What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of Sexuality #2
The History of Sexuality, Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure
In this sequel to The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, the brilliantly original French thinker who died in 1984 gives an analysis of how the ancient Greeks perceived sexuality.
Throughout The Uses of Pleasure Foucault analyzes an irresistible array of ancient Greek texts on eroticism as he tries to answer basic questions: How in the West did sexual experience become a moral issue? And why were other appetites of the body, such as hunger, and collective concerns, such as civic duty, not subjected to the numberless rules and regulations and judgments that have defined, if not confined, sexual behavior?
Throughout The Uses of Pleasure Foucault analyzes an irresistible array of ancient Greek texts on eroticism as he tries to answer basic questions: How in the West did sexual experience become a moral issue? And why were other appetites of the body, such as hunger, and collective concerns, such as civic duty, not subjected to the numberless rules and regulations and judgments that have defined, if not confined, sexual behavior?
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
326 people are currently reading
14490 people want to read
About the author
Michel Foucault
763 books6,467 followersPaul-Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, writer, political activist, and literary critic. Foucault's theories primarily address the relationships between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Though often cited as a structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels. His thought has influenced academics, especially those working in communication studies, anthropology, psychology, sociology, criminology, cultural studies, literary theory, feminism, Marxism and critical theory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 201 reviews
January 22, 2024
In Volume II of this work, Foucault discusses how sexual activity had unraveled by philosophers and doctors in classical Greek culture of the fourth century B. C. and the role of sex in the Greek and Roman periods.
"Now moral reflections in Greek or Greco-Roman Antiquity were much more oriented towards self-practices and the question of askesis than towards the codifications of conduct and the strict definition of what is permitted and forbidden. Suppose we accept the Republic and the Laws. In that case, we will find very few references to the principle of a code that would define in detail the conduct to be followed, to the need for an authority responsible for "monitoring its application, with the possibility of punishments which would sanction the offenses committed. Even if the need to respect the law and customs - the nomoi - had very often underlined, the important thing is less in the content of the law and its conditions of application than in the attitude that ensures that we respect them. The emphasis placed on the relationship with oneself, which allows one not to let oneself be carried away by appetites and pleasures, to keep vis-à-vis of their mastery and superiority, to maintain one's senses in a state of tranquility, to remain free from all interior slavery to the passions, and to attain a mode of being which can be defined by the full enjoyment of oneself or the perfect sovereignty of oneself over oneself."
"Now moral reflections in Greek or Greco-Roman Antiquity were much more oriented towards self-practices and the question of askesis than towards the codifications of conduct and the strict definition of what is permitted and forbidden. Suppose we accept the Republic and the Laws. In that case, we will find very few references to the principle of a code that would define in detail the conduct to be followed, to the need for an authority responsible for "monitoring its application, with the possibility of punishments which would sanction the offenses committed. Even if the need to respect the law and customs - the nomoi - had very often underlined, the important thing is less in the content of the law and its conditions of application than in the attitude that ensures that we respect them. The emphasis placed on the relationship with oneself, which allows one not to let oneself be carried away by appetites and pleasures, to keep vis-à-vis of their mastery and superiority, to maintain one's senses in a state of tranquility, to remain free from all interior slavery to the passions, and to attain a mode of being which can be defined by the full enjoyment of oneself or the perfect sovereignty of oneself over oneself."
July 28, 2021
Why am I subjecting myself to this, you ask? Well, I read the first volume so I thought might as well read the other two, my intentions were purely un-intellectual, I just wanted to flex about having read all three volumes of Foucault's History of Sexuality. Do I regret it? Not at all. The second book is even better than the first, more informative and highly amusing. Hilarious even.
In this volume Foucault examines Greek sexual practices and Greek attitudes, thoughts and taboos on sex, to get to the root of the problematization of sex. And this includes a lot of reading and analysis of early Greek writing on sex. And man, have they got some solid advice:
But the author restricts himself to brief generalities: first, no one should “make frequent and continual use of sexual intercourse”; the latter is more suitable for “cold, moist, atrabilious, and flatulent persons,” and least suitable for thin ones; there are periods in life when it is more harmful, as in the case of old people or for those who are “in the period that extends from childhood to adolescence.”
The Greeks or Romans had no notion of 'sexuality' as such, they did not link various loosely connected sexual practices under a single origin. Sexual virility was not connected to ideas of active/latent homosexuality or even with what modern society would consider 'effeminate, but rather with lack of moderation.
Sexual taboos were not clearly defined, instead a 'mastery of the self' was encountered and even idealized. The sexual act was not an object of moral disqualification for the Greeks, but Foucault writes that the texts reveal an anxiety about the violence of the act itself, about the obstacles it could potentially raise for a mastery of self-control.
Hence sexual activity was located within the broad parame ters of life and death, of time, becoming, and eternity. It became necessary because the individual was fated to die, and in order that he might in a sense escape death.
Within marriage, a wife was required to submit to the authority of her husband and therefore infidelity on her part was essentially forbidden. While the husband was not prevented from engaging in adultery by social norms (as long as the other participant was not another married woman,) he was encouraged to refrain from doing so, as a show of self-restraint. A cheating husband reflected poorly on the wife, because within the Greek society it implied that she was incapable of properly governing the household and satisfying her husband. And thus, Foucault writes that marriage relations were fundamentally asymmetric.
Most importantly, Foucault writes that our notion of homosexuality is plainly inadequate while referring to the set of experiences and forms of valuation that constituted same-sex relationships within ancient Greek culture. The Greeks did not view love for one's own sex and the other sex as opposites, as two exclusive choices.
In short, modern conservatives and liberals would be utterly confused and would probably pull their hair out in ancient Greece.
In this volume Foucault examines Greek sexual practices and Greek attitudes, thoughts and taboos on sex, to get to the root of the problematization of sex. And this includes a lot of reading and analysis of early Greek writing on sex. And man, have they got some solid advice:
But the author restricts himself to brief generalities: first, no one should “make frequent and continual use of sexual intercourse”; the latter is more suitable for “cold, moist, atrabilious, and flatulent persons,” and least suitable for thin ones; there are periods in life when it is more harmful, as in the case of old people or for those who are “in the period that extends from childhood to adolescence.”
The Greeks or Romans had no notion of 'sexuality' as such, they did not link various loosely connected sexual practices under a single origin. Sexual virility was not connected to ideas of active/latent homosexuality or even with what modern society would consider 'effeminate, but rather with lack of moderation.
Sexual taboos were not clearly defined, instead a 'mastery of the self' was encountered and even idealized. The sexual act was not an object of moral disqualification for the Greeks, but Foucault writes that the texts reveal an anxiety about the violence of the act itself, about the obstacles it could potentially raise for a mastery of self-control.
Hence sexual activity was located within the broad parame ters of life and death, of time, becoming, and eternity. It became necessary because the individual was fated to die, and in order that he might in a sense escape death.
Within marriage, a wife was required to submit to the authority of her husband and therefore infidelity on her part was essentially forbidden. While the husband was not prevented from engaging in adultery by social norms (as long as the other participant was not another married woman,) he was encouraged to refrain from doing so, as a show of self-restraint. A cheating husband reflected poorly on the wife, because within the Greek society it implied that she was incapable of properly governing the household and satisfying her husband. And thus, Foucault writes that marriage relations were fundamentally asymmetric.
Most importantly, Foucault writes that our notion of homosexuality is plainly inadequate while referring to the set of experiences and forms of valuation that constituted same-sex relationships within ancient Greek culture. The Greeks did not view love for one's own sex and the other sex as opposites, as two exclusive choices.
In short, modern conservatives and liberals would be utterly confused and would probably pull their hair out in ancient Greece.
December 4, 2012
تاريخ الجنسانية و احد من أكثر الكتب الفكرية التي استمتعت بقراءته. بالتأكيد يرجع الفضل في ذلك لجدارة الكاتب في طرح و تحليل هذا الموضوع بالإضافة لإهتمامي الشخصية في الموضوع كحالة إنسانية و فكرية.
يقدم هذا الجزء من مجموعة تاريخ الجنسانية المنظور اليوناني لها. حيث يوضح فوكو الفضاء الذي تعامل فيه اليونان (بصفتهم أجداد للثقافة الأوروبية و المسيحية المقبلة) معها، مؤكدا أنهم بالرغم من إقرارهم بالعلاقات المثلية بالإضافة للزواج الشرعي، فإنهم عاملوا الجنسانية كموضوع للمتعة و إنشغلوا بسبل أستعمالها الصحية و الضارة، و ليس بكونه موضع للرغبة المباحة أو المحرمة كما تتناوله ثقافتنا الحاضرة.
ينفتح الكتاب على مصرية لمسائلة مفهوم الجنسانية و استعمال المتع في الفكر أو المجتمع اليوناني. يصف الإحتراز و الإهتمام الذي لونه للموضوع بصورة تحررية نسبيا إذا ما قارناها مع مجتمعنا. فهم يأخذون الممارسة الجنسية كشكل طبيعي لإنجزاب الإنسان نحو كل فرد جميل، بغض النظر عن نوعه. من جهة أخرى معالجتهم له بصفتها جزء من إحتيياجاتهم اليومية بالإضافة للأكل و الشرب، و يعالجونه وفقا للحاجة و الضرورة مقدرين خطورة الإسراف في متعة ترطبت بشكل وثيق لتقدم مجتمعهم و بقائة.
ما أثر أنتباهي في هذا للكتاب كان؛ أولاً: دور المؤلف فقد كان يعرض بإتقان وجهة النظر الأثينية و يحتل مقعد خلفي رصين في كتابه، فلا يتدخل صوته إلا لتوضيح أو صياغة مسار الكتاب بطرح الأسئلة الصحيحة. ثانياً: كان في تكون الفكر اليوناني بحد ذاته، فهو فكر صفوة بجدارة، حيث يتحدث فيه أفلاطون عن مدينة فاضلة لمواطنين زكور بالدرجة الأولة و أحرار، فهم بذلك يخرص باقي الأصوات بكل بساطة بمن فيهم من أطفال و عبيد و شيوخ، و على رئسهم صوت المرأة التي تعامل كتبعية و ملكية بحت، حيث أن الفكر الأثيني يدو على دولاب السلطة السياسية و الإقتصادية المولاة لهذه الصفوة.ثالثاً؛ لوهلة بدت لي الأفكار اليونانية فيها الكثير من الإطناب المثالي عن "ما يجب أن يكون عليه" السلوك و الجنسي الذي تحول شيء فشيء بالنسبة لهم لمادة أخلاقية يقاس بها إعتدال و أهلية الفرد من بينهم. فنجد في فكرهم شيء من الغرور و السمو لكمال لا يمت بكثير من الصلة للأرض الواقع، الشيء الذي جعلني استذكر كتاب نيتشة (المأساة في العصر الإغريقي) حيث يؤكد أن الفلسفة قد ظهرة متممة و خاتمة لتلك الحضارة تسير نحو انهيارها وزوالها.
أخيرا، اود أن اقر بأن (استعمال المتع) قد اشبع فضولي، و يدفعني أكثر نحو الجزء الأخير لهذه المجموعة. لقد نجح بطرح أسئلة أزلية ببساطة متزنة بأستعانته بالإرث الأثيني فأعط كل سؤال وزنه و شكله الأولي. عندما بدات في كتابة هذه المراجعة لم تكون في نيتي تلخيص الكتاب، ففي نظري أن الكتاب بعينه هو ملخص لا يمكن الإستفادة منه سوى بقطع رحلة قراءته من الغلاف للغلاف، و بذلك وضعت انطباعاتي و أفكاري عنه، و انصح به لكل من رغب بقراءة عمل فكري مثير.
January 14, 2022
الجزء الثاني من تاريخ الجنسانية " استعمال اللذات" - في الجزء الأول " إرادة العرفان" اعتمد فوكو على فكرة تحليل التكوين التاريخي للسلطة والمعرفة المعروف باسم "الجنسانية"؛ "كتابة تاريخ الخطابات الحديثة حول الجنس وعمليات "موضعة الجنس" منذ القرن السابع عشر إلى حدود ظهور الجنسانية في القرن التاسع عشر."
…، يفترض من القارئ عند قراءة الكتاب ( الأجزاء الأربعة بشكل عام) أن يكون على معرفة كبيرة بالتاريخ الديني والعقيدة الكاثوليكية. ولكن ، في نهاية المطاف ، يوفر الكتاب فرصة للقراء لفهم لحظات التحول البطيئة وحالات النقل التي حددت تجربة الجنس في العالم الغربي بشكل أفضل ، والتي تلوح في الأفق إلى حد كبير في كتابات فوكو المتأخرة.
