"Analytic(s) of power" is course, a perfectly accurate translation of
"analytique du pouvoir", and there is a fairly well-known instance of such a
translation in HS1 (p 82; original p 109): 'The aim... is to move less towards a
"theory" of power than towards an "analytics" of power.'
Foucault's continuing interest, as late as 1984, in studying war and
military affairs is entirely compatible with discarding the general hypothesis that
politics is a continuation of war by other means. Treating war as the
universal and fundamental political reality is not necessary, and may not be
helpful, to the study of war as a specific set of phenomena with a specific and
enormous impact on the field of governmental rationality and practice. Taken
together, the lectures of 76-79 can be read as showing in a variety of ways that
war-making and peace-making are distinct but intimately linked aspects of
moderm governmentality.
Foucault also said in a brief 1983 interview [DE 337; untranslated?] that
the notions of 'peace' and 'pacifism' needed to be treated with caution.
Colin
In a message dated 29/08/04 01:21:41 GMT Daylight Time, cmcfarla@xxxxxxxx
writes:
It might be more fruitful to consider how the model of war (which
decreases in overt importance in published works following HS vol 1)
relates to the concept of agonism. Whereas war is a zero-sum strategy
(there are winners and there are losers), agonism has a more positive
outcome (look to the Olympics -- gold, silver and bronze).
Nonetheless, the strategies inherent to agonism are nonetheless
warlike. I suspect there is a lot more to Foucault's claim about
inverting Clausewitz than he lets on in SMBD -- especially the clash of
forces.
Stuart is absolutely correct that war, for Foucault, is not merely
killing each other, but is rather a model for analyzing social
relations as a whole -- especially the forms of relations prevalent in
biopolitical societies.
Could someone confirm that "analytic of power" is not a translation of
"analytique du pouvoir"? I don't have access to a French copy of SMBD,
but a referee who recently read a friend's paper commented that there
is no such thing as an "analytique du pouvoir" in French or in
Foucault.
cm.
On 26-Aug-04, at 3:56 AM, Stuart Elden wrote:
> Lots of questions recently
>
>> is it feasible to say, yes or no, that, following the publication of
>> The
> History of Sexuality Vol. 1, Foucault rejected the military model of
> discipline and the war model of power; that, in short, he rejected the
> "Nietzschean hypothesis"?
>
> yes or no? - no!
>
> If we're allowed a more nuanced answer, I'd suggest that looking at
> the new lecture courses will be revealing in terms of a continuity of
> concerns and yet a continual willingness to question and modify
> positions. I suppose it's worth asking why Foucault thought war and
> the military was revealing as a model both in Discipline and Punish
> (and Le pouvoir psychiatrique) and 'Society Must Be Defended'. It's
> not just to explain the military of course, but society in a wider
> sense. 'Society Must Be Defended' is related to a planned volume of
> the History of Sexuality on race and population. The concern with the
> conduct of conduct, government of others and from there to government
> of the self, shows how these themes link into each other. Nietzsche
> continues to play a major role. Foucault talks about spending the next
> few courses on war and strategy in 1976, and although that is not kept
> to, I don't think it is entirely abandoned. As your interviews
> suggest, perhaps he would have retu
> rned to this, after the long detours of his research.
>
> On noso-politics or nosology, see Birth of the Clinic and some of the
> later chapters of Madness and Civilisation (although not sure if the
> relevant bits are in the translation, it's around Pinel). Politics of
> Health in the 18th Century is in some sense a reworking of this
> earlier material around new concepts of discipline and power, just as
> Le pouvoir psychiatrique can be seen as revisiting, rethinking of
> parts of the History of Madness around the same time. Politics of
> Health is closely related to three lectures given in Rio in 1974 on
> medicine - one of which is translated in the Power volume - and was
> part of a collaborative project with other researches Les machines a
> guerir [Curing machines]. This was published in 1976 and seems to me
> to be an important context to the SMBD course. Looking at some of
> these materials might help with your questions, but the question/idea
> that "noso-politics [is] the medico-politics of police, whereas
> bio-politics is the medico-politics of li
> beral rationalities of government", and some of the other dichotomies
> seems unlikely to me.
>
> On the question of hyphenation, I guess yes is the answer in most
> cases. If you can give me specific examples then I can check. But
> there was a discussion about power/knowledge vs. power-knowledge a
> while back - check the archive.
>
> Finally, on the lecture courses, I agree with Colin that there is
> likely to be a lot of literature over the next few years on the newly
> published materials. There has been some on the earlier published
> courses.
>
> best wishes
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> Dr Stuart Elden
> Lecturer in Political Geography
> University of Durham
> Durham, DH1 3LE
> http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/information/staff/elden.html
>
> www.foucault-studies.com
>
Colin Gordon
Director, NHSIA Disease Management Systems Programme
Health Informatics Manager, Royal Brompton Hospital
Chair, British Medical informatics Society
http://www.bmis.org
07881 625146
colinngordon@xxxxxxx
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---