foucault’s idea of ‘governmentality’sajms.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/foucault_s... ·...

Copyright © Universal Multidisciplinary Research Institute Pvt Ltd

90

South -Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (SAJMS) ISSN:2349-7858:SJIF:2.246:Volume 3 Issue 4

Foucault’s Idea of ‘Governmentality’

By

Souvik Lal Chakraborty

Souvik LalChakraborty is a former Young India Fellow (2012-2013) and currently pursuing his

Master’s in Democratic Governance and Civil Society at the University of Osnabrück, Germany

with DAAD Public Policy and Good Governance Scholarship.


91


Abstract

This article has been written mostly on the basis of the lectures of Micheal Foucault in Collège

de France which was titled as “Security,Territory,Population”. Many academicians have dealt

with Foucault in their own way. So, to get the full understanding of the discourse it was a much

preferable option to deal with the original writings and lectures to avoid the influence of various

interpretations. This paper deals withMicheal Foucault’s famous “Governmentality” lecture

which he gave at the College de France in 1978 and later on which was published with his

consent. This lecture gives a basic introduction to this grand theme. This paper will try to

analyze various elements (Pastoral Powers,Raison d’Etat and Police) of “Governmentality”

lecture and will try to understand what Foucault actually meant by the term which is so much

discussed and debated in popular academic discourse till today.

Keywords :Foucault, Pastoral Powers, Police, Governmentality.

INTRODUCTION

The term “governmentality” first appeared inMicheal Foucault’s lecture in Collège de Francein

1978 and 1979. It should be kept in mind that Foucault’s lectures were just a conglomeration of

thoughts and it was not meant for publication. William Walter in this context says “His books are


92


not successive refinements of a grand theoretical system. Instead, each one is an experiment, an

encounter between styles of thought and certain problems. Governmentality is clearly one such

experiment.”1So, in many cases it may seem that his work is fragmented and at times he is not

clear. It is up to the reader how he/she interprets Foucault. Though governmentality became one

of the central theme of his academic work but he was not the first one to deal with this issue.

In his initial years Foucault analysis of power was more influenced by Nietzsche’s work. He

conceptualized power in the initial stage on the basis of war. William Walter’s in his book

“Governmentality” writes that “Whatever the reasons, we can say that if Foucault had previously

situated his analysis of power relations on the metaphorical field of battle, of war and struggle,

with governmentality he will now examine the space of the ‘conduct of conducts’, where

technologies of government and technologies of the self-intersect…”2 Foucault also observed the

expansion of the pastoral powers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and how it has

modified itself in the present world order.

Brief Summary of “Governmentality” Lecture of February 1, 1978–

Foucault through his lectures and writings tried to locate the historical traces of the study of

Governmentality. According to Thomas Lemke “Foucault coins the concept of

“governmentality” for the analysis he offers by way of historical reconstructions embracing a

period starting from Ancient Greece through to modern neo-liberalism.”3He is of the view that

throughout the Middle Ages and classical antiquity the study of Governmentality was much

more focused on ‘the prince’, clearly a reference to the out-of-time Machiavellian ideal. But

there was a drastic shift on this approach from the middle of the sixteenth century to the end of

the eighteenth century. From then onwards the focus was more on the ‘art of government’ as

Foucault mentions in his lecture at the College de France in February 1978.

But this theoretical drift to the study of governmentality posed many questions too. Basically

Micheal Foucault tried to deal with these questions and his academic approach showed a new

path to the study of governmentality. One of the major question in this context according to

Foucault is “How to govern oneself, how to be governed, how to govern others, by whom the

people will accept being governed, how to become the best possible governor – all these

problems, in their multiplicity and intensity, seem to me the characteristic of the sixteenth

century,…”4

Foucault further notices that this problem gets intensified because there is “state centralization”

on the one hand and “dispersion and religious dissidence on the other”. At this juncture the

problem arises about how to be ruled, by whom to be ruled and by what methods. To get deep

into this subject matter, Foucault compares few classical texts and for this he starts with

