
Reserve it at BN.com & pick it up in 60 minutes at your local store.
Enter a zip code
(Paperback - Reissue)
The author turns his attention to sex and the reasons why we are driven constantly to analyze and discuss it. An iconoclastic explanation of modern sexual history.
In this absorbing study, Foucault discusses the attitudes toward sexuality prevalent in Hellenistic Greece and Rome. Classical Greece's view of sex as a means of obtaining individual pleasure faced increasing challenge in Hellenistic times. The love of boys now assumed more muted tones, often finding itself at odds with the highly valued ideals of marital fidelity and virginity. The Stoic approach, as Foucault demonstrates in a nuanced discussion, both resembled and differed from the asceticism of Christianity. This volume, perhaps the last that will appear of the author's posthumous History of Sexuality ( LJ 10/15/78; 12/1/85) manifests Foucault's powerful analytic ability. Though at times it draws very broad conclusions from the discussion of relatively few texts, it is still highly recommended. David Gordon, Social Philosophy & Policy Ctr., Bowling Green State Univ., Ohio
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
December 16, 2008:
Since no one else has reviewed this, I figured I owed it to any other college and grad students to provide an overview in case they have to read it. This book started out with potential. After reading the title, I hoped he'd provide a comprehensive study of legal cases, medical practices, and average Victorian sex lives. Unfortunately, "history" is a misnomer, because Foucault never specifies when particular events occurred. Instead, he makes general statements such as, "Religious confessions became part of medical treatment for patients with sexual disorders in the nineteenth century." But he never provides dates or specific examples. Where is the documentation, the medical records, the testimony? Nonexistent. I really wondered if he'd actually bothered to read any books prior to writing his, because there are no references or footnotes in the text to show that he did research. If I practiced this kind of "scholarship" as a grad student, I would receive an F and a citation for plagiarism. Does becoming a professional scholar mean that one can disregard the rules of proper citations? Apparently so.
Furthermore, Foucault's ideas were unclear. I know, it's theory; it's supposed to be confusing. But he failed to fully convince me that Victorians did not want to repress sex. He claims that parents, doctors, and schoolteachers tried to repress children from masturbating because they knew their efforts would fail, and they wanted this to happen. How does that make any sense? Foucault explains that it's because they wanted the children's sexual urges to drive them towards marriage, but a young child can't get married, at least not for several years.
Overall, I was disappointed in this book. It was poorly researched and the very subject, "sex", is rarely named within the text (I guess this was a trick to show that sex couldn't be spoken about in direct terms in Victorian society. Cute). One reviewer said that Foucault on sex was as erotic as a discarded Coke can. If I have to read a scholarly book, it should be interesting and display good methods of scholarship. This book didn't.