The Main Features of Foucault's Account of 'Governmentality’
The concept of governmentality was first established by a French historian and social philosopher known as Michel Foucault (Bratich, Packer and McCarthy, 2003, p. 23). Governmentality is understood from varied perspectives and one of them being the way in which the government attempts to produce citizens who best suits in fulfilling governmental policies, or it can be understood as the organised practices through which subjects are governed. Foucault defined governmentality as the art of government in a wide sense such as the idea of government, which is not limited to state politics alone but include a variety of control techniques, as well as, applies a variety of objects from one’s control of self to political control of citizens. The studies in governmentality constitute a growing body of work but this work cannot be characterised as unitary. The field of governmentality does not seek to apply the political concept and social phenomena, but questions the very limits of, and features of governmentality (Dean, 2009, p. 57). Quite number of emerging literature about governmentality studies have already matured to the point where clear differences in position are beginning to be drawn. This paper attempts to offer the main features of Foucault’s account of governmentality.
Foucault characterizes governmentality as the art of power and this is revealed in his analytical theoretical account of power. The theories of Foucault mostly concentrated on the connection between power and knowledge and the way they are used as a form of social control through community structure (Foucault, Burchell, Gordon and Miller, 1991, p. 56). In his middle age of work, Foucault kept repeatedly framing his work as an examination of the relations between knowledge, power and human subject. Foucault is often seen as having generated a new theory of power but most of his theories are puzzling (Hindess, 1996, p. 65). For example, Foucault proclaimed that power is everywhere and but on the same time, he argued that such power does not exist despite spending most of his time analyzing the phenomenon. The characters of Foucault on the power theory can essentially offer some captivating points of departure for conceptualisation of participation (Foucault, 1980, 42). The views of Foucault about power have been somewhat overlooked but this part has the potential to offer a subtle and insightful perspective in a wider social structure.
Most commentators of Foucault’s theory of power characterize this power as the form of self-government, structuring and shaping the field of possible action to subjects. The power concept as a guidance does not exclude consensual forms or the recourse to violence but it signifies the coercion or consensus, which are reformulated as means of government among others (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 87). As a result, the governmentality concept represents a theoretical move beyond the problematic of consensus; therefore, this power does not sought or struggle or cause brutality but rather sought the singular mode of achievement, which is government. According to Bratich, Packer and McCarthy (2003, p. 45), the work of Foucault does not involve theorizations of power based upon a series of historical interrogations; this it is difficult to offer historical account on the way Foucault theorises power. This is because Foucault strongly rejects that the idea that human and social phenomena have significant, unchanging essences; thus he resist defining power in a metaphysical ways arguing that power is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffuse form. According to the Foucault, power exist only when it is put into action; thus he emphasises that power is not a foundation, a structure nor it is not a certain strength but a name, which one attributes to a multifaceted strategic circumstances in a particular society (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 71).
Additionally, Larner and Walters argue that power is not a universal or a metaphysical principle that applies to all things across space and time; however, both governmental power and sovereign power are relational phenomena that have spatially specific idioms (Larner and Walters, 2013, p. 78). The idioms of power are not mutually exclusive; thus the generative principle of formation governing any idiom of power must be investigated (Dean, 2009, p. 76). Therefore, the argument behind this is that something may happen such as security and war issues; thus the need of biopower will become the material for strategising of power relations. The biopolitical forms are a regime based upon the promotion of species life; thus liberalism becomes highly implicated issue of security and war (Larner and Walters, 2013, p. 78). Therefore, it becomes apparent that global governmentality is an extraordinary complex of power.
One of the fundamental aspects of Foucault’s account of governmentality is the notion of political knowledge. The theory of Foucault addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and the way they are used as a form of social interaction; therefore, the governmentality does not contrast politics and knowledge but articulates a political knowledge (Foucault, 1980, p. 83). Foucault does not pose the question of the relation between rationalities and practices but his main problem is not to investigate in case practices conform to rationalities but to discover the kind of rationality they are using (Foucault, 1980, p. 32). For Foucault, the art of government represented a significant aspect with sovereignty; thus the governmentality was seen as a positive form of power. However, the approach of Foucault is problematical; thus it poses questions of how the government rather than its legitimation attempts to articulate a kind of prudence, which was inherent to the art of government (Peters, 2001, p. 20).
