DOCSLIB.ORG

Paper ABRI.2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paper ABRI.2 5o Encontro Nacional da ABRI Redefinindo a Diplomacia num mundo em transformação Belo Horizonte (MG), 29-31 Julho 2015. Área Temática: Teoria de Relações Internacionais CRITIQUE, SUBJECTIVITY, AND THE TRADITION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY Natália Maria Félix de Souza IRI/PUC-Rio e PUC-SP Work in progress – Please do not cite without permission Abstract The paper will start an investigation on the role of critique in the history of international relations theory. It will do so by developing two arguments. First, the paper will address, along Foucauldian lines, what critique as a generalized practice distinct from philosophy might entail. Through this movement, the paper will argue that sustaining a “critical attitude” means not only understanding the epistemological aspect of critique, i.e. accepting the separation between noumena and phenomena, or the thing in itself and the thing as it appears to us; a critical attitude also involves a question of the production of subjectivity involved in the reflexive moment inaugurated by Kant, one which brings into question a problem of ethics and aesthetics. Far from trying to decipher this colossus that is Kant’s work, I believe Foucault may offer us a much more readable and interesting avenue for thinking through this aspect of critique, and inquiring the discipline of IR in its ability to account for it. Having delineated what this critical attitude means, the paper will briefly turn to the trajectory of international relations theory in order to understand whether its authors have been able to sustain a critical attitude in both its epistemological and subjectivity aspects. Specifically, the paper will engage the works of early IR theorists such as Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr in order to investigate how a certain critical attitude that was present in their political and academic positions was lost or diluted specially during the 1960s and 1970s, having an impact on the whole tradition of international relations theory. Keywords international relations theory; critique; subjectivity 2 Work in progress – Please do not cite without permission Critique, Subjectivity, and the tradition of international relations theory Natália Maria Félix de Souza1 International relations theory today: between critique and crisis Recently, international relations theory has begun another concerted round of inquiries into its status as an academic enterprise, a body of knowledge with its ontological, epistemological and methodological commitments. This has been especially evident in two recent issues of important “critical” journals in the area – the European Journal of International Relations2 (EJIR) and Millennium: Journal of International Studies3 – which bring forth to the academic community a series of questions and discussions concerning the current practice of international relations theory4. The 2013 EJIR issue, enquiring about “the end of international relations theory?”, features contributions ranging from a multiplicity of conceptual positions – including well- known authors such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, David Lake, Christian Reus- Smit, Chris Brown, Stefano Guzzini, Christine Sylvester, Michael C. Williams, Arlene Tickner, amongst others. A range of other scholars further debated their articles during a Symposium promoted by the international relations blog “Duck of Minerva”5, broadening the debate among the academic community. At the center of EJIR’s provocations were questions concerning a possible state of “stagnation, crisis and end”6 of theory and theorizing in international relations, questions which seemed to be triggered by the end of the “paradigm wars” which characterized the so-called “great debates” in the discipline, a moment of accepted “pluralism”, in which “theory testing”, rather than “theory development” seems to be the case across the multiple traditions, or “isms” that characterize the discipline (Dunne et al., 2013). In their contribution to the issue, Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Daniel Nexon (2013) argue that the field is living through a “post-paradigmatic era”, in which “the health of international relations theory” must be assessed from a different perspective: one should no longer look for the methodological wagers that characterized previous decades – which have declined – but should instead understand international relations theory in terms of “scientific ontologies”. According to the authors, the different theories in international relations consist 1 PhD Candidate at IRI/PUC-Rio. Assistant Professor at PUC-SP. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Available at: < http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/19/3.toc> 3 Available at: < http://mil.sagepub.com/content/current> 4 Both of these special issues are compilations of papers and discussions that previously took place during important Conferences – the 2011 ISA Conference in Montreal, in the case of EJIR; and the 2014 Millennium Conference on method, methodology and innovation in IR. 5 All of the contributions are available at: <http://duckofminerva.com/2013/09/the-end-of-ir-theory- symposium.html> 6 See the response of Felix Berenskoetter to the special issue in the Duck of Minerva Symposium. Available at: <http://duckofminerva.dreamhosters.com/2013/09/19951.html> 3 Work in progress – Please do not cite without permission of “(social-) scientific claims about the ontology of world politics, including its actors, proper units of analysis, and how such elements fit together”. Seen from this standpoint, one can have “a cautiously optimistic diagnosis of the health of international theory.” (Jackson, Nexon, 2013, p. 544-5). Partaking of such an optimistic account, David Lake (2013) believes the end of the “paradigm wars” and “great debates” represents an exclusively positive development for the discipline, since it allows the different camps – positivism and post-positivism – to stop with disciplinary and academicist wagers between themselves and engage with a much more productive mid-level theorizing, which promises to bring forth progress in both of their research programs. Mearsheimer and Walt (2013), on their turn, present a grim account of such a state of theorizing in the field. The authors strongly lament the abandonment of grand theorizing in the name of middle-range theorizing and hypothesis-testing, for they strip theory from its policy relevance. Brown (2013) concurs with this negative assessment concerning the current state of international relations theory, pointing out however, that progress is much more evident in the standard cannons of the discipline – liberalism