Foucault News

News and resources on French thinker Michel Foucault (1926-1984)

Emma Noble, Medical gaslighting: conceptual and theoretical foundations. Social Theory & Health 24, 1 (2026).
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-025-00247-4

Abstract
Medical gaslighting is a term that is frequently found in gray literature but rarely found in formal literature. However, Gaslighting is a term that has been examined in scientific literature, typically in relation to intimate partner relationships. I compare the concepts gaslighting and medical gaslighting in literature to identify critical distinctions and develop the following conceptual definition for medical gaslighting: Medical gaslighting is an interpersonal phenomenon involving a healthcare professional and a patient within which the healthcare professional trivializes, psychologizes, or dismisses the patient’s subjective bodily symptoms and health concerns. This leads to delays in care, medical mistrust, doubt in the reality of one’s bodily experiences, and medical trauma. Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action and Foucault’s conceptualizations of power are proposed as theoretical underpinnings to the phenomenon of medical gaslighting in order to contextualize the antecedents which make the phenomenon possible and lay the groundwork for future studies that I hope will aim to quantify and mitigate its effects on the health of marginalized populations.

Lorenzo Petrachi, Michel Foucault’s «La croisade des enfants». Schérer, Rochefort and the Political Philosophy of Childhood, Filosofia politica 1/2026, pp. 121-140.
https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1416/119910

Article in Italian

Abstract
The essay offers an analysis of Michel Foucault’s previously unpublished manuscript, “La croisade des enfants”. After establishing its date and providing a description of the manuscript, the essay situates it within contemporary debates on childhood sexuality and power relations between adults and minors, paying particular attention to the work of René Schérer and Christiane Rochefort, whose writings intersect with Foucault’s project in several ways. In doing so, the article brings into focus the political and philosophical stakes of “La croisade des enfants”, illuminating aspects of Foucault’s thought that have thus far remained understudied.

Keywords
Foucault, Childhood, Schérer, Rochefort

Jessamine Giese, Megan Gibson, and Marie White, Navigating Policy Disconnect in Early Childhood: Teams Interpreting the NQF, EYLF, and Modern Awards. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, First published online February 12, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391261425987

Abstract
In Australia, early childhood education and care (ECEC) has experienced substantial policy reform in the past 15 years with major shifts in qualification requirements, a national prescribed curriculum, and increasing focus on quality. Teams of early childhood educators are expected to collaboratively navigate these reforms while making decisions that lead to quality. This paper draws on a PhD study that examined how teams of educators in ECEC make curricular and pedagogical decisions within a complex policy landscape. Three key national policy documents that govern educators’ work—Guide to the National Quality Framework (NQF), Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), and modern awards—were closely analysed to make visible the complexities of how team decision-making is conceptualised in policy. Findings contribute to the global political attention on ECEC and offers ways forward for educators, organisations, and governments to re-align the reform strategy and strengthen policy implementation, leading to quality outcomes for children.

Jessamine Giese, (2025) Early Childhood Educators Producing Curriculum and Pedagogy: Discursive Possibilities of Team Decision-Making. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Open access

Description
There is increasing political interest in Australia on early childhood education and care reforms requiring educators to collectively navigate, and translate, policies into practice. This thesis explores how teams of educators interpret policy for curriculum and pedagogy. Provocations and opportunities are presented to strengthen the implementation of reform, offering new insights into ways teams of educators work within the scope of contemporary policy intent. A theoretical lens inspired by Michel Foucault enabled a scrutiny of key policies alongside an analysis of how teams of educators interpret and enact these policies, offering productive ways of thinking and speaking about team decision-making.

Abstract
This study is an inquiry into how teams of educators produce curriculum and pedagogy in long day care. In Australia, early childhood policy reform has presented major shifts in qualification requirements, a national prescribed curriculum, and rising importance on the quality of curriculum and pedagogy as provided by teams of educators (ACECQA, 2024). As educators are expected to navigate these reforms collaboratively, teams in the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector grapple with the changing regulatory landscape (Armstrong, 2023; Harrison et al., 2023; Phillips & Boyd, 2023) and challenges associated with attracting, retaining, and upskilling educators saturate the workforce (Commonwealth of Australia, 2024; Education Services Australia, 2021; Queensland Government, 2023). This study brings a new layer of insight to the Australian ECEC landscape, following the scrutiny of key policies alongside an analysis of documents and focus groups on how teams of educators interpret and enact these policies.

