Dear Bradley,
Many thanks for your considered response. I agree that the intersection of Victorian laissez-faire economics and the proto-welfare state is a really interesting conceptual time and (urban) space. However, I think the model of the subject you describe was one of the very points of tension I am interested in. That is, the possessive individualist model of the capitalist system, whereby individual freedom (and thus the freedom of the state form extensive expenditure on health care and social security) was privileged above state and social responsibility for collective health and reproductive capacity. As you state, governmentalities operated at the intersection of these two drives, but I don?t think their incompatibility was simply a product of the colonial context, although it did serve to highlight certain contradictions of a ?liberal? state that depended for its existence upon the exclusion from the burdens of liberty of certain categories of the subject.
JS Mill famously excluded children, states of war, and the native. But these categories were also extended to women, the working classes, the insane, and various other ?others? in Victorian Britain (as well as India). As such, the hard-earned rights you speak of were withheld from the working classes, in terms of the vote, workplace health regulations, and social security, throughout and past the Victorian era. Because the working classes had not, in the bourgeois imaginaire, learned how to conduct their conduct, the benefits of liberty were not exclusively extended. It was because of this, and international economic and political trends, that Liberalism (as party politics, art of government and ideology) faced such a crisis in the late 19th century/early 20th century, according to Hall and Schwarz (1985). I personally see this crisis as being closely related to the urban sphere, as the place in which the economic consequences of a system so tilted against the proletariat were made obvious in the deteriorated environment and the politics of working class districts (see Otter, 2002; Joyce, 2003).
Refutations welcome!
Steve
Hall, S. and Schwarz, B. (1985) State and society 1880-1930, in Langon, M. and Schwarz, B. (eds.) Crises in the British State 1880-1930. Hutchinson, London, pp. 7-32.
Joyce, P. (2003) The rule of freedom: liberalism and the modern city. London: Verso
Otter, C. (2002) Making liberalism durable: vision and civility in the late Victorian city Social History 27: 1-15.
On Jul 21 2005, bradley nitins wrote:
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Stephen Legg
Department of Geography
University of Cambridge
Downing Place
Cambridge
CB2 3EN
www.geog.cam.ac.uk/people/legg/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many thanks for your considered response. I agree that the intersection of Victorian laissez-faire economics and the proto-welfare state is a really interesting conceptual time and (urban) space. However, I think the model of the subject you describe was one of the very points of tension I am interested in. That is, the possessive individualist model of the capitalist system, whereby individual freedom (and thus the freedom of the state form extensive expenditure on health care and social security) was privileged above state and social responsibility for collective health and reproductive capacity. As you state, governmentalities operated at the intersection of these two drives, but I don?t think their incompatibility was simply a product of the colonial context, although it did serve to highlight certain contradictions of a ?liberal? state that depended for its existence upon the exclusion from the burdens of liberty of certain categories of the subject.
JS Mill famously excluded children, states of war, and the native. But these categories were also extended to women, the working classes, the insane, and various other ?others? in Victorian Britain (as well as India). As such, the hard-earned rights you speak of were withheld from the working classes, in terms of the vote, workplace health regulations, and social security, throughout and past the Victorian era. Because the working classes had not, in the bourgeois imaginaire, learned how to conduct their conduct, the benefits of liberty were not exclusively extended. It was because of this, and international economic and political trends, that Liberalism (as party politics, art of government and ideology) faced such a crisis in the late 19th century/early 20th century, according to Hall and Schwarz (1985). I personally see this crisis as being closely related to the urban sphere, as the place in which the economic consequences of a system so tilted against the proletariat were made obvious in the deteriorated environment and the politics of working class districts (see Otter, 2002; Joyce, 2003).
Refutations welcome!
Steve
Hall, S. and Schwarz, B. (1985) State and society 1880-1930, in Langon, M. and Schwarz, B. (eds.) Crises in the British State 1880-1930. Hutchinson, London, pp. 7-32.
Joyce, P. (2003) The rule of freedom: liberalism and the modern city. London: Verso
Otter, C. (2002) Making liberalism durable: vision and civility in the late Victorian city Social History 27: 1-15.
On Jul 21 2005, bradley nitins wrote:
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
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Stephen Legg
Department of Geography
University of Cambridge
Downing Place
Cambridge
CB2 3EN
www.geog.cam.ac.uk/people/legg/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~