Foucault News

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

PDF of program

Taheri, H.
Censoring Iranian cinema: normalization of the “modest” woman (2024) Feminist Media Studies

DOI: 10.1080/14680777.2024.2328089

Abstract
This research examines the structure of Iranian film that has normalized the image of the “modest” Iranian woman, which has little to no relation to the reality of Iranian women. This power structure includes not only the modesty censorship rules of the Islamic Republic but also international film festivals. Utilizing the concepts of reactive and proactive censorship measures, I argue that censorship not only limits and reacts but also creates the image of the modest woman. Counterintuitively, film festivals play a substantial role in this normalization process. In addition, I contest the popular conceptions of “resistance” when discussing Iranian cinema at foreign film festivals and in academia, arguing that the resistance of films and artists is restricted to the structure that governs them. In addition, I challenge the concept of “Iranian national cinema,” in which film festivals promote a repressive government to oppose another power system; specifically, they reward the image of the Islamic Republic’s ideal woman to oppose popular Hollywood portrayals of women. My objective is not to downplay the value of Iranian cinema but to highlight its flaws and encourage a more critical approach to the international power system regulating Iranian films. © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Author Keywords
censorship; Iranian cinema; Michel Foucault; modesty rules; resistance

Pavlich, G.
Plaguing Segregations: Paradigms of Rule at The Cape of Good Hope
(2024) Canadian Journal of Law and Society

DOI: 10.1017/cls.2023.25

Abstract
Power, while fundamental to sociality, might be exercised with haphazard ferocity or more judiciously in legally constrained ways. Such constraint requires us first to understand how ruling paradigms work, and the effects of their powers, before entertaining suitable forms of legal limitation. Transposing Kuhn’s famous concept, this paper examines a ruling paradigm of biopolitical sovereignty at the Cape of Good Hope through two examples: the 1891 census’ racialized categorizations of the “population”; and a racialized segregation responding to the 1901 bubonic plague. Prefiguring apartheid, both examples indicate how colonial laws authorized discretionary biopowers and yet exempted themselves from monitoring how officials demarcated and governed racialized population groups. The paper touches on the growing maladroitness of positivist ideas about a sovereign “rule of law” in regulating arbitrary biopolitical forces. It concludes by briefly indicating the promise of legal pluralism and Indigenous legalities to check capricious biopowers while pursuing legitimate life-affirming forces. © The Author(s), 2024.

Author Keywords
biopolitics and law; Cape of Good Hope; colonial rule of law; Foucault and governance; law and society

Journée d’études « Lire Michel Foucault avec le CERFI »

le mercredi 6 novembre 2024 à l’Université Paris 8 (Salle de la Recherche de la Bibliothèque Universitaire).

PDF flyer

Cet événement est organisé par Alessandro FALCONIERI (Université Paris 8 – GRAF) et Gabriel POCHAPSKI (Université d’État de Campinas – GRAF) en collaboration avec le Département de Philosophie de l’Université Paris 8 Vincennes – Saint-Denis, le Laboratoire d’études et de recherche sur les logiques contemporaines de la philosophie (LLCP, EA 4008), le Centre Michel Foucault, le Groupe de Recherche sur les Archives Foucaldiennes (GRAF) et la revue « materiali foucaultiani ».

PROGRAMME

9h30 | Accueil et introduction | Alessandro FALCONIERI (Université Paris 8) et Gabriel POCHAPSKI (Université d’État de Campinas)

10h | Session 1
Anne QUERRIEN (CERFI | revue Multitudes)
Souvenirs des relations entre le CERFI et Michel Foucault par une membre du CERFI

10h45 | Session 2
Marco ASSENNATO (École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture Paris-Malaquais)
L’espace ou l’utopie du pouvoir

Lorenzo PETRACHI (Université de Bergame – GRAF)
À la Recherche(s) de l’enfant perdu. La croisade des enfants de Michel Foucault entre Schérer et Rochefort

13h | Pause déjeuner

14h | Session 3 |

Alessandro FALCONIERI (Université Paris 8-GRAF)
Entre matérialité et représentation. Des appareils idéologiques d’État aux équipements collectifs