اهتم فوكو في هذا الجزء من الكتاب باستخدام المتعة/ اللذة، في ضوء الاكتشافات التي قام بها فيما يتعلق بالفكر اليوناني والروماني. وركز في تفكيره ونقده على الذات بمختلف تعبيراتها، واختباراتها وتجاربها، وبمختلف علاقاتها بالحقيقة .
…………………….
لماذا يكون السلوك الجنسي ولماذا يكون النشاطات واللّذات المرتبطة به مادةً لاهتمام أخلاقي؟ ولماذا ببدو هذا الهم الأخلاقي، على الأقل في بعض الأوقات، أو في بعض المجتمعات، أو لدى بعض الجماعات، أكثر أهميةً من الاهتمام الأخلاقي بالمجالات الأخرى رغم أهميتها الجوهرية في الحياة الفردية أو الجماعية، كما الحال بالنسبة للسلوكيات الغذائية أو إنجاز الواجبات المدنية؟
كيف ،ولماذا ، وبأية صيغة تشكل النشاط الجنسي كمجال أخلاقي؟ لماذا هذا الهم الأخلاقي اللجوج بشدة، رغم تنوع أشكاله وشدته بالضبط؟ ولماذا هذا الطابع الإشكاليّ ( الأشكلة)؟ وكيف وبأية صيغة أمكن للذة التي يحصل عليها الناس فيما بينهم أن تصبح مشكلة وموضع تساؤل؛ فكيف طرح المرء التساؤل حول نفسه بالذات، وما هي الأسئلة الاستثنائية التي أمكنه أن يطرحها وماهو الجدل الذي وقع عليه؛ لماذا بالفعل بينما كانت تلك الممارسة منتشرة، وأن القوانين لم تكن تدينها أبداً، وأن القبول بها كان بصفة عامة موضع اعتراف، أصبحت موضوع انشغال أخلاقي فريد، ومكثف بصورة فريدة ، حتى أنه وجد نفسه محاطاً بقيم، وأوامر، ومتطلبات، وقواعد، ونصائح، وتحفيزات، هي في الوقت نفسه عديدة، وملحّة وفريدة.
شكل هذا الموضوع أهمية كبيرة لدى الحضارات الإغريقية والإغريقو- لاتينية. حيث كان لها كيانها، وقواعدها( مراعاة الحمية الصحية، مراعاة إدارة شؤون البيت والأهل، تطبيق المغازلة الغرامية.)
وطرح العديد من الفلاسفة والمؤرخين الإغريقيين أطروحات حولها من مثل أفلاطون، وأرسطو، إكزينوفون، وبلوتارك.
تناول فوكو الموضوع بقراءة أركولوجية متصفحاً للتاريخ من العصر الحديث، وصولاً إلى التاريخ القديم بما يحدد هيكلية التجربة الأخلاقية في اللذات الجنسية؛ أنطولوجيتها، وتقشفها. "هي حقلا كاملاً للتأريخ المعقد والغني بصدد الطريقة التي يتم من خلالها مطالبة الفرد التعرف على نفسه كذاتٍ أخلاقية يقف وراء سلوكها الجنسي. ويصبح المطلوب بالتالي أن نعرف كيف تمت قولبة الذات وتغيرها، انطلاقًا من الفكر الإغريقي الكلاسيكي وصولاً إلى تشكيل العقيدة المسيحية ورعويتها حول اللحم."
وبتحديد السمات العامة المميزة للطريقة التي وضع بها السلوك الجنسي على بساط التدبر من طرف الفكر الإغريقي الكلاسيكي كميدان اعتبارات واختيارات أخلاقية. منطلقاً من عدد من الأفكار من مثل : الأفكار الأولية الرائجة عن "استعمال الملّذات"- لاستخراج أنماط التذويت التي تستند إليها تلك الفكرة: الجوهر الأخلاقي، نماذج الإخضاع، أشكال بلورة الذات والغائية الأخلاقية. واشتغل بالدرس: بالطريقة التي بلور من خلالها التفكير الطبي والفلسفي " استعمال اللذات" وكيف شكل بعض أفكار التقشف التي سوف تكون لها تداعيات على أربعة محاور كبرى في التجربة : العلاقة مع الجسد، العلاقة مع الزوجة، العلاقة مع الغلمان، العلاقة مع الحقيقة. باحثاً عن مناطق التجربة التي انطلق منها السلوك الجنسي ليتحول إلى إشكالية ، بحيث أصبح موضوعاً يشغل البال، ومادة للتأمل في ميدان ممارسة اللذات. ولماذا أصبح التداخل الجنسي في إطار هذه العلاقات موضوعاً يثير القلق، والجدال، والتأمل؟ وكيف كان للسلوك الجنسي، بمقدار ما اشتمل عليه من تلك الأنماط في العلاقات، أن يصبح
موضوع تأمل كميدان للتجربة الأخلاقية؟
مع التساؤل في أشكال العلاقة مع الذات ( وممارسات الذات المرتبط بها)؛ كيف أمكن القيام بتحديدها، وتعديلها، وإعادة بلورتها، وتأمين تشعباتها.
من المواضيع التي تم البحث بها في المادة:
أفروديزيا: الأفروديزيات أفعال، حركات، ملامسات، تحقق شكلاً ما من أشكال اللذة. وعليه فإن التجربة الأخلاقية في الأفروديزيات مختلفة اختلافاً جذرياً عما سوف تكون عليه التجربة الأخلاقية حول خطيئة اللحم. يوضح فوكو في هذا الجزء السمات الأساسية للتجربة الأخلاقية في الأفروديزيات .
حب الغلمان الذي كان القرن الخامس قبل الميلاد يوليه الاهتمام. ( مسألة المثلية الجنسية. ) "إن مأدبة إكزينفون تبين تماماً بأن تنوع الاختيار بين الفتاة والغلام لا يستند أبداً إلى التمييز بين ميلين أو التعارض بين صيغتين للشهوة."
….،"لم يكن انشغال الاغريق متعلقاً بالشهوة التي يمكن أن تدفع نحو مثل تلك العلاقة ولا بالشخص الذي توجه نحوه تلك الشهوة؛ بل كان قلقهم منصباً على موضوع اللذة، أو بدقةٍ أكبر على ذلك الموضوع بمقدار ما هو مؤهل كي يصبح بدوره السيد في اللذة التي يتم الحصول عليها من الآخرين وفي السلطة التي يمارسها المرء على نفسه بالذات. عند هذه النقطة من الإشكالية ( كيفية جعل موضوع اللذة شخصاً يتحول إلى سيد لذاته.) "
التأملات الفلسفية والأخلاقية بخصوص الحب الذكوري.
الغلمية الفلسفية، أو في جميع الأحوال التأمل السقراطو- أفلاطوتي بصدد الحب.
التركيز الأساسي لهذا الكتاب هو طبيعة الأخلاق كما تصورها فوكو ، وقد تم تفكيكها من خلال مناقشته الدراسات التاريخية المنشورة عن الأخلاق في الحضارات الإغريقية والإغريقو- لاتينية
(اليونانية والرومانية القديمة. ) - يتناول الكتاب معالجته للأمر الأخلاقي القديم المتمثل في رعاية الذات والارتباط الحميمي ( هو يتعلق بالطريقة التي راح التفكير الأخلاقي يحدد علاقة الشخص بنشاطه الجنسي.)، وبصفة عامة الأخلاق في فلسفته النقدية.
…، يفترض من القارئ عند قراءة الكتاب ( الأجزاء الأربعة بشكل عام) أن يكون على معرفة كبيرة بالتاريخ الديني والعقيدة الكاثوليكية. ولكن ، في نهاية المطاف ، يوفر الكتاب فرصة للقراء لفهم لحظات التحول البطيئة وحالات النقل التي حددت تجربة الجنس في العالم الغربي بشكل أفضل ، والتي تلوح في الأفق إلى حد كبير في كتابات فوكو المتأخرة.
اهتم فوكو في هذا الجزء من الكتاب باستخدام المتعة/ اللذة، في ضوء الاكتشافات التي قام بها فيما يتعلق بالفكر اليوناني والروماني. وركز في تفكيره ونقده على الذات بمختلف تعبيراتها، واختباراتها وتجاربها، وبمختلف علاقاتها بالحقيقة .
…………………….
لماذا يكون السلوك الجنسي ولماذا يكون النشاطات واللّذات المرتبطة به مادةً لاهتمام أخلاقي؟ ولماذا ببدو هذا الهم الأخلاقي، على الأقل في بعض الأوقات، أو في بعض المجتمعات، أو لدى بعض الجماعات، أكثر أهميةً من الاهتمام الأخلاقي بالمجالات الأخرى رغم أهميتها الجوهرية في الحياة الفردية أو الجماعية، كما الحال بالنسبة للسلوكيات الغذائية أو إنجاز الواجبات المدنية؟
كيف ،ولماذا ، وبأية صيغة تشكل النشاط الجنسي كمجال أخلاقي؟ لماذا هذا الهم الأخلاقي اللجوج بشدة، رغم تنوع أشكاله وشدته بالضبط؟ ولماذا هذا الطابع الإشكاليّ ( الأشكلة)؟ وكيف وبأية صيغة أمكن للذة التي يحصل عليها الناس فيما بينهم أن تصبح مشكلة وموضع تساؤل؛ فكيف طرح المرء التساؤل حول نفسه بالذات، وما هي الأسئلة الاستثنائية التي أمكنه أن يطرحها وماهو الجدل الذي وقع عليه؛ لماذا بالفعل بينما كانت تلك الممارسة منتشرة، وأن القوانين لم تكن تدينها أبداً، وأن القبول بها كان بصفة عامة موضع اعتراف، أصبحت موضوع انشغال أخلاقي فريد، ومكثف بصورة فريدة ، حتى أنه وجد نفسه محاطاً بقيم، وأوامر، ومتطلبات، وقواعد، ونصائح، وتحفيزات، هي في الوقت نفسه عديدة، وملحّة وفريدة.
شكل هذا الموضوع أهمية كبيرة لدى الحضارات الإغريقية والإغريقو- لاتينية. حيث كان لها كيانها، وقواعدها( مراعاة الحمية الصحية، مراعاة إدارة شؤون البيت والأهل، تطبيق المغازلة الغرامية.)
وطرح العديد من الفلاسفة والمؤرخين الإغريقيين أطروحات حولها من مثل أفلاطون، وأرسطو، إكزينوفون، وبلوتارك.
تناول فوكو الموضوع بقراءة أركولوجية متصفحاً للتاريخ من العصر الحديث، وصولاً إلى التاريخ القديم بما يحدد هيكلية التجربة الأخلاقية في اللذات الجنسية؛ أنطولوجيتها، وتقشفها. "هي حقلا كاملاً للتأريخ المعقد والغني بصدد الطريقة التي يتم من خلالها مطالبة الفرد التعرف على نفسه كذاتٍ أخلاقية يقف وراء سلوكها الجنسي. ويصبح المطلوب بالتالي أن نعرف كيف تمت قولبة الذات وتغيرها، انطلاقًا من الفكر الإغريقي الكلاسيكي وصولاً إلى تشكيل العقيدة المسيحية ورعويتها حول اللحم."
وبتحديد السمات العامة المميزة للطريقة التي وضع بها السلوك الجنسي على بساط التدبر من طرف الفكر الإغريقي الكلاسيكي كميدان اعتبارات واختيارات أخلاقية. منطلقاً من عدد من الأفكار من مثل : الأفكار الأولية الرائجة عن "استعمال الملّذات"- لاستخراج أنماط التذويت التي تستند إليها تلك الفكرة: الجوهر الأخلاقي، نماذج الإخضاع، أشكال بلورة الذات والغائية الأخلاقية. واشتغل بالدرس: بالطريقة التي بلور من خلالها التفكير الطبي والفلسفي " استعمال اللذات" وكيف شكل بعض أفكار التقشف التي سوف تكون لها تداعيات على أربعة محاور كبرى في التجربة : العلاقة مع الجسد، العلاقة مع الزوجة، العلاقة مع الغلمان، العلاقة مع الحقيقة. باحثاً عن مناطق التجربة التي انطلق منها السلوك الجنسي ليتحول إلى إشكالية ، بحيث أصبح موضوعاً يشغل البال، ومادة للتأمل في ميدان ممارسة اللذات. ولماذا أصبح التداخل الجنسي في إطار هذه العلاقات موضوعاً يثير القلق، والجدال، والتأمل؟ وكيف كان للسلوك الجنسي، بمقدار ما اشتمل عليه من تلك الأنماط في العلاقات، أن يصبح
موضوع تأمل كميدان للتجربة الأخلاقية؟
مع التساؤل في أشكال العلاقة مع الذات ( وممارسات الذات المرتبط بها)؛ كيف أمكن القيام بتحديدها، وتعديلها، وإعادة بلورتها، وتأمين تشعباتها.
