l-donzelot collins sobre recepcion anglo de foucault

7/31/2019 L-Donzelot Collins Sobre Recepcion Anglo de Foucault

1/15

48

FoucaultStudies

JacquesDonzelotandColinGordon2008

ISSN:1832

5203

FoucaultStudies,No5,pp.4862,January2008

INTERVIEW

Governing Liberal Societies the Foucault Effect in the English

speakingWorld1JacquesDonzelot,UniversityofParisXNanterre

ColinGordon,RoyalBrompton&HarefieldNHSTrust

JD: Inthetwovolumesofhis lecturesof1978and1979,weseeMichelFoucault

makingamajor intellectual changeofdirection,movingaway fromananalysisof

power as the formation and production of individuals towards an analysis of

governmentality,aconceptinventedtodenotetheconductofconductsofmenand

women,working through their autonomy rather than through coercion even of a

subtle kind. Out of this concept and the extended analysis of political economy

whichprovidesthematerialforitselaboration,Foucaultneverproducedapublished

work.Hebrokeoffthisseriesofinvestigationstooccupyhimselfuptohisdeathin

1984with

the

writing

of

two

books,

which

were

evidently

closer

to

his

heart,

of

a

historyof the subjectpassingbywayof theCare of the selfand theUse ofPleasure

(Foucault 1989a 1989b). This however did not prevent this concept of

governmentalityfrommeetingwithgreatsuccess intheEnglishspeakingworld, in

manywaysstimulatingthereanintellectualdynamicmoreintensethaninthecaseof

hispublishedworks,which rapidlybecame classicsandwere treated as suchand

with thedeference thatstatusentailed,butnotwith theexcitementwhichmet the

lectures on governmentality. In 1991, your volume The Foucault Effect (Burchell,

Gordon, Miller 1991) set off this dynamic by centring the effect in question

preciselyonthisnotionofgovernmentality.ButinFranceFoucaultslecturesonthe

subjectwerenotpublisheduntil2004andwithoutatfirstarousinggreatinterest.So

whataccountsforthissingularsuccessofFoucaultsreflectionongovernmentalityin

theAngloSaxonworld?

CG: WehadafewadvantagesinBritain.Inthefirstplace,Foucaultinhislifetime

wasmoreeasygoingaboutforeigntranslationsofhisinterviewsandlecturesthanhe

wasabouttheirpublicationorreprintinginFrance.Theremayalsohavebeenmore

1

Translated

with

minor

revisions

from

Esprit,

Novembre

2007,

82

95:

Comment

gouverner

les

socitslibrales?LeffetFoucaultdanslemondeAngloSaxon.


2/15

FoucaultStudies,No.5,pp.4862.

editorial latitude forjuxtaposing thismaterialwith theworkofpeoplewhowere

collaborating,virtuallyoractually,withFoucault.SomeofFoucaultsimportantlater

lectures and textsdealingwithgovernmentweregiven inAmerica andoriginally

published there. InTheFoucaultEffect Iwas able topublish a summary,basedon

lecturenotes

and

tapes,

of

his

governmentality

lectures:

many

people

could

certainly

havedonethesameinFrance.

Secondly,thereisthedifferenceinthenationalpoliticalconjuncture.InFrance

after 1981, thedominantpreoccupation remained socialism rather than liberalism,

whereasFoucaulthad seen the importanceof liberalism as apolitical issueand (I

believe)conceivedhis1979lecturespartlyinresponsetotheconjunctureoftheLefts

1978electoraldefeatatthehandsofGiscarddEstaing.Itisreasonabletosupposehe

would not have greatly lamented the defeat of a Left coalition in which the

Communist Party played amajor role.Here Foucault presents neoliberalism as a

modern

political

rationality

worthy

of

attention

and

a

certain

intellectual

respect,

while commenting that democratic socialism for its part has failed to engender a

distinctive governmental rationality. This seemed a prescient and pertinent

observation to some of us in Britainwhowere entering in 1979 on 18 years of

Conservativegovernment,whereas in1981Francewas toenteron twentyyearsof

mainlysocialistgovernment,endowedwiththelegacyofthetrenteglorieuses,the

three French postwar decades of notable socioeconomic progress. Viewed from

across theChannel, theFrenchsocialistgovernmentsseemed tobeprotecting,and

indeed extending these enviable accomplishments, while a rightwing British

governmentwasbusy dismantling the semicorporatist postwar national system,

andotherEnglishspeakingcountriesoverthesameperiodweregettingadoseofthe

samemedicine.2

JD: One can entirely accept this explanation of the success of governmentality

studiesintheAngloSaxoncountries.There,neoliberalismtriumphedandbecamean

objectofstudywhereasinFrance,giventherelativedominanceoftheSocialistParty,

we had to struggle for twenty years to produce a reflection on the socialwhich

uncoupled it from socialism and addressed it in terms of the governability of

democracy.Showing thatthereexistedanacceptableexitfromsocialismseemedto

usmoreimportantthangraspingthesubtletiesofliberalismasapoliticalrationality.Ihave inmindaseriesofauthorsworking to thatagenda, includingRobertCastel

and myself, who were for a time close to Foucault, and others like Pierre

Rosanvallon,whowerenot,whoexemplifythisnationalparticularityofourrelation

tothequestionofgovernment,incontrasttowhatyousayaboutthedestinyofthat

questionintheEnglishspeakingcountries.

