Foucault News

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

Call for Papers: Special Issue “Foucault, Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability” for the journal Sustainability

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section “Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability“.

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 1 September 2022
Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue invites contributions that use aspects of Michel Foucault’s broad authorship to analyze the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as well as related concepts like Corporate Sustainability and ESG. Today, CSR has become a ubiquitous, self-evident business concept in the global economy, and yet critics often claim that its progressive promises of transforming capitalism remain unfulfilled. Some scholars argue that CSR’s radical potential has been washed out in step with its appropriation by mainstream corporate business management—a process through which CSR has become “de-radicalized” (Shamir, 2004). When CSR emerged in the 1950s, an explicit link was forged between social morality and ethics, on the one hand, and corporate business practice, on the other. However, after Milton Friedman’s argument in 1970 that CSR is justifiable only based on economic performance, the emphasis on morality receded during the following decades (Brooks, 2010). Some critical scholars trace CSR’s historical development, while others describe the notion’s more recent integration into corporatist culture broadly.

Whether CSR will play a significant transformative role in addressing the urgent issues of our time is an open and decisive question; such issues include global climate change, deforestation, growing social inequality, corporate economic crime, ensuring healthy labor conditions, respecting the rights of children, women, ethnic and sexual minorities, etc. We hence wish to approach CSR from a broad perspective, which means that, apart from research focused on CSR specifically, we welcome articles on a range of related themes exemplified at the end of this call. The field of possible contributions is thus wide-ranging. The theme of the Special Issue requires that contributing authors engage in some way with Foucault’s historical work, his analytical frameworks, his concepts, or his approach to critique. CSR can be situated at the intersection of politics, economics, and morality. How the concept evolves and is implemented results from power struggles over competing knowledge claims. Given that Foucault is the major thinker of the interplay of power and knowledge, he should offer untapped resources for grasping the complexities of involved in modern CSR. Let us briefly sketch out how select avenues in Foucault’s work is of potential relevance for themes related to CSR listed above.

Overall, Foucault’s thinking can help to inquire into the set of institutions, discourses, and techniques that make up the conditions of possibility for corporations and individuals’ CSR-practice. First, Foucault’s genealogical method (Foucault, 1984) works by tracing how present institutions and governance principles, for example, CSR, emerged from past struggles, political strategies, and accidental events. From a genealogical perspective, the pragmatism of the modern CSR discourse can be better grasped by recovering CSR’s historical conditions of emergence. Genealogy takes as its basic premise that history is a site of evolving struggle, including struggles over divergent interpretations, which the development of the CSR discourse clearly displays. Studies of struggles around definitions of sustainability, accountability, transparency, and more would be pertinent for this Special Issue.

Second, studies of CSR inspired by Foucault may inquire into the dynamic interplay between power and resistance. Foucault insisted that power is always “reversible”, since resistance against (capitalist) power can itself begin to constitute a new form of domination, and hence, no concept is intrinsically progressive or liberating. Studies following this premise could examine how demands, notions, and initiatives (such as CSR or ESG) which respond to the negative effects of capitalist production either succeed in forging new policies and business practices or, conversely, become co-opted by the capitalist order, becoming integral to that order itself.

Third, Foucault analyzed neoliberalism in his 1979 lecture series (2008), focusing on two forms of neoliberalism: German post-war liberalism and the liberalism of the Chicago School. Of particular relevance to contemporary debates on CSR is the arguments by American neo-liberals that redefined the social sphere as understandable through economic principles. They advanced the idea that the efficient work of rational–economic action in a system of competition requires limited governmental intervention, which is an idea that echoes in arguments for corporations’ and consumers’ voluntary responsibility and argues against legal intervention into business practices. How neoliberal assumptions, concepts, and models are mobilized in debates over the legitimate extent and enforceability of CSR principles is another relevant question for this Special Issue.

Fourth, Foucault’s late authorship in the early 1980s, often termed his “ethical turn”, took him back to techniques of self-formation in Greco-Roman antiquity. There, Foucault discovered 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 “ethical turn” in the early 1980s hardly signified a departure from political issues, but a re-conception of politics as an ethical politics. Ethics is political, argued Foucault, 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 emergence of responsible consumers, climate conscious youths, “freeganism”, and dumpster diving could be analyzed with inspiration from Foucault’s work on ethics and self-formation.

Fifth, and finally, the concept of “the dispositive” has recently been introduced into Foucauldian scholarship as a highly promising analytical resource. A dispositive is defined as a historical configuration, which connects a series of discursive and non-discursive elements such as laws, practices, and techniques (Foucault, 1980). It designates a propensity in knowledge production and governmental 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 divestment decisions, are conditioned by dispositives, that is, frameworks constituted by practices, techniques, and knowledge modalities. 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, 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 and intervention.

