My understanding of Foucault's approach to governmentality is that he was pursuing a genealogy of western liberalism(s) and that the arts and disciplines of government pursued across hitorical periods illustrate the development, operations, and eventual circulations of sovereign power, pastoral power, disciplinary power, biopower. Ian Hacking's work on statistics illustrates how they came to serve as a technology for representing and understanding that social space of visibility deemed population.
Post-fordistic production techniques (assuming we can agree on what those are) are more specific to the logics and strategies of neoliberal governmentaly (I like Deleuze's essay on the new societies of control to describe those conditions often referred to as post-fordist).
I believe Foucault described the governmentalization of the state in relation to social-welfare logics/practices and therefore I think Scott is correct about the import of biopolitics to the development and dispersion of governmentality.
So, I also think that Scott is correct that governemnetal analysis can be applied to changing western arts and logics of government. I don't know about applying the framework to non-western cultures because Foucault's analysis was developed concretely and historically in relation to western European nations.
I have a book coming out in June (Routledge) titled, Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life, which offers my take on governmentality as a genealogy of western liberalisms as applied to the market, the health and vitality of the population, government of the mind, and state sovereignty. I try to introduce and synthesize much of the governmentality scholarship in this book but also frame governmentality more critically than often found in the British governmentality scholarship.
As an American horrified by the resurgence of a nationalized "racialized" sovereignty (thought in terms of American cultural exceptionalism), I felt obliged to conclude my project by returning to the sovereign capacity to kill (Foucault in contrast saw sovereignty much more tied to the capacity to let live in the modern era).
Majia Nadesan
>Hi everyone,
>
>I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>rationality changes, the state as a technology of government and its
>constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private &
>public) changes, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>government change. In other words, because Governmentality's key
>features are the governance of individual conduct and management of
>population bio-issues(births, deaths, health etc), the ends continue
>to be the concern of government even when the means of achieving
>these ends (e.g., GDP growth) changes. In this sense, I am
>responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great theorist
>of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse, by
>arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality analytic!
> can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance
> of individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
> society still exists.
>
>I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of the
>relevance of Governmentality?
>
>Any and all responses are welcome
>
>Scott Nicholas
>_______________________________________________
>Foucault-L mailing list
Prof. Machiel Karskens
social and political philosophy
Faculty of Philosophy
Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:02:48 +1000
From: "Scott Nicholas" <snichola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <01d201c87f71$3c14d790$3df2ad3a@scott>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi machiel,
note my responses in parentheses [ ] below
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Karskens" <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality
> In my opinion bio-issues are of course also topics of govenrmental
> power, but they are not any more the exclusive topics. My main
> objections, however, to you construal are:
> - From 1978 on Foucault does not connect governmental power any more
> with the power on life and death or some reversal of that power; he
> even rejects that connection (lateron in an explicit way, see 'The
> Subject and Power' )[Could you please elaborate on this?]
> - The invention of statistics as governmental technique is more than
> pure Fordism; following the idea of examination in Discipline and
> Punish, statistics normalizes, and in doing so it always is as well
> focused on the individual, as on some idea of <normal>
[I completely agree and that is one reason why I am arguing that Foucault's
Governmentality analytic remains relevant - disciplinary normalisation is an
ongoing concern]
>
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
>
>
>
> At 11:06 5-3-2008, you wrote:
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>>reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>>his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>>this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>>rationality changes, the state as a technology of government and its
>>constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private &
>>public) changes, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>>government change. In other words, because Governmentality's key
>>features are the governance of individual conduct and management of
>>population bio-issues(births, deaths, health etc), the ends continue
>>to be the concern of government even when the means of achieving
>>these ends (e.g., GDP growth) changes. In this sense, I am
>>responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great theorist
>>of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse, by
>>arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality analytic!
>> can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
>> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance
>> of individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
>> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
>> society still exists.
>>
>>I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of the
>>relevance of Governmentality?
>>
>>Any and all responses are welcome
>>
>>Scott Nicholas
>>_______________________________________________
>>Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Machiel Karskens
> social and political philosophy
> Faculty of Philosophy
> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:08:10 +0100
From: "M. Karskens" <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality
To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <20080306110812.BBD8E6330A@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Dear Scott,
thank you very much;
so we agree on the second point
as to the first point: The following is a section
of my article on Biopower (which is in review and not yet acepted)
2.2 Foucault?s denial of war
Foucault himself, however, does not discuss this
obvious inconsistency either in the Cours of
1976, or in La volont? de savoir. He also never
drew that conclusion in words or writing
afterwards ? perhaps The Subject and Power can be
read as an exception (see below).
Right at the beginning of his Cours of 1978,
however, he just completely drops (or rejects)
the war model. Power is a set of procedures and
mechanisms, he says, which are neither
?autogenetic?, nor ?autosubsistent.? Herewith,
again and now once and for all, Foucault
disconnects power from sovereignty. His topic is
the politics of truth, so Foucault continues,
therefore, the imperative moment of power only
takes effect at the level of discourses. In other
words, he concludes, the relation between truth
and struggle (lutte) remains within (the domain
of) theoretical discourse.[1] Any connection of
power with physical influence or violence is
denied here, but this is not explicitly stated.
Finally, he says: ?With all these [remarks] I
would like to propose only one imperative, which
is categorical and unconditional: never get
involved into politics.?[2] After that, Foucault
starts the course, and does not pay any attention
any more to war or continuous battle, to the
reversal of sovereign power into biopower, and to
the physical or violent impact of power. In fact,
he turns his back on politics and political power here.
By the end of 1978, Foucault explains in an
indirect way why he dropped the war model.
Discussing the issue of polemics, he criticizes
ideological discussions because they ?get carried
away necessarily by the war model.? [3] The idea
of ideological fight (lutte) is rejected as an
overblown, not serious and even dangerous way of
presentation of ?little disputes?; and he
continues: ?I shall tell you: I find this <model
of war> not only a little bit ridiculous, but
rather dangerous,? because, from the moment on
that you are in power (forza) or in a situation
of real war, the opponent could really be seen and treated as an enemy.[4]
It was only in 1981 or 1982, in the retrospective
overview ?The Subject and Power?, that Foucault
explained conceptually the ?distinction?, as he
calls it, between power and physical influence,
which is defined as ?that which is exerted over
things and gives the ability to modify, use,
consume, or destroy them.? That distinction
actually proves to be a real distinction between
power, defined as ?action upon (possible)
actions?, and physical influence or violence,
being an ?objective capacity? ?inherent in the
body or relayed by external instruments.? [5]
These statements make clear that the analytic of
power or genealogy is separated from any - I
would like to say: body-political - analysis of
the impact of power on people and populations,
including the material conditions of their way of
living. However, power and physical influence[6]
are not separated domains; Foucault calls them
different ?types of relationships which ?
overlap, ? support ? and use each other
mutually?[7] No trace of war can be found
anymore in power. It is true that a power
relation is called ?agonistic?, being ?at the
same time reciprocal incitation and struggle?,
but Foucault connects this point with the
principle of resistance (see (5.1)), and definitely not with war.[8]
Both explanations are rejection of the war model
of power with hindsight. The question remains,
however, why in the early part of 1978, Foucault
was so very dissatisfied with the war model that
he rejected it and kept it dark? According to
Michel Senellart, the editor of the Cours of 1978
and 1979, it was Foucault?s rift with the radical
left and especially with the terrorism of the
Rote Armee Fraktion by the end of 1977. He felt
himself forced, by Gilles Deleuze[9] among
others, to support the request for asylum by
Klaus Croissant, the lawyer of the RAF, but
refused to support anyhow the RAF and the
ideology of armed resistance.[10] It is that
rejection of violence and armed resistance in
power and politics, so I would like to suggest,
which is gradually elaborated during the Cours of
1978 and most of all in the Cours of 1979, as we shall see in ? 4.
The inconsistency of the war model with
Foucault?s positive model of power, however, is
so obvious that he could not ignore it. According
to Foucault?s conceptual framework, that
inconsistency ultimately boils down to the
contradiction between two concepts of death: on
the one hand, death against life or death as the
fatal end of life, which is entailed in violence
and war; on the other hand, death as an intrinsic
element of normal(ized) life of a population as a
factor in demography, morbidity, social security,
(life)insurances and so on. The former conception
of death is used in biopower, as we shall see in
the following section. I contend that the latter
conception is the fundamental principle of
normalization, as has been argued in ? 1; it is
this conception too, which is presupposed in the
art of governing and in the art of living.
[1] Cours of 1978, respectively: pp.4, 5, 5-6.
[2] My translation, ibid. p. 6: ?Je ne proposerai
donc en tout ceci qu?une seul imp?ratif, mais
celui-l? sera cat?goriquement et inconditionnel:
ne faire jamais de politique?; also see the
comment of the editior (note 2, p.25).