2 ThoughThatcherhadfallen frompowerbythe timeTheFoucaultEffectwaspublished; in the

80s

the

British

Lefts

preferred

intellectual

guide

for

the

understanding

of

Thatcherism

was

Gramsci,notFoucault.

49


3/15

Donzelot&Gordon:GoverningLiberalSocieties

OnecanalsowonderifthefactthatFoucaultsreflectionwasatoddswiththis

Frenchconjuncturemightnothavecontributedtoacertainhardeningofhispolitical

stanceinthisterrain,adifficultyinpositioninghimselfwhichledtoabandoningthis

aspectofhisreflectiontoconcentrateonthecareoftheself?Becausethecontextwas

avery

delicate

one

:he

had

parted

company

with

his

revolutionary

links

without

lapsingintothekindofpoliticalphilosophywhichhehated,thequestionofregime,

oftheState,ofallthoseofficialobjectswhichhehad beensowellabletobypass.It

wasalsothemomentwhenthecircleoffriendsaroundhiminthe70sbrokeupand

hecontentedhimselfwitha fewclosesupporters. Inawayyou inventedaFrench

Foucauldianschoolwhichneverexisted,ornolongerexistsinFrance,but,withthis

Foucaulteffectwhereyouassembledtextsfromthisloosegroupoffriendsinthe

70s, werent you fabricating an artefact which gave the illusion in AngloSaxon

countriesofadynamicwhichnolongerexistedinFrance....andtherebymanagedto

produce

one

in

those

countries?

Hence

my

second

question

what

was

it

that

led

to

thisinterestingovernmentalitythere?

CG: Itisquitetruethatinourvolumewedidnotinformourreadersaboutsome

politicalandpersonaldisagreementsbetweenourauthors,wherewecouldnotsee

thatthesewerelinkedtoaclearintellectualdifference.Myintroductiontoourbook

was(asIadmitted) anattempttoconstructaplaneofconsistencebetweenthework

of individualswho, in some cases, had nevermet, and in otherswere no longer

collaboratorsordesiring tobeperceived as such. 3The fabrication ofour artefact

ended up taking some time, nearly a decade in all: Foucaults death in 1984

complicatedandchanged the termsof theproject,whichhadbeenbegunwithhis

knowledge and approval, in variousways.Now that five volumes of Foucaults

lecturesfromthe1970shavebeenpublished,however,onecanmoreeasilyseehow

muchofwhatbecame, fora time,a shared researchprogrammewasalreadywell

developedinhisownwork,inpartswellbefore1978.

AstoFoucaultstrajectory,Ithinkitiswithhis1976lectures,atthelatest,that

he starts todistancehimself from themilitant idealof the time.Thediscussion in

those lectures of Sieys and the Third Estate seems already to prefigure his later

reflectionon the formidable capabilitiesof liberalismas apolitical rationality.The

intellectual path that led Foucault from the analysis of disciplines to that ofgovernmentality is perfectly consistent, just as the theme of governmentality

connectsconsistentlyinturnwithhislaterthemesofcareoftheselfandtruthtelling.

LetsalsorememberthatthislateFoucault,whoissupposedtohaveretreatedinto

solitarystudyoftheChurchfathersandthehistoryofthesacramentsofpenitence,

was also the treasurer of the French branch of Solidarnosc, engaged in public

3 SylvainMeyetpointsout,accurately,thatnocontributortoourvolumeexceptFoucaulthimself

and

the

editors

explicitly

uses

the

term

governmentality.

Travailler

avec

Foucault.

Retours

Sur

Le

Politique,eds.SylvainMeyet,MarieCcileNaves,ThomasRibmont,LHarmattan,Paris2005.

50


4/15


discussion with the socialist trade union leader Edmond Maire, and in an

institutionalprojectwith the law reformerandjusticeminister,RobertBadinter. It

seems,asMichelSenellartrightlynotesinhisexcellenteditorialpostfacetothe1978

79 lectures, that Foucaults interest in liberalism and neoliberalism is verymuch

connected,around

1978,

with

his

support

for

the

East

European

dissidents.

There

is

a

markedanticommunistcontextinhislecturesof19789.

Ihavealwaysbeensurprisedthattherewassolittlecontemporaryresonance

atthetimeinFranceforFoucaultsworkongovernmentality.In1979,Foucaultsaid

that hewouldwork in the following years lectures on the genealogy ofpolitical

partiesespecially,Ibelieve,thatoftheFrenchSocialistparty.Isuspectthathewas

discouraged from pursuing this planby the limited success of his dialoguewith

friendsin,orcloseto,theSocialistParty.Perhapshisanticommunismstillposedtoo

manyproblems.Buttherewasneveranysignthathehadrepudiatedthisseriesof

analyses.

In

the

following

years,

he

encouraged

and

supported

some

young

researchershetaughtatBerkeleywhodidresearchintogovernmentalityinAmerica.

Atthetimeofhisdeath,hehadabookannouncedforpublicationwithEditionsdu

SeuilentitledLegouvernementdesoietdesautres.