Another significant feature of governmentality is the sovereignty, which Foucault viewed as the capacity for self control and this is connected to forms of political and economic development (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 79). Governmentality was understood as the art of government; therefore, this type of government sought to introduce the economy, which is visualized as the right administration but this concept at first applied to domestic government into political practice (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 80). For Foucault, this concern which developed more fully in earlier 18th century marked the beginning of the conceptual shift towards the contemporary use of the word economy by designating an autonomous region of social relations (Brockling, Krasmann and Lemke, 2011, p. 91). The art of government aspect was opposed to the sovereignty theory because it did not appeal to law or the obligation of rules but rather focused on the nature of things. This concept meant that the needs of government were multiple and were also found in the objects of government.
The idea of governmentality is connected to the model of biopower, which refers to the knowledge of power. The technology of power is seen as a way of managing people as a group; thus the unique feature of this political knowledge is that it allows for the total control of citizens (Hindess, 1996, p. 145). The biopower literally means having power over populations and it is a method for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of citizens (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 61). The concept of governmentality is linked to the allied ideas of biopower and mechanisms of security; thus it is significant to reflect on a greater detail the meaning of governmentality. Whitehead (2011, p. 56) argues that the relationship between biopower and governmentality are conceptually and historically multifaceted. Both governmentality and biopower appear to reveal large geo-historical modification in the nature and intent of power; thus it is unwise to say that the rise of governmental forms contributed to the emergence of biopower and vice versa (Brockling, Krasmann and Lemke, 2011, p. 56).
In addition, the aspect of discipline and punish led to a wide range of problematic issue concerning the character of biopower. Foucault detected between security, population and government; thus the aspect of discipline and power became the interested part in the military site. Foucault argued against the perception about prison that this is one of the consisted forms of punishment mainly because of humanitarian concern of reformists (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 71). Foucault traced the civilizing shift that contributed to the governance of prison by focusing on the questions of power. Prison became a form of discipline and it was used as a new form of technological power. In the later work, Foucault admitted that he was somewhat eager to determine the way disciplinary power conditions in the society could have been carried out to promote security; thus he developed his earlier ideas about discipline and punishment. The main ideas about discipline and punish were later categorized in different groups including torture, discipline, punishment and prison (Miller, 2000, p. 65).
The work of Foucault is characterized by some sort of legitimate struggle with Marx, and this struggle is one of its productivity. According to Inda (2005, p. 37), Foucault moved in his theoretical development from a rapture with Marx as a theory of tactical alliance. The use of some concepts was compatible with that of Marx and one of them is the genealogy of governmentality. The work of Foucault after discipline and punish is characterised by two seemingly disparate projects and one of them was his interest in political rationalities and the pedigree of the state where Foucault explored a series of articles, interviews and lectures (Foucault, 1980, p. 37). The other one was the concentration on ethical questions and the pedigree of the subject, which is focused in the projects of history on sexuality. However, the missing link among the two projects of interest is the problem of government; thus, Foucault links the two research interests and uses them to analyze the coactions between domination technologies, self technologies, the constitution of the subject and the formation of the state.
In conclusion, the research paper attempted to offer the main features of Foucault’s account of governmentality. Foucault characterizes governmentality as the art of power and this is revealed in his analytical theoretical account of power. Some of the fundamental aspects of Foucault’s account of governmentality are the notion of political knowledge, power, and sovereignty but the art of government aspect was opposed to the sovereignty theory. This is because it did not appeal to law or the obligation of rules but rather focused on the nature of things. The work of Foucault is also characterized by some sort of legitimate struggle with Marx, and this struggle is one of its productivity. Therefore, the studies in governmentality constitute a growing body of work but this work cannot be characterised as unitary body.