Gabriel POCHAPSKI (Université d’État de Campinas-GRAF)
Michel Foucault, le CERFI et les « géographies de la vérité »

16h | Pause-café

16h30 | Session 4

Table ronde avec :

Éric ALLIEZ (Université Paris 8)
Orazio IRRERA (Université Paris 8)
Frédéric RAMBEAU (Université Paris 8)

18h | Clôture

Chiang, T.-H., Achaa, L.O., Ball, S.J.
Activating self-monitoring through the discourse of fear and hope: The subjectivation of enterprising teachers (2024) International Journal of Educational Research, 125, art. no. 102324

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102324

Abstract
Drawing upon Foucault’s governmentality, this study sets out to explore how enterprising subjects constituted through self-monitoring are fashioned in the epoch of performance management drawing on a survey of junior-high-school teachers’ (n = 2,275) attitudes toward its core elements of performativity, data governance, self-knowledge, and teaching commitment. The best model of SEM analysis indicates that while such enterprising subjects cannot be manufactured through the coercive force of performance management, this outcome can be effectively achieved by introducing intermediates, such as self-knowledge, performativity, data-comparative governance, and commitment to high standards. This finding indicates that the mission of neoliberal governmentality is mainly completed through subjectivation, in which discourses of fear and hope install care of self into teachers’ self-knowledge thus engendering the mechanism of self-monitoring. © 2024

Author Keywords
Enterprising subject; Neoliberal governmentality; Performativity; Self-knowledge; Self-monitoring; The discourse of fear and hope

FOUCAULT STUDIES

SPECIAL ISSUE: CALL FOR PAPERS
Critique beyond criticism:
Crisis and potentials of critique in critical times

PDF of call for papers

Special issue editors
Sverre Raffnsøe, Copenhagen Business School
Daniele Lorenzini, University of Pennsylvania
Dorthe Staunæs, University of Aarhus
Martina Tazzioli, University of Bologna

Submission deadlines:
Abstract: January 1st, 2025
Article: July 1st, 2025

Foucault’s critical approach to critique
Recognizing its omnipresence and importance but also possible deleterious effects, Foucault had a longstanding and decisive, but also complex and ambiguous relationship to critique.

When stating that “it is amazing how people like judging” and that “judgment is being passed everywhere, all the time”, Foucault vents his reticence to the dangerous effects the propagation of petty destructive criticisms (Foucault 1980/1994: 106; Foucault 1980/1988: 325). Nevertheless, Foucault’s also perceives the activity of critique as essential for cultivating a “critical attitude”, both individual and collective (Lorenzini 2016; Lorenzini & Tazzioli 2020), that plays a crucial role for his conception of the practice of philosophy itself (Foucault 1978; Raffnsøe, Thaning, Gudmand-Høyer 2018). Asserting that this “curious activity of critique” “is “underpinned by [soustendue par]” an imperative even more general “than that of eradicating errors”, Foucault underlines that there is something in this critical attitude “which is akin to virtue [qui s’apparente à la vertu]”, or to a principle of being that he could be willing to adhere to and further develop (Foucault 1978: 36; Foucault 2024: 42; Butler 2001/2004).

Consequently, Foucault also emphasizes that he cannot “help but dream about” developing and articulating a different, more affirmative kind of critique: “a kind of criticism that would try not to judge but to bring an oeuvre, a book, a sentence, an idea to life. […] It would multiply not judgments but signs of existence” (Foucault 1980/1994: 106; Foucault 1980/1988: 325).

Critique in the age of criticism
Foucault’s claims are still relevant insofar as critique remains an activity of overarching and decisive importance, but also a permanently unsettled and complicated issue.