I never thought that Foucault would have been in serious political

disagreementwithyourworkataroundthistimeorindeedthatyouwouldbelikely

todissent fromhisviewsaboutsecurityandautonomy in theWelfareState,asset

out inhis discussionwithRobertBono of theCFDT. Indeed I tried to show that

Foucaults analyses of liberalism were consistent with the approach of your

Linventiondusocial(Donzelot[1984]1994),notablyinthelecturehegavein1979on

FergussonsHistoryof

Civil

Societywhereheseesemerginganotionofsocietyasa

transactional reality, amobile surface of engagementbetween the practices of

governmentandtheuniverseofthegovernedwhichconstantlytendstoescapetheir

grasp.WhereashehadclearpoliticaldifferenceswithDeleuzewhowasanother

philosophicalgenius,butnogeniusinpolitics.Nowadays,asyouknow,thereasare

manypeopleintheworld,academicsinparticular,whofavouraDeleuzianFoucault

interpretedby Antonio Negri, as there are people interested in governmentality

studies.While the successivewaves ofposthumouspublication and circulation of

Foucaultswork are reaching and inspiring new generations of readers, some of

thosewho responded to his publishedwork of the 70s and 80smayby nowbelookingelsewhereforstimulatingnovelty.

AsfortheresultsofEnglishspeakinggovernmentalitystudies(nottospeakofwork

in the rest of theworld outside France), it is hard to give a short and summary

answer.NikolasRoseandMitchellDeanpublishedbookswhichhavebeenseenas

aimingtosystematisegovernmentality,tomakeitintoatheoreticalprogramme.But

manypeople(andprobablybothoftheseauthors)woulddenythatthereisorwasa

governmentalityschoolinanyclearcutsense.Apartfromthereferencetoalimited

set of canonical textsby Foucault, there is typically a focus round the issue of

51


5/15


liberalism and liberty, signalling the need to take liberalism seriously as an

intellectual forcewhich is also subject to historical transformation. Some original

fields of research havebeen developed, such as thework of PeterMiller on the

genealogy of management, and of Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose on

biotechnologies;links

have

been

made

with

other

approaches,

notably

with

Latour

and actor network theory, inwork on government at a distance.James Tully,

Duncan Ivison,TomOsborne,GrahamBurchell,and Ihavebeen interested in the

affinities between Foucaults works on governmentality and certain currents of

Englishlanguagehistoryofpolitical thought, suchasJohnPococksworkon civic

republicanism. Then there is work by people who were taught by Foucault at

Berkeley, including interesting studiesofmoderngovernmentalitybyDavidHorn

andKeithGandal,andJonathanSimonsimportantworkonAmericanpenaljustice.

InrecentyearsitisalsobecomingclearerthatFoucaultslegacy,andparticularlyhis

work

on

governmentality,

has

had

major

international

impacts

in

the

rapidly

changingdisciplinesofgeography4 and anthropology and thenew and important

sectorofpostcolonialstudies.

Does thiswork imply a distinctive political orientation? Inbroad termswe are a

loosefaction inthepostNewLeftdiasporawhichisstillinsearchof itsmoraland

ideologicalidentity;moreparticularly,anepisodeintheexperienceofaLeftcoming

to termswitha freshadventandpartial triumphof liberalism.There isnotmuch

evidenceofadirect impactof thisbodyofworkon thepoliticaldomain. Iamnot

aware thatBlaireverreadFoucault.AnthonyGiddens, fora time theBlairClinton

court philosopher, usually includes a caricatural account of Foucault only as a

marginal item inhisdoctrinaldigests.But I thinkpartsof the formulaeofClinton

andBlairfora thirdwaymayhaveeffectivelycarriedoutaformoftheoperation

whichFoucaultmighthavebeentakenaschallengingthesocialiststocontemplate

theselectiveincorporation,inanupdatedandcorrectedsocialdemocracy,ofcertain

elementsofneoliberalanalysisandstrategy.Insomeways,itisthecontinuationofa

trend initiated inthe70sbySchmidt inGermany,Giscard inFranceandHealey in

Britain,andinherdifferentwaybyThatcherthetruthtellingroleofgovernment,

inaworldofglobaleconomicuncertaintyandcompetition,asmoraltutorofcitizens

in an ethic of enterprise and responsibility.The success of this formula inBritainseemedforalongtimetobelimitedonlybytheirritabilityofcitizensandtheclaims

of thefourthestate, themedia, tomakeandunmakegovernmentalpower(bothof

these reactions being severely aggravated, of course, by Blairs extension of his

governmental agenda to include the neoconservative enterprise of civilisational

confrontationandglobalwaronterror).

4

Space,

Knowledge

and

Power.

Foucault

and

Geography,

ed.

Jeremy

W.

Crampton

and

Stuart

Elden,

Ashgate2007.

52


6/15


Governmentalitystudies,wheretheyareidentifiableassuch,havebeenan

academic activity governed by prevailing institutional and discursive norms;

Foucaultswork,while inspiring tomany,doesnothave the capacity to turn lead

into gold.As part of this discursive order, there hasbeen an ongoing discussion

aboutwhich

side

such

investigations

are,

or

should

be,

on:

that

of

anew

rationalisationofgovernment,or thatofacritiqueof such rationality?Noonehas

quitefollowedthetrajectoryofFrancoisEwald,fromagenealogyofsocialinsurance

toanethicalontologyofriskasthenoblespiritoftheenterprisingclass.Allthesame,

the theme of governmentality hasbecome involved in a debatewhere some are

accusedbyothersofseekingtolegitimate,ratherthantoproblematise,theideaofa

risksocietyconsideredas the ineluctablecontemporary formofcollective reality

whichallcitizensandgovernmentaltechniquesarenecessarilyobligedtoconfront.

