8/12/2019 SSS-libre

1/10

State, space and self: Poulantzas and Foucault

on governmentality.

Christopher M. Green

Paper given at the Goldsmiths Graduate Conference Crisis and

Critique of the State, Goldsmiths College, University of London,

25th October 2013.

To talk of a relationship between the work of Poulantzas and Foucault wouldalready be to say too muchespecially in regards to Foucault, who if hewas aware of Poulantzas work saw no reason to comment on it in partic-ular (though his remarks towards state theory in general are dismissive atbest). Yet as has been noted, not least in Bob Jessops definitive scholar-ship1, the influence of Foucault on the development of Poulantzas thoughtis unavoidably clear. In State, Power, SocialismFoucaults work makes, inStuart Halls words, many pertinent and contradictory appearances2, both

in direct confrontation with a reading of his texts, and in discursive choicesand turns of phrase that are perhaps unconsciouslythough unmistakablyFoucauldian. State, Power, Socialismis a text which attempts to think theidea of the state through not only a political crisis of capitalism but alsothrough an epistemological crisis of Marxism, a crisis which inevitably hasMichel Foucault as its figurehead. However, the Foucault that seemingly fas-cinated and frustrated Poulantzas in equal measures for his decentred analy-ses of disciplinary power appears almost to acquiesce to the immediacy of thestate and its apparatuses in his accounts of the development of techniques ofgovernmentality, paradigms of security and the rise of biopoliticswork thatreached maturity in Foucaults lectures at the Collge de France given af-

ter Poulantzas tragic death in 1979. The interrogative challenge that opens1The most comprehensive account can be found in Bob Jessop, State Power: A

Strategic-Relational Approach(Cambridge: Polity, 2008), 140-54.2Stuart Hall, Introduction to the Verso Classics edition in N. Poulantzas, State,

Power, Socialism (London: Verso, 2000), xiii.

1

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

2/10

State, Power, SocialismWho today can escape the question of State and

power? Who indeed does not talk about it?3

foreshadows a developmentin Foucaults later work that seems to struggle with this very question.Yet beneath the occasional derision of state theory that Foucault espouses

lies an important point for attempts at both theorising the state, as well asfor political movements and actions which take the state as a point of refer-ence, or a target of reform, reclamation, or dismantlement. In his lecture atthe Collge de France from 1 February 1978, Foucault talks of an overvalua-tion of the problem of the state which can take two forms: firstly, that of thetragic, Nietzschean cold monster which immediately confronts us, but alsoof a paradoxical overvaluationthroughreduction.4 In what appears a ratherthinly veiled reference to Althusser and others, the apparent reduction of the

state to a number of functions, for example, the development of the produc-tive forces and the reproduction of the relations of production neverthelessprivileges the position of the state in political, philosophical and sociologicalanalysis.5

It is precisely here that I believe that the importance of a reading ofPoulantzas with Foucault lies. This paper will not attempt to provide acomprehensive historical or theoretical account of either writer or of theirrelation, not least to avoid producing a poor facsimile of the scholarshipalready done in its documentation. What interests me in reading these twothinkers together is not simply that there is an often striking similarity in

their work and conceptsundoubtedly this is the case, but this itself canlead to an unhelpful analysis. The temptation can be to use the similarity toconclude that Foucault was really one of us all along, that he never escapedthe implications of a Marxist theory of the state and can rightly be broughtback into the foldor that Poulantzas should admit defeat and give up ontrying to rehabilitate state theory in the face of new paradigms in the studyof power. To do so would be to do a disservice to both thinkers. Insteadwhere I believe a reading of Poulantzas and Foucault should begin is not intheir similarities but in their differences, or rather the most striking differencebetween the two: that in spite of these similarities, one considers the statethe key object of theoretical analysis, and the other is almost at pains to

3Nicos Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, trans. Patrick Camiller, 11.4Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collge de France

1978-1979, trans. Graham Burchell, ed. Michel Senellart (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmil-lan, 2009), 109.

5Ibid.

2

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

3/10

avoid using the term. This is I argue largely due to the primacy Poulantzas

places on the class struggle in the application of power within capitalistsocieties, and the ways in which the state is present at the constitution ofclass relationsan engagement with the state I believe Poulantzas is rightto insist upon. Once this point is clear, a space for a productive dialoguebetween the work of these two thinkers appears more accessible.