من المواضيع التي تم البحث بها في المادة:
أفروديزيا: الأفروديزيات أفعال، حركات، ملامسات، تحقق شكلاً ما من أشكال اللذة. وعليه فإن التجربة الأخلاقية في الأفروديزيات مختلفة اختلافاً جذرياً عما سوف تكون عليه التجربة الأخلاقية حول خطيئة اللحم. يوضح فوكو في هذا الجزء السمات الأساسية للتجربة الأخلاقية في الأفروديزيات .
حب الغلمان الذي كان القرن الخامس قبل الميلاد يوليه الاهتمام. ( مسألة المثلية الجنسية. ) "إن مأدبة إكزينفون تبين تماماً بأن تنوع الاختيار بين الفتاة والغلام لا يستند أبداً إلى التمييز بين ميلين أو التعارض بين صيغتين للشهوة."
….،"لم يكن انشغال الاغريق متعلقاً بالشهوة التي يمكن أن تدفع نحو مثل تلك العلاقة ولا بالشخص الذي توجه نحوه تلك الشهوة؛ بل كان قلقهم منصباً على موضوع اللذة، أو بدقةٍ أكبر على ذلك الموضوع بمقدار ما هو مؤهل كي يصبح بدوره السيد في اللذة التي يتم الحصول عليها من الآخرين وفي السلطة التي يمارسها المرء على نفسه بالذات. عند هذه النقطة من الإشكالية ( كيفية جعل موضوع اللذة شخصاً يتحول إلى سيد لذاته.) "
التأملات الفلسفية والأخلاقية بخصوص الحب الذكوري.
الغلمية الفلسفية، أو في جميع الأحوال التأمل السقراطو- أفلاطوتي بصدد الحب.
التركيز الأساسي لهذا الكتاب هو طبيعة الأخلاق كما تصورها فوكو ، وقد تم تفكيكها من خلال مناقشته الدراسات التاريخية المنشورة عن الأخلاق في الحضارات الإغريقية والإغريقو- لاتينية
(اليونانية والرومانية القديمة. ) - يتناول الكتاب معالجته للأمر الأخلاقي القديم المتمثل في رعاية الذات والارتباط الحميمي ( هو يتعلق بالطريقة التي راح التفكير الأخلاقي يحدد علاقة الشخص بنشاطه الجنسي.)، وبصفة عامة الأخلاق في فلسفته النقدية.
October 28, 2020
The purpose here is “not to write a history of sexual behaviors and practices,” nor “analyze the scientific, religious, or philosophical ideas” related to them,” but rather to examine “that quite recent and banal notion of ‘sexuality’: to stand detached from it, bracket its familiarity, in order to analyze the theoretical and practical context with which it has been associated” (3). So, a husserlian reduction of sexuality into its archaeological context.
Recognizing that purported ‘individuals’ “decipher, recognize, and acknowledge themselves as subjects of desire,” Foucault therefore wants to develop a “hermeneutics of desire” (5). The ultimate object of the inquiry here is the subtitle, ‘the use of pleasure,’ more specifically in its ancient formula, the chresis aphrodision, with attention to how it entered “a domain of moral valuation and choice” as well as how it situates within “modes of subjectivation” such as “the ethical substance, the types of subjection, the forms of elaboration of self, and the moral teleology”—which will summon the details of “themes of austerity” regarding “the relation to one’s body, the relation to one’s wife, the relation to boys, and the relation to truth” (32).
Just to set the tone, Foucault observes the ancient complexity of disentangling sex and gender from sexuality, sexual orientation, and gender identity:
The aphrodisia for the Greeks equates to the Roman venerea--our “'pleasures of love,’ ‘sexual relations,’ ‘carnal acts,’ ‘sensual pleasures’—one renders the term as best one can, but the difference between the notional sets, theirs and ours, makes it hard to translate”—noting of course that Foucault writes in French (35). The ancients considered that the intensity of the aphrodisia compelled discipline: “people were induced to overturn the hierarchy, placing these appetites and their satisfaction uppermost, and giving them absolute power over the soul” (49), perhaps what Dante identifies as those condemned for ‘subjugating reason to appetite,’ which is expressly politicized by the Athenians as “the tendency to rebellion and riotousness was the ‘stasiastic’ potential of the sexual appetite” (id.)—we must recall in Agamben’s Stasis that the ancient rules for civil war (i.e., stasis) was the mandatory nature of participation therein for all members of the polis as well as the subsequent amnesia/amnestia.
Two key concepts are enkrateia, self-mastery, and sophrosyne, moderation. These are usefully contrasted with two defects, respectively akrasia (incontinent) and akolasia (immoderate) (64 ff); whereas the latter fails to see a vice as an affirmative evil and abandons the self to enjoying it, the former realizes that a particular aphrodisiac course is unprincipled, a bad idea, and in actively attempting to avoid it, succumbs nevertheless. If it sounds as though this line of thinking develops a “polemical attitude toward oneself,” it is entirely because the ancient mind sought to avoid the reduction of the self to “slavery” to excess (66). Sometimes this recommended an “extirpation” of desire (69) (as in Plato’s Laws), whereas at others it is more rigorously developed as epimeleia heautou, the ‘care of the self’ (volume III’s subtitle) (73)—a condition of possibility for a person to enter into politics—and it is a regimen: in Plato’s Republic, desire is always already “apt to invade the soul” (74).
Plenty plenty more. The meaning of Greek diaite (regimen) (100 ff). Differential practices in marriage (145 et seq.). The relation of eros to other affects (190 ff). The significance of ephebophilia (230 ff). Overall this is a departure from the plan laid out in volume I, with no attention, that I can see, directly on the notion of a scientia sexualis as distinguished from the ars amatoria. Citations range all across classical Greek sources, with much attention to Plato and Aristotle—it is very serious. Readers of Agamben will see connections everywhere, as this is a mine for an inchoate discipline of biopolitical management.
Recommended for all philolagnoi.
Recognizing that purported ‘individuals’ “decipher, recognize, and acknowledge themselves as subjects of desire,” Foucault therefore wants to develop a “hermeneutics of desire” (5). The ultimate object of the inquiry here is the subtitle, ‘the use of pleasure,’ more specifically in its ancient formula, the chresis aphrodision, with attention to how it entered “a domain of moral valuation and choice” as well as how it situates within “modes of subjectivation” such as “the ethical substance, the types of subjection, the forms of elaboration of self, and the moral teleology”—which will summon the details of “themes of austerity” regarding “the relation to one’s body, the relation to one’s wife, the relation to boys, and the relation to truth” (32).
Just to set the tone, Foucault observes the ancient complexity of disentangling sex and gender from sexuality, sexual orientation, and gender identity:
Socrates’ first speech in the Phaedrus alludes to it, when he voices disapproval of the love that is given to soft boys, too delicate to be exposed to the sun as they are growing up, and all made up with rouge and decked out in ornaments. And it is with these same traits that Agathon appears in the Thesmophoriazusae: pale complexion, smooth-shaven cheeks, woman’s voice, so much so that his interlocutor wonders if he is in the presence of a man or a woman. It would be completely incorrect to interpret this as a condemnation of love of boys, or of what we generally refer to as homosexual relations; but at the same time, one cannot fail to see in it the effect of strongly negative judgments concerning some possible aspects of relations between men, as well as definite aversion to anything that might denote a deliberate renunciation of the signs and privileges of the masculine role. (19)Another axis of analysis here is the notion of self-discipline, wherein “extreme virtue was the visible mark of the mastery they brought to bear on themselves and hence of the power they were worthy of exercising over others” (20). Indeed, the distinction between “a virile man and an effeminate man did not coincide with our opposition between hetero- and homosexuality” (85), but rather in whether “one who yielded to the pleasures that enticed him: he was under the power of his own appetites and those of others” (id.).
The aphrodisia for the Greeks equates to the Roman venerea--our “'pleasures of love,’ ‘sexual relations,’ ‘carnal acts,’ ‘sensual pleasures’—one renders the term as best one can, but the difference between the notional sets, theirs and ours, makes it hard to translate”—noting of course that Foucault writes in French (35). The ancients considered that the intensity of the aphrodisia compelled discipline: “people were induced to overturn the hierarchy, placing these appetites and their satisfaction uppermost, and giving them absolute power over the soul” (49), perhaps what Dante identifies as those condemned for ‘subjugating reason to appetite,’ which is expressly politicized by the Athenians as “the tendency to rebellion and riotousness was the ‘stasiastic’ potential of the sexual appetite” (id.)—we must recall in Agamben’s Stasis that the ancient rules for civil war (i.e., stasis) was the mandatory nature of participation therein for all members of the polis as well as the subsequent amnesia/amnestia.
Two key concepts are enkrateia, self-mastery, and sophrosyne, moderation. These are usefully contrasted with two defects, respectively akrasia (incontinent) and akolasia (immoderate) (64 ff); whereas the latter fails to see a vice as an affirmative evil and abandons the self to enjoying it, the former realizes that a particular aphrodisiac course is unprincipled, a bad idea, and in actively attempting to avoid it, succumbs nevertheless. If it sounds as though this line of thinking develops a “polemical attitude toward oneself,” it is entirely because the ancient mind sought to avoid the reduction of the self to “slavery” to excess (66). Sometimes this recommended an “extirpation” of desire (69) (as in Plato’s Laws), whereas at others it is more rigorously developed as epimeleia heautou, the ‘care of the self’ (volume III’s subtitle) (73)—a condition of possibility for a person to enter into politics—and it is a regimen: in Plato’s Republic, desire is always already “apt to invade the soul” (74).
Plenty plenty more. The meaning of Greek diaite (regimen) (100 ff). Differential practices in marriage (145 et seq.). The relation of eros to other affects (190 ff). The significance of ephebophilia (230 ff). Overall this is a departure from the plan laid out in volume I, with no attention, that I can see, directly on the notion of a scientia sexualis as distinguished from the ars amatoria. Citations range all across classical Greek sources, with much attention to Plato and Aristotle—it is very serious. Readers of Agamben will see connections everywhere, as this is a mine for an inchoate discipline of biopolitical management.
Recommended for all philolagnoi.
March 21, 2013
Has some important insights, but Foucault's over-reliance on Attic prose substantially weakens his arguments - note that he doesn't even mention Sappho! And he quotes from the tragedians maybe twice? There are many classicists of the past few decades who have done much better work on ancient Greek sexuality. Foucault is more interested in making a point about the world that he lived in than in actually understanding the way the Greeks lived.
November 3, 2019
Volumul 2 al "Istoriei sexualitatii" se lasa mult mai usor citit decat primul. Sau m-am obisnuit eu cu stilul usor intortocheat al lui Foucault.
Volumul 2 ne poarta in Grecia antica si prin intermediul diversilor filozofi citati si comentati de Foucault (Aristotel, Platon, Xenophon, Pitagora, Socrate indirect) aflam cum percepeau grecii de atunci ideea de sexualitate:
1. lucrurile sunt mult mai complicate decat par
2. interdictiilor si codice-lor crestine li se opune o aplecare mai mult morala, a reflectie asupra ideei de dorinta, act, pasiune. De fapt cele trei aunt strans legate intre ele:pasiunea care duce la dorinta care duce la act care duce la pasiune (si aici au gresit ulteriorii cand s-au apucat sa desparta aceste trei elemente care functioneaza ca un continuum).
3. utilizarea placerii ("the use of pleasure") este guvernata de . De fapt moderatia este elementul cheie. Moderatia, controlul pasiunii, controlul placerii, abstinenta in anumite situatii sunt elemente de baza ale unui "barbat", elemente de baza in devenirea de "barbat"/"conducator".
