Customer Reviews

The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This text is perhaps Foucault's most well-known, although it might not be his best. It is an important work, so if you are at all interested in sex as an abstract and organizing principle, this is a must-read. (Note: it is not a history in the proper sense of the term). While not a terribly confusing book, it is WIDELY misunderstood, including by many of the reviewers. First off, do not make the mistake of reading the first section as Foucault's thesis (it may seem that way)--he is presenting the common approach to the issue, one that he will eventually CHALLENGE. "Sex" was never repressed--on the contrary, there has been an explosion of discourses, a productive manifestation of power. Foucault admits that this was partially organized through technologies of confession, normalization, etc.-BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAIN THRUST. The main idea of the text is that there is no commanding, Platonic principle "sex" that we must uncover or saturate ourselves with, and hence, while prudery seems suspect, liberation through "sex" or "sex-desire" is entirely nonsensical, since sex is subordinate to sexuality and not vica-versa. Foucault, with much uncertainty, thereby envisions a different economy of bodies and pleasures, more like the ars erotica, that focuses on the local and individual, with all their multiple possibilities for deeper value and communication. Hence, depite what people make of Foucault's life, this book is more "conservative" that one would imagine... It is ideal for anyone who wants to free themselves from either a deep-rooted fear of sex or the incessant demands sex makes from on high (from the media, etc.) To Foucault, the idea that sex is seen as a requirement for one's deepest sense of being is absurd (and almost comical). A fascinating exploration which you might have to read twice, the History of Sexuality demonstrates Foucault's otherwordly insight. Do not fall into the traps I mentioned--Foucault's purpose here is not to free sex from all controls, but merely from one in particular--the reader is given the freedom to reflect and counter it with a more positive and meaningful grasp of his own sexuality and sexual experience.

Foucault's three-part History of Sexuality begins here with an examination of the ways in which our contemporary interpretation of sexuality has been shaped by historical trends. Foucault makes a compelling case for the construction of sexual identity as a function of political and economic forces. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in sexuality, psychoanalysis, gender studies, queer theory, or feminisms, or indeed anyone who wishes to confront his or her own personal assumptions about gender and sexuality. Think you know what normal is? After Foucault, you may not be so sure. (One more thing: while this book is a fascinating read which can stand alone, I strongly advise anyone interested in this subject to go on to read the second and third volumes)

This book can be seen as a perfect example of a brilliant mind at work. Foucault surely considered this book as an introductory piece, a draft of brilliantly posed ideas and problems about sexuality as a dispositive, not in the traditional sense of the word that we have all become so acquainted with. This book works in many respects: Foucault succesfully makes his case for an open refusal of the "repressive hypothesis", explaining in a very precise manner why the discourse on sexuality in the XVIII and XIX centuries, far from being shy about it, positively promoted discussion... what he calls a "discoursive explosion". Foucault quite brilliantly introduces the two ways in which sexuality has come to be assumed by the human race: as an art (in ancient Greece) and as a science (in our present era). He also develops his own ideas (ideas that also appear in his courses at the Collège de France, particularly "Society Must Be Defended") about bio-power, disciplinary societies and biopolitical regimes. He successfully questions the fact that we have come to place sex under a veil of secrecy which must be undone... how sex has become the key to our personality, our "identity".

The last verses of the book are revealing: how is it that we still consider sex to be liberating when in reality we are always under its gaze, when it really has become a burden to be dealt with?

This book is astounding. Maybe not as brilliant as "Discipline and Punish" (which says a LOT about Foucault's creative nature)but certainly a key text toward understanding the problems Foucault tackled in final years of his life.

Note: the last two volumes of the History of Sexuality display a shift of focus and a leap back in "history"... you'll have to read the introduction to volume 2, "The Use Of Pleasure", to see what I mean. Still, it all makes sense if you dig deeper into the final developments of Foucault's work.

More like a 3.5 if that was an option. Part of me hates rating this book so low, but I really have to. Here's why.

I love and hate Foucault more than just about any other philosopher. He is probably the pre-eminent French philosopher of his generation. The problem is that he is probably also the worst French historian of all time.

Foucault certainly has his moments and he's consistently entertaining (he's a very good writer and judging from his lectures, a great lecturer), but underneath it all, he's fundamentally lazy - he never does research studies or clinical work, he never looks outside France, he uses translations and secondary sources when he should be using original texts, he cites literature as if it is representative of the masses in the society in which it was written. Yet his writing is so confident, and his ideas so interesting and self-assured people believe him without checking his sources or his historical assertions.

He reminds me of the student I always have in my class who comes up with the best ideas but is unwilling to follow them through. The B student that should be an A+ student. He doesn't do homework, he doesn't show his work. I have to give them split grades. I'd give Foucault a split grade if I could - Ideas 5/5. Reasoning and Research 2/5.