Insofar as this is therefore broadly a methodological discussion, the secondmethodological precaution from Foucaults 14 January 1976 lecture at theCollge de France is an important place to begin. Here, Foucault warnsagainst studying power at the level of intentions, of asking the questions sowho has power? What is going on in his head?6 The point for Foucaultrather is, as is well known, to study power at the point of application, the

level of the procedure of subjugation of bodies, and the normalisation ofbehaviour. Against a Hobbesian model of the state as Leviathan, Foucaultargues that

rather than asking ourselves what the sovereign looks like from onhigh, we should be trying to discover how multiple bodies, forces,energies, matters, desires, thoughts, and so on are gradually, pro-gressively, actually and materially constituted as subjects, or asthe subject.7

This analytical perspective is reflected in Poulantzas description of the state

as a strategic field and process of intersecting power networks, traversed bytactics which intersect and conflict, and eventually map out that general lineof force, the States policy.8 Here is a causality which is strategic ratherthan structural; a decentered political agency which allows the explanationof state policy as a process of strategic calculation without a calculatingsubject.9 As Jessop points out this description of the development of statepolicy implies that while power is exercised on this field with multiple aimsand objectives, the final outcome (as state policy) is the result of conflictingmicro-power plays and cannot be said to have been chosen by any indi-vidual or group. Political class domination for Poulantzas is therefore both

6

Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collge de France1975-1976, trans. David Macey, eds. Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana (London:Penguin, 2004), 28.

7Ibid.8Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, 136.9Jessop,State Power, 128.

3

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

4/10

intentional and non-subjective.10

However, in abandoning the model of the Leviathanboth Foucault andPoulantzas appear to have been left with a rather stark choice between claim-ing the state is everywhere and claiming the state is nowhere, and on firstglance it can appear that they have done so. Poulantzas argues that

we cannot imagine any social phenomenon (any knowledge, power,language or writing) as posed in a state prior to the State: forall social reality must stand in relation to the state and to classdivisions.11

At the other end of the scale Foucaults comments on the overvaluation ofthe state appear to treat it as merely an ensemble of institutions with noinherent power or privileged position.12 Similarly, the infamous line fromhis 31 January 1979 lecture on how he must do without a theory of thestate, as one must forgo an indigestible meal13, appears to point towardseither its non-existence, or at least its non-importance. When Foucault saysthat [a]fter all, maybe the state is only a composite reality and a mythicizedabstraction whose importance is much less than we think, it is fairly clearthat this is a question to which we should not lose any sleep over.14

It might be tempting at this point to dismiss the question as a matterof semantics, clearly both Poulantzas and Foucault are talking about thesame phenomenon, i.e. power, and one chooses the discourse of the state,

the other of governmentality. Yet to view this as merely a stylistic decisionwould be to miss something which this apparent gap points to, within aparadox of the state itself. As Jessop puts it, on the one hand the state is

just an institutional ensemble among many within a social formation, buton the other it alone is charged with the responsibility of maintaining thecohesion of the social formation as a whole. The state is paradoxically botha part of society and the whole of society.15 This is something that appearsto be fully grasped by both thinkers, albeit with different conclusions. As

10Ibid.11Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, 39.12

Foucault,Security, Territory, Population, 109.13Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collge de France1978-1979, trans. Graham Burchell, ed. Michel Senellart (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmil-lan, 2010), 76-7.

14Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, 109.15Jessop,State Power, 7.

4

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

5/10

Foucault explains immediately after his comment on the indigestible nature

of state theory, his genealogical work has always been concerned with theways in which disciplinary mechanisms and techniques and practices of powerare continually taken over by the state, brought under state control. Hisresistance to state theory is to a form of analysis which considers the state apolitical universalto Foucault, the state is neither universal nor in itself anautonomous source of power, it is the effect, the profile, the mobile shape ofa perpetual statification.16 He goes on to conclude that the state is nothingelse but the mobile effect of a regime of multiple governmentalities, andthat his analysis must aim not to try and elicit the secretof the state fromitself, in the way that Marx tried to extract the secret of the commodity,instead moving on to question the problem of the state through the study

of practices of governmentality.17Yet when Marx attempted to extract the secret of the commodity it was

not by looking to the commodity in of itself, but to the social relations ofproduction and exchange which are constitutive of commoditiesthe com-modity itself is not treated as a universal, or as an autonomous source ofvalue, but as a social relation through which labour-power is valorised andthe extraction of surplus value is facilitated.18 The paradigmatic legacy ofPoulantzas work on the statethe idea that the state is a social relationhere allows a new perspective on what Foucault sees as the overvaluationof the problem of the state: that, like the commodity, the state is a social

relation between subjects which appears as something independent. This isprecisely why Poulantzas resists any general theory of the state, arguing that

