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:

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.

Buen y conciso acercamiento a la moral griega del uso de los placeres. Util para indagar de donde viene la moral cristiana y que tan arraigada se encuentra en las ideas griegas de "sabiduria" y "dominio de sí".

Lo recomiendo ampliamente.

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 ��حاور 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.

The introduction of this book is a tour de force of Foucault’s methodological brilliance. He spins off structuring distinctions that he then applies to the unfolding of the whole project. The project itself—the tracing of how sex is made into a field for ethical reflection in Ancient Greece—is only of interest for historians of sex or classicists, and it’s executed in a bit of a methodical, repetitive way. (The benefit of this plodding style is that it is an uncharacteristically breezy read by Foucault’s standards.)

If you are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend reading it alongside Martha Nussbaum’s essay in The Sleep of Reason. For those with more general interest, read the intro once or twice and then read the last section, which includes a fascinating interpretation of Plato’s Phaedrus and Symposium, identifying how Platonic erotics becomes the point of transition from the Greek popular notions of courtship virtues to the question of truth. Here the forms of Christian morality take shape at least in outline.

But Foucault is amazingly sensitive in his treatment, electing not to draw direct lines and instead to focus on contrasting wider shapes between Christian and Greek: moral law vs. ethics as a mode of stylization of the self, hermeneutics (knowledge) of desires vs. the drama of self-mastery and pleasure, other-oriented vs. self-oriented morality. (This latter distinction is of especial interest, and I would love to see it further fleshed out.)((mostly I just wanted to use “especial” in a sentence))

Not as provocative as the first volume but, if one is extensively familiar with the underlying Greek texts (e.g. Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Aristophanes), a quicker read. Presents a plausible reading of those texts, but a critical reader must bear in mind that the survey is tendentiously selective--omitting contemporary texts whose readings might have gone against the grain of Foucault's schema--and that much of the cultural production of ancient Greece has not survived at all. It may be impossible to rigorously construct a counter-history in which Sappho or Agathon can speak at length for themselves, but one is allowed to imagine it.

Michel Foucault's work "The History of Sexuality: Volume 2—The Use of Pleasure" thoroughly examines the attitudes and perceptions surrounding sexuality in classical Greek culture. Foucault explores the intricate ways the Greeks conceptualized and navigated the realm of sexuality, shedding light on the historical context and the significance of these beliefs in shaping societal norms and individual experiences.

Foucault delves into a wide array of topics, ranging from ancient Greek medical advice on the most beneficial season for engaging in sexual activity to an in-depth exploration of the societal roles and treatment of women throughout history.

The book delves deeply into the distinguishing characteristics and commonalities between the Ancient, Christian, and Modern eras, shedding light on how sexuality transformed into a moral quandary in Western societies.

It's a fascinating read!

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.

Foucault has a reputation for turning ideas on their head and here he certainly aims to challenge our expectations about ancient Greece - the supposedly homophilic and perhaps even libertine nature of Greek (and by extension Roman) society in contrast to the repressive Christian ethos that dominated Europe following the end of the classical era - but this was far more a straightforward exploration of classical Greek thought than one might expect. Ironically enough, I'd far more recommend this to a student of Plato than a student of Foucault or his contemporaries. And while Foucault's interest in this material is questionable, it admirably demonstrates his love of philosophy and its scholarship and has me softening my skepticism towards Foucault. That's not to say I'm abandoning it entirely, as even here, certain key points don't sit well with me. To begin with, I don't know if I entirely buy the argument that ancient Greek society lacked such absolute taboos around, for instance, pederasty. The emphasis on moderation and self-control rather than a strict right or wrong is nuanced, and in some cases results in a total refusal to engage in pederasty, as in the case of Socrates. The fact that such behavior was not seen as an absolute taboo and even celebrated is certainly well-documented in the literature - my doubt is more that I'm not so sure we can rely on this evidence as representative of Greek society as a whole. Foucault stresses that the texts we have to draw upon reflect elite interests, namely those of elite men, heads of household responsible for the disciplining of women, children, and slaves. So, perhaps the widespread acceptance (in varying degrees, as Foucault demonstrates) of pederasty could simply reflect the depraved tastes of a parasitic oppressor class. Crucially, the conceptualization of self-discipline is oriented around the discipline of others. Here we see a different perspective to the biopower introduced in Volume I - this point in particular reminded me of contemporary bourgeois notions of self-discipline, the fascist personal regimes suggested by our billionaire lifestyle gurus. What bothers me is that Foucault seems unwilling to condemn this elite and their morality in stark enough terms. He certainly takes a critical perspective and the sort of critical demolition I think we need can be teased out but, to carry on with the metaphor, he does not press the detonator. You could chalk this up to a mere academic detachment, though it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt to a man with credible allegations of pedophilia to his name. I don't much like the argument people often make along the lines of, "But what about the perspectives of such-and-such people not included?" - in this case there's good reason why we don't hear the perspective of women and slaves, as their views were simply not included in the historical record and would not fit into a survey of elite discourse regardless. However, I think it must be said that an accurate portrayal of ancient Greek sexuality would need to at the very least consider the perspectives of these people or whether the widespread sexualization of young boys would in all likelihood result in a culture of widespread trauma and repression - a culture in which violence and domination are seen as the norm, as it was in ancient Greek society.

Upon revisiting this book I still think it’s an interesting history regarding sexuality and pleasure, and I enjoy the contrast and similarities in Ancient Greece and Christianity. It’s interesting the ways in which the Greeks were almost ahead, and yet also so far behind when understanding pleasure.

That being said I feel the final quarter of this book sort of lost me. I can understand the train of thought, but the beginning and middle was so strong that the final chunk of the book (when the focus shifted to marriage) I felt Foucault lost a bit of his punch.

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."

Como siempre dejándome perplejo con la información que da y que me genera curiosidad por ahondar en los temas que plantea, en est aocasio acerca de amor o relaciones griegas y las interacciones entre los individuos.

I could congratulate Michel Foucault on his research and examination of the way in which ancient greeks regulated, viewed and analyzed sexuality. I could talk about how he didn't present a completely distorted view of something that's commonly understood as the unavoidable differences between the greek and the Christian conception, because obviously civilizations had been previously preparing to receive such a message. The people of the Old Testament, though still Jewish, are not the same persons as in the New Testament, at least from the perspective of a social change.

It's good too, that he recognized that our interest to classify and put every sexuality under a taxonomy that can't escape us is modern. For the greeks, "bisexuality" was nothing as such, just an interest in beautiful things. So, probably he watches with some complacent ways and there's nothing wrong with talking about objects of pleasure here...at least not if sex is conceived as dialectics of domination.

There's brief chapters on the nature of marriage and the inferiority of women, that would be nothing of what this writing challenges in modern society. Of course, as a homosexual man, his main concern would be the views of homosexuality and I don't really blame him for it. But there was nothing to discuss about female homosexuality, apparently. Excuse me if I skipped those parts a bit in horror anyway, because we're talking about marriages with 15 years of difference between men and women, and teenage boys entering into contact with old men, old enough to be their parents.

It's interesting to note that also male prostitution, and not just female, was seen as bad, though of course it wasn't until much later that mutual loyalty was a requisite.

So, all in all, I'd say that it would have been more interesting to me if it covered a bit of these other areas too.

I hope the final part is more interesting. Definitely reading Foucault is far from being an experience in which I can agree with everything, but challenging my system of thought is very important and I certainly wouldn't overlook that.