11

ȱȱ

�ȱMichelleȱBradyȱ2014ȱISSN:ȱ1832Ȭ5203ȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33,ȱOctoberȱ2014ȱ

ȱARTICLEȱȱEthnographiesȱ ofȱ Neoliberalȱ Governmentalities:ȱ fromȱ theȱ neoliberalȱ apparatusȱ toȱȱȱȱȱȱneoliberalismȱandȱgovernmentalȱassemblages1ȱMichelleȱBrady,ȱUniversityȱofȱQueenslandȱȱȱABSTRACT:ȱThisȱarticleȱisȱaimedȱatȱFoucauldianȱscholarsȱandȱseeksȱtoȱintroduceȱthemȱtoȱethȬnographicȱ worksȱ thatȱ interrogateȱ neoliberalȱ governmentalities.ȱ ȱ Asȱ anȱ analyticȱ categoryȱȱȱȱȱȱ‘neoliberalism’ȱhasȱoverȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱdecadesȱhelpfullyȱilluminatedȱconnectionsȱbetweenȱseemȬinglyȱunrelatedȱsocialȱchangesȱoccurringȱatȱmultipleȱscales.ȱ ȱEvenȱearlierȱ—inȱhisȱCollegeȱdeȱFranceȱ1978Ȭ9ȱBirthȱofȱBiopoliticsȱ lectures,ȱtoȱbeȱprecise—Foucaultȱbeganȱhisȱengagementȱwithȱneoliberalismȱasȱaȱdominantȱpoliticalȱforce.ȱȱDespiteȱbeingȱmoreȱthanȱthreeȱdecadesȱold,ȱFouȬcault’sȱanalysisȱofȱneoliberalȱrationalitiesȱremainsȱfreshȱandȱinsightful,ȱwhichȱperhapsȱexplainsȱwhyȱscholarsȱinspiredȱbyȱhisȱanalyticsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱmakeȱmajorȱconȬtributionsȱtoȱtheȱcurrentȱsocialȱscienceȱliteratureȱonȱneoliberalism.ȱȱHowever,ȱthereȱareȱincreasȬingȱconcernsȱthatȱgovernmentalityȱscholarsȱsuccumbȱtoȱaȱmoreȱgeneralȱtendencyȱamongȱsocialȱscientistsȱ toȱpresentȱneoliberalȱ transformationsȱ inȱmonolithicȱ andȱ linearȱ terms.ȱ ȱThisȱ articleȱcriticallyȱreviewsȱcontributionsȱfromȱaȱsmallȱbutȱgrowingȱgroupȱofȱneoȬFoucauldianȱresearchȬersȱthatȱavoidȱtheseȱtendencies.ȱȱTheseȱresearchersȱinvestigateȱtheȱchangesȱwroughtȱbyȱneolibȬeralismȱthroughȱmethodologiesȱthatȱ involveȱcombiningȱanȱanalyticsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱwithȱethnographicȱandȱquasiȬethnographicȱmethods,ȱandȱinȱdoingȱsoȱtheyȱavoidȱdeterministic,ȱhoȬmogenousȱandȱ staticȱaccountsȱofȱ socialȱ transformation.ȱ ȱByȱbeginningȱwithȱ theȱ“everyday,”ȱtheseȱworksȱ rejectȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalityȱ formsȱaȱcoherentȱapparatus.ȱ ȱ InȬsteadȱtheseȱethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱfocusȱonȱgovernmentalȱensemblegesȱ(orȱ assemblages)ȱ thatȱ linkȱneoliberalȱpoliticalȱ rationalitiesȱwithȱnonȬliberalȱ rationalities,ȱ andȱtheyȱexploreȱhowȱneoliberalȱthoughtȱandȱpracticeȱisȱtransformedȱacrossȱtimeȱandȱspace.ȱȱKeywords:ȱneoliberalism;ȱgovernmentality;ȱFoucault;ȱethnography;ȱadvancedȱliberalismȱ

ȱȱȱȱ

1ȱAcknowledgements:ȱIȱwishȱtoȱthankȱSallyȱBabidge,ȱAndrewȱClarke,ȱCosmoȱHoward,ȱreviewersȱatȱFoucaultȱStudiesȱandȱparticipantsȱatȱtheȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalismȱworkshopȱforȱtheirȱhelpfulȱfeedbackȱonȱpreȬviousȱdraftsȱofȱthisȱarticle.ȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

12ȱ

IntroductionȱNeoliberalismȱisȱcurrentlyȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱpopularȱconceptsȱinȱtheȱsocialȱsciencesȱwithȱaȱthirdȱofȱarticlesȱ inȱculturalȱanthropologyȱandȱ sociologyȱemployingȱ thisȱ termȱ toȱ label,ȱexplainȱandȱcritiqueȱtransformationsȱinȱsocialȱandȱpoliticalȱlife.2ȱAsȱanȱanalyticȱcategoryȱ‘neoliberalism’ȱisȱpowerfulȱbecauseȱitȱilluminatesȱinterconnectionsȱbetweenȱdiverseȱsocialȱandȱpoliticalȱchangesȱoccurringȱatȱmultipleȱscales,ȱfromȱ“globalȱfinancial”ȱregulationȱtoȱeverydayȱ interactionsȱwithȱbureaucracies.ȱ ȱ Foucaultȱ andȱ theȱ scholarsȱ thatȱ developedȱ hisȱ analyticsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱwereȱamongȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱrecognizeȱtheȱanalyticalȱpurchaseȱgainedȱbyȱunderstandingȱtheȱpresentȱasȱshapedȱbyȱneoliberalȱ(orȱadvancedȱliberal)ȱrationalities.ȱȱHowever,ȱasȱtheȱsupplyȱofȱarticles,ȱmonographsȱandȱeditedȱcollectionsȱonȱneoliberalismȱgrows,3ȱthereȱareȱrecurrentȱconcernsȱthatȱlabellingȱpoliticalȱ andȱ socialȱ changeȱ ‘neoliberal’ȱorȱ ‘postȬneoliberal’ȱobfuscatesȱmoreȱ thanȱ itȱenlightensȱandȱencouragesȱmonolithicȱassessmentsȱofȱchange.4ȱSomeȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱliteratureȱonȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱ isȱparticularlyȱweakȱ inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱandȱaccuseȱ itȱofȱ lapsingȱintoȱaȱsetȱofȱpolemicȱgeneralities,ȱandȱdispensingȱwithȱnuancedȱdescriptiveȱinvestigation.5ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱaȱrelativelyȱsmallȱbutȱgrowingȱbodyȱofȱscholars6ȱseekȱtoȱholdȱontoȱtheȱoriginalȱ 2ȱSeeȱA.ȱKipnis,ȱ“NeoliberalismȱReified:ȱSuzhiȱDiscourseȱandȱTropesȱofȱNeoliberalismȱinȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepubȬlicȱofȱChina,”ȱJournalȱofȱtheȱRoyalȱAnthropologicalȱInstitute,ȱvol.ȱ13,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(2007),ȱ383–ȱ400.ȱAȱnumberȱofȱauthorsȱhaveȱalsoȱquantifiedȱtheȱriseȱofȱtheȱtermȱneoliberalism.ȱResultȱofȱthisȱanalysisȱshowȱthatȱalmostȱhalfȱofȱcitaȬtionsȱoccurredȱ inȱtheȱ lastȱdecadeȱJ.ȱPeck,ȱN.ȱTheodoreȱandȱN.ȱBrenner,ȱ“Postneoliberalismȱandȱ itsȱMalconȬtents,”ȱAntipode,ȱvol.ȱ41,Iss.ȱsup.ȱ1ȱ(2010),ȱ94–ȱ116;ȱthatȱitsȱuseȱexplodedȱfromȱaȱhandfulȱofȱarticlesȱaȱyearȱtoȱaroundȱaȱthousandȱaȱyearȱbetweenȱ2002ȱandȱ2005ȱ(T.ȱC.ȱBoasȱandȱJ.ȱGansȬMorse,ȱ”Neoliberalism:ȱFromȱNewȱLiberalȱPhilosophyȱtoȱAntiȬLiberalȱSlogan,”ȱStudiesȱ inȱComparativeȱInternationalȱDevelopmentȱ(SCID),ȱvol.ȱ44,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(2009),ȱ137–ȱ161);ȱandȱthatȱaȱthirdȱofȱculturalȱanthropologyȱarticlesȱ inȱtheȱsameȱperiodȱusedȱtheȱtermȱneoliberalismȱ(A.ȱB.ȱKipnis,ȱ“AuditȱCultures:ȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentality,ȱSocialistȱLegacy,ȱOrȱTechnologiesȱofȱGoverning?”ȱAmericanȱEthnologist,ȱvol.ȱ35,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ (2008),ȱ275–ȱ289;ȱKipnis,ȱNeoliberalismȱReified:ȱSuzhiȱDisȬcourseȱandȱTropesȱofȱNeoliberalismȱ inȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱ383–ȱ400);ȱ ȱandȱ thatȱ thereȱwasȱaȱnineȬfoldȱincreaseȱinȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱinȱtheȱGoogleȱbookȱcollectionȱbetweenȱ1990ȱandȱ2009,ȱ(T.ȱFlew,ȱ“SixȱTheoriesȱofȱNeoliberalism”ȱTASA,ȱ26–ȱ9ȱ(November,ȱ2102)).ȱ3ȱMitchellȱDean,ȱ“RethinkingȱNeoliberalism,”ȱ JournalȱofȱSociology,ȱ (2012);ȱLoicȱWacquant,ȱ“ThreeȱStepsȱ toȱaȱHistoricalȱAnthropologyȱofȱActuallyȱExistingȱNeoliberalism,”ȱSocialȱAnthropology,ȱvol.ȱ20,ȱno.ȱ1ȱ(2012),ȱ66–ȱ79;ȱP.ȱArmstrong,ȱ“NeoliberalismȱinȱAction:ȱCanadianȱPerspectives,”ȱinȱS.ȱBraedleyȱandȱM.ȱLuxtonȱ(eds.)ȱNeolibȬeralismȱandȱEverydayȱLife,ȱ(Montréal;ȱIthaca:ȱMcGillȬQueenȇsȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2010),ȱ184–ȱ202;ȱS.ȱBraedleyȱandȱM.ȱLuxton,ȱ“CompetingȱPhilosophies:ȱNeoliberalismȱandȱtheȱChallengesȱofȱEverydayȱLife,”ȱinȱNeoliberalismȱandȱEverdayȱLifeȱ (2010),ȱ3–ȱ21;ȱS.ȱBraedleyȱandȱM.ȱLuxton,ȱNeoliberalismȱandȱEverydayȱLifeȱ (2010);ȱC.ȱGreenȬhouse,ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalismȱ (UniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ2009);ȱD.ȱHarvey,ȱAȱBriefȱHistoryȱofȱNeoliberalism,ȱ(OxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱUSA,ȱ2007).ȱȱ4ȱTerryȱFlew,ȱ“MichelȱFoucault’sȱtheȱBirthȱofȱBiopoliticsȱandȱContemporaryȱNeoȬLiberalismȱDebates,”ȱThesisȱEleven,ȱvol.ȱ108,ȱno.ȱ1ȱ(Februaryȱ01,ȱ2012),ȱ44–ȱ65.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ5ȱTerryȱFlew,ȱSixȱTheoriesȱofȱNeoliberalism;ȱBoasȱandȱGansȬMorse,ȱNeoliberalism:ȱFromȱNewȱLiberalȱPhilosophyȱtoȱAntiȬLiberalȱSlogan,ȱ137–161;ȱJ.ȱDonzelotȱandȱColinȱGordon,ȱ“GoverningȱLiberalȱSocieties:ȱTheȱFoucaultȱEffectȱinȱtheȱEnglishȬSpeakingȱWorld,”ȱinȱM.ȱA.ȱPetersȱet.ȱal.ȱ(eds)ȱGovernmentalityȱStudiesȱinȱEducationȱ(Rotterdam:ȱSenseȱPublishers,ȱ2009),ȱ3–16.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ6ȱStephenȱCollier,ȱPostȬSovietȱSocial:ȱNeoliberalism,ȱSocialȱModernity,ȱBiopoliticsȱ (Princeton,ȱNJ:ȱPrincetonȱUniȬversityȱPress,ȱ2011);ȱLisaȱHoffman,ȱ“AutonomousȱChoicesȱandȱPatrioticȱProfessionalism:ȱOnȱGovernmentaliȬtyȱinȱLateȬSocialistȱChina,”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ35,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(2006),ȱ550–570;ȱRandyȱLippert,ȱ“Neoliberalism,ȱPoliceȱandȱtheȱGovernanceȱofȱLittleȱUrbanȱThings”ȱ(Victoria,ȱBC,ȱCanada,ȱNovember,ȱ2012);ȱRandyȱK.ȱLipȬ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

13

spiritȱandȱstrengthsȱofȱanȱanalyticsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱbyȱusingȱethnographicȱmethodologiesȱtogetherȱwithȱanȱanalyticsȱofȱgovernmentality.ȱȱȱȱTheseȱ studiesȱ rejectȱ governmentalityȱ scholars’ȱ traditionalȱ exclusiveȱ relianceȱ onȱ archivalȱsourcesȱorȱpublicallyȱavailableȱdocuments.ȱ ȱInstead,ȱinspiredȱbyȱethnographicȱmethodologiesȱtheyȱincorporateȱobservationȱofȱeverydayȱlife,ȱinterviews,ȱandȱtheȱcollectionȱofȱdocumentsȱonȱtheȱground,ȱtogetherȱwithȱmoreȱtraditionalȱarchivalȱsources.ȱȱ7ȱInȱembracingȱtheseȱnew,ȱanalytȬicsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱinspiredȱethnographicȱmethodologiesȱtheseȱresearchersȱrejectȱtheȱsharpȱanalyticȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱsociologiesȱofȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱandȱstudiesȱofȱpracticȬesȱofȱgovernance.8ȱInsteadȱtheirȱworkȱrevealsȱtheȱblurryȱdivisionȱbetweenȱpoliticalȱrationalitiesȱandȱtheirȱassociatedȱtechnologiesȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱactualȱpracticesȱofȱgovernanceȱonȱtheȱother.ȱȱȱ

Theȱ ethnographicȱ turnȱwithinȱ studiesȱ ofȱ neoliberalȱ governmentalitiesȱ isȱ particularlyȱworthȱ takingȱnoteȱofȱbecauseȱ thereȱ isȱwidespreadȱagreementȱ thatȱneoliberalismȱ isȱveryȱcomȬmonlyȱconceptualizedȱasȱaȱgovernmentality,ȱandȱbecauseȱethnographicȱstudiesȱactivelyȱaddressȱwhatȱisȱviewedȱasȱtheȱgovernmentalityȱliterature’sȱ‘Achilles’ȱheel,’ȱnamelyȱitsȱlackȱofȱattentionȱtoȱmultiplicityȱandȱcontext.9ȱBecauseȱ theseȱgovernmentalityȱ inspiredȱethnographiesȱ focusȱonȱactualȱpeopleȱ locatedȱwithinȱaȱspecificȱplaceȱoverȱaȱperiodȱofȱtime,ȱtheȱresearchersȱareȱthrustȱintoȱtheȱmultiplicityȱandȱdynamicsȱofȱeverydayȱsocialȱlife.ȱȱInȱturnȱthisȱgivesȱtheseȱresearchersȱgreaterȱ insightsȱ intoȱ theȱmultiplicityȱofȱpowerȱ relationsȱandȱpracticesȱwithinȱ theȱpresent,ȱasȱwellȱ asȱ theȱ actualȱ processesȱ throughȱwhichȱ subjectivitiesȱ (suchȱ asȱ anȱ enterprisingȱ self)ȱ areȱformed.ȱ ȱMoreȱparticularlyȱthisȱpositioningȱpropelsȱresearchersȱtoȱacknowledgeȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱnonȬliberalȱ rationalitiesȱandȱ toȱ incorporateȱ theseȱ rationalitiesȱ intoȱ theirȱ theoreticalȱ frameȬworks.ȱȱGovernmentalityȱscholarsȱthatȱrelyȱonȱmoreȱtraditionalȱsourcesȱ(archivesȱorȱaȱselectionȱ

pert,ȱSanctuary,ȱSovereignty,ȱSacrifice:ȱCanadianȱSanctuaryȱ Incidents,ȱPower,ȱ andȱLawȱ (Vancouver:ȱUBCȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ226;ȱTaniaȱLi,ȱ“PracticesȱofȱAssemblageȱandȱCommunityȱForestȱManagement,”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ36,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(2007),ȱ263–293;ȱTaniaȱLi,ȱWillȱtoȱImprove:ȱGovernmentality,ȱDevelopment,ȱandȱtheȱPracticeȱofȱPoliticsȱ(Durham,ȱNC,ȱUSA:ȱDukeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2007b);ȱKatharyneȱMitchell,ȱ“NeoliberalȱGovernmentalityȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱUnion:ȱEducation,ȱTraining,ȱandȱTechnologiesȱofȱCitizenship,”ȱEnvironmentȱandȱPlanningȱD:ȱSocietyȱandȱSpace,ȱvol.ȱ24,ȱno.ȱ3ȱ (2006),ȱ389–407;ȱC.ȱMcDonaldȱandȱG.ȱMarston,ȱ“WorkfareȱasȱWelfare:ȱGoverningȱUnemploymentȱinȱtheȱAdvancedȱLiberalȱState,”ȱCriticalȱSocialȱPolicy,ȱvol.ȱ25,ȱno.ȱ3ȱ(2005),ȱ374.ȱ7ȱMichelleȱA.ȱBrady,ȱ“ResearchingȱGovernmentalitiesȱthroughȱEthnography:ȱTheȱCaseȱofȱReformsȱandȱProȬgramsȱforȱSingleȱParents,”ȱCriticalȱPolicyȱStudies,ȱvol.ȱ5,ȱno.ȱ3ȱ(2011),ȱ265–283;ȱMichelleȱBrady,ȱ“InstitutionalȬizedȱIndividualismȱandȱtheȱCareȱofȱtheȱSelf:ȱSingleȱMothersȱandȱtheȱState,”ȱinȱCosmoȱHowardȱ(Ed.),ȱContestȬedȱindividualization:ȱDebatesȱaboutȱcontemporaryȱpersonhoodȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2007)ȱ187–208.ȱȱȱȱ8ȱMitchellȱDean,ȱGovernmentality:ȱPowerȱandȱRuleȱinȱModernȱSocietyȱ(London;ȱThousandȱOaks,ȱCalif.:ȱSageȱPubȬlications,ȱ1999),ȱ229;ȱNikolasȱRoseȱandȱP.ȱMiller,ȱ“PoliticalȱPowerȱBeyondȱtheȱState:ȱProblematicsȱofȱGovernȬment,”ȱBritishȱJournalȱofȱSociology,ȱvol.ȱ61,ȱno.ȱs1ȱ(2010),ȱ275.ȱ9ȱȱS.ȱJ.ȱCollier,ȱ“NeoliberalismȱasȱBigȱLeviathan,ȱOr…?ȱAȱResponseȱtoȱWacquantȱandȱHilgers,”ȱSocialȱAnthroȬpology,ȱvol.ȱ20,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(2012),ȱ186–195;ȱLoicȱWacquant,ȱ“ThreeȱStepsȱtoȱaȱHistoricalȱAnthropologyȱofȱActuallyȱExistingȱNeoliberalism,”ȱSocialȱAnthropology,ȱvol.ȱ20,ȱno.ȱ1ȱ(2012),ȱ66–79;ȱM.ȱHilgers,ȱ“TheȱThreeȱAnthropoȬlogicalȱApproachesȱ toȱNeoliberalism*,”ȱ InternationalȱSocialȱScienceȱ Journal,ȱvol.ȱ61,ȱno.ȱ 202ȱ (2010),ȱ 351–364;ȱFlew,ȱ Sixȱ Theoriesȱ ofȱ Neoliberalism;ȱWendyȱ Larner,ȱ “NeoȬLiberalism:ȱ Policy,ȱ Ideology,ȱ Governmentality,”ȱStudiesȱinȱPoliticalȱEconomy,ȱvol.ȱ63,ȱno.ȱ63ȱ(2000),ȱ5–25.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