[3] Right at the end of the interview by
Trombadori (of 1978): ?? necessariamente
tracinati dal <modello della guerra>? (Il
Contributo p 83), the French translation (DE IV, p. 95) is not literal.
[4] ibid. p. 83-84: ?le dir?: questo <modella
della guerra> lo trovo non solo un p? ridiculo,
ma anche piuttosto pericoloso? (in DE this
sentence is not translated); also see the same
line of reasoning in ?Polemics, Politics and
Problematizations? including the point that ?the
very existence [of the enemy] constitutes a
threat? (Foucault Reader p. 383, DE IV, p. 591),
which will be discussed in ? 3 (7.2).
[5] ?The Subject and Power?, quotations are taken
from the original English edition p. 217 (French
translation in DE IV, no. 306).
[6] Communication is discussed in the same
context as a third type of interaction.
[7] Ibid. p. 218.
[8] Ibid. p. 221-222.
[9] See Gilles Deleuze ?Le pire moyen de faire
l?Europe? in Deux r?gimes de fous. p. 134-137,
esp. p. 137. In an interview of 1986 Deleuze
himself imputes his estrangement with Foucault to
their different conceptions of society: ?you are
right: society [to me] is a fluid or ? a gas. To
Foucault it is an architecture? (my translation), ibid. p. 261.
[10] Cours of 1978, p.385-386.
At 11:02 6-3-2008, you wrote:
>Hi machiel,
>
>note my responses in parentheses [ ] below
>
>Scott
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "M. Karskens" <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality
>
>
> > In my opinion bio-issues are of course also topics of govenrmental
> > power, but they are not any more the exclusive topics. My main
> > objections, however, to you construal are:
> > - From 1978 on Foucault does not connect governmental power any more
> > with the power on life and death or some reversal of that power; he
> > even rejects that connection (lateron in an explicit way, see 'The
> > Subject and Power' )[Could you please elaborate on this?]
>
> > - The invention of statistics as governmental technique is more than
> > pure Fordism; following the idea of examination in Discipline and
> > Punish, statistics normalizes, and in doing so it always is as well
> > focused on the individual, as on some idea of <normal>
>[I completely agree and that is one reason why I am arguing that Foucault's
>Governmentality analytic remains relevant - disciplinary normalisation is an
>ongoing concern]
> >
> >
> > yours
> > machiel karskens
> >
> >
> >
> > At 11:06 5-3-2008, you wrote:
> >>Hi everyone,
> >>
> >>I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
> >>reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
> >>his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
> >>this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
> >>rationality changes, the state as a technology of government and its
> >>constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private &
> >>public) changes, or indeed the technologies and practices of
> >>government change. In other words, because Governmentality's key
> >>features are the governance of individual conduct and management of
> >>population bio-issues(births, deaths, health etc), the ends continue
> >>to be the concern of government even when the means of achieving
> >>these ends (e.g., GDP growth) changes. In this sense, I am
> >>responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great theorist
> >>of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse, by
> >>arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality analytic!
> >> can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
> >> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance
> >> of individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
> >> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
> >> society still exists.
> >>
> >>I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of the
> >>relevance of Governmentality?
> >>
> >>Any and all responses are welcome
> >>
> >>Scott Nicholas
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Prof. Machiel Karskens
> > social and political philosophy
> > Faculty of Philosophy
> > Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Foucault-L mailing list
Prof. Machiel Karskens
social and political philosophy
Faculty of Philosophy
Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:52:49 +1000
From: "Scott Nicholas" <snichola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality - a clearer explication of
my argument for Henning
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <018901c88017$79f71c20$3df2ad3a@scott>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
reply-type=response
Hi Henning,
governmentality incorporates technologies of power like sovereign, pastoral,
disciplinary, and bio-power and therefore entails the associated methods for
guiding individual conduct and managing the life issues of population .I
agree with you when you say:"This allows for example the drawing together of
all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain society
and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
technologies."In this respect, Governmentality represents as you say a
"certain analytical perspective" or an analytic of the overall guidance of
conduct - both in an individual and totalising sense.
However, where I differ from you is when you limit its application to the
present or as you describe:" (2) as a hint on the content of the
contemporary rationality of governing." Foucault was as you say critiquing
the present but my reasoning is that if certain assumptions are acceptable
then Governmentality can be applied in non-Liberal and future contexts
also. This is why I use the rhetorical device of the twin pillars. If
Governmentality by incorporating the notions of Discipline &Biopower takes
as
its key objects of attention individual and population governance, if this
assumption is true and I believe that it is, then the political
rationalities, apparatuses, technologies and practices of government can
come and go but the twin pillars or the focal targets of governance
(individual
conduct & population management) remain an ongoing concern.The
rationalities,
technologies, methods and practices simply represent the means by which
individuals
and populations are governed for the purpose of achieving national outcomes
(e.g., GNP & GDP
growth).The problematic of government remains the concern of government
while political
fashions and their technologies come and go.Governing individuals and
populations is not the exclusive concern of
one particular political rationality or epoch.
If this is an acceptable construal of Governmentality,
then it seems a reasonable response in light of attempts to historisise
Foucault and say limit him to a method of production (Fordism) and form of
society (disciplinary)that they claim no longer exists.
regards
Scott Nicholas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Nicholas" <snichola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
previouse-mail)
> Hi Henning,
>
> I both agree and disagree with your assessment.
>
> Governmentality incorporates technologies of power like sovereign,
> pastoral, disciplinary, and bio-power and therefore entails the associated
> methods for guiding individual conduct and managing the life issues of
> population .I agree with you when you say:"This allows for example the
> drawing together of all the many different ways power is exercised in a
> certain society
> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
> technologies."In this respect, Governmentality represents as you say a
> "certain analytical perspective" or an analytic of the overall guidance of
> conduct - both in an individual and totalising sense.
>
> However, where I differ from you is when you limit its application to the
> present or as you describe:" (2) as a hint on the content of the
> contemporary rationality of governing." Foucault was as you say critiquing
> the present but my reasoning is that if certain assumptions are acceptable
> then Governmentality can be applied in non-Liberal and future contexts
> also. This is why I use the rhetorical device of the twin pillars. If
> Governmetality by incorproating the notions of Discipline &Biopower takes
> as its key objects of attention individual and population governnace, if
> this assumption is true and I believe that it is, then the political
> rationalities, apparatuses, technologies and practices of government can
> come and go but the twin pillars remain in place.These things in effect
> represent the means by which individuals and populations are governed
> (twin pillars) for the purpose of achieving national outcomes (e.g., GNP &
> GDP growth).The probleamtic of government remains the concern while
> political fashions come and go. If this is an acceptable construal of
> Governmentality, then it seems a reasonable response in light of attempts
> to historisise Foucault and say limit him to a method of production
> (Fordism) and form of society (disciplinary)that they claim no longer
> exists.
>
> Let me know what you think
>
> Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
> previouse-mail)
>
>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> as far as I can see, the term Governmentality carries a central
>> ambiguity which is expressed also in your questions.
>> I would claim that Governmentality is used (1) as a term to describe a
>> certain analytical perspective and (2) as a hint on the content of the
>> contemporary rationality of governing.
>>
>> So what you describe in your email is the analytical perspective the
>> notion of governmentality is opening up. Concretely that is the
>> question of 'How we are governed?' in a very broad sense at a certain
>> time in a certain society. That is the first aspect the term
>> governmentality is used for.
>>
>> "The twin pillars of governmentality" as you call them belong to the
>> second meaning that is if the analytical perspective of
>> governmentality is applied to the contemporary societies. The
>> "governmentality of our present" indeed consists of technologies of
>> individual guidance as well as of technologies of population control.
>>
>> So regarding your questions it is not only possible but quite
>> promising to follow the research perspective the notion of
>> governmenality opens up. This allows for example the drawing together
>> of all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain society
>> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
>> technologies.
>> To cite Rose et al.:
>> "What remains salient and challenging about this approach is its
>> insistence that to understand how we are governed in the present,
>> individually and collectively, in our homes, workplaces, schools, and
>> hospitals, in our towns, regions, and nations, and by our national and
>> transnational governing bodies requires us to turn away from grand
>> theory, the state, globalization, re?exive individualization, and the
>> like. Instead, we need to investigate the role of the gray sciences,
>> the minor professions, the accountants and insurers, the managers and
>> psychologists, in the mundane business of governing everyday economic
>> and social life, in the shaping of governable domains and governable
>> persons, in the new forms of power, authority, and subjectivity being
>> formed within these mundane practices. Every practice for the conduct
>> of conduct involves authorities, aspirations, programmatic thinking,
>> the invention or redeployment of techniques and technologies." (Rose,
>> Nikolas, P. O?Malley . M. Valverde (2006). Governmentality. Annual
>> Review of Law and Social Sciences, 2:83?104, 101)
>>
>> But it would be misleading to use the very special pattern of t the
>> contemporary rationality of government (Biopower, Individualization
>> and totalization) as a general scheme of governing.
