É um livro interessante, no entanto tem vários problemas.
1. Se, quando o senhor estava a escrever o livro, considerou que as informações que estava a dar eram importantes, porque é que não as escreveu de forma clara e com palavras que existam mesmo?
2. Porque é que são precisos tantos capítulos para estar a dizer sempre a mesma coisa?
3. Você parece que não sabe tanto como está a tentar dar a entender.
4. Sim, é um bom argumento este que está a dar, mas... é só? 70% do livro é a apresentação de uma ideia que acaba por não se desenvolver e não há conclusão nenhuma. Mas vá, pronto, também é só o primeiro volume.
5. Não fiquei com vontade de saber o que está nos outros dois volumes.

Os primeiros 3 capítulos valem a pena, se se sentirem aventureiros. O que o senhor diz basicamente é que o que mais adoramos fazer é falar sobre sexo e que isso é o resultado de alguns séculos de repressão e tentativa de "retirar o interesse" da coisa. Porque ai e tal o sexo só pode ser no casamento e é só para reprodução. Supostamente, quanto mais se fala no assunto, mais banal se torna e menos curiosidade há acerca da questão.
E o livro anda em círculos em torno desta ideia.

not foucault's best work. few, if any, references. like, i agree individualism was constructed through self-reflexive knowledge production, a confessional technique deployed through criminological, psychological, juridical and pedagogical infrastructures, whose origins can be traced back to medieval developments in christianity, but aren't academics meant to give us the historical evidence of such developments? there were plenty of references in discipline and punish, as well as security, territory and population — this feels lazy in comparison.

at the same time, foucault's argument remains profound. he shows how the suppression of deviant sexualities operates through the proliferation of identities (as scientific objects of knowledge). through confession, we speak the truth of sex to an expert who will supposedly cure us, spiritually, psychologically or socially. this is obvious in present-day queer and neurodivergent discourses, which operate through ever expanding categories of self-labelling (a more neoliberal variant of what foucault describes) — the incessant need to unveil the essence of one's sex. foucault rightly detects in such discourses a construction of desire arising through lack, the constitution of normality through abnormality. along with this, a pleasure in supplication and intellectualisation — a pleasure in knowing desire, over desiring itself. in other words, we get off in knowing that we get off, or knowing that the other gets off. it's a form of power and pleasure, over the one's own, or the other's, pleasure.

i couldn't help but notice how this logic explains conspiracy theorists. there's a certain suspicion of the other's pleasure that drives the endless knowledge production of conspiracy theorists. those god damn jewish black queer feminists are stealing our money, minds and children — and they're enjoying it! naturally, the only way for the conspiracy theorists to regain their own joy is through the exposure of the other's joy, whether it exists or not. they obtain joy only through negation, the endless examination of the deviant other who joys without morality or self-constant.

this, i feel, is the most important and relevant thing to take from this book. the secret joy of compulsive knowing, of unravelling the secret desire of the world, that arises out of enlightenment instrumentality. the petty pseudoindividualism of the nihilist child, incapable of obtaining their own joy, except through the annihilation of the other's. the 21st century in a nutshell.

Foucault's analysis of sexuality in this volume is excellent and imbued with so many epistemic breaks to show us how the very notion of ‘truth’ is implied over and over again in this monstrous production of discourses regarding sexuality. Of course, like so many of Foucault's writings, here as well we see that power-knowledge relation. One of the things that I found the most interesting was how the very presumption of sexuality being repressed in our society is challenged. The silences, taboos regarding sexual act don't actually stop the function of sexuality in our society, rather the weight of the silence is powerful enough to give us an alternative revolutionary idea of sexual liberty. Foucault argues that sexuality as something which is suppressd through laws and rules is a discourse which has been produced during seventieth century victorian age. Foucault also reflects on how sexuality is not only centered around pleasure,but the production of ‘truth’ as well. Sexuality was made to be showed as some hidden treasure or truth which had to be explored through science. Thus what we see so as called sexual liberty during eightieth century till now. Foucault writes: “The essential point is that sex was not only a matter of sensation and pleasure, of law and taboo, but also of truth and falsehood, that the truth of sex became something fundamental, useful, or dangerous, precious or formidable: in short, that sex was constituted as a problem of truth.”