14ȱ

ofȱtexts)ȱcanȱmoreȱeffortlesslyȱbracketȱoutȱthisȱmultiplicityȱandȱcomplexity.ȱȱInȱturnȱthisȱallowsȱthemȱtoȱmoreȱeasilyȱconcludeȱ(orȱimply)ȱthatȱneoliberalȱrationalitiesȱactuallyȱareȱtheȱmostȱimȬportantȱrationalityȱwithinȱanȱeverydayȱsocialȱfield.ȱȱAttentivenessȱtoȱtheȱdynamicsȱofȱsocialȱlifeȱwithinȱaȱparticularȱgroupȱorȱspaceȱ (orȱboth)ȱalsoȱsupportsȱgreaterȱattentionȱ toȱ theȱprocessesȱthroughȱwhichȱpoliticalȱalliancesȱareȱformed,ȱasȱwellȱasȱresistancesȱtoȱsuchȱalliancesȱandȱnewȱprogramsȱ ofȱ governance,ȱ andȱ theȱ failuresȱ ofȱ variousȱ plans.ȱ ȱ Thisȱ focusȱ alsoȱ highlightsȱ theȱcomplex,ȱoftenȱcontested,ȱsocialȱprocessesȱthoughȱwhichȱsubjectivitiesȱ(suchȱasȱanȱenterprisingȱself)ȱareȱformed.ȱȱInȱthisȱwayȱtheseȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱavoidȱpolemicȱgenȬeralitiesȱthatȱrenderȱneoliberalȱrationalitiesȱalwaysȱandȱeverywhereȱtheȱsame.ȱȱByȱhighlightingȱtheȱmultiplicityȱofȱpowerȱrelationsȱwithinȱtheȱpresentȱtheyȱmakeȱclearerȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱ(actualȱandȱpotential)ȱspacesȱforȱcontestationȱandȱpositiveȱsocialȱchange.ȱȱȱ

Thisȱ reviewȱ articleȱ illuminatesȱ theȱ importantȱ conceptualȱ andȱ empiricalȱ contributionsȱthatȱethnographiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱmakeȱtoȱtheȱhighlyȱinfluentialȱliteratureȱonȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities.ȱ ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ 1980sȱ socialȱ scientistsȱ suchȱ asȱUlrichȱ Bröckling,ȱMitchellȱDean,ȱPeterȱMiller,ȱThomasȱOsbourneȱandȱNikolasȱRoseȱhaveȱusedȱMichelȱFoucault’sȱstudiesȱ onȱ governmentalityȱ toȱ developȱ highlyȱ influentialȱ accountsȱ ofȱ neoliberalismȱ (orȱ adȬvancedȱliberalism)ȱasȱgovernmentality.10ȱTheseȱaccountsȱareȱwidelyȱcitedȱinȱtheȱcontemporaryȱsocialȱscienceȱ literatureȱonȱneoliberalismȱandȱ thusȱ theȱcontributionsȱ thatȱgovernmentalityȱ inȬspiredȱethnographiesȱmakeȱ toȱ theȱgovernmentalityȱ literatureȱhaveȱ implicationsȱforȱ theȱmuchȱbroaderȱliteratureȱonȱneoliberalism.ȱȱThisȱreviewȱhighlightsȱtheȱcontributionsȱofȱethnographiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱbyȱfirstlyȱclarifyingȱwhatȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱlitȬeratureȱ itȱseemsȱworthȱholdingȱonto,ȱandȱ thoseȱ thatȱmustȱbeȱdiscarded.ȱ ȱSpecifically,ȱthisȱreȬviewȱarguesȱthatȱFoucault’sȱdistinctiveȱ interpretationȱofȱneoliberalismȱ(andȱadvancedȱ liberalȬism)ȱinitiallyȱenabledȱscholarsȱtoȱproduceȱnovelȱanalysesȱofȱneoliberalȱsocialȱchange,ȱbutȱoverȱtimeȱthisȱliteratureȱhasȱfallenȱintoȱtheȱtrapȱofȱtendingȱtoȱidentifyȱliberalismȱorȱneoliberalismȱasȱtheȱonlyȱsignificantȱ formȱofȱpower,ȱandȱproducingȱ“cookieȱcutter”ȱdescriptionsȱofȱneoliberalȱrationalities.ȱ ȱEthnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱreinvigorateȱ theȱ fieldȱofȱgovernȬmentalityȱstudiesȱbyȱproducingȱaccountsȱofȱsocialȱchangeȱthatȱareȱmuchȱcloserȱtoȱtheȱspiritȱofȱFoucault’sȱlateȱlecturesȱonȱgovernmentalityȱandȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱself.ȱȱTheyȱdoȱthisȱbyȱrecognizȬingȱ thatȱ neoliberalȱ rationalitiesȱ areȱ incrediblyȱ influentialȱ andȱ powerful,ȱ butȱ simultaneouslyȱillustratingȱ(throughȱspecificȱempiricalȱstudies)ȱthatȱtheyȱareȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱorȱmainȱfactorsȱshapȬingȱsocialȱlifeȱandȱchange.ȱȱȱ

10ȱU.ȱBröckling,ȱS.ȱKrasmann,ȱ andȱT.ȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱ Issuesȱ andȱFutureȱChallenges,ȱVol.ȱ71ȱ(Taylorȱ&ȱFrancis,ȱ2011);ȱMitchellȱDean,ȱ“AdministeringȱAsceticism:ȱReȬWorkingȱtheȱEthicalȱLifeȱofȱtheȱUnȬemployedȱCitizen,”ȱ inȱMitchellȱDeanȱandȱBarryȱHindessȱ (eds.)ȱGoverningȱAustralia:ȱStudiesȱ inȱContemporaryȱRationalitiesȱofȱGovernmentȱ(Melbourne:ȱAustralia:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ87–107;ȱMitchellȱDean,ȱ“GoverningȱtheȱUnemployedȱSelfȱ inȱanȱActiveȱSociety,”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety.ȱvol.ȱ24,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(1995),ȱ559–583;ȱNikolasȱRose,ȱ“Governingȱ“advanced”ȱLiberalȱDemocracies,“ȱinȱAndrewȱBarry,ȱThomasȱOsbourneȱandȱNiȬkolasȱRoseȱ(eds.)ȱFoucaultȱandȱPoliticalȱReason:ȱLiberalism,ȱNeoliberalismȱandȱRationalitiesȱofȱGovernmentȱȱ(ChicaȬgo:ȱUniversityȱOfȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1996,ȱ1stȱ ed.),ȱ 37–64;ȱP.ȱMillerȱ andȱNikolasȱRose,ȱ“GoverningȱEconomicȱLife,”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ19,ȱno.ȱ1ȱ(1990),ȱ1–31;ȱP.ȱMillerȱandȱNikolasȱRose,ȱ“PoliticalȱThoughtȱandȱtheȱLimitsȱofȱOrthodoxy:ȱAȱResponseȱtoȱCurtis,”ȱTheȱBritishȱJournalȱofȱSociology,ȱvol.ȱ46,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(1995),ȱ590–597.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

15

Theȱstructureȱofȱthisȱarticleȱ isȱasȱfollows:ȱTheȱfirstȱsectionȱ locatesȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱwithinȱaȱbroaderȱ setȱofȱdebatesȱonȱneoliberalismȱasȱgovernmentality,ȱandȱneoliberalismȱinȱgeneral.ȱȱItȱreviewsȱtheȱmajorȱcritiquesȱofȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentaliȬties,ȱincludingȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱproduceȱ“cookieȱcutter”ȱexplanationsȱforȱneoliberalȱreforms,ȱtheȱfailureȱtoȱbeȱopenȱtoȱtheȱunexpected,ȱanȱomissionȱofȱminorȱneoliberalȱthinkers,ȱandȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱviewȱrelationsȱofȱpowerȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱsingularȱapparatus.ȱȱThisȱarticleȱprovidesȱaȱveryȱbriefȱreviewȱofȱanȱanalyticsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱandȱtheȱreaderȱwhoȱisȱentirelyȱunfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱapproachȱ isȱ referredȱ toȱcomprehensiveȱoverviewsȱelsewhere.11ȱTheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱ theȱarticleȱexplicitlyȱconsidersȱtheȱcontributionȱmadeȱbyȱethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities.ȱȱȱ

ȱLocatingȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱToȱ appreciateȱ theȱ contributionȱmadeȱ byȱ ethnographiesȱ ofȱ neoliberalȱ governmentalitiesȱ oneȱmustȱunderstandȱ theȱ contributionȱ thatȱ studiesȱ ofȱneoliberalȱ governmentalityȱhaveȱmadeȱ toȱbroaderȱ socialȱ scienceȱdebatesȱ aboutȱneoliberalismȱ andȱ inȱ turnȱ theȱmajorȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ theseȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities,ȱ includingȱ theȱ criticismȱ thatȱ theyȱdivergeȱ fromȱFouȬcault’sȱownȱ finalȱ thinkingȱonȱgovernmentalityȱ andȱpracticesȱofȱ theȱ self.ȱ ȱHowever,ȱ firstȱweȱmustȱanswerȱ theȱquestion;ȱwhatȱ isȱneoliberalism?ȱAcademics’ȱuseȱofȱ theȱ termȱneoliberalismȱgrewȱenormouslyȱduringȱtheȱ2000s,ȱwithȱitȱbeingȱlinkedȱtoȱaȱdisorientatingȱrangeȱofȱchanges—everythingȱfromȱglobalȱfinancialȱderegulationȱtoȱtheȱriseȱofȱBollywoodȱfilmsȱandȱtheȱtransforȬmationȱofȱeducation.12ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱtheȱtermȱhasȱdevelopedȱaȱclearȱ“negativeȱnormativeȱvalence”ȱ—thoseȱwhoȱembraceȱ theȱkindsȱofȱeconomicȱandȱpoliticalȱchangeȱ toȱwhichȱ itȱrefersȱrarelyȱuseȱtheȱtermȱ‘neoliberalism’.13ȱAddingȱtoȱtheȱterm’sȱcomplexity,ȱwhileȱmanyȱofȱtheȱsoȬcialȱandȱeconomicȱchangesȱassociatedȱwithȱneoliberalismȱareȱnotȱnew,ȱtheȱtermȱitselfȱis.ȱȱWorkȱduringȱtheȱ1990sȱmoreȱcommonlyȱreferredȱtoȱtheȱsignificantȱeconomicȱandȱpoliticalȱchangeȱofȱtheȱ1980sȱasȱadvancedȱliberalism,14ȱtheȱ‘newȱright,’15ȱorȱ‘economicȱrationalism.’16ȱTheȱtermȱneȬoliberalismȱonlyȱbecameȱcommonȱinȱacademicȱandȱactivistȱcirclesȱduringȱtheȱ2000s.ȱȱNeoliberalȱprocessesȱ ofȱ transformationȱ areȱ commonlyȱ identifiedȱ asȱ financialȱ deregulationȱ andȱ flexibleȱlabourȱmarkets,17ȱanȱ“emphasisȱonȱ individualȱ responsibility,”18ȱprivatizationȱandȱmarketizaȬ 11ȱBröckling,ȱKrasmannȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges;ȱW.ȱLarnerȱandȱWilȬliamȱWalters,ȱGlobalȱGovernmentality:ȱGoverningȱInternationalȱSpacesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2004).ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ12ȱ Boasȱ andȱ GansȬMorse,ȱ Neoliberalism:ȱ Fromȱ Newȱ Liberalȱ Philosophyȱ toȱ AntiȬLiberalȱ Slogan,ȱ 137–161;ȱ S.ȱ L.ȱMudge,ȱ“Whatȱ isȱNeoȬLiberalism?”ȱSocioȬEconomicȱReview,ȱvol.ȱ6,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(2008),ȱ703–731;ȱ ȱTrentȱH.ȱHamann,ȱ“Neoliberalism,ȱGovernmentality,ȱandȱEthics,”ȱFoucaultȱStudiesȱ(2009),ȱ37–59.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ13ȱBoasȱandȱGansȬMorse,ȱNeoliberalism:ȱFromȱNewȱLiberalȱPhilosophyȱtoȱAntiȬLiberalȱSlogan,ȱ137–161.ȱȱ14ȱA.ȱBarryȱandȱT.ȱOsborne,ȱFoucaultȱandȱPoliticalȱReason:ȱLiberalism,ȱNeoȬLiberalism,ȱandȱRationalitiesȱofȱGovernȬmentȱ (Chicago:ȱUniversityȱ ofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ 1996);ȱRose,ȱGoverningȱ “advanced”ȱ LiberalȱDemocracies,ȱ 37–64;ȱNikolasȱRose,ȱPowersȱofȱFreedom:ȱReframingȱPoliticalȱThoughtȱ(Cambridge,ȱUnitedȱKingdom;ȱNewȱYork,ȱNY:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ321.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ15ȱR.ȱLevitas,ȱTheȱIdeologyȱofȱtheȱNewȱRight,ȱeditedȱbyȱRuthȱLevitasȱ(PolityȱPress,ȱ1986);ȱD.ȱS.ȱKing,ȱTheȱNewȱRight:ȱPolitics,ȱMarketsȱandȱCitizenshipȱ(DorseyȱPress,ȱ1987).ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ16ȱM.ȱPusey,ȱEconomicȱRationalismȱinȱCanberra:ȱAȱNationȬBuildingȱStateȱChangesȱitsȱMindȱ(CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989).ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ17ȱHilgers,ȱTheȱThreeȱAnthropologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱNeoliberalism*,ȱ351–364;ȱN.ȱBrennerȱandȱN.ȱTheodore,ȱ“CitȬiesȱandȱtheȱGeographiesȱofȱ“actuallyȱExistingȱNeoliberalism””ȱAntipode,ȱvol.ȱ34,ȱno.ȱ3ȱ(2002),ȱ349–379.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

16ȱ

tionȱofȱgovernmentȱservices,19ȱandȱpromotionȱofȱindividualȱchoice.ȱȱYet,ȱthereȱareȱconsiderableȱareasȱofȱempiricalȱdisagreement.ȱȱOneȱisȱwhetherȱneoliberalismȱinvolvesȱtheȱrestrictionȱorȱtheȱreconfigurationȱ andȱ evenȱ expansionȱofȱ stateȱ intervention.20ȱAnotherȱdisagreementȱ relatesȱ toȱwhetherȱneoliberalismȱisȱopposedȱtoȱ“collectivism”21ȱorȱactuallyȱpromotesȱcertainȱkindsȱofȱcolȬlectivism,ȱsuchȱasȱselfȬreliantȱcommunities?22ȱȱ

WeȱcanȱonlyȱanswerȱtheseȱquestionsȱifȱweȱareȱclearȱaboutȱtheȱontologicalȱstatusȱofȱneȬoliberalism,ȱnamelyȱtheȱkindȱofȱsocialȱobjectȱthatȱneoliberalismȱis.ȱȱManyȱworksȱhaveȱattemptȬedȱ toȱdistinguishȱ theȱdifferentȱ approachesȱ toȱneoliberalism.ȱ ȱLarner’s23ȱ seminalȱ typologyȱofȱneoliberalismȱ asȱ policyȱ framework,ȱ ideology,ȱ andȱ governmentalityȱ hasȱmoreȱ recentlyȱ beenȱjoinedȱbyȱalternativeȱgroupingsȱproposedȱbyȱStegerȱandȱRoy24,ȱHilgers,25ȱFlew,26ȱCollier,27ȱandȱWacquant.28ȱTakenȱtogetherȱtheseȱscholarsȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱneoliberalismȱisȱusedȱtoȱmean:ȱaȱdominantȱideology,ȱaȱsystemȱofȱsocialȱrelations,ȱaȱtypeȱofȱculture,ȱaȱpolicyȱpackage,ȱaȱmodeȱofȱgovernance,ȱ aȱ policyȱ frame,ȱ aȱ governmentality,ȱ aȱ politicalȱ rationality,ȱ anȱ AngloȬAmericanȱformȱ ofȱ capitalism,ȱ aȱ thingȱwhichȱdeterminesȱ allȱ otherȱ thingsȱ inȱ theȱ socialȱ field,ȱ orȱ anȱ allȬpurposeȱdenunciatoryȱcategory.29ȱ

ȱObviouslyȱthereȱisȱsignificantȱoverlapȱinȱtheseȱwaysȱofȱcategorizingȱneoliberalismȱandȱsomeȱapproachesȱareȱlessȱcommonȱthanȱothers.ȱȱNeoliberalismȱasȱpolicyȱframeworkȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȱwaysȱofȱcharacterizingȱtheȱradicalȱpoliticalȱandȱpolicyȱupheavalsȱofȱtheȱlateȱ1970sȱandȱ1980sȱbutȱ itȱhasȱbecomeȱ increasinglyȱovershadowedȱbyȱresearchȱthatȱunderstandsȱneoliberalȬismȱasȱaȱdominantȱideologyȱ“disseminatedȱbyȱhegemonicȱeconomicȱandȱpoliticalȱgroups”30ȱinȱorderȱtoȱ“restoreȱcapitalistȱclassȱpower,”31ȱorȱasȱgovernmentality.ȱȱȱ