1 William Walters, Governmentality: Critical Encounters (New York: Routledge, 2012), 41.

2 Ibid.,15.

3 Thomas Lemke, “Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique,”

http://http://www.thomaslemkeweb.de/publikationen/Foucault,%20Governmentality,%20and%20Critique%20IV-2.pdf (accessed May. 15, 2016),2. 4Micheal Foucault, “Governmentality,” in The Foucault Effect : Studies in Governmentality, ed. Graham Burchell,

Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1991),87.

http://www.thomaslemkeweb.de/publikationen/Foucault,%20Governmentality,%20and%20Critique%20IV-2.pdf



93


Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’. Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ is really important in this context because

from here the concept of the ‘art of government’ came into existence as a rational counter to

Machiavellian thoughts. In Foucault’s words ‘Some authors rejected the idea of a new art of

government centered on the state and reason of state, which they stigmatized with the name of

Machiavellianism; others rejected Machiavelli by showing that there existed an art of

government which was both rational and legitimate…”5

The art of government is not concerned only with ‘The Prince’.Government is not a singular

institution but mostly a complex web of relationships between various people belonging to

various sections of the social order(for example the role of father in the family, or the role of a

tutor of a child etc.) which gives a shape to the institution called government. So, Foucault

straight away creates a sharp line between ‘transcendent singularity of Machiavelli’s prince’ and

started focusing on various sub-structures which plays a pivotal role in the art of

governmentality. Foucault also mentions about another French writer La Mothe Le Vayer in this

context to explain the concept of upward and downward continuity. Upward continuity means

that a person who wishes to govern the state should first learn how to govern himself and his

goods. On the other hand when a state is well administered then a head of the family will also

know how to look after his family which is basically the downward mobility. Focault is of the

view that “This downward line, which transmits to individual behavior and the running of the

family the same principles as the government of the state, is just at this time beginning to be

called police. The prince’s pedagogical formation ensures the upward continuity of the forms of

government, and police the downwards one. The central theme of this continuity is the

government of the family, termed economy.”6

These classical texts undoubtedly helped Foucault to develop his own ideas. La Mothe Le

Vayer’sidea clearly shows how the institution of family plays an important role in the

administration of the state and how the concept of economy is intrinsically attached to the whole

idea. If one system doesn’t function properly the whole system will automatically fail. Foucault

has mentioned about La Perriere and Frederick the Great’s writing to criticize Machiavelli’s

understanding. For Machiavelli ‘The Prince’ is concerned about two things which ensures its

power – territory and its inhabitants. Le Perriere is more concerned about relationship of men

with things and relationship of men with ‘other kind of things’. Complexity of relationships

among individuals is his central focus. Foucault is clearly of the view that government and

sovereignty should be clearly distinguished. Foucault rightly observed that it is important for the

government to employ ‘tactics’ rather than laws to achieve its desired goal. In this context he

also mentions about ‘statistics’ which in his words is “the science of the state” and “the science

of police” which became the governmental apparatus from the late sixteenth century. He believes

that the art of government can only develop in a free liberal atmosphere where there are no

political or economic tensions.

Foucault clearly observes the important role of ‘population’ for a government. Population on the

one hand becomes the power of the sovereign and on the other hand it also becomes an ‘object in

the hands of the government’. Foucault believed that the pastoral powers, the new diplomatic-

military techniques and the police are the three important elements which made the

5 Foucault, “Governmentality,”89

6 Ibid.,92.


94


“governmentalization of the state” to happen. Each differentelement will be discussed in the next

half of this seminar paper to get a clear view of the governmentality discourse.

__________

“I would like to begin to go over the dimension that I have called by the ugly word

“governmentality”. Assuming that “governing” is different from “reigning or ruling,” And

not the same as “commanding” or “laying down the law,” or being a sovereign, suzerain, lord,

judge, general, landowner, master, or a teacher, assuming therefore that governing is a

specific activity, we need to know something about the type of power the notion covers.”