Also what I found interesting was how the notion of ‘sex’ itself is nothing outside the discourse of the deployment of sexuality through power. Rather the idea of having a distinct or concrete biological body is produced through the practice of sexuality in a particular historical period. The rise of sex education also gave birth to a completely new discourse,which is that of child sexuality. That's why even now we perceive sex of a person as something which is universal. How the idea of life, administration of life,study of life processes are connected with sexuality was also fun to read. How rather than giving someone death penalty,it happens that their very life is controlled and administered through the state.

Fun and great. Lets see what happens in the upcoming volumes.

I obviously can't do such a classic justice here. Though I will say, on a personal note, that this review feels belated. I've read parts of this book many times before over years, and I've read numerous pieces of historical research that touch on its arguments. Coming to it now, and reading it in its entirety, I'm oddly moved at how remarkable it is. Here, in 150 pages, Foucault challenges our view of sexuality as an ever constant presence which is sometimes allowed to flourish, and at other times repressed. Rather, he argues, sexuality is constituted precisely by those mechanisms of power that often seek to repress it. It's in some ways a simple argument, but it's one with deep implications not only for historical interpretation, but also for how we view ourselves, sexuality, and society in general.

اولین کتاب جدی بود که از فوکو میخوندم و خب طبیعی بود که ادبیاتش برای من ناآشنا باشه. البته پیش زمینه فلسفی هم به سخت تر شدن متن کتاب کمک کرده

روایت جالبی از اندیشیدن درباره سکس و ماهیت مفهومیش داره که برای من به عنوان یک مخاطب مذهبی جالب بود. اینکه فیلسوفان غربی دنبال ارائه فهم متناسبی از سکس با شرایط روز جامعه هستند، دقیقا حسادت برانگیزه؛ چرا در داخل چنین مساله ای مطرح نمیشه

Clarification for anyone considering this book based off of the title: Foucault was a philosopher, and The History of Sexuality is therefore far less a 'history' than a genealogical exploration of sexuality as a construct and a technology of power.

Further developing the thesis first presented in his 1975 book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault in this first volume introduces to readers the idea of biopower, which in simpler terms equals power exercised through discipline (directed at individual bodies) and regulation (of the wider population). Ultimately, what the guy tries to get at here is that the last few centuries' worth of increase in discourses around sexuality, sex, and the body as an object that indulges and is made up of them is not about liberation, but rather further codification, classification, and social control.

This idea is quite interesting when read against the everyday politics of neoliberalism, but much less so in terms of the language Foucault expresses it in. In fact, in context of how given he is here to dense academese and near-ceaseless repetitions, I would recommend skipping the first four sections and diving straight into the (quite excellent) final essay, "Right of Death and Power over Life" — read it in conjunction with Discipline and Punish and his lectures on Governmentality (1978) instead. More importantly, read it in light of all the criticism that follows, especially from the Global South: I for one think it is incredibly French of him to talk of the historical construction of sexuality in relation to power without once mentioning colonialism.

the better gender trouble?

this is the fucking worst erotica i ever read

super, nista nisam shvatila ali svaka cast fuko volimte

I hate post-modernism with a passion and normally would not pick this up in a million years however as part of my masters course I have spent the last day reading it to get a firm understanding of Foucault and I must be honest and say I still hate Post-Modernism.

I should point out this review was never going to be glowing, as I walked in knowing I would dislike it. Its a tedious read and in my opinion its whole thesis is flawed.

جزو کتابهایی است که معتقدم حتما باید خوانده شود.

77
اگر سکس با سخت گیری بسیار سرکوب می شود، از آن رو است که با کار عمومی و متمرکز مغایرت دارد. در دوره ای که به طور نظام مند از نیروی کار بهره کشی می شود، آیا می شود اجازه داد که نیروی کار در لذت ها هرز رود، مگر آنکه در لذت هایی صرف شود که به حداقل کاهش یافته اند و به نیروی کار امکان بازتولید می دهند؟ شاید سکس و تاثیراتش به سادگی قابل رمزگشایی نباشد، اما در عوض سرکوب آن ها که بدین سان بازسازی می شود به راحتی قابل تحلیل است. و علت سکس علت آزادی اش و نیز علت شناخت از آن و حق سخن گفتن از آن با مشروعیت تمام به عزت علتی سیاسی پیوند می خورد: سکس نیز در دستور کار آینده قرار می گیرد