The concept of governmentality was first established by a French historian and social philosopher known as Michel Foucault (Bratich, Packer and McCarthy, 2003, p. 23). Governmentality is understood from varied perspectives and one of them being the way in which the government attempts to produce citizens who best suits in fulfilling governmental policies, or it can be understood as the organised practices through which subjects are governed. Foucault defined governmentality as the art of government in a wide sense such as the idea of government, which is not limited to state politics alone but include a variety of control techniques, as well as, applies a variety of objects from one’s control of self to political control of citizens. The studies in governmentality constitute a growing body of work but this work cannot be characterised as unitary. The field of governmentality does not seek to apply the political concept and social phenomena, but questions the very limits of, and features of governmentality (Dean, 2009, p. 57). Quite number of emerging literature about governmentality studies have already matured to the point where clear differences in position are beginning to be drawn. This paper attempts to offer the main features of Foucault’s account of governmentality.
Foucault characterizes governmentality as the art of power and this is revealed in his analytical theoretical account of power. The theories of Foucault mostly concentrated on the connection between power and knowledge and the way they are used as a form of social control through community structure (Foucault, Burchell, Gordon and Miller, 1991, p. 56). In his middle age of work, Foucault kept repeatedly framing his work as an examination of the relations between knowledge, power and human subject. Foucault is often seen as having generated a new theory of power but most of his theories are puzzling (Hindess, 1996, p. 65). For example, Foucault proclaimed that power is everywhere and but on the same time, he argued that such power does not exist despite spending most of his time analyzing the phenomenon. The characters of Foucault on the power theory can essentially offer some captivating points of departure for conceptualisation of participation (Foucault, 1980, 42). The views of Foucault about power have been somewhat overlooked but this part has the potential to offer a subtle and insightful perspective in a wider social structure.
Most commentators of Foucault’s theory of power characterize this power as the form of self-government, structuring and shaping the field of possible action to subjects. The power concept as a guidance does not exclude consensual forms or the recourse to violence but it signifies the coercion or consensus, which are reformulated as means of government among others (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 87). As a result, the governmentality concept represents a theoretical move beyond the problematic of consensus; therefore, this power does not sought or struggle or cause brutality but rather sought the singular mode of achievement, which is government. According to Bratich, Packer and McCarthy (2003, p. 45), the work of Foucault does not involve theorizations of power based upon a series of historical interrogations; this it is difficult to offer historical account on the way Foucault theorises power. This is because Foucault strongly rejects that the idea that human and social phenomena have significant, unchanging essences; thus he resist defining power in a metaphysical ways arguing that power is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffuse form. According to the Foucault, power exist only when it is put into action; thus he emphasises that power is not a foundation, a structure nor it is not a certain strength but a name, which one attributes to a multifaceted strategic circumstances in a particular society (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 71).
Additionally, Larner and Walters argue that power is not a universal or a metaphysical principle that applies to all things across space and time; however, both governmental power and sovereign power are relational phenomena that have spatially specific idioms (Larner and Walters, 2013, p. 78). The idioms of power are not mutually exclusive; thus the generative principle of formation governing any idiom of power must be investigated (Dean, 2009, p. 76). Therefore, the argument behind this is that something may happen such as security and war issues; thus the need of biopower will become the material for strategising of power relations. The biopolitical forms are a regime based upon the promotion of species life; thus liberalism becomes highly implicated issue of security and war (Larner and Walters, 2013, p. 78). Therefore, it becomes apparent that global governmentality is an extraordinary complex of power.
One of the fundamental aspects of Foucault’s account of governmentality is the notion of political knowledge. The theory of Foucault addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and the way they are used as a form of social interaction; therefore, the governmentality does not contrast politics and knowledge but articulates a political knowledge (Foucault, 1980, p. 83). Foucault does not pose the question of the relation between rationalities and practices but his main problem is not to investigate in case practices conform to rationalities but to discover the kind of rationality they are using (Foucault, 1980, p. 32). For Foucault, the art of government represented a significant aspect with sovereignty; thus the governmentality was seen as a positive form of power. However, the approach of Foucault is problematical; thus it poses questions of how the government rather than its legitimation attempts to articulate a kind of prudence, which was inherent to the art of government (Peters, 2001, p. 20).