– Micheal Foucault, 8th

February 1978

PASTROAL POWERS -

These were the introductory remarks by Micheal Foucault on his Wednesday lecture of 8th

February, 1978 and he obviously set the tone of what he is going to deal with in the coming

lectures. He made it clear in this lecture that it is important to study governmentality to

understand the problem of ‘state and population’. Foucault was consciously coming out of the

institutional approaches of power and now he was more focused on “overall point of view of the

technology of power.”7 Foucault has taken the help of history to trace the roots of

governmentality and in this context he speaks about pastoral type of powers to explain the power

relations and Foucault believed that it is still relevant in modern statecraft.

Foucault was of the view that this example of pastoral power can be commonly found in

Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Assyrian civilization and among the Hebrews where King is

ceremonially designated as a shepherd of men. Foucault tried to identify a special kind of

relationship between this pastor and the God. He says “Pastorship is a fundamental type of

relationship between God and men and the king participates, as it were, in the pastoral structure

of the relationship between God and men.”8

Power of the pastor or the shepherd is exercised over a flock of people. Pastor is directing its

people even in motion and it is not only bound within its territory. Foucault is trying to locate the

qualities and activities of the modern state through pastoral relationship. Pastor establishes a dual

relationship- one with the flock as a group and one on personal level with every member.

Shepherd is also very vigilant in character. He keeps a close watch so that no one escapes from

the flock. He also brings in the Biblical reference of the story of Moses to explain the problems

of the Christian idea.

Foucault tried to explain through these examples that power is something which is a much bigger

concept than the established ideas of sovereignty, city or territory.

7Micheal Foucault, “15 February 1978,” in Security Territory Population, ed. Arnold I.Davidson (Great Britain:

Palgrave Macmillan,2009),152. 8Micheal Foucault, “8 February 1978,” in Security Territory Population, ed. Arnold I.Davidson (Great Britain:

Palgrave Macmillan,2009),124.


95


In the lecture of 15th

February, 1978 Foucault dealt with few classical texts mainly from Greek

origin to explain the pastoral powers. He relates the classical pastoral powers and puts them in

context with modern city states. Foucault states that “The politician is the shepherd (berger) of

men, he is the shepherd (pasteur) of that flock of living beings that constitutes a population in a

city-state.”9Foucault also talks about an alternative model of the shepherd influenced by the

writings of Plato. He is of the view that the role of politician is like a weaver. A politician with

his own wisdom will adjust with all the elements and will bind together something useful which

has a meaning and utility in the end. But there is no reason to think that the concept of pastoral

power is irrelevant in today’s world. Foucault is of the view that the conflict within the Christian

religion is also due to pastoral conflicts. He clearly states that “The immense dispute over the

gnosis that divided Christianity for centuries is to a large extent a dispute over the mode of

exercising pastoral power. Who will be pastor?How in what form, with what rights, and in order

to do what?”10

Foucault feels that Reformation in Christianity was more of a pastoral battle than religious

reformation. So, this intrinsic battle for gaining power in religion creates a somewhat biological

relationship with religion and politics. One of the observations by Foucault is important in this

context. He observes that in Christian religion there was a clear difference with pastoral power

and political power and this continued until eighteenth century although there was a sheer

closeness between state and Church. Foucault in this context says that “the pastor remained a

figure exercising power over the mystical world; the king remained someone who exercised

power over the imperial world.”11

This division has been a hallmark of western civilization.

This idea of pastorate was adopted by the West from the ancient eastern civilizations. But, there

was no mention of pastors in the social and political regime in the East. So, the Christian idea of

pastorate is more complex. According to Foucault “So, the pastorate in Christianity gave rise to a

dense, complicated, and closely woven institutional network that claimed to be, and was in fact,

coextensive with the entire Church, and so with Christianity, with the entire Christian

community.”12

Basically the Christian pastoral idea tries to manipulate, direct and control men

which is very important in this context to understand the governmentality discourse. These

specific characteristics of pastoral relationships have influence on the birth of governmentality

which in the end gave birth to the idea of nation states and it also gave birth to a new idea of

power relations.

