For those involved in the "Governmentality" readings (and those interested in
these aspects of Foucault's work),
More or less, our discussion of "Governmentality" (as found in THE FOUCAULT
EFFECT: STUDIES IN GOVERNMENTALITY, edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon,
and Peter Miller, University of Chicago Press 1991, pp. 87-104) began with
Nesta's important gesture of hesitation before assuming the historical
narrative of THE PRINCE given by Foucault as "the" narrative of THE PRINCE
affair. I would like to accept that hesitation, while jumping in none the
less.
I would like to focus on Foucault's introduction of the concept "art of
government." On page 82, he emphasizes that his interest in THE PRINCE affair
is not whether it is a good or bad text, but "in terms of something which it
is trying to define in its specificity, namely an art of government." The
history of treatises about THE PRINCE function to distance the art of
governing from being understood as a skill possessed by or exercised by a
sovereign. So, on page 89 we read that "The art of government is therefore
defined in a manner differentiating it from a certain capacity of the
Prince?." This capacity, in the standard reading THE PRINCE (whether pro or
con in judgement), is the power of sovereignty understood as the Prince's
ability to gain and/or maintain possession of his territory. Anti-
Machiavellian texts thus attack this singular principle of government - the
Prince's exercise of sovereign power. The importance of the attack, for
Foucault, lies not in its claims against Machiavellianism, but rather in the
introduction of a plurality of forms of government immanent to the state.
Before going into an analysis and discussion of the specificity of the art of
governing that the Anti-Machiavellian treatises refuse to reduce to the
monolithic ability to possess territory, I have a few questions and comments.
First, given the date of the presentation of the lecture as February 1978, the
importance of Foucault's attention to a movement from governance as an
exercise of sovereign power (whether of that of a king or a state) to a
rationality constitutive of specific formations of social relations seems
crucial to me.
Yet, why crucial? If we agree with Gordon's comments in the opening
chapter of THE FOUCAULT EFFECT (cf. pp. 3-4), we can address this importance
by way of the (Neo-) Marxist critique of Foucault's attention to microphysics
of power in DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH. How can we address government in terms of
a microphysics of power? The Neo-Marxist asks, "How can we address the
relation between society and the state or the sovereign without looking at the
body of government in relation to the body politic?" Is Foucault's answer
that a plurality of forms of government demands an analysis of power operating
at its extremities (as in the double upward and downward movements of
governance in La Mothe Le Voyer's treatise)?
Gordon explains (and Foucault explicitly agrees in "Politics and the
Study of Discourse") that the microphysical method deployed in DISCIPLINCE AND
PUNISH need not be changed to address the macro question of the relation
between society and the state. Yet, in addressing the macro question with
micro method, Foucault seems to be moving along the lines of a distancing from
the reduction of the art of governing to the exercise of a sovereign power to
govern (to hold territory). In doing so, however, the essay in no way turns
away from the analysis of the state. Yet, rather than a critique of the state
are we reading a critique of the state-form? In short, how is it that the
micro-method is necessary and how is it that it allows attention to the state
without embracing state theory - "State theory attempts to deduce the modern
activities of government from the essential properties and propensities of the
state, in particular its supposed propensity to grow and to swallow up or
colonize everything outside itself (Gordon, p.4)." Once a plurality of forms
of governance are recognized as immanent to the state, can a history of
government that functions by way of state theory be tenable, or helpful?
these aspects of Foucault's work),
More or less, our discussion of "Governmentality" (as found in THE FOUCAULT
EFFECT: STUDIES IN GOVERNMENTALITY, edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon,
and Peter Miller, University of Chicago Press 1991, pp. 87-104) began with
Nesta's important gesture of hesitation before assuming the historical
narrative of THE PRINCE given by Foucault as "the" narrative of THE PRINCE
affair. I would like to accept that hesitation, while jumping in none the
less.
I would like to focus on Foucault's introduction of the concept "art of
government." On page 82, he emphasizes that his interest in THE PRINCE affair
is not whether it is a good or bad text, but "in terms of something which it
is trying to define in its specificity, namely an art of government." The
history of treatises about THE PRINCE function to distance the art of
governing from being understood as a skill possessed by or exercised by a
sovereign. So, on page 89 we read that "The art of government is therefore
defined in a manner differentiating it from a certain capacity of the
Prince?." This capacity, in the standard reading THE PRINCE (whether pro or
con in judgement), is the power of sovereignty understood as the Prince's
ability to gain and/or maintain possession of his territory. Anti-
Machiavellian texts thus attack this singular principle of government - the
Prince's exercise of sovereign power. The importance of the attack, for
Foucault, lies not in its claims against Machiavellianism, but rather in the
introduction of a plurality of forms of government immanent to the state.
Before going into an analysis and discussion of the specificity of the art of
governing that the Anti-Machiavellian treatises refuse to reduce to the
monolithic ability to possess territory, I have a few questions and comments.
First, given the date of the presentation of the lecture as February 1978, the
importance of Foucault's attention to a movement from governance as an
exercise of sovereign power (whether of that of a king or a state) to a
rationality constitutive of specific formations of social relations seems
crucial to me.
Yet, why crucial? If we agree with Gordon's comments in the opening
chapter of THE FOUCAULT EFFECT (cf. pp. 3-4), we can address this importance
by way of the (Neo-) Marxist critique of Foucault's attention to microphysics
of power in DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH. How can we address government in terms of
a microphysics of power? The Neo-Marxist asks, "How can we address the
relation between society and the state or the sovereign without looking at the
body of government in relation to the body politic?" Is Foucault's answer
that a plurality of forms of government demands an analysis of power operating
at its extremities (as in the double upward and downward movements of
governance in La Mothe Le Voyer's treatise)?
Gordon explains (and Foucault explicitly agrees in "Politics and the
Study of Discourse") that the microphysical method deployed in DISCIPLINCE AND
PUNISH need not be changed to address the macro question of the relation
between society and the state. Yet, in addressing the macro question with
micro method, Foucault seems to be moving along the lines of a distancing from
the reduction of the art of governing to the exercise of a sovereign power to
govern (to hold territory). In doing so, however, the essay in no way turns
away from the analysis of the state. Yet, rather than a critique of the state
are we reading a critique of the state-form? In short, how is it that the
micro-method is necessary and how is it that it allows attention to the state
without embracing state theory - "State theory attempts to deduce the modern
activities of government from the essential properties and propensities of the
state, in particular its supposed propensity to grow and to swallow up or
colonize everything outside itself (Gordon, p.4)." Once a plurality of forms
of governance are recognized as immanent to the state, can a history of
government that functions by way of state theory be tenable, or helpful?