Since Kant defined his own time as the “age of criticism” where everything must “be subjected” to critique and anyone seeking to elude criticism becomes the subject of “just suspicion” (Kant 1781/1976: 13), critique has continued to play an overarching and determining role. Critique has been construed as crucial for the self-understanding of modernity (Kolb 1986; Touraine 1995), as well as for the conception of public and private modern life (Habermas 1987: 40; Taylor 2003; Koopman 2010). Likewise, a critical approach is habitually regarded as essential for theory and thinking (Cook 2013; Butler 2012; Celikates 2009; Jaeggi & Wesche 2009; Honneth 1994; McCarthy 1978; Callinicos 2006; Horkheimer & Schmidt 1968; Fassin & Harcourt 2019; Harcourt 2022; Lorenzini 2023), literary evaluation (Johnson 1981; Jameson 2008) and science (Popper 1959).

Presently, critique is thus not only widely disseminated but considered a crucial aspect of the present, an unavoidable and essential activity (Sedgwick 2003; Raffnsøe 2017¸ Fassin & Harcourt 2019). While the refusal to measure up to critique has become self-incriminating, the sheer attempt to avoid critique awakens legitimate misgivings (Ricoeur 1965; Felski 2012). In short, as critique has become a ubiquitous activity, the requirement to measure up to and respond to it has become a self-evident irrefutable norm (Raffnsøe, Staunæs, Bank 2022).

Concurrently, however, the present moment in which critique plays such an overarching role can also be regarded as a time where critique becomes increasingly problematic and problematized. Across the political and theoretical spectrum, critique may often be offered as a negative knee-jerk reaction (Latour 2004), or take the form of a destructive habit (Haraway 2016), where the evaluators first and foremost confirm their own auspicious existence, situated over and above the rest of society (Deleuze 1993: 50), while risking to destroy everything on their way (Sedgwick 2003).

Nietzsche already noted the deleterious eroding effects of an all-encompassing critique as a reactive repetitive activity when he quipped: “Immediately the echo resounds: but always as ‘criticism [Kritik]’. […] Nowhere an effect [Wirkung] is brought about, only ‘criticism’ is achieved over and over again; and criticism itself in turn has no influence [Wirkung] but is only further criticized [erfährt nur Kritik]” (Nietzsche 1874/1999: 284- 285).

At the same time, new forms of critique are suggested that differ from those developed by the Enlightenment tradition (MacLure 2015). They ask how one might become able to know otherwise and create alternative figurations (Butler 1992; Haraway 2008). Which counter-historical and postfoundational critical maneuvers are possible? Which new archives and materials can be opened or invented? How may we attend to and attune differently to archives, voices, data? How can speculative fabulation (Haraway 2008; NourbeSe Philip 2008) draw upon or differ from Foucault’s critical ‘dream work’? What are the ethico-political ambitions and the response-ability (Barad 2007; Haraway 2008) if one seeks to voice forms of critique that not only word but also world differently (Haraway 2016)? How can critique help one to know about that which is not written down or documented and become a practice of the social otherwise (Hartman 2019)?

Critique and the crisis of criticism: potential topics
In its supposedly own age, critique thus seems to be a decisive, problematic and promising activity. If our time is also to be regarded as a time of crisis of critique, maybe inaugurating a new turning point for an activity of critique that remains essential (Koselleck 1973; Beistegui 2022), it becomes a matter of urgency to reopen and address the question: “What is it to offer a critique?” (Butler 2001/2004: 304). Today, critique can no longer be regarded as a simple solution; it has equally become a problem that raises new questions and holds great potential. In this special issue of Foucault Studies, to be published in 2026 (the 100th anniversary of Foucault’s birth), we propose to newly address this crucial question: What is it to offer a critique today, with and beyond Foucault?

More specifically, we are looking for papers that address the following (and related) topics:

• How can one be critical today? What are the forms and styles of contemporary critique? What counts as a truly critical attitude? What traditional and/or new roles does critique play?

• Is it right to claim that critique has “run out of steam” and that “critique has not been critical enough” (Latour 2004)? How can a critique of critique be voiced? And how can responses to this criticism of critique be developed?

• How can we develop new forms of critique that respond to and are on par with the present situation and its challenges? Is it possible and productive to distinguish between forms of negative criticism and affirmative critique?

• What is the relationship between critique, praxis and action? How are critical deliberation and freedom related to one another? What is the relationship between critique and self-criticism?

