7/31/2019 884-2932-1-PB

1/6

f oucau l t s tud ies Ben Golder, 2005

ISSN: 1832-5203Foucault Studies, No 3, pp. 121-126, Nov 2005

REVIEW

Eduardo Mend ie ta and Je f f rey Par is (eds . ) B iopo l i t i cs and

Racism , Spec ia l I ssue of Radica l Ph i losophy Rev iew, Vo l . 7 ,

N o . 1 , ( 2 0 0 4 ) . I SSN : 1 3 8 8 - 4 4 4 1 .

AstheeditorsofthisspecialissueoftheRadicalPhilosophyReviewremark in

theirbriefintroductorynote, [a]MichelFoucaultrenaissanceisunderway.1

Indeed,therehasbeenamarkedresurgenceofinterestinFoucaultsworkinboth the Frenchspeaking world, with the publication of new material in

French lastyear,and in theEnglishspeakingworld.Whatseems tohave in

partprecipitatedtheAnglophoneresurgenceofinterestinFoucaultsworkis

thetranslationintoEnglishoftheseriesoflectureswhichhegavein1976at

theCollgedeFrance.This lecturecourse,entitled Ilfautdfendre lasocit,

was published in French by Gallimard in 1997.2 Prior to its English

publicationin2003(asSocietyMustbeDefended),3AnglophoneFoucaultians

interested in tracing thedevelopmentofFoucaults thought fromDiscipline

andPunish

to

the

first

volume

of

The

History

of

Sexuality

had

been

forced

to

relyon summariesof the lectures in theworkofFrenchspeakingFoucault

scholarswritinginEnglish.4Withtheeventualtranslationofthelecturesinto

1 Eduardo Mendieta and Jeffrey Paris, Introduction, Radical Philosophy Review 7:1

(2004):iii.FuturereferencestothetextunderreviewwillbemadeasRPR.

2 Thedelayinpublicationwasattributabletodisputesovertheintellectualpropertyof

thematerialandthewishesofFoucaultsestate.Note,however,thatIlfautdfendre

la socit appeared in Italian translation as Difendere la societa in 1990, and in Les

TempsModernes(inFrench)in1991.

3 MichelFoucault,SocietyMustBeDefended:LecturesattheCollgedeFrance,19751976,

trans.DavidMacey,Englishseriesed.ArnoldI.Davidson(NewYork:Picador,2003).

Notealso thatFoucaults lecture course from theprecedingyearat theCollgede

France, entitledLesAnormaux,waspublishedbyGallimard in1999,and translated

intoEnglish in2003.SeeMichelFoucault,Abnormal:LecturesattheCollgedeFrance,

19741975,trans.GrahamBurchell,Englishseriesed.ArnoldI.Davidson(NewYork:

Picador,2003).Both lecturecourseshavebeenreviewed inthesepages:BradElliott

Stone, Defending Society from the Abnormal: An Archaeology of BioPower,

FoucaultStudies1(2004):7791.

4 Forexample,seeAnnLauraStoler,RaceandtheEducationofDesire:FoucaultsHistory

ofSexualityand theColonialOrderofThings (Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1995):

5594; Beatrice Hanssen, Critique of Violence: Between Poststructuralism and Critical