In this Special Issue, we wish to apply a broad perspective on CSR, inspired by Michel Foucault and his extensive historical and conceptual authorship, including subsequent governmentality studies. We seek contributions that not only focus on corporations’ social contributions to the wider society but also address related themes such as accountability, corporate sustainability, risk management, ESG standards, divestment, investor–company relations, transparency, green-washing, the use of “soft law” and self-regulation, responsible consumerism, labor conditions, the protection of minorities, climate change, the environmental impact of business, risk management, new compliance principles, and more. We invite work that addresses the following themes as well as the suggestions mentioned above (the list is by no means exclusive):

  • Genealogical studies can trace how the CSR discourse has emerged and evolved in different regions, sectors, and national contexts;
  • Inquiries into struggles around how CSR should be defined, which social actors clash in such struggles, and how CSR proponents draw on concepts and normative premises derived from economics, jurisprudence, moral philosophy, environmental science, and more;
  • Analysis of how “transparency” is produced as a discursive object in relation to CSR, Corporate Sustainability, and ESG, including which accounts and issues are regarded as relevant information;
  • Discourse analyses can explore how “sustainability principles” are defined in the CSR discourse and how CSR principles and Corporate Sustainability are designed particularly in regard to environmental factors;
  • ESG could be analyzed as an extension or competitor concept for CSR, e.g., it could be examined how the CSR discourse affects ESG discussions and targets, and vice versa. The effects of ESG could be compared to its declared targets, and which role ESG plays for the moral image of the investor and for the balance of power between investors and joint-stock companies could be explored;
  • Studies of the techniques that establish criteria used by CSR and ESG rating agencies in their assessment processes, including criteria for what should be measured and how to measure it;
  • Inquiries into the recent debates on the inclusivity of CSR and ESG concepts, including their social aspects, such as class, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and gender;
  • Studies of the dispositives that condition what can essentially be defined as CSR, “sustainable” versus “unsustainable” investments, “divestment”, “good governance”, and firms’ “socially responsible performance”;
  • Research on the uses of financial models and technologies used in the management of risk and uncertainty related to environmental disruption, catastrophes, and scarcity.

References:

Brooks, S. (2010) ‘CSR and the Strait-Jacket of Economic Rationality’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 30(11/12): 604–17.

Foucault, M. (2005) The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France 1981–1982, trans. Graham Burchell. New York: Picador.

Foucault, M. 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (2008) Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (1980) ‘The Confession of the Flesh’. In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, edited by Colin Gordon, pp. 194-240. New York: Pantheon Books.

Shamir, R. (2004) ‘The De-Radicalization of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Critical Sociology 33(3): 669–89.

Prof. Dr. Kaspar Villadsen
Guest Editor
Johannes Lundberg
Guest Editor Assistant

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1900 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI’s English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Foucault discourse
  • power/knowkedge
  • CSR
  • ESG
  • corporate sustainability
  • accountability
  • divestment
  • risk management
  • environmental crises

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Kaspar Villadsen E-Mail Website

Guest Editor

Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Interests: Michel Foucault; state/civil society; critical organization studies; welfare state; health promotion

 

Johannes Lundberg E-Mail Website
Guest Editor Assistant
Department of Philosophy and History of Ideas, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark
Interests: michel foucault; intellectual history of political economy; financial theory; ESG investments

Nguyet Nguyen, M.
Navigating academic mentorship as active, knowing, and moral subjects
(2022) Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 30 (4), pp. 434-453.

DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2022.2091196

Abstract
Drawing on Foucault’s governmentality, this study examines five academic mentors’ narratives of their experiences in a Vietnamese university. The data collected through semi-structured interviews show how the participants responded to the government’s, the institution’s and cultural influences on their mentoring practice. They were able to form their own judgment, knew of the institution mentoring’s failings and reformed the discourses through which they were positioned. They downplayed the hierarchy in the relationship, negotiating their culturally and socially constructed patronage role and reporting power. By embracing the resistance discourse, they shaped themselves as active, knowing, and moral subjects. The ‘gaze’ from the government, institution, and culture, however, created a level of assimilation and prevented them from disturbing the mainstream mentoring. The study additionally advances knowledge of academic mentoring and Vietnamese HE governance. © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Author Keywords
Academic mentoring; discourse; Foucault; governmentality; Vietnamese higher education policy

27/11/1967 – Rai Teche. Intervista a Michel Foucault in occasione della pubblicazione in italiano di «Les mots et les choses, une archéologie des sciences humaines», 1966 («Le parole e le cose. Un’archeologia delle scienze umane», trad. it. 1967). “Archeologica” è infatti la procedura con la quale Foucault tenta di ricostruire le condizioni di possibilità, la struttura entro cui il sapere e le sue manifestazioni si presentano nella storia.

“Archeologo dei saperi”, saggista letterario, professore al Collège de France, tra i grandi pensatori del XX° secolo, Foucault è l’unico intellettuale a realizzare il progetto storico-genealogico propugnato da Friedrich Nietzsche allorché segnalava che, nonostante ogni storicismo, continuasse a mancare una storia della follia, del crimine e del sesso. I lavori di Foucault si concentrano sull’analisi delle prigioni, degli ospedali, delle scuole e di altre grandi organizzazioni sociali. L’interesse per la dimensione autoritaria e costrittiva di tutte le forme organizzate di potere conduce Foucault alla pubblicazione di «Sorvegliare e punire», opera del 1975 che si concentra in maniera specifica sul ruolo sociale e sul significato filosofico del carcere. Il pensiero di Foucault può dunque considerarsi un’attenta lettura dell’attualità, con particolare interesse per le implicazioni fra potere e sapere, sessualità e cura di sé. Il sapere, con la sua evoluzione storica, sembra infatti condurre a nuove forme di asservimento dell’individuo, piuttosto che indirizzarlo verso una graduale emancipazione. Le opere di Foucault costituiscono dunque una critica aperta ed una messa in guardia ancora valida rispetto a questa cancellazione, non sempre manifesta, delle libertà dell’uomo.

