Foucault and Classical Antiquity: Power, Ethics and Knowledge

282 Pages·2005·7 MB·English

by  Wolfgang Detel

FOUCAULT AND CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Power, Ethics and Knowledge
WOLFGANG DETEL
JohannWolfgangGoethe-Universita¨tFrankfurt
Translatedby
DAVID WIGG-WOLF
  
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521833813
© Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt am Main 1998
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format
- ---- eBook (NetLibrary)
- --- eBook (NetLibrary)
- ---- hardback
- --- hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Originally published in German as Macht, Moral, Wissen: Foucault und die Klassische
Antike.
First published in English by Cambridge University Press 2005 as Foucault and
Classical Antiquity: Power, Ethics and Knowledge English translation © Cambridge
University Press 2005
CONTENTS
List of abbreviations page viii
Introduction 1
1 Morals,knowledgeandpower 6
2 Theethicalteleology 58
3 Thescientificregimen 93
4 Theasymmetricalrelationship 118
5 Theepistemiceros 163
6 Gender,natureandreference 223
References 264
Index 276
vii
ABBREVIATIONS
OfFoucault’sworks
M.Foucault,TheHistoryofSexuality
HS Vol.1:TheWilltoKnow
UP Vol.2:TheUseofPleasure
CS Vol.3:TheCareoftheSelf
Forancientauthorsandtexts
DK DielsandKranz(1964)
Frg. Fragments
Epigramm.Graec. EpigrammataGraeca
Aesch. Aeschines
Ar. Aristotle
An. DeAnima(OntheSoul)
An.Post. AnalyticaPosteriora(PosteriorAnalytics)
An.Prior. AnalyticaPrioria(PriorAnalytics)
Ath.Polit. DeAthenorumRepublica(AthenianConstitution)
EE EthicaEudemia(EudemianEthics)
GA De Generatione Animalium (On the Generation of
Animals)
viii
list of abbreviations ix
GC De Generatione et Corruptione (On Generation and
Corruption)
HA HistoriaAnimalium(HistoryofAnimals)
Iuv. DeIuventuteetSenectute(OnYouthandOldAge)
Met. Metaphysica(Metaphysics)
MM MagnaMoralia(GreatEthics)
NE EthicaNicomachea(NicomacheanEthics)
PA DePartibusAnimalium(PartsofAnimals)
Phys. Physica(Physics)
Pol. Politica(Politics)
Resp. DeRespiratione(OnRespiration)
Rhet. Rhetorica(Rhetorics)
Sens. DeSensu(OnSense)
SE SophisticiElenchi(OnSophisticalRefutations)
Top. Topica(Topics)
Aristoph. Aristophanes
Ekkl. Ecclesiazusae
Lysistr. Lysistrata
Nub. Clouds
Thesm. Thesmaphoriazusae
Cael.Aur. CaeliusAurelianus
Acut. Acutaepassiones
Cic. Cicero
Iuvent. DeIuventione
Corp.Hipp. CorpusHippocraticum
Epid. Epidemiae(Epidemics)
Deinarch. Deinarchus
Dem. Democritus
Demosth. Demosthenes
Diog.Laert. DiogenesLaertius
Eur. Euripides
Electr. Electra
Troj. TrojanWomen
Gal. Galenus
Progn. PrognosticumdeDecubituexMathematicaScientia
Hes. Hesiod
Hyper. Hypereides
Hipp. Hippocrates
Prisc.Med. DePriscinaMedicina(OnAncientMedicine)
Epid. OftheEpidemics
Aphor. Aphorisms
x list of abbreviations
Hor. Horace
Sat. Satyrae(Satires)
Ep. Epistulae(Letters)
Iambl. Iamblichus
Isocr. Isocrates
Plato
Charm. Charmides
Gorg. Gorgias
Lys. Lysis
Nom. Nomoi(Laws)
Phaed. Phaedo
Phaedr. Phaedrus
Polit. Politeia(Republic)
Prot. Protagoras
Symp. Symposium
Tim. Timaeus
Porph. Porphyrius
Vit.Pyth. VitaPythagorae
Pseud.-Ar. Pseudo-Aristotle
Mech. Mechanica[ofdubiousauthenticity]
Oec. Oeconomica
PP ProblemataPhysica[ofdubiousauthenticity]
Soph. Sophocles
Trach. Trachiniae
Xen. Xenophon
Mem. Memorabilia(SocraticMemoirs)
Symp. Symposium
Oec. Oeconomicus
INTRODUCTION
Themainaimofthisbookistoclarifythemoralconcernaboutsexuality
and sexual activities expressed by leading authors in classical antiquity.
