Dear Stuart,
I too found the 1794-75 and 1975-76 lecture courses made me rethink what I
thought I knew about Foucault, and I found the the previously unpublished
material in the 75-76 course, especially Foucault's readings of Hobbes and
Boulanvillers, to be both extremely useful in themselves and to give a new
appreciation of the 'Two Lectures'. The lectures on Hobbes and
Boulanvillers seem to engage with the studies on Machiavelli in France at
the time, and perhaps to displace Machiavelli somewhat, although in the
published 'governmentality' lecture Machiavelli seems to be restored to a
place of solitude relative to those who preceeded and succeeded him (e.g.,
Hobbes, Locke) similar to that given to him by Althusser in 1977. I'm
interested to read the lectures on governmentality to see if these give more
on Foucault's views of early modern political thought. I know from what
Colin Gordon has written on the topic that the eighteenth century Scottish
Enlightenment (especially the works of Smith and Ferguson) was a topic of
discussion, and I'm wondering if this was broadened to include other works,
such as those of William Robertson, John Millar, Lord Kames, etc - or if
Foucault extended his interests in this area (suggested by the earlier
lectures on Boulanvillers) to a discussion of Montesquieu.
I've found the lecture on monstrosity to be one of the most interesting
parts of _Abnormal_ for my own work on the place of Oriental despotism in
Enlightenment thinking. One can see the connections of Foucault's thinking
there with the analyses of Montesquieu in the works of Louis Althusser and
Alain Grosrichard but the treatment of these monsters in terms of the idea
of a social contract seems to me to be problematic, especially given not
only what Althusser notes regarding the relation between Montesquieu,
Boulanvillers and the Germanist school and the social contract theory of the
Romanists but also what Foucault himself says on the same topic in the
lectures of the following year. On the other hand the movement away from
the Lacanian analysis of Grosrichard in terms of the Symbolic is most
welcome in enabling a historical analysis of its emergence, although to my
mind this analysis needs to be made political and philosophical as well as
historical, so that the centrality of this notion of the despot and the
multitude as monstrous in the eighteenth century can be explained together
with the structure of possible positions on this matter that make it able to
fulfill quite different functions in opposing discourses. Foucault is, of
course, primarily concerned in those lectures with the emergence of (the
somewhat more mundane) figure of the criminal as monster, and the analysis
of the despot and the multitude in _Abormal_ is more of an interesting
aside, but I often find his digressions quite thought provoking and look
forward to reading more of these digressions in forthcoming volumes.
best wishes
David
I too found the 1794-75 and 1975-76 lecture courses made me rethink what I
thought I knew about Foucault, and I found the the previously unpublished
material in the 75-76 course, especially Foucault's readings of Hobbes and
Boulanvillers, to be both extremely useful in themselves and to give a new
appreciation of the 'Two Lectures'. The lectures on Hobbes and
Boulanvillers seem to engage with the studies on Machiavelli in France at
the time, and perhaps to displace Machiavelli somewhat, although in the
published 'governmentality' lecture Machiavelli seems to be restored to a
place of solitude relative to those who preceeded and succeeded him (e.g.,
Hobbes, Locke) similar to that given to him by Althusser in 1977. I'm
interested to read the lectures on governmentality to see if these give more
on Foucault's views of early modern political thought. I know from what
Colin Gordon has written on the topic that the eighteenth century Scottish
Enlightenment (especially the works of Smith and Ferguson) was a topic of
discussion, and I'm wondering if this was broadened to include other works,
such as those of William Robertson, John Millar, Lord Kames, etc - or if
Foucault extended his interests in this area (suggested by the earlier
lectures on Boulanvillers) to a discussion of Montesquieu.
I've found the lecture on monstrosity to be one of the most interesting
parts of _Abnormal_ for my own work on the place of Oriental despotism in
Enlightenment thinking. One can see the connections of Foucault's thinking
there with the analyses of Montesquieu in the works of Louis Althusser and
Alain Grosrichard but the treatment of these monsters in terms of the idea
of a social contract seems to me to be problematic, especially given not
only what Althusser notes regarding the relation between Montesquieu,
Boulanvillers and the Germanist school and the social contract theory of the
Romanists but also what Foucault himself says on the same topic in the
lectures of the following year. On the other hand the movement away from
the Lacanian analysis of Grosrichard in terms of the Symbolic is most
welcome in enabling a historical analysis of its emergence, although to my
mind this analysis needs to be made political and philosophical as well as
historical, so that the centrality of this notion of the despot and the
multitude as monstrous in the eighteenth century can be explained together
with the structure of possible positions on this matter that make it able to
fulfill quite different functions in opposing discourses. Foucault is, of
course, primarily concerned in those lectures with the emergence of (the
somewhat more mundane) figure of the criminal as monster, and the analysis
of the despot and the multitude in _Abormal_ is more of an interesting
aside, but I often find his digressions quite thought provoking and look
forward to reading more of these digressions in forthcoming volumes.
best wishes
David