4. Placerea implica doua persoane: partea activa (barbatul) si partea pasiva (femeia). De aceea dragostea pentru baietii tineri, foarte la moda pe atunci, este extrem de greu de explicat, atat pentru Foucault, cat si pentru grecii antici: daca la relatia barbat-femeie lucrurile sunt clare, cand barbatul se indragosteste de un tanar, lucrurile se complica: barbatul in varsta ramane partea activa (caci se pare ca nici nu se concepea sa fie parte pasiva) iar tanarul nu prea e clar ce este: de pe o parte prostitutia masculina este condamnata si de ex Aristofan face misto de tinerii efeminati, pasivi; pe de alta parte tanaru de azi este barbatul liber de maine in cele mai multe cazuri, ceea ce intra in contradictie cu pasivitatea. Intr-un final se pare ca importanta este relatia sufletelor (Platon - eroticul platonic) decat relatia corpurilor. OK, in teorie. Si de fapt important este ca tanarul sa invete de la maestrul mai batran lucruri initiatice care il vor face si pe acesta un bun barbat si conducator de familie. Adica relatia sa evolueze spre prietenie (philios). Caci chestia fizica oricum se pare ca isi pierdea din efect odata cu "imbatranirea" adolescentului - primul ras coincidea cu intrarea in randul barbatilor ceea ce ducea oarecum la incheierea relatiei cu barbatul mai in varsta (sac!).
5. Virilitatea nu are neaparat legatura cu partea activa. Virilitatea era de fapt capacitatea de renuntare, de moderatie, de abstinenta uneori. Exista si virilitatea feminina, care insemna oarecum acelasi lucru: demnitate in cadrul familiei.
6. Familia, relatia dintre barbat si femeie este clara: barbatul este conducatorul, se ocupa de exterior (aduce banul) iar femeia se lasa "condusa", se ocupa de buna functionare a casei, a interiorului. Avand in vedere ca toata scriitura filozofica este scrisa doar de barbati, ce gandeau femeile este aproape inexistent. Xenophon descrie un dialog in care el discuta cu "sotia" lui, dar isi da replici lui insusi.
O carte extrem de interesanta.
Volumul 2 ne poarta in Grecia antica si prin intermediul diversilor filozofi citati si comentati de Foucault (Aristotel, Platon, Xenophon, Pitagora, Socrate indirect) aflam cum percepeau grecii de atunci ideea de sexualitate:
1. lucrurile sunt mult mai complicate decat par
2. interdictiilor si codice-lor crestine li se opune o aplecare mai mult morala, a reflectie asupra ideei de dorinta, act, pasiune. De fapt cele trei aunt strans legate intre ele:pasiunea care duce la dorinta care duce la act care duce la pasiune (si aici au gresit ulteriorii cand s-au apucat sa desparta aceste trei elemente care functioneaza ca un continuum).
3. utilizarea placerii ("the use of pleasure") este guvernata de . De fapt moderatia este elementul cheie. Moderatia, controlul pasiunii, controlul placerii, abstinenta in anumite situatii sunt elemente de baza ale unui "barbat", elemente de baza in devenirea de "barbat"/"conducator".
4. Placerea implica doua persoane: partea activa (barbatul) si partea pasiva (femeia). De aceea dragostea pentru baietii tineri, foarte la moda pe atunci, este extrem de greu de explicat, atat pentru Foucault, cat si pentru grecii antici: daca la relatia barbat-femeie lucrurile sunt clare, cand barbatul se indragosteste de un tanar, lucrurile se complica: barbatul in varsta ramane partea activa (caci se pare ca nici nu se concepea sa fie parte pasiva) iar tanarul nu prea e clar ce este: de pe o parte prostitutia masculina este condamnata si de ex Aristofan face misto de tinerii efeminati, pasivi; pe de alta parte tanaru de azi este barbatul liber de maine in cele mai multe cazuri, ceea ce intra in contradictie cu pasivitatea. Intr-un final se pare ca importanta este relatia sufletelor (Platon - eroticul platonic) decat relatia corpurilor. OK, in teorie. Si de fapt important este ca tanarul sa invete de la maestrul mai batran lucruri initiatice care il vor face si pe acesta un bun barbat si conducator de familie. Adica relatia sa evolueze spre prietenie (philios). Caci chestia fizica oricum se pare ca isi pierdea din efect odata cu "imbatranirea" adolescentului - primul ras coincidea cu intrarea in randul barbatilor ceea ce ducea oarecum la incheierea relatiei cu barbatul mai in varsta (sac!).
5. Virilitatea nu are neaparat legatura cu partea activa. Virilitatea era de fapt capacitatea de renuntare, de moderatie, de abstinenta uneori. Exista si virilitatea feminina, care insemna oarecum acelasi lucru: demnitate in cadrul familiei.
6. Familia, relatia dintre barbat si femeie este clara: barbatul este conducatorul, se ocupa de exterior (aduce banul) iar femeia se lasa "condusa", se ocupa de buna functionare a casei, a interiorului. Avand in vedere ca toata scriitura filozofica este scrisa doar de barbati, ce gandeau femeile este aproape inexistent. Xenophon descrie un dialog in care el discuta cu "sotia" lui, dar isi da replici lui insusi.
O carte extrem de interesanta.
October 6, 2008
Foucault's continuation of his impressive History of Human Sexuality looks into the sexual mores and practices of the Ancient Greeks, and attempts to understand the development of sexuality as a moral problematic. Contrary to the conventional wisdom which posits a complete epistemic reversal from the Hellenic world to the Christian world, Foucault poses a more complex network of interconnections between the two paradigms, which lie in a valuation of asceticism. Although The Use of Pleasure is only a small piece of a very large story, it is an interesting development in the hermeneutics of sexuality.
May 23, 2016
O capítulo um, Problematização Moral dos Prazeres, com aphrodisia se refere a moral sexual da Grécia antiga, assim como chresis trata do uso dos prazeres propriamente dito, ou seja, o grau de temperança mantido, enquanto enkratheia trata do autodominio necessário para atingir a mesma e liberdade e verdade trata do homem viril que se coloca em posição ativa de temperança em oposição a passividade pelos desejos da intempérie.
No capítulo dois, Dietética, na parte intitulada Do Regime em Geral, Foucault aborda o tema do regime como intrínseco ao saber médico. A Dieta dos Prazeres trata das regulações cronológicas para as atividades sexuais na Grécia antiga. Riscos e Perigos trata sobre o lado negativo dos excessos sexuais, enquanto O Ato, O Dispêndio, A Morte demonstra o quanto os gregos não sabiam nada sobre a sexualidade, com especial ênfase na sexualidade feminina.
No capítulo três, Econômica, na parte A Sabedoria do Casamento, Foucault trata da moral que exigia a fidelidade da esposa, enquanto o marido poderia ter as concumbinas (destinadas as amenidades do dia-a-dia a dois) e cortesãs (destinadas exclusivamente ao prazer sexual) para além das esposas oficiais (destinadas a oferecerem uma descendência legítima). A casa de Isômaco trata dos deveres femininos na casa, ou ainda os alicerces intelectuais do patriarcado. Três políticas de temperança trata de tanto homem quanto a mulher eram pautados na política da temperança, a mulher de uma forma que ficasse submissa e o homem numa posição de dominação.
No capítulo quatro, Erotica, na parte Uma Relação Problemática Foucault delineia os trâmites das relações homossexuais na Grécia antiga, de como não havia nenhum problema moral em relacionar-se com adolescentes, ao mesmo tempo em que estes crescidos deviam naturalmente deixar a sua passividade de lado. A Honra de um Rapaz esmiuça o quanto era mal vista a passividade e promiscuidade homossexual na Grécia antiga. O Objeto de Prazer traz o interdito da prostituição masculina e de como se era praticamente proibido sentir prazer numa relação homossexual passiva.
No capítulo cinco, Verdadeiro Amor, trata sobre o Eros platônico muito mais próximo de uma Philia do que o Eros clássico.
No capítulo dois, Dietética, na parte intitulada Do Regime em Geral, Foucault aborda o tema do regime como intrínseco ao saber médico. A Dieta dos Prazeres trata das regulações cronológicas para as atividades sexuais na Grécia antiga. Riscos e Perigos trata sobre o lado negativo dos excessos sexuais, enquanto O Ato, O Dispêndio, A Morte demonstra o quanto os gregos não sabiam nada sobre a sexualidade, com especial ênfase na sexualidade feminina.
No capítulo três, Econômica, na parte A Sabedoria do Casamento, Foucault trata da moral que exigia a fidelidade da esposa, enquanto o marido poderia ter as concumbinas (destinadas as amenidades do dia-a-dia a dois) e cortesãs (destinadas exclusivamente ao prazer sexual) para além das esposas oficiais (destinadas a oferecerem uma descendência legítima). A casa de Isômaco trata dos deveres femininos na casa, ou ainda os alicerces intelectuais do patriarcado. Três políticas de temperança trata de tanto homem quanto a mulher eram pautados na política da temperança, a mulher de uma forma que ficasse submissa e o homem numa posição de dominação.
No capítulo quatro, Erotica, na parte Uma Relação Problemática Foucault delineia os trâmites das relações homossexuais na Grécia antiga, de como não havia nenhum problema moral em relacionar-se com adolescentes, ao mesmo tempo em que estes crescidos deviam naturalmente deixar a sua passividade de lado. A Honra de um Rapaz esmiuça o quanto era mal vista a passividade e promiscuidade homossexual na Grécia antiga. O Objeto de Prazer traz o interdito da prostituição masculina e de como se era praticamente proibido sentir prazer numa relação homossexual passiva.
No capítulo cinco, Verdadeiro Amor, trata sobre o Eros platônico muito mais próximo de uma Philia do que o Eros clássico.
August 30, 2013
First I should note that I am not really concerned with the accuracy of Foucault's interpretations of ancient Greek texts or even with sexuality as a topic of study. I'm not a Classicist so I can't comment on the empirical validity of the work. However, I am interested in understanding the truly original aspects of his work, mainly his theory of power, subjectivity, and the concept of discourse. In The History of Sexuality 1: An Introduction Foucault provides us with a sketch of his notion of power. In fact, Vol I pages 92-95 contains probably the most straightforward definition of his notoriously "slippery" conception of power that I have read. Foucault's notions of subjectivity, and particularly "discourse" are even more troublesome in this regard. However, in Vol. II Foucault defines by way of demonstration. After reading Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison along with these works on sexuality, one gets a better sense of how his primary theoretical interest in power, discourse, and subjectivity work together and form an integrated whole. We can clearly see this in Vol. 2.
Foucault starts Vol. 2 by laying out the "correlation between fields of knowledge, types of normativity, and forms of subjectivity" regarding sexuality in ancient Greek culture (p. 4). Subjectivity is the way in which an individual recognizes the form of power that he has (in this case it is always "he'). Discourses on sexuality and the control of the self provide forms of knowledge that enable the subject to perfect and reproduce his position within an "agonistic" social field. These discourses are instantiated in practice on the self-as-object-of-self in physical regimens ("dietetics") and on others as objects in the management of affairs ("economics"). The relations between free men and women or slaves are less a subject of discourse because the relationships here are assumed to be common knowledge and in little need of moral problematization. This discursive silence with respect to women and slaves speaks volumes (in Foucault's view at least) about their relations with free men. This is a key point, discourse, while a key component of power and part of its reproduction, is also a mechanism of change and transformation. This is why Foucault beings with the moral problematization of sexuality as his first chapter in the volume, it is the beginning of a discourse on sexuality in ancient Greek society. This is also why Foucault sees the increasing volume and diversity of discourse on sexuality in the 19th century as potentially liberating rather than necessarily repressive.
This book (read along with Vol. 1) is probably the clearest example of Foucault's entire analytical apparatus in motion. His entire "genealogical period" starting with Discipline and Punish should be read since Foucault assembles many ships that seem weak on their own but form an armada when combined with others.
