Foucault News

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

Song, A.M.
Pawns, pirates or peacemakers: Fishing boats in the inter-Korean maritime boundary dispute and ambivalent governmentality
(2015) Political Geography, 48, pp. 60-71.

DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2015.06.002

Abstract
Extractive activities such as oil drilling, mining and fishing often appear implicated in international maritime boundary disputes. While natural resources’ crucial role as a catalyst for conflict has been well-noted in the literature, such an approach has typically assumed a contextual and passive position of natural resources with little political agency for altering the dynamics of a confrontation. This paper provides an alternative perspective in which resource activities constitute a willful agent that works in part to govern the course of the boundary dispute. Drawing on Foucault’s notion of governmentality, I look at how South Korean fishing activities near a disputed maritime border between the two Koreas, called the Northern Limit Line, may be imbued with intentionality representing an indirect arm of the state’s geopolitical agenda. Mobilizing the realist narrative of an immovable border and the mundane tactics of education sessions and at-sea radio communication, I suggest that the South Korean government is seeking to create subjects in fishers to reinforce the state objectives of boundary legitimization and defense of claimed waters. The analysis, however, also demonstrates an ambivalent nature of governmentality, with fishers muddling the state interventions through their own conduct and rationale. The South Korean government thus faces a delicate task of managing the fishing operation vis-à-vis the boundary dispute. Taking the seemingly innocuous resource activity such as fishing to the center stage of power relations, this paper also tables one way of engaging with maritime boundaries, one of the understudied domains in political geography. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.

Author Keywords
Ambivalent governmentality; Government-at-a-distance; Korea; Maritime boundary dispute; Northern Limit Line; Small-scale fisheries

Index Keywords
boundary dispute, fishing community, geopolitics, governance approach, marine resource, maritime boundary, political geography, power relations, territorial delimitation; North Korea, South Korea

Jacobs, K., Travers, M.
Governmentality as critique: the diversification and regulation of the Australian housing sector
(2015) International Journal of Housing Policy, 19 p. Article in Press.

DOI: 10.1080/14616718.2015.1046209

Abstract
As the housing affordability crisis in Australia deepens, policy-makers have expended considerable resources in establishing new regulatory practices to enhance the role of the community housing sector. Ostensibly, the rationale for a new tier of regulation is to assure potential institutional investors (e.g. pension funds, investment trusts and banks) that community housing organisations are accountable and safe places to invest. Our paper adopts an alternative reading of diversity and housing regulation, drawing upon the governmentality thesis advanced by Michel Foucault in an empirical study about the early stages of regulation of affordable housing providers. Amongst our claims are: first, that policies to diversify and regulate the housing sector constitute a radical political project to commercialise welfare provision and second, these policies are likely to generate additional bureaucratic burdens and close off possibilities for progressive reform. The paper also considers the value of the governmentality approach for critical investigations in the field of housing. © 2015 Taylor & Francis

Author Keywords
Australia; Foucault; governmentality; housing policy; regulation

An interview of the American anthropologist Paul Rabinow about his life and work in Morocco and in the philosophy of anthropology and science studies. Filmed by Alan Macfarlane on 31st October 2008. Edited by Sarah Harrison. Generously supported by the Leverhulme Trust. Includes a transcript.

 rabinow
Created: 2011-04-12 14:55
Collection: Film Interviews with Leading Thinkers
Publisher: University of Cambridge
Copyright: Professor Alan Macfarlane


Here is the section from the transcript on Foucault:

10:12:12 When I went to California as a professor in 1978, I had heard of Foucault before but had never been very interested in his work; Dreyfus, John Searle and I talked a lot and in my first year at Berkeley, Dreyfus and Searle were giving a seminar on Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida; Dreyfus and Searle interpreted Foucault as a structuralist which I didn’t think was correct; Dreyfus and I discussed the issue at length and decided to write an article together, I began to convince him that what he said should be nuanced; at that point someone mentioned that Foucault was coming to Stanford (near Berkeley) to give a lecture;

