Foucault News

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

Juan J. Jiménez-Anca, Beyond power: Unbridging Foucault and Weber, European Journal of Social Theory June 6, 2012
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431012444919

Abstract
Today, very few would doubt that there are plenty of reasons to liken Weber’s and Foucault’s theories of power. Nevertheless, their respective works have divergent ethical and ontological preoccupations which should be reconsidered. This article explores Foucault’s account of a historical episode in Discipline and Punish and Weber’s theory of life spheres, uncovering evidence that there is a need to reassess the conceptual bridges which have been built so far. The exploration reveals a radical difference between a monological theory of power (Foucault) and a multidimensional approach to power (Weber). Yet by unbridging the two thinkers and focusing on other aspects of their theories along with their ideas about power, we also find that alternative links between the two frameworks may offer a more promising critical theory.

Daniele Lorenzini et Martina Tazzioli, « Contre-usages, désobéissances actives et mouvements de l’intolérable. De la pratique du refus à la volonté de ne pas être gouverné », Cycnos, Volume 28-1, mis en ligne le 01 juillet 2012.

The aim of this article is to analyse some of the most important contemporary practices of refusal that take place in the field of “politics”, and to (re)inscribe them in the long tradition of civil disobedience. Firstly, we will consider civil disobedience in its “classical” form, defining it as the refusal to obey to one or some laws that govern citizens. We will sketch the five major characteristics of this “classical” form of civil disobedience on the basis of Henry David Thoreau’s famous essay Resistance to Civil Government (1849). Secondly, we will study two specific but displaced figures that civil disobedience takes in our times – namely, the struggles of migrants in Italy and Greece during the year 2010 and the fights of the English ecologist group Climate Camp. In so doing, we will highlight the principal transformations of civil disobedience through the study of three innovative axes that we denominate “counter-uses”, “active disobediences” and “movements of the intolerable”. Our conclusion will be that, in order to understand these contemporary political practices of refusal, we must recognize in the disobedient subject an active “supplement” to the simple act of subtraction from power made in the name of a civil responsibility.

A note on Philippe Chevallier’s Michel Foucault et le christianisme

by Colin Gordon, July 2012

See here for details of the book

Philippe Chevallier’s Michel Foucault et le christianisme was published in France by ENS Editions  last December. Foucault’s recently, and imminently to be published work (notably the 1984,  1980 and Louvain lectures) are adding substantially to the available fraction of his unfinished work on the Christian genealogy and archaeology of knowledge, power and ethics, and it is likely that earlier major works including the History of Madness will be profitably revisited in this new light. The picture is not yet complete: there are two full-length manuscripts from the History of Sexuality, one abandoned text dating from 1978 (“Le corps et la chair” until recently thought to have been destroyed), and a draft version of the volume 4 (“Les aveux de la chair”), announced just before Foucault’s death. The evidence base on Foucault and Christianity is growing and will most probably go on growing for an unknown length of time. Some new developments are likely to follow from the publicly reported moves currently under way to house Foucault’s papers in a public archive – most probably the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

For the moment,  Philippe Chevallier’s major survey offers us the most informed and complete picture of the new terrain available to us: it should be translated as soon as possible. The  core of the book deals which the 1980 lectures on The Government of the Living, which will be published in France this October and in English next year. This course, as is well known, marked the start of the five-year period of what Foucault called his  “Greco-Roman trip” and which with minor digression occupied the remainder of his Paris course, though he assured his auditors at the very end, in 1984, that he was about to return to modern time. Additional material covered includes all the published works back to the earliest years, plus a fairly thorough coverage of the other lecture series both published and unpublished – such as the discussions of the history of the confessional in Psychiatric Power and of the pastoral in Security, Territory, Population.

There is one sensational scoop – albeit handled here with discretion: Chevallier was given access by Daniel Defert to an unclassified file which proved to be a chapter of  “Le corps et le chair”, dealing with 16th and 17th French manuals for confessors.  He also had had access to information about Foucault’s working library, his research notes, records of works consulted, and filing cards. His book, condensed from a doctoral thesis, weaves together many layers, from the way Foucault worked on his texts, which editions of the Church Fathers he used in his research and teaching, to the question of how and why Christianity came to figure (as not all readers of Foucault might until recently have supposed it would) as a specific object of investigation in his overall programme, and, finally, to that investigation’s findings. An appendix offers a bold outline of how a “strategic history of Christianity” might be completed working from the fragments Foucault left us.