18ȱMitchellȱDean,ȱGovernmentality:ȱPowerȱandȱRuleȱinȱModernȱSocietyȱ(SageȱPublicationsȱLimited,ȱ2009);ȱBröckȬling,ȱKrasmann,ȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges;ȱHilgers,ȱTheȱThreeȱAnthroȬpologicalȱApproachesȱ toȱNeoliberalism*,ȱ 351–364;ȱNikolasȱRose,ȱPowersȱ ofȱFreedom:ȱReframingȱPoliticalȱThoughtȱ(CambridgeȱCambridgeshire;ȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ321.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ19ȱBrennerȱandȱTheodore,ȱCitiesȱandȱtheȱGeographiesȱofȱ“actuallyȱExistingȱNeoliberalism”,ȱ349–379;ȱDean,ȱGovernȬmentality:ȱPowerȱandȱRuleȱinȱModernȱSociety.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ.ȱ20ȱHilgers,ȱTheȱThreeȱAnthropologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱNeoliberalism*,ȱ351–364;ȱHarvey,ȱAȱBriefȱHistoryȱofȱNeoliberalȬism;ȱJ.ȱFerguson,ȱGlobalȱShadows:ȱAfricaȱinȱtheȱNeoliberalȱWorldȱOrderȱ(DukeȱUniversityȱPressȱBooks,ȱ2006)ȱ.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ21ȱHilgers,ȱTheȱThreeȱAnthropologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱNeoliberalism*,ȱ351–364.ȱȱ22ȱNikolasȱRose,ȱ“Community,ȱCitizenship,ȱandȱtheȱThirdȱWay,”ȱAmericanȱBehavioralȱScientist,ȱvol.ȱ43,ȱno.ȱ9ȱ(2000),ȱ1395.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ23ȱLarner,ȱNeoȬLiberalism:ȱPolicy,ȱIdeology,ȱGovernmentality,ȱ5–25.ȱȱ24ȱM.ȱB.ȱStegerȱandȱR.ȱK.ȱRoy,ȱNeoliberalism:ȱAȱveryȱShortȱIntroductionȱ(NewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUP,ȱ2010).ȱȱȱȱȱȱ25ȱHilgers,ȱTheȱThreeȱAnthropologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱNeoliberalism*,ȱ351–364ȱȱ26ȱFlew,ȱMichelȱFoucault’sȱtheȱBirthȱofȱBiopoliticsȱandȱContemporaryȱNeoȬLiberalismȱDebates,ȱ44–65ȱȱ27ȱCollier,ȱNeoliberalismȱasȱBigȱLeviathan,ȱOr…?ȱAȱResponseȱtoȱWacquantȱandȱHilgers,ȱ186–195ȱȱ28ȱWacquant,ȱThreeȱStepsȱtoȱaȱHistoricalȱAnthropologyȱofȱActuallyȱExistingȱNeoliberalism,ȱ66–79ȱȱ29ȱWhileȱneoliberalismȱ isȱusuallyȱviewedȱasȱaȱsingularȱobject,ȱStegerȱandȱRoyȱargueȱ thatȱneoliberalismȱhasȱthreeȱ“intertwinedȱmanifestations:ȱ (1)ȱanȱ ideology;ȱ (2)ȱaȱmodeȱofȱgovernanceȱ (3)ȱaȱpolicyȱpackage”ȱStegerȱandȱRoy,ȱNeoliberalism:ȱAȱveryȱShortȱIntroduction.ȱȱ30ȱLarner,ȱNeoȬLiberalism:ȱPolicy,ȱIdeology,ȱGovernmentality,ȱ12.ȱȱ31ȱB.ȱVanȱApeldoornȱetȱal.,ȱ“BeyondȱNeoliberalȱImperialism?ȱtheȱCrisisȱofȱAmericanȱEmpire,”ȱNeoliberalismȱinȱCrisisȱ(2012),ȱ207–228.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

17

AsȱCollierȱperceptivelyȱnotes,ȱ scholarsȱwhoȱunderstandȱneoliberalismȱ asȱ aȱdominantȱideologyȱtendȱtoȱtreatȱ“neoliberalismȱasȱbigger,ȱstronger,ȱmoreȱstructuralȱandȱstructuringȱthanȱotherȱ thingsȱ inȱ theȱ field,ȱasȱ indeedȱdeterminativeȱofȱ thoseȱ things,ȱ suchȱ thatȱweȱ canȱ callȱ theȱwholeȱmessȱ neoliberalism.”32ȱCulturalȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ neoliberalismȱ areȱ theȱmostȱ recentȱadditionsȱ toȱ theȱ literatureȱ inȱ largeȱpartȱbecauseȱanthropologistsȱhaveȱbeenȱ lateȱ inȱembracingȱtheȱtopicȱofȱneoliberalism.33ȱHowever,ȱculturalȱanthropologistsȱareȱnotȱaloneȱinȱunderstandingȱneoliberalismȱ asȱ cultureȱ withȱ politicalȱ sociologistsȱ alsoȱ concludingȱ thatȱ similarȱ empiricalȱchangesȱresultȱfromȱculturalȱtransformation.34ȱTheȱfourthȱapproachȱtoȱunderstandingȱneoliberȬalism—andȱtheȱfocusȱofȱthisȱreviewȱarticle—isȱgovernmentality.ȱȱȱȱAdvancedȱLiberalism/Neoliberalism:ȱStudiesȱofȱGovernmentalityȱ inȱ theȱEnglishȱSpeakingȱWorldȱContemporaryȱ studiesȱ ofȱ neoliberalismȱ asȱ governmentality,ȱ includingȱ ethnographiesȱ ofȱ neȬoliberalȱgovernmentalities,ȱbuildȱuponȱMichelȱFoucault’sȱworkȱonȱgovernmentalities,ȱpoliticalȱrationalitiesȱandȱneoliberalism.35ȱWhileȱtheseȱwritingsȱhaveȱinspiredȱaȱlargeȱliteratureȱonȱliberȬalȱ andȱ neoliberalȱ politicalȱ rationalities,ȱ Foucaultȱ himselfȱ neverȱ publishedȱ aȱmajorȱworkȱ onȱtheseȱ topicsȱandȱEnglishȱspeakingȱacademicsȱ inȱparticularȱhaveȱoverwhelminglyȱ reliedȱonȱaȱveryȱwideȱrangeȱofȱsecondaryȱaccountsȱincludingȱstudiesȱfromȱFoucault’sȱcollaborators,36ȱpubȬlishedȱ summariesȱandȱ interpretationsȱofȱFoucault’sȱCollegeȱdeȱFranceȱ lectures,37ȱandȱmonoȬ

32ȱCollier,ȱNeoliberalismȱasȱBigȱLeviathan,ȱOr…?ȱAȱResponseȱtoȱWacquantȱandȱHilgers,ȱ191.ȱȱ33ȱHilgers,ȱTheȱThreeȱAnthropologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱNeoliberalism*,ȱ351–364ȱȱ34ȱForȱexampleȱseeȱL.ȱBoltanskiȱandȱE.ȱChiapello,ȱ“TheȱNewȱSpiritȱofȱCapitalism,”ȱInternationalȱJournalȱofȱPoliȬtics,ȱCulture,ȱ andȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ 18,ȱno.ȱ 3ȱ (2005),ȱ 161–188;ȱPusey,ȱEconomicȱRationalismȱ inȱCanberra:ȱAȱNationȬBuildingȱStateȱChangesȱitsȱMind.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ35ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱEthics:ȱEssentialȱWorksȱofȱFoucaultȱ1954–1984ȱVolumeȱIIȱ(Victoria,ȱAustralia:ȱPenguin,ȱ2000);ȱMichelȱ Foucault,ȱ Theȱ Birthȱ ofȱ Biopoliticsȱ (Hampshire,ȱ Englandȱ &ȱNewȱ York:ȱ PalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ 2008);ȱMichelȱ Foucaultȱ etȱ al.,ȱ Technologiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Self:ȱAȱ SeminarȱwithȱMichelȱ Foucaultȱ (MassachusettsȱUP,ȱ 1988);ȱMichelȱ Foucault,ȱ “Governmentality,”ȱ Ideologyȱ&ȱConsciousness,ȱ vol.ȱ 6ȱ (1979),ȱ 5–21;ȱMichelȱ Foucault,ȱ “TheȱEthicȱofȱCareȱofȱtheȱSelfȱasȱaȱPracticeȱofȱFreedom:ȱAnȱInterview,”ȱinȱJamesȱWilliamȱBernauerȱandȱDavidȱM.ȱRasmussenȱ (eds),ȱ J.ȱD.ȱGauthierȱ (trans.)ȱ ȱ Theȱ Finalȱ Foucaultȱ (Cambridge:ȱMITȱ Press,ȱ 1988,ȱ 1stȱ ed.),ȱ 1–20;ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱ“OnȱtheȱGenealogyȱofȱEthics:ȱAnȱOverviewȱofȱWorkȱinȱProgress,”ȱinȱPaulȱRabinowȱ(eds.)ȱTheȱFoucaultȱReaderȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPantheonȱBooks,ȱ1984),ȱ340–72;ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱ“AboutȱtheȱBeginningsȱofȱtheȱHermeneuticsȱofȱtheȱSelf,”ȱinȱJeremyȱR.ȱCarretteȱ(eds),ȱReligionȱandȱCultureȱ(ManchesterȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1987),ȱ158–181.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ36ȱȱTheseȱincludeȱFrançoisȱEwald,ȱPasqualeȱPasquino,ȱDanielȱDefert,ȱandȱJacquesȱDonzelot,ȱallȱofȱwhomȱpubȬlishedȱtheirȱownȱinfluentialȱstudiesȱonȱtheȱproductionȱofȱautonomousȱrationalitiesȱforȱgovernmentȱ(‘governȬmentalities’)ȱandȱgovernmentalȱtechnologies.ȱU.ȱBröckling,ȱS.ȱKrasmannȱandȱT.ȱLemke,ȱeds.,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallengesȱ(NewȱYork,ȱNY:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2011,ȱ1stȱed.);ȱJ.ȱDonzelotȱandȱColinȱGordon,ȱ“GoverningȱLiberalȱSocieties:ȱTheȱFoucaultȱEffectȱ inȱ theȱEnglishȬSpeakingȱWorld,”ȱ inȱM.ȱA.ȱPeters,ȱ et.ȱ al.ȱ(eds.),ȱ Governmentalityȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Educationȱ (Rotterdam:ȱ Senseȱ Publishers,ȱ 2009),ȱ 3–16;ȱ M.ȱ Foucault,ȱ G.ȱBurchell,ȱC.ȱGordon,ȱandȱP.ȱMillerȱ(eds.),ȱTheȱFoucaultȱEffect:ȱStudiesȱinȱGovernmentalityȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1991).ȱȱȱȱȱȱ37ȱColinȱGordon,ȱ“TheȱSoulȱofȱtheȱCitizen:ȱMaxȱWeberȱandȱMichelȱFoucaultȱonȱRationalityȱandȱGovernment,”ȱinȱS.ȱLashȱandȱS.ȱWhimsterȱ(eds.),ȱMaxȱWeber:ȱRationalityȱandȱModernityȱ(London:ȱAllenȱ&ȱUnwin,ȱ1987),ȱ293–316;ȱColinȱGordon,ȱ“GovernmentalȱRationality:ȱAnȱIntroduction,”ȱinȱP.ȱMiller,ȱColinȱGordonȱandȱG.ȱBurchellȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

18ȱ

graphsȱonȱgovernmentalityȱandȱneoliberalism/advancedȱliberalismȱbyȱsociologistsȱsuchȱasȱNiȬkolasȱRoseȱandȱMitchelȱDean,38ȱtogetherȱwithȱaȱhandfulȱofȱFoucault’sȱownȱwritings.39ȱArguablyȱFoucault’sȱcollaboratorsȱandȱsecondaryȱsourcesȱhaveȱshapedȱourȱunderstandingȱofȱanȱanalytȬicsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱfarȱmoreȱ thanȱFoucault’sȱownȱreflections,ȱandȱasȱ Iȱelaborateȱ laterȱ thisȱmattersȱbecauseȱmanyȱ interpretationsȱdivergeȱ inȱ importantȱwaysȱfromȱ theȱmethodologyȱandȱstyleȱinȱhisȱlatestȱwork.ȱȱȱ

DespiteȱFoucaultȱpublishingȱveryȱlittleȱofȱhisȱworkȱonȱgovernmentalityȱduringȱhisȱlifeȬtime,ȱhisȱ shortȱwritingsȱwereȱquicklyȱ embracedȱ byȱAngloȬAmericanȱ scholarsȱkeenȱ toȱmakeȱsenseȱofȱtheȱimmenseȱpoliticalȱchangesȱstartingȱinȱtheȱlateȱ1970sȱ–ȱtheȱriseȱofȱtheȱ“newȱright”ȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱKingdomȱ andȱNorthȱAmericaȱ andȱ ‘economicȱ rationalism’ȱ inȱAustraliaȱandȱNewȱZealand.ȱ ȱFoucault’sȱ analyticalȱ emphasisȱ onȱ governanceȱ asȱ theȱ conductȱ ofȱ conductȱ andȱ esȬchewalȱofȱtheȱideaȱthatȱstateȱpowerȱemanatesȱfromȱaȱsingleȱsourceȱ(theȱeconomyȱorȱtheȱstate)ȱresonatedȱwithȱ theȱemergingȱemphasisȱonȱ ‘politicsȱ“beyondȱ theȱstate,”ȱandȱnewȱgovernanceȱarrangements,ȱ includingȱpublicȬprivateȱpartnerships.ȱ ȱThisȱnewȱemphasisȱemanatedȱnotȱonlyȱfromȱtheȱnewȱright,ȱbutȱalsoȱfromȱnewȱfeministȱpoliticsȱofȱpersonalȱlife,ȱandȱnewȱclientȱrightsȱbasedȱcritiquesȱofȱbureaucracy.ȱȱAllȱofȱtheseȱcritiquesȱgesturedȱtoȱnewȱwaysȱofȱthinkingȱaboutȱpoliticsȱ andȱgovernance,40ȱ andȱ theyȱ challengedȱ traditionalȱdivisionsȱofȱ freedomȱversusȱ conȬstraint,ȱstateȱexpansionȱversusȱstateȱretractionȱandȱpublicȱversusȱprivate.ȱ ȱScholarsȱembracedȱFoucault’sȱconceptualizationȱofȱgovernanceȱasȱgovernmentalityȱbecauseȱitȱenabledȱthemȱtoȱgoȱbeyondȱtheseȱstaidȱdivisionsȱandȱgraspȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱtheȱ‘newȱright’ȱinȱmoreȱnuancedȱways.ȱȱAsȱDonzelot,ȱoneȱofȱFoucault’sȱFrenchȱcollaborators,ȱarguedȱ inȱhisȱ1979ȱarticle,ȱ itȱwasȱnecesȬsaryȱtoȱceaseȱviewingȱtheȱstateȱasȱaȱsingularȱsourceȱofȱpowerȱandȱinsteadȱconsiderȱitȱasȱanȱefȬfectȱofȱgovernmentalȱtechnologies:ȱ

ȱ

(eds.),ȱTheȱFoucaultȱEffect:ȱStudiesȱ inȱGovernmentalityȱ (Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ1–52;ȱT.ȱLemke,ȱ“ȇTheȱBirthȱofȱBioȬPoliticsȇ:ȱMichelȱFoucaultȇsȱLectureȱatȱtheȱCollegeȱDeȱFranceȱonȱNeoȬLiberalȱGovȬernmentality,”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ30,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(2001),ȱ190–207;ȱT.ȱLemke,ȱ“Foucault,ȱGovernmentalityȱandȱCritique”ȱ (andosciasociology.net,ȱ 2000,ȱ web)ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ :ȱȱȱȱȱhttp://www.andosciasociology.net/resources/Foucault$2C+Governmentality$2C+and+Critique+IVȬ2.pdfȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ38ȱM.ȱDean,ȱCriticalȱandȱEffectiveȱHistories:ȱFoucaultȇsȱMethodsȱandȱHistoricalȱSociologyȱ (NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1994);ȱRose,ȱPowersȱofȱFreedom:ȱReframingȱPoliticalȱThought,ȱ321;ȱNikolasȱRose,ȱP.ȱOȇMalleyȱandȱM.ȱValverde,ȱ“Governmentality,”ȱAnnualȱReviewȱofȱLawȱandȱSocialȱScience,ȱvol.ȱ2ȱ(2006),ȱ83–104;ȱDean,ȱGovernmentality:ȱPowȬerȱandȱRuleȱinȱModernȱSociety.ȱȱ39ȱ ȱTheseȱ includeȱ theȱ1978ȱ lectureȱonȱgovernmentalityȱandȱanȱ interviewȱ“QuestionsȱofȱMethod”,ȱbothȱpubȬlishedȱinȱIdeologyȱandȱConsciousness,ȱaȱseriesȱofȱlecturesȱdeliveredȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱduringȱtheȱ lateȱ1970sȱandȱearlyȱ1980sȱ(J.ȱDonzelotȱandȱColinȱGordon,ȱ“GoverningȱLiberalȱSocieties”,ȱ3–16;ȱFoucault,ȱBurchell,ȱGorȬdon,ȱandȱMiller,ȱTheȱFoucaultȱEffect)ȱandȱsomeȱofȱtheȱessays,ȱinterviewsȱandȱCollegeȱdeȱFranceȱcourseȱsumȬmariesȱpublishedȱinȱtheȱthreeȱvolumeȱseriesȱEssentialȱworksȱofȱFoucault:ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱAesthetics:ȱEssentialȱWorksȱofȱFoucaultȱ1954–1984ȱVolumeȱ1ȱ (Victoria,ȱAustralia:ȱPenguin,ȱ2000);ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱEthics:ȱEssentialȱWorksȱofȱFoucaultȱ1954–1984ȱVolumeȱIIȱ(Victoria,ȱAustralia:ȱPenguin,ȱ2000);ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱPower:ȱEssentialȱWorksȱofȱFoucault,ȱ1954–1984,ȱVolumeȱIIIȱ(Victoria,ȱAustralia:ȱPenguin,ȱ2002).ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ40ȱAnnaȱYeatman,ȱBureaucrats,ȱTechnocrats,ȱ Femocrats:ȱEssaysȱ onȱ theȱContemporaryȱAustralianȱ Stateȱ (Sydney:ȱAllenȱ&ȱUnwin,ȱ1990),ȱ197.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