The specific autonomy of political space under capitalisma cir-cumstance that legitimizes theorizations of that spaceis not theflawless realization of the States supposed autonomy of essence,but the result of a separation from the relations of productionthat is peculiar to capitalism.19

It is here that the fundamental difference between Foucault and Poulantzascan be found. Foucault is dismissive of state theory, of a fetishised analy-sis of governmental practices. For Poulantzas, this fetishisation is already

present in the constitution of power relations, in the material condensation16Foucault,The Birth of Biopolitics,77.17Ibid, 78.18Karl Marx, Capitalvolume 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (London:Penguin, 1976) 163-77.19Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism,22.

5

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

6/10

and institutionalisation of class power and class struggle. Foucaults third

methodological precaution in his14 January 1976 lecture warns specificallyagainst regarding power as a phenomenon of mass and homogeneous domi-nation, and specifically mentions the domination of one class over anotherpower is not something divided between those who have it and those who donot, but is something which circulates.20 The mistake Foucault makes herethough is to conceive of the class struggle in this way, as a relation betweenseparate homogeneous groups of those who hold power and those who aresubject to it. For Poulantzas recognises that political-ideological relationsare already present in the actual constitution of the relations of production,not merely in their reproduction.21 The model Poulantzas describes is notone that views social class as the source of power, but the political class

struggle as the field in which power operates. Rather than being the priv-ileged source of power, class is always overdetermined by the political andideological which are present at its very constitution, acting upon objectivepositions within the relations of production and constitutive of social re-lations.22 Under capitalism, producers are not simply separated from theobject and means of their labour in the economic property relation but alsoin the relationship of possession.23 Through juridico-political involvementthe statewhich atomises the body-politic into individual subjectsis al-ready present at the constitution of social classes. For Poulantzas, the statehas a primary relation with social classes and the class struggle, and must

be conceived of not simply as an instrument of class domination, but as astrategic field through which the hegemonic fraction organises the power blocand disorganises the masses.24 This point has clear implications for strategiesof class struggle for Poulantzas, for he argues that even if a left governmenthas control over certain state branches and apparatuses, even if these are thedominant ones within a state, the institutional structure of the state allowsthe ruling class to move power between apparatuses and secure hegemony.25

While it may not seem particularly insightful to point out that Foucaultunderestimates (or, if you prefer, properly discounts) the importance of classstruggle, what this reading hopefully demonstrates is that the stark difference

20

Foucault,Society Must Be Defended,29.21Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism,26.22Ibid, 14-19.23Ibid, 18.24Jessop,State Power, 123.25Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism,138.

6

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

7/10

in how himself and Poulantzas view the statein both its material imme-

diacy and conceptual usefulnessis intrinsically linked to how each thinkertreats questions of class. For Foucault, both class and state are somewhatunnecessary abstractions from the real circulation of power. For Poulantzas,the primacy of the relations of production means that to talk of the stateand class is unavoidable. When Foucault argues that power only looks to bedivided neatly between those that have it and those that do not when lookedat from a great height and from a very great distance, he is stating some-thing which is at the heart of Poulantzas work.26 For Poulantzas, classes arenot homogeneous entities or privileged sources of power, but are positionswithin a strategic field of social relations through which power operates. Theparadox of the statein that it represents both a part of and the whole of

a divided social bodyis further problematised by the fact that the verydivision of the social into formally equivalent individual subjects is a processthat involves the state; not just in its reproduction (through ideological andrepressive state apparatuses) but more importantly in its very installationand organisation.

The point Poulantzas makes (indeed he describes it as the essential prob-lem for the theory of the State27) is that individualisationwhich is so fun-damental to the organisation of capitalist social relationsis a terribly realphenomenon.28 It does not appear prior to contractual relations betweencommodity-owners, nor is it simply a mystifying appearance belonging to

the realm of commodity fetishism. The constitution of individuals-persons-subjects is the original ground of classes in their capitalist specificity.29 HerePoulantzas recognises the value of Foucaults analysis of normalisation anddisciplinary techniques in the process of individualisation, in particular inthe material techniques of power which shape even the corporality of[...]sub-

jects.30 And while this is certainly the case, it is Foucaults later work ongovernmentality that has the potential to enrich Poulantzas analysis. No-tions of population as the object of mechanisms of security that Foucaultdevelops in his Collge de France lectures provide conceptual material tothink through Poulantzas framing of the state as a strategic field traversedby a multiplicity of tactics. Foucaults analysis highlights how once the idea

26Foucault,Society Must Be Defended, 29.27Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, 138.28Ibid, 64.29Ibid, 63-67.30Ibid, 66-71.