From one of the comments on an earlier posting of this video

L’incontro è avvenuto a Milano nel 1968, organizzato da Eco e da Enzo Melandri, che è il primo degli intervistatori in questo breve video. Una foto dell’incontro è stata inserita nella riedizione Quodlibet di “La linea e il circolo” di Enzo Melandri. Eco e Melandri scommisero una birra su come Foucault avrebbe pronunciato “episteme”: alla francese, secondo Melandri, o alla greca, secondo Eco (vinse Melandri). L’incontro non fu organizzato per caso: Melandri, assieme a Celati, Calvino, Carlo Ginzburg, e altri, lavoravano al progetto di una rivista incentrata sul concetto di “archeologia”, che purtroppo non andò in porto (sia Celati che Calvino hanno scritto un saggio che ruota attorno all’archeologia: si tratta dei materiali di discussione del progetto). Inoltre, Melandri stava scrivendo “La linea e il circolo”, nel quale si confronta anche con Foucault.
Sarebbe interessante sapere da dove proviene questo video, e se è disponibile una verione più lunga.

Mora-Rioja, A.
The horror of death: A Foucauldian reading of power relations in Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now
(2022) Philologica Canariensia, 28, pp. 55-70.

DOI: 10.20420/Phil.Can.2022.467

Abstract
Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness (1899) addresses the brutality underlying Europe’s colonisation of Africa. Its film adaptation, Apocalypse Now (1979), shows the US Army’s radical practices in the Vietnam War. A comparative study of power relations on both works will help understand the workings of power in extreme sociopolitical circumstances devoid of a democratic environment. This article analyses both cultural products under the theoretical framework of Michel Foucault’s writings on power. Three conceptual nuclei where power relations emanate are scrutinised independently: imperialism and the resulting local resistance; internal hierarchies in colonial organisations; and the role of gender. The analysis shows that absolute power is intolerable, death its ultimate limit, and confession its main liberating mechanism. © 2022 Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. All rights reserved.

Author Keywords
Apocalypse Now; film adaptation; Foucault; Heart of Darkness; power

Corinto, G.L.
Comics, Words and Images, from Buffalmacco to Magritte a Problem of Transition
(2022) Human Evolution, 37 (1-2), pp. 17-28.

DOI: 10.14673/HE2022121094

Abstract
Comics became a topic for interdisciplinary academic studies besides the specialist field of non-scholar experts. Anthropology, sociology, and geography dedicated increasing attention to comics as an intriguing and dense of meaning issue. The topic is that of transition between concepts and images, namely the issue of representation, dense with epistemological difficulties. A mighty issue addressed in Michel Foucault’s Les Mots et Les Choses. The paper aims at illustrating the disrespected possible origin of an art that combines words and images. Yet comics became a genuine form of art and an occasion for a critical modern artistic discourse. For this purpose, the paper deals with the thinking of very different artists, the painters Buonamico di Martino (about 1290-1340), nicknamed Buffalmacco, and surrealist René Magritte (1898-1967). Buffalmacco made harsh fun suggesting a friend, a lesser painter, to add words to his inexpressive paintings. Magritte opened the mind to a free combination of words and images as an aware representation of the relation mind/world. Meanwhile, the world of comics did its cultural work. © 2022 Angelo Pontecorboli Editore – EDK. All rights reserved.

Author Keywords
Buffalmacco; Comics; Magritte; Representation/Transition; Text and Images

Mitchell Dean & Daniel Zamora (2022) Politics as a Confession: Confronting the Enemy Within, Political Theology,
Published online: 02 Aug 2022
DOI: 10.1080/1462317X.2022.2105280

ABSTRACT
In this article, we claim, firstly, that the turn to an “ethical” politics focused on subjectivity and its transformation, announced by post-structuralist theorists in the 1970s, can be found today in forms of progressive politics, illustrated by struggles against racism and their articulation by consultants and educators. Secondly, this turn entails targeting the “enemy within,” whether it be the inner fascist (Guattari, Foucault) or white privilege (Di Angelo, Kendi). Rather than an extension of Lasch’s therapeutic “culture of narcissism,” it is a turn to practices reminiscent of public rituals of expiation of guilt and acts of purification (exomologesis) characterizing what Weber referred to as “sects.” Pace Foucault, the “main danger” lies not in the “subjectifying” practices of the human sciences descended from auricular confession and the Christian pastorate, but rather the displacement of formal politics and attendant “civil religion” (Bellah) by conflicts between charismatic sects claiming exemplary subjectivity and virtuosity.