I suggested calling him and asking him to talk with us; Foucault agreed and we went to fetch him; Dreyfus tape records everything that he does as he claims not to have a memory; we talked for eight hours that first day; basically, Foucault felt isolated in Paris; this is very common in France where the boundaries of who you can talk to and confide in are rigorously policed, isolating people more the higher they go; Foucault was suffering from this half-voluntary half-involuntary control; so there we were, neither Dreyfus nor I were particularly interested in Foucault’s work or had any stakes in the matter, but we thought he was confused about some things and needed to clarify his method, Foucault responded extraordinarily well; it was a gift for him to actually engage in discussion without being so guarded;

he said once that if in Paris you said that you were talking about the Enlightenment, the one thing that everyone would be sure of was the Enlightenment was not the real subject; in Berkeley and in the US more generally he found the opposite is the case; the lack of Parisian sophistication pleased him, we developed a strong intellectual connection; my then wife and I became friends with Foucault and his partner, Daniel Defert, and spent a year and a half in Paris (1980-81);

during this period Foucault was returning to Berkeley regularly, this lasted until his untimely death (1984); during the course of our discussions the structuralism issue fell away, and another way of putting together rigorous concept work with detailed empirical work began to be exciting to me; that is what I like about anthropology and why I am an anthropologist with philosophic interests, but very few if any philosophers combine the two; since what he and I were doing was never the same, it was possible to work alongside him and also to be independent at the same time; This was a tremendously important turning point for me; I didn’t want to go back to Morocco, I was exploring the possibility of working in Vietnam; through discussions with Foucault, I began to formulate a conceptual framework which would be a kind of archaeological history of the present; I continue to think he was a great thinker but also that what he did had its limits;

much of the Foucault literature I find wrong or boring, especially the British governmentality work; as the gradual publication of his lectures indicate many unexpected things continue to be opened up by Foucault; like McKeon, he was a great influence but it was always impossible for me to be a disciple, and that is the position that I want; Foucault also wanted people to govern themselves; Bourdieu wanted you to be part of his state and his party, Foucault hated that; that suited me so I have continued with that as one of the things that I do; personally, Foucault was a very unhappy, deeply private man; he was extremely kind, and very attentive to small human things; at that level he was comfortable to be around; on the other hand you always had the sense that he was somewhere else; he was quasi-suicidal during these years, deeply in the process of changing his thought, and his relationship with Daniel was not good;

if you buy the argument that with Heidegger and Wittgenstein traditional Western metaphysics was over, then those people who wanted to continue to do philosophy or to lead a philosophic life had to figure out a different form; Richard Rorty tried and didn’t know how to do it because most philosophers can only do traditional philosophy even though they know that that tradition is over; Foucault figured out a different way of leading the philosophic life which included a Nietzschean, but also anthropological, attention to detail; in his case art and historical archaeological detail, but he spent his life not arguing concepts with people but working through material;

reading Foucault’s books and some of the lectures, their engagement with detailed historical context, with options and constraints, with settings and milieu, that combination of attention to detail combined with a passion for conceptual clarification, seems to me unique; with Dumont, you knew what his theory was, similarly with Bourdieu, theory and examples; Foucault developed a very different relation between theory and examples; I know he didn’t have any theory; this is in the tradition of concepts, experiments and results which then become problems; for me his was a philosophic life and, in many ways, a deeply anthropological life, always engaged outwards while thinking all the time; hence one needs to read his books, and particularly the recent lectures, as examples of experiences and experiments rather than theory or doctrine.

Note from Editor: I often come across interesting material on Foucault that has been around for some time, that either predates this blog or that I have missed.

I have decided, therefore, to start a new category on Foucault News for these items. Postings of this material will be occasional, clearly labelled ‘Archive’ and will be posted at a different time of day from my normal news posts.

Unpacking Foucault

The Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought, Directed by Professor Bernard E. Harcourt, Set to Host a Major Series of Seminars Reassessing the Famed French Philosopher