Michel Foucault’s (1972) set of ideas outlined in The Archaeology of Knowledge inspired both the theory and method elements of the research design for this qualitative study. A textual archive was created, consisting of data generated from policies and data collected from four long day care centres in Queensland, including centre documents and transcribed focus groups. The analytical tools applied in this study were informed by Foucault’s concepts of discourse (1972) and relations of power (1990; 1991), operationalised to look closely at the research question: How do teams of early childhood educators make curricular and pedagogical decisions in long day care?

A Foucault-informed theoretical lens enabled scepticism and critique (Gillies, 2013). Questioning the ‘rules’ which make possible the existence of policies and teams of educators enabled the taken for granted ways of doing curricular and pedagogical decision-making to be disrupted. As gaps and contradictions were located, “discovering new layers” (Foucault, 1981, p. 68) led to the identification of potential new paths for teams in ECEC. Drawing on Foucault’s work (1972), this study does not pose a singular and fixed response to the research question. Rather, use of Foucault’s concepts (1972; 1990; 1991) interrogated normalised discursive practices, and presented productive ways of thinking and speaking about team curricular and pedagogical decision-making.

Therefore, this study offers “possible paths of attack” (Foucault, 1996, p. 262) to encourage government policymakers and ECEC providers alongside their teams to “think otherwise” (Ball, 1998, p. 81) about the assumed ways teams of educators work to understand, and implement, policy. Overall, three key provocations are presented. First, this study makes visible disconnections between policies and the ways teams of educators enacted curricular and pedagogical decision-making, probing a revisit to the cluster of policies that govern educators’ work. Second, this study prompts policymakers to explore pathways to better harness the value of the degree-qualified teachers’ specialised curricular and pedagogical knowledge in teams. And third, this study presents opportunities to think differently about the position of the educational leader, a crucial role in leading quality curricular and pedagogical decision-making in Australia. Given the ongoing complexities of the ECEC workforce and the substantial political interest in the early years (both nationally and worldwide), this study opens up possibilities to strengthen the implementation of reform, through offering new insights into the ways teams of educators work within the scope of contemporary policy intent.

PhD course: Foucault: Organization, Technology, and Subject-formation

PhD course: Foucault: Organization, Technology, and Subject-formation

LINK to the course site: https://phdsupport.nemtilmeld.dk/38/

Date and time
Monday 1th June at 09:00 to Thursday 4th June 2026 at 16:00

Registration Deadline
18th May 2026 at 23:55

Location
Room TBA, Campus TBA, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark

Course coordinator: Kaspar Villadsen, Department of Business Humanities and Law (BHL)

Organizer
CBS PhD School, Nina Iversen, Phone: +45 3815 2475, ni.research@cbs.dk

Faculty

Professor Sverre Raffnsøe
Department of Business Humanities and Law, CBS

Associate Professor Marius Gudmand-Høyer
Department of Business Humanities and Law, CBS

Associate Professor Troels Krarup

Professor (mso) Kaspar Villadsen
Department of Business Humanities and Law, CBS

Prerequisites

Only PhD students can participate in the course.

Participation requires submission of a short paper (see more below). Papers must be in English and deadline is 20th May 2026.

It is a precondition for receiving the course diploma that the PhD student attends the whole course.

Aim

The course will provide the participants with:

  1.  An introduction to key analytical potentials reconstructed from Foucault’s wide-ranging authorship as well as the lecturers’ own research projects.
  2. In particular, we will discuss different approaches to themes of organization, technology, and subject-formation as they are deployed in state-of-the-art Foucault-inspired scholarship.
  3. The potentials and limits of the particular way Foucauldian analytics can be applied in the participant’s research will be discussed. Hence, a range of analytical resources and potentials will be explored and discussed in relation to the participants’ current research.

Course content

Michel Foucault’s work continues to offer a major source of inspiration for PhD projects across a wide range of disciplinary domains. This PhD course explores how Foucault’s work speaks to three broad themes in contemporary business school research and beyond: Organization, technology, and subject-formation. The lecturers on the course have all pursued substantive research on these themes, drawing upon different parts of Foucault’s authorship, and they will base their teaching on this research experience. A key aim of the course is that the participants acquire an effective overview of analytical possibilities in Foucault’s work, effective for selecting and deploying such analytics in their own research.

