Foucault News

McKinlay, Alan; Carter, Chris; Pezet, Eric; Clegg, Stewart, ‘Using Foucault to make strategy’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume 23, Number 8, 2010 , pp. 1012-1031(20)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09513571011092538/full/html

Abstract

Purpose
The premise of the paper is that Foucault’s concept of governmentality has important but unacknowledged implications for understanding strategy. Highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the governmentality approach, the paper seeks to suggest how governmentality can be used to conceptualise strategy. More generally, the paper seeks to contribute to the body of research on governmentality articulated by authors such as Peter Miller, Ted O’Leary and Nikolas Rose.

Design/methodology/approach
The paper reprises the argument that accounting is constitutive of social relations. It proceeds to discuss Peter Miller, Ted O’Leary and Nikolas Rose’s seminal contributions to the conceptual development of governmentality. In outlining their work, the paper highlights the significance accorded to the emergence of standard costing and scientific management and its subsequent role in developing both the strategies and structures of managerial capitalism. The paper examines how this, in turn, was pivotal to the emergence of strategy as an important means through which organisations began to understand and conceive of themselves. The paper rehearses the standard criticisms made of governmentality within the accounting literature, before arguing that the concept emerges intact from the critique levelled against it. Proceeding to summarise Foucault’s radical conception of power, the paper notes the elusiveness of Foucault’s relationship with strategy. Elaborating on the nature of governmentality, the paper employs the concept to re-examine the managerial revolution. The objective is to explore its implications for understanding strategy.

Findings
The paper builds on the innovative work published in accounting on governmentality to construct an account of the emergence of the managerial revolution. This yields important insights on strategy. In particular, the paper challenges Chandler, arguing that the birth of strategy is best seen as a post-hoc rationalisation produced by the emergence of systematic management and standard costing. The paper explores how governmentality might be developed to study strategy. The overarching message of the paper is that there is a need to rethink strategy as a language and social practice. Strategy, therefore, must be understood as much as a cultural and political project than as an economic one.

Originality/value
The paper highlights how strategy can be regarded as a cultural and political phenomenon. This opens up the possibility of accounts of strategy that are firmly grounded within studies of organisations, politics and society. Dispensing with neo-economic notions of strategy, the paper advocates writing Foucault into strategic management.

Johanna Oksala, ‘Foucault’s politicization of ontology’, Continental Philosophy Review, published online 8 October 2010

Download pdf from this page

Abstract
The paper explicates a politicized conception of reality with the help of Michel Foucault’s critical project. I contend that Foucault’s genealogies of power problematize the relationship between ontology and politics. His idea of productive power incorporates a radical, ontological claim about the nature of reality: Reality as we know it is the result of social practices and struggles over truth and objectivity. Rather than translating the true ontology into the right politics, he reverses the argument. The radicality of his method lies in showing how the ontological order of things is in itself the outcome of a political struggle: Ontology is politics that has forgotten itself. I argue that Foucault’s thought accomplishes the politicization of ontology with two key theoretical moves. The first is the contestation and provocation of all given and necessary ontological foundations. He affirms the ontological view that there is a discontinuity between reality and all ontological schemas that order it, and a subsequent indeterminacy of reason in establishing ultimate truths or foundations. After this initial step whereby ontology is denaturalized—made arbitrary or at least historically contingent—the way is open for explanations that treat the alternative and competing ontological frameworks as resulting from historical, linguistic and social practices of power. The second key move is thus the exposure of power relations and their constitutive role in our conception of reality. I conclude by considering the implications of Foucault’s politicization of ontology for our understanding of politics.

Keywords: Foucault – Political ontology – The political – Politics – Power

Paul Patton, ‘Activism, Philosophy and Actuality in Deleuze and Foucault’ Deleuze Studies, Dec 2010, Vol. 4, No. supplement : pp. 84-103
https://www.jstor.org/stable/45331436

Abstract
Deleuze and Foucault shared a period of political activism and both drew connections between their activism and their respective approaches to philosophy. However, despite their shared political commitments and praise of each other’s work, there remained important philosophical differences between them which became more and more apparent over time. This article identifies some of the political issues over which they disagreed and shows how they relate to some of their underlying philosophical differences. It focuses on their respective approaches to the state, to ‘actuality’ and to the analysis of the present.