19

Weȱwouldȱhaveȱthenȱnotȱaȱpowerȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱundergoȱit,ȱbut,ȱasȱFoucaultȱshows,ȱtechȬnologies,ȱ thatȱ isȱ toȱ sayȱ alwaysȱ localȱ andȱmultiple,ȱ intertwiningȱ coherentȱorȱ contradictoryȱformsȱofȱactivatingȱandȱmanagingȱaȱpopulation,ȱandȱstrategies,ȱtheȱformulaeȱofȱgovernmentȱ[…]ȱtheoriesȱwhichȱexplainȱrealityȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱextentȱthatȱtheyȱenableȱtheȱimplementationȱofȱaȱprogram,ȱtheȱgenerationȱofȱactions;ȱtheyȱprovideȱthroughȱtheirȱcoherenceȱaȱ‘practicalȱobȬject’ȱ(practicable)ȱforȱcorrectiveȱinterventionȱofȱgovernmentȱprogrammesȱofȱredirection.41ȱȱ

ȱInȱaȱ laterȱ issueȱofȱtheȱsameȱ journalȱFoucaultȱpublishedȱhisȱGovernmentalityȱessay,ȱ(basedȱonȱhisȱ fourthȱ lectureȱ fromȱhisȱ1977–78ȱ lecturesȱ (Security,ȱTerritory,ȱPopulation))ȱwhereȱheȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱcommonȱgroundȱofȱallȱmodernȱformsȱofȱpoliticalȱthoughtȱandȱactionȱisȱaȱcertainȱmenȬtalityȱ forȱwhichȱ heȱ coinedȱ theȱ termȱ governmentality.ȱ ȱHereȱ heȱdefinedȱ governmentalityȱ orȱmentalitiesȱofȱgovernanceȱasȱ1)ȱ“theȱensembleȱformedȱbyȱtheȱinstitutions,ȱprocedures,ȱanalysesȱandȱreflections,ȱtheȱcalculationsȱandȱtacticsȱthatȱallowȱtheȱexerciseȱofȱthisȱveryȱspecificȱcomplexȱformȱofȱpower,ȱwhichȱhasȱ itsȱ targetȱpopulationȱasȱ itsȱprincipalȱ formȱofȱknowledgeȱpoliticalȱeconomyȱandȱasȱ itsȱessentialȱ technicalȱmeansȱapparatusesȱofȱsecurity”;ȱ2)ȱ theȱ tendencyȱoverȱtimeȱ forȱ thisȱ typeȱofȱpowerȱ toȱgainȱpreȬeminenceȱoverȱotherȱ formsȱofȱpower;ȱ3)ȱ theȱprocessȱthroughȱwhichȱ theȱadministrativeȱstateȱbecameȱgovernmentalizedȱ inȱ theȱ15thȱandȱ16thȱcentuȬries.42ȱGovernmentalityȱthusȱrefersȱtoȱaȱhistoricallyȱspecificȱwayȱofȱthinkingȱaboutȱrulingȱthatȱemergedȱinȱtheȱ18thȱcentury,ȱandȱmoreȱspecificallyȱanȱapproachȱtoȱgovernanceȱthatȱattemptsȱtoȱ‘conductȱ theȱ conduct’ȱofȱothersȱbasedȱonȱ anȱunderstandingȱofȱ theirȱ intrinsicȱnatureȱ (forȱ inȬstanceȱgoverningȱdiseaseȱthroughȱunderstandingȱitsȱregularitiesȱandȱpatterns).ȱȱHeȱarguedȱthatȱupȱuntilȱtheȱ18thȱcenturyȱgovernmentȱwasȱguidedȱbyȱpreȬexistingȱprinciples,ȱsuchȱasȱreligiousȱdoctrine,ȱbutȱ thisȱrelianceȱonȱanȱexternalȱprincipleȱwasȱslowlyȱdisplacedȱbyȱnewȱconcernsȱ toȱstrengthenȱ theȱ state,43ȱ andȱ asȱ liberalȱ rationalitiesȱ forȱgovernmentȱ emergedȱ thereȱwasȱ aȱnewȱrelianceȱonȱgoverningȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱ“intrinsicȱnature”ȱofȱtheȱobjectsȱthatȱwereȱgoverned.ȱȱȱ

OverȱaȱsevenȬyearȱperiodȱ(1977–84)ȱFoucaultȱputȱthisȱdistinctȱapproachȱtoȱworkȱinȱorȬderȱ toȱ identifyȱmultipleȱ rationalitiesȱ includingȱ pastoralȱ power,ȱ theȱ police,ȱ liberalȱ andȱ neoȬliberalȱrationalities.ȱȱAsȱheȱstressedȱinȱhisȱlectureȱseries,ȱSecurity,ȱTerritory,ȱPopulationȱ(1977–78)ȱitȱ isȱonlyȱvariantsȱofȱ liberalȱ rationalitiesȱ thatȱareȱ fullyȱautonomousȱpoliticalȱ rationalitiesȱbeȬcauseȱtheyȱareȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ“intrinsicȱnature”ȱofȱtheȱobjectsȱthatȱareȱgoverned.44ȱLiberalismȱisȱthusȱanȱautonomousȱrationalityȱbecauseȱitȱisȱconcernedȱwithȱensuringȱtheȱsecurityȱofȱpopulaȬtionsȱwithinȱ territoriesȱ throughȱ techniquesȱ ofȱ governmentȱ thatȱ respectȱ theȱ regularitiesȱ andȱprocessesȱ intrinsicȱ toȱ theȱ economyȱ andȱ population.ȱ ȱ Theȱmarketȱ isȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ selfȬregulatingȱrealmȱ thatȱ theȱstateȱshouldȱnotȱ interfereȱwith.ȱ ȱAȱconstantȱconcernȱofȱ liberalȱgovȬernmentȱ isȱgoverningȱ“tooȱmuch.”ȱThusȱ liberalȱgovernmentȱcontrastsȱwithȱ theȱ rationalityȱofȱ

41ȱJ.ȱDonzelot,ȱ“TheȱPovertyȱofȱPoliticalȱCulture,”ȱIdeologyȱ&ȱConsciousness,ȱvol.ȱ5ȱ(1979),ȱ73–86.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ42ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱ“Governmentality,”ȱinȱPaulȱRabinowȱandȱNikolasȱRoseȱ(eds.),ȱTheȱEssentialȱFoucault:ȱSelecȬtionsȱfromȱtheȱEssentialȱWorksȱofȱFoucault,ȱ1954–1984ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱNewȱPress,ȱ2003),ȱ229–245.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ43ȱB.ȱHindess,ȱ“PoliticsȱandȱGovernmentality,”ȱ Internationalȱ JournalȱofȱHumanȱResourceȱManagement,ȱvol.ȱ26,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(1997),ȱ278;ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱ“OmnesȱEtȱSingulatimȇ:ȱTowardȱaȱCritiqueȱofȱPoliticalȱReason,”ȱ inȱPaulȱRabinowȱ(ed.),ȱPower:ȱEssentialsȱWorksȱofȱMichelȱFoucaultȱ1954–1984ȱ(NY:ȱPenguin,ȱ2002),ȱ278ȱȱȱ44ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱSecurity,ȱTerritory,ȱPopulationȱ:ȱLecturesȱatȱtheȱCollègeȱDeȱFrance,ȱ1977–78ȱ(Basingstokeȱ;ȱNewȱYork:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2007),ȱ417.ȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

20ȱ

theȱpoliceȱthatȱhadȱaȱconstantȱconcernȱthatȱ“notȱenoughȱattentionȱisȱbeingȱgivenȱtoȱthings.”ȱLibȬeralȱgovernmentȱ constantlyȱasks:ȱ“amȱ Iȱgoverningȱatȱ theȱborderȱbetweenȱ tooȱmuchȱandȱ tooȱlittle?”45ȱȱ

Withinȱhisȱ1977–78ȱandȱ1978–79ȱCollegeȱdeȱFranceȱlecturesȱandȱhisȱ1979ȱTannerȱLectureȱ“OmnesȱetȱSingulatim,”ȱFoucaultȱ focusedȱonȱrelativelyȱautonomousȱ technologiesȱofȱ theȱself,ȱwhichȱ resonatedȱwithȱanȱ emergingȱpublicȱpolicyȱ interestȱ inȱgoverningȱ individualsȱ atȱ aȱdisȬtance.46ȱWhereasȱ inȱDisciplineȱ andȱ Punishȱ (D&P)ȱ Foucaultȱ hadȱ emphasizedȱ technologiesȱ ofȱpower/domination,47ȱ inȱ hisȱ workȱ onȱ governmentalitiesȱ heȱ examinedȱ theȱ processȱ throughȱwhichȱsubjectsȱareȱencouragedȱtoȱconductȱtheirȱownȱconductȱthroughȱprocessesȱofȱpersuasionȱandȱenticementȱratherȱ thanȱmoreȱstraightforwardȱsubjugation.ȱ ȱUntilȱrecentlyȱEnglishȱspeakȬingȱreadersȱcouldȱonlyȱaccessȱtheȱcourseȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱlectureȱseriesȱ(TheȱBirthȱofȱBiopolitics,ȱ1978–79)ȱinȱwhichȱFoucaultȱsystematicallyȱexaminedȱneoliberalism.ȱȱThisȱslightȱglimpseȱaloneȱmadeȱ clearȱ thatȱFoucault’sȱassessmentȱofȱneoliberalismȱwasȱmarkedlyȱdifferentȱ toȱ theȱoverȬwhelmingȱmajorityȱofȱhisȱcontemporaries.ȱȱAtȱtheȱtimeȱFoucaultȱwasȱwritingȱ(andȱthroughoutȱtheȱ1980sȱandȱ1990s)ȱneoliberalismȱwasȱcommonȱcharacterizedȱasȱtheȱreȬawakeningȱofȱclassicalȱliberalism.ȱ ȱFoucaultȱbreezilyȱdismissedȱthisȱ ideaȱandȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱaȱcriticalȱareaȱofȱdisaȬgreementȱbetweenȱliberalsȱandȱneoliberalsȱwasȱoverȱtheȱconceptualizationȱofȱtheȱmarket.ȱȱLibȬeralȱrationalitiesȱviewȱtheȱmarketȱasȱnaturalȱandȱrobust,ȱandȱitȱfollowsȱfromȱthisȱthatȱtheyȱviewȱtheȱprimaryȱroleȱofȱtheȱstateȱasȱbeingȱtoȱenforceȱtheȱruleȱofȱlawȱandȱtoȱrefrainȱfromȱinterferingȱinȱtheȱmarket’sȱselfȬregulatingȱmechanisms.ȱȱNeoliberalȱrationalities,ȱFoucaultȱastutelyȱpointedȱout,ȱreworkedȱthisȱconceptualizationȱinȱsubtleȱbutȱhighlyȱsignificantȱways.48ȱWhileȱtheȱmarketȱisȱunderstoodȱtoȱbeȱtoȱbeȱaȱrigorousȱformalȱstructure,ȱitsȱactualȱhistoricalȱexistenceȱisȱviewedȱasȱfragile.49ȱTheȱ state’sȱ idealȱ roleȱ thusȱ shiftsȱ inȱneoliberalȱ rationalitiesȱ fromȱ theȱ liberalȱ concernȱwithȱstayingȱoutȱofȱtheȱmarketȱtoȱaȱnewȱconcernȱwithȱvigilantlyȱworkingȱtoȱprotectȱandȱgovernȱit.ȱȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱhomoȱoeconomicusȱassociatedȱwithȱneoliberalȱrationalitiesȱisȱoneȱofȱ“enterȬpriseȱandȱproduction”ȱnotȱtheȱliberalȱfigureȱofȱexchangeȱorȱconsumption.50ȱAlthoughȱFoucaultȱwasȱwritingȱinȱtheȱlateȱ1970sȱ(andȱthusȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱThatcherȱandȱReaganȱgovernments)ȱheȱveryȱperceptivelyȱobservesȱ thatȱ thisȱ formȱofȱhomoȱoeconomicusȱ isȱalsoȱappliedȱ toȱaȱwholeȱ rangeȱofȱindividualȱ behaviourȱ previouslyȱ viewedȱ asȱ nonȬeconomic,ȱ includingȱ theȱ choiceȱ toȱ commitȱcrime,ȱorȱmarry,ȱorȱuseȱdrugs.51ȱOverall,ȱwhatȱisȱcrucialȱtoȱrealizeȱisȱthatȱhisȱanalysisȱofȱneolibȬeralismȱwasȱhighlyȱoriginalȱbutȱscholarsȱinȱtheȱ1980sȱandȱ90sȱwhoȱworkedȱtoȱuseȱtheseȱideasȱinȱtheirȱownȱempiricalȱstudiesȱwereȱaccessingȱonlyȱaȱveryȱlimitedȱrangeȱofȱFoucault’sȱactualȱwritȬingȱonȱgovernmentalityȱandȱneoliberalism.ȱȱThisȱisȱaȱpointȱIȱreturnȱtoȱlater.ȱȱȱ

Duringȱtheȱ1980sȱThatcherȱandȱReagan’sȱnewȱmarketȬdrivenȱapproachesȱtoȱpublicȱpoliȬcyȱwereȱoverwhelminglyȱreadȱasȱaȱretractionȱofȱtheȱstate,ȱorȱaȱreversionȱtoȱclassicalȱliberalism.ȱȱ 45ȱFoucault,ȱTheȱBirthȱofȱBiopolitics,ȱ19.ȱȱ46ȱCf.ȱFoucault,ȱSecurity,ȱTerritory,ȱPopulation,ȱ417;ȱFoucault,ȱTheȱBirthȱofȱBiopolitics;ȱFoucault,ȱOmnesȱEtȱSinguȬlatimȇ.ȱ47ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱDisciplineȱandȱPunish:ȱTheȱBirthȱofȱtheȱPrisonȱ(Auckland:ȱPenguinȱBook,ȱ1977).ȱȱȱ48ȱFoucault,ȱTheȱBirthȱofȱBiopolitics.ȱȱ49ȱIbid.ȱp.ȱ131,ȱ240,ȱ323ȱ50ȱIbid.ȱp.ȱ147ȱ51ȱIbid.p.ȱ255–6ȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

21

Newȱ studiesȱofȱgovernmentalities,ȱ inspiredȱbyȱFoucault’sȱ analysis,ȱ arguedȱ theyȱwereȱbetterȱunderstoodȱasȱ“aȱrestructuringȱofȱgovernmentalȱtechniques,”52ȱasȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱaȱnewȱpoȬliticalȱrationalityȱwhichȱdevelopedȱoutȱofȱ theȱpracticalȱcritiquesȱandȱ failuresȱofȱsocialȱ liberalȬism.ȱ ȱGovernmentalityȱ approachesȱwereȱ thusȱ fruitfullyȱ employedȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ transforȬmationȱofȱgovernanceȱ inȱmanyȱ fieldsȱandȱ jurisdictionsȱ includingȱemploymentȱ inȱAustralia53ȱandȱ theȱUnitedȱKingdom,54ȱprocessesȱofȱprivatizationȱ inȱNewȱZealandȱandȱ theȱUnitedȱKingȬdom,55ȱneoliberalismȱandȱfinancialȱplanningȱ inȱArgentinaȱandȱ theȱUnitedȱStates,56ȱneoliberalȬismȱandȱdevelopmentȱinȱIndonesiaȱandȱNepal,57ȱtheȱriseȱandȱdevelopmentȱofȱschoolȱcounselȬlingȱ inȱ theȱUnitedȱKingdomȱandȱUnitedȱStates,58ȱ theȱ reformȱofȱhousingȱpolicyȱ inȱ theȱUnitedȱKingdom,59ȱtheȱgovernanceȱofȱcrime60ȱandȱpolicing61ȱinȱCanada,ȱstandardizationȱasȱaȱtechniqueȱforȱgoverningȱinȱaȱneoliberalȱway,62ȱandȱglobalȱgeographiesȱofȱneoliberalism.63ȱAsȱmanyȱhaveȱargued,ȱcentralȱtoȱthisȱapproachȱwasȱtheȱideaȱofȱbeingȱopenȱtoȱtheȱunexpected,ȱandȱaȱconcernȱwithȱtheȱwritingȱofȱminor,ȱoftenȱforgottenȱthinkers,ȱandȱbureaucratsȱandȱadminȬistrators,ȱtogetherȱwithȱanȱinterestȱinȱmundaneȱandȱmicroȬgovernmentalȱtechniquesȱandȱtools,ȱ 52ȱBröckling,ȱKrasmann,ȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges,ȱ1.ȱȱ53ȱP.ȱHarris,ȱ“FromȱReliefȱtoȱMutualȱObligation:ȱWelfareȱRationalitiesȱandȱUnemploymentȱ inȱ20th–CenturyȱAustralia,”ȱJournalȱofȱSociology,ȱvol.ȱ37,ȱno.ȱ1ȱ(2001),ȱ5.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ54ȱ ȱWilliamȱWalters,ȱ“Theȱ ȇActiveȱSocietyȇ:ȱNewȱDesignsȱ forȱSocialȱPolicy,”ȱPolicyȱ&ȱPolitics,ȱvol.ȱ25,ȱno.ȱ3ȱ(1997),ȱ221–234.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ55ȱLarner,ȱNeoȬLiberalism:ȱPolicy,ȱIdeology,ȱGovernmentality,ȱ5–25.ȱȱȱ56ȱD.ȱ Fridman,ȱ “AȱNewȱMentalityȱ forȱ aȱNewȱEconomy:ȱPerformingȱ theȱHomoȱEconomicusȱ inȱArgentinaȱ(1976–83),”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ39,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(2010),ȱ271–302;ȱS.ȱBinkley,ȱ“TheȱWorkȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernȬmentality:ȱTemporalityȱandȱEthicalȱSubstanceȱinȱtheȱTaleȱofȱTwoȱDads,”ȱFoucaultȱStudies,ȱvol.ȱ6ȱ(2009),ȱ60–78ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ57ȱBröckling,ȱKrasmann,ȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges,ȱ1.ȱȱ58ȱTinaȱBesley,ȱCounselingȱYouth:ȱFoucault,ȱPower,ȱandȱtheȱEthicsȱofȱSubjectivityȱ(Westport,ȱCT:ȱPraeger,ȱ2002);ȱA.ȱFejes,ȱ“ToȱbeȱOneȇsȱOwnȱConfessor:ȱEducationalȱGuidanceȱandȱGovernmentality,”ȱBritishȱJournalȱofȱSociologyȱofȱEducation,ȱvol.ȱ29,ȱno.ȱ6ȱ(2008).ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ59ȱK.ȱStensonȱandȱP.ȱWatt,ȱ“GovernmentalityȱandȇtheȱDeathȱofȱ theȱSocialȇ?:ȱAȱDiscourseȱAnalysisȱofȱLocalȱGovernmentȱTextsȱ inȱSouthȬEastȱEngland,”ȱUrbanȱStudies,ȱvol.ȱ36,ȱno.ȱ1ȱ (1999),ȱ189–201;ȱ J.ȱFlint,ȱ“HousingȱandȱEthopolitics:ȱConstructingȱIdentitiesȱofȱActiveȱConsumptionȱandȱResponsibleȱCommunity,”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ32,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(2003),ȱ611–629.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ60ȱP.ȱOȇMalley,ȱ“Risk,ȱPowerȱandȱCrimeȱPrevention,”ȱInternationalȱJournalȱofȱHumanȱResourceȱManagement,ȱvol.ȱ21,ȱno.ȱ3ȱ(1992).;ȱM.ȱDubberȱandȱM.ȱValverde,ȱTheȱNewȱPoliceȱScience:ȱTheȱPoliceȱPowerȱinȱDomesticȱandȱInternaȬtionalȱGovernanceȱ(Stanford:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2006);ȱJ.ȱSimon,ȱGoverningȱthroughȱCrime:ȱHowȱtheȱWarȱonȱCrimeȱTransformedȱAmericanȱDemocracyȱandȱCreatedȱaȱCultureȱofȱFearȱ(NewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2007).ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ,ȱ61ȱR.ȱLippertȱandȱD.ȱOȇConnor,ȱ“SecurityȱIntelligenceȱNetworksȱandȱtheȱTransformationȱofȱContractȱPrivateȱSecurity,”ȱPolicingȱ&ȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ16,ȱno.ȱ1ȱ(2006),ȱ50–66;ȱK.ȱD.ȱHaggertyȱandȱR.ȱV.ȱEricson,ȱ“TheȱSurveillantȱAssemblage,”ȱTheȱBritishȱJournalȱofȱSociology,ȱvol.ȱ51,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(2003),ȱ605–622;ȱR.ȱLippert,ȱ“SignsȱofȱtheȱSurveilȬlantȱAssemblage:ȱPrivacyȱRegulation,ȱUrbanȱCCTV,ȱandȱGovernmentality,”ȱSocialȱ&ȱLegalȱStudies,ȱvol.ȱ18,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(2009),ȱ505–522.ȱȱ62ȱȱV.ȱHigginsȱandȱW.ȱLarner,ȱCalculatingȱtheȱSocial:ȱStandardsȱandȱtheȱReconfigurationȱofȱGoverningȱ(Basingstoke:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2010).ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ63ȱW.ȱLarner,ȱ“CȬChange?:ȱGeographiesȱofȱCrisis,”ȱDialoguesȱinȱHumanȱGeographyȱ(2011);ȱW.ȱLarner,ȱ“NeolibȬeralism,ȱMikeȱMoore,ȱandȱtheȱWTO,”ȱEnvironmentȱandȱPlanning,ȱAȱvol.ȱ41,ȱno.ȱ7ȱ(2009);ȱLarnerȱandȱWalters,ȱGlobalȱGovernmentality:ȱGoverningȱInternationalȱSpaces.ȱȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