Overall, Foucault’s thinking can help to inquire into the organizations, technologies and techniques of self-formation that make up the conditions of possibility for our contemporary experiences. First, Foucault’s usual genealogical approach (Foucault 1977, 1984) works by tracing how contemporary forms of organization emerged from past struggles, political strategies, and accidental events. From this perspective, the prevailing modes of organizing can be better grasped by recovering their historical conditions of emergence and dispersion. Genealogy takes as its basic premise that history, as well as our present, is a site of evolving struggle, including contest over divergent interpretations, which the development of modern modes of organizing and managing clearly displays. Hence, struggles around definitions and uses of appropriate management, leadership, accountability, transparency or sustainability make up pertinent material for genealogical inquiry.

Foucault developed his own notion of technology during the 1970s, namely the concept of “the dispositive”. A dispositive is defined as a historical configuration, which connects a series of discursive and non-discursive elements such as laws, practices, material artefacts, procedures, and techniques (Foucault, 1980). It designates a propensity in knowledge production and social practice as well as a “dispositionality” in how institutions emerge and transform. The concept opens for analyzing how our practices – for example, risk assessments or anti-pandemic strategies – are conditioned by dispositives that have been formed in historical processes often spanning several centuries. Foucault (2007) suggested that the dispositives of law, discipline and security have been particularly important as responses to thorny governmental problems such as crime, infectious diseases, population welfare, and labor unrest. Current problems such as climate change, environmental degradation and extreme inequality could be analyzed as straddling between these deep-rooted frameworks of calculation, intervention and rationalization. The dispositive has recently been introduced into Foucauldian scholarship as a highly promising analytical resource, and the course will explore how it can be used for empirical inquiries.

Finally, Foucault’s late authorship in the early 1980s, often termed his “ethical turn”, took him back to techniques of self-formation in Early Christianity and Greco-Roman antiquity. There, Foucault noticed a “technical” notion of ethics less defined by submission to universal moral codes and instead focused more on the self’s work upon the self.

Foucault’s attention to ethics in the early 1980s hardly signified a departure from political issues, but a re-conception of politics as an ethical politics. The work on your own freedom that ethics comprise is political, Foucault argued, in the sense that our self-fashioning involves what we are willing to accept or want to change in ourselves as well as in our circumstances: “[T]here is no first or final point of resistance to political power other than in the relationship one has to oneself” (Foucault, 2005: 252). Perhaps, the urgent issues of our time call for developing another form of ethics rather than models rooted in legal frameworks and Christian morality. The recent emergence of responsible consumers, ‘life-long learners’, climate conscious youths, “freeganism”, and fluid gender identity could be analyzed with inspiration from Foucault’s work on ethics and self-formation. An analytical key task that will be addressed in this part of the course is how to integrating Foucault’s notion of technology, the dispositive, with his analysis of self-technology, hence bridging the mid-career Foucault’s analytics of power with the late Foucault’s ethics.

The theme of this PhD course requires that the participants engage in some way with Foucault’s historical work, his analytical frameworks, his concepts, or his approach to organization, technology, and subjectivity. Papers that are not underpinned exclusively by Foucauldian analytics but also derive from other thinkers and traditions are welcome too. Our point of departure is that Foucauldian analytics is not only pertinent to philosophical research, since such analytics can also find application in ethnographic, sociological, organizational, historical, and anthropological research.

Teaching style

The goal is to sharpen the participants’ knowledge of the Foucauldian toolbox of analytical resources and how these can be applied in PhD projects. To that end we will set aside sufficient time to carefully examine and discuss the papers submitted by the participants. The course will consist of both workshops and lectures/presentations by scholars who are specialist in Foucault’s work and subsequent Foucauldian scholarship. The goal of the lectures is, first, to clarify the ways in which Foucault worked with his most significant analytics and, second, to demonstrate how to put the analytics at work in specific analysis. The aim of the workshops is to explore how Foucauldian analytics function (or possible may be employed) in each participant’s research – with the aim of strengthening, deepening and nuancing the participants’ dissertations or research articles. In the workshops, the course participants are divided into smaller groups (using shared topics and/or approaches as choice criteria) enabling a substantial peer discussion of both paper and their research project. Each workshop will be supervised and organized by one of lecturers.