and realism – than among “critical/‘late modern’” scholarship. According to him, critical theory has been unable to produce “action-guiding and world-revealing insights”, whereas problem-solving theory, despite being progressive, has been of no value for those at the margins of society. Brown calls, then, for the development of “critical problem solving” theories, that can engage reality – as realists and liberals do – but considering the problems of the dispossessed. After a period of enthusiastic celebration of the opening up of the field of international relations to accommodate multiple instances of critical theory7, these insights show that we have begun to question the implications of our pluralism for the future of international relations theory. Among other things, this development indicates a sense that “critique” has reached some sort of limit – precisely when “critical accounts” seem to proliferate across the discipline – which makes it necessary to inquire about its future in terms of its past. The 2015 issue of Millennium picks up on some of the same questions that emerged around the EJIR issue, more specifically “issues related to what constitutes science and how IR scholars relate to these debates” (Lacatus et al., 2015, p. 769). The Millennium contributions aim, more specifically, at deepening investigations concerning “method, methodology and innovation” in the discipline, reflecting on a question posed by Cynthia Weber to the editors of the journal: “where do we go from here?”. This concern with methods and methodology comes from a shared assumption that individuals’ choice of how to treat data and proceed with research always carries deeper philosophical presuppositions. In this 7 See: Ashley, Walker (1990) 4 Work in progress – Please do not cite without permission sense, “the belief that all research of international politics ought to be self-reflexive” (Lacatus et al., 2015, p. 778) propels the Millennium editors to try to shed light on the profound links between methods-methodology-epistemology-ontology. Not everything that comes out of these different (yet somehow related) questions that are being posed by international relations theorists today is of a kind. Yet a number of them remind us of some enduring problems with which international relations theory has struggled since its very articulation as a discipline. When the EJIR issue poses anew the question of “crisis” or “end” of international relations theory and Millennium brings back, once again, the problem of science; or when Jackson and Nexon want to assess the “health of international relations theory”; or even when Brown and Williams, in different ways, speak of some limit of contemporary critical approaches to think politically about the future; they all seem to be rehearsing some familiar themes which have animated international relations theory – one in particular that I would like to take up, which is the question of crisis and the future
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Art of 'Governing Nature': 'Green' Governmentality
    THE ART OF ‘GOVERNING NATURE’: ‘GREEN’ GOVERNMENTALITY AND THE MANAGEMENT OF NATURE by KRISTAN JAMES HART A thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in Environmental Studies In conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Environmental Studies Queen„s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (September, 2011) Copyright ©Kristan James Hart, 2011 Abstract This thesis seeks to unpack the notions of Michael Foucault's late work on governmentality and what insights it might have for understanding the „governing of nature‟. In doing this it also operates as a critique of what is often termed 'resourcism', a way of evaluating nature which only accounts for its utility for human use and does not give any acceptance to the idea of protecting nature for its own sake, or any conception of a nature that cannot be managed. By utilizing a study of the govern-mentalities emerging throughout liberalism, welfare-liberalism and neoliberalism I argue that this form of 'knowing' nature-as-resource has always been internal to rationalities of liberal government, but that the bracketing out of other moral valuations to the logic of the market is a specific function of neoliberal rationalities of governing. I then seek to offer an analysis of the implications for this form of nature rationality, in that it is becoming increasingly globalized, and with that bringing more aspects of nature into metrics for government, bringing new justifications for intervening in „deficient‟ populations under the rubric of „sustainable development. I argue, that with this a new (global) environmental subject is being constructed; one that can rationally assess nature-as-resource in a cost-benefit logic of wise-use conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Neoliberal Governmentality: Foucault on the Birth of Biopolitics
    MICHAEL A. PETERS 6. NEOLIBERAL GOVERNMENTALITY: FOUCAULT ON THE BIRTH OF BIOPOLITICS The political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is not to liberate the individual from the State and its institutions, but to liberate ourselves from the State and the type of individualisation linked to it (Foucault, 1982, p. 216). Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. (Foucault, 1982, p. 221). INTRODUCTION In his governmentality studies in the late 1970s Foucault held a course at the Collège de France the major forms of neoliberalism, examining the three theoretical schools of German ordoliberalism, the Austrian school characterised by Hayek, and American neoliberalism in the form of the Chicago school. Among Foucault’s great insights in his work on governmentality was the critical link he observed in liberalism between the governance of the self and government of the state – understood as the exercise of political sovereignty over a territory and its population. He focuses on government as a set of practices legitimated by specific rationalities and saw that these three schools of contemporary economic liberalism focused on the question of too much government – a permanent critique of the state that Foucault considers as a set of techniques for governing the self through the market. Liberal modes of governing, Foucault tells us, are distinguished in general by the ways in which they utilise the capacities of free acting subjects and, consequently, modes of government differ according to the value and definition accorded the concept of freedom. These different mentalities of rule, thus, turn on whether freedom is seen as a natural attribute as with the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, a product of rational choice making, or, as with Hayek, a civiliz- ational artefact theorised as both negative and anti-naturalist.