Foucault observes that from the beginning of seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth

century many ‘pastoral functions’ were used in governmentality and on the other hand

government also become cautious about people’s conduct. Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne

Krasemann and Thomas Lemke in their Introduction to the book “Governmentality” says that

“The modern (Western) state is the result of a complex linkage between “political” and

“pastoral” power. Where the former is derived from the ancient polisand is organized around

9Foucault, 15 February 1978,141.

10 Foucault, 15 February 1978,148-149.

11Ibid. 155.

12Micheal Foucault, “22 February 1978,” in Security Territory Population, ed. Arnold I.Davidson (Great Britain:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 164.


96


law, universality, the public, and so forth, the latter represents a Christian religious conception

centered upon the comprehensive guidance of the individual.”13

RAISON D’ETAT-

Micheal Foucault in his lectures in 1978 speaks extensively on Raison d’Etat. Foucault talks

about the writings by Chemnitz. Chemitz was of the view that raison d’Etat has always existed

but now a new intellectual instrument is necessary to measure it. Foucault again brings

Machiavelli into this debate and he seems to be very critical about him. He is of the view that

Machiavelli never defined any art of government but his writings provoked to find ‘an art of

government’. So, in this case Machiavelli acts like a catalyst. Foucault clearly states that it is

impossible to trace governmentality in Machiavelli’s writing. It was the Prince who was all in all

according to Machiavelli. He gives credit to Louis XIV who joined the concepts of sovereignty

and government. Foucault states “It is precisely Louis XIV who introduces the specificity of

raison d’Etat into the general forms of sovereignty…Louis XIV is in fact raison d’Etat, and when

he says “The State is me,” it is precisely this stitching together of sovereignty and government

that is being put forward.”14

It can be said from the lectures of Foucault that from the concept of raison d’Etat people started

understanding politics from the perspective of ‘state’. He analyzes the work byBotero, Palazzo,

Chemnitz and others and draws a conclusion that in their writings there is no mention of

anything other than the state.

Foucault says that with Raison d’Etat ‘a new way of governing men comes into existence.Now a

sovereign should know in details about the elements that constitutes the state. He should not only

be aware about the laws but also about the hard realities which is going around him and for this

‘statistics’ will play a big role. According to Foucault “Etymologically, statistics is a knowledge

of the state, of the forces and resources that characterize a state at a given moment.”15

So,

statecraft gets new dimension with specialized and accurate knowledge. But a sovereign should

be careful about statistical data because it exposes the weakness of the sovereign indirectly. So

he should be careful about what to make public and what to keep secret.

He is not interested in the main stream ways of thought but he deals more with the unanswered

questions. He sees Raison d’Etat as a reflexive prism which tries to identify the defining moment

of history where the ‘art of government’ takes a meaningful shape. Although he was very critical

about Raison d’Etat because according to him population did not came under this ‘reflective

prism’. Population became an important element when the apparatus of police came into

existence to make raison d’Etat function. Precisely it is the Raison d’Etat which helps the state to

maintain its order.

13

Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne Krasmann and Thomas Lemke, “From Foucault’s Lectures at the Collège de France to

Studies of Governmentality: An Introduction,” in Governmentality: Current issues and Future Challenges, ed. Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne Krasmann and Thomas Lemke (New York: Routledge, 2012),3. 14

Micheal Foucault, “8 March 1978,” in Security Territory Population, ed. Arnold I.Davidson (Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan,2009),246. 15

Micheal Foucault, “15 March 1978,” in Security Territory Population, ed. Arnold I.Davidson (Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan,2009),274.


97


The ultimate function of Raison d’Etatwas to preserve the institution of state. For that it was

needed to develop, preserve or maintain the dynamic forces. Western societies developed a new

concept of rationality during this time. Two important features of this rationality were the

military- diplomatic apparatus and the police. According to Foucault after the Thirty Years War

there was an effort to bring a ‘balance’ in Europe. Balance will be maintained if it is made sure

that the strongest state does not impose its laws into the weaker states. Another condition was

that few states will be equally balanced in the equilibrium so that no one can become hegemonic.