All participants are required to submit a paper that deals with the key theme(s) of the PhD project in question. Papers that apply Foucauldian analytics to empirical problems in a variety of domains are welcomed, but so are papers that draw upon other thinkers and traditions. Perhaps the PhD student is interested in considering whether it would be interesting to include perspectives drawn from Foucault and Foucauldian scholarship in their PhD project.

It is possible to submit two kinds of papers. The first option is a short paper/abstract, which briefly presents the PhD student’s project and perhaps poses some questions regarding how it could include perspectives from Foucault. The second option is to submit a brief paper (5-10 pages), which presents the PhD project and some key theoretical and/or empirical considerations, and it can perhaps include notions from Foucault such as power, knowledge, governmentality, technologies of power, self-technology, etc.  The key idea is that each participant will take home lots of beneficial inputs to his/her PhD project based on a discussion of challenges and potentials in the project.

Papers must be in English.

Learning objectives
• Achieve a strong reflexivity regarding how the choice of analytics from Foucault’s authorship brings certain questions, problems, entities and processes into the foreground of analysis and critical consideration.

  • Awareness of different ways of working with Foucauldian analytics in PhD dissertations, articles and academic writing in general. This awareness will particular concern and be exemplified by the themes of organization, technology, and subjectivity. However, as mentioned above, these themes are not exclusive.
  • The course will increase participant’s critical ability to account for the potential role of Foucauldian analytics, in general, and how it is applied in the participant’s research, specifically. This reflexivity concerns, inter alia, the epistemological distinctiveness of Foucauldian analytics, the social ontology its assumes, the analytical practices involved in Foucauldian scholarship, and the potential critical effects of such scholarship. Finally, the increased reflexivity relates to the range of Foucauldian analytical resources that can be effectively explored in relation to the participants’ current research.

Lecture plan (maybe be subject to minor changes)

During the workshops, the participants will be divided into smaller groups each supervised by one of the course teachers.

During the workshops, the participants will be divided into smaller groups each supervised by one of the course teachers.

LITERATURE (to be finalized):

MONDAY:

For lecture 1: What Is Genealogy? (KV)

  • Foucault, M. 2003. ‘Society Must Be Defended’: Lectures at the Collège de France 1975–1976. New York: Picador. [Lectures one and two].
  • Villadsen, K. 2024. Foucault’s Technologies: Another Way of Cutting Reality. Oxford University Press. [Chapter Five, pp. 267-304].

Background, optional:

  • Karlsen, M. P. and K. Villadsen. ‘Foucault, Maoism, Genealogy: The Influence of Political Militancy in Michel Foucault’s Thought’. New Political Science, 37(1): 91–117.

For lecture 2: (KV)

  • Foucault, M. (2007) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. New York: Palgrave. [Lectures one and two]. 

For lecture 3: (KV)

  • Villadsen, K. (2021) “‘The Dispositive’: Foucault’s Concept for Organizational Analysis?” Organization Studies, 42(3): 473-494.

TUESDAY:

For lecture 4: Dispositive Proto-Typology [and the notions of governmentality] (MGH)

  • Foucault, M. (2007) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. New York: Palgrave (Lectures 1 + Lecture 4, excerpt, pages 106-111].
  • Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. New York: Palgrave. (Lecture 3).

Background, optional:

  • Raffnsøe, S., M. Gudmand-Høyer, M. S. Thaning: “Chapt. 7: The Governmentalization of the State”, excerpt: 2. The early linage of governmentality and dispositional analysis; 3. Later developments in the notion of governmentality, pp. 236-258, in: Id.: Foucault: A Research Companion.New York & London: Palgrave, 2016.

For lecture 5: The subject and Subjectivation (KV)

  • Foucault, M. (1982) “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry, 8(4): 777-795.
  • Villadsen, K. (2024) “‘The Subject and Power’ – Four Decades Later: Tracing Foucault’s Evolving Concept of Subjectivation.” Foucault Studies, (36): 293–321. Available at: https://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/article/view/7220

Background, optional:

  • Villadsen, K. (2023) “Goodbye Foucault’s ‘Missing Human Agent’?: Self-formation, Capability and the Dispositifs.” European Journal of Social Theory, 26(1): 67–89. 

