rather than through Foucault’s framework of power-produced desires. She points out that colonial histories “hardly even registered the fact that the writing of colonial history has often been predicated on the assumption… of repressed desires in the West,” which misses Foucault’s emphasis on how these desires are manufactured by regulatory discourses.

5. Racialization of Desire in Colonial Historiography

• The essay explores the racial dimension of desire in colonial discourse, where sexual instincts attributed to racialized others were used to justify imperial control. Stoler critiques the Freudian assumption that “sexual desire itself remains biologically driven, assumed, and unexplained,” noting that such ideas persist in colonial narratives that treat desire as a pre-cultural, primal instinct.

6. Intersections of Freud and Foucault in Colonial Contexts

• While Foucault’s framework rejects the notion of repressed desires, Stoler notes that “Freud has, albeit indirectly, turned us toward the power of fantasy, to imagined terror,” which still shapes how colonial anxieties were understood. In this way, colonial histories draw from both Freud’s psychological models and Foucault’s critique of repression to explain power relations.

7. The Problem of Repressive Hypothesis in Colonial Historiography

• Stoler points out that, despite Foucault’s rejection of the repressive hypothesis, colonial studies have continued to apply Freud’s models of repression. She questions the ease with which colonial historiography has assumed that “racism and Europe’s imperial expansion” are expressions of sublimated sexual instincts, urging for a more Foucauldian analysis that accounts for the production of desires through power and discourse.

8. Sexuality as a Colonial Tool of Governance

• The regulation of sexuality in the colonies wasn’t merely about controlling deviant behaviors but was deeply tied to governing power structures. Stoler references how colonial authorities deployed discourses around sexuality to distinguish between civilized and uncivilized, noting that “the confessional apparatus of medical exams, psychiatric investigations, pedagogical reports, and family controls” were mechanisms for both pleasure and power.

9. Complicated Relationship Between Freud and Foucault in Postcolonial Theory

• Stoler acknowledges that colonial studies have not fully disentangled the tensions between Freud’s psychological explanations and Foucault’s theories of power. As she suggests, “saying ‘yes’ to Foucault has not always meant saying ‘no’ to Freud,” indicating that colonial historiography has often struggled to integrate these differing frameworks when discussing power, repression, and desire.

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Colonial Power and Desire: Stoler’s analysis highlights how colonialism shaped the concept of desire, not as a pre-existing drive but as something constructed through power relations. She critiques the Freudian assumption that colonial power is a sublimated expression of repressed desires, noting that colonial history often ignores how desire is produced by regulatory discourses.
  • Reference: Stoler writes, “We have looked more to the regulation and release of desire than to its manufacture,” emphasizing that colonial power structures created desire rather than simply repressing it.
• Racialization of Desire: Stoler illustrates how desire in colonial settings was racialized, linking sexual instincts to the justification of imperial rule. Colonial power was deeply intertwined with racial hierarchies, where sexuality was used to mark racial differences.
  • Reference: Stoler critiques the colonial tendency to treat “sexual desire itself [as] biologically driven, assumed, and unexplained,” rather than seeing it as a socially constructed phenomenon shaped by colonial power dynamics.

2. Foucauldian Theory

• Rejection of the Repressive Hypothesis: Stoler builds on Foucault’s critique of the “repressive hypothesis,” arguing that desire is not something repressed by law but constituted by it. She aligns with Foucault’s idea that power produces desire through its regulatory functions, rather than simply suppressing it.
  • Reference: Stoler writes, “Where there is desire, the power relation is already present,” directly engaging with Foucault’s assertion that power is intrinsic to the creation of desire.
• Power/Knowledge and Sexuality: Stoler deepens Foucault’s concept of how power and knowledge regulate sexuality. She critiques the idea that sexual desire existed independently of societal structures, demonstrating how sexuality, race, and power are intertwined in colonial contexts.
  • Reference: “For Foucault, ‘desire follows from, and is generated out of, the law… out of the power-laden discourses of sexuality where it is animated and addressed.'”

