277
Foucault’s vision of the modern
nation-state as a governmentalized
whole is not without its critics. He
has, for instance, been charged
with being vague and inconsistent
in his definition of governmentality.
Philosopher Derek Kerr has argued
that Foucault’s definition “beheads
social subjectivity,” by seeming
to do away with free, subjective
choice. Canadian sociologists
Danica Dupont and Frank Pearce
accuse Foucault of taking a rather
simplistic and idealistic reading
of Western political history, seeing
it as “the growth of a plant from a
seed,” which overcomes obstacles
to realize its true potential (as
though this were always implicit,
in some way).
Neo-liberalism
Nevertheless, Foucault’s idea
of governmentality remains a
powerful conceptual tool with
which to unpick and critique neo-
liberalism. This is the post-war,
post-welfare politics and economics
of the late 20th century, whereby
the state, in many respects, rolled
back its responsibilities to its
citizens. In his lectures, Foucault
discussed neo-liberalism in three
post-war states: West Germany,
France, and the US. This form
of governance has been described
as the triumph of capitalism over
the state, or as “anti-humanism,”
owing to its emphasis on the
individual and the destruction
of community bonds. In neo-liberal
thinking, the worker is viewed
as a self-owned enterprise and
is required to be competitive.
Neo-liberalism relies on the
notion of responsible, rational
individuals who are capable
of taking responsibility for
themselves, their lives, and their
environment, particularly through
“normalizing technologies”—the
agreed-upon goals and procedures
of a society that are so “obvious”
that they are seen as “normal.”
In the 21st century these include
behaviors such as recycling,
losing weight, being involved in
Neighborhood Watch schemes,
or quitting smoking.
Foucault claims that the ways
we think and talk about health,
work, family and so on, encourage
us to behave in particular ways.
People govern themselves and
others according to what they
believe to be true. For instance,
many societies view monogamous,
heterosexual marriage as the
“correct” environment for bringing
up children, and this “truth” isTHE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS
established in many ways, from
cultural artifacts to government
discourse on family values.
Political policies may also be used
to put weight behind particular
ideas, such as the family, through
incentives such as tax breaks.
British academic Nikolas Rose,
drawing on Foucault’s key ideas,
has written persuasively on the
“death of the social” and the
ways in which the individual in
the neo-liberal state has to govern
his or her access to state services
with little or no help. It is through
perspectives such as this, Foucault
says, that we can see the ways in
which power is repressive, even
while it appears to be acting in
the interests of the individual.
Foucault argues that political
control—the art of governance—
is most effective when it presents
everything it offers as an act of
free choice. Modern neo-liberalist
governments have found perhaps
the most dangerous way to
govern—by giving the impression
that they are not governing at all. ■Barack Obama’s 2008 US presidency
campaign had supporters chanting
“Yes We Can!,” implying government
by the people. The tactic echoes
Foucault’s concept of self-government. Foucault’s work permanently
changes one’s understanding
of how people are governed
in modern society.
Brent Pickett
US political scientist