For short lecture 6: Veridiction and Security in The Birth of Biopolitics (MGH):

  • Foucault, M. (2007) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave. (Lecture 2 and Lecture 10 + beginning of Lecture 11).

WEDNESDAY:

For lecture 7: The (Lost) Object of Problematization (MGH)

  • Foucault, M. (2014) “Interview with André Berten, May 7, 1981”, pp. 235-246 in: Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling: The function of avowal in justice.The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lecture 1, excerpt (pp. 1-6) of Foucault, M. (2010). The Government of Self and Others. Lectures at the Collège de France 1982-1983.New York/London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Background, optional:

  • Excerpts (Introduction, pp. 1-15 + Part 2, pp. 33-42) from Gudmand-Høyer and Kogut (2025; work in progress): “The (lost) object of problematization analysis: A comprehensive review of a central notion in Michel Foucault’s later work (1975-1984)”.

For short lecture 9: From vital politics to human capital investing:

  • Foucault, M. (2007) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave. (Lecture 6 and Lecture 9).

For lecture 10: Critique à la Foucault (SR):

  • Foucault, Michel ([1980] 1994), “Le philosophe masqué,” in Michel Foucault (1994), Dits et écrits. Volume IV (Paris: Gallimard): 104-115// Foucault, Michel (1994), “The Masked Philosopher”, in Michel Foucault (1994), The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, edited by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose (New York: The New Press): 174-179
  • Foucault, Michel ([1978] 2015), Qu’est-ce que la critique? Suivie de La culture de soi, Édition établie par H.-P. Fruchaud et D. Lorenzini, Introduction et apparat critique par D. Lorenzini et A.I. Davidson, (Paris: Vrin): 33-80 // Foucault, Michel ([1978] 2024), What Is Critique? & The Culture of the Self. Edited by Henri-Paul Fruchaud, Daniele Lorenzini, and Arnold I. Davidson. Trans. Clare O’Farrell, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): 19-61
  • Butler, Judith ([2000] 2004), “What is Critique? An essay on Foucault’s Virtue,” in Judith Butler (2004), The Judith Butler Reader, edited by Sara Salih. Malden (USA; Oxford, UK; Carlton, Australia: Blackwell Publishing).

Background, optional:

  • Raffnsøe, Sverre; Gudmand-Høyer, Marius; Thaning, Morten (2016): “Foucault’s dispositive: The perspicacity of dispositive analytics in organizational research,” Organization: 23(2) 2016: 272–298
  • Latour, Bruno (2004): “Why has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry 30 [Winter 2004), pp. 225-248.
  • Raffnsøe, Sverre; Mennicken, Andrea; Miller, Peter (2019): “The Foucault Effect in organization studies,” journal Organization Studies, 2019, Vol. 40(2): 155–182.
  • Staunæs, Dorthe; Raffnsøe, Sverre; Brøgger, Katja (2025), “Affirmative critique as counter-archiving and an-archiving: For another academic freedom to come,” journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2025.2500373/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2025.2500373?af=R#abstract
  • Raffnsøe, Sverre; Staunæs, Dorthe; Bank, Mads (2022): “Affirmative Critique,” in Theory and Politics in Organizations, Volume 22(3): 183-217.

Additional suggested readings:

Foucault, M. (1991). Questions of method. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 73-86.

Foucault, M. (1998) ‘On the Genealogy of Ethics’. In Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984. Vol. 1, by Michel Foucault, pp. 253-280. London: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (2007) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78. Springer, 2007.

Foucault, M. (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979. Springer, 2008.

Koopman, Colin. Genealogy as critique: Foucault and the problems of modernity. Indiana University Press, 2013.

Raffnsøe S., Gudmand-Høyer M., Thaning M.S. (2016) Foucault’s dispositive: The perspicacity of dispositive analytics in organizational research. Organization, 23(2): 272-298.

Raffnsøe, S., Gudmand-Høyer, M. T., & Thaning, M. S. (2016) Michel Foucault: A Research Companion. Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (1984) ‘On the Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Work in Progress’. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 340-372.

Foucault, M (1993) About the Beginning of the Hermeneutics of the Self: Two Lectures at Dartmouth. Political Theory, 21(2) 198–227.