Media Contact: Public Affairs, 212-854-2650 or publicaffairs@law.columbia.edu

New York, August 6, 2015—More than 30 years after his death, French philosopher Michel Foucault continues to influence contemporary thinkers with his critical explorations of criminal justice, power, sexuality, surveillance, and numerous other issues.
Now his work will be the subject of a yearlong series hosted by the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought and The Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia University. The series—Foucault 13/13—will cover Foucault’s 13 landmark lectures at the Collège de France and will convene distinguished scholars from across a diverse range of disciplines, including anthropology, philosophy, art criticism, political theory, and history.
Columbia Law School Professor Bernard E. Harcourt, director of the Center for Contemporary Critical Thought, will moderate the series along with Professor Jesús R. Velasco, chair of Columbia University’s Department of Latin American and Iberian Cultures. Harcourt is a noted Foucault scholar who has edited the philosopher’s work in French and in English. He recently oversaw the publication of the last of the Collège de France lectures to be collected, Théories et institutions pénales. 1971-1972 (published in May 2015).
“With the publication now of the entire series of Foucault’s lectures at the Collège de France, it is time to read them chronologically to grasp the overall project of those lectures, to analyze the development of the critical ideas, and to continue to excavate our own research avenues, building on Foucault’s,” Harcourt said.
French philosopher Michel Foucault, left, is the subject of a new seminar series,
Foucault 13/13, created and moderated by Professor Bernard E. Harcourt, right,
director of the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought.
The seminar series will be structured as conversations among Columbia law faculty, including professors Katherine Franke, Jeremy Kessler, and Kendall Thomas, Columbia faculty from the Arts and Sciences, including Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Etienne Balibar, Partha Chatterjee, Axel Honneth, and Alondra Nelson, and guests including Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Homi Bhabha, Achille Mbembe, Paul Rabinow, Pierre Rosanvallon, and other leading theorists from around the world.
The Foucault 13/13 series is also sponsored by the Maison Française, the Institute for Comparative Literature and Society, and the Department of Latin American and Iberian Cultures.
“The Center for Contemporary Critical Thought has curated an extraordinary series for this coming year–a true intellectual “happening”–and I very much look forward to participating,” said Nelson, professor of sociology and gender studies and Dean of Social Science at Columbia University. “I certainly hope to be on hand for the entire seminar series if I can manage to get a seat!”
The series will be open to Columbia faculty, fellows and students in addition to faculty and students from other New York universities. The seminars will also be webcast for the public. View the complete schedule of seminars.

# # #

Columbia Law School, founded in 1858, stands at the forefront of legal education and of the law in a global society. Columbia Law School combines traditional strengths in corporate law and financial regulation, international and comparative law, property, contracts, constitutional law, and administrative law with pioneering work in intellectual property, digital technology, tax law and policy, national security, human rights, sexuality and gender, and environmental law.

Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/columbialaw

The Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought and
The Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia University
present

Michel Foucault’s Collège de France Lectures (1970-1984):
13 Years at the Collège, 13 Seminars at Columbia

Reading the Foucault Collège de France Lectures

with

Seyla Benhabib, Homi Bhabha, Judith Butler, Veena Das, François Ewald, Didier Fassin, James Faubion, Nancy Fraser, Frédéric Gros, Daniele Lorenzini, Nancy Luxon, Achille Mbembe, Paul Rabinow, Judith Revel, Pierre Rosanvallon, Ann Stoler, and Linda Zerilli

in conversation with Columbia University colleagues

Etienne Balibar, Partha Chatterjee, Jean Cohen, Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Katherine Franke, Robert Gooding-Williams, Stathis Gourgouris, Axel Honneth, Jeremy Kessler, Lydia Liu, Anna Lvovsky, Sharon Marcus, Alondra Nelson, John Rajchman, Emmanuelle Saada, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Kendall Thomas, Adam Tooze, and Nadia Urbinati

Moderated by

Bernard E. Harcourt and Jesús R. Velasco

Race war, biopolitics, the hermeneutics of the self, governmentality, the examination of one’s conscience, sécurité, the courage of truth, illégalismes, juridical forms, governing through truth, the “punitive society,” truth-telling, judicial apparatuses of repression, the Nu-pieds rebellions of 1639, parrhesia … Michel Foucault’s thirteen years of lectures at the Collège de France introduced us to new concepts and novel research avenues. For many of us, those avenues have been fertile ground for our own theorization, for others fertile ground for critique. They represent, as Foucault intended, rich and productive “pistes de recherches.”

With the publication of the entire series of lectures at the Collège de France—the last, Théories et institutions pénales (1971-1972) just released in May 2015—it is now time to read them chronologically:  to grasp the overall project of those lectures at the Collège, to discuss the full trajectory, and to continue to excavate our own “pistes de recherche” building on Foucault’s.

The Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought and the Columbia Society of Fellows, with the support of the Maison Française, the Institute for Comparative Literature and Society, and the Department of Latin American and Iberian Cultures, are delighted to host 13 seminars on the 13 courses. The seminar series—Foucault 13/13—will extend over the full 2015-2016 academic year at Columbia University. The seminar series will be open to Columbia faculty, fellows, and students, as well as faculty and students from other New York universities.

Each seminar will be led by distinguished scholars from different disciplines. The seminars will take place on Monday evenings in the Fall semester (2015) and Thursday evenings in the Spring semester (2016) from 6:15pm to 8:45pm.