>>
>> To put it short: Governmentality as a research perspective could be
>> applied in many different societies. The specific 'governmental' way
>> of governing, seems historically bound to advanced liberal societies.
>>
>> correct me if you disagree (would be helpful for my understanding)
>>
>> best regards
>> Henning
>>
>>
>> Am 05.03.2008 um 12:46 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> just thought that I had better clarify a couple of things.
>>>
>>> I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>>> reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>>> his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>>> this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>>> rationality changes, or the state as a technology of government and
>>> its constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private
>>> & public) change, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>>> government change. In other words, my core argument is that the twin
>>> pillars of governmentality: guidance of individual conduct and
>>> population management for the purpose of achieving national outcomes
>>> (e.g., GDP growth); remain in place even when the rationality for
>>> and the means of achieving (e.g., governmental tactics, practices,
>>> methods, devices, mechanisms etc) the aforementioned outcomes
>>> change, shift or mutate. In this sense, governmentality can
>>> accomodate say the alleged change from Fordist discipline to Post-F!
>>> ordist flexibilisation.
>>>
>>> I am responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great
>>> theorist of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse,
>>> by arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality
>>> analytic can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
>>> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance of
>>> individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
>>> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
>>> society still exists.
>>>
>>> Given my construal, the question arises does say repression fall
>>> under the conceptual auspices of Governmentality? and under what
>>> conditions would governmentality not apply - slavery perhaps?
>>>
>>> I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of what
>>> I think is the continued relevance of Governmentality?
>>>
>>> Any and all responses are welcome
>>>
>>> Scott Nicholas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:09:47 +0100
From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
previouse-mail)
To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <41A261BA-5175-4E4F-865C-1EDCD9E788DA@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Hi Scott,
thanks for the reply. There is no disagreement with nearly all of the
points you mentioned. I definitely consider it fruitful using the
governmentality approach in different historical contexts and
especially for examining the present and future of our societies.
I just wanted to distinguish the methodological proposal connected
with the notion of governmentality (regard governing in a very broad
sense as all forms of conducting conduct and try to find a rationality
drawing together these diverse forms) from a different usage of
governmentality. The term is often also used to describe the subject
matter of a specific historical logic of of governing. That is the
rationality of governing which follows the sovereign and the
disciplinary logic, a historically new rationality of governing which
aims in maximizing the powers of a population.
Very often both meanings are drawn together incautiously.
Herein also lies the (only) problem I see in your rendering of the
concept.
I would not give the two pillars - as you call them - such an
universalistic role. Rather, the specific interaction of
individualization and totalization is one of the findings if you see
our present from the analytical perspective of governmentality. But
they are not the founding stones of every historical specific
rationality of governing. For example the sovereign rationality of
governing (dominant in the middle ages) simply is concerned with
serfs. At this historical moment the concept of population still does
not exist in the eyes of governing. The appearance of population as
object of governing in the 18th century and the beginning of the
interplay of totalization and individualization is one of the
interesting results of Foucault's lecture series 'Security, Territory,
Population'.
thanks for the possibility of clarification and I hope it helps as such
best regards
Henning
Am 06.03.2008 um 02:15 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
> Hi Henning,
>
> I both agree and disagree with your assessment.
>
> Governmentality incorporates technologies of power like sovereign,
> pastoral,
> disciplinary, and bio-power and therefore entails the associated
> methods for
> guiding individual conduct and managing the life issues of
> population .I
> agree with you when you say:"This allows for example the drawing
> together of
> all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain society
> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
> technologies."In this respect, Governmentality represents as you say a
> "certain analytical perspective" or an analytic of the overall
> guidance of
> conduct - both in an individual and totalising sense.
>
> However, where I differ from you is when you limit its application
> to the
> present or as you describe:" (2) as a hint on the content of the
> contemporary rationality of governing." Foucault was as you say
> critiquing
> the present but my reasoning is that if certain assumptions are
> acceptable
> then Governmentality can be applied in non-Liberal and future
> contexts
> also. This is why I use the rhetorical device of the twin pillars. If
> Governmetality by incorproating the notions of Discipline &Biopower
> takes as
> its key objects of attention individual and population governnace,
> if this
> assumption is true and I believe that it is, then the political
> rationalities, apparatuses, technologies and practices of government
> can
> come and go but the twin pillars remain in place.These things in
> effect
> represent the means by which individuals and populations are
> governed (twin
> pillars) for the purpose of achieving national outcomes (e.g., GNP &
> GDP
> growth).The probleamtic of government remains the concern while
> political
> fashions come and go. If this is an acceptable construal of
> Governmentality,
> then it seems a reasonable response in light of attempts to
> historisise
> Foucault and say limit him to a method of production (Fordism) and
> form of
> society (disciplinary)that they claim no longer exists.
>
> Let me know what you think
>
> Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
> previouse-mail)
>
>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> as far as I can see, the term Governmentality carries a central
>> ambiguity which is expressed also in your questions.
>> I would claim that Governmentality is used (1) as a term to
>> describe a
>> certain analytical perspective and (2) as a hint on the content of
>> the
>> contemporary rationality of governing.
>>
>> So what you describe in your email is the analytical perspective the
>> notion of governmentality is opening up. Concretely that is the
>> question of 'How we are governed?' in a very broad sense at a certain
>> time in a certain society. That is the first aspect the term
>> governmentality is used for.
>>
>> "The twin pillars of governmentality" as you call them belong to the
>> second meaning that is if the analytical perspective of
>> governmentality is applied to the contemporary societies. The
>> "governmentality of our present" indeed consists of technologies of
>> individual guidance as well as of technologies of population control.
>>
>> So regarding your questions it is not only possible but quite
>> promising to follow the research perspective the notion of
>> governmenality opens up. This allows for example the drawing together
>> of all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain
>> society
>> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
>> technologies.
>> To cite Rose et al.:
>> "What remains salient and challenging about this approach is its
>> insistence that to understand how we are governed in the present,
>> individually and collectively, in our homes, workplaces, schools, and
>> hospitals, in our towns, regions, and nations, and by our national
>> and
>> transnational governing bodies requires us to turn away from grand
>> theory, the state, globalization, re?exive individualization, and
>> the
>> like. Instead, we need to investigate the role of the gray sciences,
>> the minor professions, the accountants and insurers, the managers and
>> psychologists, in the mundane business of governing everyday economic
>> and social life, in the shaping of governable domains and governable
>> persons, in the new forms of power, authority, and subjectivity being
>> formed within these mundane practices. Every practice for the conduct
>> of conduct involves authorities, aspirations, programmatic thinking,
>> the invention or redeployment of techniques and technologies." (Rose,
>> Nikolas, P. O?Malley . M. Valverde (2006). Governmentality. Annual
>> Review of Law and Social Sciences, 2:83?104, 101)
>>
>> But it would be misleading to use the very special pattern of t the
>> contemporary rationality of government (Biopower, Individualization
>> and totalization) as a general scheme of governing.
>>
>> To put it short: Governmentality as a research perspective could be
>> applied in many different societies. The specific 'governmental' way
>> of governing, seems historically bound to advanced liberal societies.
>>
>> correct me if you disagree (would be helpful for my understanding)
>>
>> best regards
>> Henning
>>
>>
>> Am 05.03.2008 um 12:46 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> just thought that I had better clarify a couple of things.
>>>
>>> I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>>> reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>>> his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>>> this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>>> rationality changes, or the state as a technology of government and
>>> its constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private
>>> & public) change, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>>> government change. In other words, my core argument is that the twin
>>> pillars of governmentality: guidance of individual conduct and
>>> population management for the purpose of achieving national outcomes
>>> (e.g., GDP growth); remain in place even when the rationality for
>>> and the means of achieving (e.g., governmental tactics, practices,
>>> methods, devices, mechanisms etc) the aforementioned outcomes
>>> change, shift or mutate. In this sense, governmentality can
>>> accomodate say the alleged change from Fordist discipline to Post-F!
>>> ordist flexibilisation.
>>>
>>> I am responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great
>>> theorist of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse,
>>> by arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality
>>> analytic can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
>>> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance of
>>> individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
>>> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
>>> society still exists.
>>>
>>> Given my construal, the question arises does say repression fall
>>> under the conceptual auspices of Governmentality? and under what
>>> conditions would governmentality not apply - slavery perhaps?
