O sea, no voy a hacer un review crítico de un libro de Foucault. Es un placer de leer y ya fue.

Going into the second volume of his history of sexuality, Michel Foucault returns from the speculative nature of n  The History of Sexuality 1: The Will to Knowledgen to the prober histographics that he was known for earlier. Granted, the sources for how sexuality was viewed in pre-4oo B.C. Greece aren't numerous, but Foucault makes use of what he got in a very effective manner.

The purpose of n  The History of Sexuality, Volume 2: The Use of Pleasuren is twofold. First is to demonstrate how the ancient Greeks saw sexuality and second is differentiate this view with the framing of sexuality within the Christian paradigme. And Foucault does manage to do both.
Foucault aptly demonstrate how the Greeks' (or more specifically, Greek men's) view on sexuality was no bound up in the same morality as the later Christians, showing how the Greeks' morality, as it pertained to sex and sexuality, had less to do with the act itself and more to do with how and why the sexual act was performed.
However, I don't think this view of sexual morality is as different from the Christian tradition as Foucault would want us to think. As the subheading of the book would suggest, Foucault's main idea was that pleasure took up a central place in Greek sexual morality, in that pleasures should only be derived and should be enjoyed in moderation. But this same focus on pleasure can be also be found in certain Christian cults and tradition, that either considers pleasure as a necessary part of sexual relations or as a product of the Fall which has to be avoided to live in purity. So, while the framing of pleasure is entirely different, the Greek and Christian traditions do seem to have more in common than Foucault gives them credit for.

There's also an alarming lack of discussion on female sexuality in the book. Granted, I suspect that most writing on sexuality until fairly recently was completely male-focused, but Foucault never writes this. He just only deal with the history of sexuality as it pertain to males. Foucault does recognize that women exist and are dealt with in the litterature of the time, but he never goes any deeper than an acknowledgement. And in a work that set out to this in-depth, that seems strange.

V repetitive! A major bummer because Foucault is often an illuminating read. Oh well, "crime and discipline" is still a perfect book, and I suggest you give it a go!

better than the first one.

“If one wanted to assign an origin to those few great themes that shaped our sexual morality (the idea that pleasure belongs to the dangerous domain of evil, the obligation to practice monogamous fidelity, the exclusion of partners of the same sex), not only would it be a mistake to attribute them to that fiction called ‘Judeo-Christian’ morality, it would be a bigger mistake to look behind them for the timeless operation of prohibition, or the permanent form of law. The sexual austerity that was prematurely recommended by Greek philosophy is not rooted in the timelessness of a law that would take the historically diverse forms of repression, one after the other. It belongs to a history that is more decisive for comprehending the transformations of moral experience than the history of codes: a history of ‘ethics’, understood as the elaboration of a form of relation to the self that enables an individual to fashion himself into a subject of ethical conduct."

genuinamente interessante e engajante! aprendi muitas coisas aqui mas o conhecimento principal é o quão estranho era o povo grego em relação à alimentação (e na verdade sobre todas as coisas que envolviam o corpo e a propriedade). a estilização da experiência, como foucault a define, em contraponto à hermenêutica do desejo, é algo muito inerente à sociedade grega e que se constituia como uma verdadeira ritualização do dia a dia.
também não sei se é crédito do autor ou do tradutor mas a leitura foi mil vezes mais fluida do que eu imaginava!

4/5

A short, straightforward work that analyzes the relation of sexuality to social power. Worth reading not only for the good clear writing, but also for Foucault's original take on sexuality as an object of knowledge.

Acquired unknown year--probably between 1995 and 1999
Cheap Thrills, Montreal, Quebec

"Catching, not pitching?", asks Carlo Gervasi when Vito Spatafore is outed as a homosexual. The outrage at Vito's passivity during a fellatio act serves a comedic purpose. We might laugh at the bigoted wise guys of the Sopranos universe, but in reality we laugh at our own prejudices, still quite frequent in many social settings. The active, the dominant ones are treated with more leniency than 'gimps', 'bottoms', or in general, those who are submissive. What is probably not common knowledge is how this line of thinking has ancient roots dating back to the Greeks.

The relationship of man with boy is one of the points of focus for Foucault in the second volume of his History of Sexuality. Of course, times have changed and certain theories of the Greeks are no longer acceptable from an ethical standpoint. Foucault vehemently opposed many modern precepts, he was at loggerheads with the juridical system of the 1970s and 1980s, and he would probably be even more so these days. Given his biography, the sympathetic approach towards pederasty (be careful about using that word!) on the pages of the volume is not shocking.

It can be forgiven, though, because the Use of Pleasure is an intellectual delight. Foucault admits to straying from the self-imposed structure he anticipated in the first book. He goes back in time as far as ancient Greece, and it's this place and time that the volume is devoted to. His change of mind, fortunately, makes his work more complete.

A repeating theme of the book is related to a perceived (lack of) continuity between Greece and further epochs in Western history. In some respects, there is some overlap between the ancient thought and Christianity, but despite multiple areas of concordance, the rules prescribed in both cases stem from different motives, ultimately making them quite divergent.

Perhaps the main difference lies in the concept of temperance. Sex was not something evil or forbidden; in ancient Greece it didn't yet belong to the process of expanding, authoritarian codification. And yet concupiscence wasn't considered to be completely neutral either. Immoderation could negatively affect the man's impact on both oikos and polis, places that were crucial in building prosperity and maintaining peace.

Foucault goes through a plethora of ancient texts, including those of Plato and Aristotle, and focuses on different aspects of temperance, as considered in dietetics, economics, and erotics. Unlike the first volume which had a more philosophical tone, the Use of Pleasure is more about historical and literary analysis. It's still a great read, different in flavor, but fulfilling and whetting one's appetite for more.

فيه تقدم, بالنسبة لي.

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.

Anybody have opinions on whether I should read these in order? Because I kinda want to read the one about the Greeks asap.

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.

A very readable analysis of the ethics of sexuality in Ancient Greece. Here, through interpretation of various Greek writings, Foucault posits the idea that sexuality in Ancient Greece isn’t quite the bacchanalian free love one might imagine, and that in fact, there was a strict code of ethics that guided men, which possibly even influenced western Christian values on sex. It’s a very fascinating read, and Foucault does great work contextualizing the ethical code of conduct for men of Ancient Greece, which it turns out is very complex