Chevallier is a reliable and learned guide to the respective intricacies of patristic learning and Foucault’s footsteps (his findings are repeatedly cited by Michel Senellart, editor of the forthcoming edition of  The Government of the Living), but he carries his Jesuit-trained erudition lightly, his writing  is unfailingly elegant and lucid, and the intellectual quest he leads us on grips the interest to the end. One of his key points is that  Foucault changes his method of working in 1980 at the same time as he changes his domain; that Foucault discerns, creates and invents a new layer of analysis and thematics within the Patristic text – the layer concerning acts and practices of truth; and that this focus – a specific way of working on the patristic texts at a distinctive and   unconventional semantic depth – makes possible the discovery of new objects and events while at the some time de-emphasising other important, indeed essential components of the Christian phenomenon. The final finding of the 1980 course which Chevallier leads us to is that Christianity is the discoverer or inventor something unknown to ancient philosophy – an intuition of the inherently precarious nature of our relationship to  truth.

I attended one of Foucault’s 1980 lectures on the sacrament of baptism and I can remember confessing to him afterwards that I had found it heavy going; he was characteristically elated at this feedback, which he took (mistakenly) as a sign that his weekly audience numbers might be about to decline. It has, through no fault of Foucault’s, taken a long time for the full point of the “Greco-Roman trip” to become evident. Philippe Chevallier’s book significantly helps us to fill in this picture. Everyone interested in Foucault should have access to it.

Peng, Zheng (2012). “Discourse, Archeology, and Genealogy: The Development of Foucault’s Discourse Theory and Its Significance”. Foreign Literature Studies, Wai guo wen xue yan jiu (Wuhan Shi, China) , 34 (2), p. 129-36.
https://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/29468415/Discourse__Archeology__and_Genealogy__The_Developm.htm

Abstract
As a representative figure of the discourse theory, Foucault produced great influence on contemporary thoughts; however, his discourse theory did not remain unchanged. It is well known that it transformed from archeology to genealogy. This article is an analysis of the transformation. It will comprehensively analyze the conversion according the meaning of discourse, and try to figure out that the two viewpoints have the same intention-to disavow the traditional, continuous conception of history.

Jerzy Stachowiak. Studia socjologiczne , (1), 2012, p. 93.
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/427993

Abstract
The article aims at presenting two opposite socio-philosophical stances, to which most of research on power within the framework of discourse studies can be attributed. These outlooks are represented by the names of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault. The discussion between these intellectuals constitutes the basis for the comparative analysis presented in the article. The competing approaches to the following questions are juxtaposed: what is political power, why power relations need to be analyzed and possibly changed, what is the role of ideas like “struggle”, “freedom” or “justice” in these processes. For many researchers interested in discursive manifestations of power relations, this set of notions delineates the scope of normatively legitimate pragmatic issues inscribed into the research practice. The aim of the paper is to closely examine the assumptions underlying the rival solutions to the above mentioned issues. This is achieved by presenting the contrasting arguments used as a means for the justification of legitimacy and moral rightness of each standpoint.

Via Stuart Elden’s blog Progressive Geographies

The Funambulist blog has been running a series of posts on Foucault

Episode 1: Michel Foucault’s Architectural Underestimation

Episode 2: Do not Become Enamored of Power

Episode 3: “Mon Corps, Topie Impitoyable”

Episode 4: The cartography of power

Episode 5: The political technology of the body

Episode 6: Architecture and Discipline: the hospital

Episode 7: Questioning the Heterotopology

Joshua J. Kurz, (Dis)locating Control: Transmigration, Precarity and the Governmentality of Control, Behemoth: A Journal on Civilization, Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 30–51, June 2012
https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/behemoth.2012.004

Abstract
In this essay, the author takes up William Walters’ (2006) incitement to theorize transmigration through the Deleuzian concept of control. The importance of mechanisms, or technologies, that modulate population flows are explored by paying close attention to novel strategies of migration policing and securitization in the United States, the European Union, Australia, and North Africa. These technologies no longer take the border as their “proper” site, but instead rely on processes of internalization, externalization, and excision to produce conditions of generalized precariousness. The author argues that these technologies of control resist simple categorization as biopolitics, and instead are more fruitfully considered through the lens of control societies and precarity. Ultimately, the inclusion/exclusion dialectic is put under erasure.