KEYWORDS: Confession sect charisma anti-racism civil religion subjectivity foucault

Special Issue – Call for papers: Biopolitical tensions after pandemic times, Foucault Studies

PDF of call for papers

Foucault Studies
Special issue call for papers Biopolitical tensions after pandemic times
Guest editors
Annika Skoglund, Uppsala University
Anindya Sekhar Purakayastha, Kazi Nazrul University and ILSR, Calcutta Fabiana Jardim, University of São Paulo
David Armstrong, King’s College London

Keywords: Biopolitics, Covid, health politics, governance, pandemic, self-management

Finitude, facemasks, screens and vaccines: the virulence of Covid has made the tensions between our ways of living and what we have learned to identify as biological threats more visible, felt and contentious. Similar to historical cases of epidemic and pandemic threats (Foucault 1976/2002, 1977, 1977-78/2007), human connectivity has, yet again, become a matter of life and death. And when threats in any form rapidly flow through the population, so does the quest for new knowledge, coupled with innovative ways of governing oneself and others, commonly in attempts to minimise danger. These are certainly interesting times and we now invite contributions to a special issue of Foucault Studies that can begin to unearth what has happened. There are many ways of approaching the pandemic and without prejudicing individual contributions we pose a few questions below that might stimulate further exploration.

Contested knowledge and confessions
Is there, or was there, a ‘pandemic’, caused by a certain virus and its mutations? During the early months of 2020, many voices acknowledged a new Covid infection sweeping the world but thought it no worse than a ‘minor flu’. Media reports of widening spread, together with overwhelmed hospitals and an increasing death toll, then persuaded many that this was no ordinary infection. Juggling with uncertainty, embedded in models of the future course of the infection, scientists made assumptions about the potential effects of various preventive measures. Facemasks were produced in vast quantities – some even had ‘I care’ written on them – and many were willing to wear them. Yet the take up was not universal or consistent, and in the overall knowledge production some citizens and even governments became known as ‘pandemic resistors’, due to their counter-actions. Caring differently, they either questioned if Covid was any worse than annual influenza, or accepted it as unavoidable, like any other major natural event, a tsunami or an earthquake.
A related debate questioned the origins of the Covid virus. Was it a ‘natural’ mutation, or human agency that allowed a ‘non-natural’ organism to escape from a laboratory? This tension was also re-iterated in the policy response. Was this virus part of the natural order to be managed by biological resilience and the development of ‘herd immunity’ or was it,

like other social threats, to be dealt with by human intervention and ingenuity? This tension informed policies that, on the one hand, accepted deaths of older citizens, or those with prior illness, as simply bringing forward events by perhaps a few months or years, and on the other, created novel categories of the ‘vulnerable’, rolling out particular protections, particularly in terms of vaccination priority.

Through this immense knowledge production and generation of very different claims to truth, the pandemic quickly became a global event, finding people aligning with contrasting worldviews, confessing their loyalties one way, then another. In the wake of such a multiplicity of knowledge production, how can we understand the pandemic as productive of new realities and subjectivities?

Social solidarity and population segmentation
In addition to the production of new knowledge, citizens were being encouraged to unite in creative, emotional ways, notably as a response to those who denied the significance of the threat. In India, for example, military helicopters scattered rose petals over Covid-19 hospitals and naval ships fired guns at the ocean in demonstrations of national solidarity and gratitude towards ‘Corona warriors’. In the U.K., people came to their doors once a week ‘clapping’ with kitchen utensils to show appreciation for the efforts of health care workers, and in New Zealand, Teddy Bears were placed in windows (Trnka 2020). These efforts had no direct effects on the progression of the virus but they seemed important gestures, signals of common purpose, reassuring displays of solidarity in the face of an implacable foe.

Yet at another level of emotion, the reaction to the pandemic was not one of solidarity and unity but division as populations were segmented, and in some parts of the world, violently so. In India, again, the government response often sought to victimize the poor (Sengupta and Jha 2021), and migrant workers became the necessary casualties in the effort to portray the impression of quick and ‘strong’ leadership. The migrants were forced to walk back home, to a domestic sphere, often hundreds of miles, going unfed and untreated during the hurriedly imposed lockdown (Purakayastha and Alam 2020). Some of them were killed by heavy vehicles while walking, and how many actually died from Covid remains uncertain, given their deaths were refused official recognition. These ‘bodily’ costs, even disqualified deaths, were an ironic consequence of the ‘preventive’ measures being introduced.

Similarly divisive policies were adopted in Brazil (CEPEDISA/Conectas 2021), a response that became infamous worldwide (Dall’Alba et al. 2021) for its targeting of precarity (Leite 2020). Less known, however, are the bottom-up responses, with grass- roots initiatives that started to act out something like a ‘bureaucracy at street level’. Together with networks of voluntary actors in urban peripheries or indigenous and traditional Quilombola territories, people took it upon themselves to disseminate recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). They even distributed masks and alcohol, as well as basic items of food, to prevent those living on a day-to-day basis exposing themselves to dangerous work conditions.