>>>
>>> I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of what
>>> I think is the continued relevance of Governmentality?
>>>
>>> Any and all responses are welcome
>>>
>>> Scott Nicholas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:49:28 +1000
From: "Scott Nicholas" <snichola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
previouse-mail)
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <006501c8829c$6a5da450$3df2ad3a@scott>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
reply-type=original
Hi Henning,
the use of the twin pillars would only apply historically from the emergence
of as you say the interplay between individualisation and totalisation.
It would incorporate the present and I would anticipate its applicability
into the future. It is difficult to see at least for the forseeable future
the logic
of governance shifting in this regard. We still need subjects responsibly
governing themselves by engaging in mass consumption.
However, in a scenario where say the current international order was to
fracture, either through conflict or bankruptcy, we may see the extension of
repression within the first world as opposed to individualisation (i.e.,
disciplinary normalisation). For example, is Chinese subjection different to
Anglo-American subjection? If this were to happen would Governmentality
still apply? Would it apply if say 20% of the population were individualised
while 80% were marginalised and repressed?
regards
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
previouse-mail)
> Hi Scott,
>
> thanks for the reply. There is no disagreement with nearly all of the
> points you mentioned. I definitely consider it fruitful using the
> governmentality approach in different historical contexts and
> especially for examining the present and future of our societies.
> I just wanted to distinguish the methodological proposal connected
> with the notion of governmentality (regard governing in a very broad
> sense as all forms of conducting conduct and try to find a rationality
> drawing together these diverse forms) from a different usage of
> governmentality. The term is often also used to describe the subject
> matter of a specific historical logic of of governing. That is the
> rationality of governing which follows the sovereign and the
> disciplinary logic, a historically new rationality of governing which
> aims in maximizing the powers of a population.
> Very often both meanings are drawn together incautiously.
>
> Herein also lies the (only) problem I see in your rendering of the
> concept.
> I would not give the two pillars - as you call them - such an
> universalistic role. Rather, the specific interaction of
> individualization and totalization is one of the findings if you see
> our present from the analytical perspective of governmentality. But
> they are not the founding stones of every historical specific
> rationality of governing. For example the sovereign rationality of
> governing (dominant in the middle ages) simply is concerned with
> serfs. At this historical moment the concept of population still does
> not exist in the eyes of governing. The appearance of population as
> object of governing in the 18th century and the beginning of the
> interplay of totalization and individualization is one of the
> interesting results of Foucault's lecture series 'Security, Territory,
> Population'.
>
> thanks for the possibility of clarification and I hope it helps as such
>
> best regards
> Henning
>
>
>
> Am 06.03.2008 um 02:15 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
>
>> Hi Henning,
>>
>> I both agree and disagree with your assessment.
>>
>> Governmentality incorporates technologies of power like sovereign,
>> pastoral,
>> disciplinary, and bio-power and therefore entails the associated
>> methods for
>> guiding individual conduct and managing the life issues of
>> population .I
>> agree with you when you say:"This allows for example the drawing
>> together of
>> all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain society
>> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
>> technologies."In this respect, Governmentality represents as you say a
>> "certain analytical perspective" or an analytic of the overall
>> guidance of
>> conduct - both in an individual and totalising sense.
>>
>> However, where I differ from you is when you limit its application
>> to the
>> present or as you describe:" (2) as a hint on the content of the
>> contemporary rationality of governing." Foucault was as you say
>> critiquing
>> the present but my reasoning is that if certain assumptions are
>> acceptable
>> then Governmentality can be applied in non-Liberal and future
>> contexts
>> also. This is why I use the rhetorical device of the twin pillars. If
>> Governmetality by incorproating the notions of Discipline &Biopower
>> takes as
>> its key objects of attention individual and population governnace,
>> if this
>> assumption is true and I believe that it is, then the political
>> rationalities, apparatuses, technologies and practices of government
>> can
>> come and go but the twin pillars remain in place.These things in
>> effect
>> represent the means by which individuals and populations are
>> governed (twin
>> pillars) for the purpose of achieving national outcomes (e.g., GNP &
>> GDP
>> growth).The probleamtic of government remains the concern while
>> political
>> fashions come and go. If this is an acceptable construal of
>> Governmentality,
>> then it seems a reasonable response in light of attempts to
>> historisise
>> Foucault and say limit him to a method of production (Fordism) and
>> form of
>> society (disciplinary)that they claim no longer exists.
>>
>> Let me know what you think
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
>> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
>> previouse-mail)
>>
>>
>>> Hi Scott,
>>>
>>> as far as I can see, the term Governmentality carries a central
>>> ambiguity which is expressed also in your questions.
>>> I would claim that Governmentality is used (1) as a term to
>>> describe a
>>> certain analytical perspective and (2) as a hint on the content of
>>> the
>>> contemporary rationality of governing.
>>>
>>> So what you describe in your email is the analytical perspective the
>>> notion of governmentality is opening up. Concretely that is the
>>> question of 'How we are governed?' in a very broad sense at a certain
>>> time in a certain society. That is the first aspect the term
>>> governmentality is used for.
>>>
>>> "The twin pillars of governmentality" as you call them belong to the
>>> second meaning that is if the analytical perspective of
>>> governmentality is applied to the contemporary societies. The
>>> "governmentality of our present" indeed consists of technologies of
>>> individual guidance as well as of technologies of population control.
>>>
>>> So regarding your questions it is not only possible but quite
>>> promising to follow the research perspective the notion of
>>> governmenality opens up. This allows for example the drawing together
>>> of all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain
>>> society
>>> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
>>> technologies.
>>> To cite Rose et al.:
>>> "What remains salient and challenging about this approach is its
>>> insistence that to understand how we are governed in the present,
>>> individually and collectively, in our homes, workplaces, schools, and
>>> hospitals, in our towns, regions, and nations, and by our national
>>> and
>>> transnational governing bodies requires us to turn away from grand
>>> theory, the state, globalization, re?exive individualization, and
>>> the
>>> like. Instead, we need to investigate the role of the gray sciences,
>>> the minor professions, the accountants and insurers, the managers and
>>> psychologists, in the mundane business of governing everyday economic
>>> and social life, in the shaping of governable domains and governable
>>> persons, in the new forms of power, authority, and subjectivity being
>>> formed within these mundane practices. Every practice for the conduct
>>> of conduct involves authorities, aspirations, programmatic thinking,
>>> the invention or redeployment of techniques and technologies." (Rose,
>>> Nikolas, P. O?Malley . M. Valverde (2006). Governmentality. Annual
>>> Review of Law and Social Sciences, 2:83?104, 101)
>>>
>>> But it would be misleading to use the very special pattern of t the
>>> contemporary rationality of government (Biopower, Individualization
>>> and totalization) as a general scheme of governing.
>>>
>>> To put it short: Governmentality as a research perspective could be
>>> applied in many different societies. The specific 'governmental' way
>>> of governing, seems historically bound to advanced liberal societies.
>>>
>>> correct me if you disagree (would be helpful for my understanding)
>>>
>>> best regards
>>> Henning
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.03.2008 um 12:46 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> just thought that I had better clarify a couple of things.
>>>>
>>>> I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>>>> reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>>>> his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>>>> this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>>>> rationality changes, or the state as a technology of government and
>>>> its constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private
>>>> & public) change, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>>>> government change. In other words, my core argument is that the twin
>>>> pillars of governmentality: guidance of individual conduct and
>>>> population management for the purpose of achieving national outcomes
>>>> (e.g., GDP growth); remain in place even when the rationality for
>>>> and the means of achieving (e.g., governmental tactics, practices,
>>>> methods, devices, mechanisms etc) the aforementioned outcomes
>>>> change, shift or mutate. In this sense, governmentality can
>>>> accomodate say the alleged change from Fordist discipline to Post-F!
>>>> ordist flexibilisation.
>>>>
>>>> I am responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great
>>>> theorist of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse,
>>>> by arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality
>>>> analytic can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
>>>> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance of
>>>> individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
>>>> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
>>>> society still exists.
>>>>
>>>> Given my construal, the question arises does say repression fall
>>>> under the conceptual auspices of Governmentality? and under what
>>>> conditions would governmentality not apply - slavery perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of what
>>>> I think is the continued relevance of Governmentality?
>>>>
>>>> Any and all responses are welcome
>>>>
>>>> Scott Nicholas
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
Foucault-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://foucault.info/mailman/listinfo/foucault-l
End of Foucault-L Digest, Vol 8, Issue 10
*****************************************
Post-fordistic production techniques (assuming we can agree on what those are) are more specific to the logics and strategies of neoliberal governmentaly (I like Deleuze's essay on the new societies of control to describe those conditions often referred to as post-fordist).