Foucault starts Vol. 2 by laying out the "correlation between fields of knowledge, types of normativity, and forms of subjectivity" regarding sexuality in ancient Greek culture (p. 4). Subjectivity is the way in which an individual recognizes the form of power that he has (in this case it is always "he'). Discourses on sexuality and the control of the self provide forms of knowledge that enable the subject to perfect and reproduce his position within an "agonistic" social field. These discourses are instantiated in practice on the self-as-object-of-self in physical regimens ("dietetics") and on others as objects in the management of affairs ("economics"). The relations between free men and women or slaves are less a subject of discourse because the relationships here are assumed to be common knowledge and in little need of moral problematization. This discursive silence with respect to women and slaves speaks volumes (in Foucault's view at least) about their relations with free men. This is a key point, discourse, while a key component of power and part of its reproduction, is also a mechanism of change and transformation. This is why Foucault beings with the moral problematization of sexuality as his first chapter in the volume, it is the beginning of a discourse on sexuality in ancient Greek society. This is also why Foucault sees the increasing volume and diversity of discourse on sexuality in the 19th century as potentially liberating rather than necessarily repressive.
This book (read along with Vol. 1) is probably the clearest example of Foucault's entire analytical apparatus in motion. His entire "genealogical period" starting with Discipline and Punish should be read since Foucault assembles many ships that seem weak on their own but form an armada when combined with others.
November 9, 2022
"الرحيل يُجدد شباب الأمور، كما يُشيخ العلاقة مع الذات"
تاريخ الجنسانية: استعمال اللذات – ميشيل فوكو
يعود فوكو إلى تحليل المجتمع الأوروبي القديم (الأثيني والإغريقي) وطبيعة حياته الاجتماعية التي قننت اللذة ورسمت لها أوجه الاعتدال المتناسبة مع ظروف حياتهم وسياستهم وطبائعهم الاجتماعية، وفي مجلده الثاني من هذه السلسلة، يناقش السؤال الأخلاقي الذي يحيط بنظرة الإغريقي حول المتع واللذات، وارتباطه بالقيم التي رسمها الأثينيون لأنفسهم، وتعاملهم مع الغلمانية بالطريقة المتوائمة مع جنسانيتهم التي سمحت لهم بقدر من الحرية، ربطوها بدورهم بالاعتدال الذي ينطوي على تحكم المرء بذاته وطباعه.
يُعد هذا المجلد أكثر ثراء من المجلد الأول وأكثر بساطة في طرح المواضيع، ويدور في معظمه حول القانون الأخلاقي لاستعمال اللذات في المجتمع اليوناني القديم، لذلك يعد مرجعاً ثرياً للباحثين، وصورة شبه مكتملة حول الأخلاق الأثينية.
تاريخ الجنسانية: استعمال اللذات – ميشيل فوكو
يعود فوكو إلى تحليل المجتمع الأوروبي القديم (الأثيني والإغريقي) وطبيعة حياته الاجتماعية التي قننت اللذة ورسمت لها أوجه الاعتدال المتناسبة مع ظروف حياتهم وسياستهم وطبائعهم الاجتماعية، وفي مجلده الثاني من هذه السلسلة، يناقش السؤال الأخلاقي الذي يحيط بنظرة الإغريقي حول المتع واللذات، وارتباطه بالقيم التي رسمها الأثينيون لأنفسهم، وتعاملهم مع الغلمانية بالطريقة المتوائمة مع جنسانيتهم التي سمحت لهم بقدر من الحرية، ربطوها بدورهم بالاعتدال الذي ينطوي على تحكم المرء بذاته وطباعه.
يُعد هذا المجلد أكثر ثراء من المجلد الأول وأكثر بساطة في طرح المواضيع، ويدور في معظمه حول القانون الأخلاقي لاستعمال اللذات في المجتمع اليوناني القديم، لذلك يعد مرجعاً ثرياً للباحثين، وصورة شبه مكتملة حول الأخلاق الأثينية.
April 1, 2015
مجنون هذا الفوكو
بهذا الجزء يطرح فوكو الكثير من الأفكار لدى الاثنيين القدماء وفلسفاتهم ويناقشها ويحللها
استعمال المتع وتدور افكار هذا الجزء نحو ثلاثة أجزاء
الاول الحمية البدنية والرياضية والفكرية
والثانية الجانب التربوي البيتي
والثالثة حب الغلمان
ويناقشها ويحللها ويقارن بين الكثير من حوارات الفلاسفة
ويتعمق حتى يأخذك معه في جانب المؤيد لهذه الأفكار
وبالطبع حين تعرف أن فوكو من المؤيدين للمثلية الجنسية ولكن لا يرغمكعلى موافقته بل يدعك تحلل وتفكر معه هل كانوا محقين ام لا
وبطبيعة الفطرة الانسانية نقول لا نحن نرفض هذه المثليه ولكن يقول لك فوكو انا موافق لرأيك ولكن تعال معي اشرح لك لماذا
قبلوا هده الأفكار
ولماذا كانوا يؤيدون هذه الأفكار
تتعمق معه وتحلل وفي النهاية تجيبه ثانيه
كتاب رائع موضوعي سلس لأبعد درجة
ممتع هذا الفوكو ولو لم نتفق معه
بهذا الجزء يطرح فوكو الكثير من الأفكار لدى الاثنيين القدماء وفلسفاتهم ويناقشها ويحللها
استعمال المتع وتدور افكار هذا الجزء نحو ثلاثة أجزاء
الاول الحمية البدنية والرياضية والفكرية
والثانية الجانب التربوي البيتي
والثالثة حب الغلمان
ويناقشها ويحللها ويقارن بين الكثير من حوارات الفلاسفة
ويتعمق حتى يأخذك معه في جانب المؤيد لهذه الأفكار
وبالطبع حين تعرف أن فوكو من المؤيدين للمثلية الجنسية ولكن لا يرغمكعلى موافقته بل يدعك تحلل وتفكر معه هل كانوا محقين ام لا
وبطبيعة الفطرة الانسانية نقول لا نحن نرفض هذه المثليه ولكن يقول لك فوكو انا موافق لرأيك ولكن تعال معي اشرح لك لماذا
قبلوا هده الأفكار
ولماذا كانوا يؤيدون هذه الأفكار
تتعمق معه وتحلل وفي النهاية تجيبه ثانيه
كتاب رائع موضوعي سلس لأبعد درجة
ممتع هذا الفوكو ولو لم نتفق معه
Read
May 24, 2017This is some deep genealogy, something that is a far cry from the more wild, theoretical-level writings of the young Foucault. He turns his attentions to the Greeks, arguing that they viewed sexuality more in terms of dietetic regimen, one to be conformed with for maximum health. A point which he repeats ad nauseam. Now, I enjoyed the examples given but -- and this shouldn’t be a surprise given Foucault's rather androcentric view of sex -- he seems to leave female desire almost completely out of the equation. One could argue that the heavily patriarchal nature of Greek society made this an inevitability in terms of the available sources, but that's no excuse for a researcher of Foucault's caliber. Onward, a bit more cautiously this time, to Volume 3.
January 2, 2025
I DID IT
really interesting, but it took me a lot of effort to get through. the last chapter on ‘true love’ was beautifully written and i do have to say that the conclusion got me excited for volume three.
really interesting, but it took me a lot of effort to get through. the last chapter on ‘true love’ was beautifully written and i do have to say that the conclusion got me excited for volume three.
September 12, 2025
• He de decir que todo el capítulo de la dietética me ha resultado mas escatológico de lo que me gustaría
• A veces amo a lo griegos hasta que recuerdo que soy mujer y no tengo tierras
• Si foucault supiera escribir un argumento en línea recta en lugar de en forma de montaña rusa, habría 2 libros en lugar de 4 (en su defensa diré que las cosas claras las deja)
• Tantos posits morados de la vergüenza... Aunque he de decir que son más bien culpa de los griegos
• Me apasiona toda esa parte sobre cómo los griegos preferían los tíos porque era necesario el consentimiento y ganárselo les parecía mejor y mas interesante (*grita*)
• La constante referencia al amor de los muchachos y el cuerpo en desarrollo de los adolescentes me esta causando una dificultad física para leer este libro (entiéndase que no soy homofoba, solo son vibras demasiado pedófilas)
• Pensando mucho en el pavo de Maurice (el que no es Maurice obv) que está obsesionado con los griegos y su homosexualidad y luego se va a Atenas y se vuelve hetero...
• Me encanta que la conclusión sea que los griegos eran tan aberrantemente machistas que les parecía lógico y comprensible que te gustarán los hombres, pero les preocupaba que si un hombre te la metía mágicamente te convertirías en una mujer que es claramente la peor de las desgracias (no me extraña que sea la era dorada del lesbianismo)
• Y todo esto solo para defender que el cristianismo no es culpa de Platón y Sócrates (chupate esa Nietzsche), lo cual me parece una empresa muy respetable, pero no necesitaba de tantas páginas
A pesar de lo que pueda parecer por mi review me ha gustado, pero el colega se enrolla mas que las persianas, este libro entero podría haber sido un capítulo de 100 páginas de otro libro. Como puede ser que al final del libro 2 de historia de la sexualidad sigamos en Grecia, se siente como estudiar filosofía en la Urjc.
• A veces amo a lo griegos hasta que recuerdo que soy mujer y no tengo tierras
• Si foucault supiera escribir un argumento en línea recta en lugar de en forma de montaña rusa, habría 2 libros en lugar de 4 (en su defensa diré que las cosas claras las deja)
• Tantos posits morados de la vergüenza... Aunque he de decir que son más bien culpa de los griegos
• Me apasiona toda esa parte sobre cómo los griegos preferían los tíos porque era necesario el consentimiento y ganárselo les parecía mejor y mas interesante (*grita*)
• La constante referencia al amor de los muchachos y el cuerpo en desarrollo de los adolescentes me esta causando una dificultad física para leer este libro (entiéndase que no soy homofoba, solo son vibras demasiado pedófilas)
• Pensando mucho en el pavo de Maurice (el que no es Maurice obv) que está obsesionado con los griegos y su homosexualidad y luego se va a Atenas y se vuelve hetero...
• Me encanta que la conclusión sea que los griegos eran tan aberrantemente machistas que les parecía lógico y comprensible que te gustarán los hombres, pero les preocupaba que si un hombre te la metía mágicamente te convertirías en una mujer que es claramente la peor de las desgracias (no me extraña que sea la era dorada del lesbianismo)
• Y todo esto solo para defender que el cristianismo no es culpa de Platón y Sócrates (chupate esa Nietzsche), lo cual me parece una empresa muy respetable, pero no necesitaba de tantas páginas
A pesar de lo que pueda parecer por mi review me ha gustado, pero el colega se enrolla mas que las persianas, este libro entero podría haber sido un capítulo de 100 páginas de otro libro. Como puede ser que al final del libro 2 de historia de la sexualidad sigamos en Grecia, se siente como estudiar filosofía en la Urjc.
October 8, 2025
[Reseña sólo de la parte de la Erótica] Este texto es toda una twinklogía o, más bien, una onto-eroto-logía twinka en la antigua Grecia. Hot. Foucault en la parte de la Erótica parte de todos los escritos sobre los twinks y el amor a los muchachos y describe la antinomia de la twinka: cómo en la antigua grecia las relaciones homosexuales y follar twinks estaba no solo permitido sino que encontraba sólidos apoyos institucionales y era una práctica culturalmente muy valorada pero, sin embargo, lo conjugaban con una ética de la superioridad viril y una concepción de TODA relación sexual según el esquema de la penetración y dominación masculina. No hay problema cuando se trata de una mujer, un esclavo o un twink, pero sí cuando el twink se convierte en hombre. De ahí el silencio sobre la homosexualidad entre hombres cuando no son twinks en Grecia. Foucualt habla de la twink dead con textos de Platón, Esquines y Jenofonte.
Al adolescente se le reconoce como objeto de placer y el único honorable y legítimo pero, por otro lado, el tiwnk que será algún día hombre no puede reconocerse en ese esquema de dominado y pasiva penetrada. Porque el movimiento que lleva a los twinks es arrimarse a lo que es bello. Con Platón como vía de acceso a la verdad no solo tenemos un logos sino que existe el Eros. En definitiva 1) El twink no nace, se construye. 2) «no es por qué los griegos se sentían atraídos por los twinks sino por qué tenían una pederastia: es decir, por que alrededor de esta atracción elaboraron una práctica del cortejo, una reflexión moral y un ascetismo filosófico
Al adolescente se le reconoce como objeto de placer y el único honorable y legítimo pero, por otro lado, el tiwnk que será algún día hombre no puede reconocerse en ese esquema de dominado y pasiva penetrada. Porque el movimiento que lleva a los twinks es arrimarse a lo que es bello. Con Platón como vía de acceso a la verdad no solo tenemos un logos sino que existe el Eros. En definitiva 1) El twink no nace, se construye. 2) «no es por qué los griegos se sentían atraídos por los twinks sino por qué tenían una pederastia: es decir, por que alrededor de esta atracción elaboraron una práctica del cortejo, una reflexión moral y un ascetismo filosófico
June 1, 2016
Foucault entra a fundo nos textos gregos. Percebemos como os gregos viam o prazer. Como regulavam o sexo e se regulavam a si próprios. Que preconceitos tinham sobre o género e sobre os papéis de cada um na sociedade.