3. Psychoanalytic Theory

• Critique of Freudian Repression: Stoler engages with psychoanalytic theory by critically examining Freud’s notion of repressed desires. She contrasts Freud’s model, where “civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct,” with Foucault’s view that desire is historically constructed through discourse. This critique is central to her argument that colonial studies have overly relied on Freudian explanations of repression.
  • Reference: Stoler explains, “Freud accounts for the psychological aetiology of perversions, Foucault looks to the cultural production and historical specificity of the notions of sexual pathology and perversion themselves.”
• Freud and Colonialism: Stoler addresses how colonial histories often apply Freudian models of repression to explain racial and sexual dynamics. She argues that the repression of instinct as a causal explanation in colonial contexts oversimplifies the production of racialized desires.
  • Reference: She critiques colonial historians for using “Freudian notions of sublimated and projected desire… to account for racism and Europe’s imperial expansion.”

4. Feminist Theory

• Intersection of Gender, Race, and Sexuality: Stoler’s work contributes to feminist theory by examining the intersectionality of race, gender, and sexuality in colonial contexts. She critiques how colonial discourse constructed native women’s bodies as hypersexualized and European women as paragons of virtue, thus reinforcing racial and gendered power structures.
  • Reference: Stoler notes how colonial texts cast native women’s sexuality as an “object of the white male and white women [as] assiduously protected from it,” reinforcing both racial and gender hierarchies.
• Gender and Desire in Colonial Histories: By focusing on the gendered dimension of desire, Stoler brings attention to how women, particularly European women, were positioned as moral gatekeepers of colonial society. She critiques the lack of attention to how colonial discourses of sexuality were also about controlling women’s desires and bodies.
  • Reference: She discusses how colonial policies “reaffirmed that the ‘truth’ of European identity was lodged in self-restraint, self-discipline, in a managed sexuality that was susceptible and not always under control.”

5. Biopolitics

• Regulation of Bodies and Desires: Stoler’s work touches on Foucault’s concept of biopolitics by examining how colonial governments regulated bodies, particularly through the control of sexual desires. The state’s intervention in regulating sexuality was a key tool for maintaining colonial power and racial hierarchies.
  • Reference: Stoler refers to colonial discourses on sexuality as part of a “biopolitical” project, where the regulation of “pleasure and power” was central to the governance of populations.

1. Over-reliance on Foucauldian Framework

• Critics might argue that Stoler’s analysis heavily relies on Michel Foucault’s theories, which can limit her exploration of other theoretical perspectives, such as those from non-Western or indigenous traditions. This could potentially narrow the scope of her critique, especially in colonial contexts that involve multiple layers of local and cultural dynamics.

2. Limited Engagement with Gender-Specific Issues

• Although Stoler addresses intersections of race and gender, some might argue that her treatment of women’s roles in the colonial discourse of sexuality is not fully developed. Feminist critics could claim that she doesn’t sufficiently explore the gendered dimension of colonialism, especially in terms of how European women’s desires and sexuality were constructed differently from men’s.

3. Ambiguity in the Critique of Psychoanalysis

• While Stoler critiques Freud’s notion of repressed desires, some scholars might find her analysis insufficiently clear in reconciling the differences between Freudian psychoanalysis and Foucauldian theory. Her critique could be viewed as lacking depth in addressing how these two theoretical frameworks interact or contradict each other in more nuanced ways.

4. Western-Centric Approach

• Stoler’s work could be criticized for maintaining a largely Western-centric approach in its critique of colonialism. By focusing on European colonial power and its relationship to desire, she may overlook the perspectives and resistances of colonized peoples themselves. This could result in an incomplete understanding of how desire and power operated from the viewpoint of the colonized.

5. Lack of Concrete Case Studies

• Some critics might argue that Stoler’s analysis is overly theoretical and lacks concrete case studies or specific historical examples. The abstract nature of her argument could benefit from more grounded examples to illustrate how the production and regulation of desire operated in various colonial settings.

6. Overshadowing of Economic and Material Factors

• Critics may point out that by focusing on the discursive and psychological aspects of desire and repression, Stoler may underplay the economic and material dimensions of colonial power. Colonialism was also about economic exploitation and resource control, and an overemphasis on desire might obscure these aspects.