The reception of Foucaults analysis of neoliberalism unfortunately often

seems

to

be

flattened

into

a

set

of

polemical,

ideological,

and

globalising

generalities,

dispensingwiththekindofdescriptiveinvestigationFoucaultundertookin1979of

thedifferentavatarsofneoliberalismwith theirnational,historical,and theoretical

specificities.Indeed,neglectofpostwarhistoryseemstobeafrequentfeatureofthis

polemicaldiscourse:fromarecentbookonneoliberalismbyDavidHarvey,apost

moderngeographerwhoviewsFoucaultswork asobsolete,onemight think that

neoliberalismhadbeeninventedinthe1970s.

Ihopethefullpublicationoftheselectureswillrevitalisethisareaofresearch.

I think their publicationwill also show that this notion of governmentality can

usefullybeappliedalongsideFoucaultsearlierand later ideas (power/knowledge,

discipline, government of self, perihelia). The theme of governmentality certainly

needs tobeseen in itscontinuitywith the themesof thelateorfinalFoucault

(we are only talking here of an interval of five or six years): ethics, care of self,

parrhesia or truthtelling, the conditions of existence of critical discourse. To

understand these implications in fullwewillhave to await thepublicationof the

finallectures.

JD: After thisharangue, Iplunged into thegovernmentalitystudies forwhich

youhadpointedmetosomeofthekeyprotagonists.AndIemergedatleastforthe

momentwithmixedfeelingsofpleasureandunease.

Thepleasurewasespeciallyinreadingsectionsofthebookscoeditedandwrittenby

NikolasRoseFoucaultandPoliticalReason,ThePowersofFreedom,andthearticlesof

Thomas Lemke. All of these show the pertinence of analysis in terms of

governmentality in addressing neoliberalism. They all rely on the Foucaldian

refutationofafixeddistinctionbetweenthedomainoftheStateandthedomainof

civilsociety,betweenthedomainofpowerandthedomainofsubjectivity.Theyuse

ittoshowthattheretreatoftheStatewhichissupposedtoconstituteneoliberalism

infactcorrespondstoanextensionofgovernment.

53


7/15


Thisextensionismadepossiblebyreplacingthedirectgovernmentofsociety

by theStatewitha formofgovernmentat adistance.There isadestatificationof

governmentwhichgoes inhandwith theappearanceof social technologieswhich

delegate responsibility for individuals to other autonomous entities: enterprises,

communities,professional

organizations,

individuals

themselves.

The

use

of

contractual agreements,definedofobjectives,measuresofperformance, combined

with localautonomy,allows thisshiftof responsibility togovernmentalactionata

distance.Inthisperspective,Individualsaretobecomeexpertsofthemselves,to

adoptaneducatedandknowledgeablerelationofselfcareinrespectoftheirbodies,

theirminds,theirformsofconductandthatofthemembersoftheirownfamilies

(RoseinFoucaultandPoliticalReason(1997,59f)).Individualsbecomeentrepreneurs

ofthemselves,anditisassuchthattheyarebondedintosocietythroughthechoices

theymake, the risks they take, and the responsibilities for themselves and others

which

thereby

arise

and

which

they

are

required

to

assume.

Citizenship

is

consequentlynolongerexercisedinarelationshipwiththeStateorwithinapublic

space (such a spacebecoming indeed difficult to discern as such), somuch as a

varied rangeofprivate, corporateorquasipublicpractices, ranging fromwork to

consumption: the consumer citizenbecomes an active agent in the regulationof

professionalexpertise; theprudentcitizenbecomesanactiveagentofsecurity, the

citizenasemployeebecomesanactiveagentintheregenerationofindustry (ibid.)

It isat thispoint,at thisequationof the simultaneousgrowthof individual

autonomyandresponsibilityonebelievesoneselfautonomous:whatisworse,one

is;but thisautonomy isdesigned tomakeus intoagentsof the system thatmy

uneasebegins.NotbecausetheanalysisisfalseIentirelyendorseitasanecessary

stage, as far as it does but because it is presented as sufficient, whereas the

underlyingquestions startjust at thepointwhere it stops, sureof itselfandof its

intellectual effect. The sophisticated social technologies of advanced neoliberal

society,ittellsus,containanenlargedcomponentoffreedomalongwithanenlarged

componentofrequiredresponsibilityincomparisonwiththoseoftheWelfareState.

Just as the lattermarked an advance on oldstyle political economy, so political

economyhad represented amovebeyond themodelof reasonof state.Eachnew

modelisevaluatedonlyagainsttheperformanceofitspredecessor:theyarealways

analysedattheirtechnicallevel,neverintermsofapoliticalcriterionorintermsofvalue. This is the cost of the ability of governmentality studies to describe the

materiality of social technologies while avoiding, for instance, the habitual

denunciationsofneoliberalism as an ideological rhetoricdesigned tomask a false

economictheoryandapracticalantihumanism,asMarxistsandantiglobaliserslike

toputit.Butdoesnttheavoidanceofthatkindofsimplificationlead,initsturn,toa

centralambivalenceatthecoreofthiskindofanalysis?Isntthatwhatyouyourself

point outwhen you say that this kind of analysis can lead either to a critique of

politicalrationalityortoarationalisationofthissamesetofpolicies?