    [Show full text]
  • 77 Foucauldian Spaces Round Table Discussion
    © Foucault Studies DOI: https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i24.5527 ISSN: 1832-5203 Foucault Studies, No. 24, pp. 77-101, June 2018 Foucauldian Spaces Round Table Discussion with Lynne Huffer, Steven Ogden, Paul Patton, and Jana Sawicki, Joanna Crosby and Dianna Taylor: The theme of this special section of Foucault Studies, “Foucauldian Spaces,” emerged out of the 2016 meeting of the Foucault Circle, where the four of you were participants. Each of the three individual papers contained in the special section critically deploys and/or reconceptualizes an aspect of Foucault’s work that engages and offers particular insight into the construction, experience, and utilization of space. We’d like to ask the four of you to reflect on what makes a space Foucauldian, and whether or not (and why or why not) you’d consider the space created by the convergence of and intellectual exchanges among an international group of Foucault scholars at the University of New South Wales in the summer of 2016 to be Foucauldian. Lynne Huffer: With the very first words of History of Madness (1961), Foucault draws his readers into an intensely spatial conception of history: At the end of the Middle Ages, leprosy disappeared from the Western world. At the edges of the community, at town gates, large, barren, uninhabitable areas appeared, where the disease no longer reigned but its ghost still hovered. For centuries, these spaces would belong to the domain of the inhuman.1 I read this invocation of “large, barren, uninhabitable” spaces at the edge of the human as an opening frame for apprehending Foucault’s life-long attention to the violence of humanism and the historical sedimentation under which that violence is buried.
    [Show full text]
  • Michel Foucault's Lecture at the Collège De France on Neo-Liberal Governmentality
    1 "The Birth of Bio-Politics" – Michel Foucault's Lecture at the Collège de France on Neo-Liberal Governmentality From 1970 until his death in 1984, Michel Foucault held the Chair of "History of Systems of Thought" at the Collège de France.1 In his public lectures delivered each Wednesday from early January through to the end of March/beginning of April, he reported on his research goals and findings, presenting unpublished material and new conceptual and theoretical research tools. Many of the ideas developed there were later to be taken up in his various book projects. However, he was in fact never to elaborate in writing on some of the research angles he presented there. Foucault's early and unexpected death meant that two of the key series of lectures have remained largely unpublished ever since, namely the lectures held in 1978 ("Sécurité, territoire et population") and in 1979 ("La naissance de la biopolitique").2 These lectures focused on the "genealogy of the modern state" (Lect. April 5, 1978/1982b, 43). Foucault deploys the concept of government or "governmentality" as a "guideline" for the analysis he offers by way of historical reconstructions embracing a period starting from Ancient Greek through to modern neo-liberalism (Foucault 1978b, 719). I wish to emphasize two points here, as they seem important for an adequate assessment of the innovative potential of the notion of governmentality. First of all, the concept of governmentality demonstrates Foucault's working hypothesis on the reciprocal constitution of power techniques and forms of knowledge. The semantic linking of governing ("gouverner") and modes of thought ("mentalité") indicates that it is not possible to study the technologies of power without an analysis of the political rationality underpinning them.
