Dear Bradley,
Many thanks again for taking the time to engage with my emails regarding governmentality. In such a broad field, there are very few definitive answers on these sorts of questions, but here are my perspectives on the fascinating questions you raise:-
In terms of how I use the term ?governmentality? I could be said to define it as a form of ?political control/discourse? as long as the terms control and discourse were interpreted in the correct manner. I side with Robert Young (2001) here who argues that the use of the term discourse, especially in postcolonial studies, is much estranged from Foucault?s original emphasis on embedded, heterogeneous and contested forms of discourse. In studying governmental rationalities I am interested in the way in which these rationalities are put into practice, dwelling on their technologies and the problematisations they create and respond to, as much as the political ethos, identity politics or modes of visualisation they mobilise. For me, the feature of interest in regulatory government is the attention on the ?conduct of conduct? and, as such, my interest in governmentality does not exclude your definition, which focuses on the contact between technologies of domination of others and self. In this sense, I suppose I am more interested in ?policy?, those rationalities which attempt to practically regulate populations on the ground, than with ?politics? that encompasses theory, party politics etc (Chatterjee, 2004).
Your questioning of my perspective on biography here is spot on, and I am trying to give it a great deal of consideration. The interpretive context, as you rightly suggest, is between this man (AP Hume) as an individual representation of wider structures, with little agency himself, or as a self-directed individual picking and choosing which structures, discourses, or practices will come to influence him. Obviously, neither pole will be the case. In terms of your two questions, I am certainly attempting to look at these writings as a ??mode of reflexively constructing, defining, and 'objectifying' the self, by a 'self', within certain social conditions at a certain point in time? Hume?s writings show him to be implementing upon himself many of the norms of colonial culture and society. Yet, while he crafts himself as a colonial administrator, he simultaneously comes to be critical of the discourses and practices that surround him, becoming agonistically positioned by urges towards a welfarist (though not necessarily humanitarian) system of government which the financially strained central government will not allow.
Thus, while I agree that Hume?s writings must be read as illustrative of the conduct of conduct, I would not agree with the second suggestion that these writings much be taken as symptomatic of 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'],?. Rather, these writings tack between Hume conducting his conduct inline with colonial norms and simultaneously crafting counter-conducts that refute colonial logic, culture, and social norms. The points that he refutes, those time and place specific moments within which he chooses to locate his counter-conducts DO display a regularity in that they target the colonial government?s refusal to invest in welfarist programmes of investment. As such, I believe attention paid to domains of government and their contradictory rationalities need not detract attention from the individual, while a study of the conduct of conduct without an emphasis on technologies of domination need not lead to biographical-political history. Hume?s writings will, I hope(!), be framed by his crafting of material space and the reactions of the people who lived in those spaces to show how the writings are illustrative of a wider moment in colonial governmentality rather than a biographical moment in the life of one man. It is to this zone of contact between thought and practice that I think the governmentality literature has brought me, as a geographer.
Thanks again for your comments, they have really helped me clarify a great number of points that I address within the paper. I hope these comments have given you more to consider in your ruminations regarding governmentality.
All the very best
Steve
Chatterjee, P. (2004) The politics of the governed: reflections on popular politics in most of the world. New York: Columbia University Press
Young, R. C. (2001) Postcolonialism: an historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
On Jul 22 2005, brad 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 again for taking the time to engage with my emails regarding governmentality. In such a broad field, there are very few definitive answers on these sorts of questions, but here are my perspectives on the fascinating questions you raise:-
In terms of how I use the term ?governmentality? I could be said to define it as a form of ?political control/discourse? as long as the terms control and discourse were interpreted in the correct manner. I side with Robert Young (2001) here who argues that the use of the term discourse, especially in postcolonial studies, is much estranged from Foucault?s original emphasis on embedded, heterogeneous and contested forms of discourse. In studying governmental rationalities I am interested in the way in which these rationalities are put into practice, dwelling on their technologies and the problematisations they create and respond to, as much as the political ethos, identity politics or modes of visualisation they mobilise. For me, the feature of interest in regulatory government is the attention on the ?conduct of conduct? and, as such, my interest in governmentality does not exclude your definition, which focuses on the contact between technologies of domination of others and self. In this sense, I suppose I am more interested in ?policy?, those rationalities which attempt to practically regulate populations on the ground, than with ?politics? that encompasses theory, party politics etc (Chatterjee, 2004).
Your questioning of my perspective on biography here is spot on, and I am trying to give it a great deal of consideration. The interpretive context, as you rightly suggest, is between this man (AP Hume) as an individual representation of wider structures, with little agency himself, or as a self-directed individual picking and choosing which structures, discourses, or practices will come to influence him. Obviously, neither pole will be the case. In terms of your two questions, I am certainly attempting to look at these writings as a ??mode of reflexively constructing, defining, and 'objectifying' the self, by a 'self', within certain social conditions at a certain point in time? Hume?s writings show him to be implementing upon himself many of the norms of colonial culture and society. Yet, while he crafts himself as a colonial administrator, he simultaneously comes to be critical of the discourses and practices that surround him, becoming agonistically positioned by urges towards a welfarist (though not necessarily humanitarian) system of government which the financially strained central government will not allow.
Thus, while I agree that Hume?s writings must be read as illustrative of the conduct of conduct, I would not agree with the second suggestion that these writings much be taken as symptomatic of 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'],?. Rather, these writings tack between Hume conducting his conduct inline with colonial norms and simultaneously crafting counter-conducts that refute colonial logic, culture, and social norms. The points that he refutes, those time and place specific moments within which he chooses to locate his counter-conducts DO display a regularity in that they target the colonial government?s refusal to invest in welfarist programmes of investment. As such, I believe attention paid to domains of government and their contradictory rationalities need not detract attention from the individual, while a study of the conduct of conduct without an emphasis on technologies of domination need not lead to biographical-political history. Hume?s writings will, I hope(!), be framed by his crafting of material space and the reactions of the people who lived in those spaces to show how the writings are illustrative of a wider moment in colonial governmentality rather than a biographical moment in the life of one man. It is to this zone of contact between thought and practice that I think the governmentality literature has brought me, as a geographer.
Thanks again for your comments, they have really helped me clarify a great number of points that I address within the paper. I hope these comments have given you more to consider in your ruminations regarding governmentality.
All the very best
Steve
Chatterjee, P. (2004) The politics of the governed: reflections on popular politics in most of the world. New York: Columbia University Press
Young, R. C. (2001) Postcolonialism: an historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
On Jul 22 2005, brad nitins wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~