Sobretudo a partir dos textos morais e de comentários sobre comportamentos da altura, que chegaram até hoje, sabemos como os os gregos viam as relações. Ficamos a saber que valorizavam acima de tudo o domínio do próprio sobre as paixões do corpo.
É mais tarde que o cristianismo vem legislar sobre o que é permitido ou não fazer. Os gregos levavam a mal, sobretudo, que um homem (a moral era sempre uma moral dos homens, feita na perspectiva masculina) mostrasse falta de domínio. Sobre si, ou sobre a(s) suas mulheres, escravos. No sexo, era mal visto não que se fizesse determinado acto em particular, mas que se desse a entender que o desejo, as paixões estavam a dominar em vez de ser ao contrário, em vez de de se conseguir dominar o desejo. Era bem visto ter uma relação com um rapaz mais novo, por se estar numa posição de domínio, e isso não implicava nenhuma perda de virilidade. O que lesava a reputação era estar numa posição de dominado, numa relação com outro homem. Precisamente por isso, há conselhos extensos, nos textos morais, sobre como se deve comportar um rapaz, que entra numa relação com um homem mais velho, não sendo demasiado fácil, para não estragar a sua reputação. Não são condenados os actos em si, como imorais, mas o caracter do homem que se coloca numa ou noutra posição.
Sobretudo a partir dos textos morais e de comentários sobre comportamentos da altura, que chegaram até hoje, sabemos como os os gregos viam as relações. Ficamos a saber que valorizavam acima de tudo o domínio do próprio sobre as paixões do corpo.
É mais tarde que o cristianismo vem legislar sobre o que é permitido ou não fazer. Os gregos levavam a mal, sobretudo, que um homem (a moral era sempre uma moral dos homens, feita na perspectiva masculina) mostrasse falta de domínio. Sobre si, ou sobre a(s) suas mulheres, escravos. No sexo, era mal visto não que se fizesse determinado acto em particular, mas que se desse a entender que o desejo, as paixões estavam a dominar em vez de ser ao contrário, em vez de de se conseguir dominar o desejo. Era bem visto ter uma relação com um rapaz mais novo, por se estar numa posição de domínio, e isso não implicava nenhuma perda de virilidade. O que lesava a reputação era estar numa posição de dominado, numa relação com outro homem. Precisamente por isso, há conselhos extensos, nos textos morais, sobre como se deve comportar um rapaz, que entra numa relação com um homem mais velho, não sendo demasiado fácil, para não estragar a sua reputação. Não são condenados os actos em si, como imorais, mas o caracter do homem que se coloca numa ou noutra posição.
March 9, 2017
This book contains interesting reflections on how subjectivity was formed in ancient Greek culture around (sexual) pleasure as a result of relations men had with oneself in terms of moderation, selfmastery, selfstylization and domination. As such, Foucault shows, the Greeks developed an ethics of the self through selfcare.
A criticical note: the book contains alot of redundancy and repetition, which usually isn't the case with Foucault.
What further strikes me is that Foucault doesn't give women a voice in his book, while a history of female (sexual) pleasure can also certainly be written, or at least be given a place in a book such as this. Think for example about works and reflections on female (lesbian) pleasure in poems of Sappho and Alcaeus to name just two examples from ancient Greece. He calls his book 'The History of Sexuality', yet in my opinion he only offers a very selective and limited reading of this history, making this book as masculine as the culture and its practices that it's trying to describe.
A criticical note: the book contains alot of redundancy and repetition, which usually isn't the case with Foucault.
What further strikes me is that Foucault doesn't give women a voice in his book, while a history of female (sexual) pleasure can also certainly be written, or at least be given a place in a book such as this. Think for example about works and reflections on female (lesbian) pleasure in poems of Sappho and Alcaeus to name just two examples from ancient Greece. He calls his book 'The History of Sexuality', yet in my opinion he only offers a very selective and limited reading of this history, making this book as masculine as the culture and its practices that it's trying to describe.
April 11, 2024
'I' am sexy and I 'know' it
April 12, 2022
🌕🌕🌕🌕🌗
In teoria, l'essere umano potrebbe godere di una libertà incondizionata. Perché allora comincia a farsi dei problemi sul proprio agire, mettendo in dubbio la sua stessa libertà? Come sorge il pensiero, e con esso il discorso, su ciò che è lecito o meno?
Ho trovato questo saggio — uno tra i più maturi di Foucault — sorprendentemente scorrevole e informativo (anche se spesso ripetitivo — insomma, non mi si può mai soddisfare del tutto :). Secondo volume di una saga sfortunatamente rimasta incompiuta, intraprende, a partire dall'antichità classica, una sorta di genealogia della morale del desiderio di matrice nietzschiana. Anzi, il progetto è ancora più ambizioso:
Alla base della riflessione degli antichi greci stanno, invece di divieti, le pratiche di sé, orientate all'estetica dell'esistenza:
Il discorso riflette inevitabilmente le forme di sottomissione dell'epoca: misoginia istituzionalizzata, schiavitù, sudditanza... La struttura gerarchica della polis, caratterizzata da rigorosi obblighi e divieti, stratifica la libertà civile dei suoi vari membri. Al vertice, l'adulto maschio e libero, dotato del più alto potere decisionale e destinatario del discorso morale, raggiunge il massimo bene adottando una condotta temperante, cioè evitando qualsiasi eccesso.
C'è da tener presente che il bene ultimo è quello dello Stato: niente individualismo, quindi. Per esempio, le personalità politiche sono tenute ad adottare uno standard etico più elevato, riflesso dell'idoneità per le rispettive cariche, mentre dalle categorie sottomesse non ci si attende molto più che il rispetto di leggi e norme gerarchiche (per quanto severe).
È stato gratificante ritrovare altri luoghi comuni contemporanei che affondano le proprie radici già nella cultura antica:
Le idee che chiariscono l'applicazione della temperanza sessuale vanno raffinandosi gradualmente. Ma, al contrario di altri aspetti della vita sociale, l'ambito dei piaceri non può essere controllato legalmente:
quali l’opinione pubblica, che sia
In virtù della molteplicità dei piaceri possibili, limitata (ma neanche tanto) solo dall'immaginazione, e contrapposta alla scarsa creatività nei divieti, si riconosce l'impossibilità di un codice morale statico.
Fino a che punto la morale cristiana è stata un'evoluzione di quella pagana? La polemica di Nietzsche ne vedeva un meschino capovolgimento prodotto intenzionalmente dai fondatori del cristianesimo, San Paolo in particolare. Qual'è invece l'interpretazione di Foucault? Non vedo l'ora di scoprirlo nei seguenti volumi, che proseguono la genealogia fino al momento in cui il cristianesimo diventa la religione ufficiale in Europa. Inoltre, Foucault cita uno studio analogo sui costumi cinesi che mi piacerebbe proprio approfondire.
In teoria, l'essere umano potrebbe godere di una libertà incondizionata. Perché allora comincia a farsi dei problemi sul proprio agire, mettendo in dubbio la sua stessa libertà? Come sorge il pensiero, e con esso il discorso, su ciò che è lecito o meno?
Ho trovato questo saggio — uno tra i più maturi di Foucault — sorprendentemente scorrevole e informativo (anche se spesso ripetitivo — insomma, non mi si può mai soddisfare del tutto :). Secondo volume di una saga sfortunatamente rimasta incompiuta, intraprende, a partire dall'antichità classica, una sorta di genealogia della morale del desiderio di matrice nietzschiana. Anzi, il progetto è ancora più ambizioso:
[anazlizzare le] pratiche attraverso le quali gli individui sono stati spinti a fermare l’attenzione su se stessi, a decifrarsi, riconoscersi e dichiararsi soggetti di desiderio, mettendo in gioco gli uni con gli altri un certo rapporto che permette loro di scoprire nel desiderio la verità del loro essere, sia esso naturale o viziato
Alla base della riflessione degli antichi greci stanno, invece di divieti, le pratiche di sé, orientate all'estetica dell'esistenza:
un modo di elaborare, per la parte più piccola della popolazione, quella costituita dagli adulti maschi e liberi, un’estetica dell’esistenza, l’arte ponderata di una libertà vista come gioco di potere. L’etica sessuale che sta in parte all’origine della nostra si basava effettivamente su di un sistema piuttosto feroce di disuguaglianze e di costrizioni (in particolare nei confronti delle donne e degli schiavi); ma è stata problematizzata nel pensiero come il rapporto, per un uomo libero, fra l’esercizio della sua libertà, le forme del suo potere e il suo accesso alla verità.
Il discorso riflette inevitabilmente le forme di sottomissione dell'epoca: misoginia istituzionalizzata, schiavitù, sudditanza... La struttura gerarchica della polis, caratterizzata da rigorosi obblighi e divieti, stratifica la libertà civile dei suoi vari membri. Al vertice, l'adulto maschio e libero, dotato del più alto potere decisionale e destinatario del discorso morale, raggiunge il massimo bene adottando una condotta temperante, cioè evitando qualsiasi eccesso.
C'è da tener presente che il bene ultimo è quello dello Stato: niente individualismo, quindi. Per esempio, le personalità politiche sono tenute ad adottare uno standard etico più elevato, riflesso dell'idoneità per le rispettive cariche, mentre dalle categorie sottomesse non ci si attende molto più che il rispetto di leggi e norme gerarchiche (per quanto severe).
È stato gratificante ritrovare altri luoghi comuni contemporanei che affondano le proprie radici già nella cultura antica:
- il topos del rinsavimento come tappa della maturazione: fino a una certa età, è perdonabile dare libero sfogo a una fase di disinibizione esplorativa, per poi "mettere la testa a posto" e assumere un comportamento più consono alla propria posizione sociale definitiva;
- l'asimmetria tra il ruolo attivo e quello passivo nell'omosessualità, con indulgenza verso il primo e scherno e disprezzo per il secondo;
- la dicotomia senza mezzi toni tra l'ideale femminile della moglie fedele e la prostituta: non serve che soddisfi i criteri della definizione, la donna che gode pubblicamente della propria libertà sessuale è immediatamente accusata di prostituzione;
- l'adozione di ciò che si presume contro natura come misura dei comportamenti da proscrivere.
Le idee che chiariscono l'applicazione della temperanza sessuale vanno raffinandosi gradualmente. Ma, al contrario di altri aspetti della vita sociale, l'ambito dei piaceri non può essere controllato legalmente:
[Platone] non ritiene che la legge possa bastare [...]. Occorrono strumenti di persuasione più efficaci
quali l’opinione pubblica, che sia
parimenti investita di un “carattere religioso” nei confronti di tutti gli atti sessuali degni di biasimo.
In virtù della molteplicità dei piaceri possibili, limitata (ma neanche tanto) solo dall'immaginazione, e contrapposta alla scarsa creatività nei divieti, si riconosce l'impossibilità di un codice morale statico.
il pensiero filosofico, morale e medico che si è elaborato presso [i greci] non ha forse formulato alcuni dei princìpi fondamentali che morali ulteriori — e segnatamente quelle che si sono potute trovare nelle società cristiane — hanno pari pari ripreso? Ma non ci si può fermare qui: anche se le prescrizioni possono sembrare formalmente simili, questo dopo tutto non prova che la povertà e la monotonia delle censure.
Fino a che punto la morale cristiana è stata un'evoluzione di quella pagana? La polemica di Nietzsche ne vedeva un meschino capovolgimento prodotto intenzionalmente dai fondatori del cristianesimo, San Paolo in particolare. Qual'è invece l'interpretazione di Foucault? Non vedo l'ora di scoprirlo nei seguenti volumi, che proseguono la genealogia fino al momento in cui il cristianesimo diventa la religione ufficiale in Europa. Inoltre, Foucault cita uno studio analogo sui costumi cinesi che mi piacerebbe proprio approfondire.
August 10, 2015
I'll attempt to recap the whole thing in a few hundred words, without looking anything up. If you find something wrong, please let me know, it'll help me remember better.