54


8/15


In terms of political rationalities, in France we can all think of Francois

Ewaldscelebrationofriskwrittenfromhiscurrentstandpointasaleadingofficialof

thenational employersorganization.This is a classic caseof countertransference

wheretheanalystfallsblindlyinlovewithhisobject,inthiscasethetechnologyof

insurance,and

finds

in

itthe

key

to

all

problems

of

social

and

political

life.

But the other standpoint, the critique ofpolitical rationality, canbeno less

irritatingwhenitispresentedasaselfsufficientconclusion.Iwillgivetwoexamples

whichhavestruckme frommyrecent remedialreadingcourse ingovernmentality

studies.

The first is fromNikolasRosesbookPowers ofFreedom. In a chapter called

the communitycivility game,he tries to establish aparallelbetweenBenthams

famousPanopticonandthevirtuesclaimedforitbyBenthamintermsofpreserving

morality,stimulatingindustryandspreadingeducation,andthequalitiesattributed

to

the

notion

of

community

promoted

by

authors

like

Etzioni,

Putnam,

Fukuyama

andBelloch (already a somewhathastilyamalgamatedgroup),orwith thatof the

idea of associational networks considered as new diagrams of power, promoting

moral conducts in likewise subtly imperiousways. The we of community is

shown as exercising a technicomoral authority akin to that of the penitentiary

Panopticon.AtastroketheFoucauldiananalysisofgovernmentalityasconductof

conducts, as action at a distance, loses its distinction from the disciplinarising

techniquesofthe19thcentury.Butmoreseriousisthewaythisassimilationserves

thecultivationofapostureofradicalcritique.

In Barbara Cruikshanks analysis of the function of the notion of

empowermentintheUSA,Ifoundthissameinclinationtoadoptapostureofradical

critiqueat thecostof losing thesubtlecapabilities inherent inof thisnotionof the

conductofconducts.Whenshedenouncestheinvitationtoselfempowerment,she

isnotsofarfromourownJeanBaudrillardandhiscelebrationoftheinertiaofthe

silentmajorityasaformofresistancetothemoderninjunctionstoparticipationand

expression.One needs tobe aware that she is analysing Californian Welfare to

workprogrammeswhicharemoresystemsofforcedlabourunderharshconditions

than steps to theempowermentof individualsover themselvesor in their relation

with others:whereas this themeof empowermentdoes also and above allhave a

dimension of acquisition of power over oneself thanks to the power which thecollectiveonebelongstoisabletoproduce.Thecollectiveinthiscaseisnotthought

ofasdemandingasacrificefromtheindividual,butratherasanecessarysupportfor

individualselfaffirmation.Butthechoicesasexamplesofthesecaricaturalinitiatives

mayalsoserveasindicatingawishtocultivateanexclusivelycriticalposture.

One can also wonder if this ambivalence of these analyses in terms of

governmentalitymay not lead them to incline towards one side or the other, the

criticalor the laudatory side,dependingon the locationwhere it is conducted. In

AngloSaxoncountrieswhereneoliberalismwas imposed from thestartof the80s,

Foucault studiesprovide themeansofa sophisticatedcritique,albeitonewhich is

55


9/15


visiblylackingacapacitytoproposealternatives. Doesthispoliticalambivalencein

the notion of governmentality not condemn it to serving an ideological function,

determinedbypoliticalcircumstance,whereasitaspirestobepreciselytheantidote

ofanideologicalreadingofformsofgovernment?

CG: One negative feature of the Foucauldian diaspora is that people can be

seduced by the idea of revealing the truth of the present, but this is can be

contaminatedbyatasteforhyperbolicdiscourseswhichexceedanycriticalpurchase

onthereal.TheleadingexampleofthisisnodoubttheworkGiorgioAgamben,who

detects in all government a virtual programme of extermination, and views the

conditionofthegovernedasuniversalreductiontotheconditionofhomosacer,and

the likeminded commentatorswho in theUK seeeveryBlairite innovation in the

policingoffamiliesasastepontheroadtoserfdom.

As

for

the

question

behind

your

question,

that

is

to

say

Foucaults

critical

standpoint visvis governmentality in terms of its potentiality for progressive

technical invention, I suggest this brings us back to the distinctive quality of

liberalism itself. Foucault says that the liberal art of government consists in the

productionandconsumptionoffreedom,thecreationanddestructionoffreedom.It

is (as some say) the government of freedom and (as others remind us) the

governmentofunfreedom5orrather,thegovernmentofafreedomwhichisitself

anunfreedom.Liberals(KeynesandBeveridge)werearchitectsoftheWelfareState:

otherliberalshavebeenitscriticsandreformers.Itistheparadoxofliberalisminall

itsforms(neo,advanced,post...)thatmuchactionisnecessarybeforeonecanlaisser

faire

actioneventotheextentofactingtobringintoexistencethereality(freedom,

society)whichitisdesiredtolaisserfairefairesocit,asindeedyouhaveitinthe

titleofyourrecentbook.Hence,onemightpartlycountersomeofyourreproaches

by saying that this kind of analysisbrings out the ambiguity and ambivalence of

liberalrealities,inadvanceofanyquestionofthepracticalconsequencesonechooses

orfailstochoosetoinferfromtheanalysis.

