Another link could be via the Frankfurt School who F had (critically) got to
grips with by this point. Adorno and Horkheimer in Dialectic of
Enlightenment try to show precisely how the liberal markets turned into the
"administered society" through the same logic of the domination of
nature/man. Different discourses but operating through the same logic of
objectification, namely, reducing subjectivity to predictable objects: both
economism and the welfare state does this. Although A and H's reasoning
behind this flawed (see Honneth). The links between Foucault and
Adorno/Horkheimer may appear weak as they fall victim to his critique of
Marxism, but their scepticism of Enlightenment thought and its role in
domination (through the technologies of government in particular) is very
close indeed. This is explicit in Bauman (Modernity and Ambivalence in
particular) who is at this point very Foucauldian in his conception of the
"gardening state" and the "dream of legislative reason" but at the end of
that volume pays homage to Dialectic of Enlightenment. Veronique Mottier is
a Foucauldian author (discourse analysis in particular) who often uses
Foucault via Bauman, in her discussion of the Swiss/Swedish Eugenics.
"Tension" may be a difficult word here, they are clearly different utopian
projections of subjectivity. The economic man in liberal discourse reduces
man into a predictable object of knowledge as does socialist utopian
discourse. They are just different utopian projections, but utopian all the
same - as time is robed of the subject as they are frozen in the fixed
perspective of Enlightenment/scientific knowledge, as A and H would put it.
For Bauman it is the socialist project, not the capitalist project, which
was the most "modern" as embarked most clearly not only for the quest for
order, but also the objectification of man as a predictable object.
Rupert
-----Original Message-----
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of bradley nitins
Sent: 21 July 2005 04:44
To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Foucault-L] Tensions between governmentalities
Hi,
I'm no expert on 'governmentality studies' as a whole, i have not read the
masses of secondary sources on this topic, but i am interested in the
peculiar 'governmentality' of the English, particularly in the Victorian
period, a time, I'm sure you'll agree, when the intersection between basic
tenets of laissez faire economics and the emergence of a communitarian
'welfare state' is evidently pronounced. But is there a fundamental
'tension' between these two political view-points? During the Victorian
period economic discourse, as a whole, revolved around a particular
definition of a subject which was essentially self-regulated by rational,
calculated, self-interest. [on this see Albert Hirschman's *The Passions
and the Interests* 1977, interestingly enough, Hirschman also intimates in
this work that the concept of rational self 'interest', as a new
behavioural paradigm in the West, initially emerged in political theory
before moving on into economic discourse]. Foucault in a late interview
states the "contact between the technologies of domination of others and
those of the self I call governmentality" [from *Technologies of the Self:
A Seminar with Michel Foucault, 1988, p 19]. Thus, in light of this
statement, there is no 'tension', understood as some basic conflict,
between "economic" [read laissez faire] and "biopolitical" [read welfare
state] political positions- or forms of 'governmentality'- rather at the
points in which they intersect we find the operations of 'governmentality'
proper. I realise that the problem driving this request is precisely that
in many instances these two forms of governmental practice are seen as
being incompatible, but this may be largely the result of the colonial
setting on which you focus. I'd argue, that for the English the one led
rather 'naturally' or 'organically' to the other, in that the development
English 'welfare' state was not, generally, driven by a need to 'dominate',
'control' 'subject', or 'govern' the English populace, not only because the
English would of seen this as an infringement of hard earned political
rights, but there was no need for that, for the English had already, again
generally, mastered the art of governing themselves. I would suggest that
because the native Indian population was not seen to have acquired this
national characterological trait, that the 'tension' between 'hands-off'
and 'hands-on' forms of governmental practice would be most salient.
Just a few thoughts....
bradley nitins
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
grips with by this point. Adorno and Horkheimer in Dialectic of
Enlightenment try to show precisely how the liberal markets turned into the
"administered society" through the same logic of the domination of
nature/man. Different discourses but operating through the same logic of
objectification, namely, reducing subjectivity to predictable objects: both
economism and the welfare state does this. Although A and H's reasoning
behind this flawed (see Honneth). The links between Foucault and
Adorno/Horkheimer may appear weak as they fall victim to his critique of
Marxism, but their scepticism of Enlightenment thought and its role in
domination (through the technologies of government in particular) is very
close indeed. This is explicit in Bauman (Modernity and Ambivalence in
particular) who is at this point very Foucauldian in his conception of the
"gardening state" and the "dream of legislative reason" but at the end of
that volume pays homage to Dialectic of Enlightenment. Veronique Mottier is
a Foucauldian author (discourse analysis in particular) who often uses
Foucault via Bauman, in her discussion of the Swiss/Swedish Eugenics.
"Tension" may be a difficult word here, they are clearly different utopian
projections of subjectivity. The economic man in liberal discourse reduces
man into a predictable object of knowledge as does socialist utopian
discourse. They are just different utopian projections, but utopian all the
same - as time is robed of the subject as they are frozen in the fixed
perspective of Enlightenment/scientific knowledge, as A and H would put it.
For Bauman it is the socialist project, not the capitalist project, which
was the most "modern" as embarked most clearly not only for the quest for
order, but also the objectification of man as a predictable object.
Rupert
-----Original Message-----
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of bradley nitins
Sent: 21 July 2005 04:44
To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Foucault-L] Tensions between governmentalities
Hi,
I'm no expert on 'governmentality studies' as a whole, i have not read the
masses of secondary sources on this topic, but i am interested in the
peculiar 'governmentality' of the English, particularly in the Victorian
period, a time, I'm sure you'll agree, when the intersection between basic
tenets of laissez faire economics and the emergence of a communitarian
'welfare state' is evidently pronounced. But is there a fundamental
'tension' between these two political view-points? During the Victorian
period economic discourse, as a whole, revolved around a particular
definition of a subject which was essentially self-regulated by rational,
calculated, self-interest. [on this see Albert Hirschman's *The Passions
and the Interests* 1977, interestingly enough, Hirschman also intimates in
this work that the concept of rational self 'interest', as a new
behavioural paradigm in the West, initially emerged in political theory
before moving on into economic discourse]. Foucault in a late interview
states the "contact between the technologies of domination of others and
those of the self I call governmentality" [from *Technologies of the Self:
A Seminar with Michel Foucault, 1988, p 19]. Thus, in light of this
statement, there is no 'tension', understood as some basic conflict,
between "economic" [read laissez faire] and "biopolitical" [read welfare
state] political positions- or forms of 'governmentality'- rather at the
points in which they intersect we find the operations of 'governmentality'
proper. I realise that the problem driving this request is precisely that
in many instances these two forms of governmental practice are seen as
being incompatible, but this may be largely the result of the colonial
setting on which you focus. I'd argue, that for the English the one led
rather 'naturally' or 'organically' to the other, in that the development
English 'welfare' state was not, generally, driven by a need to 'dominate',
'control' 'subject', or 'govern' the English populace, not only because the
English would of seen this as an infringement of hard earned political
rights, but there was no need for that, for the English had already, again
generally, mastered the art of governing themselves. I would suggest that
because the native Indian population was not seen to have acquired this
national characterological trait, that the 'tension' between 'hands-off'
and 'hands-on' forms of governmental practice would be most salient.
Just a few thoughts....
bradley nitins
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list