Through these new practices of social solidarity and population segmentation, the pandemic has inspired new relationships to others. But how have these relationships rejuvenated the making of ‘citizenship’ and its bodies?

Innovativeness and self-mastery
Grounded in a will to adapt to dangers, and espouse both responsibility and resilience, voluntary measures have largely replaced one of the oldest public health strategies, quarantine. The Covid pandemic, however, elicited a broad sweep of tactics from the archive of public health armoury (see Armstrong 1995), including novel ways of policing quarantines, fostering self-surveillance and counting deaths (Armstrong 2021). In the U.K., for example, the momentarily lost entrepreneurial spirit was reawakened, innovating technologies that could keep the population circulating, despite the danger (Ahrens and Ferry 2021), resulting in countless businesses for surveillance, swabbing, diagnosis and reporting. People were given increased agency and responsibility to use their own means to respond innovatively, at the same time as they were constrained regarding their potentially misdirected self-mastery, pronounced in the restrictions on social gatherings and the following violations thereof. Tensions between collectivity and individuality, people and politicians, surfaced with the exposure of rogue, restriction-breaking bodies at the numerous parties being covertly organized at No. 10 Downing Street, further amplifying the strains on agency and autonomy.

In Sweden, on the other hand, voluntarism spread without creating such visible and mediatized strains. Through an evidence-based strategy, the Swedish Health Agency continuously optimized their knowledge agenda and imaginaries of a participative democratic citizen (Wikforss 2021). For example, strenuous efforts were made to provide expert information and advice on appropriate measures for effective self-management in: Arabic, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Dari, Finnish, French, Chinese, Kurmanji, Meänkieli, Persian/Farsi, Polish, various forms of Romani, and of importance more recently, Ukrainian. Instead of forcing people to behave in a certain way during pandemic times, the Swedish strategy attempted to build long-term resilience through a knowledgeable citizen.

Through innovative government of self and others, the pandemic has thus pushed ‘the population’ beyond its historical logistical qualities. So what are the effects on self- mastery and care of the self?

Foucauldian contributions to think pandemics differently
What the above examples from across the world have made obvious is that two years of everyday life with the virus has been far from subtle. If anything, the virus has infected politics (Povinelli 2020). And, since the official outbreak in early 2020, Foucauldian scholars have, often depending on their geographical position, employed different approaches to better understand the human response. The problem of how to govern whom, or what, have, for example, been discussed in relation to novel legislation in Asia (Ramraj 2020), emergency protocols in Australia (Glitsos 2021), closed borders in Italy, Malta and Greece (Tazzioli and Stierl 2021), Chinese lock-down (Li 2021) and quarantine in the Philippines (Siena 2022). Studies of the policing of behaviours traditionally known to feed viruses (De Munck 2020), such as intoxication in bars and nightclubs (Pellizzoni and Sena 2021), and sloppy hygiene in office toilets or at home (Umamaheswar and Tan 2020), have further clarified how Covid has become more about the human, than the virus.

What emerges is a human whose thoughts are channelled less by the establishment of an ‘evil system of surveillance over will-less bodies’ (De Munck 2020:119), than by a productive engagement with ambiguously willing bodies, fostered as they have been to invest in life itself. ‘Making live’ and ‘letting die’, guided by partitioning and hierarchical differentiation (Hannah, Hutta, and Schemann 2020, Schubert 2022), in the explosion of explicit and implicit measures, has spurred several biopolitical shifts with diverse effects (Hull 2020). With empirical studies illustrating how biopolitics, underpinned by a genuine care for the population, has, with Covid, become both unquestionably justified (Constantinou 2021) as well as habitual (Glitsos 2021). An habituation that has become more entrenched with ground-breaking digital technology for population management, pointing to Covid conceived as endemic (Couch, Robinson, and Komesaroff 2020).

Despite ‘draconian policies’ (Gjerde 2021:474) locking-down those citizens conceived as ‘belonging’, and locking-out those deemed not to belong (Goldberg 2020), ‘universally destructive’ viruses are nonetheless, as Foucault pointed out in Society Must be Defended (Foucault 1975-76/2004:254), beyond ‘all human sovereignty’. With Covid this realization slowly seems to have strengthened a ‘medicalization of insecurity’ (Elbe 2011), along with a ‘nationalization of the biological’ (Foucault 1975-76/2004:240), underpinned by futile attempts to recover state sovereignty without looking fragile (Makarychev and Romashko 2021). As a complement to comparisons of national health systems and survival rates (cf. Braithwaite et al. 2021), disciplinary subjugation (Wagner, Matulewska, and Marusek 2021) and resistance thereto (Meeker 2020), have thus become new judgement criteria for the evaluation of national competitiveness.