    [Show full text]
  • Governmentality and the Biopolitics of 'Improvement'
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by MURAL - Maynooth University Research Archive Library Economy and Space Article EPA: Economy and Space 2019, Vol. 51(1) 156–177 Revisiting neoliberalism in ! The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: the oceans: Governmentality sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0308518X18803110 and the biopolitics of journals.sagepub.com/home/epn ‘improvement’ in the Irish and European fisheries Patrick Bresnihan Department of Geography, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Abstract Foucault’s account of the emergence of biopolitics in the late 18th century helps frame the political economy of ‘improvements’ as an environmental project linked to the well-being of the population. Since the 1970s, biopolitical concerns have shifted towards non-human popula- tions and the reproduction of natural resources and ecosystems. This has become evident in the European fisheries, where after decades of exploitation greatly intensified since the 1960s, the extractive demands of the fishing industry have caught up with the reproductive capacities of most commercially targeted fish stocks. This contradiction has given rise to a new political economy of ‘improvements’ that seeks to sustain the biological health of commercially targeted fish populations while maintaining an economically profitable fishing industry. Central to this transition is the active role that fishers are expected to play in sustainably managing the fish stocks they exploit while adapting to ‘green’ market opportunities. Tradeable quota systems, eco-accreditation schemes and community-based resource management have all emerged as managerial strategies for inciting the active participation of fishers in this ‘common’ project of sustainable development.
    [Show full text]
  • Common MICHAEL
    "Everyone seems to agree that our economic system is bro• ken, yet the debate about alternatives remains oppressively MICHAEL narrow. Hardt and Negri explode this claustrophobic de• bate, taking readers to the deepest roots of our current common HARDT crises and proposing radical, and deeply human, solutions. There has never been a better time for this book." ANTONIO —Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine NEGRI 'Commonwealth, last and richest of the Empire trilogy, is a wealth powerful and ambitious reappropriation of the whole tradi• tion of political theory for the Left. Clarifying Foucault's ambiguous notion of biopower, deepening the authors' own proposal for the notion of multitude, it offers an exhil• arating summa of the forms and possibilities of resistance today. It is a politically as well as an intellectually invigorat• ing achievement." —Fredric Jameson, Duke University ISBN 17fl-D-t7M-D3Sll-1 BELKNAP and Negri's thought, it also stands alone and is entirely accessible to readers who are not famil• iar with the previous works. It is certain to ap• peal to, challenge, and enrich the thinking of anyone interested in questions of politics and globalization. Photo of Antonio Negri (left) and Michael Hardt by Nora Parcu MICHAEL HARDT is Professor of Literature and Italian at Duke University. ANTONIO NEGRI is an independent researcher and writer. They are coauthors of Empire (Harvard) and Multitude. THE BELKNAP PRESS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts Design: Jill Breitbarth When Empire appeared in 2000, it defined the political and economic challenges of the era of globalization and, thrillingly, found in them pos• sibilities for new and more democratic forms of social organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Prozorov Biopolitics and Socialism
    This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in The Routledge Handbook of Biopolitics on September 1st, 2016, available online: http://www.routledge.com/9781472449641. Sergei Prozorov BIOPOLITICS AND SOCIALISM: FOUCAULT, AGAMBEN, ESPOSITO Biopolitics and Soviet Socialism: Reciprocal Blind-Spots The problematic of biopolitics has become an increasingly influential research orientation in the social sciences, applied in a variety of disciplines to analyse the transformations in the rationalities of power over life in diverse spatio-temporal contexts. The two primary contexts for these studies have been liberalism, particularly post-World War II neoliberalism, and fascism, particularly German Nazism. What has been almost entirely missing is the third major political ideology of the 20th century, i.e. socialism, particularly in its Soviet version (for exceptions see Collier 2011; Hoffmann 2011). There have been numerous studies of the positive and productive orientation of neoliberal biopolitics that governs lives through the mobilization of the freedom of its subjects and the negative and destructive orientation of Nazi biopolitics that engages in paroxysmal violence in the name of the survival of the privileged race and ultimately threatens its very existence. Yet, the studies of biopolitics are all but silent about what was arguably the most ambitious project of the positive transformation of human lives, i.e. the creation of the ‘New Soviet Person’ as the emancipated subject of the socialist society, which at the same time unleashed the unprecedented negativity of terror against the very persons that were to be transformed. The Soviet experience provides ample historical evidence of both the positive and negative aspects of biopolitics, its power to ‘make live’ and to ‘let die’ (Foucault 2003, 241).