In Foucault's case, he didn't do research outside France, he didn't reference or respond to contemporary History of Ideas works on Sexuality (e.g. Otto Kiefer's Sexuality in Rome and Greece, Van Gulick's Sexuality in Ancient China), he failed to develop a basic understanding of medicine, he cherrypicked texts that suited his arguments and failed to consider opposing arguments, and his Greek and Latin leave something to be desired.

His concept of the "repressive hypothesis" in this book is extremely interesting and well-reasoned (apart from the historical examples). His notion of biopower is also fairly intriguing, though not fleshed out in sufficient detail here (Psychiatric Power has more on it), and seems to be a kind of extension of the Hegelian for-itself (which is conceived in terms of relationships). He also very briefly, mentions third sex/intersexed individuals, which became a jumping off point for a lot of queer theory. Buyer beware - if you're looking for queer theory, it's only about a page or two, so you'll probably be disappointed.

Here's the real problem with this book - the examples, the historical scholarship. Foucault, determined as he is to prove (like Nietzsche did quite a bit more convinvingly in Beyond Good and Evil) the lack of foundation of contemporary morality bends the truth and fails to see things that are very obvious to medical professionals and more objective historians.

Case in point:

In a passage (31) and elsewhere in references to Ancient Greece, Foucault more or less writes an apologia for pedophilia. There is a problem though with all this - the unstated biological injunction. As someone who was an EMT - I can tell you something that should be obvious to someone as smart as Foucault, but wasn't - apart from normative moral concerns (which wouldn't concern an anti-foundationalist) - sexual intercourse with children physically and biologically injures them. I won't go into the gory details. If they're young enough, it could kill them. There's also the way young people respond to STD's. Sometimes, that's different, too.

Even if you completely dispense with normative morality and enact purely utilitarian laws based upon simply minimizing biological damage or instead engage in a minarchical system with protective services, this would still be largely prohibited either by law or contracted mutual assent.

In addition, Foucault does not understand biology very well and often uses outdated medical references like Pinel to represent current medical practice. The thing is Foucault is clever about it. It's a straw man, but it's a clever straw man, because he cites Pinel in a historical context and later as a means of (falsely) explaining the contemporary. Either that, or he just doesn't get medicine all that well.

Then there's Christianity. Oh, God, is Foucault ever wrong on this frontier. He even claims (117) the first treatise on sin was written in the 15th century. Off the top of my head, there are writings on sin as early as Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century (and perhaps earlier). You're ten centuries off, Foucault! That kind of oversight borders on ridiculous. How no one else has picked up on that baffles me.

I'd definitely read this book, but read it critically. It's not as inept in the scholastic sense as Madness and Civilization (which famously contains references to the non-existent Ship of Fools) but some of the scholarship is abysmal.

The French/Greco-Roman focus is a tad trying too, especially considering the wealth of available laws of quite a number of other major civilizations, which Foucault overlooks, presumably because they have male to male sodomy prohibitions which problematize his central arguments, or because of his obvious ignorance of other languages.

If this sounds overly negative, bear in mind - I like this book, and wholeheartedly recommend purchasing it. Just take it with a grain of salt. It has some extraordinarily interesting ideas, but alas, when I see it, I see what could have been if the author was more disciplined in his approach. If there wasn't so much there that was good, I wouldn't be nearly as upset by Foucault's sloppy scholarship.

In "The History of Sexuality", Foucault enlightens us with sexuality as a tribute benefiting from knowledge and power. Sexuality before the 18th century, was in a sense, located in the body and the flesh. There was no established fetish. Sex had not come under the scrutiny of science (psychoanalysis). Sex was just sex; for procreation and physical enjoyment. When the confessionals started to become a ritual in religion we see a shift or rupture in history. Priests in the middle ages became concerned with what people did sexually. It was the confession that would free, but it was the power that reduced an individual to silence. Thus the titillating game began and repeated and repeated. Freud and his psychoanalysis came along, which defined and categorized sexuality and its dysfunctions. Psychoanalysis became a scientific confessional. Thus society has become a singularly confessing society; Western man has become a confessing animal. Foucault then begins to posit anchorage points in institutions such as in the home; anchorage points which standardizes roles of family classification. It's roughly 160 pages long and readable. This was probably my favorite of Foucault's work.