22ȱ

suchȱasȱdiaries,ȱinterviewsȱwithȱsocialȱworkers,ȱbrochures,ȱandȱmanuals.64ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱasȱtheȱgovernmentalitiesȱ literatureȱgrewȱ itȱdevelopedȱ tendenciesȱ thatȱranȱcontraryȱ toȱ thisȱopenȬnessȱandȱ“experimentalȱ investigation.”65ȱSomeȱgovernmentalityȱscholarsȱtookȱtheȱwideȱrangeȱofȱlooselyȱconnectedȱconceptsȱthatȱFoucaultȱhadȱassembledȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱspecificȱempiricalȱstudiesȱandȱdevelopedȱ themȱ intoȱaȱquiteȱrigidȱsetȱofȱconceptsȱ thatȱslottedȱ intoȱaȱneatȱ frameȬwork.66ȱOthersȱ(asȱBröcklingȱandȱKrasmannȱhaveȱargued)ȱproducedȱquiteȱrepetitiveȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalities.ȱ ȱStudiesȱofȱpolicyȱorȱpoliticalȱ transformationȱoccurringȱwithinȱ shortȱ timeȱperiodsȱreproduceȱsimilarȱnarrativesȱaboutȱneoliberalization,ȱwhileȱstudiesȱfocusedȱonȱaȱlongȬerȱ timeframeȱ commonlyȱ rehearseȱ familiarȱ sketchesȱ ofȱ governmentalȱ transformationsȱ fromȱ“Polizei,ȱtoȱliberalism,ȱorȱfromȱtheȱwelfareȱstateȱtoȱneoliberalism.”67ȱInȱtheseȱcases,ȱasȱDonzelotȱandȱGordonȱargue,ȱanalysisȱ isȱ“flattenedȱ intoȱaȱ setȱofȱpolemical,ȱ ideologicalȱandȱglobalisingȱgeneralities,ȱdispensingȱwithȱtheȱkindȱofȱdescriptiveȱinvestigationȱFoucaultȱundertookȱinȱ1979ȱofȱtheȱdifferentȱavatarsȱofȱneoliberalismȱwithȱtheirȱnational,ȱhistoricalȱandȱtheoreticalȱspecificiȬties.”68ȱȱ

Manyȱofȱtheseȱstudiesȱdrewȱon,ȱandȱreiterated,ȱtheȱsketchesȱofȱclassicalȱ liberalism,ȱsoȬcialȱ liberalism,ȱandȱadvanced/neoliberalȱpoliticalȱ rationalitiesȱ initiallyȱdevelopedȱbyȱMitchellȱDeanȱandȱNikolasȱRoseȱsoȱthatȱneoliberalȱpoliticalȱrationalitiesȱbecameȱanȱalmostȱ“cookieȱcutȬterȱtypificationȱorȱexplanation”ȱofȱcontemporaryȱpolicyȱchange.69ȱForȱinstance,ȱNikolasȱRose’sȱcharacterizationsȱofȱadvancedȱliberalismȱbasedȱuponȱhisȱanalysisȱofȱpoliticalȱandȱpolicyȱchangeȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱKingdomȱareȱreproducedȱbyȱresearchersȱexaminingȱneoliberalismȱinȱotherȱcounȬtriesȱsuchȱasȱAustraliaȱandȱCanada,ȱ therebyȱ implicitlyȱsuggestingȱ thatȱthereȱ isȱaȱsingularȱneȬoliberalȱlogicȱthatȱcanȱexplainȱtheȱnatureȱandȱexistenceȱofȱdiverseȱprogramsȱinȱtheseȱdifferentȱsites.ȱȱȱ

RoseȱandȱDeanȱestablishȱsimilarȱbutȱdistinctȱframeworksȱforȱinvestigatingȱgovernmenȬtalitiesȱ thatȱhaveȱperhapsȱcontributedȱ toȱ thisȱrepetitiveȱ tendency.ȱ ȱRose’sȱ frameworkȱ focusesȱonȱhowȱweȱ canȱ investigateȱdistinctȱpoliticalȱ rationalitiesȱandȱ technologies.ȱ ȱHeȱarguesȱweȱ canȱcompareȱrationalitiesȱbyȱtheirȱmoralȱformȱ(understandingȱofȱjustice,ȱfreedomȱetc.),ȱtheirȱepistemoȬlogicalȱcharacterȱ(understandingȱofȱtheȱobjectsȱtheyȱgovern),ȱandȱtheirȱidiomȱ(theȱkindsȱofȱtermsȱandȱphrasesȱthatȱareȱused).70ȱInȱturn,ȱpoliticalȱtechnologiesȱtackleȱtheȱreality,ȱwhichȱpoliticalȱraȬtionalitiesȱhaveȱprocessedȱ(renderedȱactionable).71ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱRose’ȱanalyticalȱfocusȱisȱonȱ

64ȱRose,ȱOȇMalleyȱandȱValverde,ȱGovernmentality,ȱ83–104;ȱDean,ȱGovernmentality:ȱPowerȱ andȱRuleȱ inȱModernȱSociety,ȱ3.ȱȱȱ65ȱBröckling,ȱKrasmann,ȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges,ȱ15.ȱȱ66ȱNikolasȱRose,ȱPowersȱofȱFreedom:ȱReframingȱPoliticalȱThought,ȱ321;ȱN.ȱRoseȱandȱP.ȱMiller,ȱGoverningȱtheȱPreȬsent:ȱAdministeringȱEconomic,ȱSocialȱandȱPersonalȱLifeȱ(Malden,ȱMass.:ȱPolity,ȱ2008);ȱT.ȱLemke,ȱ“Foucault,ȱGovȬernmentality,ȱandȱCritique,”ȱRethinkingȱMarxism,ȱvol.ȱ14,ȱno.ȱ3ȱ(2002),ȱ49–64;ȱG.ȱBurchell,ȱ“LiberalȱGovernȬmentȱandȱTechniquesȱofȱtheȱSelf,”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ22,ȱno.ȱ3ȱ(1993),ȱ267–282.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ67ȱOsbourneȱcitedȱinȱBröckling,ȱKrasmannȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges,ȱ16.ȱ68ȱDonzelotȱandȱGordon,ȱ“GoverningȱLiberalȱSocieties”,ȱ3–16.ȱȱȱ69ȱRose,ȱOȇMalley,ȱandȱValverde,ȱGovernmentality,ȱ83–104.ȱȱ70ȱȱRose,ȱPowersȱofȱFreedomȱ:ȱReframingȱPoliticalȱThought,ȱ321.ȱȱȱ71ȱLemke,ȱ“TheȱBirthȱofȱBioȬPolitics”,ȱ190–207.ȱȱȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

23

theȱwaysȱ thatȱpoliticalȱ rationalitiesȱ setȱboundariesȱ forȱ theȱkindsȱofȱproblemsȱ thatȱ rulersȱ canȱtackleȱandȱrenderȱsomeȱ technologiesȱ forȱgoverningȱasȱsensible,ȱandȱothersȱasȱnot.ȱ ȱ Inȱpartialȱcontrast,ȱDeanȱforegroundsȱtheȱprocessȱbyȱwhichȱexistingȱregimesȱofȱpracticesȱareȱcalledȱintoȱquestionȱ (problematization)ȱandȱ theȱ logicȱorȱ“strategyȱofȱaȱregimeȱofȱpractices”72ȱratherȱ thanȱfocusingȱonȱdistinctȱpoliticalȱrationalities.ȱ ȱForȱDeanȱtheȱcentralȱanalyticȱfocusȱ isȱhowȱweȱareȱgoverned,ȱratherȱthanȱonȱdistinctȱrationalities,ȱsuchȱasȱneoliberalism,ȱandȱheȱsuggestsȱthatȱanȱanalyticsȱofȱgovernmentȱshouldȱfocusȱonȱfourȱdimensions:ȱȱ

1.ȱȱcharacteristicȱformsȱofȱvisibility,ȱwaysȱofȱseeingȱandȱperceivingȱ2.ȱȱdistinctiveȱwaysȱofȱthinkingȱandȱquestioning,ȱrelyingȱonȱdefiniteȱvocabulariesȱandȱproceȬduresȱforȱtheȱproductionȱofȱtruthȱ(e.g.ȱȱthoseȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱsocial,ȱhumanȱandȱbehaviourȬalȱsciences)ȱȱ3.ȱȱspecificȱwaysȱofȱacting,ȱinterveningȱandȱdirecting,ȱmadeȱupȱofȱparticularȱtypesȱofȱpractiȬcalȱ rationalityȱ (‘expertise’ȱ andȱ ‘knowȬhow’)ȱ andȱ relyingȱuponȱdefiniteȱmechanisms,ȱ techȬniquesȱandȱtechnologies).ȱ4.ȱȱcharacteristicȱwaysȱofȱformingȱsubjects,ȱselves,ȱpersons,ȱactorsȱorȱagents.73ȱȱ

ȱAlthoughȱneitherȱRose’sȱnorȱDean’sȱframeworksȱexplicitlyȱprecludeȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱmultiple,ȱoverlappingȱformsȱofȱpowerȱandȱpoliticalȱrationalities,ȱtheyȱneverthelessȱencourageȱaȱfocusȱonȱaȱdiscreteȱgovernmentalȱ rationalityȱorȱ ‘wayȱofȱgoverning.’ȱ Inȱ thisȱwayȱ theseȱexistingȱ framesȱencourageȱaȱrenderingȱofȱstateȱpowerȱasȱformingȱaȱsingleȱapparatus,ȱandȱ“cookieȱcutter”ȱanalȬysis.ȱȱȱȱStudiesȱofȱGovernmentality:ȱproblemsȱandȱcritiques.ȱThisȱtendencyȱtoȱidentifyȱdiscreteȱandȱidenticalȱ(orȱalreadyȱfamiliar)ȱrationalities,ȱtechnologiesȱandȱperiodizations74ȱacrossȱmultipleȱspacesȱisȱtheȱmostȱconsistentȱchargeȱlaidȱbyȱcriticsȱofȱtheȱliteratureȱonȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities.ȱȱNeoliberalismȱwithinȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱhasȱthusȱveryȱcommonlyȱcomeȱtoȱbeȱviewedȱasȱaȱ“moreȱorȱlessȱconstantȱmasterȱcategoryȱthatȱcanȱbeȱusedȱbothȱtoȱunderstandȱandȱtoȱexplainȱallȱmannerȱofȱpoliticalȱprogramsȱacrossȱaȱwideȱvarietyȱofȱsettings,”75ȱratherȱthanȱanȱunfinishedȱprocess,ȱorȱaȱrationalityȱthatȱcoȬexistsȱwithȱothȬerȱpoliticalȱrationalities.ȱȱRecentȱdebatesȱinȱSocialȱAnthropology76ȱhaveȱreinvigoratedȱdiscussionsȱaboutȱthisȱtendencyȱwithinȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities.ȱȱWithinȱtheseȱdebatesȱLoicȱWacquantȱ somewhatȱ surprisinglyȱ assertedȱ thatȱ studiesȱ ofȱ neoliberalȱ governmentalityȱ areȱ“fondȱofȱhighlightingȱcontingency,ȱspecificity,ȱmultiplicity,ȱcomplexityȱandȱinteractiveȱcombiȬnationsȱandȱ…ȱongoingȱhybridisationȱofȱneoliberalȱpractices.”77ȱHisȱassertionȱhasȱhadȱtheȱeffectȱofȱregeneratingȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱmostȱpersistentȱcriticismȱofȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱwhichȱ 72ȱDean,ȱGovernmentality:ȱPowerȱandȱRuleȱinȱModernȱSociety.ȱȱȱ73ȱIbid.,ȱ23.ȱ74ȱBröckling,ȱKrasmannȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱ Issuesȱ andȱFutureȱChallenges;ȱNikolasȱRose,ȱP.ȱOȇMalleyȱandȱM.ȱValverde,ȱ“Governmentality,”ȱAnnualȱReviewȱofȱLawȱandȱSocialȱScience,ȱvol.ȱ2ȱ(2006),ȱ83–104.ȱȱȱȱȱ75ȱRose,ȱOȇMalley,ȱandȱValverde,ȱ“Governmentality”,ȱ83–104.ȱȱȱ76ȱCollier,ȱNeoliberalismȱasȱBigȱLeviathan,ȱOr…?,ȱ186–195;ȱWacquant,ȱThreeȱStepsȱtoȱaȱHistoricalȱAnthropologyȱofȱActuallyȱExistingȱNeoliberalism,ȱ66–79.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ77ȱIbid.ȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

24ȱ

isȱthatȱtheyȱactuallyȱassumeȱtooȱmuchȱcoherenceȱandȱorderȱinȱtheȱpresentȱ78ȱtherebyȱleavingȱtheȱ“constitutiveȱhybridityȱofȱdiscursiveȱpatternsȱandȱmechanismsȱofȱpower…unaccountedȱfor.”79ȱAsȱCollierȱ—aȱparticipantȱinȱthisȱdebate—argues,ȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱtendȱtoȱconcepȬtualizeȱ rationalitiesȱ andȱ technologiesȱ asȱ operatingȱwithinȱ aȱ coherentȱ apparatusȱ ratherȱ thanȱformingȱpartȱofȱ shifting,ȱ supple,ȱ andȱ sometimesȱ incoherentȱ configurationsȱofȱpower.80ȱAsȱ aȱrangeȱofȱ scholarsȱhaveȱpointedȱout,ȱ studiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱ tendȱ toȱ identifyȱliberalismȱorȱneoliberalismȱasȱ theȱonlyȱsignificantȱ formsȱofȱpowerȱ inȱaȱgivenȱsocietyȱorȱsite81ȱandȱ toȱ “identifyȱ anyȱprogramȱwithȱneoliberalȱ elementsȱ asȱ essentiallyȱneoliberal.”82ȱFurtherȬmore,ȱwhileȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱemphasizeȱtheȱprocessȱofȱgeneratingȱprobȬlematizationsȱ andȱ theȱ apparatusȱ ofȱ politicalȱ technologiesȱ assembledȱ toȱ addressȱ them,ȱ theyȱdownplayȱ theȱpoliticsȱofȱgovernance,ȱ includingȱ theȱpoliticsȱofȱmanagingȱ factionalȱ interests,ȱunforeseenȱcrises,ȱandȱofȱcounteringȱcompetingȱproblematizationsȱandȱresistances.ȱ ȱTheȱcostsȱofȱconceivingȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernanceȱasȱanȱapparatusȱandȱofȱ failingȱ toȱengageȱwithȱdifferȬence,ȱhybridity,ȱcontradictions,ȱandȱpoliticsȱareȱmanifold.ȱ ȱScholarsȱconducingȱethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalismsȱpointȱoutȱthatȱanȱimportantȱcostȱisȱthatȱwhenȱrationalitiesȱandȱtechnologiesȱareȱcharacterizedȱasȱsingular,ȱclearȱandȱsettledȱinȱwaysȱtheyȱareȱnot83ȱpowerȱrelationsȱappearȱ“inexorableȱandȱinescapable”84ȱratherȱthanȱcontestableȱandȱavoidable.ȱȱȱ