And the last element of this balance was that the conglomeration of small states should be

powerful enough so that it can counter a strong state as and when needed and there is a

possibility of coalition which is just and fair. So, it is clear from this arrangement that the option

of war was always open. Foucault is of the view that now war is much more diplomatic war just

to stabilize the balance of power than of a ‘juridical reason’. So, even after the Treaty of

Westphalia there were chances of war. In this situation states became much more conscious

about the power of other states and to judge their powers they started applying various new

scientific techniques. State started behaving like humans. Societies started coming up and states

were interacting with each other. This was a very significant development in history of

governmentality which was assured by the Treaty of Westphalia. So, this was something like a

‘military-diplomatic’ system were diplomatic relations started playing a major role on the one

hand and on the other hand military was still important. Army was being maintained, war

became much more professionalized and new techniques of war started coming up. So, it can be

concluded from most of his earlier ideas that it was an arrangement for peace were war and

military apparatus still dictated the future.

None of his earlier lectures, however, defined his idea of Raison d’Etat like Foucault’s much

more developed (and somehow, less nuanced) ideas of power that he laid out in his “Discipline

and Punish”. The idea that the state’s changes in its ways of handling its delinquents over time

was a much more daring claim. The change from the King’s punishment that was handed out to

the current ways of managing the ‘prisoners’ in ‘the reformatorium’ gives us insights through the

various channels of power that Foucault sketched out to be ways of the states’ surveillance of its

populace. The idea of the Panopticon stands out here as, mischievous, classic Foucault, where he

describes the prison in which it is possible to see the prisoners without being seen. However,

Foucault complicates this image when he shows us how the power relations work both ways in

the Raison d’Etat, between the dominant and the dominated. These two images, that of the

Panopticon and the two-way power relations that end up influencing the evolution of both the

ones with power and the ones without, changed the way critical theorists looked at power

forever.

POLICE-

To maintain the balance of Europe two kinds of ‘political technology’ was put into place. One

was the military-diplomatic apparatus and the other one was the organization and maintenance of

army. In this context, Foucault brings the example of “police” and he tried to trace the historical

origin of this institution and the role it played. From the seventeenth century onward the role of

“police” started changing gradually. Foucault states that “From the seventeenth century “police”


98


begins to refer to the set of means by which the state’s forces can be increased while preserving

the order.”16

Police was responsible for maintaining the internal order of the state and the development of the

state forces. So, police was actually serving the dual role of maintaining the state’s internal order

and to maintain the European equilibrium. In this context new technologies started coming up

that enriched the ‘art of government’. To maintain the European balance it was not only

necessary to know about forces and conditions of other states but the states more and more

became conscious about their own strengths and weaknesses and in this context statistics started

playing a major role. As Foucault says “Police and statistics mutually condition each other, and

statistics is a common instrument between police and the European equilibrium. Statistics is the

state’s knowledge of the state, understood as the state’s knowledge both of itself and also of

other states. As such, statistics is the hinge of the two technological assemblages.”17

One of the major tasks of “police” was to understand the strength of the population because the

strength of the state depended upon the number of population and the relationship of the

population with the size of the territory and its wealth which in the end will contribute in the

development of the state’s strength. Police also had some kind of welfare role to perform because

police also ensured the provision of food and the basic needs of life. Police also had a kind of

surveillance role in the state because it will keep a close look on who and what contributes in the

development of the state internally. Here a striking similarity can be located with the police and

the pastor who also played a very vigilant role to maintain the equilibrium of the flock. Barry

Hindes is of the view that “The theory of police exemplifies the comprehensive responsibility for

the welfare of the flock and each of its members that is central to Foucault’s account of the

pastoral rationality of the government.”18

Police also played an important role in the urban planning and development to keep the air and

atmosphere free from pollution. Police will also ensure that the goods needed for men are

circulated properly and for that they will help in the development of roads, canals and other

means of communication. The happiness of the population depended a lot on how the police

functioned. So, police became one of the important elements of the state. As Foucault observes

“Police is the set of interventions and means that ensure that living, better than just living,

coexisting will be effectively useful to the constitution and development of the state’s forces.”19

While analyzing the role of police Foucault entered into a completely new domain of analysis.