In tandem with this benchmarking between nations, international concerns have been raised about how to manage the aleatory aspects of life across the globe (Marinković and Major 2020). Not only was human connectivity targeted as a threat to life, but also interspecies connectivity, which could encourage this dangerously ‘jumping’ virus (Vatter 2021). Life, conceptualized within an amalgamating ecological system, was problematized anew, often being aligned with leftist critiques of climate change (Malm 2020). By coupling the virus to the dangers with both fossil-fuel mobility and the acceleration of monetary circulation and accumulation, discourses on Covid have facilitated an environmentalist agenda, but one strangely skewed away from a perceived or felt species intimacy. Talk about a global sickening and Earth-encompassing chronic emergency has become easier (Ibid), testifying to the prolific language of pathological concepts needed in ‘our big war’ against the incessantly transforming ‘invisible enemy’ and its unpredictable whereabouts (Reid 2020).

Considering this diversity of pandemic predicaments, what does the contemporary ‘right to health’ look like (cf. Foucault 2004:6)? This ‘right’ originally demanded biopolitical intervention in the form of novel technologies of power that were flexible, economical and alluring enough, but have, with Covid, been suggested to permeate both discipline and sovereignty to remould and enforce them anew (Lorenzini 2021, Pykett and Lavis 2021). Depending on geographical position and epidemiological preferences, the regulation of life via science, statistics and responsibility has not only diffused logistically, motivated by biological longevity with racist implications (Liz 2020, Horvath and Lovasz 2020), it has also opened up for ideas of future bodies, aided by a priori knowledge and the leading question: In what innovative ways can the population, or even a global mass, be governed anew?

About this call
Foucault offers a wide range of approaches to think differently about the pandemic. This Special Issue of Foucault Studies calls for research that think widely on the place of Foucault’s work in relation to Covid in different empirical realms, historically and into the future. Based on the richness of already existing Foucauldian studies of Covid, attention could for example be given to the historicity of the medicalized body (Gougelet 2010, Enoch 2004, Petersen and Bunton 1997), with a broader interest in clashing or aligning knowledge movements, and how shifts in epistemological thresholds nurture new modes of ‘seeing’ and a morphing of human subjectivities, attitudes, and desires (Foucault 1977, 1978). How Covid has infected politics and infused biopolitics differently around the world, and beyond an understanding based on the canon of Foucault, could also be further debated (Foucault et al. 2020, Demetri 2020, Delanty 2020, Horton 2021), especially considering researchers who already have drawn attention to neglected contexts and experiences. A focus on biopolitical tensions could also prompt creative tensions through dialogues with contemporary philosophical debates. We therefore invite authors to explore Covid through Foucault based on their own empirical and theoretical interests to reach beyond what we currently know.

Submission deadline: 31st of December 2022 Publication: autumn issue 2023

Please visit the Foucault Studies website for instructions to authors: https://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/about/submissions
Submit your manuscript directly to co-editor: annika.skoglund@angstrom.uu.se

Articles should aim for a target length of 7,000 to 12,000 words and an abstract of 150 to 250 words and 5-6 keywords. Book reviews, which are commissioned, should be between 1,000 and 2,000 words. Review essays, which are also commissioned, should be between 2,000 to 6,000 words.

References

Ahrens, Thomas, and Laurence Ferry. 2021. “Accounting and accountability practices in times of crisis: a Foucauldian perspective on the UK government’s response to COVID-19 for England.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 34 (6): 1332- 1344.

Armstrong, David. 1995. “The rise of surveillance medicine.” Sociology of health & illness 17 (3):393-404.

Armstrong, David. 2021. “The COVID-19 pandemic and cause of death.” Sociology of health & illness 43 (7):1614-1626.

Braithwaite, Jeffrey, Yvonne Tran, Louise A Ellis, and Johanna Westbrook. 2021. “The 40 health systems, COVID-19 (40HS, C-19) study.” International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 33(1):1-7.

CEPEDISA/Conectas. 2021. Boletim n.10 – Direitos na Pandemia: Mapeamento e análises das normas jurídicas de resposta à Covid-19 no Brasil. São Paulo. https://www.conectas.org/publicacao/boletim-direitos-na-pandemia-no-10/

Constantinou, Costas S. 2021. “Responses to Covid-19 as a form of ‘biopower’.” International Review of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2021.2000069

Couch, Danielle L, Priscilla Robinson, and Paul A Komesaroff. 2020. “COVID-19—Extending surveillance and the panopticon.” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17 (4):809- 814.

Dall’Alba, R, C. F Rocha, R de Pinho Silveira, L. D. S. C Dresch, L. A Vieira, and M. A Germanò. 2021. “COVID-19 in Brazil: far beyond biopolitics.” The Lancet 397 (10274):579-580.

De Munck, Bert. 2020. “The Human Body Must Be Defended: A Foucauldian and Latourian Take on COVID-19.” Journal for the History of Environment and Society 5:113-123.

Delanty, Gerard. 2020. “Six political philosophies in search of a virus: Critical perspectives on the coronavirus pandemic.” LEQS paper (156):5-24.

Demetri, Felipe. 2020. “Biopolitics and coronavirus, or don’t forget Foucault.” Naked Punch, 21:1-4.

Elbe, Stefan. 2011. “Pandemics on the radar screen: health security, infectious disease and the medicalisation of insecurity.” Political Studies 59 (4):848-866.

Enoch, Simon. 2004. “The contagion of difference: identity, bio-politics and National Socialism.” Foucault Studies (1):53-70.