Withȱ theȱ relativelyȱ recentȱpublicationȱofȱ theȱCollegeȱdeȱFranceȱ lectures—particularlyȱTheȱHermeneuticsȱofȱtheȱSubjectȱ1981–1982ȱandȱTheȱBirthȱofȱBiopolitics,ȱ1978–9—EnglishȬspeakingȱscholars,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ interestedȱ inȱ ethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalism,ȱ areȱ increasinglyȱarguingȱthatȱtheseȱproblematicȱtendenciesȱareȱatȱoddsȱwithȱFoucault’sȱownȱstance.ȱȱSpecificallyȱthereȱ isȱ increasingȱ recognitionȱ thatȱFoucaultȱanalysedȱmultipleȱneoliberalȱ rationalitiesȱ ratherȱthanȱaȱsingleȱneoliberalism,ȱandȱwasȱconcernedȱwithȱcomplexȱprocessesȱofȱsubjectificationȱthatȱdoȱnotȱinvolveȱsimpleȱselfȬdomination.85ȱSpecifically,ȱFoucaultȱviewedȱneoliberalismȱasȱaȱsetȱofȱsystematic,ȱreflectiveȱcritiquesȱofȱsocialȱgovernmentȱthatȱinvolveȱattemptsȱtoȱreȬorganizeȱsocieȬtyȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱenterpriseȱform.ȱȱThisȱperspectiveȱisȱdifferentȱfromȱthatȱadoptedȱbyȱinfluenȬtialȱ thinkersȱsuchȱasȱBrenner,ȱTheodoreȱandȱPeckȱbecauseȱFoucaultȱassumesȱ thatȱdistinctȱneȬoliberalȱ rationalitiesȱ emergedȱ fromȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ socialȱ government.ȱ ȱNeoliberalȱ rationalitiesȱvaryȱacrossȱnationalȱcontextsȱbecauseȱtheyȱemergeȱfromȱcritiquesȱofȱveryȱdifferentȱeconomicȬ

78ȱG.ȱMarstonȱandȱC.ȱMcDonald,ȱAnalysingȱSocialȱPolicy:ȱAȱGovernmentalȱApproachȱ(UK:ȱEdwardȱElgarȱPublishȬing,ȱ2006,ȱ1stȱed);ȱWilliamȱWalters,ȱ“ȇTheȱEndȱofȱtheȱPassingȱPastȇ:ȱTowardsȱPolytemporalȱPolicyȱStudies,”ȱinȱȱG.ȱMarstonȱ andȱC.ȱMcDonaldȱ (eds.),ȱAnalysingȱSocialȱPolicy:ȱAȱGovernmentalȱApproachȱ (UK:ȱEdwardȱElgarȱPublishing,ȱ2006),ȱ167–186.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ79ȱBröckling,ȱKrasmann,ȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallengesȱȱȱ80ȱS.ȱ J.ȱCollier,ȱ“TopologiesȱofȱPowerȱFoucault’sȱAnalysisȱofȱPoliticalȱGovernmentȱBeyondȱ ‘GovernmentaliȬty’,”ȱTheory,ȱCulture,ȱ&ȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ26,ȱno.ȱ6ȱ(2009),ȱ78–108.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ81ȱLippert,ȱSanctuary,ȱSovereignty,ȱSacrifice,ȱ226.ȱȱ82ȱRose,ȱOȇMalley,ȱandȱValverde,ȱGovernmentality,ȱ83–104.ȱȱȱ83ȱLi,ȱ“PracticesȱofȱAssemblageȱandȱCommunityȱForestȱManagement”,ȱ263–293;ȱBröckling,ȱKrasmann,ȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges..ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ84ȱMitchell,ȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalityȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱUnion,ȱ389–407.ȱȱ85ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱTheȱPoliticsȱofȱTruthȱ [Speeches.]ȱ (NewȱYork,ȱNY:ȱSemiotexte,ȱ1997),ȱ240;ȱBröckling,ȱKrasȬmannȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges.ȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

25

institutionalȬdiscursiveȱformsȱofȱsocialȱgovernment.ȱȱThusȱratherȱthanȱbeingȱanȱuniqueȱtheoryȱthatȱmayȱbeȱ imperfectlyȱorȱdifferentiallyȱrealizedȱwithinȱparticularȱgeographicȱspacesȱdueȱ toȱ“theȱ legaciesȱofȱ inheritedȱ institutionalȱ frameworks,ȱpolicyȱ regimes,ȱ regulatoryȱpractices,ȱandȱpoliticalȱ struggles,”86ȱ Foucaultȱ describedȱ howȱ veryȱ differentȱ neoliberalȱ rationalities—ordoliberalismȱandȱanarchoȬneoliberalism—developedȱoutȱofȱdistinctlyȱdifferentȱ critiquesȱofȱsocialȬliberalȱgovernance,87ȱandȱonlyȱsubsequentlyȱbecameȱlinkedȱandȱconnected.ȱ

WhatȱisȱalsoȱcrucialȱtoȱnoteȱhereȱisȱthatȱFoucault’sȱanalyticȱapproachȱchangedȱinȱsignifiȬcantȱwaysȱfollowingȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱD&P.88ȱAlthoughȱhisȱshiftȱawayȱfromȱemphasizingȱproȬcessesȱofȱsubjugation,ȱdisciplineȱandȱnormalizationȱtoȱaȱconcernȱwithȱmoreȱcomplexȱprocessesȱofȱsubjectificationȱhasȱbeenȱwidelyȱnoted,ȱitȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱfullyȱincorporatedȱintoȱstudiesȱofȱneȬoliberalȱgovernmentalities.ȱȱFollowingȱD&PȱFoucaultȱwasȱconcernedȱwithȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱselfȱthatȱareȱrelativelyȱautonomousȱandȱdoȱnotȱinvolveȱselfȬdomination,89ȱhoweverȱstudiesȱofȱliberȬalȱandȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱhaveȱtendedȱtoȱdrawȱonȱhisȱearlierȱconcernsȱwithȱdominaȬtionȱandȱemphasizeȱtheȱwaysȱthatȱtechnologiesȱofȱtheȱselfȱorȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱselfȱareȱtiedȱintoȱtechnologiesȱofȱdomination.90ȱAtȱ timesȱ theyȱgoȱasȱ farȱasȱ toȱconflateȱpracticesȱofȱ theȱselfȱwithȱpracticesȱofȱnormalizationȱandȱdiscipline.ȱȱAlthoughȱFoucaultȱdrawsȱstrongȱlinksȱbetweenȱhisȱconcernȱwithȱgovernmentalityȱandȱhisȱconcernȱwithȱancientȱpracticesȱofȱcaringȱforȱtheȱself91ȱ(inȱwhichȱindividualsȱseekȱtoȱachieveȱaȱcertainȱstateȱofȱhappiness,ȱperfection,ȱorȱwisdom)ȱscholarsȱhaveȱ infrequentlyȱ consideredȱ theȱ twoȱ setsȱofȱworkȱ together.92ȱ Insteadȱ scholarsȱ tendȱ toȱviewȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱselfȱasȱanȱextensionȱofȱtheȱkindsȱofȱdisciplinaryȱtechnologiesȱthatȱFoucaultȱconȬsideredȱwithinȱD&P.ȱȱȱ

AȱsecondȱcrucialȱshiftȱisȱhisȱmoveȱawayȱfromȱaȱconceptionȱofȱpowerȱrelationshipsȱoperȬatingȱwithinȱ coherentȱ apparatuses.93ȱAsȱ hasȱ beenȱwidelyȱ notedȱ elsewhereȱwithinȱ hisȱ laterȱworksȱFoucaultȱ reworkedȱ theȱ critiqueȱofȱ “juridicoȬpoliticalȱdiscourse”ȱ thatȱheȱdevelopedȱ inȱD&P.ȱȱWithinȱthatȱworkȱheȱhadȱcritiquedȱliberalȱandȱMarxistȱtheoriesȱthatȱheldȱthatȱpowerȱcanȱbeȱpossessed,ȱandȱthatȱitȱemanatesȱfromȱaȱsingleȱsourceȱ(theȱeconomyȱorȱtheȱstate)ȱarguingȱthatȱinȱpoliticalȱanalysisȱweȱneedȱtoȱ“cutȱoffȱtheȱheadȱofȱtheȱking.”94ȱFollowingȱpublicationȱofȱD&PȱFoucaultȱrecognizedȱthatȱanyȱrobustȱconceptionȱofȱpowerȱmustȱalsoȱanswerȱ“HowȱisȱitȱpossiȬ 86ȱSeeȱN.ȱBrenner,ȱ J.ȱPeckȱandȱN.ȱTheodore,ȱ“VariegatedȱNeoliberalization:ȱGeographies,ȱModalities,ȱPathȬways,”ȱGlobalȱNetworks,ȱvol.ȱ10,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ (2009);ȱPeck,ȱTheodore,ȱandȱBrenner,ȱPostneoliberalismȱandȱ itsȱMalconȬtents.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ87ȱFoucault,ȱTheȱBirthȱofȱBiopoliticsȱȱ88ȱBröckling,ȱKrasmann,ȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallengesȱȱȱ89ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱTheȱPoliticsȱofȱTruthȱ[Speeches.]ȱ(NewȱYork,ȱN.Y.:ȱSemiotexte,ȱ1997),ȱ240;ȱBröckling,ȱKrasȬmann,ȱandȱLemke,ȱGovernmentality:ȱCurrentȱIssuesȱandȱFutureȱChallenges.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ90ȱForȱ instance,ȱDeanȱdescribedȱhowȱ individualsȱareȱ enticedȱ toȱ transformȱ themselvesȱ intoȱanȱ enterprisingȱsubjectȱthoughȱlearningȱtoȱpromoteȱtheirȱpersonalȱattributesȱtoȱprospectiveȱemployers:ȱDean,ȱAdministeringȱAsceticism:ȱReȬWorkingȱtheȱEthicalȱLifeȱofȱtheȱUnemployedȱCitizen,ȱ87–107.ȱȱ91ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱTheȱHermeneuticsȱofȱtheȱSubject:ȱLecturesȱatȱtheȱCollègeȱDeȱFrance,ȱ1981–82ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPalȬgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2005),ȱ566;ȱFoucault,ȱTheȱEthicȱofȱCareȱofȱtheȱSelfȱasȱaȱPracticeȱofȱFreedom:ȱAnȱInterview,ȱ1–20.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ92ȱForȱexceptionsȱseeȱC.ȱJ.ȱHeyes,ȱ“FoucaultȱGoesȱtoȱWeightȱWatchers,”ȱHypatia,ȱvol.ȱ21,ȱno.ȱ2ȱ(2006),ȱ126–149.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ93ȱS.ȱ J.ȱCollier,ȱ“TopologiesȱofȱPowerȱFoucault’sȱAnalysisȱofȱPoliticalȱGovernmentȱBeyondȱ ‘GovernmentaliȬty’,”ȱTheory,ȱCultureȱ&ȱSocietyȱ26,ȱno.ȱ6ȱ(2009),ȱ78Ȭ108.ȱȱȱ94ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱTheȱuseȱofȱPleasure:ȱVolumeȱ2ȱofȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱSexualityȱ(NewȱYork:ȱVintageȱBook,ȱ1990).ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

26ȱ

bleȱthatȱthisȱheadlessȱbodyȱoftenȱbehavesȱasȱifȱ itȱ indeedȱhadȱaȱhead?”95ȱThusȱwithinȱSecurity,ȱTerritory,ȱPopulationȱ (1977Ȭ78)ȱheȱ identifiesȱhisȱnewȱobjectiveȱasȱmovingȱbeyondȱhisȱpreviousȱfocusȱ onȱ specificȱ institutionsȱ (hospitalsȱ andȱ prisons)ȱ toȱ examineȱ moreȱ “globalȱ proȬject[s]…directedȱatȱsocietyȱasȱaȱwhole.”96ȱHowever,ȱFoucaultȱdidȱnotȱsimplyȱmoveȱtoȱexaminȬingȱmoreȱglobalȱprojects.ȱȱAsȱCollierȱveryȱperceptivelyȱnotesȱheȱalsoȱabandonedȱaȱconceptualȬizationȱofȱpowerȱrelationshipsȱasȱoperatingȱwithinȱaȱcoherentȱapparatus97ȱwhichȱoverȱtimeȱ isȱreplacedȱwithȱanotherȱrelativelyȱcoherentȱapparatus.98ȱRatherȱthanȱexaminingȱhowȱoneȱformȱofȱpowerȱreplacedȱanotherȱ(e.g.ȱȱdisciplinaryȱpowerȱversusȱsovereignȱpower),ȱFoucaultȱrendersȱaȱmoreȱcomplexȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱformsȱofȱpowerȱarguingȱthatȱexistingȱformsȱofȱpowerȱmayȱreȬorganizeȱexistingȱtechnologies,ȱandȱthatȱdifferentȱformsȱofȱpowerȱmayȱconstantlyȱshiftȱandȱrealign.ȱȱFoucaultȱelaboratesȱwithȱtheȱexampleȱofȱpunishment.ȱȱInȱD&PȱheȱsuggestsȱthatȱaȱdisȬciplinaryȱapproachȱ toȱpunishmentȱhadȱ largelyȱsupersededȱsovereignȱpower,ȱbutȱ inȱ thisȱ laterȱworkȱheȱmovesȱawayȱfromȱarguingȱthatȱoneȱformȱofȱpowerȱreplacesȱanotherȱandȱ insteadȱasȬsertsȱthatȱaȱliberalȱconcernȱwithȱtheȱsecurityȱofȱtheȱpopulationȱmayȱresultȱinȱdisciplinaryȱeleȬmentsȱbeingȱtakenȱupȱagainȱandȱredeployed,ȱandȱevenȱmultiplied.99ȱThus,ȱasȱCollierȱnotes,ȱinȱtheseȱlecturesȱgovernmentalityȱdoesȱnotȱoperateȱasȱaȱmasterȱconceptȱbutȱinsteadȱasȱpartȱofȱanȱexplorationȱofȱmoreȱgeneralizedȱrelationsȱofȱpowerȱ inȱwhichȱdifferentȱ formsȱofȱpower,ȱ techȬnologiesȱandȱtechniquesȱareȱoftenȱredeployedȱintoȱnewȱconfigurations.100ȱAsȱIȱelaborateȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ sectionȱ ofȱ thisȱ article,ȱ itȱ isȱ thisȱ laterȱ “fuzzy”ȱ conceptualizationȱ ofȱ powerȱ thatȱmoreȱstronglyȱ influencesȱ thoseȱengagingȱ inȱethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities.ȱ ȱTheseȱstudiesȱembraceȱaȱwiderȱrangeȱofȱconceptsȱbeyondȱgovernmentality,ȱpoliticalȱrationalityȱandȱtechnology,ȱwhichȱdominateȱtheȱexistingȱfieldȱofȱgovernmentalityȱstudies.ȱȱAsȱIȱshowȱtheyȱalsoȱrecognizeȱmultipleȱformsȱofȱpower,ȱincludingȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱnonȬliberalȱpoliticalȱrationalities.ȱȱȱ

ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱEthnographiesȱ ofȱ neoliberalȱ governmentalitiesȱ thusȱ emergeȱ atȱ theȱ intersectionȱ ofȱ fourȱ imȬportantȱtrends:ȱ1)ȱaȱdiscomfortȱwithȱtheȱpolemics,ȱgeneralitiesȱandȱrecyclingȱofȱfamiliarȱnarraȬtivesȱthatȱisȱcommonȱtoȱmuchȱanalysisȱofȱneoliberalism,ȱandȱparticularlyȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities;ȱ2)ȱgrowingȱacceptanceȱthatȱneoliberalismȱisȱbestȱtheorisedȱasȱaȱpoliticalȱraȬtionalityȱ ratherȱ thanȱ anȱ ideology;ȱ 3)ȱ aȱgrowingȱ interestȱ inȱneoliberalismȱwithinȱ anthropoloȬgy;101ȱandȱ4)ȱincreasedȱrecognitionȱthatȱFoucault’sȱlaterȱworksȱaddressȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱpracticȬesȱofȱtheȱself,ȱandȱembraceȱaȱ‘fuzzy’ȱconceptualizationȱofȱpowerȱ.ȱȱȱ

95ȱWithinȱ theȱSecurity,ȱTerritory,ȱPopulationȱ (1977–78)ȱ lectureȱseriesȱFoucaultȱstatesȱ thatȱhisȱnewȱobjectiveȱ isȱmoveȱbeyondȱhisȱpreviousȱ focusȱonȱ specificȱ institutionsȱ (hospitalsȱ andȱprisons)ȱ toȱ examineȱmoreȱ “globalȱproject[s]…directedȱatȱsocietyȱasȱaȱwhole”ȱ(117).ȱ96ȱFoucault,ȱSecurity,ȱTerritory,ȱPopulation,ȱ417.ȱȱȱ97ȱCollier,ȱTopologiesȱofȱPower,ȱ78–108.ȱȱ98ȱFoucault,ȱSecurity,ȱTerritory,ȱPopulation,ȱ417.ȱȱ99ȱIbid.ȱ100ȱCollier,ȱTopologiesȱofȱPower,ȱ78–108.ȱȱȱ101ȱKipnis,ȱ“NeoliberalismȱReified”,ȱ383–400;ȱCollier,ȱ“NeoliberalismȱasȱBigȱLeviathan,ȱOr…?”,ȱ186–195;ȱM.ȱHilgers,ȱ“TheȱThreeȱAnthropologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱNeoliberalism*”,ȱ351–364;ȱL.ȱHoffman,ȱM.ȱDeHartȱandȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

27

Ofȱ course,ȱ framingȱ thisȱ literatureȱ asȱ “ethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities”ȱraisesȱquestionsȱaboutȱwhatȱmakesȱaȱworkȱethnographic,ȱandȱonȱthisȱpointȱthereȱisȱconsideraȬbleȱdiversityȱ inȱviews.ȱ ȱAnthropologistsȱhaveȱ traditionallyȱviewedȱethnographyȱasȱ involvingȱfullȱ immersionȱ inȱ theȱeverydayȱ lifeȱofȱaȱgeographicallyȱdistinctȱcommunityȱorȱculture,102ȱbutȱforȱ sociologistsȱethnographyȱhasȱ rarelyȱmeantȱ livingȱwithȱ researchȱ subjectsȱ forȱanȱextendedȱperiodȱandȱitȱusuallyȱinvolvesȱonlyȱobservingȱparticipantsȱinȱoneȱsphereȱofȱtheirȱlife.103ȱHereȱIȱembraceȱForsey’sȱargument104ȱthatȱstudiesȱthatȱareȱprimarilyȱ interviewȬbasedȱmayȱbeȱconsidȬeredȱethnographicȱifȱtheyȱareȱconductedȱwithȱanȱethnographicȱimaginaryȱthatȱinvolvesȱprovidȬingȱ“aȱdetailed,ȱinȬdepthȱdescriptionȱofȱeverydayȱlifeȱandȱpractice”ȱandȱseekingȱdeepȱcontactȱthatȱ allowsȱ oneȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ culturalȱ contextȱwithinȱwhichȱdecisionsȱ andȱ choicesȱ areȱmadeȱandȱactionsȱunfold.ȱ ȱEachȱofȱ theȱstudiesȱweȱ reviewȱhereȱusesȱdifferentȱdataȱcollectionȱmethods,ȱbutȱwhatȱ theyȱhaveȱ inȱcommonȱ isȱaȱdesireȱ toȱunderstandȱeverydayȱpracticeȱ inȱ theȱspecificȱsocialȱrealmȱtheyȱareȱexamining.ȱȱHowever,ȱimportantlyȱtheyȱalsoȱrejectȱtheȱideaȱthatȱaȱclearȱ analyticȱ distinctionȱ canȱ beȱmadeȱ betweenȱ governmentalities/politicalȱ rationalitiesȱ andȱeverydayȱpractice.ȱȱȱ