He tried to find out through his analysis how the idea of new governmentality came into being

and how raisond’Etat itself got transformed in course of time. The dual role of the police should

be taken into note in this context. On the one hand it looks after the well-being of people on the

other hand it also controls the buying and selling of things and matters related to it, to be precise

matters which are related to market. In Foucault’s words police played a role in ‘urbanization of

16

Micheal Foucault, “29 March 1978,” in Security Territory Population, ed. Arnold I.Davidson (Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan,2009),313. 17

Ibid.,315. 18

Barry Hindess, Discourses of Power: from Hobbes to Foucault (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,2004),120. 19

Foucault, 29 March 1978,327.


99


the territory.’20

It can be said that police contributed in the development of economy and

commerce and they played a role to strengthen the power of the competing European states.

“Police and commerce, police and urban development, and police and the development of all the

activities of the market in the broad sense, constitute an essential unity in the seventeenth

centuryand until the beginning of the eighteenth century.”21

But it should be kept into mind that

police during that time never acted judicially. They were implementing the orders of the King

but not in judicial terms. According to Foucault police necessarily took care of commerce, town,

regulation and discipline.

But Foucault through analysis of classical texts shows that too much regulation is harmful and

worthless. Foucault is in favor of open trade between countries. He clearly states that “The good

of all will be assured by the behavior of each when the state, government, allows private interest

to operate, which, through the phenomena of accumulation and regulation, will serve all.”22

So, basically he draws a sketch of a new form of governmentality which is devoid of the concept

of ‘police state’. He clearly defines that “Economic reason does not replace raison d’Etat, but it

gives it a new content and so gives new forms to state rationality. A new government laity is

born with the economistes more than a century after the appearance of that other governmentality

in the seventeenth century. The governmentality of the ‘politiques’ gives us police, and the

governmentality of economistes introduces us, I think, to some of the fundamental lines of

modern and contemporary governmentality.”23

Thomas Lemke’s observation is important in this context. He is of the opinion that “In his work

Foucault shows that the “art of government” is not limited to the field of politics as separated

from the economy; instead the constitution of a conceptually and practically distinguished space,

governed by autonomous laws and a proper rationality is itself an element of “economic”

government.”24

Scientific rational started playing a major role in new form of governmentlity and to succeed, the

states have to obey it. Foucault was in favor of limited restriction in the part of the government.

He was of the view that security should be limited and state should ensure the “the security of the

natural phenomenon of economic processes or processes intrinsic to population.”25

So, the role of

police according to Foucault has transformed and has been broken into four parts which are –

economic practice, population, management, law and respect for freedoms, police and they form

the new elements of diplomatic-military apparatus which has not changed much till today. In this

context Hindess says “Foucault’s discussion clearly suggests, for example, that the pastoral

20

Micheal Foucault, “5 April 1978,” in Security Territory Population, ed. Arnold I.Davidson (Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan,2009),336. 21

Ibid.,338. 22

Foucault, 5 April 1978,346. 23

Ibid.,348. 24

Thomas Lemke, “Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique,” http://www.thomaslemkeweb.de/publikationen/Foucault,%20Governmentality,%20and%20Critique%20IV-2.pdf (accessed Sep. 15, 2015),10. 25

Foucault, 5 April 1978,353.



100


image of government has played an important part in the development of what would now be

called the welfare state.”26

CONCLUSION-

If we thoroughly analyze MichealFoucualt’s lecture series on “Security, Territory, Population”

we will see that he showed the world of academia a new way of analyzing societal relationships

which gives birth to institutions. It is hard to locate an exact date to explain when the idea of

state was born. But by taking the help of history he identified the historical juncture of time when

people became conscious of this idea of state.

By analyzing this whole lecture series it is impossible to state what Foucault actually meant by

the term “governmentality”. In short it can be said that for him it is the “the conduct of conducts”

which ranges from “governing the self” to “governing others”. He never provides a single

definition of the term.

