of levels, for Foucault, has been the driving force for commonly held beliefs and accepted sexual practices over the course of the modern era. The interplay between power and discourse is key to Foucaults vision of the influence power has in sexuality.
             Just as discourse can be traced to institutions as the source, so too can power, however the true nature of both discourse and power can only be appreciated if we speak in terms of the outwardly trivial exchanges that happen between individuals everyday. Foucault sees power not as a concentrated and institutionalized force, operable within clearly defined boundaries, but as a growing and interchangeable force which flows through, around, inside and beyond all relationships.
             We must immerse the expanding production of discourse on sex in the field of multiple and mobile power relations
             Discourse then is the method by which power asserts its influence, and just as each individual participates in discourse so too they participate in the power it exerts. This is not so say that institutional power does not apply influence to discourse, in fact the general implication that monogamous sexual relationships, and the institution of marriage, are productive and efficient in a capitalist production based economy, and the requirement for the monarchical state to propagate this 'norm', is implicit in the definition of sexuality in the modern era Foucault presents.
             Racevskis (90 – 102) illustrates the role that the sovereign plays in Foucaults power relations, institutions rather than being the source and central governance of power become a marginal influence, able to exert their will only by their appreciation of the wider requirements and ability to produce
             ...