Colin, and others (brief replies to Margot and David below)
Your introduction to The Foucault Effect throws up all sorts of links and questions that I hope the course publications will allow me to follow through. Although that book (which I've had for some time, and is a very useful source) has some remarkable contributions, I don't think that the majority of the governmentality literature has that nuanced sense of the issues, or at least, not what Foucault himself did with them.
I'm struck by the relation of this issue to your piece on Histoire de la folie that appeared back in 1990. The claim that you made there - that the reception of Foucault's Madness and Civilisation was necessarily limited because this was only an abridgment of the full original text, and that some key claims in critiques were untenable - was inspirational for me. (I hope I'm not reducing your argument to a caricature here). It suggested to me/confirmed that serious scholarship on Foucault had to read him in the original - both because so much important material was unavailable in English, and because there were nuances that could be only picked up in French (and, on occasion, some errors - as you note in a recent post). Histoire de la folie was the first serious book I read through in French, and I've been trying to follow this principle since. The reading of the histories of madness in the last chapter of my Mapping the Present attempts to show what can be gleaned from the full text in relation to the issues I was concerned with; the second half of that chapter relates the Rio lectures to Discipline and Punish (a theme I continue in the piece you cited).
Just as in this case, it strikes me that the full lectures will enrich and supplement the bits of the courses we do have, the summaries, and the material you and others have written. I remember a piece by Pasquale Pasquino on the 1976 lectures published some time back in Economy and Society; and the Stoler book developing ideas from this course. Both very useful and productive, but they still didn't (for me, at least) fully anticipate what was in the course itself. I suspect that the same will be true with the other courses.
I'm interested that you've seen the proofs, and though it might be a bit disappointing (or at least familiar) to you, that is to you! What I mean by this is that you're hardly the standard user of the governmentality literature. Perhaps this further clarifies...
On the other questions recently:-
On race in Foucault, there is a review article by John Marks of the course (Theory and Society I think, or maybe Theory, Culture and Society - can't remember, sorry); a piece by Warren Montag which appeared in MF et la medecine and in English in Pli: Warwick Journal of Philosophy No 13; at least one special journal issue in France (Cites, Vol II); the book series Lectures de Michel Foucault Vol I is devoted to this course; I wrote a piece in boundary 2, Vol 29; etc. I'm sure there's more. There's a panel at a forthcoming conference in Lancaster (UK) on the course too. Stoler has written more than just that book on these issues, I think the book Carnal Knowledge also has discussion.
To David - lots of things to say about that. My review of that course for boundary 2 discussed the idea of the monster. If I get time, I will post a longer response tonight or tomorrow. But I am off to the US tomorrow and so am short of time. This is why I haven't had a chance to fully elaborate the race references, etc.
It's a shame to be going just as the list is getting interesting again, but I will try to get to all the posts on my return.
best wishes
Stuart
Your introduction to The Foucault Effect throws up all sorts of links and questions that I hope the course publications will allow me to follow through. Although that book (which I've had for some time, and is a very useful source) has some remarkable contributions, I don't think that the majority of the governmentality literature has that nuanced sense of the issues, or at least, not what Foucault himself did with them.
I'm struck by the relation of this issue to your piece on Histoire de la folie that appeared back in 1990. The claim that you made there - that the reception of Foucault's Madness and Civilisation was necessarily limited because this was only an abridgment of the full original text, and that some key claims in critiques were untenable - was inspirational for me. (I hope I'm not reducing your argument to a caricature here). It suggested to me/confirmed that serious scholarship on Foucault had to read him in the original - both because so much important material was unavailable in English, and because there were nuances that could be only picked up in French (and, on occasion, some errors - as you note in a recent post). Histoire de la folie was the first serious book I read through in French, and I've been trying to follow this principle since. The reading of the histories of madness in the last chapter of my Mapping the Present attempts to show what can be gleaned from the full text in relation to the issues I was concerned with; the second half of that chapter relates the Rio lectures to Discipline and Punish (a theme I continue in the piece you cited).
Just as in this case, it strikes me that the full lectures will enrich and supplement the bits of the courses we do have, the summaries, and the material you and others have written. I remember a piece by Pasquale Pasquino on the 1976 lectures published some time back in Economy and Society; and the Stoler book developing ideas from this course. Both very useful and productive, but they still didn't (for me, at least) fully anticipate what was in the course itself. I suspect that the same will be true with the other courses.
I'm interested that you've seen the proofs, and though it might be a bit disappointing (or at least familiar) to you, that is to you! What I mean by this is that you're hardly the standard user of the governmentality literature. Perhaps this further clarifies...
On the other questions recently:-
On race in Foucault, there is a review article by John Marks of the course (Theory and Society I think, or maybe Theory, Culture and Society - can't remember, sorry); a piece by Warren Montag which appeared in MF et la medecine and in English in Pli: Warwick Journal of Philosophy No 13; at least one special journal issue in France (Cites, Vol II); the book series Lectures de Michel Foucault Vol I is devoted to this course; I wrote a piece in boundary 2, Vol 29; etc. I'm sure there's more. There's a panel at a forthcoming conference in Lancaster (UK) on the course too. Stoler has written more than just that book on these issues, I think the book Carnal Knowledge also has discussion.
To David - lots of things to say about that. My review of that course for boundary 2 discussed the idea of the monster. If I get time, I will post a longer response tonight or tomorrow. But I am off to the US tomorrow and so am short of time. This is why I haven't had a chance to fully elaborate the race references, etc.
It's a shame to be going just as the list is getting interesting again, but I will try to get to all the posts on my return.
best wishes
Stuart