I believe Foucault described the governmentalization of the state in relation to social-welfare logics/practices and therefore I think Scott is correct about the import of biopolitics to the development and dispersion of governmentality.
So, I also think that Scott is correct that governemnetal analysis can be applied to changing western arts and logics of government. I don't know about applying the framework to non-western cultures because Foucault's analysis was developed concretely and historically in relation to western European nations.
I have a book coming out in June (Routledge) titled, Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life, which offers my take on governmentality as a genealogy of western liberalisms as applied to the market, the health and vitality of the population, government of the mind, and state sovereignty. I try to introduce and synthesize much of the governmentality scholarship in this book but also frame governmentality more critically than often found in the British governmentality scholarship.
As an American horrified by the resurgence of a nationalized "racialized" sovereignty (thought in terms of American cultural exceptionalism), I felt obliged to conclude my project by returning to the sovereign capacity to kill (Foucault in contrast saw sovereignty much more tied to the capacity to let live in the modern era).
Majia Nadesan
>Hi everyone,
>
>I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>rationality changes, the state as a technology of government and its
>constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private &
>public) changes, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>government change. In other words, because Governmentality's key
>features are the governance of individual conduct and management of
>population bio-issues(births, deaths, health etc), the ends continue
>to be the concern of government even when the means of achieving
>these ends (e.g., GDP growth) changes. In this sense, I am
>responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great theorist
>of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse, by
>arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality analytic!
> can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance
> of individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
> society still exists.
>
>I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of the
>relevance of Governmentality?
>
>Any and all responses are welcome
>
>Scott Nicholas
>_______________________________________________
>Foucault-L mailing list
Prof. Machiel Karskens
social and political philosophy
Faculty of Philosophy
Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:02:48 +1000
From: "Scott Nicholas" <snichola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <01d201c87f71$3c14d790$3df2ad3a@scott>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi machiel,
note my responses in parentheses [ ] below
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Karskens" <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality
> In my opinion bio-issues are of course also topics of govenrmental
> power, but they are not any more the exclusive topics. My main
> objections, however, to you construal are:
> - From 1978 on Foucault does not connect governmental power any more
> with the power on life and death or some reversal of that power; he
> even rejects that connection (lateron in an explicit way, see 'The
> Subject and Power' )[Could you please elaborate on this?]
> - The invention of statistics as governmental technique is more than
> pure Fordism; following the idea of examination in Discipline and
> Punish, statistics normalizes, and in doing so it always is as well
> focused on the individual, as on some idea of <normal>
[I completely agree and that is one reason why I am arguing that Foucault's
Governmentality analytic remains relevant - disciplinary normalisation is an
ongoing concern]
>
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
>
>
>
> At 11:06 5-3-2008, you wrote:
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>>reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>>his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>>this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>>rationality changes, the state as a technology of government and its
>>constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private &
>>public) changes, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>>government change. In other words, because Governmentality's key
>>features are the governance of individual conduct and management of
>>population bio-issues(births, deaths, health etc), the ends continue
>>to be the concern of government even when the means of achieving
>>these ends (e.g., GDP growth) changes. In this sense, I am
>>responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great theorist
>>of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse, by
>>arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality analytic!
>> can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
>> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance
>> of individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
>> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
>> society still exists.
>>
>>I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of the
>>relevance of Governmentality?
>>
>>Any and all responses are welcome
>>
>>Scott Nicholas
>>_______________________________________________
>>Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Machiel Karskens
> social and political philosophy
> Faculty of Philosophy
> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:08:10 +0100
From: "M. Karskens" <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality
To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <20080306110812.BBD8E6330A@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Dear Scott,
thank you very much;
so we agree on the second point
as to the first point: The following is a section
of my article on Biopower (which is in review and not yet acepted)
2.2 Foucault?s denial of war
Foucault himself, however, does not discuss this
obvious inconsistency either in the Cours of
1976, or in La volont? de savoir. He also never
drew that conclusion in words or writing
afterwards ? perhaps The Subject and Power can be
read as an exception (see below).
Right at the beginning of his Cours of 1978,
however, he just completely drops (or rejects)
the war model. Power is a set of procedures and
mechanisms, he says, which are neither
?autogenetic?, nor ?autosubsistent.? Herewith,
again and now once and for all, Foucault
disconnects power from sovereignty. His topic is
the politics of truth, so Foucault continues,
therefore, the imperative moment of power only
takes effect at the level of discourses. In other
words, he concludes, the relation between truth
and struggle (lutte) remains within (the domain
of) theoretical discourse.[1] Any connection of
power with physical influence or violence is
denied here, but this is not explicitly stated.
Finally, he says: ?With all these [remarks] I
would like to propose only one imperative, which
is categorical and unconditional: never get
involved into politics.?[2] After that, Foucault
starts the course, and does not pay any attention
any more to war or continuous battle, to the
reversal of sovereign power into biopower, and to
the physical or violent impact of power. In fact,
he turns his back on politics and political power here.
By the end of 1978, Foucault explains in an
indirect way why he dropped the war model.
Discussing the issue of polemics, he criticizes
ideological discussions because they ?get carried
away necessarily by the war model.? [3] The idea
of ideological fight (lutte) is rejected as an
overblown, not serious and even dangerous way of
presentation of ?little disputes?; and he
continues: ?I shall tell you: I find this <model
of war> not only a little bit ridiculous, but
rather dangerous,? because, from the moment on
that you are in power (forza) or in a situation
of real war, the opponent could really be seen and treated as an enemy.[4]
It was only in 1981 or 1982, in the retrospective
overview ?The Subject and Power?, that Foucault
explained conceptually the ?distinction?, as he
calls it, between power and physical influence,
which is defined as ?that which is exerted over
things and gives the ability to modify, use,
consume, or destroy them.? That distinction
actually proves to be a real distinction between
power, defined as ?action upon (possible)
actions?, and physical influence or violence,
being an ?objective capacity? ?inherent in the
body or relayed by external instruments.? [5]
These statements make clear that the analytic of
power or genealogy is separated from any - I
would like to say: body-political - analysis of
the impact of power on people and populations,
including the material conditions of their way of
living. However, power and physical influence[6]
are not separated domains; Foucault calls them
different ?types of relationships which ?
overlap, ? support ? and use each other
mutually?[7] No trace of war can be found
anymore in power. It is true that a power
relation is called ?agonistic?, being ?at the
same time reciprocal incitation and struggle?,
but Foucault connects this point with the
principle of resistance (see (5.1)), and definitely not with war.[8]
Both explanations are rejection of the war model
of power with hindsight. The question remains,
however, why in the early part of 1978, Foucault
was so very dissatisfied with the war model that
he rejected it and kept it dark? According to
Michel Senellart, the editor of the Cours of 1978
and 1979, it was Foucault?s rift with the radical
left and especially with the terrorism of the
Rote Armee Fraktion by the end of 1977. He felt
himself forced, by Gilles Deleuze[9] among
others, to support the request for asylum by
Klaus Croissant, the lawyer of the RAF, but
refused to support anyhow the RAF and the
ideology of armed resistance.[10] It is that
rejection of violence and armed resistance in
power and politics, so I would like to suggest,
which is gradually elaborated during the Cours of
1978 and most of all in the Cours of 1979, as we shall see in ? 4.
The inconsistency of the war model with
Foucault?s positive model of power, however, is
so obvious that he could not ignore it. According
to Foucault?s conceptual framework, that
inconsistency ultimately boils down to the
contradiction between two concepts of death: on
the one hand, death against life or death as the
fatal end of life, which is entailed in violence
and war; on the other hand, death as an intrinsic
element of normal(ized) life of a population as a
factor in demography, morbidity, social security,
(life)insurances and so on. The former conception
of death is used in biopower, as we shall see in
the following section. I contend that the latter
conception is the fundamental principle of
normalization, as has been argued in ? 1; it is
this conception too, which is presupposed in the
art of governing and in the art of living.
[1] Cours of 1978, respectively: pp.4, 5, 5-6.
[2] My translation, ibid. p. 6: ?Je ne proposerai
donc en tout ceci qu?une seul imp?ratif, mais
celui-l? sera cat?goriquement et inconditionnel:
ne faire jamais de politique?; also see the
comment of the editior (note 2, p.25).
[3] Right at the end of the interview by
Trombadori (of 1978): ?? necessariamente
tracinati dal <modello della guerra>? (Il
Contributo p 83), the French translation (DE IV, p. 95) is not literal.
[4] ibid. p. 83-84: ?le dir?: questo <modella
della guerra> lo trovo non solo un p? ridiculo,
ma anche piuttosto pericoloso? (in DE this
sentence is not translated); also see the same
line of reasoning in ?Polemics, Politics and
Problematizations? including the point that ?the
very existence [of the enemy] constitutes a
threat? (Foucault Reader p. 383, DE IV, p. 591),
which will be discussed in ? 3 (7.2).