The seminars will be open to students and faculty from Columbia University and other New York universities (please bring university ID). If you are interested in attending and would like a place reserved at the seminar table, please send an e-mail explaining your interest to Claire Merrill at cm3325@columbia.edu.

Seminar Series Schedule:  Foucault 13/13

Monday, September 14, 2015:
Lessons on the Will to Know (1970-1971)

James Faubion, Rice University
and
Nancy Luxon, University of Minnesota

Maison Française
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Monday, September 28, 2015:
Penal Theories and Institutions (1971-1972)

Etienne Balibar, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre & Columbia University
and
François Ewald, Series Editor of Foucault’s Collège de France Lectures

Casa Hispánica
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Monday, October 12, 2015:
The Punitive Society (1972-1973)

Didier Fassin, Institute for Advanced Studies (Princeton) & EHESS,

Axel Honneth, University of Frankfurt & Columbia University, and
Nadia Urbinati, Columbia University

Heyman Center Common Room
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Monday, October 26, 2015:
Psychiatric Power (1973-1974)

Linda Zerilli, University of Chicago,

Anna Lvovsky, Columbia University, and
Alondra Nelson, Columbia University

Heyman Center Common Room
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Monday, November 16, 2015:
Abnormal (1974-1975)

Veena Das, Johns Hopkins University,

Pierre Rosanvallon, Collège de France, Paris, and
Emmanuelle Saada, Columbia University

Maison Française
7:00 to 9:00pm

***

Monday, November 23, 2015:
“Society must be defended” (1975-1976)

Ann Stoler, The New School,

Partha Chatterjee, Columbia University, and
Robert Gooding-Williams, Columbia University

Heyman Center Common Room
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Monday, December 7, 2015:
Security, Territory, Population (1977-1978)

Seyla Benhabib, Yale University

Jeremy Kessler, Columbia University, and
Adam Tooze, Columbia University

Maison Française
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Thursday, January 28, 2016:
The Birth of Biopolitics (1978-1979)

Nancy Fraser, The New School
and
Kendall Thomas, Columbia University

Heyman Center Common Room
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Thursday, February 11, 2016:
The Government of the Living (1979-1980)

Achille Mbembe, University of the Witwatersrand,

Daniele Lorenzini, Université Paris-Est Créteil, and
Jean Cohen, Columbia University

Maison Française
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Thursday, February 25, 2016:
Subjectivity and Truth (1980-1981)

Judith Butler, University of California Berkeley,

Katherine Franke, Columbia University, and
Stathis Gourgouris, Columbia University

Maison Française
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Thursday, March 10, 2016:
The Hermeneutics of the Subject (1981-1982)

Homi Bhabha, Harvard University,

Paul Rabinow, University of California Berkeley, and
Lydia Liu, Columbia University

Heyman Center Common Room
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Thursday, March 31, 2016:
The Government of Self and Others (1982-1983)

Judith Revel, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre,

Sharon Marcus, Columbia University, and
John Rajchman, Columbia University

Heyman Center Common Room
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

Thursday, April 14, 2016:
The Courage of Truth (1983-1984)

Frederic Gros, Sciences Po,

Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Columbia University, and
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Columbia University

Casa Hispánica
6:15 to 8:45pm

***

All sessions moderated by
Bernard E. Harcourt and Jesús R. Velasco

The Columbia Maison Française is located on the Columbia campus in Buell Hall next to Low Library. The Heyman Center Common Room is located in the Heyman Center (in East Campus) on the second floor. The Hispanic Institute for Latin American and Iberian Cultures (Casa Hispanica) is located at 612 West 116th Street. A campus map of Columbia University is here.

Time Served: Discipline and Punish Forty Years On
Dates: Friday 11 September 2015 – Saturday 12 September 2015
Location: The Galleries of Justice, NG1 1HN
Nottingham Trent University.

Programme

40 years after it was first published in French, the impact of Michel Foucault’s seminal text Discipline and Punish on theories of incarceration, discipline and power remains largely unchallenged. The aim of this conference is to revisit the text in light of the past four decades of penal developments, public debate and social consciousness on incarceration as it continues to constitute society’s mode of punishment par excellence.

In addition to thinking through the legacy of Discipline and Punish and its continued relevance today, specific focus will be given to the text itself, its position within Foucault’s wider critical project and its important relationship with his activism most notably the work of the GIP (Groupe d’Information sur les prisons) during the early 1970s. For example, the publication in 2013 of his 1973 lectures at the Collège de France on La Société Punitive, calls for a return to this period and a new engagement with Foucault’s work on prisons, not least in its pursuit of a more openly Marxist critique of the relationship between incarceration and bourgeois capital accumulation.