Another significant feature of governmentality is the sovereignty, which Foucault viewed as the capacity for self control and this is connected to forms of political and economic development (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 79). Governmentality was understood as the art of government; therefore, this type of government sought to introduce the economy, which is visualized as the right administration but this concept at first applied to domestic government into political practice (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 80). For Foucault, this concern which developed more fully in earlier 18th century marked the beginning of the conceptual shift towards the contemporary use of the word economy by designating an autonomous region of social relations (Brockling, Krasmann and Lemke, 2011, p. 91). The art of government aspect was opposed to the sovereignty theory because it did not appeal to law or the obligation of rules but rather focused on the nature of things. This concept meant that the needs of government were multiple and were also found in the objects of government.
The idea of governmentality is connected to the model of biopower, which refers to the knowledge of power. The technology of power is seen as a way of managing people as a group; thus the unique feature of this political knowledge is that it allows for the total control of citizens (Hindess, 1996, p. 145). The biopower literally means having power over populations and it is a method for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of citizens (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 61). The concept of governmentality is linked to the allied ideas of biopower and mechanisms of security; thus it is significant to reflect on a greater detail the meaning of governmentality. Whitehead (2011, p. 56) argues that the relationship between biopower and governmentality are conceptually and historically multifaceted. Both governmentality and biopower appear to reveal large geo-historical modification in the nature and intent of power; thus it is unwise to say that the rise of governmental forms contributed to the emergence of biopower and vice versa (Brockling, Krasmann and Lemke, 2011, p. 56).
In addition, the aspect of discipline and punish led to a wide range of problematic issue concerning the character of biopower. Foucault detected between security, population and government; thus the aspect of discipline and power became the interested part in the military site. Foucault argued against the perception about prison that this is one of the consisted forms of punishment mainly because of humanitarian concern of reformists (Foucault et-al, 1991, p. 71). Foucault traced the civilizing shift that contributed to the governance of prison by focusing on the questions of power. Prison became a form of discipline and it was used as a new form of technological power. In the later work, Foucault admitted that he was somewhat eager to determine the way disciplinary power conditions in the society could have been carried out to promote security; thus he developed his earlier ideas about discipline and punishment. The main ideas about discipline and punish were later categorized in different groups including torture, discipline, punishment and prison (Miller, 2000, p. 65).
The work of Foucault is characterized by some sort of legitimate struggle with Marx, and this struggle is one of its productivity. According to Inda (2005, p. 37), Foucault moved in his theoretical development from a rapture with Marx as a theory of tactical alliance. The use of some concepts was compatible with that of Marx and one of them is the genealogy of governmentality. The work of Foucault after discipline and punish is characterised by two seemingly disparate projects and one of them was his interest in political rationalities and the pedigree of the state where Foucault explored a series of articles, interviews and lectures (Foucault, 1980, p. 37). The other one was the concentration on ethical questions and the pedigree of the subject, which is focused in the projects of history on sexuality. However, the missing link among the two projects of interest is the problem of government; thus, Foucault links the two research interests and uses them to analyze the coactions between domination technologies, self technologies, the constitution of the subject and the formation of the state.
In conclusion, the research paper attempted to offer the main features of Foucault’s account of governmentality. Foucault characterizes governmentality as the art of power and this is revealed in his analytical theoretical account of power. Some of the fundamental aspects of Foucault’s account of governmentality are the notion of political knowledge, power, and sovereignty but the art of government aspect was opposed to the sovereignty theory. This is because it did not appeal to law or the obligation of rules but rather focused on the nature of things. The work of Foucault is also characterized by some sort of legitimate struggle with Marx, and this struggle is one of its productivity. Therefore, the studies in governmentality constitute a growing body of work but this work cannot be characterised as unitary body.
Posted in
0 comments :
Post a Comment