Foucault News

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

Karl Baldacchino (2026). (De)subjectivation in Foucault’s later thought: critical indifference and resistance. Theory, Culture & Society, published online November 11, 2026.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764261493767

Abstract
This article argues that a significant dimension in Foucault’s rethinking of resistance remains underexplored, namely how he navigated the relationship between desubjectivation and subjectivation. These two processes point to fundamentally different subjective experiences of resistance and different extents of becoming-indifferent to power, understood not as an escape from power relations but as deliberate detachment from specific modes of subjectification undertaken from within them. It contends that desubjectivation, described informally by Foucault as a limit-experience, operates across a spectrum from the extreme to the more measured detachment. This measured detachment, which the article terms ‘critical indifference’, is inseparable from subjectivation, the active process through which the subject constitutes itself otherwise. Together, they form what the article terms (de)subjectivation, a single dynamic whose two dimensions Foucault explored without ever fully resolving them. Ultimately, his caution about desubjectivation reflects a sensitivity to how far becoming-indifferent to power any genuine practice of resistance can sustain.

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

Copenhagen, Tuesday 8th June to 11th June 2027
Registration Deadline: 18th May 2027 at 23:55
Course coordinator: Kaspar Villadsen, Department of Business Humanities and Law (BHL), Copenhagen Business School
Organizer: CBS PhD School, Nina Iversen, Phone: +45 3815 2475, ni.research@cbs.dk

Full details at link above

PDF flyer Copenhagen PhD school


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
Aalborg University

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 24 May 2027.

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.

Full details at this link

Robin Hickman, Annika Mosser, Daniel Abendano, Yanliang Dong, Discourses on the Lower Thames Crossing: rationality or rationalisation?, Transport Policy, Available online 7 August 2026.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2026.104348

Abstract:
This paper examines the Lower Thames Crossing in discursive terms, seeking to understand the multiple socially-constructed realities associated with the project. Nine in-depth interviews are carried out, with transport planners, academics and environmental activists, to examine the project in relation to the discursive formation, discursive practice, discursive meaning; and related concepts of truth, power/knowledge and ethics. The analysis finds that the project is rationalised and presented as the obvious technical solution, overlooking wider contestation and the lack of contribution towards environmental and social equity goals. This represents a process of depoliticisation, serving some interests over others, including using infrastructure provision for capital accumulation. Broader implications for transport planning are discussed, including how the process may align more effectively with public policy.

Keywords:
Lower Thames Crossing; depoliticisation; discourse; truth; power/knowledge; ethics

Wendy Brown, political scientist: ‘Our organization of life is unsustainable and we know it’, Interview with Mar Padilla, El Pais, 1 November 2026

The California philosopher, one of the leading figures in her field, argues for a reparative democracy centered on collective care to help repair the damage caused by neoliberalism

[…]
Brown is the UPS Foundation Professor in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and emerita professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley.
[…]
Brown, who was in Barcelona for the Bienal del Pensament, meets with EL PAÍS in a hotel in the city’s Eixample district.
[…]

Question. You say neoliberalism is not only an economic system. What do you mean by that?

Answer. Michel Foucault helped us understand that beyond the economic realm, neoliberalism also shapes social life, family and values. We know this intuitively because we see its effects: each of us has to be entrepreneurial, constantly attending to our own value… Neoliberalism also reshapes concepts like freedom and equality to suit itself, casting equality as the right to compete or freedom as the right to develop as an economic individual. All this has a very powerful effect. It hollows out democracy, it de-democratizes us, it de-politicizes us, and it makes us oriented simply toward questions about economic value.

Read more

Ronjon Paul Datta (2026). “14: The parallax of exclusion: Durkheim, Bataille, and Foucault”. In Marcel Fournier and Paul Carls (eds.) The Elgar Companion to Émile Durkheim. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035322930.00022

This piece investigates how Durkheim, the radical Durkheimian Georges Bataille, and Michel Foucault conceptualize exclusion and its effects. The central premise is that Foucault’s work inverts Durkheim’s approach to inclusion while extending Bataille. But, in the end Foucault neglects radical Durkheimian sensibilities about the ambivalent power of the sacred produced by constitutive exclusions. Bataille’s concept of abjection mediates between them by considering modern manifestations of the sacred. Durkheim’s treatment of solidarity, crime and exclusion, corporations, totemism, property and the sacred are discussed, and abjection is explicated in light of Durkheim’s discussion of the ambiguity of the sacred. Foucault’s treatment of discursive “systems of exclusion” is shown to leverage Durkheimian ideas. The parallax of exclusion, by accounting for the effects of perspectival differences, indicates that the valorization of social subjects and objects is structured by mechanisms of inclusion–exclusion. When paired with Durkheim’s and Bataille’s sense of the ambivalence of the sacred, Foucault’s theory of discourse provides means for radical Durkheimian analyses of the politics of experience.