It is very difficult to find a singular answer to a question from Foucault. He is also like a weaver

as he mentioned when he was talking about Plato. He also tries to bring in different elements to

give a concrete shape to an idea. But there are many ambiguities in his stream of thought. His

analysis of “governmentality” is very much Euro centric in nature which makes this work

somewhat narrow but it never raises a question on his merit and brilliance.

He starts with the example of pastoral powers to locate governmentality and from there he goes

to raison d’Etat where governmentality was going hand in hand with it and finally he goes into

liberal governmentality where politics and economy merges and economy takes the upper hand

which makes the whole discourse little bit complicated. It is not possible find a one single point

to locate what governmentality exactly means (an understanding developed on the basis of the

thirteen lectures which he delivered in 1978). It can be said that his lectures opens up a new

dimension to analyze power relationships and in what context and how it develops in society.

In the concluding lectures of the series it can be observed that Foucault speaks of economic

liberalism where economics will play a bigger role than politics. It can be said that Foucault was

surely much ahead of his time because the global order as it functions today more or less goes in

the same direction as Foucault said three and half decades before. Now we judge the power of

states on the basis of numbers, borders are becoming superfluous day by day and the definition

of “governmentality” is probably again going through a transformation with the development of

new security apparatus and with other technological advancements.

In the current context, as any sound-minded academic will be able to tell, Foucault is being

quickly declared obsolete by the later critiques of French theorists. The ones taking his place,

however, have sometimes incorporated Foucauldian ideas without reflection. There is a tradition

among the South Asian theorists to cling to his ideas. Both of these trends are worrisome. The

Foucauldian trend allowed us to see institutions as fonts for legitimizing authority and how this

reinforced dominant social notions. But once we fragment his theories for our own intellectual

circles, those circles start to grow smaller.

26

Hindess,Discourses of Power,123.


101


Foucault observed that in the present world there is no place for monarchy. So, a new analysis

was needed in academia by coming out of the traditional definition of government, sovereignty

and power. So, he constructed new ideological blocks which need to be developed in course of

time. Foucault’s theoretical constructs are not static, it needs to be nurtured with the rapid flow

of events that happens around us every day. But, it should be taken into note that the ideas of

Foucault should be wisely used and it should not be applied anywhere and everywhere for the

sake of an analysis which basically contributes nothing to this academic discourse.

________________

References Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In C. G. Graham Burchell (Ed.), The Foucault Effect (pp. 87-92).

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (2009). 15 February 1978. In A. I.Davidson (Ed.), Security, Territory Population (G. Burchell,

Trans., pp. 141-157). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (2009). 15 March 1978. In A. I.Davidson (Ed.), Scecurity, Territory,Population (G. Burchell,

Trans., p. 274). Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (2009). 22 February 1978. In A. I.Davidson (Ed.), Security, Territory, Population (G. Burchell,

Trans., p. 164). Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (2009). 29 March 1978. In A. I.Davidson (Ed.), Security, Territory, Population (G. Burchell,

Trans., pp. 313-327). Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (2009). 5 April 1978. In A. I.Davidson (Ed.), Security, Territory, Population (G. Burchell,

Trans., pp. 336-353). Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (2009). 8th March 1978. In Security,Territory, Population (G. Burchell, Trans., p. 246). Great

Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hindess, B. (2004). Discourses of Power: from Hobbes to Foucault. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Lemke, T. (n.d.). www.thomaslemkeweb.de. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from

http://www.thomaslemkeweb.de/publikationen/Foucault,%20Governmentality,%20and%20Crit

ique%20IV-2.pdf

Ulrich Bröckling, S. K. (2012). From Foucault's Lectures at the Collège de France to Studies of

Governmentality: An Introduction. In S. K. Ulrich Bröckling (Ed.), Governmentality : Current

Issues and Future Challanges (p. 3). New York: Routledge.

Walters, W. (2012). Governmentality : Critical Encounters. New York: Routledge.


102


foucault’s idea of ‘governmentality’sajms.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/foucault_s... ·...

Documents