I. Introduction: The Genealogy of the Desiring Subject and the Methodological Pivot
Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, Volume II: The Use of Pleasure (L’usage des plaisirs), published in 1984, represents one of the most intellectually compelling and rhetorically jarring moments in his oeuvre. Following the explosive and entirely modern critique of power structures launched in Volume I, Foucault executes a sudden, almost disorienting methodological pivot, abandoning the European 17th through 20th centuries to redirect his genealogical lens toward classical Greek antiquity of the 4th century BCE.
This geographical and temporal displacement signals a profound analytical shift. Where Volume I focused on the macro-mechanisms of power/knowledge—examining how the modern state produced the subject of “Sexuality”—Volume II shifts its focus to the realm of ethics. The investigation becomes an attempt to create a “history of the desiring subject”, seeking to understand the historical conditions under which human beings came to see themselves, through their own actions and reflections, as desiring beings. This pivot allows Foucault to examine morality not as a prohibitive code imposed by law, but as a practice of self-constitution. The core question evolves from How does power control our sex? to Why did sexual conduct, uniquely among all human actions, become an object of such intense and variegated moral scrutiny in the West?
This unanticipated historical itinerary underscores a profound scholarly commitment to challenging the self-evident. By proceeding backward from modernity, Foucault seeks to prove his initial claim: that our present experience of “sexuality” is a contingent cultural invention, not a universal biological reality. This unexpected turn, though sometimes criticized for its historical specificity, is perhaps the clearest indication of Foucault’s strategic refusal to be confined by the expectations of the very scholarly apparatus he sought to deconstruct.
II. The Ethical Imperative: Morality and the Practices of the Self
The central apparatus through which Foucault approaches Greek antiquity is the practice of the self (techniques de soi). This framework analyzes the “games of truth” by which an individual forms themselves into a moral subject. For the Greeks, the regulation of sexual conduct was not about universal moral law or the pursuit of a repressed “truth” (as in the modern scientia sexualis), but was integrated into a wider aesthetic enterprise: the art of existence (techne tou biou) .
A. The Care of the Self (Epimeleia Heautou)
In this period, ethics were centered on the care of the self (le souci de soi-même), which Foucault later posits as the defining concept of his late thought. This care, or self-cultivation, was not a moral prescription dictated by external law, but a voluntary mode of existence—a “choice about existence made by the individual” for self-transformation and improvement. The goal was the development of a masterful subjectivity, where freedom was achieved not through liberation from law, but through the stylization of freedom.
This is a crucial distinction from the modern ethical system. The Greek citizen’s self-mastery (askesis) was necessary for political and domestic authority. The moral reflection on sex did not aim to justify prohibitions, but to ensure that the individual, particularly the free man, exercised their freedom with prudence and good judgment. Unlike the repressive morality of later periods, which tied sin to desire, the Greek ethic of the aphrodisia (sexual pleasures/acts) focused on moderation and calculated self-control.
The mode of subjection, therefore, was not characterized by a relentless search for the deep, hidden truth of desire, but by the practical, strategic integration of pleasures into one’s life, judged on grounds of aesthetics and prudence rather than strict moral permissibility.
III. The Four Domains of the Ethical Calculus
Foucault divides the ethical problematization of sexual conduct in classical Greece into four interwoven domains that reveal how the citizen integrated the use of pleasures into the cultivation of his self-mastery. These domains demonstrate that the regulation of aphrodisia was instrumental to the larger project of shaping a coherent and autonomous self:
- Dietetics (Relation to the Body): Sexual activity was subjected to the rules of dietetics, an organized system of managing the body, health, and regimen. Sexual pleasures, like food and exercise, were judged by their measure and frequency, as excess or imbalance was seen as detrimental to the individual’s physical health and mental composure. This domain illustrates how sexual conduct was immediately integrated into the overall administration of life, long before the rise of modern biopolitics.