Foucault, M. (1980) ‘The Confession of the Flesh’. In Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977, ed. C. Gordon, pp. 194-240. New York: Pantheon Books.

Note: In case we receive more registrations for the course than we have seats, CBS PhD students will have first priority. Remaining seats will be filled on a first come first serve.

Registration deadline and conditions

The registration deadline is 18th May 2026. If you want to cancel your registration on the course it should be done prior to this mentioned date. By this date we determine whether we have enough registrations to run the course, or who should be offered a seat if we have received too many registrations.

If there are more seats available on the course we leave the registration open by setting a new registration deadline in order to fill remaining seats. Once you have received our acceptance/welcome letter to join the course, your registration is binding and we do not refund your course fee. The binding registration date will be the registration deadline mentioned above.

Payment methods

Make sure you choose the correct method of payment upon finalizing your registration:

CBS students:

Choose payment method CBS PhD students and the course fee will be deducted from your PhD course budget.

Students from other Danish universities:

Choose payment method Danish Electronic Invoice (EAN). Fill in your EAN number, attention and possible purchase (project) order number.

Do you not pay by EAN number please choose Invoice to pay via electronic bank payment (+71).

Students from foreign universities:

Choose payment method Payment Card. Are you not able to pay by credit card please choose Invoice International to pay via bank transfer.

Milena Tekeste, Mustafa F. Özbilgin (2026), Misrecognition and Responsibilisation in Extreme Events: Towards Recognition-based Accountability in Academia. British Journal of Management, 37: e70032.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.70032

Abstract
This essay interrogates how extreme events including the COVID-19 pandemic, climate disasters, and political conflict, amplify structural inequalities in academia. Drawing on critical autoethnographic material from an Early Career Researcher with intersecting marginalisations, we show how crises expose and intensify two mutually reinforcing dynamics: misrecognition (institutional neglect of care responsibilities, political vulnerability, and embodied identity) and responsibilisation (the shifting of crisis management onto individuals). We demonstrate how these processes operate through institutional silence and performativity mechanisms that simultaneously erase vulnerability and demand uninterrupted performance, making individual adaptability appear both natural and necessary. By situating these lived experiences within Honneth’s theory of recognition and Foucault’s concept of responsibilisation, we theorise how their interaction deepens disadvantage for vulnerable groups during and after crises. In response, we propose Recognition-based Accountability (RbA) as a framework for institutional reform. RbA shifts the emphasis from individual resilience to structural responsibility, outlining actionable, care-oriented pathways for embedding equity and recognition into crisis governance in management education. This essay thus contributes to debates on academic inequality and the future of work by revealing the embodied costs of institutional neglect and offering a model for reorienting crisis response toward justice, care, and accountability.

Giorgi Vachnadze, Our Machines Podcast, Interview with Riccardo Molin, Soundcloud, March 2026

Discussion of Giorgi Vachnadze, (2024) Christian Eschatology of Artificial Intelligence: Pastoral Technologies of Cybernetic Flesh. Berlin/Nicosia: Becoming Press. 978-9925-8118-8-5.

Pirkko Markula, Jim Denison, Poststructuralist Methodologies for Physical Activity Research Theory and Practice of Foucault, Deleuze, and Latour, Routledge, 2026

Drawing on the work of Foucault, Deleuze, and Latour, this book opens up a poststructuralist approach to sport, exercise, and dance research. It examines how to incorporate both articulable expression and visible material elements – theoretically and methodologically – to study the force of the moving body in practice.

This book employs critical concepts including the dispositive, assemblage, and actor network to interrogate and advance our understanding of theory and method in research of physical activity practice. It asks what a poststructuralist approach might mean, especially as it concerns themes such as the body in motion, physical activity practice, network of relations, knowledge, and power for physical cultural studies scholars. Presenting in-depth case studies of adult ballet, Barre, Pilates, coaching, ice-hockey, and cross-country running, this book also examines how researchers and practitioners can begin to collaborate to create innovative instruction, training, and coaching practices.

This is a fascinating reading for advanced students and researchers working in the physical cultural studies, sociology of sport and exercise, sociology of the body, sports coaching, physical education, or social theory.