    [Show full text]
  • Foucault Lectures the Beginning of a Study of Biopower
    Foucault Lectures A series published by Foucault Studies © Verena Erlenbusch-Anderson ISSN: 2597-2545 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22439/fsl.vi0.6151 Foucault Lectures, Vol III, no. 1, 5-26, December 2020 ARTICLE The Beginning of a Study of Biopower: Foucault’s 1978 Lectures at the Collège de France VERENA ERLENBUSCH-ANDERSON Syracuse University, USA ABSTRACT. While Foucault introduced the 1978 lecture course Security, Territory, Population as a study of biopower, the reception of the lectures has largely focused on other concepts, such as governmentality, security, liberalism, and counter-conduct. This paper situates the lecture course within the larger context of Foucault’s development of an analytics of power to explore in what sense Security, Territory, Population can be said to constitute a study of biopower. I argue that the 1978 course is best understood as a continuation-through-transformation of Foucault’s earlier work. It revisits familiar material to supplement Foucault’s microphysics of power, which he traced in institutions like prisons or asylums and with regard to its effects on the bodies of individuals, with a genealogy of practices of power that target the biological life of the population and give rise to the modern state. Keywords: Foucault, biopower, governmentality, (neo)liberalism, genealogy INTRODUCTION On January 11, 1978, after a sabbatical year and an almost two-year long absence from his responsibilities to present ongoing research at the Collège de France, Michel Foucault returned to the lectern on January 11,
    [Show full text]
  • The Bio-Necropolitics of Environmental Injustices in Brazil1
    http://dx.doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v17i39.1807 THE BIO-NECROPOLITICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES IN BRAZIL1 Magno Federici Gomes2 Escola Superior Dom Helder Câmara (ESDHC) Pedro Henrique Moreira da Silva3 Instituto DH (IDH) Alcides Francisco Antúnez Sánchez4 Universidad de Granma (UDG) ABSTRACT In this study we discuss environmental injustices as an algorithm of the microphysics of powers. To this end, we aim at developing the concepts of biopower, indicating a conceptual insufficiency for interpreting the peripheries of capitalism, in such a way the notions of necropolitics will be addressed to discuss the perspective of “bare lives”. Thus, using 1 Study funded by FAPEMIG Project nº 22869, resulting from the Research Groups (CNPQ): Regulação Ambiental da Atividade Econômica Sustentável (REGA), NEGESP, Metamorfose Jurídica, and CEDIS (FCT-PT). 2 Postdoctoral Internship in Public Law and Education at Universidade Nova de Lisboa-Portugal (CAPES/BEX 3642/07-0 scholarship). Postdoctoral Internships in Civil Law and Civil Procedural Law, Ph.D. in Law, and Master’s degree in Procedural Law at Universidad de Deusto-Spain (Scholarships from the UNESCO Chair and Gobierno Vasco-Espanha). Master’s degree in Education from PUC Minas. Doctorate and Academic Master Professor in Environmental Law and Sustainable Development at Escola Superior Dom Helder Câmara. Licensed Professor at Faculdade de Direito Arnaldo Janssen. Partner Lawyer at Moraes & Federici Advocacia Associada. Leader of the Research Group: Regulação Ambiental da Atividade Econômica Sustentável (REGA)/CNPQ-BRA and member of the groups: Centro de Investigação & Desenvolvimento sobre Direito e Sociedade (CEDIS)/FCT- PT, Núcleo de Estudos sobre Gestão de Políticas Públicas (NEGESP)/CNPQ-BRA and Metamorfose Jurídica/CNPQ-BRA.
