Hi
Instead of refutation a plea for clarification. Just what is 'governmentality'? It seems, from my admittedly limited readings on the subject, to be a term now used by 'Foucauldian' scholars mainly to signify 'forms of political control/discourse'. This certainly seems to be the sense in which Steven is using it. But the quote of Foucault's that i just invoked (viz, that "contact between the technologies of domination of others and those of the self I call governmentality"), seems to lead us away from an analytical gaze focused purely on the 'political' level. Governmentality here is a neologism coined by Foucault in order to define that particular form of power manifested when technologies of the self and technologies of domination merge.
However we loose this concern with 'technologies of the self' when we use the term 'governmentalites, as Steven does in his original message, as a synonym for "domains/realms of government", or forms of official governmental "rationality". 'Governmentality' seems here to be just another way of saying "forms of political practice/discourse", in which case why the neologism at all?
Now Steven may well be aware of all this. He does mention that his historical inquiry revolves around the private writings of a "low(ish)-level administrator in colonial India, who was put in charge of urban improvement in the 1930s". But i suspect, [though i am just guessing] that his study is leaning towards the analysis and description of the tension between discrete, broad forms of political practice/discourse as concentrated and crystallized in the biography of an individual personality. This personality will be the parchment, so to speak, upon which we are invited to read of a mighty battle between gargantuan political and social forces, or better, the window through which the dust raised by their lusty struggles is perceived. But does Steven address (and he may well do) these private writings as mode of reflexively constructing, defining, and 'objectifying' the self, by a 'self', within certain social conditions at a certain point in time? [if any are interested in how such a history may indeed be written i would direct them to Joyce's "Democratic Subjects" 1994.] If he does, and if he also explicates on these writings as a 'technology of domination' imposed by external forces [that is, by the system of colonial administration, its exigencies and obligations, in which he was embedded- though this type of writing, i have just realised, is not exactly the same as that of the order of 'private writings'], then in my understanding of the term, he is engaged in a study of Foucauldian 'governmentality', if not, then he is engaging in a work of political history that draws on biographical historical sources [which is, of course, still an entirely valid research program which could be highly valuable].
I would have sent this message privately for, despite offering refutation, i do not wish to be thought here to be 'attacking' or 'undermining' Steve's research project, but i have decided to post it because i'm genuinely interested in gaining a better understanding of how the list generally understands Foucauldian 'governmentality' so please start writing...
best regards
bradley nitins
Instead of refutation a plea for clarification. Just what is 'governmentality'? It seems, from my admittedly limited readings on the subject, to be a term now used by 'Foucauldian' scholars mainly to signify 'forms of political control/discourse'. This certainly seems to be the sense in which Steven is using it. But the quote of Foucault's that i just invoked (viz, that "contact between the technologies of domination of others and those of the self I call governmentality"), seems to lead us away from an analytical gaze focused purely on the 'political' level. Governmentality here is a neologism coined by Foucault in order to define that particular form of power manifested when technologies of the self and technologies of domination merge.
However we loose this concern with 'technologies of the self' when we use the term 'governmentalites, as Steven does in his original message, as a synonym for "domains/realms of government", or forms of official governmental "rationality". 'Governmentality' seems here to be just another way of saying "forms of political practice/discourse", in which case why the neologism at all?
Now Steven may well be aware of all this. He does mention that his historical inquiry revolves around the private writings of a "low(ish)-level administrator in colonial India, who was put in charge of urban improvement in the 1930s". But i suspect, [though i am just guessing] that his study is leaning towards the analysis and description of the tension between discrete, broad forms of political practice/discourse as concentrated and crystallized in the biography of an individual personality. This personality will be the parchment, so to speak, upon which we are invited to read of a mighty battle between gargantuan political and social forces, or better, the window through which the dust raised by their lusty struggles is perceived. But does Steven address (and he may well do) these private writings as mode of reflexively constructing, defining, and 'objectifying' the self, by a 'self', within certain social conditions at a certain point in time? [if any are interested in how such a history may indeed be written i would direct them to Joyce's "Democratic Subjects" 1994.] If he does, and if he also explicates on these writings as a 'technology of domination' imposed by external forces [that is, by the system of colonial administration, its exigencies and obligations, in which he was embedded- though this type of writing, i have just realised, is not exactly the same as that of the order of 'private writings'], then in my understanding of the term, he is engaged in a study of Foucauldian 'governmentality', if not, then he is engaging in a work of political history that draws on biographical historical sources [which is, of course, still an entirely valid research program which could be highly valuable].
I would have sent this message privately for, despite offering refutation, i do not wish to be thought here to be 'attacking' or 'undermining' Steve's research project, but i have decided to post it because i'm genuinely interested in gaining a better understanding of how the list generally understands Foucauldian 'governmentality' so please start writing...
best regards
bradley nitins