The conference will bring together a range of scholars working in the fields of philosophy, sociology, criminology, urban geography, architecture, history, literature, media studies as well as artists, writers and activists involved in projects based in and about prisons and their conditions.

The conference is hosted by the School of Arts and Humanities with the generous support of the School of Social Sciences and the Society for French Studies.

Derek Ide The Universal and the Particular: Chomsky, Foucault, and Post-New Left Political Discourse, The Hampton Institute, December 20th, 2014

Postmodern theory was a relatively recent intellectual phenomenon in 1971 when Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault sat down to discuss a wide range of topics, including the nature of justice, power, and intellectual inquiry. At one point Chomsky, who Peter Novick suggests as an example of left-wing empiricism in post-war academia, engages the concrete issue of social activism and invokes the notion of “justice,” to which Foucault asks poignantly: “When, in the United States, you commit an illegal act, do you justify it in terms of justice or of a superior legality, or do you justify it by the necessity of the class struggle, which is at the present time essential for the proletariat in their struggle against the ruling class?” After a brief period he quickly reiterates the question again: “Are you committing this act in virtue of an ideal justice, or because the class struggle makes it useful and necessary?” Chomsky attempts to situate a notion of justice within international law, to which Foucault replies: “I will be a little bit Nietzschean about this… the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power or as a weapon against that power… And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice.” In other words, for Foucault justice is only intelligible within a relative framework of class antagonisms. Meanings of justice may differ, but they are only understandable vis-à-vis certain class positions. Chomsky responds: “Well, here I really disagree. I think there is some sort of an absolute basis–if you press me too hard I’ll be in trouble, because I can’t sketch it out-ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities, in terms of which a ‘real’ notion of justice is grounded.”[1]

read more

Mark Redhead, Complimenting rivals: Foucault, Rawls and the problem of public reasoning, Philosophy Social Criticism February 16, 2015
https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715568922

Abstract
This article pursues two questions: Can one use Foucault’s later writings on parrhesia and Kant to create a Foucaldian approach to public reason? If so, what lessons might those attracted to John Rawls’ well-known model of public reason draw from a Foucaldian orientation? By putting Foucault into a competitive yet productive relationship with Rawls, this article addresses some of the latter’s shortcomings. In doing so it also makes a larger argument about the need to develop approaches to democratic deliberation that involve engagement with – rather than simple toleration and/or accommodation of – the various ‘reasonable’ ethical commitments deliberators, on some fundamental level, reason in light of. The justificatory aims of public reason are best achieved when participants’ most-cherished beliefs are opened to critical dialogue rather than banished to the realm of the ‘non-political’. The article begins by briefly illuminating the salient features of Rawls’ model of public reasoning as well as three problems that ensue with the limitations it places on discourses regulated by public reason. It then attempts to distill a Foucaldian approach to public reason by briefly discussing 4 elements of Foucault’s later work on Rawls’ philosophical godfather Kant together with several features of the antiquarian studies of parrhesia that Foucault was conducting at the time these Kantian works were written. Third, Jeffrey Stout’s recent account of theistic democratic actors in some of the most economically disadvantaged US localities demonstrates how many of the ideals integral to this Foucaldian approach to public reasoning built on engaging (rather than simply tolerating and/or accommodating) contrasting ethical perspectives are central to some concrete practices of public reasoning. It concludes with some thoughts on the necessity of publicly reasoning through rather than independently of our deepest commitments.

Deliberative democracy
Michel Foucault
grass-roots organizing
public reason
John Rawls

stuartelden's avatarProgressive Geographies

I attended and spoke at three workshops last week. First, at the Monash University study centre in Prato, Italy, on modern reappropriations of Hellenistic Ethics. I ran a reading seminar on Foucault’s reading of Artemidorus. The other sessions were by Susan James and Aurelia Armstrong on Spinoza’s Ethics; Daniel Conway and Keith Ansell-Pearson on Nietzsche’s reading of Epicurus; and John Sellars and Matthew Sharpe on two translations in progress of essays by Pierre Hadot. It was a tremendous privilege to hear the other discussions, especially – for me – Keith and Dan on Nietzsche, and Matt on Hadot.

The day of reading sessions was between two workshops with formal papers, only small parts of which I was able to attend. Initially the seminar was supposed to be just a discussion session – of the first chapters of History of Sexuality Vol III and the chapters on sexual dreams from…

View original post 647 more words