The Spiritualization of Power: Scheler and Foucault

Max scheler, in formalism in ethics and non-formal ethics of value,and michel foucault, in volumes 2 and 3 of his history of sexuality, theuse of pleasure and care of the self,[1] offer seemingly very differentethical projects, but ones that are nonetheless complementary in severalsignificant ways. both thinkers, inspired by nietzsche, attempt to rethinkthe genesis of the moral “ought” without appeal to any rule of reason--whether it be in the form of an utilitarian calculus, a kantian categoricalimperative, or a social contract--conceived as external to and constrainingof desire. both scheler and foucault challenge western philosophy’s deep,long-standing distrust of eros (often cast in the feminine) and belief thatit stands in need of control by logos (often cast in the masculine). theirmethods are radically different, though: scheler derives an emotive a priorifrom a phenomenological analysis of concrete acts of preferencing, whilefoucault is explicitly anti-phenomenological, as he carries out specifichistorical, genealogical studies of ethical norms governing the sexualityof aristocratic males in greek and roman antiquity. in this paper, i willexamine this theme in detail. my aim here is not to offer a scheleriancritique of foucault, although one might be suggested. rather, mythesis is that, although foucault does not explicitly articulate what i amterming the “spititualization of power,” his genealogical studies of ethicalpractices in antiquity, especially those governing the relationships betweenhusbands and wives, nonetheless provide striking illustrations of its centralfeatures, as scheler described. foucault used his studies to demonstratethe moral problemization of pleasures in antiquity, which led to so manyof the prohibitions in western culture against pleasures with which we areso familiar. what i find interesting in his studies here, however, is howwell they exemplify the qualitative transformation in power that schelerdescribed.