InȱresponseȱtoȱcritiquesȱthatȱD&Pȱdidȱnotȱreflectȱhowȱprisonsȱreallyȱoperated,ȱFoucaultȱhimselfȱdistinguishedȱhisȱfocusȱfromȱattemptsȱtoȱunderstandȱ“realȱlife,”ȱarguingȱthatȱ“theȱacȬtualȱ functioningȱofȱ theȱprisons…wasȱaȱwitches’ȱbrewȱcomparedȱ toȱ theȱbeautifulȱBenthamiteȱmachine.”105ȱSomeȱ leadingȱgovernmentalityȱ scholarsȱhaveȱembracedȱ thisȱpronouncementȱ inȬsistingȱthatȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalityȱareȱcompletelyȱdistinctȱfromȱsociologiesȱofȱpracticesȱofȱgovernance.106ȱOthersȱhaveȱsuggestedȱ thatȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalityȱcanȱbeȱcombinedȱwithȱotherȱapproaches.107ȱThoseȱengagingȱinȱethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱtendȱtoȱrejectȱ bothȱ approachesȱ becauseȱ anȱ ethnographicȱmethodologyȱ blursȱ aȱ sharpȱdistinctionȱ beȬtweenȱpoliticalȱrationalitiesȱandȱassociatedȱtechnologiesȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱactualȱpracticesȱofȱgovernanceȱonȱtheȱother.ȱȱInȱturnȱthisȱdisturbsȱtheȱideaȱofȱcombiningȱ(orȱnot)ȱstudiesȱofȱgovȬernmentalitiesȱ andȱ sociologicalȱ studiesȱofȱpractice.ȱ ȱWhereasȱD&Pȱdependsȱonȱ aȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱprogrammes/“theoreticians’ȱschemas”ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱ“theȱelaborationȱofȱtheseȱschemas”ȱandȱtheȱeffectȱinducedȱinȱ‘theȱreal’ȱbyȱprogrammesȱonȱtheȱother108ȱethnographiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱquestionȱ theȱexistenceȱofȱaȱclearȱdivisionȱbetweenȱ ‘schemas’ȱandȱ theirȱenȬ

S.ȱ J.ȱCollier,ȱ“Notesȱonȱ theȱAnthropologyȱofȱNeoliberalism,”ȱAnthropologyȱNews,ȱvol.ȱ47,ȱno.ȱ6ȱ (2006),ȱ9–10;ȱGreenhouse,ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalism.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ102ȱB.ȱMalinowski,ȱ“AȱScientificȱTheoryȱofȱCulture,”ȱ(1944).ȱ103ȱSeeȱforȱ instanceȱP.ȱG.ȱCressey,ȱTheȱTaxiȬDanceȱHall:ȱAȱSociologicalȱStudyȱ inȱCommercialȱRecreationȱandȱCityȱLifeȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1932).ȱȱȱ104ȱMartinȱG.ȱForsey,ȱ“EthnographyȱasȱParticipantȱListening,”ȱEthnography,ȱvol.ȱ11,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(2010),ȱ558–572.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ105ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱ“QuestionsȱofȱMethod,”ȱIdeologyȱ&ȱConsciousness,ȱvol.ȱ8ȱ(1981),ȱ3–14.ȱȱ106ȱMitchellȱDean,ȱGovernmentality:ȱPowerȱandȱRuleȱ inȱModernȱSociety,ȱ229;ȱRoseȱandȱMiller,ȱ“PoliticalȱPowerȱBeyondȱtheȱState”,ȱ275.ȱ107ȱRose,ȱOȇMalley,ȱandȱValverde,ȱGovernmentality,ȱ83–104.ȱȱ108ȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱ“QuestionsȱofȱMethod,”ȱinȱMichelȱFoucault,ȱGrahamȱBurchellȱandȱColinȱGordonȱ(eds.)ȱTheȱFoucaultȱEffect:ȱStudiesȱinȱGovernmentality:ȱWithȱTwoȱLecturesȱbyȱandȱanȱInterviewȱwithȱMichelȱFoucaultȱ(ChiȬcago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ87–104.ȱȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

28ȱ

actment.ȱȱForȱexample,ȱinȱpreviousȱwork109ȱIȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱunderstandȱhowȱAustralianȱsingleȱmothersȱareȱgovernedȱ throughȱwelfareȱ reforms.ȱ ȱ Inȱ thisȱparadigmaticȱ caseȱofȱmarketizationȱandȱreductionȱofȱaccessȱ toȱsocialȱwelfareȱthereȱ isȱnoȱclearȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱ“theoreticians’ȱschemas”ȱandȱ‘theȱreal.’ȱInsteadȱitȱwasȱonlyȱpossibleȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱ“schemas”ȱforȱwelfareȱreformsȱ includingȱ“characteristicȱ formsȱofȱvisibility…ȱ thinkingȱandȱquestioningȱ…acting,ȱ inȬterveningȱandȱdirecting…”ȱbyȱusingȱanȱethnographicȱmethodologyȱthatȱinvolvedȱobservationsȱatȱtheȱagenciesȱthatȱhelpȱsingleȱmothersȱtoȱfindȱwork,ȱconductingȱinterviewsȱwithȱsingleȱmothȬersȱthemselves,ȱandȱcollectingȱdocumentaryȱdataȱ(policyȱguides,ȱmanuals,ȱbrochuresȱandȱ letȬters)ȱ fromȱ theseȱ“onȱ theȱground”ȱ sources.ȱ ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱpublicallyȱavailableȱ sources,ȱsuchȱasȱpolicyȱdocuments,ȱpromotionalȱmaterial,ȱlegislationȱandȱpoliticalȱspeechesȱprovidedȱaȱveryȱthinȱsenseȱofȱtheȱ“schemas”ȱthatȱgovernedȱsingleȱmothersȱsubjectȱtoȱwelfareȱreforms.ȱ ȱItȱwasȱonlyȱbyȱembracingȱanȱethnographicȱmethodologyȱthatȱitȱwasȱpossibleȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱmoreȱfinelyȱgrainedȱpictureȱofȱtheȱproblemsȱthatȱwelfareȱreformsȱwereȱseekingȱtoȱrespondȱto.ȱȱThusȱbyȱusingȱmaterialsȱfromȱtheȱ‘real’ȱorȱtheȱeverydayȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱpictureȱofȱtheȱwaysȱofȱthinking,ȱquestioning,ȱacting,ȱ intervening,ȱdirectingȱandȱ formingȱ subjects,ȱethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱtroubleȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱandȱsociologiȬcalȱstudiesȱofȱpractice.ȱȱȱ

Inȱ characterisingȱ liberalismȱ asȱ “criticalȱ reflectionȱ onȱ governmentalȱpractice”110ȱ ratherȱthanȱaȱsetȱofȱfixedȱprinciplesȱFoucaultȱunderscoredȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱliberalȱthinkersȱwereȱorientatedȱtowardȱrespondingȱtoȱhistoricallyȱspecificȱeconomic,ȱsocialȱandȱpoliticalȱproblems.ȱȱWhenȱheȱturnedȱtoȱneoliberalismȱheȱsimilarlyȱviewedȱitȱasȱaȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱriseȱofȱtheȱsocialȱstate.ȱȱInȱparticular,ȱitȱproblematizedȱstateȱplanningȱandȱsoughtȱtoȱreȬorganizeȱsocietyȱaccordȬingȱ toȱ theȱenterpriseȱ form.ȱ ȱ Initially,ȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱalsoȱviewedȱneȬoliberalismȱasȱ‘criticalȱreflection’ȱonȱgovernment.ȱ ȱHowever,ȱasȱothersȱhaveȱpointedȱout,ȱconȬtemporaryȱstudiesȱnowȱassumeȱtooȱmuchȱaboutȱneoliberalism,ȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱtheyȱrenderȱitȱasȱaȱsetȱofȱfixedȱprinciplesȱratherȱthanȱaȱpoliticalȱrationalityȱthatȱ isȱorientatedȱtoȱgrapplingȱwithȱeverȱchangingȱproblems.ȱȱȱ

Ethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱengageȱdeeplyȱwithȱaȱparticularȱsiteȱorȱsetȱofȱsites,ȱinȱturnȱdevelopingȱrich,ȱdeepȱpicturesȱthatȱpushȱagainstȱassumptionsȱaboutȱwhatȱneoliberalismȱ is.ȱ ȱForȱexample,ȱoverȱtheȱcourseȱofȱCollier’sȱethnographicȱworkȱonȱneoliberalȬismȱandȱRussiaȱinȱtheȱ1990s,ȱheȱwasȱconfrontedȱwithȱaȱsetȱofȱproblemsȱthatȱwereȱalmostȱinvisiȬbleȱtoȱoutsiders.ȱ ȱCollier’sȱstartingȱpointȱwasȱaȱsmallȱindustrialȱcityȱinȱSouthernȱRussiaȱcalledȱBelayaȱKalitva,ȱofȱtheȱkindȱthatȱtheȱurbanȱandȱsocialȱplannersȱandȱarchitectsȱwhoȱinventedȱtheȱnormsȱandȱformsȱofȱSovietȱModernityȱsawȱasȱrepresentingȱtheȱidealȱfuture.111ȱSmallȱtownsȱlikeȱthisȱthereforeȱprovidedȱhimȱwithȱanȱentryȱintoȱunderstandingȱplansȱforȱreformulatingȱtheȱSoȬvietȱsocialȱstateȱafterȱitsȱbreakup.ȱȱHisȱsecondȱsiteȱwasȱaȱsmallȱoutȱofȱtheȱwayȱ“nonȬcity”ȱcalledȱRodniki.ȱ ȱThroughȱhisȱ immersionȱ inȱ theseȱsitesȱCollierȱbecameȱawareȱofȱ theȱreoccurringȱ imȬportanceȱ ofȱ lateȱ Sovietȱperiodȱ cityȱ building,ȱ andȱ howȱ itsȱ objects—“pipes,ȱwires,ȱ apartmentȱ

109ȱBrady,ȱ“InstitutionalizedȱIndividualismȱandȱtheȱCareȱofȱtheȱSelf”,ȱ265–283.ȱȱ110ȱFoucault,ȱTheȱBirthȱofȱBiopolitics,ȱ321.ȱȱ111ȱCollier,ȱPostȬSovietȱSocial.ȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

29

blocks,ȱbureaucraticȱroutines—becameȱtheȱtargetȱofȱneoliberalȱreform.”112ȱByȱabsorbingȱhimselfȱinȱaȱsetȱofȱsitesȱCollierȱwasȱableȱtoȱshowȱhowȱreformsȱinȱpostȬSovietȱRussiaȱ(proposedȱandȱenȬacted)ȱ linkedȱupȱwithȱneoliberalȱcritiquesȱ fromȱelsewhere,ȱandȱ inȱ theȱprocessȱheȱchallengedȱourȱ assumptionsȱ aboutȱneoliberalȱ thinkers.ȱ ȱSpecifically,ȱCollier’sȱ studyȱ tracesȱ ‘minorȱ tradiȬtions’ȱofȱneoliberalismȱ(suchȱasȱnewȱeconomicsȱofȱregulation)ȱthatȱstronglyȱinfluencedȱtheȱreȬformȱofȱ theȱregulatoryȱregimes,ȱ technicalȱ infrastructure,ȱandȱwelfareȱ inȱcitiesȱsuchȱasȱBelayaȱKalitvaȱbutȱwhichȱareȱalmostȱentirelyȱomittedȱfromȱtheȱliteratureȱonȱneoliberalism.113ȱAlthoughȱCollierȱfocusesȱdeeplyȱonȱtwoȱsmallȱsitesȱhisȱworkȱhasȱmuchȱbroaderȱ implicationsȱbecauseȱ itȱchallengesȱsomeȱfundamentalȱthingsȱthatȱweȱthinkȱweȱknowȱaboutȱneoliberalism.114ȱTheȱultiȬmateȱaimȱofȱthisȱkindȱofȱdeepȱ investigationȱ isȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱclearerȱpictureȱofȱsimilaritiesȱandȱdifferencesȱacrossȱaȱwideȱnumberȱofȱcases.ȱȱAsȱCollierȱargues,ȱwithoutȱaȱsophisticatedȱpictureȱofȱcontemporaryȱpoliticalȱ rationalitiesȱ inȱparticularȱ sites,ȱanyȱcomparisonȱacrossȱ sitesȱ isȱholȬlow.ȱȱWhileȱgenealogicalȱinvestigationȱaloneȱhadȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱuncoverȱminorȱthinkers,ȱanȱethȬnographicȱfocusȱonȱparticularȱsitesȱrevealsȱtoȱresearchersȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱaȱsetȱofȱpracticalȱgovernmentalȱproblemsȱthatȱwouldȱotherwiseȱnotȱbeȱvisible.ȱȱAsȱheȱarguesȱhisȱfieldworkȱproȬvided:ȱ

ȱInsightȱintoȱcriticalȱnodesȱwhereȱfieldsȱofȱpowerȱcomeȱintoȱcontactȱandȱareȱmadeȱvisible;ȱinȬtoȱsingularȱrealitiesȱwhoseȱintelligibilityȱhasȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱdiverseȱexperiencesȱthatȱlieȱbeȬyondȱ them.ȱ ȱTheȱdetailedȱengagementȱofȱethnographyȱprovided,ȱ thus,ȱanȱorientationȱ toȱaȱgroupingȱofȱsitesȱandȱaȱsetȱofȱproblemsȱthatȱIȱsimplyȱcouldȱnotȱhaveȱstumbledȱuponȱotherȬwise.115ȱ

ȱȱInȱ additionȱ toȱmakingȱvisibleȱdifferentȱkindsȱofȱproblems,ȱ ethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovȬernmentalitiesȱalsoȱhelpȱuncoverȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱmarginalisedȱpoliticalȱrationalitiesȱandȱformsȱofȱpower.ȱȱAȱtendencyȱinȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalityȱisȱtoȱuncoverȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱparticularȱrationalityȱorȱtechnologyȱofȱgovernmentȱwithinȱaȱpolicyȱorȱprogramȱandȱtoȱconcludeȱwithȱoffȬhandȱ generalizationsȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ thisȱ describesȱ allȱ powerȱ relationsȱ inȱ thatȱ societyȱ orȱepoch.116ȱExclusiveȱrelianceȱonȱarchivalȱsourcesȱorȱpublicallyȱavailableȱtextsȱsupportsȱthisȱtenȬdencyȱbecauseȱ itȱmakesȱ itȱeasierȱforȱ theȱresearcherȱtoȱfocusȱonȱnewȱorȱemergingȱrationalitiesȱwhileȱbracketingȱ theȱexistenceȱofȱcoȬexistingȱ rationalitiesȱorȱ formsȱofȱpower.ȱ ȱByȱorientatingȱthemselvesȱtoȱaȱsiteȱorȱsetȱofȱsites,ȱandȱtheȱproblemsȱwithinȱthatȱsite,ȱtheȱresearcher’sȱattentionȱisȱmoreȱeasilyȱdrawnȱ toȱ theȱexistenceȱofȱmultipleȱ technologies,ȱ rationalitiesȱandȱ relationsȱofȱpower.ȱ ȱEthnographicȱmethodologiesȱmayȱdrawȱattentionȱ toȱnonȬliberalȱformsȱofȱpowerȱ thatȱmayȱbeȱmostȱapparentȱinȱeverydayȱdiscourseȱorȱtalk.117ȱAsȱLippert’sȱworkȱonȱchurchȱsanctuarȬiesȱforȱrefugees118ȱandȱmoreȱrecentlyȱurbanȱgovernance119ȱillustrates,ȱifȱweȱareȱtoȱtakeȱseriouslyȱ

112ȱIbid.ȱ113ȱIbid.ȱ114ȱIbid.ȱȱ115ȱIbid.,ȱ29.ȱȱ116ȱRose,ȱOȇMalley,ȱandȱValverde,ȱGovernmentality,ȱ83–104;ȱCollier,ȱTopologiesȱofȱPower,ȱ78–108.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ117ȱLippert,ȱNeoliberalism,ȱPoliceȱandȱtheȱGovernanceȱofȱLittleȱUrbanȱThingsȱȱ118ȱLippert,ȱSanctuary,ȱSovereignty,ȱSacrifice,ȱ226.ȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

30ȱ

governmentalityȱscholars’ȱclaimsȱtoȱbeȱconcernedȱwithȱformsȱofȱgovernmentȱbeyondȱtheȱstateȱthenȱweȱmustȱalsoȱuseȱmethodologiesȱthatȱallowȱusȱtoȱilluminateȱthem.ȱȱAnȱexcellentȱexampleȱofȱhowȱ ethnographiesȱofȱgovernmentalitiesȱ canȱ revealȱdifferentȱ formsȱofȱpowerȱ isȱLippert’sȱethnographicȱ studyȱofȱ churchȱ sanctuaryȱ incidentsȱ inȱCanada.120ȱTheȱ firstȱ sanctuaryȱ incidentȱoccurredȱinȱDecemberȱ1983ȱwhenȱStȱAndrew’sȱUnitedȱChurchȱprovidedȱsanctuaryȱtoȱaȱrefugeeȱwhoȱwasȱaboutȱtoȱbeȱdeported.ȱ ȱByȱ2003,ȱ36ȱsimilarȱincidentsȱinvolvingȱ261ȱrefugeesȱhadȱocȬcurred.ȱ ȱThroughȱaccessingȱprivateȱarchivalȱmaterialȱandȱ interviewingȱkeyȱpeopleȱwhoȱwereȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱincidents,ȱLippertȱshowsȱhowȱpastoralȱpower,ȱsovereignȱpower,ȱandȱlawȱworkȱtogetherȱandȱsometimesȱconflictȱinȱsanctuaryȱspacesȱandȱpractices.ȱȱInȱtheȱprocessȱLippertȱchalȬlengesȱtheȱusefulnessȱofȱkeyȱconcepts,ȱsuchȱasȱ‘responsibilisation,’ȱthatȱareȱcommonlyȱlinkedȱtoȱneoliberalism.ȱ ȱTheȱconceptȱofȱ“responsibilisation,”ȱ impliesȱaȱunidirectionalȱmovementȱ fromȱtheȱstateȱtoȱotherȱactorsȱorȱgroups,ȱbutȱwhatȱappearsȱas,ȱ“responsibilizationȱfromȱtheȱtotalizingȱperspectiveȱofȱ advancedȱ liberalismȱ isȱ theȱproperȱ exerciseȱofȱ communityȱ authorityȱ fromȱ theȱperspectiveȱofȱpastoralȱandȱnonstateȱsovereignȱpowers.”121ȱ‘Responsibilisation’ȱasȱaȱconceptȱforȱunderstandingȱneoliberalismȱobscuresȱtheȱoperationȱofȱwhatȱLippertȱrefersȱtoȱasȱ“churchȱandȱcommunityȱsovereignȱpower,ȱaȱpowerȱunderstoodȱinȱpartȱasȱtheȱmonopolyȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱexcepȬtion.”122ȱInȱfocusingȱonȱaȱsetȱofȱspacesȱthatȱareȱonlyȱvisibleȱthroughȱethnographicȱmethodoloȬgies,ȱLippertȱchallengesȱ familiarȱnarrativesȱaboutȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities,ȱ therebyȱshiftȬingȱusȱ fromȱwellȬwornȱnarrativeȱpathsȱ thatȱchartȱ theȱsteadyȱascendanceȱofȱmarketȱ logicȱandȱtheȱimpositionȱofȱnewȱprogrammesȱofȱresponsibilisation.ȱ

