Foucault, Sexuality Between the Ages

Foucault in section 2 of his introduction in The History of Sexuality: Volume 2 argues against the view that there is a fundamental break between the paganism of antiquity and the Christianity that followed. Certainly there are important differences between the epochs, but they are not exactly what we might expect. Foucault rejects the view that “sexuality is a constant.” He does not see a complete continuity between the two epochs, but there are important concepts which both hold in common – though these concepts or categories undergo change. He examines some historical texts, and comes to the conclusion that there are areas in these societies, or “forms of problematization,” that make the accepted picture hard to believe. Foucault focuses on four main areas to make his case: 1) the expression of fear, 2) a model of conduct, 3) the imagine of a stigmatized attitude, 4) an example of abstinence. 

            For the first problem (“the expression of fear”), Foucault quotes from Aretaeus who wrote during the 1^st century B.C. Aretaeus' view of sex is a negative one: Sex leads to all kinds of ills-- stagnation of the individual, society, etc. Rampant sex and masturbation are to be avoided; self-control and moderation are virtues. At first we think that Aretaeus is writing from a modern Christian perspective, but then Foucault informs us that the piece of writing is from the ancient era. This is a piece of evidence that the core of Greek paganism was not so much different than much of the doctrines of Christianity. The Greeks did not have as open and friendly of a view of sex as we first suspected.

            Second, Foucault argues that there was indeed a model of sexual conduct among the ancients; however, it was not the case that monogamy between a man and woman was always seen as a strict imperative or mandate. There were some thinkers in the ancient world who did offer up schemas, but there is massive heterogenity between the different schools. For example, Saint Francis of Sales did advocate monogamy and used an analogy about elephants to get his point across. His example had been handed down from a long tradition, thus Foucault argues that there were certain philosophical currents that put emphasis on sexual models.

            Third, Foucault discusses the image of homosexuality found in 19^th century and ancient texts. During both times, homosexuality often had attached to it negative connotations. He cites several examples which portray homosexual relations as “inverted” or deformities of nature. Foucault informs us that there have been stereotypes at work in different cultures throughout time.

            Fourth, Foucault discusses models of those who refrain from sexual activity. In ancient times, it seems that some were held in esteem for their self-restraint and search for wisdom. There, however, was not an authoritarian system of rules that had come to dominate. He argues that the views that did arise were in scattered centers by many groups.

            Foucault mentions two elements common to all moralities: codes of behavior and forms of  subjectivation. By modes of subjectivation, Foucault means the manner in which a person determines his relation to moral rules or laws, or how a person learns to act based on the acceptance of certain moral codes. With codes of behavior, Foucault is interested in the way groups and individuals accept or reject certain rules.

            Next Foucault discusses the Greek conception of sexuality. They did not have a blanket term for  something resembling our conception of “sexuality.” Yet the Greeks did have the word “aphrodisia” which roughly means sexual relations or carnal acts. The Greeks believed that it was best to be moderate and active (masculine, the one doing the sexual act) whereas the worst form is being excessive and having intercourse all the time, while also being passive.

            For the Greeks, Foucault argues that the Greek moderation was a form of self-mastery. The Greeks moderated their activities for the purpose of purity and freedom. An important aspect of the Greek attitude was that this freedom was of one in relation to oneself. In other words, Greek moderation was a matter of control over ones vices – moderation is a masculine, active attitude, as opposed to immoderation which is feminine and passive. Furthermore, moderation, for the ancients, was tied to wisdom. One could only find wisdom if he were moderate with his bodily inclinations. And, strangely, the opposite: one cannot be moderate without the proper wisdom. In Christianity, however, moderation is undergone because it is the word or law. Christianity tends to develop a system of values which are more precise and closed-off than the Greek conception.