Foucault, Michel. 1976/2002. Sexualitetens historia – del 1 – Viljan att veta. Södertälje: Axlins tryckeri.

Foucault, Michel. 1975-76/2004. Society must be defended. Translated by David Macey. London: Penguin books.

Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage books.

Foucault, Michel. 1977-78/2007. Security, Territory, Population. Translated by Graham Burchell. Edited by Francois Ewald and Allessandro Fontana. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume I. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel. 2004. “The Crisis of Medicine or the Crisis of Antimedicine?” Foucault Studies (1): 5-19.

Foucault, Michel, Giorgio Agamben, Jean-Luc Nancy, Roberto Esposito, Sergio Benvenuto, Divya Dwivedi, Shaj Mohan, Rocco Ronchi, and Massimo de Carolis. 2020. “Coronavirus and philosophers.” European Journal of Psychoanalysis. https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers/

Gjerde, Lars Erik Løvaas. 2021. “Governing humans and ‘things’: power and rule in Norway during the Covid-19 pandemic.” Journal of political power 14 (3):472-492.

Glitsos, Laura. 2021. “COVID-19 and the ‘perfectly governed city’.” Journal for Cultural Research:1-17.

Goldberg, David Theo 2020. “Tracking Capitalism and COVID-19.” Los Angeles Review of Books. 21. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/quarantine-files-thinkers-self- isolation/

Gougelet, David-Olivier. 2010. “The world is one great hospital.” Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy 18 (1): 43-66.

Hannah, Matthew G, Jan Simon Hutta, and Christoph Schemann. 2020. “Thinking through Covid-19 responses with Foucault: An initial overview.” Antipode Online. 5th of May, https://antipodeonline.org/2020/05/05/thinking-through-covid-19-responses- with-foucault/

Horton, Sarah. 2021. “When the Face Becomes a Carrier.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 77 (2/3):715-732.

Horvath, Mark, and Adam Lovasz. 2020. “Foucault in the Age of COVID-19: Permitting Contingency in Biopolitics.” Identities 17 (1):144-153.

Hull, Gordon. 2020. “Why We Are Not Bare Life: What’s wrong with Agamben’s Thoughts on Coronavirus.” New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science. A group blog with people from all over the map. https://www.newappsblog.com/2020/03/why-we- are-not-bare-life-whats-wrong-with-agambens-thoughts-on-coronavirus.html.

Leite, Márcia Pereira. 2020. “Biopolítica da precariedade em tempos de pandemia. Dilemas: Revista de Estudos de Conflito e Controle Social, Rio de Janeiro, Reflexões na Pandemia.”16p.

Li, Pengfei. 2021. “Conceptualizing China’s spatial lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic: a neo-liberal society or a pre-liberal one?” Social Transformations in Chinese Societies. 17 (2): 101-108.

Liz, Jordan. 2020. “State racism social justice and the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Public Philosophy Journal 3 (1):1-11.

Lorenzini, Daniele. 2021. “Biopolitics in the Time of Coronavirus.” Critical Inquiry 47 (S2):S40-S45.

Makarychev, Andrey, and Tatiana Romashko. 2021. “Precarious sovereignty in a post- liberal Europe: The COVID-19 emergency in Estonia and Finland.” Chinese Political Science Review 6 (1):63-85.

Malm, Andreas. 2020. Corona, climate, chronic emergency: War communism in the twenty-first century: Verso Books.

Marinković, Dušan, and Sara Major. 2020. “COVID-19 and the Genealogies of Biopolitics: A Pandemic History of the Present.” Sociologija 62 (4):486-502.

Meeker, James K. 2020. “The political nightmare of the plague: The ironic resistance of anti- quarantine protesters.” Chapter 10, In COVID-19 edited by Ryan J. Michael. pp: 109-121, London: Routledge.

Pellizzoni, Luigi, and Barbara Sena. 2021. “Preparedness as Governmentality. Probing the Italian Management of the Covid-19 Emergency.” Sociologica 15 (3):61-83.

Petersen, Alan R. Ph D., and Robin Bunton. 1997. Foucault, health and medicine. Edited by Robin Bunton and Alan Petersen. New York: Routledge.

Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2020. “The Virus: Figure and Infrastructure.” https://www.e- flux.com/architecture/sick-architecture/352870/the-virus-figure-and- infrastructure/.

Purakayastha, Anindya Sekhar, and Mursed Alam. 2020. “Scattered Chapatis, Mangled Bodies: Semiology for a Nation.” News Click, May 31:st. https://www.newsclick.in/scattered-chapatis-mangled-bodies-semiology-nation.

