Dear Bradley,
Many thanks again for taking the time to engage with my emails regarding
governmentality. In such a broad field, there are very few definitive
answers on these sorts of questions, but here are my perspectives on the
fascinating questions you raise:-
In terms of how I use the term ?governmentality? I could be said to define
it as a form of ?political control/discourse? as long as the terms control
and discourse were interpreted in the correct manner. I side with Robert
Young (2001) here who argues that the use of the term discourse, especially
in postcolonial studies, is much estranged from Foucault?s original
emphasis on embedded, heterogeneous and contested forms of discourse. In
studying governmental rationalities I am interested in the way in which
these rationalities are put into practice, dwelling on their technologies
and the problematisations they create and respond to, as much as the
political ethos, identity politics or modes of visualisation they mobilise.
For me, the feature of interest in regulatory government is the attention
on the ?conduct of conduct? and, as such, my interest in governmentality
does not exclude your definition, which focuses on the contact between
technologies of domination of others and self. In this sense, I suppose I
am more interested in ?policy?, those rationalities which attempt to
practically regulate populations on the ground, than with ?politics? that
encompasses theory, party politics etc (Chatterjee, 2004).
Your questioning of my perspective on biography here is spot on, and I am
trying to give it a great deal of consideration. The interpretive context,
as you rightly suggest, is between this man (AP Hume) as an individual
representation of wider structures, with little agency himself, or as a
self-directed individual picking and choosing which structures, discourses,
or practices will come to influence him. Obviously, neither pole will be
the case. In terms of your two questions, I am certainly attempting to look
at these writings as a ??mode of reflexively constructing, defining, and
'objectifying' the self, by a 'self', within certain social conditions at a
certain point in time? Hume?s writings show him to be implementing upon
himself many of the norms of colonial culture and society. Yet, while he
crafts himself as a colonial administrator, he simultaneously comes to be
critical of the discourses and practices that surround him, becoming
agonistically positioned by urges towards a welfarist (though not
necessarily humanitarian) system of government which the financially
strained central government will not allow.
Thus, while I agree that Hume?s writings must be read as illustrative of
the conduct of conduct, I would not agree with the second suggestion that
these writings much be taken as symptomatic of a ?'technology of
domination' imposed by external forces [that is, by the system of colonial
administration, its exigencies and obligations, in which he was embedded-
though this type of writing, i have just realised, is not exactly the same
as that of the order of 'private writings'],?. Rather, these writings tack
between Hume conducting his conduct inline with colonial norms and
simultaneously crafting counter-conducts that refute colonial logic,
culture, and social norms. The points that he refutes, those time and place
specific moments within which he chooses to locate his counter-conducts DO
display a regularity in that they target the colonial government?s refusal
to invest in welfarist programmes of investment. As such, I believe
attention paid to domains of government and their contradictory
rationalities need not detract attention from the individual, while a study
of the conduct of conduct without an emphasis on technologies of domination
need not lead to biographical-political history. Hume?s writings will, I
hope(!), be framed by his crafting of material space and the reactions of
the people who lived in those spaces to show how the writings are
illustrative of a wider moment in colonial governmentality rather than a
biographical moment in the life of one man. It is to this zone of contact
between thought and practice that I think the governmentality literature
has brought me, as a geographer.
Thanks again for your comments, they have really helped me clarify a great
number of points that I address within the paper. I hope these comments
have given you more to consider in your ruminations regarding
governmentality.
All the very best
Steve
Chatterjee, P. (2004) The politics of the governed: reflections on popular
politics in most of the world. New York: Columbia University Press
Young, R. C. (2001) Postcolonialism: an historical introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell
On Jul 22 2005, brad nitins wrote:
Hi
Instead of refutation a plea for clarification. Just what is
'governmentality'? It seems, from my admittedly limited readings on
the subject, to be a term now used by 'Foucauldian' scholars mainly
to signify 'forms of political control/discourse'. This certainly
seems to be the sense in which Steven is using it. But the quote of
Foucault's that i just invoked (viz, that "contact between the
technologies of domination of others and those of the self I call
governmentality"), seems to lead us away from an analytical gaze
focused purely on the 'political' level. Governmentality here is a
neologism coined by Foucault in order to define that particular form
of power manifested when technologies of the self and technologies of
domination merge.
However we loose this concern with 'technologies of the self' when we
use the term 'governmentalites, as Steven does in his original
message, as a synonym for "domains/realms of government", or forms of
official governmental "rationality". 'Governmentality' seems here to
be just another way of saying "forms of political
practice/discourse", in which case why the neologism at all?
Now Steven may well be aware of all this. He does mention that his
historical inquiry revolves around the private writings of a
"low(ish)-level administrator in colonial India, who was put in
charge of urban improvement in the 1930s". But i suspect, [though i
am just guessing] that his study is leaning towards the analysis and
description of the tension between discrete, broad forms of political
practice/discourse as concentrated and crystallized in the biography
of an individual personality. This personality will be the parchment,
so to speak, upon which we are invited to read of a mighty battle
between gargantuan political and social forces, or better, the window
through which the dust raised by their lusty struggles is perceived.
But does Steven address (and he may well do) these private writings
as mode of reflexively constructing, defining, and 'objectifying' the
self, by a 'self', within certain social conditions at a certain
point in time? [if any are interested in how such a history may
indeed be written i would direct them to Joyce's "Democratic
Subjects" 1994.] If he does, and if he also explicates on these
writings as a 'technology of domination' imposed by external forces
[that is, by the system of colonial administration, its exigencies
and obligations, in which he was embedded- though this type of
writing, i have just realised, is not exactly the same as that of the
order of 'private writings'], then in my understanding of the term,
he is engaged in a study of Foucauldian 'governmentality', if not,
then he is engaging in a work of political history that draws on
biographical historical sources [which is, of course, still an
entirely valid research program which could be highly valuable].
I would have sent this message privately for, despite offering
refutation, i do not wish to be thought here to be 'attacking' or
'undermining' Steve's research project, but i have decided to post it
because i'm genuinely interested in gaining a better understanding of
how the list generally understands Foucauldian 'governmentality' so
please start writing...
best regards
bradley nitins
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Stephen Legg
Department of Geography
University of Cambridge
Downing Place
Cambridge
CB2 3EN
www.geog.cam.ac.uk/people/legg/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~