- Economics (Management of the Household): The governance of the oikos (household) required the ethical management of sexual relations, particularly regarding the wife. The integrity and self-control of the citizen were demonstrated through his mastery over his wife and slaves. Sexual relations with one’s wife were permitted, even expected, but had to be exercised with moderation and control, not out of passion. This emphasis reveals the deeply political nature of marital sex, tying the private household to the public capacity for self-government.
- Erotics (Relations between Men and Boys): The ethical rules governing pederastia—the formal, educational relations between an adult male citizen and a younger boy—were highly formalized. These rules were not about the act itself, but about the specific roles and the maintenance of moral and social hierarchy. The older partner was expected to demonstrate self-control and pedagogical intent, ensuring his conduct remained within the bounds of honor and self-mastery. Foucault emphasizes the differential erotics at play, noting the complexity with which the love of boys was often contrasted with, and elevated above, attraction to women.
- True Love and Philosophy: Finally, Foucault investigates how the philosophical schools grappled with the relationship between sexual pleasure and the pursuit of wisdom. The ideal of true love connected ethical conduct to the higher calling of the spirit and the achievement of logos. In this context, the individual questioned themselves about sexual behavior as an ethical problem, tying the strategic integration of pleasures into a life guided by philosophical reflection and self-knowledge.
IV. Critical Tensions and Sociological Omissions
The profound focus on the self and ethics in Volume II inevitably introduced new analytical frictions that sociological and feminist critique were quick to exploit.
A. The Phallocentric Abyss
The most enduring critique of The Use of Pleasure is its inherent phallocentrism. The entire ethical apparatus Foucault meticulously details—the cultivation of the self, the administration of the household, and the performance of public freedom—is predicated upon the figure of the free, male citizen. As some classicists have noted, Foucault seems to “take for granted, and thus ‘authorize,’ exactly what needs to be explained: the philosophical establishment of the autonomous male subject”.
In this framework, the female subject, the slave, and the non-citizen are relegated to the status of objects to be governed, not subjects capable of ethical self-governance. The wife becomes a fixed object of the husband’s economics; the slave is an object of production whose body exists outside the realm of freedom and ethical choice. By focusing solely on the master’s self-styling, Foucault risks leaving the structured oppression of women and subaltern bodies unanalyzed, implicitly accepting the ancient hierarchy as a neutral historical fact rather than a system of violent domination.
B. The Ambiguity of Historical Utility
Furthermore, the radical historical shift, while theoretically powerful, raises questions about its practical application to the modern problem of “sexuality.” Though Foucault asserts he is searching for historical configurations that allow us to “think differently” about our present, some critics felt that the volume became too involved in the historical details of antiquity, lacking the methodological rigor and immediate polemical fire that characterized Discipline and Punish or Volume I . However, the later influence of Volume II on contemporary queer theory and ethical scholarship—particularly its conceptualization of identity as a contingent self-creation rather than an inevitable psychological designation—ultimately validates the utility of this detour. The search for an ethics independent of law and prohibition has become a lasting theoretical offering to those seeking to stylize a freedom beyond the restrictive categories of contemporary discourse.
V. Conclusion
The Use of Pleasure successfully executes Foucault’s core goal: to show that the concept of “sexuality” is not an immutable, essential force, but a contingent outcome of a specific power/knowledge formation. By retreating to classical Greece, Foucault demonstrates a model of ethical life where the regulation of the aphrodisia was not tied to sin or repression, but to the aesthetic and civic project of being a self-governing individual.
The volume serves as a powerful testament to the complexity of moral experience. It replaces the simple binary of repression/liberation (critiqued in Volume I) with the nuanced reality of voluntary subjectivation. By exposing a time when ethical practice was less about universal law and more about the artful, personal cultivation of one’s own existence , Foucault bequeathed to subsequent critical theory, especially in the realms of ethics and queer thought , the enduring challenge of identifying spaces where individuals might yet define themselves not as objects of power, but as subjects capable of creating their own freedom.
Buy this Book
