I wonder where Foucault's general thesis of 'Part One: We "Other Victorians" ' places him in the spectrum of the rupture v. extension debate in postmodernism:
His central claim seems to be that we have not experienced any sort of liberation from a previous Victorian repressive treatment of sexuality, but instead are still handling sexuality through a new phase of repression. Yes, we may speak more openly about sex, argues Foucault, but "then the mere fact that one is speaking about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression" (p. 6). Foucault speaks to the power of rehistorization - the ability to rearticulate historical treatments of sexuality as being inherently repressed. This seems to be the essence of the 'repressive hypothesis.'
So if we consider Foucault' mention of a 'third doubt' - "Was there really a historical rupture between the age of repression and the critical analysis of repression?" - along with this thesis of the non-end of the repressive presence, does Foucault then take up a Lyotardian position on the 'development' of postmodernity? Since he seems to be arguing against any break with the end of repression, would he be in accord with Lyotards assessment of postmodernity as the constitutive extension of modernity and pre-modernity?
(I might be misreading Foucault's sense of rupture - please let me know if I'm totally off the mark.)