dear Ari,
I think it is getting a little clearer (if I get it right, you were trying to
oppose what you thought was a celebration of liberal government), and I am
sorry for the use of capable and legitimate since they are my making and
probably not Foucault's - and that they made lead to confusion given the
omnipresence of liberal philosophers (being relatively new on the list though
I did not think that this was a popular reading of him here)! I should add
though that if I should certainly have been more careful with these, I
still don't think the idea is very far from what Foucault tried to underline
through his analyses of a liberal mode of governement: that is that this mode
of government is different from other modes in that it presupposes and poses
different subjects that can and should (in varying and modulated ways) be
engaged in the government of self and others. That is not to me a celebration
of the freedom in liberal government but an assessment of how it works and
produces effects.
I was not worried that the argument was directed to my person. Neither are
ever mine directed to any person,
Francois
Selon Ari <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> dear francois,
> what is unclear to me is the sentence I quoted in my first reply, and it is
> still unclear to me what you meant then by government that conceives of its
> subjects as legitimate and capable...etc etc. what is this government?
> initially I thought you implied this was a liberal government 'advocated'
> by foucault in his late writings, which is a kind of reading that is quite
> popular (also on this list) and which I would take issue with for many
> reasons. but if you meant, as it seems in this reply, that it is a liberal
> government that foucault analysed to highlight the relations of power in
> it, then where does this idea of legitimate and capable subjects come from
> in his 'analytics' of liberal government? this confusion prompted the
> citations in my email, which are what I'd discuss. no ad hominem intended.
>
>
> At 21:16 19/11/2002, you wrote:
> >dear Ari,
> >
> >It is unclear to me what is unclear to you! I don't see what is so
> troubling
> >to you in my understanding of Foucault's 'analytic' of power. And, also, I
> >don't undestand in what way liberal (governement) is a dirty word: I just
> >said
> >it was a concept that Foucault used to highlight certain relations of
> >power, a
> >certain mode of governement, not that he thought that we we're all free and
> >living in free social formations or any other argument that could have been
> >uttered through any 'liberal philosophy' (which he was trying so hard to
> >demarcate himself from). Bluntly put and in other words, could you help me
> >render your opposition to my statement (if that is indeed an opposition) a
> >little more transparent?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Franois
> >
> >Selon Ari <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > >
> > > > His 'analytique' was one (it became
> > > >especially clear in his later writings) of liberal government, that is
> > of a
> > > mode of governement that conceives of its 'subjects' as capable and
> > > legitimate
> > > to participate in it through their engagement in the governing of self
> > > and/or
> > > others.
> > >
> > >
> > > dear francois,
> > > it s unclear to me how you can seriously say this. I might have
> > > misinterpreted you, but we really need to think about this liberal
> > question
> > > at some point. first of all why use such a dirty word carelessly when
> > we've
> > > read its various geneaological trajectories. see for instance foucault's
> > > 1979 lectures on the critique of governmental reason, which link the
> > > 'later' to the 'earlier' reflections on the subject, truth and power
> > rather
> > > nicely. if anything foucault was under no illusion as to the freedoms of
> > > 'liberal governmentality'. the entry of political economy in political
> > > discourse not only sanctioned the end of the debate on the 'natural
> right'
> > > to rule, but also introduced the idea of a truth about /science of
> > > governing. the question of truth and self-limitation of government is
> > > introduced by political economy and in Foucault's words, it supplants
> the
> > > theory of sovereignty with the art of governing, and opposes to the
> > > maximalist idea of la raison d'etat, the 'minimalist' idea of 'liberal
> > > government' which emerges parallel to the german studies on
> > > Polizeiwissenschaft. the idea is that liberal governmentality produces
> as
> > > well as organises freedoms, alongside security strategies, control and
> > > surveillance geared to prevent the dangers inherent to the production of
> > > freedom, together with the ideology of 'dangerous' living aimed to turn
> > > individuals into 'abnormals', 'monsters' ect . liberalism, the
> > > individuation of disciplines and the life management of biopower emerge
> > all
> > > around the same time. they co-exist and are mutually interdependent.
> they
> > > pre-constitute the field of play for the intransitivity of freedom.
> > >
> > > if we find it too uncomfortable, in times of permanent war unilaterally
> > > waged by neoliberalism on the whole of the global population, to read
> the
> > > war-talk metaphors of Foucault's 70's writings, let's turn to the 80's,
> > but
> > > we'll find exactly the same problematisations: the relation between
> truth
> > > and subjet when it comes to the art of governing (oneself and others)
> and
> > > their problematisation in relation to the myopic narcisism of the
> > concerned
> > > liberals of his age.
