In the article on governmentality, Foucault traces the transition from a form of government in which the demands of a transcendant sovereign ruled to a form in which the "art of government" and the "political economy" take precedence. His analysis of the trend is at the same time illuminating and obvious. By this I mean that the specific events Foucault chooses to analyze are no big surprise (as for instance the history of sexuality, in which he analyzed different trends than I was expecting, such as the confession). However, the labels and analysis that he provides for this history seem to suggest a perspective of analysis that I never would have seem. Therefore, this article at once seems to bring obvious yet elusive trends to light, and fits well into Foucault's overall theme of offering new ways of looking at societal institutions and the power relations that come with them.
One aspect that caught my interest was the tension Foucault highlights between sovereignty and the art of government, as the latter did not simply replace the latter. He writes, "instead, given that such an art now existed and was spreading, it involved an attempt to see what juridical and institutional form, what foundation in the law, could be given to the sovereignty that characterizes a state" (218). As I was reading this I thought of something like the utilitarian ideas in contrast to the social contract theories. Whereas the former developed an idea of the legitimacy and form of sovereignty abstractly, the latter seem to take the same type of maximization and intensification of desired ends, and to build a system of government off of this. Am I reading this correctly, and is this part of what Foucault is describing?
Another aspect I found interesting was Foucault's analysis of the transition of the family unit from the model of government to "an element internal to population, and a fundamental instrument in its government" (216). This he connects especially with sexuality, as a unit that can both provide information about sexual behavior and demographics, and also a unit that helps to instill discipline. This connected directly to the importance Foucault described in The History of Sexuality, as it is a cross-roads between individual discipline and processes of population, etc. I think the concept of governmentality served to better illustrate his ideas on bio-power and sexuality in the previous readings.
At the end of the lecture and as a nice transition to Deleuze's article, Foucault talks about "The excessive value attributed to the problem of the state" that "renders it absolutely essential as a target needing to be attacked and a privileged position needing to be occupied" (220). Thus, the state is not as unified and singularly powerful as one (especially one advocating revolution) might suppose. It is here that we are reminded how governmentality fits into Foucault's overall goal in reevaluating all of these traditions: to better understand the relations of power that take place in our everyday lives and to use this understanding to our benefit. Deleuze takes on the same purpose with regards to control societies, saying "It's not a question of worrying or of hoping for the best, but of finding new weapons" (178). These new weapons will come from an analysis of the fluid ways in which power manifests itself, marketing influences us, and businesses and education operate. This seems to take Foucault's analysis one step further, applying it to trends occurring 30 years later. However, I feel uneasy about this article and I do not really know how to explain it. There is something in me that simply does not acknowledge the power Deleuze wants to fight. It seems to me that these new fluid institutions do have an influence on us, but our society recognizes and studies these influences and we seem to be generally well aware of it. This may just be that the ten years from the article until now have revealed the way these processes work. Also, it seems to me that the ways in which our behavior is influenced is relatively minor in comparison to disciplinary societies, and that he talks a lot about superficial levels of control. Any feedback on this would help clarify my unsure ideas about this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
(1) Yes, I think utilitarian and contract models are attempts to rationally "found" both state sovereignty and the art of government - I'm thinking of the characteristic "state of nature" thought experiments that work back from the present to a hypothetical moment of genesis, and from this as well project forward to what forms a justified and optimal social arrangement and legitimate power.
(2) Perhaps the first way to think through Deleuze's diagnosis is to see it, like Foucault's analyses, as a portrait of a qualitative change in "manners": in this sense it would be a change in behavior rather than, or as well as, being an influence on behaviour (whether better or worse, more or less than before). I think a phenomenon like niche marketing comes under the banner of the new regime that Deleuze is analysing, because of its being enabled by information networks, but doesn't really symbolise it (the power of marketing really would be a very old bone to pick): for me it is more about a mode of existence that in which ability to be "accessed" is the highest value. Accessibility is a two way street: being switched on, plugged in, on line, means both having access and being able to be accessed - but this intersection is I think the kind of 'check point' Deleuze refers to, and it is the multiplication of these that characterises a new mode of power.
Perhaps that's reading in too much phenomena that post-date Deleuze's text, but I think it is true to its spirit. I certainly see this as having behavioural dimensions as much as a disciplinary regime, but maybe they're as subtle as the behavioural dimensions of, eg. a carceral regime compared to a torture one.
Post a Comment