Thedetached,WeberianvaluefreedomofFoucaultsdescriptionoftheconstitutive

operationsofliberalismasagovernmentalitymaylooktosomelikeadisarmingof

thepowerofcritique.Youareaskingwhetherandhow,havingunlearnedtheeasyrhetoric of denunciation, one can then reintroduce a pertinent basis for critical

evaluation.

In the first place, the very experience of a degree of discomfort at the

paradoxes,antinomiesandaporiasofliberallibertymayhelpleadtohealthylucidity

rather than moral incapacitation. Further, this element of detachment does not

prevent,buteven encouragestheintroductionofcertaincounteranalyseswithinthe

5

Hindess,

B.

(2001)

The

Liberal

Government

of

Unfreedom,

Alternatives:

Social

Transformation

andHumaneGovernance,26:93111.

56


10/15


termsoftheliberalparadigm: forinstance,thetheoryofsocialcapital inventedby

Robert Putnam (that is, of the resourceswhich individuals draw from relational

networksofsolidarityand localandprivate formsofmutualsupport),oragain, in

relationtotheLockeantheoryofselfownershipasthenecessaryfoundationof the

liberaleconomy,

the

requirement

that

each

person

be

endowed

with

the

necessary

resources toenable thatselfownership tobeeffective inpractice (asRobertCastel

arguesinhisrecentbookonSocialInsecurity,intermsinterestinglysimilartothoseof

AmartyaSensworkoncapabilityrights).

Havingsaidthis,manywhoworkingovernmentalstudiesdonotfeelcalleduponto

takeupthetasksyouproposetothem.Inthebookyouquote,NikolasRosewrites

thatinthistypeofworktheaimistodestabilizeandthinkbeyond allthoseclaims

madebyotherstogovernusinthenameofourownwellbeing,andthatstudiesof

governmentality

do

not

try

to

put

themselves

at

the

service

of

those

who

would

governbetter[5960].Thissounds likeaformofknowledgewhichwantstoserve

onlyonthesideofcontestation.However,whilerecognisingthecriticalcontribution

whichhis analyseshave indeedmade,othersmightwish at least toqualify those

statements of position (which Nikolas himself firmly refuses to assert as group

doctrines).Becauseitishardtoseewhyitshouldbeanecessaryaxiomofthestudy

ofgovernmentalitythatallgovernment(evenonewhichclaimstotakeaccountofthe

goodof thegoverned) isanevil in itself,or that thewish togovernbetter should

necessarilybe something fromwhich one ought ethically to disassociate oneself.

Certainly,Foucaulthimself said that critique isnotobliged toharness itself to the

programmingofa reformdesignedonly tomaintainanexisting relationof forces,

buthealsosaidthatintalkingwithagovernmentonecanbedeboutetenfacethat

is, engage indialogue as an independent and equal interlocutor. In this view of

things, critique, struggle, discussion and collective invention are compatible and

complementary tasks. I suppose that itwas not out of puremalice that Foucault

suggestedtotheFrenchSocialistsin1979theprojecttoinventagovernmentalityof

theirown;he indeed subsequently showed some evidenceofwillingness to assist

withthattask.

Theseductiveelement inFoucaults rereadingof liberalismwas the thought

thattheartofbettergovernmentwaspresentedastheartofgoverningless,andthatin this sense liberalism forms an autocritique of governmental reason: a

governmentality which develops and corrects itself through its own critique.

Alongside this therewashisother seductivenotionofcritique (inspiredbyKants

definitionofEnlightenmentasanemancipationfromtutelage)asanindocilityofthe

governed,awillnot tobegoverned somuchor in suchaway.That iswhere the

permanent task of critiquewoulddemand an inventive sequel:how to govern in

order tobe governed less, how to govern in order tobe governed or to govern

oneself in the way one wishes? Here wemeet Foucaults refusal of the double

blackmail, by the policy experts for whom a critique is invalidated if not

57


11/15


accompaniedbyaprescriptionforreform,andbythosewhousetheconversecharge

of recuperation, forwhom every unprejudiced discussion ofwhat is possible or

desirablecomesdowntoacapitulationofcritiquebeforethestatusquo.6

Itistruethatmostofushaveremainedatacertaindistancefromtheattempts,

inthe

English

speaking

world

as

in

France,

to

remoralise

politics

through

the

injectionofneworreviveddoctrinesofcivicanddemocraticvirtue.Somethinkers,

like William Connolly and James Tully, have made interesting attempts to

incorporatevaluesofdifference andmultiplicity inpolitical ethics.My readingof

yourrecentbookFairesocitsuggeststomethatyoualsosubscribetothatgeneral

project.

Why have we kept our distance from these initiatives(apart from the

considerationthattodayscivicpedagoguesaresometimestooeasilyrecognisableas

recycledrevolutionaryideologues)?ForheuristicreasonsFoucaultdrewadistinction

between

his

field

of

research

on

governmental

practices

and

the

history

of

the

politicaldoctrineofsovereigntyanditslegitimatefoundation,thehistoryofcitizens

andtheir rights.Thismayhavebeeninitiallynecessaryandeffectiveasameansto

establishandmakevisibleanewobjectof study (except in respectofmaking that

newobjectvisibletohistoriansofpoliticalthought),butIthinkitistimenowfora

more connectedapproach so thatwe can look, for instance, atwhat relation there

might be between a certain notion of citizenship and a certain way of being

governed7.Thismighthelpustothinkmoreeffectivelyaboutwhatwearebecoming

andwhatwewishordonotwishtobecome.