Perspectives foucaldiennes en analyse du discours, Langage & Société n° 185 – 2025/2

Michel Foucault est une figure phare de la vie intellectuelle dans le monde entier. Il a été l’un des penseurs qui ont mis la notion de discours au centre de la réflexion des sciences humaines et sociales et il a contribué au développement de champs nouveaux comme les études sur la sexualité, les études culturelles ou encore les études sur la gouvernementalité. Même s’il s’est refusé à se poser en fondateur d’un courant d’analyse du discours, il a aussi été une source constante d’inspiration pour ce champ de recherche alors émergent, en particulier par son livre l’Archéologie du savoir.

Ce numéro de Langage & Société ne cherche pas à retracer la déjà longue histoire de l’influence de Foucault sur l’analyse du discours ; il ne cherche pas non plus à éclaircir la signification d’un certain nombre de ses concepts (« formation discursive », « dispositif », « archive »…). Il s’attache plutôt à mettre en évidence le rôle d’inspirateur qu’il continue à jouer dans l’étude du discours. C’est ce dont témoignent les articles présentés, qui abordent des questions très diverses, à la mesure d’une œuvre protéiforme qui associe une créativité conceptuelle sans cesse renouvelée à un savoir historique considérable.

Parmi les objets choisis par les auteurs et les autrices, on compte les discours contemporains du religieux, la discipline des corps, la production journalistique, le débat sur le néolibéralisme et la critique du pouvoir.

Que reste-t-il de Michel Foucault en 2026 ?

14 novembre 2026 16:00 – 17:30
Médiathèque François-Mitterrand,
Poitiers, France

Avec Pascal Chauchefoin, directeur scientifique de l’Espace Mendès France à Poitiers, France Joubert, ancien responsable national de la CFDT, Niki Kasumi Clements, professeure associée de philosophie et de religion à l’Université Rice de Houston, Dominique Royoux, géographe, professeur émérite de l’Université de Poitiers ; animé par Frédéric Chauvaud, historien.

2026 correspond au centenaire de la naissance de Michel Foucault et les publications d’inédits, d’essais, de récits graphiques, de conférences, d’expositions et d’émissions se multiplient. Les études foucaldiennes contemporaines ne cherchent pas à « sacraliser » le philosophe, mais entendent prolonger son œuvre, interroger ses acquis et les pistes ouvertes, poursuivre les réflexions sur le territoire, la gouvernementalité, l’enfermement, la vérité, l’engagement ou encore la folie. La table ronde multiplie les regards pour cerner la complexité d’une pensée et d’une action et leurs héritages.

Entrée libre et gratuite dans la limite des places disponibles

Lola Seaton, The Poison and the Cure. The Life and Afterlife of French Theory, The Ideas Letter, 29 October 2026

The Frenchmen: Or, My Life in Theory by Emily Eakin

School of the South: The Colonial Roots of French Theory by Onur Erdur

In 2005, Alain Badiou argued that in the second half of the 20th century, there was a “French philosophical moment” comparable to the peaks of classical Greece and Enlightenment Germany. Badiou was not an impartial observer—he described himself as perhaps the era’s “last representative”—yet no one would seriously dispute that les trente glorieuses produced a blaze of intellectual activity that radiated around the world, transforming not only academic study but the wider cultural atmosphere. There, however, consensus stops.

Was this “moment” purely, or even primarily, a philosophical one? It was born with an anthropologist, Claude Lévi-Strauss, borrowing a framework from linguistics, and among the central aims of the resulting method, “structuralism,” was to topple a philosophical movement: the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre and others. And while many of the leading thinkers who embraced structuralism were educated, like Lévi-Strauss, in philosophy, they also worked in other areas of the humanities and social sciences. Roland Barthes was concerned with mass culture and canonical literature; Louis Althusser with interpretations of Marx; Jacques Lacan with Freudian psychoanalysis; and Michel Foucault with history, and excavating the logics underpinning a range of institutions and practices—medicine, psychiatry, prisons, sexuality. The writing of Jacques Derrida, meanwhile—for a time “the sexiest philosopher on the planet,” in the words of the literary critic Terry Eagleton—amounted less to a conventional contribution to philosophy than a thoroughgoing critique of its founding assumptions. “I never thought I had something to say philosophically,” Derrida reflected in 1991—and his example was chiefly followed by literary critics.