> > > here's a little more discomfort for the liberal readers of foucault from
> > > the later writings:
> > >
> > > When one sees today the meaning [signification], or rather the almost
> > > total absence of meaning [signification], that is given to the
> expressions
> > > otherwise familiar and often recurring in our discourse such as: return
> to
> > > the self, self-liberation, being oneself, being authentic ect. When one
> > > sees the absence of meaning and of thought that there is in each of
> these
> > > expressions employed today, I believe that one shouldnt be too proud of
> > > the efforts made at present to reconstitute an ethics of the self. And
> it
> > > could be that these series of efforts [] more or less stopped, frozen on
> > > themselves, and in this movement that we make at the moment at once we
> > > continue to refer to this ethics of the self, whilst never giving it any
> > > content, I think that one must suspect something like an impossibility
> of
> > > constituting today an ethic of the self, the moment when it might be an
> > > urgent and fundamental task, politically indispensable, to constitute an
> > > ethics of the self, if it is true after all that there is no other
> point,
> > > first or last, of resistance to political power but in the relation of
> the
> > > self to the self.
> > > [] If one takes the question of power, or political power, and replaces
> it
> > > with the more general question of governmentality governmentality
> intended
> > > as a strategic field of power relations, in the broader, not simply
> > > political, sense of the term-, then, if one takes governmentality as the
> > > strategic field of power relations, in what they have of mobile,
> > > transformable, reversible, I think that the reflection on this notion of
> > > governmentality must go through, theoretically and practically, the
> > element
> > > of a subject that would be defined by the relation of the self to the
> > self.
> > > In so far as the theory of political power as institution normally
> refers
> > > itself to a juridical conception of the subject of rights, it seems to
> me
> > > that the analysis of governmentality i.e. the analysis of power as an
> > > ensemble of reversible relations-must refer itself to an ethics of the
> > > subject defined by the relation of itself to itself. I simply want to
> say
> > > that in the kind of analysis that I have tried to propose for a long
> time,
> > > you see that: relations of power-governmentality-government of oneself
> and
> > > others-relation of oneself to oneself, all these constitute a chain, a
> > web,
> > > and it is there, around these notions, that one must be able to, I
> think,
> > > articulate the question of politics and the question of
> > > ethics.(hermeneutique du sujet, my poor translation, p. 243-243)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >Franois Gagnon
> >tudiant au Doctorat
> >Dpartement de Communication
> >Universit de Montral
> >(514)343-6111 poste 1464
>
> We are currently working on our homepage: http://www.generation-online.org
> Get in touch if you have any comments or contributions!
>
François Gagnon
Étudiant au Doctorat
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal
(514)343-6111 poste 1464
I think it is getting a little clearer (if I get it right, you were trying to
oppose what you thought was a celebration of liberal government), and I am
sorry for the use of capable and legitimate since they are my making and
probably not Foucault's - and that they made lead to confusion given the
omnipresence of liberal philosophers (being relatively new on the list though
I did not think that this was a popular reading of him here)! I should add
though that if I should certainly have been more careful with these, I
still don't think the idea is very far from what Foucault tried to underline
through his analyses of a liberal mode of governement: that is that this mode
of government is different from other modes in that it presupposes and poses
different subjects that can and should (in varying and modulated ways) be
engaged in the government of self and others. That is not to me a celebration
of the freedom in liberal government but an assessment of how it works and
produces effects.
I was not worried that the argument was directed to my person. Neither are
ever mine directed to any person,
Francois
Selon Ari <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> dear francois,
> what is unclear to me is the sentence I quoted in my first reply, and it is
> still unclear to me what you meant then by government that conceives of its
> subjects as legitimate and capable...etc etc. what is this government?
> initially I thought you implied this was a liberal government 'advocated'
> by foucault in his late writings, which is a kind of reading that is quite
> popular (also on this list) and which I would take issue with for many
> reasons. but if you meant, as it seems in this reply, that it is a liberal
> government that foucault analysed to highlight the relations of power in
> it, then where does this idea of legitimate and capable subjects come from
> in his 'analytics' of liberal government? this confusion prompted the
> citations in my email, which are what I'd discuss. no ad hominem intended.
>
>
> At 21:16 19/11/2002, you wrote:
> >dear Ari,
> >
> >It is unclear to me what is unclear to you! I don't see what is so
> troubling
> >to you in my understanding of Foucault's 'analytic' of power. And, also, I
> >don't undestand in what way liberal (governement) is a dirty word: I just
> >said
> >it was a concept that Foucault used to highlight certain relations of
> >power, a
> >certain mode of governement, not that he thought that we we're all free and
> >living in free social formations or any other argument that could have been
> >uttered through any 'liberal philosophy' (which he was trying so hard to
> >demarcate himself from). Bluntly put and in other words, could you help me
> >render your opposition to my statement (if that is indeed an opposition) a
> >little more transparent?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Franois
> >
> >Selon Ari <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > >
> > > > His 'analytique' was one (it became
> > > >especially clear in his later writings) of liberal government, that is
> > of a
> > > mode of governement that conceives of its 'subjects' as capable and
> > > legitimate
> > > to participate in it through their engagement in the governing of self
> > > and/or
> > > others.