AnotherbenefitofFoucaultsinitiativewhichhasbeennoticedrecentlyisthat

it anticipates the effects of globalisation in relativising the status of national state

institutions.8ItsurprisedmethatFranoisEwaldandBlandineKriegelsaidrecently

thatFoucaultwasconcernedwithproblemsofhistimeandthatnowwehaveother

concerns. Foucaults concerns in his later years seem to me to include notably

neoliberalism, Islam, security, ethics, and the rights and global solidarity of the

governed,allissueswhichIthinkwestillrecogniseaspertinenttoday.

JD: Iagreewiththisideathattheconceptofgovernmentalityhasaprescientvalue

in relation to globalisation, because it registers, in a sense in advance, the

relativisation of States and nations, and I would also see in this advantage anenhancedpossibilityoflinkingthetechnical:analysisofgovernmentalitywiththe

moralanalysisofformsofcitizenshipcorrespondingtothisnewhistoricalcontext.

6 To state what may be obvious: Foucaults insistence on recognising the critical and anti

essentialistcomponentsofliberalismandneoliberalismdoesnotmeanthatthesedoctrinesare

thereforetobeconsideredasthepermanenthomelandofcriticalthinkingingeneral.7 As early as Histoire de la Folie, Foucault had identified the modern political problem of

reconciling

the

two

incarnations

of

the

citizen,

the

man

of

law

and

the

man

of

government.

8 CF.WLarnerandWWalterseds.GlobalGovernmentality.GoverningInternationalSpaces.(2004)

58


12/15


The analysis of neoliberal governmentality shows a common orientation of

developed countries striving to adapt to new realities. This orientation involves

reducingthedirectroleofStatesintheeconomyandsocialrelations,infavourofa

new economy of social relations which emphasises autonomy and individual

responsibilityat

all

the

local

levels

where

autonomy

and

responsibility

can

be

brought into interaction. In this sense,neoliberalgovernmentality is indeedapure

technicalproductof critiques addressed to theWelfare State for thepasty forty

years: leftcriticsdenouncing thecreation in thenameofprogressofanorderever

moredisposed tocontrol individuals, reducing theireffectiveautonomyunder the

guise of an enhanced solicitude, and critics on the right who indicted the

dismantling of the order necessary for progress through the deresponsibilising of

individualslivingundertheincreasingcareoftheState.Thedifficultyofsustaining

aneverrisingburdenofStaterevenueswithoutaffectingtheglobalcompetitiveness

of

enterprises

prompted

governments

to

use

and

play

off

these

two

critiques

against

eachother, tocounter thegrowthofdemandsand recriminationsaddressedat the

State.

The civicquestionissolittleforeigntothistechnicalsolutionthatitarisesoutof

the very fact of its application. For it is all very well to govern at a distance,

relegatingtothelocalleveltheplayofencountersbetweentheneedsforautonomy

and thedemand for responsibility.That still requires that these localities, these

diverse groupings, communities, enterprises, collectivities, form a society, and are

nottoodisparate,toomutuallyestranged,tooindifferenttoanythingoutsideoftheir

owndestiny,tooincapableofasharedappreciationofwhatisrightandjustforall

membersoftheseconstructedcollectivities.Heretherearisesthequestionofconsent

tosharedinstitutions,andthereforetothesharedcoststheyimpose.Thisconsentisa

form of civic engagement (civisme), its abstract incarnation, which we can

counterposetothedirectmutualtrustofpeopleandcitizenswithinthelocalframeof

thespecificcommunitywheretheylive.

Trustandconsentaretworelativevalues,thebalanceofwhoserolescanvary

in the production of a civic society. They are in some sense the equivalents for

citizenship of what autonomy and responsibility represent in the context of

governmentality.Theycallforasimilarconcernfortheirmutualadjustmentwhatis the right relation of these two registers to permit the establishment of a civic

society? And the intersection of these two registers, the technical register of

autonomisation and responsibility, and the civic relation of consent and trust

determines theway theconcern forgovernmentaleffectivenesssucceedsor fails to

connectwiththerealisationofacivicsociety.Bringingtogetherthesetwodemands

allows us to pose the question of how to make society exist in the context of

neoliberalism.ItseemstomethatEuropeistheplaceparexcellenceforthesearchfor

equilibriumbetween these two lines of transformation, the onewhich affects the

governedandtheonewhichaffectsthecitizen.

59


13/15


CG: Consent and trust and also, if possible, respect, are certainly thingswhich

everygovernmenttodaydesirestoproduceandtoenjoyrespectbeingincidentally

the item which others most like to deny government, at least in Britain. The

productionof

respect

demands,

in

turn,

persuasion

and

pedagogy.

