The Sociology Book

276

domination” (the formation
of the state). This is because,
according to Foucault, “government”
does not have a purely political
meaning. From the 18th century
until relatively recently, government
was a broad concept that embraced
guidance for the family, household
management, and guidance for the
soul, as well as more conventional
politics. Foucault describes this
all-embracing form of government
as “the conduct of conduct.” In the
modern world, governing is more
than simple top-down power
relationships, Foucault says; it rests

on a multi-layered web. Where once

governing rested on violence—or

the threat of violence—this is now

just one element of control. Other

systems that hold sway in current

forms of governing are coercive

strategies, and those that structure

and shape the possible forms

of action citizens may take.

Governing by fear and violence

is much less effective than

employing more subtle forms of

control, such as defining limited

choices or using disciplinary

institutions like schools to guide

the behavior of individuals. In this

way, self-control becomes linked

to political rule and economic

exploitation. What appears to be

individual choice just “happens to

be” also to the benefit of the state.

In this way, Foucault suggests

that the modern nation-state

and the modern autonomous

individual rely on one another

for their existence.

Governmentality in action

Foucault’s view of governmentality

as the effort to shape and guide

choices and lifestyles of groups

and individuals has been further

developed by many contemporary

scholars. For example, US

anthropologist Matthew Kohrman

MICHEL FOUCAULT

considered governmentality in

relation to cigarette smoking

among Chinese physicians. His

2008 paper “Smoking Among

Doctors: Governmentality,

Embodiment, and the Diversion

of Blame in Contemporary China”

looks at the ways smoking among

health professionals was suggested

to be the cause of high smoking

rates among the public. Public

health campaigns targeted these

doctors, blaming them for tobacco-

related diseases in China and

calling on them to govern their own

bodies and stop smoking.

The individual became
recognized as important in
politics, Foucault claims, when
the ideas of the divine right
of kings and the infallibility
of the Catholic Church were
challenged. The task for any
government then became how
to find a way to conspicuously
act for the people, while
nevertheless continuing to
build its own strength.

If one wants to analyze

the genealogy of the subject

in Western civilization,

he has to take into account

not only techniques of

domination but also

techniques of the self.

Michel Foucault

Domination by the

monarchy and the Church

(c.6th–16th centuries).

The rise of the

individual (late 16th–

17th century).

Citizens participate in

their own governance

(from the 18th century).

The individual and the state

The dream or nightmare of

a society programmed... by

the “cold monster” of the state

is profoundly limiting as a way

of rendering intelligible the

way we are governed.

Nikolas Rose

British sociologist (1947–)