Contents

PART 1

Theorizing Poststructuralism

1 What Is Poststructuralism?

2 The Dispositive: Foucault’s Articulable and Visible Elements in Power Diagrams

3 Assemblage Analysis: Deleuze’s Semiotic System, Pragmatic System, and Territoriality

4 The Actor‑Network Theory: Latour’s Methodological Moves

5 The Ethical Formation of the Self

PART 2

Practicing Poststructuralism

6 Foucault in Practice: Ethical Practices for a Recreational Ballet Class

PIRKKO MARKULA AND JODIE VANDEKERKHOVE

7 Practicing Foucault in a BarrePilates Class

PIRKKO MARKULA AND JOY CHIKINDA

8 Movement of Learning: Thinking Differently about Physical Activity Research Practice

9 The “Post” Project: What Else Can Women’s Naked Bodies Do?

PIRKKO MARKULA AND ALLISON JEFFREY

10 Poststructuralist Vision for Practice Design in Sport

11 Concussion Return to Play Policies and Protocols: An Actor‑Network Theory Approach

JIM DENISON AND DALLAS ANSELL

12 Running Fast: A Socio‑Material Perspective

13 The Air We Breathe

Finale: Concluding Moves

Anna-Verena Nosthoff, Kybernetik und Kritik. Eine Theorie digitaler Regierungskunst, Suhrkamp, 2026.

Elon Musk bezeichnet die Plattform X als »kybernetische Superintelligenz«, Mark Zuckerberg denkt Unternehmen als »lernende Organismen«, und der Erfinder der Datenbrille Google Glass sagt: »Die Kybernetik ist überall, wie Luft.« Diese Aussagen kommen nicht von ungefähr. Wer die Digitalisierung verstehen will, muss auf ihre kybernetischen Ursprünge schauen. In ihrem grundlegenden Buch zeichnet Anna-Verena Nosthoff ein umfassendes Panorama der Kybernetisierung der datafizierten Gegenwartsgesellschaft – von den ersten Prämissen der »Wissenschaft von Kommunikation und Kontrolle« über die Emergenz des Cyberspace bis hin zum aktuellen KI-Hype und zu technikautoritären Strömungen. Es zeigt sich: Die Kybernetisierung erfasst auch die Kritik – die sich daher neu erfinden muss, um zu überleben.

Anna-Verena Nosthoff ist Juniorprofessorin für Ethik der Digitalisierung an der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg und Ko-Direktorin des Critical Data Lab (Humboldt-Universität/Universität Oldenburg).

Rainer Mühlhoff, The Ethics of AI. Power, Critique, Responsibility, Bristol University Press, 2025

Available open access digitally under CC-BY-NC-ND licence.

In a world where artificial intelligence increasingly influences the fabric of our daily lives, this accessible book offers a critical examination of AI and its deep entanglement with power structures. Rather than focusing on doomsday scenarios, it emphasises how AI impacts our everyday interactions and social norms in ways that fundamentally reshape society. By examining the different forms of exploitation and manipulation in the relationship between humans and AI, the book advocates for collective responsibility, better regulation and systemic change.

This is a resounding manifesto for rethinking AI ethics through a power-aware lens. With detailed analysis of real-world examples and technological insights, it is essential reading for anyone invested in the future of AI policy, scholarly critique and societal integration.

Contents
Introduction: What Does It Mean to ‘Do’ a Power-Aware Ethics of AI? – A Note to Readers

Part I: The Power of AI
Chapter One: What AI Are We Talking About?
Chapter Two: Human-Aided AI
Chapter Three: Digital Counter-Enlightenment and the Power of Design
Chapter Four: Subjectivity and Power in the Ethics of AI

Part II: The Power of Prediction
Chapter Five: AI Systems as Prediction Machines
Chapter Six: Predictive Privacy
Chapter Seven: The Culture of Prediction – Ethics and Epistemology

Part III: The Power of Control
Chapter Eight: AI Cybernetics
Chapter Nine: Opacity in Machine Learning and Predictive Analytics
Chapter Ten: Bias in Cybernetic AI Systems
Chapter Eleven: Collective Responsibility in the Ethics of AI
Conclusion: Manifesto for a Power-Aware Ethics of AI

Author
Rainer Mühlhoff is Professor of Ethics and Critical Theories of Artificial Intelligence at the Institute of Cognitive Science and Institute of Philosophy at the University of Osnabrück.