[5] ?The Subject and Power?, quotations are taken
from the original English edition p. 217 (French
translation in DE IV, no. 306).
[6] Communication is discussed in the same
context as a third type of interaction.
[7] Ibid. p. 218.
[8] Ibid. p. 221-222.
[9] See Gilles Deleuze ?Le pire moyen de faire
l?Europe? in Deux r?gimes de fous. p. 134-137,
esp. p. 137. In an interview of 1986 Deleuze
himself imputes his estrangement with Foucault to
their different conceptions of society: ?you are
right: society [to me] is a fluid or ? a gas. To
Foucault it is an architecture? (my translation), ibid. p. 261.
[10] Cours of 1978, p.385-386.
At 11:02 6-3-2008, you wrote:
>Hi machiel,
>
>note my responses in parentheses [ ] below
>
>Scott
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "M. Karskens" <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality
>
>
> > In my opinion bio-issues are of course also topics of govenrmental
> > power, but they are not any more the exclusive topics. My main
> > objections, however, to you construal are:
> > - From 1978 on Foucault does not connect governmental power any more
> > with the power on life and death or some reversal of that power; he
> > even rejects that connection (lateron in an explicit way, see 'The
> > Subject and Power' )[Could you please elaborate on this?]
>
> > - The invention of statistics as governmental technique is more than
> > pure Fordism; following the idea of examination in Discipline and
> > Punish, statistics normalizes, and in doing so it always is as well
> > focused on the individual, as on some idea of <normal>
>[I completely agree and that is one reason why I am arguing that Foucault's
>Governmentality analytic remains relevant - disciplinary normalisation is an
>ongoing concern]
> >
> >
> > yours
> > machiel karskens
> >
> >
> >
> > At 11:06 5-3-2008, you wrote:
> >>Hi everyone,
> >>
> >>I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
> >>reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
> >>his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
> >>this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
> >>rationality changes, the state as a technology of government and its
> >>constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private &
> >>public) changes, or indeed the technologies and practices of
> >>government change. In other words, because Governmentality's key
> >>features are the governance of individual conduct and management of
> >>population bio-issues(births, deaths, health etc), the ends continue
> >>to be the concern of government even when the means of achieving
> >>these ends (e.g., GDP growth) changes. In this sense, I am
> >>responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great theorist
> >>of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse, by
> >>arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality analytic!
> >> can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
> >> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance
> >> of individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
> >> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
> >> society still exists.
> >>
> >>I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of the
> >>relevance of Governmentality?
> >>
> >>Any and all responses are welcome
> >>
> >>Scott Nicholas
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Prof. Machiel Karskens
> > social and political philosophy
> > Faculty of Philosophy
> > Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Foucault-L mailing list
Prof. Machiel Karskens
social and political philosophy
Faculty of Philosophy
Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:52:49 +1000
From: "Scott Nicholas" <snichola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality - a clearer explication of
my argument for Henning
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <018901c88017$79f71c20$3df2ad3a@scott>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
reply-type=response
Hi Henning,
governmentality incorporates technologies of power like sovereign, pastoral,
disciplinary, and bio-power and therefore entails the associated methods for
guiding individual conduct and managing the life issues of population .I
agree with you when you say:"This allows for example the drawing together of
all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain society
and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
technologies."In this respect, Governmentality represents as you say a
"certain analytical perspective" or an analytic of the overall guidance of
conduct - both in an individual and totalising sense.
However, where I differ from you is when you limit its application to the
present or as you describe:" (2) as a hint on the content of the
contemporary rationality of governing." Foucault was as you say critiquing
the present but my reasoning is that if certain assumptions are acceptable
then Governmentality can be applied in non-Liberal and future contexts
also. This is why I use the rhetorical device of the twin pillars. If
Governmentality by incorporating the notions of Discipline &Biopower takes
as
its key objects of attention individual and population governance, if this
assumption is true and I believe that it is, then the political
rationalities, apparatuses, technologies and practices of government can
come and go but the twin pillars or the focal targets of governance
(individual
conduct & population management) remain an ongoing concern.The
rationalities,
technologies, methods and practices simply represent the means by which
individuals
and populations are governed for the purpose of achieving national outcomes
(e.g., GNP & GDP
growth).The problematic of government remains the concern of government
while political
fashions and their technologies come and go.Governing individuals and
populations is not the exclusive concern of
one particular political rationality or epoch.
If this is an acceptable construal of Governmentality,
then it seems a reasonable response in light of attempts to historisise
Foucault and say limit him to a method of production (Fordism) and form of
society (disciplinary)that they claim no longer exists.
regards
Scott Nicholas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Nicholas" <snichola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
previouse-mail)
> Hi Henning,
>
> I both agree and disagree with your assessment.
>
> Governmentality incorporates technologies of power like sovereign,
> pastoral, disciplinary, and bio-power and therefore entails the associated
> methods for guiding individual conduct and managing the life issues of
> population .I agree with you when you say:"This allows for example the
> drawing together of all the many different ways power is exercised in a
> certain society
> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
> technologies."In this respect, Governmentality represents as you say a
> "certain analytical perspective" or an analytic of the overall guidance of
> conduct - both in an individual and totalising sense.
>
> However, where I differ from you is when you limit its application to the
> present or as you describe:" (2) as a hint on the content of the
> contemporary rationality of governing." Foucault was as you say critiquing
> the present but my reasoning is that if certain assumptions are acceptable
> then Governmentality can be applied in non-Liberal and future contexts
> also. This is why I use the rhetorical device of the twin pillars. If
> Governmetality by incorproating the notions of Discipline &Biopower takes
> as its key objects of attention individual and population governnace, if
> this assumption is true and I believe that it is, then the political
> rationalities, apparatuses, technologies and practices of government can
> come and go but the twin pillars remain in place.These things in effect
> represent the means by which individuals and populations are governed
> (twin pillars) for the purpose of achieving national outcomes (e.g., GNP &
> GDP growth).The probleamtic of government remains the concern while
> political fashions come and go. If this is an acceptable construal of
> Governmentality, then it seems a reasonable response in light of attempts
> to historisise Foucault and say limit him to a method of production
> (Fordism) and form of society (disciplinary)that they claim no longer
> exists.
>
> Let me know what you think
>
> Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
> previouse-mail)
>
>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> as far as I can see, the term Governmentality carries a central
>> ambiguity which is expressed also in your questions.
>> I would claim that Governmentality is used (1) as a term to describe a
>> certain analytical perspective and (2) as a hint on the content of the
>> contemporary rationality of governing.
>>
>> So what you describe in your email is the analytical perspective the
>> notion of governmentality is opening up. Concretely that is the
>> question of 'How we are governed?' in a very broad sense at a certain
>> time in a certain society. That is the first aspect the term
>> governmentality is used for.
>>
>> "The twin pillars of governmentality" as you call them belong to the
>> second meaning that is if the analytical perspective of
>> governmentality is applied to the contemporary societies. The
>> "governmentality of our present" indeed consists of technologies of
>> individual guidance as well as of technologies of population control.
>>
>> So regarding your questions it is not only possible but quite
>> promising to follow the research perspective the notion of
>> governmenality opens up. This allows for example the drawing together
>> of all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain society
>> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
>> technologies.
>> To cite Rose et al.:
>> "What remains salient and challenging about this approach is its
>> insistence that to understand how we are governed in the present,
>> individually and collectively, in our homes, workplaces, schools, and
>> hospitals, in our towns, regions, and nations, and by our national and
>> transnational governing bodies requires us to turn away from grand
>> theory, the state, globalization, re?exive individualization, and the
>> like. Instead, we need to investigate the role of the gray sciences,
>> the minor professions, the accountants and insurers, the managers and
>> psychologists, in the mundane business of governing everyday economic
>> and social life, in the shaping of governable domains and governable
>> persons, in the new forms of power, authority, and subjectivity being
>> formed within these mundane practices. Every practice for the conduct
>> of conduct involves authorities, aspirations, programmatic thinking,
>> the invention or redeployment of techniques and technologies." (Rose,
>> Nikolas, P. O?Malley . M. Valverde (2006). Governmentality. Annual
>> Review of Law and Social Sciences, 2:83?104, 101)
>>
>> But it would be misleading to use the very special pattern of t the
>> contemporary rationality of government (Biopower, Individualization
>> and totalization) as a general scheme of governing.
>>
>> To put it short: Governmentality as a research perspective could be
>> applied in many different societies. The specific 'governmental' way
>> of governing, seems historically bound to advanced liberal societies.