Submitting your paper
The deadline for the submission of your abstract (750-1,000 words) is January 1st, 2025. You will receive feedback from the editors by February 1st, 2025. Your full article must be sent to the journal by July 1st, 2025.

Please submit your abstract by sending it as attachment to submission.foucaultstudies@gmail.com, specifying that it is submitted for the special issue Critique beyond criticism.

Final submission of articles must include: title of the paper; short abstract (150-250 words); 5 keywords; full article (between 8,000 and 12,000 words, footnotes included); brief bio of the author(s); e-mail address of the corresponding author.

Please note that manuscripts should be in English. They should be typed in Times New Roman 12-point font, double-spaced with 1-inch margins and justified paragraphs. The journal uses an adaptation of the Chicago Manual of Style: see Foucault Studies Author Guidelines: footnote references and bibliography.

Procedure of evaluation
The Special Issue editors handle all manuscripts following the journal’s policies and procedures. After a first selection made by the editors on the basis of the abstracts submitted, the selected contributions (full articles) will undergo a double-blind review evaluation. Authors will be notified of the outcome of the peer-review process by October 1st, 2025 at the latest.

Publication of the special issue: Spring and/or Fall 2026.

References
Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Butler, Judith. 2001/2004. “What is Critique? An Essay on Foucault’s Virtue”, in The Judith Butler Reader, edited by Sara Salih & Judith Butler, 302-322. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Butler, Judith. 2012. “Critique, Dissent, Disciplinarity”. In Sonderegger, Ruth & Boer, Karin de (eds.), Conceptions of Critique in Modern and Contemporary Philosophy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Callinicos, Alex. 2006. The Resources of Critique. Malden: Polity Press.
Celikates, Robin. 2009. Kritik als soziale Praxis: Gesellschaftliche Selbstverständigung und kritische Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Cook, Deborah. 2013. “Adorno, Foucault and Critique”, Philosophy & Social Criticism 39(10): 965-981.
Deleuze, Gilles. 1993. Critique et clinique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Fassin, Didier & Harcourt, Bernard E. 2019. A Time for Critique. New York: Columbia University Press.
Felski, Rita. 2012. “Critique and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion”, M/C Journal 15(1), doi: 10.5204/mcj.431
Foucault, Michel. 1978. “Qu’est-ce que la critique?” Bulletin de la société française de Philosophie. Séance du 27 mai 1978. Paris: Armand Colin.
Foucault, Michel. 1980/1988. “The Masked Philosopher”, in Foucault Live: Collected Interviews, 1961-1984, edited by Sylvère Lotringer, 302-307. New York: Semiotexte.
Foucault, Michel.1980/1994. “Le philosophe masqué”, in Foucault, Michel (1994) : Dits et écrits, 104-110. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 2024. “What is Critique?” and “The Culture of the Self”, edited by Henri-Paul Fruchaud, Daniele Lorenzini & Arnold I. Davidson, translated by Clare O’Farrell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.
Haraway, Donna. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Haraway, Donna. 2016. Staying with the Trouble. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Harcourt, Bernard E. 2022. Critique and Praxis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hartman, Saidiya. 2019. Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Honneth, Axel. 1994. Kritik der Macht: Reflexionsstufen einer kritischen Gesellschaftstheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Horkheimer, Max & Schmidt, Alfred. 1968. Kritische Theorie; eine Dokumentation. Frank-furt am Main: S. Fischer.
Jaeggi, Rahel & Wesche, Tilo (eds.). 2009. Was ist Kritik? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Jameson, Frederic. 2008. The Ideologies of Theory. London: Verso books.
Johnson, Barbara. 1981. The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1781/1976. Kritik der reinen Vernunft 1. In Werkausgabe Immanuel Kant, edited by Wilhelm Weischedel. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Kolb, David. 1986. The Critique of Pure Modernity: Hegel, Heidegger, and After. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Koopman, Colin. 2010. “Revising Foucault: The History and Critique of Modernity”, Philosophy & Social Criticism 36(5): 545-565.
Koselleck, Reinhart. 1973. Kritik und Krise. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Lorenzini, Daniele. 2016. “From Counter-Conduct to Critical Attitude: Michel Foucault and the Art of Not Being Governed Quite So Much”, Foucault Studies 21: 7-21.
Lorenzini, Daniele. 2023. The Force of Truth: Critique, Genealogy and Truth-Telling in Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lorenzini, Daniele & Tazzioli, Martina. 2020. “Critique Without Ontology: Genealogy, Collective Subjects and the Deadlocks of Evidence”, Radical Philosophy 207: 27-39.
Latour, Bruno. 2004. “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”, Critical Inquiry 30(2): 225-248.
MacLure, Maggie. 2015. “The ‘new materialisms’: A Thorn in the Flesh of Critical Qualitative Inquiry?”, in Critical Qualitative Inquiry, edited by Gaile S. Canella, Michelle Perez & Penny Pasque. California: Left Coast Press.
McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1874/1999. Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen. Zweites Stück: Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben. In Kritische Studienausgabe. Band I, 243-334. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag/De Gruyter.
NourbeSe Philip, Marlene. 2008. Zong! Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
Raffnsøe, Sverre. 2017. “What is Critique? Critical Turns in the Age of Criticism”, Outlines: Critical Practice Studies 18(1): 28-60.
Raffnsøe, Sverre, Thaning, Morten & Gudmand-Høyer, Marius. 2018. “Philosophical Practice as Self-Modification: An Essay on Michel Foucault’s Critical Engagement with Philosophy”, Foucault Studies 25: 8-54.
Raffnsøe, Sverre, Staunæs, Dorthe & Bank, Mads. 2022. “Affirmative Critique”. Ephemera 22(3), URL: https://ephemerajournal.org/contribution/affirmative-critique
Ricoeur, Paul. 1965. De l’interprétation. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Sedgwick, Eve K. 2003. “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading”, in Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity, 123-151. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Taylor, Dianna. 2003. “Practicing Politics with Foucault and Kant: Toward a Critical Life”, Philosophy & Social Criticism 29(3): 259-280.
Touraine, Alain. 1995. Critique of Modernity. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Arthur Bradley, Staging Sovereignty. Theory, Theater, Thaumaturgy, Columbia University Press, 2024