Theory (Routledge:NewYork,2000):97157;JohnMarks, Foucault,Franks,Gauls,

Theory,Culture&Society17:5(2000):12747;StuartElden,TheWarofRacesandthe

121

7/31/2019 884-2932-1-PB

2/6

foucault studies, No 3, pp. 121-126

English,theunderstanding,andapplication,ofFoucaultsmid1970sworkon

biopoliticshasbeengreatly extended, and the renaissanceproceeds apace.5

The current (Anglophone) resurgenceof interest inFoucaultswork isonly

partly attributable to the recent translation of these lecture courses into

English.It

is

also

in

no

small

measure

attributable,

and

the

editors

of

the

present volume state as much,6 to a confluence of certain political and

historicalevents the (re?)electionofBush II, theprosecutionof theglobal

WaronTerror,theforcesoffundamentalistterror/ismandstaterepression,

the prevalence of racism (particularly Islamophobia and the vilification of

asylumseekers)anditsarticulationintheformofstatepractices,andsoforth

towhichaFoucaultianbiopoliticalanalysisisparticularlygermane.7

Thevolumeunder review reflects theabove themesand imperatives

underpinningtherenewedinterestinFoucaultswork.Itbothrespondstothe

need

to

introduce

English

speaking

readerships

to

Foucaults

1976

Collge

de

France lectures, and also to employ Foucaults insights on biopolitics in

theorising the current sociopolitical landscape. Quite neatly, two of the

collected essays are oriented towards the first of these goals, and the

remaining three are directed towards realizing the second. The essaysby

JulianBourg andToddMay are,broadly speaking, exegetical.They aim to

introduce English readers to the new material by summarizing and

explainingthesubstanceofthelectures,andattemptingtosituatethem,both

chronologically and thematically,within Foucaults publishedwork of the

period.TheessaysbyEllenK.Feder,KevinThompsonandFalguniA.Sheth,

on the otherhand, aremore ambitious in seeking notjust to integrate the

CollgedeFrancelecturesintotheextantFoucaultianoeuvre,butrathertouse

this new material to interpret and critique subjects as diverse as

biotechnology,theillfatedfederal(US)ViolenceInititativeofthe1990s,and

the articulation (by the state) of race as a technology.Asboth the subject

matterofFoucaultslecturesandthetitleofthisvolumeimply,thecommon

Constitution of the State: Foucaults Ilfaut dfendre la socit and the Politics of

Calculation, boundary229:1 (2002):12551;PasqualePasquino, PoliticalTheoryofWarandPeace:Foucaultand theHistoryofModernPoliticalTheory,Economyand

Society22:1(1993):7688.

5 Inaddition totheessays in thevolumeunderreview,seeStone;MarianaValverde,

Review Essay:Michel Foucault, Society must be defended: Lectures at the College de

France19751976. (London:Picador,2003),Law,Cultureand theHumanities1 (2005):

11931;MarkKelly,Racism,NationalismandBiopolitics:FoucaultsSocietyMustBe

Defended,2003,Contretemps:AnOnlineJournalofPhilosophy4 (2004):5870;Michael

Dillon and Andrew Neal (eds.), Foucault: Politics, Society, War (forthcoming from

PalgraveMacMillan,2005).

6 RPR:iiiiv.

7 A renewed interest is alsonodoubt attributable to the influence of contemporary

philosophers who have continued, extended or adapted Foucaults biopolitical

analysis(ofwhomperhapsthemostimportantisGiorgioAgamben).

122

7/31/2019 884-2932-1-PB

3/6

Golder: Review ofBiopolitics and Racism themeinalltheseessays(besides,ofcourse,Foucault)isthequestionofrace

(asa formofsocialdivision,asatoolofsovereignpower,asatechniqueof

state,asameansofmanagingpopulations).Iturnnowtoaddresseachofthe

five essays individually, before concluding with some general comments

concerningthe

collection

as

awhole.

AsImentionedabove,thegoaloftheessaysbyBourgandMayisboth

to introduce English readers to the lectures and to integrate them into the

existingbodyofFoucaultswork.Itwasperhapsslightlyuncharitableofme

tosuggestthatthiswassomehownotanambitiousundertaking,oratleast

lessambitious thanputtingFoucaults insights towork incritiquingcurrent

politicalarrangements,forascommentatorsonthelectureshavenotedthere

isamarkeddiscontinuitybetweenthecentralrolewhichFoucaultaffordsto

raceinthe1976lectures,andthemarginalplacewhichheaffordsthesamein

the

first

volume

of

The

History

of

Sexuality.8

There

is

also

the

extended

treatment of the concept of intrasocietalwar, and the growing change of

emphasis from discipline to biopower. Accounting for Society Must Be

Defendedisthusmoredifficultthanitmightappearatfirstglance,andboth

BourgandMaydoagoodjobofthistask.Thereissomeunavoidableoverlap

intheirsummaryandexplicationofthesubstanceofFoucaultslectures,but

theyusefullyframethelecturecourseindifferentways.Forhispart,Bourgin

hisessaySocietyMustBeDefendedandtheLastFoucaultlocatesthelecture

courseasa transitionalbodyofwork,bridging Foucaults early andmid

1970s interests in institutions and coercive subject formation and the

emergenceofthethemesthatoccupiedhimfortheremainingyearsofhislife:

biopower,governmentality,andethics.9While Idonotentirely agreewith

him that the question of the state (and juridical forms, law, etc.) was

neglected in Discipline and Punish,10 Bourg does usefully chart the

(undeniable)changeofemphasis inFoucaultsworktowardsamorecentral

consideration of these apparatuses andmechanisms of power, concluding

with somehistorical reasons as towhyFoucault changed tack (such as the

fadingpromiseof1968,theantitotalitarianturninFrenchintellectualpolitics,

and thepublication inFrenchofAleksandrSolzhenitsynsGulagArchipelago

inJune1974).11Bourgsreadingofthelecturesisthusconvincingandhelpful

tothereaderlookingtoplacethenewmaterial.

Aswith Bourgs piece,Mays essay, entitled War in the Social and

DisciplinaryBodies,givesagoodintroductionandorientationtothereader

comingtotheselecturesforthefirsttime.Heoffersaveryclearsummaryof

Foucaults readingofHenrideBoulainvillierss radical historicopolitical12

8 Forexample,seeStoler:56.

9 RPR:5.

10 RPR:11.

11 RPR:113.

12 Foucault,SocietyMustBeDefended:52.

123

7/31/2019 884-2932-1-PB

4/6

foucault studies, No 3, pp. 121-126

discourse (which reading formsacentralpartof SocietyMustBeDefended),

and, like Bourg, he locates areas of similarity and continuitybetween the

lectures and Foucaults monographs published before and after them.

Interestingly,however,whereMaydiffersfromBourgisinhisidentification

ofone

of

the

differences

between

the

lecture

course,

on

the

one

hand,

and

Discipline andPunish and the firstvolumeofTheHistory ofSexualityon the

other.Mayarguesthatwhereastheselatterworksarewrittenfromthepoint

ofviewofanentanglingpower,thelecturecourseprovides(intheexample

ofBoulainvilliersshistory)a clearerviewofresistance[assituatedcounter

knowledge].13ForMay, then, the significance of SocietyMustBeDefended

residesprincipally in its ability to showus concrete instances of resistance

(which,asFoucaulthadclaimed,wereinextricablylinkedtopower).Indoing

this, the lecture course helpsopenup thepossibility for resistance, for our

resistance.14

Indeed,

he

argues,

armed

with

this

knowledge

it

is

possible

to

reread Discipline and Punish in order to foreground instances of resistance

discussedbyFoucault inthetext,butwhichhavenotreceivedmuchcritical

attention fromFoucaultscholars (Maysexample isFoucaultsdiscussionof

theFourieriststowardstheendofthebook).15Maysessayisthususefulnot

only in illuminating the lecture courses, but in giving us means to

productivelyrereadFoucaultsothertexts.

InspirednodoubtbyFoucaults injunctiontousehisworkasa tool

box,16theremainingessaysinthevolumeseektoemployFoucaultsinsights

on biopolitics and racism to theorise a number of different aspects of

contemporary political formations. The first of these essays, Feders, The

DiscursiveProductionoftheDangerousIndividual,isausefulexamination

of a particular US government program of the early 1990s, the Violence

Initiative,whichsoughttotargettheproblemofviolence(read:urban,black,

young male violence) as a matter of public health and as something

geneticallydetermined.Under theprogram, school teacherswere to screen

theirpupils inorder to identify thosemanifesting early signsof irritability

and potentially violent traits, and to inform relevant public health

professionalswhowouldaimtointerveneatanearlyage(througharangeof

available techniques and methods, ranging from sending children to day

camps tomedicating them).17Feder reveals thebiopolitical logic informing

thisparticulargovernmentprogram(inwhichdangerousurbanpopulations

weretobemanagedandcontrolledundertheaegisofpublichealth)andalso

howdespitethehamfistedinstitutionalprotestationsofracialneutrality,the

13 RPR:54.

14 RPR:55.

15 RPR:434.

16 MichelFoucault, (1974) Prisons etasilesdans lemcanismedupouvoir, inDits et

Ecrits,t.II.(Paris:Gallimard,1994):523.17 RPR:256.