Pykett, Jessica, and Anna Lavis. 2021. “Governance and policy in pandemics: approaches to crisis, chaos and catastrophe.” Chapter 20, In Living with Pandemics. Edited by

John R. Bryson, Lauren Andres, Aksel Ersoy and Louise Reardon. pp. 227-236. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ramraj, Victor V. 2020. Covid-19 in Asia: Law and policy contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reid, Julian. 2020. “Our Big War.” Los Angeles Review of Books Qauterly Journal. 21. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/quarantine-files-thinkers-self-isolation/

Schubert, Karsten. 2022. “Biopolitics of COVID-19: Capitalist Continuities and Democratic Openings.”  Interalia – a Journal of Queer Studies. (16): https://doi.org/10.51897/interalia/OAGM9733

Sengupta, Sohini, and Manish K Jha. 2021. “Risks and resilience: COVID-19 response and disaster management policies in India.” India Review 20 (2):121-141.

Siena, Merimee T. 2022. “A Foucauldian discourse analysis of president Duterte’s constructions of community quarantine during COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines.”  Journal of Constructivist Psychology             https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2022.2032503

Tazzioli, Martina, and Maurice Stierl. 2021. ““We Closed the Ports to Protect Refugees.” Hygienic Borders and Deterrence Humanitarianism during Covid-19.” International Political Sociology 15 (4):539-558.

Trnka, Susanna. 2020. “Rethinking states of emergency.” Social Anthropology 28 (2):367-368. Umamaheswar, Janani, and Catherine Tan. 2020. ““Dad, wash your hands”: Gender, care work, and attitudes toward risk during the COVID- 19 Pandemic, Socius 6:2378023120964376.

Vatter, Miguel. 2021. “One health and one home: On the biopolitics of Covid-19.” In Coronavirus, Psychoanalysis, and Philosophy. Edited by Fernando Castrillón and Thomas Marchevsky. pp. 79-82. Abingdon: Routledge.

Wagner, Anne, Aleksandra Matulewska, and Sarah Marusek. 2021. “Pandemica panoptica: Biopolitical management of viral spread in the age of covid-19.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique:1-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09821-1

Wikforss, Åsa Maria (with Mårten Wikforss). 2021. Därför demokrati. Stockholm: Fri Tanke.

Meinard, Y.
The foucauldian approach to conservation: pitfalls and genuine promises
(2022) History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 44 (2), art. no. 25.

DOI: 10.1007/s40656-022-00509-8

Abstract
Conservation biology is a branch of ecology devoted to conserving biodiversity. Because this discipline is based on the assumption that knowledge should guide actions, it endows experts with a power that should be questioned. The work of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926–1984) can be seen as a relevant conceptual resource to think these aspects of conservation biology through. I critically analyse the relevance of the Foucauldian approach to conservation. I argue that Foucauldian arguments are deeply ambiguous, and therefore useless for conservation purposes, unless they are supplemented with unsaid assumptions that are, depending on the case at hand, untenable, or at least at odds with basic assumptions underlying conservation biology. In any case, the prospects of using the Foucauldian approach for conservation purposes are deeply undermined. However, the Foucauldian reasoning contains some ideas that can be important and useful for conservation purposes, if they are duly clarified. © 2022, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Author Keywords
Conservation biology; Foucault; Governmentality; Knowledge; Power

Index Keywords
environmental protection, knowledge; Conservation of Natural Resources, Knowledge

Gøtzsche-Astrup, J.
Contention and social order: The historical relation between political and social riot dispositives
(2022) European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology

DOI: 10.1080/23254823.2022.2081230

Abstract
The relation between political contention and social order is a fundamental field of sociological inquiry. This article puts forward a dispositive perspective on the relation by analysing its constitution in concrete objects of control. Focusing on the object of riots, I uncover a significant change at the turn of the nineteenth century. Before the change, political and social riot dispositives were both mutually exclusive and in danger of transforming into each other. This meant that riots were sites in which the relation between contention and social order was negotiated. This negotiation was brought to a halt by a new relation. Consequently, political and social riot dispositives could coexist on the condition that riots became a liminal object. This article contributes to our empirical knowledge on the link between political and social dispositives and opens up a new perspective on the general relation between contention and social order. © 2022 European Sociological Association.

Author Keywords
Contention; dispositives; Foucault; riots; social order

Finefter-Rosenbluh, I.
Between student voice-based assessment and teacher-student relationships: teachers’ responses to ‘techniques of power’ in schools
(2022) British Journal of Sociology of Education

DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2022.2080043

Abstract
This paper draws upon Foucault’s problematisation of governmentality analysis to explore teacher interviews from Australian secondary schools, where student voice was ‘enacted’ within a teacher assessment reform strategy. By bringing teacher voices into relation with theory, it illustrates how the current ‘sociality of performativity’ is situating student voice-based assessment initiatives as power apparatuses of teacher surveillance that shape teacher-student relationships. The analysis portrays teachers’ responses to such ‘techniques of power’, employing forms of auditable commodification, physical proximity, and reflective practice as a means of managing student voice ‘risk’. In so doing, the teachers relegated teacher-student relationships to the margins, struggling to profess an ethic of care; paradoxically disadvantaging students through voice initiatives intended to advance them. Demonstrating how affective fundamentals are eclipsed by performative-invested practices, the analysis highlights the discursive policy contestations of rapport and performance that should be taken into consideration in future implementations of student voice-based assessment initiatives. © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Author Keywords
Assessment; ethic of care; governmentality; student voice; teacher-student relationships