MichelFoucaultwas,ofcourse,thefirstthinkertoundertakethisclarifi-
cation, and one aim of his stimulating study was to demonstrate the way
inwhichhisnewethicsprogrammeworked.Thereforemystartingpoint
is the reconstruction of claims about the control of the desires and the
creationofthemoralsubjectinclassicalphilosophical,medical,economic
andrhetoricaltextswhichMichelFoucaultpresentsinthesecondvolume
of The History of Sexuality (The Use of Pleasure (UP)). There is now a mass
ofliteratureonFoucault’sprogrammeofethics,someofwhichalsodeals
withhisinterpretationofancientsources.Butmostauthorstreathisanal-
ysesofthesetextsasdocumentsillustratinghisintellectualdevelopment,
which is their primary interest.1 None of them subjects his thoughts on
ancientsourcestoadetailedcriticalassessmentinordertosuggestalterna-
tivereadingsthatarebasednotonlyonthegeneraltheoreticalpremisesof
Foucault’sproject,butalsoonmodernstandardsoftextualinterpretation
1 See e.g. Bernauer (1988); Bernauer and Mahon (1994); Dreyfus and Rabinow (1983);
Mahon(1992);Rajchman(1991);Scha¨fer(1995);Schmid(1990);Smart(1991)orthe
articles in the volumes of essays Erdmann et al. (1990); Ewald and Waldenfels (1991);
Rabinow(1986);Seitler(1993),A.Davidson(2001).
1
2 introduction
and the present state of philosophical and historical knowledge of the
ancientworld.2 Whatfollowsisintendedtoreducethisdeficit.
Much of what I have to say is a critical reconstruction of Foucault’s
ownreconstruction–whileatthesametimeItrytomaintainthesystem-
atic aspects of his perspective. It is a bold attempt to say what Foucault’s
historicalperspectiveandbetterhistoricalknowledgeshouldhaveledhim
to say about the texts he studied, but which he did not. In my view, the
main reason why Foucault did not say what, in his own best theoretical
interest, he should have said is that, when he first introduced his pro-
grammeofethicsatthebeginningofUP,heheldthattheethicalcreation
ofthesubjectcouldmoreorlessbeseparatedfromthearchaeologicaland
genealogical dimension developed in his earlier works. Thus he almost
completelyneglectswhattheancienttextshavetosayaboutepistemology
and the analysis of power, or in the case of Plato attributes far too little
significancetoit.
In chapter 1 I point out that Foucault’s restrictive approach to the
ancientsourceswasaninitialmisunderstandingofhisowngeneralproject
that he later corrected. However, if the incorporation of the analysis of
powerandarchaeologyintoFoucault’sethicsistobesuccessful,asuitable
reappraisal of his ideas on the intrinsic connection between power and
knowledge,andtheconceptof‘productive’power,isrequired.Therestof
thefirstchapterisdevotedtoalengthyanddetailedexplicationofthese
ideas.Oneofthemostimportantresultsistheintroductionofaconcept
ofregulativepowerthatisnotnecessarilyrepressive,butisproductivein
aclearlydefinableway.Itisprimarilythiskindofpowerthatisintimately
relatedtothegamesoftruththatdeterminethehistoricalformsofknowl-
edge.ThisinterpretationexplainswhyFoucault’srelativisticneutralityis
nothingmorethansystematiccoquetryandwhyhiscritics,aswellaslead-
ing post-modernists, are all mistaken in their vociferous complaints and
cynicalobservationsthatpowerpermeatesevenreason.