To become sovereign, one must be seen as sovereign. In other words, a sovereign must appear—philosophically, politically, and aesthetically—on the stage of power, both to themselves and to others, in order to assume authority. In this sense, sovereignty is a theatrical phenomenon from the very beginning.

This book explores the relationship between theater and sovereignty in modern political theory, philosophy, and performance. Arthur Bradley considers the theatricality of power—its forms, dramas, and iconography—and examines sovereignty’s modes of appearance: thrones, insignia, regalia, ritual, ceremony, spectacle, marvels, fictions, and phantasmagoria. He weaves together political theory and literature, reading figures such as Plato, Aristotle, Montaigne, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schmitt, Benjamin, Derrida, and Agamben alongside writers including Shakespeare, Cervantes, Schiller, Melville, Valéry, Kafka, Ionesco, and Genet.

Formally inventive and deeply interdisciplinary, Staging Sovereignty offers a surprising and original narrative of political modernity from early modern political theology to the age of neoliberal capitalism.

About the Author
Arthur Bradley is professor of comparative literature at Lancaster University. His most recent book is Unbearable Life: A Genealogy of Political Erasure (Columbia, 2019).

Vertelyte, M., Li, J.H.
Friendship pedagogies as technologies of power: deploying friendship to foster participation of racially minoritized students in Danish education (2024) Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2024.2317725

Abstract
This article explores how friendship relations have been used in approaches to the participation of racially minoritized students in Danish schools from the 1970s until the present day. Using Foucault’s concept of technologies of power we approach friendship as a pedagogical technology. This allows us to examine how friendship is implied in school pedagogies and to identify the problems such pedagogies of friendship claim to address. Based on an analysis of literature targeting education professionals, we examine the rationales behind professionals’ use of friendship as a pedagogy and how these have changed over time. Our analysis reveals a shift in friendship pedagogies: conceived as a means to facilitate language acquisition in the 1970s and as a preventive measure against racism in the 1980s, they have evolved into technologies for achieving ‘cultural sameness’. The article concludes with a discussion of the potentials of friendship pedagogies in antiracist education. © 2024 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.