DISCLAIMER: Foucault mentions multiple times that there are plenty of philosophers whose works have not been preserved, and so he bases his book mostly on Platonic-Socratic notions of sexuality.
First of, there was no notion of proper ''sexuality'' back in Ancient Greece. Of course there were ideas of homo and heterosexuality, but they weren't defined as that. Whatever notions of what we would now call sexuality were mixed together with other bodily desires, such as eating and drinking (named the Aphrodisia) created to sustain a principle of an ''ethical subject'', which, simply put, means that there needed to be a system of rules so you could see how noble of a being you actually were. There were ethical guidelines to conform yourself to, and esteem your (but probably more importantly so) other's worth as ''ethical subjects''.
So we have the bodily desire catalog, the aphrodisia being the sexual one.
Sex was believed to have certain effects on the body, such as cooling it (through ejaculation - they supposed that something heated up and then left your body, which makes sense in the 4 temperaments theory). Because it cooled you, it would be appropriate to have sex when ''overheated'' (for example) this form of theorizing is named ''dietetics'' by Foucault. It's the logical approach to bodily changes through sex, analyzed to fit the circumstances and overall state of the body. This was important because they also believed sperm was some of the most important content in your body (how else could it create a person? it must take something important from you to create a mini you), stemming from the brain, through your marrow, into your balls, etc. Because sex was so vital and dangerous (you can't tap your brain for babies forever, you'd suppose), proper care was taken to ensure that the circumstances were just right to create the right baby at the right time. Age of marriage was 30-35 for men, around 20-25 for women, sex was to be had in the right state of mind, with the right intentions, etc. This had to ensure that Athens would receive an honorable citizen. These rules were there for the Polis, not for the couple themselves.
Then there's the economics:
This was a question of honor, self control, and rightfully enjoying what is yours. Foucault writes that because of the loss of vital fluids, sex was prescribed to be had as little as possible. To give in to sexual desires was a loss of self-mastery, and showed that one was incapable of ruling himself, which would raise doubt about his capability of ruling the city (all this moralizing obviously only applies to free men of Athens). Moreover, a lack of sexual fidelity was disrespectful to your wife, whom you trusted to run your household and your possessions. This is also a major thing in homosexual relations, because you couldn't be greedy for boy butt, you just kind of had to let it happen, but only for the right reasons. Basically, homosexuality was a thing, but nobody really liked to say it was. A ton of moralizing surrounded it, and both approval of natural beauty regardless of gender as straight up gay bashing seem to have been the ruling opinions.
Some interesting other stuff outside of the main theories:
- A woman/girl being raped is not as punishable as a woman being seduced, because rape is damage of property, while seducing is putting into question who's property the woman/girl actually is.
- A woman wearing make-up for her man was (in one story at least) frowned upon, because it concealed the true nature of the woman, and so it masked the product, which is false advertising.
- Some ''boys'' were 28 years old.
- One of the problems with homosexuality was the duality of sex. One was dominant (male), the other submissive (female). If you had sex with a man, one of you was the bitch, with all the contemporary connotations applied. This is why it was hard to just give up your bum to any friendly old man, but why it could be very rewarding for you if you appropriately chose the right man of status to give your bum to, because that meant you completely surrendered to be his object of pleasure, without you having the right to enjoy it.
That's basically it. Once again, feel free to comment whatever important thing you think I missed.
DISCLAIMER: Foucault mentions multiple times that there are plenty of philosophers whose works have not been preserved, and so he bases his book mostly on Platonic-Socratic notions of sexuality.
First of, there was no notion of proper ''sexuality'' back in Ancient Greece. Of course there were ideas of homo and heterosexuality, but they weren't defined as that. Whatever notions of what we would now call sexuality were mixed together with other bodily desires, such as eating and drinking (named the Aphrodisia) created to sustain a principle of an ''ethical subject'', which, simply put, means that there needed to be a system of rules so you could see how noble of a being you actually were. There were ethical guidelines to conform yourself to, and esteem your (but probably more importantly so) other's worth as ''ethical subjects''.
So we have the bodily desire catalog, the aphrodisia being the sexual one.
Sex was believed to have certain effects on the body, such as cooling it (through ejaculation - they supposed that something heated up and then left your body, which makes sense in the 4 temperaments theory). Because it cooled you, it would be appropriate to have sex when ''overheated'' (for example) this form of theorizing is named ''dietetics'' by Foucault. It's the logical approach to bodily changes through sex, analyzed to fit the circumstances and overall state of the body. This was important because they also believed sperm was some of the most important content in your body (how else could it create a person? it must take something important from you to create a mini you), stemming from the brain, through your marrow, into your balls, etc. Because sex was so vital and dangerous (you can't tap your brain for babies forever, you'd suppose), proper care was taken to ensure that the circumstances were just right to create the right baby at the right time. Age of marriage was 30-35 for men, around 20-25 for women, sex was to be had in the right state of mind, with the right intentions, etc. This had to ensure that Athens would receive an honorable citizen. These rules were there for the Polis, not for the couple themselves.
Then there's the economics:
This was a question of honor, self control, and rightfully enjoying what is yours. Foucault writes that because of the loss of vital fluids, sex was prescribed to be had as little as possible. To give in to sexual desires was a loss of self-mastery, and showed that one was incapable of ruling himself, which would raise doubt about his capability of ruling the city (all this moralizing obviously only applies to free men of Athens). Moreover, a lack of sexual fidelity was disrespectful to your wife, whom you trusted to run your household and your possessions. This is also a major thing in homosexual relations, because you couldn't be greedy for boy butt, you just kind of had to let it happen, but only for the right reasons. Basically, homosexuality was a thing, but nobody really liked to say it was. A ton of moralizing surrounded it, and both approval of natural beauty regardless of gender as straight up gay bashing seem to have been the ruling opinions.
Some interesting other stuff outside of the main theories:
- A woman/girl being raped is not as punishable as a woman being seduced, because rape is damage of property, while seducing is putting into question who's property the woman/girl actually is.
- A woman wearing make-up for her man was (in one story at least) frowned upon, because it concealed the true nature of the woman, and so it masked the product, which is false advertising.
- Some ''boys'' were 28 years old.
- One of the problems with homosexuality was the duality of sex. One was dominant (male), the other submissive (female). If you had sex with a man, one of you was the bitch, with all the contemporary connotations applied. This is why it was hard to just give up your bum to any friendly old man, but why it could be very rewarding for you if you appropriately chose the right man of status to give your bum to, because that meant you completely surrendered to be his object of pleasure, without you having the right to enjoy it.
That's basically it. Once again, feel free to comment whatever important thing you think I missed.
August 26, 2023
Se quisermos fixar uma origem para os vários grandes temas que deram forma à nossa moral sexual (pertença do prazer ao domínio perigoso do mal, a obrigação da fidelidade monogâmica, a exclusão de parceiros do mesmo sexo) não apenas não devemos atribuí-los a essa ficção que se chama a moral “judaico-cristã”, mas sobretudo não devemos procurar aí a função intemporal da interdição ou a forma permanente da lei. A austeridade sexual precocemente recomendada pela filosofia grega não se enraíza na intemporalidade de uma lei que assumiria alternadamente as formas historicamente diversas da repressão: ela releva de uma história que é, para compreender as transformações da experiência moral, mais decisiva que a dos códigos: uma história da “ética” entendida como a elaboração de uma forma de relação a si que permite ao indivíduo constituir-se como sujeito de uma conduta moral.
[...] a dificuldade provocada, nessa sociedade que admitia relações sexuais entre homens, pela justaposição de uma ética da superioridade viril e de uma concepção de toda a relação sexual segundo o esquema da penetração e da dominação do macho; a consequência é, por um lado, que o papel da “actividade” e da dominação é afectado por valores constantemente positivos mas, por outro lado, que é necessário atribuir a um dos parceiros no acto sexual a posição passiva, dominada e inferior. E se não existe qualquer problema quando se trata de uma mulher ou de um escrav[izado], as coisas são muito diferentes quando se trata de um homem [livre]. É, sem dúvida, a existência dessa dificuldade que explica, ao mesmo tempo, o silêncio de que se rodeou de facto essa relação entre adultos e a ruidosa desqualificação daqueles que justamente rompem esse silêncio e assinalam a sua aceitação, ou melhor, a sua preferência por esse papel “inferior”. É igualmente em função dessa dificuldade que toda a atenção foi concentrada na relação entre homens e rapazes, pois que nela um dos parceiros, pela sua juventude e pelo facto de não ter ainda atingido um estatuto viril, pode ser, por um tempo breve, objecto aceitável de prazer. Mas se o rapaz, pelo seu encanto próprio, pode ser para os homens uma presa que perseguem sem que nisso haja escândalo ou problema, não se deve esquecer que ele terá um dia de ser homem, de exercer poderes e responsabilidades, não podendo mais ser, evidentemente, objecto de prazer [...].
Nota-se, então, que o princípio que liga o homem à obrigação de não ter parceiro fora do casal que forma é de uma natureza diferente do que liga a mulher a uma obrigação análoga. No caso desta, é por estar sob o poder do marido que essa obrigação lhe é imposta. No caso dele, é porque exerce o poder e deve dar provas do domínio de si na prática desse poder que deve restringir as suas escolhas sexuais. Ter apenas relação com o seu esposo é para a mulher uma consequência do facto de estar sob o seu poder. Ter apenas relação com a sua esposa é para o marido a mais bela maneira de exercer o poder sobre a mulher. Muito mais do que a prefiguração de uma simetria que se poderá encontrar na moral ulterior, trata-se aqui da estilização de uma dissimetria actual. Uma restrição que é análoga naquilo que permite ou proíbe, mas que não recobre para os dois esposos o mesmo modo de “se conduzir”.
[...] a dificuldade provocada, nessa sociedade que admitia relações sexuais entre homens, pela justaposição de uma ética da superioridade viril e de uma concepção de toda a relação sexual segundo o esquema da penetração e da dominação do macho; a consequência é, por um lado, que o papel da “actividade” e da dominação é afectado por valores constantemente positivos mas, por outro lado, que é necessário atribuir a um dos parceiros no acto sexual a posição passiva, dominada e inferior. E se não existe qualquer problema quando se trata de uma mulher ou de um escrav[izado], as coisas são muito diferentes quando se trata de um homem [livre]. É, sem dúvida, a existência dessa dificuldade que explica, ao mesmo tempo, o silêncio de que se rodeou de facto essa relação entre adultos e a ruidosa desqualificação daqueles que justamente rompem esse silêncio e assinalam a sua aceitação, ou melhor, a sua preferência por esse papel “inferior”. É igualmente em função dessa dificuldade que toda a atenção foi concentrada na relação entre homens e rapazes, pois que nela um dos parceiros, pela sua juventude e pelo facto de não ter ainda atingido um estatuto viril, pode ser, por um tempo breve, objecto aceitável de prazer. Mas se o rapaz, pelo seu encanto próprio, pode ser para os homens uma presa que perseguem sem que nisso haja escândalo ou problema, não se deve esquecer que ele terá um dia de ser homem, de exercer poderes e responsabilidades, não podendo mais ser, evidentemente, objecto de prazer [...].
Nota-se, então, que o princípio que liga o homem à obrigação de não ter parceiro fora do casal que forma é de uma natureza diferente do que liga a mulher a uma obrigação análoga. No caso desta, é por estar sob o poder do marido que essa obrigação lhe é imposta. No caso dele, é porque exerce o poder e deve dar provas do domínio de si na prática desse poder que deve restringir as suas escolhas sexuais. Ter apenas relação com o seu esposo é para a mulher uma consequência do facto de estar sob o seu poder. Ter apenas relação com a sua esposa é para o marido a mais bela maneira de exercer o poder sobre a mulher. Muito mais do que a prefiguração de uma simetria que se poderá encontrar na moral ulterior, trata-se aqui da estilização de uma dissimetria actual. Uma restrição que é análoga naquilo que permite ou proíbe, mas que não recobre para os dois esposos o mesmo modo de “se conduzir”.
February 24, 2017
En Historia de la sexualidad II, Foucault continúa el proyecto investigador sobre la sexualidad, sólo que esta vez se centra en cómo la actividad sexual fue problematizada por los filósofos y médicos de la Antigua Grecia, para quienes no interesaba tanto el objeto de la actividad, sino los modos y convenciones que giraban alrededor de dicha práctica.