Ethnographiesȱofȱpoliticalȱ rationalitiesȱandȱ technologiesȱmakeȱevidentȱ theȱactualȱproȬcessesȱandȱ formsȱofȱ subjectivityȱ formationȱoverȱ time.ȱ ȱTextuallyȱbasedȱ studiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱprovideȱ evidenceȱofȱnewȱ technologiesȱofȱ theȱ selfȱandȱnewȱ techniquesȱ forȱshapingȱanȱ individual’sȱ relationshipȱ toȱ themselves.123ȱHowever,ȱbecauseȱethnographicȱmethȬodologiesȱalsoȱ involveȱfocusingȱonȱparticularȱpeople,ȱactorsȱandȱ individuals,ȱusuallyȱoverȱanȱextendedȱperiodȱofȱ time,ȱ theyȱenableȱ researchersȱ toȱuncoverȱhowȱnewȱ formsȱofȱsubjectivity,ȱsuchȱasȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱUnion,ȱorȱfinancialȱself,124ȱworkȱalongsideȱorȱconnectȱwithȱothȬerȱsubjectivities,ȱorȱperhapsȱclashȱwithȱandȱchallengeȱthem.ȱȱEthnographiesȱprovideȱaȱwindowȱintoȱ theȱwaysȱ thatȱneoliberalȱrationalitiesȱareȱreorganizingȱsubjectivitiesȱ tiedȱ toȱearlierȱsocialȱwaysȱofȱgoverningȱ—asȱinȱHoffman’sȱworkȱonȱ‘patrioticȱprofessionalism’ȱinȱChina125ȱ—ratherȱthanȱsimplyȱchallengingȱorȱreplacingȱ them.ȱ ȱThisȱ isȱnot,ȱasȱWacquantȱhasȱaccused,ȱaboutȱreȬplacingȱaȱbigȱNȱneoliberalismȱwithȱanȱ“indefiniteȱnumberȱofȱsmallȬnȱneoliberalisms.”ȱInsteadȱitȱisȱaboutȱviewingȱneoliberalȱsubjectivitiesȱasȱformingȱpartȱofȱshifting,ȱsuppleȱrelationsȱofȱpower,ȱratherȱ thanȱ asȱbeingȱ linkedȱ intoȱ aȱ coherentȱ apparatusȱofȱpower.ȱ ȱForȱ example,ȱ throughȱ tenȱyearsȱofȱfieldworkȱ inȱaȱmajorȱcityȱ inȱChinaȱ(Dalian)ȱHoffmanȱsoughtȱ toȱunderstandȱhowȱtheȱ 119ȱLippert,ȱNeoliberalism,ȱPoliceȱandȱtheȱGovernanceȱofȱLittleȱUrbanȱThingsȱȱ120ȱLippert,ȱSanctuary,ȱSovereignty,ȱSacrifice,ȱ226.ȱȱ121ȱIbid.ȱp.ȱ170ȱȱ122ȱIbid.ȱp.ȱ19ȱ123ȱJasonȱRead,ȱ“AȱGenealogyȱofȱHomoȬEconomicus:ȱNeoliberalismȱandȱtheȱProductionȱofȱSubjectivity,”ȱFouȬcaultȱStudies,ȱvol.ȱ6ȱ(2009),ȱ25–36.ȱhttp://ej.lib.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault–studies/article/viewArticle/2465.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ124ȱFridman,ȱFoucaultȱStudies,ȱIssueȱ18ȱ(2014),ȱ90Ȭ112.ȱ125ȱHoffman,ȱAutonomousȱChoicesȱandȱPatrioticȱProfessionalism,ȱ550–570ȱȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

31

actualȱsubjectivitiesȱofȱurbanȱprofessionalsȱ inȱChinaȱunfoldedȱoverȱaȱperiodȱofȱtime.ȱ ȱSheȱarȬguesȱ thatȱ collegeȱgraduatesȱ inȱChinaȱ“adoptedȱaȱ selfȬenterprisingȱ ethos”ȱ thatȱwasȱ linkedȱ toȱneoliberalȱ politicalȱ rationalitiesȱ andȱ techniquesȱ forȱ governing,ȱ andȱ aȱ nonȬliberalȱ (socialist)ȱethosȱ ofȱ “nationalȱ dutyȱ throughȱ labor.”126ȱ Throughȱ participantȱ observationȱ sheȱ documentsȱhowȱneoliberalȱandȱsocialistȱrationalitiesȱandȱtechnologiesȱareȱcombinedȱinȱaȱ‘patrioticȱprofesȬsionalism’ȱinȱturnȱchallengingȱstandardȱaccountsȱofȱneoliberalismȱthatȱsuggestȱneoliberalȱsubȬjectivitiesȱsimplyȱdisplaceȱsocialȱsubjectivities.ȱȱȱ

Weȱhaveȱseenȱ(inȱtheȱfirstȱpartȱofȱthisȱarticle)ȱthatȱaȱlongstandingȱcriticismȱofȱstudiesȱofȱgovernmentalityȱhasȱ beenȱ theȱ failureȱ toȱ addressȱ theȱpoliticsȱ ofȱ governmentalitiesȱ includingȱmanagingȱ failuresȱ andȱ contradictions,ȱ marginalizingȱ competingȱ explanations,ȱ renderingȱ aȱproblemȱ technicalȱ ratherȱ thanȱ political/partisan,ȱ devisingȱ compromises,ȱ andȱ containingȱ criȬtiques.127ȱEthnographiesȱofȱcontemporaryȱgovernmentalitiesȱusuallyȱcombineȱ fieldworkȱwithȱhistoricalȱandȱcontemporaryȱdocumentationȱrelatedȱ toȱ theȱparticularȱsetȱofȱproblemsȱorȱproȬgramsȱ theyȱareȱ researching.ȱ ȱFrequentlyȱ thisȱ fieldworkȱoccursȱoverȱaȱperiodȱofȱyearsȱwhichȱallowsȱ researchersȱ toȱ“trackȱ theȱeffectsȱofȱplannedȱ interventionsȱasȱ theyȱareȱ layeredȱoneȱupȱuponȱ theȱnextȱandȱ intersectȱ […]ȱwithȱotherȱprocesses”128ȱandȱ toȱmakeȱvisibleȱ theȱpoliticsȱ inȬvolvedȱinȱestablishingȱanȱagreedȱproblematicȱandȱdefendingȱitȱfromȱsuccessfulȱchallenge.129ȱAnȱexcellentȱexampleȱofȱthisȱkindȱofȱcontributionȱisȱevidentȱinȱTaniaȱLi’sȱworkȱonȱtheȱgovernmenȬtalityȱofȱdevelopment.ȱȱBeginningȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1990sȱLiȱundertookȱlongȱtermȱfieldȱworkȱinȱtheȱhillsȱofȱCentralȱSulawesi,ȱIndonesiaȱinȱorderȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱgovernmentalityȱofȱ“improveȬmentȱprograms.”ȱAsȱsheȱdocumentsȱinȱTheȱWillȱtoȱImprove:ȱgovernmentality,ȱdevelopment,ȱandȱtheȱpracticeȱ ofȱ politics,ȱherȱ fieldȱwork,ȱwhichȱ extendedȱoverȱmoreȱ thanȱaȱdecade,ȱ allowedȱherȱ toȱtrackȱ theȱprocessesȱ throughȱwhichȱprogrammersȱ containedȱ critiques,ȱmanagedȱ failuresȱ andȱcontradictions,ȱandȱlinkedȱtogetherȱtheȱobjectivesȱofȱ“thoseȱwhoȱaspireȱtoȱgovernȱconductȱandȱthoseȱwhoseȱ conductȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ conducted.”130ȱAsȱ Liȱ hasȱ arguedȱ elsewhereȱ herȱ ethnographicȱmethodologyȱwasȱexplicitlyȱfocusedȱonȱcounteringȱtheȱgovernmentalityȱ literature’sȱexcessiveȱfocusȱ onȱ problematizationsȱ –ȱ theȱwaysȱ thatȱdiverseȱdifficultiesȱ areȱ assembledȱ intoȱ aȱ singularȱproblemȱ–ȱandȱ theȱresultingȱdispositive,ȱapparatusȱorȱtechnologiesȱofȱgovernmentȱthatȱareȱasȬsembledȱtoȱgovernȱthisȱ‘urgentȱneed.’131ȱThroughȱherȱextendedȱengagementȱwithȱaȱparticularȱsiteȱthroughȱethnographicȱfieldworkȱLiȱilluminatesȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱgovernmentalȱasȬsemblageȱofȱimprovementȱprogramsȱwereȱunsettledȱandȱincomplete,ȱandȱmoreȱspecificallyȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱtheȱWorldȱBank’sȱstrategiesȱtoȱgovernȱthroughȱcommunity.ȱȱ132ȱFinally,ȱwhileȱLi’sȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱ‘neoliberalȱregimes’ȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱneoliberalismȱisȱfixedȱinȱadvance,ȱwithinȱherȱethnographicȱstudyȱsheȱisȱcarefulȱtoȱilluminateȱhowȱtheȱnewȱgovernmentalȱassemȬ 126ȱȱL.ȱM.ȱHoffman,ȱPatrioticȱProfessionalismȱinȱUrbanȱChina:ȱFosteringȱTalentȱ(Philadelphia:ȱTempleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2010),ȱ83–4.ȱȱ127ȱHindess,ȱPoliticsȱandȱGovernmentality,ȱ257–272;ȱP.ȱOȇMalley,ȱL.ȱWeir,ȱandȱC.ȱShearing,ȱ“Governmentality,ȱCriticism,ȱPolitics,”ȱEconomyȱandȱSociety,ȱvol.ȱ26,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(1997),ȱ501–517.ȱȱ128ȱLi,ȱWillȱtoȱImprove,ȱ3.ȱȱ129ȱLi,ȱ“PracticesȱofȱAssemblageȱandȱCommunityȱForestȱManagement”ȱȱ130ȱIbid.,ȱ263–4.ȱȱ131ȱLoc.ȱCit.ȱ132ȱIbid.;ȱLi,ȱWillȱtoȱImprove.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Brady:ȱEthnographiesȱofȱNeoliberalȱGovernmentalitiesȱ

32ȱ

blageȱcontainedȱnonȬneoliberalȱelementsȱthatȱwereȱspecificȱtoȱtheȱregionȱandȱhadȱdevelopedȱinȱtheȱcolonialȱperiod.ȱ ȱLiȱ thusȱ illuminatesȱ theȱdegreeȱ toȱwhichȱneoliberalȱrationalitiesȱcombineȱwithȱotherȱrationalitiesȱandȱformsȱofȱpower,ȱandȱ theȱdegreeȱ toȱwhichȱanyȱattemptȱ toȱgovernȱremainsȱincomplete,ȱandȱinȱflux.133ȱȱȱConclusionȱInȱaȱrecentȱ journalȱdebateȱLoïcȱWacquantȱslammedȱtheȱworkȱofȱanthropologistsȱwhoȱviewedȱneoliberalismȱasȱgovernmentality,ȱarguingȱthatȱtheyȱseekȱtoȱrejectȱaȱlargeȱNȱneoliberalismȱandȱreplaceȱitȱwithȱaȱ“messy”ȱviewȱinȱwhichȱthereȱareȱanȱ“indefiniteȱnumberȱofȱsmallȬnȱneoliberalȬismsȱbornȱofȱtheȱongoingȱhybridisationȱofȱneoliberalȱpracticesȱandȱideasȱwithȱlocalȱconditionsȱandȱforms”.134ȱInȱthisȱarticleȱIȱhaveȱrejectedȱthisȱcharacterisationȱofȱethnographiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities,ȱbyȱarguingȱthatȱresearchersȱwhoȱembraceȱthisȱmethodologyȱholdȱthatȱitȱisȱpossibleȱ toȱ distinguishȱ betweenȱ neoliberalȱ andȱ nonȬneoliberalȱ rationalitiesȱ andȱ practices.ȱȱThus,ȱratherȱthanȱseekingȱtoȱidentifyȱmultipleȱsmallȬnȱneoliberalismsȱtheseȱstudiesȱseekȱtoȱunȬderstandȱtheȱrelativeȱimportanceȱofȱneoliberalȱrationalitiesȱwithinȱanyȱparticularȱcontext,ȱandȱtoȱuncoverȱhowȱneoliberalȱrationalitiesȱandȱpracticesȱlinkȱupȱandȱcombineȱwithȱotherȱrationaliȬtiesȱandȱpractices.ȱȱȱ

Numerousȱscholarsȱhaveȱcriticisedȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalitiesȱforȱfailingȱtoȱgenerateȱanyȱpoliticalȱtractionȱdueȱtoȱtheirȱtendencyȱtoȱabstractȱfromȱactuallyȱexistingȱspacesȱandȱsubjects,ȱtoȱproduceȱ“cookieȱcutter”ȱanalysis,ȱandȱgenerateȱ“hyperbolicȱdiscoursesȱwhichȱexceedȱanyȱcriticalȱpurchaseȱonȱtheȱreal.”ȱ135ȱInȱcontrast,ȱeachȱofȱtheȱstudiesȱexaminedȱwithinȱthisȱreviewȱconsciouslyȱattemptȱ toȱcriticallyȱengageȱwithȱ theȱ ‘real,’ȱ toȱpushȱagainstȱfixedȱunȬderstandingsȱofȱneoliberalism,ȱ andȱ toȱ revealȱdynamicȱ andȱ sometimesȱ incoherentȱ configuraȬtionsȱ ofȱ powerȱwithinȱ particularȱ nationalȱ orȱ regionalȱ contexts.ȱ ȱ Thus,ȱweȱ sawȱ thatȱCollierȱpushesȱagainstȱconventionalȱscriptsȱconcerningȱtheȱnatureȱofȱneoliberalȱthoughtȱbyȱrevealingȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱmarginalisedȱneoliberalȱthinkers,ȱandȱLippertȱchallengesȱourȱunderstandingȱofȱresponsibilizationȱ (aȱconceptȱ thatȱ isȱ tightlyȱ tiedȱ toȱ familiarȱnarrativesȱaboutȱ theȱ trajectoryȱofȱneoliberalism)ȱ byȱ highlightingȱ nonȬstateȱ actors’ȱ views.ȱ ȱOtherȱ studiesȱ reviewedȱ hereȱ showȱhowȱdistinctȱformsȱofȱpowerȱrecombineȱinȱdifferentȱways,ȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱpowerȱrelationsȱareȱunsettled,ȱandȱ theȱroleȱofȱpoliticsȱandȱcontestationȱ inȱ formingȱandȱdisruptingȱ theseȱrelaȬtions.ȱȱThroughȱrevealingȱtheseȱdynamicsȱtheseȱstudiesȱmakeȱvisibleȱspacesȱinȱwhichȱresistanceȱagainstȱoppressiveȱrelationsȱofȱpowerȱmayȱemerge.ȱȱȱ

Inȱembracingȱanȱethnographicȱmethodology,ȱresearchersȱsuchȱasȱHoffman,ȱLippert,ȱLiȱandȱCollierȱembraceȱaȱconcernȱwithȱtheȱ‘witches’ȱbrew’ȱofȱactualȱpractices,ȱandȱthusȱtheyȱmayȱbeȱseenȱasȱ rejectingȱFoucault’sȱmethodologicalȱapproachȱ toȱneoliberalism.ȱ ȱHowever,ȱwhatȱ IȱhaveȱarguedȱinȱthisȱarticleȱisȱthatȱinȱrefusingȱtoȱtreatȱneoliberalismȱasȱanȱapparatusȱthatȱdeterȬminesȱallȱotherȱrelationsȱofȱpowerȱandȱinsteadȱshowingȱhowȱdistinctȱformsȱofȱpowerȱbothȱreȬcombineȱinȱdifferentȱwaysȱwithinȱdifferentȱhistoricalȱperiodsȱandȱcoȬexistȱ(ratherȱthanȱsimplyȱreplacingȱeachȱother),ȱtheseȱscholarsȱdrawȱonȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱpowerȱthatȱisȱmuchȱcloserȱ

133ȱIbid.ȱ134ȱWacquant,ȱThreeȱStepsȱtoȱaȱHistoricalȱAnthropologyȱofȱActuallyȱExistingȱNeoliberalism,ȱ66–79.ȱȱ135ȱDonzelot,ȱandȱGordon,ȱGoverningȱLiberalȱSocieties,ȱ3–16.ȱȱ

FoucaultȱStudies,ȱNo.ȱ18,ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ33.ȱ

33

toȱtheȱpositionȱembracedȱbyȱFoucaultȱinȱhisȱlaterȱyearsȱthanȱmanyȱexistingȱstudiesȱofȱneoliberalȱgovernmentalities.ȱȱȱ

ȱMichelleȱBradyȱ

UniversityȱOfȱQueenslandȱSchoolȱofȱSocialȱScience,ȱStȱLuciaȱ

QLDȱ4072,ȱAustraliaȱSchoolȱofȱPublicȱAdministrationȱ

UniversityȱofȱVictoriaȱmichelle.brady@uq.edu.auȱ

ȱ