124

7/31/2019 884-2932-1-PB

5/6

Golder: Review ofBiopolitics and Racism Violence Initiative was in fact deeply racist. In doing this she makes

interestingusenotonlyofFoucaultsunderstandingofracisminSocietyMust

Be Defended , as a vector of state power, but also of Foucaults earlier

archeologicalworkinordertoexcavatethe preconceptualgroundof[the]

racistdiscourse

[of

the

Violence

Initiative].

18Feders

essay

is

an

interesting

and thoroughly convincing critique of aparticular instanceof state racism,

andifshedoesnotquitefollowthroughonherearlypromisetoarticulatethe

politicsof raceandgender together through SocietyMustBeDefended (and

her chosen topicdoes indeed lend itself to such an intersectional analysis),

neverthelessherpieceisaninstructiveexampleofhowthelecturecoursecan

beusedtotheorisecontemporarystateracism.

LikeFeder,ThompsonutilizesSocietyMustBeDefendedinconjunction

withotherFoucaultianmaterial(namely,Foucaultslaterworkonthecareof

the

self)

in

order

to

critique

an

aspect

of

contemporary

biopolitics.

The

particular subjects of Thompsons analysis in The Spiritual Disciplines of

Biopowerarethenewbiotechnologiesofgeneticcounselingandperformance

enhancementtherapies,which,heconvincinglydemonstrates,formpartofan

apparatusofneoliberalgovernanceinwhich[t]hecompliantcitizengoverns

themselves [sic] by managing their susceptibilities.19 Where Thompsons

essayismostinteresting,andfrustratingly,wherehisargumentisinneedof

furtherdevelopment,isinitsclosingstageswherehepursuesthesuggestion

inherent in Foucaults later work that genuine selfformation is only

possibleinandthroughtheverysameheteronymousstructuresandpractices

thatproduce subjects asgovernablebeings.20 It isnot this suggestion itself

whichisinneedoffurtherelucidation,21butratherthequestionsofwhatthis

strategy of tactical reversalwould look like in this context and ofhow it

might take place.On these topics the author isbothbrief and somewhat

vague.Heseemstosuggestadevolvingofbiotechnologicalmedicaldecision

making to something more transparent, collective and deliberative, a

conclusionwhichitdoesnottakeaFoucaultiananalysistoestablishindeed,

standard liberal approaches advocate the same as a matter of personal

autonomy.

Thefinalessay,ShethsTheTechnologyofRace:Enframing,Violence,

and Taming the Unruly, is probably the most nuanced examination of

biopolitics and state racism in the collection. Sheth argues that the state

identifiesanelementwithin thebodypoliticwhich shecalls theunruly (a

somewhatelusiveconcept,andonewhichisopentoongoingresignification,

18 RPR:27.

19 RPR:64.

20 RPR:68.

21 Tobefair,theauthorhaswrittenatlengthelsewhereonthisparticularclaim:Kevin

Thompson, FormsofResistance:FoucaultonTacticalReversalandSelfFormation,

ContinentalPhilosophyReview36(2003):11338.

125

7/31/2019 884-2932-1-PB

6/6

foucault studies, No 3, pp. 121-126

but which Sheth hintsmay constitute anything from ones social history,

religiousaffiliation,skintoneorclothing,toonesbodilycomportment).22The

unruly isperceivedbythestateasa threat tothesovereignorder,and thus

becomesinstantiated(andnaturalizedas)thegroundofracialdifference.The

statethus

mobilizes

racial

difference

as

atechnology

in

order

to

manage

populationsand to effectacontinualsenseofvulnerability [with respect to

thelawandothersocialgroupings].23DrawingonHeidegger,Benjaminand

Agamben,inadditiontoFoucaults1976lectures,Shethsessayischallenging

andwellargued.Inplacesherwritingissomewhatopaque,suchaswhenshe

describesherenterprisingfusionofHeideggerandFoucaultastheirmutual

interlocutionontheterrainofrace,andinotherstautologous(theirworks

facilitatean illumination, a lighting,). 24For themostpart,however, this

does not cloud the theoretical rigour of her piece and the salience of her

conclusions.

In sum, this short special issueof theRadicalPhilosophyReview is an

excellent collection of essays. It isboth a valuable guide to the newcomer

seeking anaccountof the1976CollgedeFrance lectures andaverygood

example of how these lectures can further our understanding of

contemporarystateracism.

BenGolder,BirkbeckCollege

22 RPR:81.

23 RPR:92.

24 RPR:80.126