En términos de lectura es un libro con una escritura menos pedregosa que el primer volumen, por lo que se hace más fácil de seguir; pero no por ello es menos complejo en torno a las temáticas que presenta. De hecho, me atrevería a decir que multiplica las complejidades en torno a las mismas, lo que me parece sencillamente estupendo.
Ahora si, un par de novelas más y me mando con el tercero.
En términos de lectura es un libro con una escritura menos pedregosa que el primer volumen, por lo que se hace más fácil de seguir; pero no por ello es menos complejo en torno a las temáticas que presenta. De hecho, me atrevería a decir que multiplica las complejidades en torno a las mismas, lo que me parece sencillamente estupendo.
Ahora si, un par de novelas más y me mando con el tercero.
Read
January 29, 2013I met this guy at a party who wanted to do nothing but talk about Foucault (I didn't like him very much). HIS opinion was that Foucault was awful. I wouldn't say awful, but he is not easy to read. If I met Foucault at a party, I would probably like him as much as I did that guy who insulted him. But he wrote about interesting things.
No rating because I skipped about half the book. Oops!
No rating because I skipped about half the book. Oops!
December 12, 2009
The level of hatred that I have for Foucault and his bullshit really cannot be overstated.
June 22, 2020
I have to get this out before I forget too much. Not the concept or the implications, or the parallels to the current gender gap in most of the western or westernized world, or the status hierarchies and power struggles that come to mind and to which I could easily draw parallels; even though I am sure that monsieur Foucault could see so many finer and more pertinent distinctions that my comparisons would sound puerile. I don’t think I’ll forget that. But I’ll forget the book and its structure. It will dissolve in my memory, the ideas blurring and merging with others that I am going to come across, so I just want to write a few thoughts down.
In this book, the author is trying to reconstruct the sexuality of the ancient Greeks of the 4th century (B.C.E) using what remained of their writings on domestic life, health and erotics. To this end, the author splits the book by theme: Dietetics, Economics and Erotics and circumscribes them with a discussion on morality and one on truth.
The subject of Ancient Greek written thought, is, of course, the free man. Specifically, the works address the land owner, the master of a domain. The Greek man is taught how to keep his body healthy, how to exercise, eat and have sex, and the best time of year to engage in specific activities. He is taught how to manage his domain, how to keep a household organized and how to transform his wife into his partner. Then Foucault’s attention turns to the erotics and the power relations which run through the erotic encounters between men and teenage boys, how each of the partners (erastes and eromenos) is to behave in their courting rituals and their relationship. The thread which runs through each of the themes is moderation. Mostly, this boils down to not too much sex, not too many extra-marital affairs, not too many lovers.
Women play a marginal role since their status in Ancient Greek culture was always inferior to a man’s, and Foucault always stresses that the wife’s faithfulness is considered absolute in the texts which detail domestic affairs, while the husband’s faithfulness is described as a matter of politics. It mostly means that the husband should not commit adultery because of the risk of unwanted pregnancy and thus progeny who would muddle their heritage. However, since the texts refer only to men, I wonder how women were taught this way of life by their elders, and exactly what they were being taught. I’m guessing that it was some kind of oral culture that is now lost, where the young girl’s mother or a mistress of sorts would have explained to her daughter based on her experience and what she had heard and had been taught. And how these two points of view over marriage would overlap and in which attitudes they would differ.
The final chapters discuss the relationship between older men and teenage boys, which is, in fact, the centre of attention in most texts discussing “the use of pleasures” and the one most dominated by politics. I could try to explain it by saying that the loved one, the eromenos, is a kind of apprentice in the affairs of civic life and duty to the lover, and is being taught how to behave in a manner which would increase his status and retain his honour and prepare him for the functions of a statesman which he is expected to hold when he reaches maturity. But he isn’t an apprentice, because this is first and foremost a relationship based on sexual attraction, it does not put the learning of a skill first, nor is it supposed to produce physical artefacts. Of course there are some skills to be learned, because what is supposed to happen could be loosely defined as a courtship ritual, so that the loved one can reciprocate the advances of a lover that he finds worthy and who would help him by introducing him to the right people and increasing his status. However, the loved one in this relationship is to be weaned off this dependence so that he will take his role as a citizen with full standing. Foucault briefly summarises the dangers that such a loved one would face with examples like this one: “When one played the role of subordinate partner in the game of pleasure relations, one could not be truly dominant in the game of civic and political activity.” Now extrapolate this way of thinking to the current day relationship between men and women and the historic role of women, of which you will find traces to varying degrees in today’s cultures around the world, and you get a different understanding of the current gender gap.
At the end of his analysis he describes how a relationship to truth emerges out of this erotics, meaning the way in which the young eromenos begins to understand himself and the world and glimpse the truths hidden behind what he sees, something like Plato’s world of perfect forms. Here he describes something akin to asceticism as the Ancient Greeks’ ultimate virtue. This is the one which, when practiced by a prospective lover, the erastes, would create a desire in the younger partner which, in turn, would allow the latter access to this truth. And, finally, this truth, Foucault seems to concede, is the ultimate ideal of love for the Ancient Greeks.
The book ends with a lead-in to the following phases of the development of eroticism, when the focus will shift from boys to women, and the relation between men and women will become the focus of future reflections on sexual pleasures. But, for me, the book was the beginning of a few trains of thought which gave me quite a few insights into how human relationships work, how they develop and what drives us. It managed to put into words thoughts which I could not comprehend clearly beforehand. So yeah, good job monsieur.
In this book, the author is trying to reconstruct the sexuality of the ancient Greeks of the 4th century (B.C.E) using what remained of their writings on domestic life, health and erotics. To this end, the author splits the book by theme: Dietetics, Economics and Erotics and circumscribes them with a discussion on morality and one on truth.
The subject of Ancient Greek written thought, is, of course, the free man. Specifically, the works address the land owner, the master of a domain. The Greek man is taught how to keep his body healthy, how to exercise, eat and have sex, and the best time of year to engage in specific activities. He is taught how to manage his domain, how to keep a household organized and how to transform his wife into his partner. Then Foucault’s attention turns to the erotics and the power relations which run through the erotic encounters between men and teenage boys, how each of the partners (erastes and eromenos) is to behave in their courting rituals and their relationship. The thread which runs through each of the themes is moderation. Mostly, this boils down to not too much sex, not too many extra-marital affairs, not too many lovers.
Women play a marginal role since their status in Ancient Greek culture was always inferior to a man’s, and Foucault always stresses that the wife’s faithfulness is considered absolute in the texts which detail domestic affairs, while the husband’s faithfulness is described as a matter of politics. It mostly means that the husband should not commit adultery because of the risk of unwanted pregnancy and thus progeny who would muddle their heritage. However, since the texts refer only to men, I wonder how women were taught this way of life by their elders, and exactly what they were being taught. I’m guessing that it was some kind of oral culture that is now lost, where the young girl’s mother or a mistress of sorts would have explained to her daughter based on her experience and what she had heard and had been taught. And how these two points of view over marriage would overlap and in which attitudes they would differ.
The final chapters discuss the relationship between older men and teenage boys, which is, in fact, the centre of attention in most texts discussing “the use of pleasures” and the one most dominated by politics. I could try to explain it by saying that the loved one, the eromenos, is a kind of apprentice in the affairs of civic life and duty to the lover, and is being taught how to behave in a manner which would increase his status and retain his honour and prepare him for the functions of a statesman which he is expected to hold when he reaches maturity. But he isn’t an apprentice, because this is first and foremost a relationship based on sexual attraction, it does not put the learning of a skill first, nor is it supposed to produce physical artefacts. Of course there are some skills to be learned, because what is supposed to happen could be loosely defined as a courtship ritual, so that the loved one can reciprocate the advances of a lover that he finds worthy and who would help him by introducing him to the right people and increasing his status. However, the loved one in this relationship is to be weaned off this dependence so that he will take his role as a citizen with full standing. Foucault briefly summarises the dangers that such a loved one would face with examples like this one: “When one played the role of subordinate partner in the game of pleasure relations, one could not be truly dominant in the game of civic and political activity.” Now extrapolate this way of thinking to the current day relationship between men and women and the historic role of women, of which you will find traces to varying degrees in today’s cultures around the world, and you get a different understanding of the current gender gap.
At the end of his analysis he describes how a relationship to truth emerges out of this erotics, meaning the way in which the young eromenos begins to understand himself and the world and glimpse the truths hidden behind what he sees, something like Plato’s world of perfect forms. Here he describes something akin to asceticism as the Ancient Greeks’ ultimate virtue. This is the one which, when practiced by a prospective lover, the erastes, would create a desire in the younger partner which, in turn, would allow the latter access to this truth. And, finally, this truth, Foucault seems to concede, is the ultimate ideal of love for the Ancient Greeks.
The book ends with a lead-in to the following phases of the development of eroticism, when the focus will shift from boys to women, and the relation between men and women will become the focus of future reflections on sexual pleasures. But, for me, the book was the beginning of a few trains of thought which gave me quite a few insights into how human relationships work, how they develop and what drives us. It managed to put into words thoughts which I could not comprehend clearly beforehand. So yeah, good job monsieur.
November 20, 2024
In "The use of pleasures", Michel Foucault explores how ancient Greek and Roman societies conceived their relationship with pleasure and desire, breaking with the mechanisms of power and repression analyzed in the first volume of " The history of sexuality. He shows that, in these contexts, sexuality was not approached as a moral fault or taboo subject, but as an area for ethical reflection. Pleasure was measured against an ideal of self-mastery and balance, in a quest for personal and social excellence. This historical shift enabled Foucault to develop his notion of 'technologies of the self': practices by which individuals work to transform their conduct, not under the constraint of an external authority, but in relation to adaptive norms linked to their status and role.
Foucault thus reveals that ancient discourses on sexuality, far from being uniform, were deeply contextual. Expectations of moderation or use of pleasures varied according to gender, age or social rank, but always as a function of an ethos in which the control of desire was linked to self-governance and, by extension, to the stability of the social order. This framework, based on contextual ethics rather than universal prohibitions, contrasts sharply with modern norms, which are often more rigid and pathologizing.
By revisiting Antiquity, Foucault goes beyond a simple historical analysis: he proposes a reflection on freedom and autonomy, where ethics becomes a personal invention rather than a submission to external injunctions. This second volume helps to understand how subjectivity can be shaped by thoughtful, conscious practices. It questions our own conceptions of pleasure and our relationship with the body, while inviting us to reassess contemporary norms in the light of these historical alternatives.
however this narrow focus gives a pretty homogeneous view of antiquity and Foucault doesn’t explore the evolution of sexual norms beyond ancient greece etc
Foucault thus reveals that ancient discourses on sexuality, far from being uniform, were deeply contextual. Expectations of moderation or use of pleasures varied according to gender, age or social rank, but always as a function of an ethos in which the control of desire was linked to self-governance and, by extension, to the stability of the social order. This framework, based on contextual ethics rather than universal prohibitions, contrasts sharply with modern norms, which are often more rigid and pathologizing.
By revisiting Antiquity, Foucault goes beyond a simple historical analysis: he proposes a reflection on freedom and autonomy, where ethics becomes a personal invention rather than a submission to external injunctions. This second volume helps to understand how subjectivity can be shaped by thoughtful, conscious practices. It questions our own conceptions of pleasure and our relationship with the body, while inviting us to reassess contemporary norms in the light of these historical alternatives.
however this narrow focus gives a pretty homogeneous view of antiquity and Foucault doesn’t explore the evolution of sexual norms beyond ancient greece etc
October 12, 2021
"The principle according to which this activity was meant to be regulated, the "mode of subjection," was not defined by a universal legislation determining permitted and forbidden acts; but rather by a savoir-faire, an art that prescribed the modalities of a use that depended on different variables (need, time, status). The effort that the individual was urged to bring to bear on himself, the necessary ascesis, had the form of a battle to be fought, a victory to be won in establishing a dominion of self over self, modeled after domestic or political authority. Finally, the mode of being to which this self-mastery gave access was characterized as an active freedom, a freedom that was indissociable from a structural, instrumental, and ontological relation to truth" (p.91).
Read
September 23, 2023quién ha sufrido más? jesucristo (lo crucificaron) o yo (he tenido que leer 20 páginas sobre la eyaculación masculina)?? :///
September 3, 2022
3.75 stars
Well that was quite something…
Well that was quite something…
Displaying 1 - 30 of 201 reviews