7

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

8/10

of the populationinherently linked to the development of new knowledges

such as statisticsbecomes paradigmatic, governmental reason moves awayfrom tactics of exclusion and prohibition and towards the management ofprobabilities towards favourable or optimal outcomes.31 This way of thinkingabout the governmental rationality of security provides Poulantzas accountof the strategic field of the state with complimentary material for conceptu-alising how diverse, intentional tactics can develop and crystallise into stateprojects and institutions.

Yet Foucault links this paradigm shift with the development of economicthought, and the statification of the government of economies.32 This con-ception relies on an autonomy of political space, which Poulantzas arguesis an appearance resulting from the separation of the productive forces that

is peculiar to capitalism.33 For a productive analysis of contemporary statepower and governmental practices, it is not enough to think of the state asFoucault does, as the principle of intelligibility around which governmentalpractices are articulated.34 This is not to deny that the idea of the state hasan organising effect on practices of power, but to privilege this ideologicalfunction is to ignore the very real way the state atomises the social bodyand creates individuals in the production and reproduction of the relationsof production. In order to properly assess Foucaults insights on the statesobjectivisation of the population, the role of the state in constituting thatpopulationthrough the production of space and political subjectscannot

be underestimated.Against all others, the most striking similarity between Foucault andPoulantzas might be that they both volunteered explanations for the lackof direct references to Marxs texts in their respective works. For Foucault,the reason was simple: against criticisms that he was unfamiliar with Marxswork, he pointed out that everywhere he quotes Marx without quoting him.In the same way a physicist would not feel the need to directly quote fromNewton and other greats, so he did not feel it necessary to reference Marxdirectly, and that any unfamiliarity with Marxs writings lay entirely withthose who were reproaching him.35 Poulantzas reason, given in the preface

31

Foucault,Security, Territory, Population,20.32Ibid, 33.33Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, 21-2.34Foucault,Security, Territory, Population, 286-7.35Michel Foucault, Prison Talk, Power/knowledge, ed. Colin Gordon (New York:

Pantheon, 1980), 52.

8

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

9/10

to State, Power, Socialism, is that he does not cite the classics of Marxism

[for] there can be no such thing as orthodox Marxism. No-one can presumeto behave as the keeper of holy dogmas and texts; and nor have I soughtto clothe myself in them.36 There is a certain irony here in that Foucaulthimself became the keeper of Marxist dogma, precisely by failing to criticallyengage with it. Poulantzas work in State, Power, Socialismshows not onlyhow a Marxist theory of the state can avoid instrumentalism and class reduc-tionism, but also incorporate insights from theorists and projects that rejectits very foundations. If one piece of Marxist dogma should be retained it is inthe ruthless criticism of all that exists37and that must include Marxismitself. That Poulantzas and Foucault share many similar insights is perhapsinteresting; that they have different conclusions is why they should be read

together.

36Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, 8.37Karl Marx, Letter to Arnold Ruge, 1843.

9

8/12/2019 SSS-libre

10/10

Works cited.

Foucault, Michel. Power/knowledge. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York:Pantheon, 1980.

Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collge deFrance 1975-1976. Translated by David Macey. Edited by Mauro Bertaniand Alessandro Fontana. London: Penguin, 2004.

Foucault, Michel. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collgede France 1978-1979. Translated by Graham Burchell. Edited by MichelSenellart. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Foucault, Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collge de France1978-1979. Translated by Graham Burchell. Edited by Michel Senellart.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Hall, Stuart. Introduction to the Verso Classics edition in N. Poulantzas,State, Power, Socialism. London: Verso, 2000.

Jessop, Bob. State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach. Cambridge:Polity, 2008.

Marx, Karl. Capital. Volume 1. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London:Pen-guin, 1976.

Marx, Karl. Letter to Arnold Ruge.1843. Available at:www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm [accessed1.10.2013].

Poulantzas, Nicos. State, Power, Socialism. Translated by Patrick Camiller.London: Verso, 2000.

10