Greta LaFleur, an Associate professor of American Studies at Yale University, gave a lecture titled, “Toward an Environmental Theory of Early Sexuality.” Her talk explores how eighteenth- century natural history- the study of organic life in its environment- actually provided the intellectual foundations of the later development of the scientific study of sex. She started by explaining her first of two books called “The Natural History of Sexuality in Early America” which brings together the history of sexuality and early environmental studies. It explores how sexual behaviors were understood in the eighteenth-century world. Her 2nd book is currently in the making and delves into the relationship of cultural and legal responses to sexual violence to the history of sexuality.
LaFleur’s lecture was very interesting surrounding the Humoral Theory. She went on to explain that the theory is an understanding of the body derived from Hippocratic and galenic medicine that understood the human form as a “porous envelope” deeply vulnerable. This reminded me specifically of nature vs. nurture. How much of the human personality, gender, and other attributes are learned throughout life rather than are created at birth. We can take nurture in the sense of the different narratives LaFleur talked about and how deep rooted some elements of sex are in our lives. Things like stories, power dynamics, and words are so engrained in the Atlantic world.
One of the points LaFleur made resonated with me when she spoke about the ideas surrounding the environment being sexualized. The Venus Fly Trap and the Daisy are so sexualized and considered to be very feminine- this often resonates with young girls and boys when they pick up on this. Girls are taught to love daisies and tulips while Venus Fly Traps are thought to be sexy and elusive. This plays into how girls believe they should be acting.
Another interesting point to think about are the words surrounding sex that are so deeply embedded into our culture. Words like adultery, prostitution, fucking, rape, and seduction have been used in life and narratives for hundreds of years. All of these words are similar in the vulgar language and power dynamics they ensue. Even from my time on this earth, I associate each of those words as being significantly negative towards females. LaFleur’s point towards these words and narratives is that the environment has a significant play on how each of these are interpreted. Moreover, how these elements are interpreted plays into how young boys and girls believe they “should” be acting.
One audience member asked a question regarding how things in the environment have particular effects on people. I found the concept of microgeographics to be very interesting- how simple things like architecture can affect the way citizens view sex and sexuality. I’m not sure I fully believe that but again, maybe that’s my personal perspective…maybe I’m not as observant.
Overall, I think LaFleur’s main point is that we need to reorganize our inquiries of sexual knowledge. We need to understand how we thought about early sexuality but also how we think about sexuality today. What the differences are and how, what seems like simple things, affect those around them.