>>
>> correct me if you disagree (would be helpful for my understanding)
>>
>> best regards
>> Henning
>>
>>
>> Am 05.03.2008 um 12:46 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> just thought that I had better clarify a couple of things.
>>>
>>> I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>>> reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>>> his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>>> this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>>> rationality changes, or the state as a technology of government and
>>> its constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private
>>> & public) change, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>>> government change. In other words, my core argument is that the twin
>>> pillars of governmentality: guidance of individual conduct and
>>> population management for the purpose of achieving national outcomes
>>> (e.g., GDP growth); remain in place even when the rationality for
>>> and the means of achieving (e.g., governmental tactics, practices,
>>> methods, devices, mechanisms etc) the aforementioned outcomes
>>> change, shift or mutate. In this sense, governmentality can
>>> accomodate say the alleged change from Fordist discipline to Post-F!
>>> ordist flexibilisation.
>>>
>>> I am responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great
>>> theorist of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse,
>>> by arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality
>>> analytic can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
>>> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance of
>>> individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
>>> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
>>> society still exists.
>>>
>>> Given my construal, the question arises does say repression fall
>>> under the conceptual auspices of Governmentality? and under what
>>> conditions would governmentality not apply - slavery perhaps?
>>>
>>> I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of what
>>> I think is the continued relevance of Governmentality?
>>>
>>> Any and all responses are welcome
>>>
>>> Scott Nicholas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:09:47 +0100
From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
previouse-mail)
To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <41A261BA-5175-4E4F-865C-1EDCD9E788DA@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Hi Scott,
thanks for the reply. There is no disagreement with nearly all of the
points you mentioned. I definitely consider it fruitful using the
governmentality approach in different historical contexts and
especially for examining the present and future of our societies.
I just wanted to distinguish the methodological proposal connected
with the notion of governmentality (regard governing in a very broad
sense as all forms of conducting conduct and try to find a rationality
drawing together these diverse forms) from a different usage of
governmentality. The term is often also used to describe the subject
matter of a specific historical logic of of governing. That is the
rationality of governing which follows the sovereign and the
disciplinary logic, a historically new rationality of governing which
aims in maximizing the powers of a population.
Very often both meanings are drawn together incautiously.
Herein also lies the (only) problem I see in your rendering of the
concept.
I would not give the two pillars - as you call them - such an
universalistic role. Rather, the specific interaction of
individualization and totalization is one of the findings if you see
our present from the analytical perspective of governmentality. But
they are not the founding stones of every historical specific
rationality of governing. For example the sovereign rationality of
governing (dominant in the middle ages) simply is concerned with
serfs. At this historical moment the concept of population still does
not exist in the eyes of governing. The appearance of population as
object of governing in the 18th century and the beginning of the
interplay of totalization and individualization is one of the
interesting results of Foucault's lecture series 'Security, Territory,
Population'.
thanks for the possibility of clarification and I hope it helps as such
best regards
Henning
Am 06.03.2008 um 02:15 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
> Hi Henning,
>
> I both agree and disagree with your assessment.
>
> Governmentality incorporates technologies of power like sovereign,
> pastoral,
> disciplinary, and bio-power and therefore entails the associated
> methods for
> guiding individual conduct and managing the life issues of
> population .I
> agree with you when you say:"This allows for example the drawing
> together of
> all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain society
> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
> technologies."In this respect, Governmentality represents as you say a
> "certain analytical perspective" or an analytic of the overall
> guidance of
> conduct - both in an individual and totalising sense.
>
> However, where I differ from you is when you limit its application
> to the
> present or as you describe:" (2) as a hint on the content of the
> contemporary rationality of governing." Foucault was as you say
> critiquing
> the present but my reasoning is that if certain assumptions are
> acceptable
> then Governmentality can be applied in non-Liberal and future
> contexts
> also. This is why I use the rhetorical device of the twin pillars. If
> Governmetality by incorproating the notions of Discipline &Biopower
> takes as
> its key objects of attention individual and population governnace,
> if this
> assumption is true and I believe that it is, then the political
> rationalities, apparatuses, technologies and practices of government
> can
> come and go but the twin pillars remain in place.These things in
> effect
> represent the means by which individuals and populations are
> governed (twin
> pillars) for the purpose of achieving national outcomes (e.g., GNP &
> GDP
> growth).The probleamtic of government remains the concern while
> political
> fashions come and go. If this is an acceptable construal of
> Governmentality,
> then it seems a reasonable response in light of attempts to
> historisise
> Foucault and say limit him to a method of production (Fordism) and
> form of
> society (disciplinary)that they claim no longer exists.
>
> Let me know what you think
>
> Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
> previouse-mail)
>
>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> as far as I can see, the term Governmentality carries a central
>> ambiguity which is expressed also in your questions.
>> I would claim that Governmentality is used (1) as a term to
>> describe a
>> certain analytical perspective and (2) as a hint on the content of
>> the
>> contemporary rationality of governing.
>>
>> So what you describe in your email is the analytical perspective the
>> notion of governmentality is opening up. Concretely that is the
>> question of 'How we are governed?' in a very broad sense at a certain
>> time in a certain society. That is the first aspect the term
>> governmentality is used for.
>>
>> "The twin pillars of governmentality" as you call them belong to the
>> second meaning that is if the analytical perspective of
>> governmentality is applied to the contemporary societies. The
>> "governmentality of our present" indeed consists of technologies of
>> individual guidance as well as of technologies of population control.
>>
>> So regarding your questions it is not only possible but quite
>> promising to follow the research perspective the notion of
>> governmenality opens up. This allows for example the drawing together
>> of all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain
>> society
>> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
>> technologies.
>> To cite Rose et al.:
>> "What remains salient and challenging about this approach is its
>> insistence that to understand how we are governed in the present,
>> individually and collectively, in our homes, workplaces, schools, and
>> hospitals, in our towns, regions, and nations, and by our national
>> and
>> transnational governing bodies requires us to turn away from grand
>> theory, the state, globalization, re?exive individualization, and
>> the
>> like. Instead, we need to investigate the role of the gray sciences,
>> the minor professions, the accountants and insurers, the managers and
>> psychologists, in the mundane business of governing everyday economic
>> and social life, in the shaping of governable domains and governable
>> persons, in the new forms of power, authority, and subjectivity being
>> formed within these mundane practices. Every practice for the conduct
>> of conduct involves authorities, aspirations, programmatic thinking,
>> the invention or redeployment of techniques and technologies." (Rose,
>> Nikolas, P. O?Malley . M. Valverde (2006). Governmentality. Annual
>> Review of Law and Social Sciences, 2:83?104, 101)
>>
>> But it would be misleading to use the very special pattern of t the
>> contemporary rationality of government (Biopower, Individualization
>> and totalization) as a general scheme of governing.
>>
>> To put it short: Governmentality as a research perspective could be
>> applied in many different societies. The specific 'governmental' way
>> of governing, seems historically bound to advanced liberal societies.
>>
>> correct me if you disagree (would be helpful for my understanding)
>>
>> best regards
>> Henning
>>
>>
>> Am 05.03.2008 um 12:46 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> just thought that I had better clarify a couple of things.
>>>
>>> I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>>> reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>>> his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>>> this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>>> rationality changes, or the state as a technology of government and
>>> its constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private
>>> & public) change, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>>> government change. In other words, my core argument is that the twin
>>> pillars of governmentality: guidance of individual conduct and
>>> population management for the purpose of achieving national outcomes
>>> (e.g., GDP growth); remain in place even when the rationality for
>>> and the means of achieving (e.g., governmental tactics, practices,
>>> methods, devices, mechanisms etc) the aforementioned outcomes
>>> change, shift or mutate. In this sense, governmentality can
>>> accomodate say the alleged change from Fordist discipline to Post-F!
>>> ordist flexibilisation.
>>>
>>> I am responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great
>>> theorist of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse,
>>> by arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality
>>> analytic can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
>>> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance of
>>> individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
>>> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
>>> society still exists.
>>>
>>> Given my construal, the question arises does say repression fall
>>> under the conceptual auspices of Governmentality? and under what
>>> conditions would governmentality not apply - slavery perhaps?
>>>
>>> I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of what
>>> I think is the continued relevance of Governmentality?
>>>
>>> Any and all responses are welcome
>>>
>>> Scott Nicholas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:49:28 +1000
From: "Scott Nicholas" <snichola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
previouse-mail)
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <006501c8829c$6a5da450$3df2ad3a@scott>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
reply-type=original
Hi Henning,
the use of the twin pillars would only apply historically from the emergence
of as you say the interplay between individualisation and totalisation.
