Mitchel Dean, in his "Governmentality": "By the late 1990s it would seem that
'governmentality' was a concept whose time had arrived. One suspects, however,
that this diffusion of the term risks a certain dilution of the conceptual
focus and analytic force it helped make possible (...) While the term itself
might suggest yet another fasionable neologism characteristic of much of
twentieth-century social and political theory, the types of analysis it has
helped to guide evince a seriousness of purspose, a depth of scholarship and -
dare one say - a certain untimely timeliness in the issues and problems they
cast new light upon (...)
While recognizing the debt we consequently owe to him, this volume is not a
simple exposition of Foucauldian concepts. Indeed, it is clear that others have
made great contributions to the study of governmentality, both empirically and
in the development of its conceptual apparatus. A field of study like that of
governmentality is of necessity a collective project, conducted in many places
and from many perspectives." (pp.1-2)
Futher on, he mentions that "it could be regarded as a sub-discipline' (2), as a
problem-centred and present oriented' work (3) and that it is noticeable that
it's presence is "of a truly "rhizomatic character" (3)
The fact that I agree completely with his diagnosis of the current situation is
rather unimportant. That one can identify a number of other places where this
type of work is being seriously conducted that Dean does not survey (even
though he has done a very impressive panorama that already leads him to
conclude that governemntality studies should not be refered to as A school) is
a little more: it suggests that there is no one place and no one project that
can be associated with governmentality studies - to call up two criterias
generally mobilized to talk of a "school". Following Dean, it might be more
accurate to talk of "governmentality studies', types of work or whatever else.
Francois
Selon Ali Rizvi <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Hi
>
> The work of theorists who have studied liberal modes of governance in the
> wake of Foucault's
>
> lectures on governmenatlity and liberal modes of governance are some time
> loosely referred to as
>
> 'governmentality school' (Rose et al). My question is there any recognition
> of them as a school in
>
> any non metaphoric sense and if so does this fact recognised in literature?
> Are there any emerging criticism of them as a school?
>
> Any help or comments greatly appreciated
>
> regards
> ali
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband
>
François Gagnon
Étudiant au Doctorat
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal
(514)343-6111 poste 1464
'governmentality' was a concept whose time had arrived. One suspects, however,
that this diffusion of the term risks a certain dilution of the conceptual
focus and analytic force it helped make possible (...) While the term itself
might suggest yet another fasionable neologism characteristic of much of
twentieth-century social and political theory, the types of analysis it has
helped to guide evince a seriousness of purspose, a depth of scholarship and -
dare one say - a certain untimely timeliness in the issues and problems they
cast new light upon (...)
While recognizing the debt we consequently owe to him, this volume is not a
simple exposition of Foucauldian concepts. Indeed, it is clear that others have
made great contributions to the study of governmentality, both empirically and
in the development of its conceptual apparatus. A field of study like that of
governmentality is of necessity a collective project, conducted in many places
and from many perspectives." (pp.1-2)
Futher on, he mentions that "it could be regarded as a sub-discipline' (2), as a
problem-centred and present oriented' work (3) and that it is noticeable that
it's presence is "of a truly "rhizomatic character" (3)
The fact that I agree completely with his diagnosis of the current situation is
rather unimportant. That one can identify a number of other places where this
type of work is being seriously conducted that Dean does not survey (even
though he has done a very impressive panorama that already leads him to
conclude that governemntality studies should not be refered to as A school) is
a little more: it suggests that there is no one place and no one project that
can be associated with governmentality studies - to call up two criterias
generally mobilized to talk of a "school". Following Dean, it might be more
accurate to talk of "governmentality studies', types of work or whatever else.
Francois
Selon Ali Rizvi <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Hi
>
> The work of theorists who have studied liberal modes of governance in the
> wake of Foucault's
>
> lectures on governmenatlity and liberal modes of governance are some time
> loosely referred to as
>
> 'governmentality school' (Rose et al). My question is there any recognition
> of them as a school in
>
> any non metaphoric sense and if so does this fact recognised in literature?
> Are there any emerging criticism of them as a school?
>
> Any help or comments greatly appreciated
>
> regards
> ali
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband
>
François Gagnon
Étudiant au Doctorat
Département de Communication
Université de Montréal
(514)343-6111 poste 1464