Read more

Laura Cremonesi, Rita Fulco, Valentina Surace (eds.) Political Ontology, Community, and Institutions. Roberto Esposito in Dialogue with Contemporary Thinkers, SUNY Press, 2025

Description
Focuses on key aspects of Robert Esposito’s thought and explores the ways in which some major contemporary thinkers have been crucial interlocutors in their elaboration.

Political Ontology, Community, and Institutions offers a broad view of the current philosophical dialogue in Italy, both in relation to Robert Esposito’s own thought and with respect to major issues and authors of crucial philosophical relevance. From his earliest works, Esposito questions the crisis of politics and why thought is unable to convincingly respond to it. He does so by distancing himself not only from political theology but also from those paradigms-destituent and constituent-that have lost nowadays much of their analytical and propositional capacity. However, his proposal is not only critical. Esposito’s thought relates to our present through the creation of new categories-among the most recent, those of “instituting thought” and “common immunity”-capable of opening a breach in an apparently increasingly closed horizon. Therefore, dealing with his thought means, first of all, dealing with our present. This is the main goal of this volume, which focuses on Esposito’s dialogue with major contemporary thinkers. Also included is an unpublished interview with Esposito conducted by the editors.

Laura Cremonesi is Researcher in Moral Philosophy at the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy, and Research Director at the Collège International de Philosophie, Paris, France.
Rita Fulco is Associate Professor of Theoretical Philosophy at the University of Messina, Italy.
Valentina Surace is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Theoretical Philosophy at the University of Messina, Italy.

Michel Foucault: A New Archivist in the Age of AI (Online Course)

8 Sessions, 20 January 2027 – 10 March 2027
Wednesdays
7:00pm – 9:00pm GMT (UK Time)
The London School of Continental Philosophy

Teacher: Dr. Daniel Weizman
Price: £240

About
Michel Foucault helped create the intellectual world we inhabit today. His concepts changed what we notice in a hospital, a school or a claim to expertise, and his vocabulary still circulates through political debate and everyday conversation. Words such as “discourse”, “normalisation” and “power” have become so familiar that we can easily assume we already know what he meant by them. Yet their widespread use often obscures the questions he developed them to ask.​ What makes his thought so powerful, and what can it help us understand about the changes taking place around us?

​This eight-week online course returns to Foucault’s early work to explore questions that technology and AI make urgent: how knowledge is organised, how authority is established and challenged, and what place human beings occupy within the systems through which they are known. Our main text will be The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969), read alongside selected passages from Madness and Civilisation, The Birth of the Clinic and The Order of Things.

Foucault approaches these questions through concrete historical transformations. In Madness and Civilisation, he examines the changing boundaries between madness and reason, and psychiatry’s claim to speak for the people it treats. In The Birth of the Clinic, hospitals, case records, examinations and autopsies become part of a new organisation of medical knowledge.

​The Archaeology of Knowledge asks how we can investigate transformations like these. How does a pattern of behaviour become a symptom? What allows a personal history to function as medical evidence? How do people become qualified to classify others and make decisions about their lives? Foucault examines the practices through which these relationships take shape.

​We will use Foucault’s approach to examine contemporary changes in knowledge. When a bank uses an AI assessment to refuse a loan, a prediction about someone’s future becomes a decision that helps shape it. The applicant may struggle to discover why they were classified as a risk, while the adviser can report the result without explaining how it was reached. What makes the assessment credible? Where does responsibility lie? And what would allow someone to challenge the judgement or the categories on which it rests?

​In his book The Order of Things, Foucault provokes us by claiming that “Man” is a recent invention, and one that may disappear. He means a particular historical arrangement in which human beings are both objects of investigation and the basis for explaining how knowledge is possible. We will ask how AI might transform this arrangement, changing the concepts through which we understand thought, language and intelligence, and the place human beings occupy within knowledge.

The course offers a close, accessible reading of a challenging book, with contemporary examples and discussion of problems that concern all of us today. No previous knowledge of Foucault is required.

What will we cover?

  • An introduction to early Foucault through his investigations of madness, medicine and the emergence of the modern human sciences.
  • How archaeological analysis works, using examples to explore statements, discourses and archives.
  • How technology and AI may change the questions institutions ask, the evidence they accept and the expertise they recognise.
  • Foucault’s claim that “man” could disappear, and what changes in the organisation of knowledge might mean for our understanding of ourselves.

Requirements
This course is designed for anyone with an interest in Foucault and contemporary thought, and assumes no prior knowledge.