Foucault is one of the most important thinkers of our time. He is a historian, a cultural theorist, and a philosopher. When looking at the History of Sexuality Foucault does not see powerful figures repressing sex, but actually encouraging people to discuss it. This discourse was encouraged so that sex could be controlled and this discourse actually created what is today called sexuality--a norm that we believe to be culturally independent or universal. The belief that sex is repressed is only another strategy formed through a series of power relationships that desires for people to keep discussing sex in order that this "sex" can be classified and controled. For example: Encouraging a discourse on the act of sodomy enabled a catagory of homosexual to be created. Instead of sodomy being a act that a person may engage in, that person instantly became a homosexual, his sexuality constituting his entire being--how he/she should talk, act, and live in general. The discourse that was encourage to develop around sex enable power to classify and control sexuality--power actually created what we believe to be the "real sexuality". Foucault explains the complicated relationship between power and discourse that developed a set of complicated and sometimes contradicting--and always changing--ideas about what sex is and how we are to approach it.
This book is not easy. I will have to read it again. However, I believe that this book is a good intro to Foucault's very important theories on power relationships. An important factor to be recognized is that this book is a translation from french and, as many people have already expressed, has made it more difficult to comprehend. I did not understand everything in totality but I feel that the most imporant concepts were revealed. If you get confused take a deep breath and reread the previous paragraph, doing this helped alot and gives your brain a second chance to wrap itself around the really difficult parts. This is a very rewarding book that will give you valuable tools for confronting and interpreting the ideologies and power relationships we are confronted with. Good Luck!

There is no doubt in my mind that Foucault is one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century and without a doubt among the most influential. His philosophical inquiry into material history of systems and their construction/perpetuation has revolutionized the way in which we see the world around us and has led to fruitful and fascinating inquiries in the field of cultural studies.

No volume articulates Foucault's ideas with greater clarity than this first volume of his history of sexuality. More a manifesto than a true history, Foucault outlines with astonishing deftness the ways in which our perceptions are molded by systems of knowledge and power. These systems, which he describes as "intentional but non-subjective" (in other words, having a purpose and goal, but not directed by any guiding intelligence) are like natural forces that shape and mold our understanding of the world while they perpetuate themselves. His analysis of the formulation of ideas of sexuality in the 18th and 19th centuries illustrates his argument both forcefully and clearly. Readers may, by the way, want to compare Foucault's ideas with Louis Althusser's in his essay on the Industrial State Apparatus in his collection "Lenin and Philosophy," which provides a similarly materialists, but more politically Marxist, view of how subjectivity is constructed and limited by existing modes of power.

This is part one in Foucault's three part series on Sexuality. It doesn't have the gripping opening few pages that Discipline and Punish has (quite possibly the most engrossing beginning of any book I have ever read), but it still grabs you. What this volume does have is amazing clarity in the ideas that he presents. The general idea is that society controls sex through how it talks about it and organizes it (this is pretty much the idea in all of Foucault's works) and Foucault examines this power structure of society. How marriage controls sexuality, why there has been such a veritable explosion of discussion about sex in the West since the seventeenth century, why do we believe that talking about sex will make us less repressed about it, etc. Foucault addresses many questions in this work.
I did have some problems with it, however. I'll only mention one or two here. In the closing chapter of the book Foucault discusses the Right of Death and Power over Life. He begins by talking about the Right of the Sovereign to compel to war (Foucault is very anti-War) and how it has changed from wars being waged to protect a sovereign to wars being waged to protect people and ideals and an entire nation. We have this line: "In any case, in its modern form - relative and limited - as in its ancient and absolute form, the right of life and death is a dissymmetrical one. The sovereign exercised his right of life only by exercising his right to kill, or by refraining from killing; he evidenced his power over life only through the death he was capable of requiring (emphasis added). I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Nor am I convinced that history does - and Foucault offers neither text nor argument to support this. He expects us to take it as fact. Gone are theories of divine right and other power structures invoked by sovereign's (taxes, services, "For England", or "For France"). Patriotism isn't only a modern day invention. Joan of Arc drove the English out of France so that France could be it's own nation again. "Power in this instance was essentially right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and ultimately life itself; it culminated in the privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it." The implication is that "Power" has changed (and it has) so that now society (through it's mechanism of discussion and examination) has power even when the "right of seizure" isn't enforceable - or doesn't exist. These themes tend to come out over the course of reading several of Foucault's books, but never does M. Foucault state them so precisely and with such clarity as he does in this volume.

While Foucault is a must-read in nearly all social science fields, this book should be read in conjunction with several other articles and books by Foucault--most notably, "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History", "Schizo-Culture", and 'Discipline and Punish'. There are far too many misconceptions regarding Foucault's thought, which is inescapable given the scope of this book and the sophistication of langauge used. I would also recommend having a basic understanding of Freud's theories on sexuality and the Critical school of thought.

The largest problem I have with this book is that it is a terrible translation of the original French work. This is clear even to me, just from a basic reading knowledge of French. If you do read French, you can buy a copy from Amazon. Otherwise, read several of his articles and books in addition to this one--I do not know of any other English translations of this book.

Tough and complicated, but insightful and original. Filled with examples and historical facts, Foucault places sexuality in a light that is both riveting and thougth provoking. In all honesty, this is a tough read that is mostly geared for the graduate or postdoctorate level. The words are simple, but Foucault's language insists on interpretation and explanation. Have a good Foucault interpreter near you as you swamp through his vast world of literary theory.