Persuasion

for

the social classes which are resistant to change because they feel insecure, and

pedagogy for theminoritieswhomaybe inclined todisorder or revolt.On these

subjects,alongsideFoucaultsaccountsof thepastoral functionofgovernment it is

worth reading PaulVeynes essay on the irritability of the governed, When the

individualisfundamentallyaffectedbythepoweroftheState(EconomyandSociety,

Vol. 34,No. 2,May 2005, translatedbyGraham Burchell). Veyne explains how

Romanopinionwashumiliatedandviolatedbythespectacleofaruler,theemperor

Nero,whoforcedtheruledtoserveastheaudienceofanaestheticperformance.In

Britain

we

until

recently

had

a

political

leader

who

was

the

great

tenor

of

what

you

yourself in the80sdubbedthecoming civilisationofchange: themanoftruthas

changemaker,tellingthetruthofglobalcompetitivemodernityandtheconsequent

obligationofallandeachtobechanged.But,justasFoucaulttaughtus,ittranspires

thatpeoplecanresistanything,evengovernmentalparrhesia,even thepedagogyof

realityandtheethicofchange.Themanofchangeandtruthwasnotassassinated,

buthewasaccusedbyavocalsegmentofpublicopinionsofbeingacorrupteranda

liar.Nogovernmentalitywillabolishresistancetogovernment.

Couldthecurrentsofworkandreflectionwehavebeendiscussingcontributetothe

formationofaEuropeanpoliticalculture?Itwouldbeagoodidea,asGandhisaid

ofWesterncivilisation.Foucaulttalkedperhapslessaboutthecommonmarketthan

the socialmarket (expect perhaps in that enigmatic question in one of his 1976

lectures:andwhat ifRome,once again,were to conquer revolution?): is anyone

writingthehistoryofthelinkagebetweenthosetwothemes?9

Foucaultsketchedthe20thcenturyinternationaltransfers(sometimescovert,

oftenmediatedbyemigrationandexile)ofneoliberaltechniquesandformulae,much

as he had outlined the internationalmovement of ideas around 1900 on crime,

security and socialdefence. Itwouldbe interesting today to continue thiskindof

analysis, tracing for instance the transferbetweennational andpolitical camps ofnotionsandtechniquesofsocialexclusionandinclusion.

Perhaps we need to enlarge our thinking even beyond the still growing

Europeanspace.Itisworthnotingthattheglobal(atleastAnglophone)impactofthe

9 Itisinterestingthatinhis1979lecturesonliberalismFoucaultcitesKantsPerpetualPeaceonthe

cosmopolitan right, prescribedby nature, of global free trade. The guarantee of perpetual

peace is, in effect, commercial globalisation (la plantarisation commerciale) [2004, 60: my

translation].

Cf.

W

Walters

and

J

H

Haahr,

Governing

Europe.

Discourse,

Governmentality

and

EuropeanIntegration(2005).

60


14/15


notionand themeofgovernmentalityhascoincidedand inseveralcases interacted

withthegrowthofthenewdisciplineofpostcolonialstudies.Therelationbetween

proponentsofpostcolonial studiesandFoucaultsworkhavebeen, ina somewhat

similarway to the situation in feminist studies, contested and often contestatory;

sometimesone

has

the

impression

of

ageneration

of

fractious

and

needy

orphans,

afraidof theirown freedom,whocannot forgiveFoucault for failing towrite their

books as well as his, or for only having written the books he lived to write;

nevertheless, theencounterhas led tosomebeginningsofanalysesofcolonialand

post or neocolonial styles of governmentality.10 Perhapswe are also seeing the

beginningsofanewanalysisofthequestionwhichpreoccupiedFoucault,alongwith

neoliberalism,in19789,namelyIslamicgovernment,togetherwiththenowvery

current question of the possible civil and politicalmodes of existence ofMuslim

citizens in societieswith a liberal regime of government. If a European political

culture

was

capable

of

accommodating

and

welcoming

such

reflections,

it

would

be

a

stepforwardforEuropeandtheworld.

TranslatedbyColinGordon

Bibliography

Barry,Andrew, ThomasOsborne andNikolas Rose, Foucault and Political Reason:

Liberalism,Neo

Liberalism,

and

the

Rationalities

of

Government.London:Routledge,

1996.

Burchell, Graham, Colin Gordon and PeterMiller, The Foucault Effect: Studies in

Governmentality. Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.

Cruikshank, Barbara, The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects.

Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1999.

Dean,MitchellM.,Governmentality:PowerandRule inModernSociety.London:Sage

PublicationsLimited.,1999.

Dean,MitchellM. andBarryHindess,GoverningAustralia: Studies inContemporary

Rationalitiesof

Government.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.

Ivison, Duncan, The Self at Liberty: PoliticalArgument and theArts of Government.

Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1997.

Rose,Nikolas,PowersofFreedom:ReframingPoliticalThought. Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,1999.

Steven Legg, Beyond the European Province: Foucault and Postcolonialism, in

10 For a useful survey see Steven Legg, Beyond the European Province: Foucault and

Postcolonialism

In

Jeremy

Crampton

and

Stuart

Elden

(Eds)

Space,

Knowledge,

and

Power:

FoucaultandGeography(op.cit.)

61
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Barbara%20Cruikshank&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/102-5641436-8834540http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Nikolas%20Rose&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/102-5641436-8834540http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Nikolas%20Rose&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/102-5641436-8834540http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Barbara%20Cruikshank&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/102-5641436-8834540


15/15


62

JeremyCrampton and StuartElden, Space,Knowledge andPower: Foucault and

Geography.Kent:AshgatePublishing,Ltd.,2006.

Tully, James, An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Context. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress,1993.

l-donzelot collins sobre recepcion anglo de foucault

Documents