It would incorporate the present and I would anticipate its applicability
into the future. It is difficult to see at least for the forseeable future
the logic
of governance shifting in this regard. We still need subjects responsibly
governing themselves by engaging in mass consumption.
However, in a scenario where say the current international order was to
fracture, either through conflict or bankruptcy, we may see the extension of
repression within the first world as opposed to individualisation (i.e.,
disciplinary normalisation). For example, is Chinese subjection different to
Anglo-American subjection? If this were to happen would Governmentality
still apply? Would it apply if say 20% of the population were individualised
while 80% were marginalised and repressed?
regards
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
previouse-mail)
> Hi Scott,
>
> thanks for the reply. There is no disagreement with nearly all of the
> points you mentioned. I definitely consider it fruitful using the
> governmentality approach in different historical contexts and
> especially for examining the present and future of our societies.
> I just wanted to distinguish the methodological proposal connected
> with the notion of governmentality (regard governing in a very broad
> sense as all forms of conducting conduct and try to find a rationality
> drawing together these diverse forms) from a different usage of
> governmentality. The term is often also used to describe the subject
> matter of a specific historical logic of of governing. That is the
> rationality of governing which follows the sovereign and the
> disciplinary logic, a historically new rationality of governing which
> aims in maximizing the powers of a population.
> Very often both meanings are drawn together incautiously.
>
> Herein also lies the (only) problem I see in your rendering of the
> concept.
> I would not give the two pillars - as you call them - such an
> universalistic role. Rather, the specific interaction of
> individualization and totalization is one of the findings if you see
> our present from the analytical perspective of governmentality. But
> they are not the founding stones of every historical specific
> rationality of governing. For example the sovereign rationality of
> governing (dominant in the middle ages) simply is concerned with
> serfs. At this historical moment the concept of population still does
> not exist in the eyes of governing. The appearance of population as
> object of governing in the 18th century and the beginning of the
> interplay of totalization and individualization is one of the
> interesting results of Foucault's lecture series 'Security, Territory,
> Population'.
>
> thanks for the possibility of clarification and I hope it helps as such
>
> best regards
> Henning
>
>
>
> Am 06.03.2008 um 02:15 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
>
>> Hi Henning,
>>
>> I both agree and disagree with your assessment.
>>
>> Governmentality incorporates technologies of power like sovereign,
>> pastoral,
>> disciplinary, and bio-power and therefore entails the associated
>> methods for
>> guiding individual conduct and managing the life issues of
>> population .I
>> agree with you when you say:"This allows for example the drawing
>> together of
>> all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain society
>> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
>> technologies."In this respect, Governmentality represents as you say a
>> "certain analytical perspective" or an analytic of the overall
>> guidance of
>> conduct - both in an individual and totalising sense.
>>
>> However, where I differ from you is when you limit its application
>> to the
>> present or as you describe:" (2) as a hint on the content of the
>> contemporary rationality of governing." Foucault was as you say
>> critiquing
>> the present but my reasoning is that if certain assumptions are
>> acceptable
>> then Governmentality can be applied in non-Liberal and future
>> contexts
>> also. This is why I use the rhetorical device of the twin pillars. If
>> Governmetality by incorproating the notions of Discipline &Biopower
>> takes as
>> its key objects of attention individual and population governnace,
>> if this
>> assumption is true and I believe that it is, then the political
>> rationalities, apparatuses, technologies and practices of government
>> can
>> come and go but the twin pillars remain in place.These things in
>> effect
>> represent the means by which individuals and populations are
>> governed (twin
>> pillars) for the purpose of achieving national outcomes (e.g., GNP &
>> GDP
>> growth).The probleamtic of government remains the concern while
>> political
>> fashions come and go. If this is an acceptable construal of
>> Governmentality,
>> then it seems a reasonable response in light of attempts to
>> historisise
>> Foucault and say limit him to a method of production (Fordism) and
>> form of
>> society (disciplinary)that they claim no longer exists.
>>
>> Let me know what you think
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "H. F." <gluexritter@xxxxxx>
>> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Governmentality -Take 2 (ignore the
>> previouse-mail)
>>
>>
>>> Hi Scott,
>>>
>>> as far as I can see, the term Governmentality carries a central
>>> ambiguity which is expressed also in your questions.
>>> I would claim that Governmentality is used (1) as a term to
>>> describe a
>>> certain analytical perspective and (2) as a hint on the content of
>>> the
>>> contemporary rationality of governing.
>>>
>>> So what you describe in your email is the analytical perspective the
>>> notion of governmentality is opening up. Concretely that is the
>>> question of 'How we are governed?' in a very broad sense at a certain
>>> time in a certain society. That is the first aspect the term
>>> governmentality is used for.
>>>
>>> "The twin pillars of governmentality" as you call them belong to the
>>> second meaning that is if the analytical perspective of
>>> governmentality is applied to the contemporary societies. The
>>> "governmentality of our present" indeed consists of technologies of
>>> individual guidance as well as of technologies of population control.
>>>
>>> So regarding your questions it is not only possible but quite
>>> promising to follow the research perspective the notion of
>>> governmenality opens up. This allows for example the drawing together
>>> of all the many different ways power is exercised in a certain
>>> society
>>> and it enables to see patterns and interactions between these
>>> technologies.
>>> To cite Rose et al.:
>>> "What remains salient and challenging about this approach is its
>>> insistence that to understand how we are governed in the present,
>>> individually and collectively, in our homes, workplaces, schools, and
>>> hospitals, in our towns, regions, and nations, and by our national
>>> and
>>> transnational governing bodies requires us to turn away from grand
>>> theory, the state, globalization, re?exive individualization, and
>>> the
>>> like. Instead, we need to investigate the role of the gray sciences,
>>> the minor professions, the accountants and insurers, the managers and
>>> psychologists, in the mundane business of governing everyday economic
>>> and social life, in the shaping of governable domains and governable
>>> persons, in the new forms of power, authority, and subjectivity being
>>> formed within these mundane practices. Every practice for the conduct
>>> of conduct involves authorities, aspirations, programmatic thinking,
>>> the invention or redeployment of techniques and technologies." (Rose,
>>> Nikolas, P. O?Malley . M. Valverde (2006). Governmentality. Annual
>>> Review of Law and Social Sciences, 2:83?104, 101)
>>>
>>> But it would be misleading to use the very special pattern of t the
>>> contemporary rationality of government (Biopower, Individualization
>>> and totalization) as a general scheme of governing.
>>>
>>> To put it short: Governmentality as a research perspective could be
>>> applied in many different societies. The specific 'governmental' way
>>> of governing, seems historically bound to advanced liberal societies.
>>>
>>> correct me if you disagree (would be helpful for my understanding)
>>>
>>> best regards
>>> Henning
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.03.2008 um 12:46 schrieb Scott Nicholas:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> just thought that I had better clarify a couple of things.
>>>>
>>>> I am looking at Foucault's work on Governmentality this semester. My
>>>> reading of his Governmentality lecture and other references within
>>>> his 1978 lecture series "Security, Territory & Population" is that
>>>> this analytic can be applied even when the prevailing political
>>>> rationality changes, or the state as a technology of government and
>>>> its constituent elements (e.g., organising mechanisms,mix of private
>>>> & public) change, or indeed the technologies and practices of
>>>> government change. In other words, my core argument is that the twin
>>>> pillars of governmentality: guidance of individual conduct and
>>>> population management for the purpose of achieving national outcomes
>>>> (e.g., GDP growth); remain in place even when the rationality for
>>>> and the means of achieving (e.g., governmental tactics, practices,
>>>> methods, devices, mechanisms etc) the aforementioned outcomes
>>>> change, shift or mutate. In this sense, governmentality can
>>>> accomodate say the alleged change from Fordist discipline to Post-F!
>>>> ordist flexibilisation.
>>>>
>>>> I am responding to a recent claim that Foucault was "the great
>>>> theorist of Fordist Discipline"and is at risk of becoming depasse,
>>>> by arguing among others things both that:(1) his Governmentality
>>>> analytic can accomodate epochal shifts from Fordism to Post-Fordism
>>>> provided that the focus of government remains both the governance of
>>>> individual conduct and the management of populations life issues
>>>> (biopolitical concerns if you will); and (2) the Disciplinary
>>>> society still exists.
>>>>
>>>> Given my construal, the question arises does say repression fall
>>>> under the conceptual auspices of Governmentality? and under what
>>>> conditions would governmentality not apply - slavery perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> I am curious to know if anyone disagrees with this construal of what
>>>> I think is the continued relevance of Governmentality?
>>>>
>>>> Any and all responses are welcome
>>>>
>>>> Scott Nicholas
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
Foucault-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://foucault.info/mailman/listinfo/foucault-l
End of Foucault-L Digest, Vol 8, Issue 10
*****************************************