Author Keywords
Denmark; Friendship; pedagogy; racially minoritized students; technologies of power

Martin Duru, “Entretiens radiophoniques 1961-1983” : les bonnes ondes de Michel Foucault, Philosophie Magazine, 22 octobre 2024

« On écrit pour n’avoir plus de visage », disait-il. Là-bas il n’en avait plus, de visage, il n’y était plus qu’une voix (presque) anonyme, et c’est peut-être pour cette raison que Foucault aimait tant y aller : à la radio. Pilotée par Henri-Paul Fruchaud, neveu du penseur, cette somme rassemble et retranscrit l’intégralité des émissions auxquelles Foucault a participé sur les ondes françaises. Dans bon nombre d’interviews, il explicite d’abord les thèses développées dans ses ouvrages, exercice d’autopromotion où il se montre très pédagogue, sans oublier de glisser ici ou là des punchlines bien senties. Ainsi, en 1968, il lâche au micro de Jean-Pierre Elkabbach sur France Inter : « je ne regarde pas l’homme d’un regard froid, je ne le regarde pas du tout ! » – pour signifier qu’il écarte la conscience pour privilégier « l’inconscient du savoir » et ses structures. Mais Foucault, et c’est la principale découverte du volume, fut aussi réalisateur d’émissions qu’il concevait et présentait lui-même. Entre autres exemples, on citera cette série novatrice de 1963 intitulée « Douleur et souffrance » : dans une logique immersive, Foucault interroge sur plusieurs épisodes des spécialistes et des quidams (une femme à la colonne vertébrale brisée, un mineur silicosé, un infirmier…) pour évoquer la souffrance au travail, à l’hôpital, et cerner les contours d’une douleur « vide et obsédante à la fois ». Le souci foucaldien d’être en prise avec le présent rejaillit également des interventions du philosophe sur l’actualité brûlante, comme lorsqu’en 1977, à l’occasion de la venue à Paris du dissident Vladimir Boukovski, il appelle à « une prise de conscience de ce qui se passe en Union soviétique ». Reste un dernier Foucault qui se révèle sur les ondes : le Foucault espiègle, malicieux, qui dans une émission avec l’écrivain Vincent Almira, joue soudain à l’interviewer naïf, posant des questions un peu bêtasses… À ce moment, c’est comme si l’on entendait son rire, ce rire qu’il avait, paraît-il, éruptif et sonore.

Ritts, M., Simlai, T., Gabrys, J.
The environmentality of digital acoustic monitoring: Emerging formations of spatial power in forests (2024) Political Geography, 110, art. no. 103074

DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103074

Abstract

The rise of digital acoustic monitoring is having transformative effects within forest conservation geographies and practices. By featuring divergent acoustic signals (a gunshot, a bird call) as its evidentiary basis for targeted acts of spatial intervention, digital acoustic monitoring promises to address myriad forest crises, from escalating poaching threats to biodiversity loss. More than a conservation tool, we assert that digital acoustic monitoring facilitates diverse manifestations of spatial governance that align with what Foucault (2008) termed “environmentality.” Our central objective is to analyze how digital acoustic monitoring gives rise to new spatial formations of power in forest conservation landscapes–and by extension, other acoustically monitored environments. While acknowledging the potential of digital acoustic monitoring to enhance forest conservation practices, we also find evidence that links its promise of algorithmically derived efficiency to expanded forms of scientific abstraction, militarized surveillance, and capitalist speculation that are propagating in multiple environments worldwide. By analyzing these developments as operations within digital environmentality, we offer a theoretical framework for engaging with these technologies and environments as they are now proliferating worldwide. © 2024 The Author(s)

Author Keywords
Conservation; Digital acoustic monitoring; Environmentality; Forests; Governance

Index Keywords
conservation management, environmental monitoring, forest management, governance approach, nature conservation, power relations