Afterthisintroductionthenextfourchaptersturntotheancienttexts
thatFoucaultstudiedinUP.Inchapter2Iprovethatinfocusingonthe
2 ThetwobestexceptionsareGeoffreyLloyd’sreviewofUP inTheNewYorkReviewofBooks33,
(4March1986),24–8andPierreHadot’sstudy‘U¨berlegungenzumBegriffderSelbstkultur’,
inEwaldandWaldenfels(1991),219–28(seealsotheafterwordinHadot(1991)).Lloyd
concentratesmainlyonacriticaldiscussionofFoucault’sanalysisofancientmedicaltexts,
whileHadotcriticisesthefactthatFoucaultprunesancientethicstoanethicsofdesire,
self-observationandstylisationoftheself,andneglectstheextenttowhichitisconcerned
witheudaimonia.Bothcritiquesareontherighttrack,butdonotpayenoughattentionto
Foucault’sgeneraltheoreticalperspectives;alltoldtheyaretoobrief,tooone-sidedandlack
detail.
introduction 3
ancientanalysisofsexualdesire,Foucaultneglectsthecomprehensiverole
played by eudaimonia. This was always an important concept in antiquity,
incorporatingsexualdesireintoabroaderregisterofdesiresinorderto
optimisethem.AtthesametimeitbecomesclearthatFoucault’sone-sided
viewleadstoaninappropriateexaggerationofthepartplayedbyaesthetic
stylisation.Classicaldieteticsisthenthecentraltopicofchapter3.Foucault
regardsitasacomprehensiveartofexistenceandathoroughlyregulated
practiceoftheself,butitissoonapparentthat,atthemost,thisviewcan
onlybeappliedtoanexcessive,prophylacticformofdieteticsthatwasin
nowayrepresentativeoftheclassicalworld.Aboveall,duringthecourseof
thefifthcenturyphilosophicalethicsseparateditselffrommedicine,with
theresultthatmedicinewasreducedtobeingjustoneofseveralimportant
elementsofthegoodlifewhileatthesametimeattaininganewtheoretical
statusasanempiricalnaturalscience.Foucaultwoulddoubtlesshavehad
nodifficultyindescribingthishistoricalprocessinarchaeologicalterms,
but he pays no attention to this archaeological aspect, just as he pays
no attention to how dietetics, as it became increasingly empirical, lost
all reference to eudaimonic practices of the self, which now became the
domainofphilosophy.
Thisrestrictedviewofancientteleologyanddieteticshadtheeffectthat
Foucault arrived at an incorrect model of the regulation and practice of
sexualdesire:ancientauthorsdidnotrecommendamodelofdomination
and restriction intended to rein in the dangerous dynamic of sexuality,
butentertainedinsteadthemodelofself-controlledintegrationofsexual
desire into the overall complex of higher and lower desires which had
beenoptimisedandkeptinequilibriumasaconstitutivepartofthegood
life (if not as its goal). All told, specifically sexual desires played only a
relativelyunimportantroleintheworksofAristotleandtheHippocratics
thatdealwithhumandesires.
Foucault’s interpretation of pederasty and marital relations in the
ancient world has quite rightly attracted a great deal of attention, but
itisflawedbyanumberofseriousmisjudgements.ThisIdemonstratein
chapter4.HistoricalstudieshaveshownthatinclassicalGreecepederasty
asaprimaryloverelationshipwasrestrictedtothesmallcircleofpolitical
elites, and otherwise was regarded with a great deal of moral and legal
reservation.Themoralconcernthatmanlyactivitymightbeendangered
inpederasticrelationships,whichFoucaultidentifiedintheancienttexts,
infactonlyreferstoasmallgroupofspeakerswhoplayedaleadingpartin
the political business of the polis. Other parameters generally applied to
relationships between full male citizens than to those between freeborn