Where the truth of ourselves is not to be found

Why have we constituted sexuality as the ‘natural’ ground of our identities?

Throughout history there has been many versions of what might constitute the essential nature of a person; for instance  

Aristotle’s homo civis,

Augustine’s homo sanctus,

Benjamin Franklin and Marx’s homo faber,

 Gradgrind’s homo economicus,

So why has the late 20th-century culture of narcissism embraced homo sexualis as its definition of human essence? Why, as Jeffrey Weeks asks, have sex and our gender identities become the central part of being, the privileged site in which the truth of ourselves is to be found.

The truth is more likely to be that there is no true essential self, no uncontestable agenda of true erotic needs to which we can make appeal to.

We have been subject to discourses
institutions of sexual regulation and On the other hand, in insisting that inherited discourse constitutes experience itself,
we individual  subjectivity have been subject  to plausible discourses in all spheres of moral life

We may believe it to be the case that we know our most inner core but scripts have been written for us we have not written our own lines, yet we can still realise that our daily life's are scripted.
We have been loud hailered by someone over there telling us, who are our essential selves.
These messages are our inherited discourse that constitute our experperiene itself. But to listern to these grey figures of the past is to deny our dynamism and out plasticity - we are not set, like some handprint on a Hollywood boulevard.


.