The author discusses the spatiality or territoriality of biopolitics as reliant upon enclosure, whereas control relies upon open/smooth space.

Keywords: transmigration, precarity, control, biopolitics, borders, migration, Foucault, Deleuze, topological borders

Wouter Mensink, ‘Subject of innovation, or: how to redevelop the patient with technology’. PhD thesis, University of Leiden, The Netherlands, 2012.

Pdf of thesis on University of Leiden library site

Author’s blog

Abstract

People are shaped in many ways: as subject of scientific inquiry, as part of a political category or in relations with others. Alternatively, they shape themselves. Michel Foucault examined such ways of ‘subjectivation’: the manner in which the human ‘subject’ is formed. He is most famous for his work on the role of surveillance in society. Contemporary critics argue that the surveillance he describes was only possible in the industrial era, in which people were often confined to closed spaces: schools, factories or hospitals. With the coming of the information era, however, the surveillance model is said to be defunct. People are much more distributed, to name just one distinction.

One way of assessing the value of Foucault’s work for present-day questions is to examine how ‘subjectivation’ relates to technology. His work on neoliberalism provides a starting-point. We do need to look further though, for example at Bruno Latour’s work. He claims that technologies are to people what ‘plug-ins’ are to the internet. The web is personalised by installing different plug-ins, add-ons or apps. Similarly, our subjectivity is shape by the technologies with which we engage. Question is how this turns out in practice.

In order to take such a practical angle at these philosophical questions, this study examines the case of healthcare innovation. It articulates how patients are shaped in relation to technology. Technology is placed in a particular context when it is drawn into a discussion about innovation. The Dutch Electronic Health Record and the Personal Healthcare Budget are political designs that aim to foster innovation. Both policies started mid-1990s and were nearly abolished in 2011. What happened over the course of these one and a half decades?

Apart from these two policies, the study also covers other innovation-related developments in Dutch healthcare: the so-called Diagnosis Treatment Combinations, functional description techniques for health insurances, the Quality-Adjusted Life Years calculation and medical chat rooms.

It ends by examining the possibilities of democratising healthcare innovation, by investigating the example of ‘Living Labs’. These are local or regional platforms in which people are in some way involved in innovation processes. Just like for the different policies, the crucial question is: which role is attributed to the patient?

Graphing the history of philosophy

For the complete graph where you able to see Foucault’s influence see here

Editor: As Simon Raper who put together this graph observes the data used is drawn from the ‘influenced by’ section on Wikipedia pages about philosophers and thus only delineates Foucault in relation to other figures designated as philosophers. Arguably Foucault’s impact outside the narrow confines of the field of philosophy is far wider.

Simon Raper's avatarDrunks&Lampposts

If you are interested in this data set you might like my latest post where I use it to make book recommendations.

This one came about because I was searching for a data set on horror films (don’t ask) and ended up with one describing the links between philosophers.

To cut a long story very short I’ve extracted the information in the influenced by section for every philosopher on Wikipedia and used it to construct a network which I’ve then visualised using gephi

It’s an easy process to repeat. It could be done for any area within Wikipedia where the information forms a network. I chose philosophy because firstly the influences section is very well maintained and secondly I know a little bit about it. At the bottom of this post I’ve described how I got there.

First I’ll show why I think it’s worked as a visualisation. Here’s the…

View original post 1,003 more words

Anne Brunon-Ernst, Utilitarian Biopolitics: Bentham, Foucault and Modern Power, Routledge, 2012

Description
The works of Foucault and Bentham have been regularly examined in isolation and in reference to Panopticon; or The Inspection House (1791), yet rarely has the relationship between the two philosophers been explored further. This study traces the full breadth of that relationship within the fields of sexuality, criminology, ethics, economics and governance. By drawing on a range of new source material, Brunon-Ernst presents a convincing reassessment of Foucault’s concept of biopolitics and uncovers the neglected continuities between utilitarian thinking and Foucaultian theory. not only does this study challenge our assumptions of Foucault and his intellectual formation, it offers a fascinating insight into the connections between eighteenth and twentieth-century intellectual thought.