I would only like to add something of a historical
background to the comments Bradly has adressed to the
question raised concerning the (possible) tensions
bewteen laisses fair polity, on the one hand, and
welfare polity, on the other.
It is a historical fact that the first 'corporations'
recognized as legal fictions were the 'corporations of
the poor' (incorporated in the 16th century).
Corporations, in the form of the 'corporations of the
poor', became the new institutional type of poor
relief, the new agent invested with the responcibility
of its administration, filling the space vacuated by
the desolation of the monastaries (the traditional
agent of poor relief). This shift in institutional
types represents a fundamental shift in the structure
and organization of christian charity more generally
and marks the birth of the 'welfare state'.
Thus, in the first instance and last analysis, we can
establish a relation of mutual dependence subsisting
between laisses fair policy and poor relief. It is
interesting to point out in this context, to
demonstrate the relavance of this historical
hypothesis to the present, that the (self evident)
'necessity' of 'poor relief' is making inroads for the
'global village' of the 'world market' into 'third
world contries', preparing the way for the
establishment of 'vital industry' which will see them
become 'self-sufficient' (in theory if not in
practice, as long as the practice of subsidizing
agricultural produce is seen to i.e., in the case of
american cotton farmers).
--- bradley nitins <b.nitins@xxxxxxxxx> 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
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
background to the comments Bradly has adressed to the
question raised concerning the (possible) tensions
bewteen laisses fair polity, on the one hand, and
welfare polity, on the other.
It is a historical fact that the first 'corporations'
recognized as legal fictions were the 'corporations of
the poor' (incorporated in the 16th century).
Corporations, in the form of the 'corporations of the
poor', became the new institutional type of poor
relief, the new agent invested with the responcibility
of its administration, filling the space vacuated by
the desolation of the monastaries (the traditional
agent of poor relief). This shift in institutional
types represents a fundamental shift in the structure
and organization of christian charity more generally
and marks the birth of the 'welfare state'.
Thus, in the first instance and last analysis, we can
establish a relation of mutual dependence subsisting
between laisses fair policy and poor relief. It is
interesting to point out in this context, to
demonstrate the relavance of this historical
hypothesis to the present, that the (self evident)
'necessity' of 'poor relief' is making inroads for the
'global village' of the 'world market' into 'third
world contries', preparing the way for the
establishment of 'vital industry' which will see them
become 'self-sufficient' (in theory if not in
practice, as long as the practice of subsidizing
agricultural produce is seen to i.e., in the case of
american cotton farmers).
--- bradley nitins <b.nitins@xxxxxxxxx> 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
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com