> > >
> > >
> > > dear francois,
> > > it s unclear to me how you can seriously say this. I might have
> > > misinterpreted you, but we really need to think about this liberal
> > question
> > > at some point. first of all why use such a dirty word carelessly when
> > we've
> > > read its various geneaological trajectories. see for instance foucault's
> > > 1979 lectures on the critique of governmental reason, which link the
> > > 'later' to the 'earlier' reflections on the subject, truth and power
> > rather
> > > nicely. if anything foucault was under no illusion as to the freedoms of
> > > 'liberal governmentality'. the entry of political economy in political
> > > discourse not only sanctioned the end of the debate on the 'natural
> right'
> > > to rule, but also introduced the idea of a truth about /science of
> > > governing. the question of truth and self-limitation of government is
> > > introduced by political economy and in Foucault's words, it supplants
> the
> > > theory of sovereignty with the art of governing, and opposes to the
> > > maximalist idea of la raison d'etat, the 'minimalist' idea of 'liberal
> > > government' which emerges parallel to the german studies on
> > > Polizeiwissenschaft. the idea is that liberal governmentality produces
> as
> > > well as organises freedoms, alongside security strategies, control and
> > > surveillance geared to prevent the dangers inherent to the production of
> > > freedom, together with the ideology of 'dangerous' living aimed to turn
> > > individuals into 'abnormals', 'monsters' ect . liberalism, the
> > > individuation of disciplines and the life management of biopower emerge
> > all
> > > around the same time. they co-exist and are mutually interdependent.
> they
> > > pre-constitute the field of play for the intransitivity of freedom.
> > >
> > > if we find it too uncomfortable, in times of permanent war unilaterally
> > > waged by neoliberalism on the whole of the global population, to read
> the
> > > war-talk metaphors of Foucault's 70's writings, let's turn to the 80's,
> > but
> > > we'll find exactly the same problematisations: the relation between
> truth
> > > and subjet when it comes to the art of governing (oneself and others)
> and
> > > their problematisation in relation to the myopic narcisism of the
> > concerned
> > > liberals of his age.
> > > here's a little more discomfort for the liberal readers of foucault from
> > > the later writings:
> > >
> > > When one sees today the meaning [signification], or rather the almost
> > > total absence of meaning [signification], that is given to the
> expressions
> > > otherwise familiar and often recurring in our discourse such as: return
> to
> > > the self, self-liberation, being oneself, being authentic ect. When one
> > > sees the absence of meaning and of thought that there is in each of
> these
> > > expressions employed today, I believe that one shouldnt be too proud of
> > > the efforts made at present to reconstitute an ethics of the self. And
> it
> > > could be that these series of efforts [] more or less stopped, frozen on
> > > themselves, and in this movement that we make at the moment at once we
> > > continue to refer to this ethics of the self, whilst never giving it any
> > > content, I think that one must suspect something like an impossibility
> of
> > > constituting today an ethic of the self, the moment when it might be an
> > > urgent and fundamental task, politically indispensable, to constitute an
> > > ethics of the self, if it is true after all that there is no other
> point,
> > > first or last, of resistance to political power but in the relation of
> the
> > > self to the self.
> > > [] If one takes the question of power, or political power, and replaces
> it
> > > with the more general question of governmentality governmentality
> intended
> > > as a strategic field of power relations, in the broader, not simply
> > > political, sense of the term-, then, if one takes governmentality as the
> > > strategic field of power relations, in what they have of mobile,
> > > transformable, reversible, I think that the reflection on this notion of
> > > governmentality must go through, theoretically and practically, the
> > element
> > > of a subject that would be defined by the relation of the self to the
> > self.
> > > In so far as the theory of political power as institution normally
> refers
> > > itself to a juridical conception of the subject of rights, it seems to
> me
> > > that the analysis of governmentality i.e. the analysis of power as an
> > > ensemble of reversible relations-must refer itself to an ethics of the
> > > subject defined by the relation of itself to itself. I simply want to
> say
> > > that in the kind of analysis that I have tried to propose for a long
> time,
> > > you see that: relations of power-governmentality-government of oneself
> and
> > > others-relation of oneself to oneself, all these constitute a chain, a
> > web,
> > > and it is there, around these notions, that one must be able to, I
> think,
> > > articulate the question of politics and the question of
> > > ethics.(hermeneutique du sujet, my poor translation, p. 243-243)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >Franois Gagnon
> >tudiant au Doctorat
> >Dpartement de Communication
> >Universit de Montral
> >(514)343-6111 poste 1464
>
> We are currently working on our homepage: http://www.generation-online.org
> Get in touch if you have any comments or contributions!
>
François Gagnon
Étudiant au Doctorat
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal
(514)343-6111 poste 1464