    [Show full text]
  • Against the Psychoanalytic Unconscious: Deleuze, Guattari, and Desire As a Heuristic for Self-Regulating Biopolitics," Occam's Razor: Vol
    Occam's Razor Volume 8 (2018) Article 2 2018 Against the Psychoanalytic Unconscious: Deleuze, Guattari, and Desire as a Heuristic for Self- Regulating Biopolitics Chris Coles Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/orwwu Part of the Other Political Science Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Coles, Chris (2018) "Against the Psychoanalytic Unconscious: Deleuze, Guattari, and Desire as a Heuristic for Self-Regulating Biopolitics," Occam's Razor: Vol. 8 , Article 2. Available at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/orwwu/vol8/iss1/2 This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Western Student Publications at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Occam's Razor by an authorized editor of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “ ''‘1 ' * * *'■ *.^ ^ ‘ >> ‘^> j . j. 4 Coles: Against the Psychoanalytic Unconscious: Deleuze, Guattari, and De •-*.' r* I ' • ’-, ”'': - •-.;■' ■'' •“,'' ’**.A-» -•'‘ .> ‘ i- ‘ • '.' ■**.''.v ■ -: f-.'i'-,''Vfjc -J' ., •.•-■'„*•,A--4 ,-*• ■ .,a&-isrf*s5f ii m ■>’■ ■■"--*-I n’■*'' ‘ '•'''•* ’''''" * '-4 *■'•': r r>}^x. /" % , •7''',' V^' ; ^ *, ■''*, . f - I,4 “• “"^'V.' : /--.-----: ■-. ■ - ■ . w*' ‘ Z.' ■/. ■ V >1 i - . ' ,v'•--■ ■- .•■ i-. DELEUZE, CUATTARI, AND DESIRE AS A HEURISTIC FOR SELF-REGULATING BIOPOLITICS By Chris Coles 975 marked the release of Michel Foucault’s of the sovereign’s subjects^’^. Thus, biopolitics 1 ^''Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison^' provides the regulatory framework for which the which his preceding lectures would later term 'bio- execution of power (that Foucault describes in politics\ Both "Discipline and Punish” and "The Birth "Discipline and Punish”) not only arises, but also of Biopolitics” represent some of the most important, the reason for which it exists in the first place.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth / by Michel Foucault; Edited by Paul Rabinow; Translated by Robert Hurley and Others
    THE ESSENTIAL WORKS OF MICHEL FOUCAULT 1954-1984 PAUL RABINOW SERIES EDITOR Ethics, Edited by Paul Rabinow MICHEL FOUCAULT ETHICS SUBJECTIVITY AND TRUTH Ediled by PAUL RABINOW Translated by ROBERT HURLEY AND OTHERS THE ESSENTIAL WORKS OF MICHEL FOUCAULT 1954-1984 VOLUME ONE THE NEW PRESS NEW YORK © 1994 by Editions Gallimard. Compilation, introduction, and new translations © 1997 by The New Press. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form, without written permission from the publisher. The publisher is grateful for pennission to reprint the following copyrighted material: English translations of "Friendship as a Way of Ufe" and "The Ethic of the Concern for the Self as a Practice of Freedom" reprinted from Foucault Live: fnteroiews 1961-1984, Lotringer, ed. (New York, Autonomedia, Ig89), by pennission. English translations of "Sexual Choice, Sexual Act" and "The Masked Philosopher" reprinted from Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture, Lawrence D. Katzman, ed. (1988), by permission of the publisher, Routledge, New York and London. "Sex, Power and the Politics of Identity" reprinted from The Advocate no. 400, August 7, 1984, by permission. "Sexuality and Solitude" reprinted from the London Review of Books, vol. Ill, no. g, May !2:1-June 5, 1981. English translation of "The Battle for Chastity" reprinted from Western Sexuality, Aries, Bejin, eds., with permission from the publisher, Blackwell Publishers. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Foucault, Michel. [Selections. English. 1997l Ethics: subjectivity and truth / by Michel Foucault; edited by Paul Rabinow; translated by Robert Hurley and others. p. cm.-(The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984; v.
    [Show full text]
  • Topologies of Power: Foucault's Analysis of Political Government Beyond 'Governmentality' Stephen J
    Theory, Culture & Society http://tcs.sagepub.com/ Topologies of Power: Foucault's Analysis of Political Government beyond 'Governmentality' Stephen J. Collier Theory Culture Society 2009 26: 78 DOI: 10.1177/0263276409347694 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/26/6/78 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: The TCS Centre, Nottingham Trent University Additional services and information for Theory, Culture & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tcs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/26/6/78.refs.html >> Version of Record - Dec 9, 2009 What is This? Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 12, 2014 078-108 TCS347694 Collier_Article 156 x 234mm 16/11/2009 10:04 Page 78 Topologies of Power Foucault’s Analysis of Political Government beyond ‘Governmentality’ Stephen J. Collier Abstract The publication of Michel Foucault’s lectures at the Collège de France in the late 1970s has provided new insight into crucial developments in his late work, including the return to an analysis of the state and the introduction of biopolitics as a central theme. According to one dominant interpretation, these shifts did not entail a fundamental methodological break; the approach Foucault developed in his work on knowledge/power was simply applied to new objects. The present article argues that this reading – which is colored by the overwhelming privilege afforded to Discipline and Punish in secondary literature – obscures an important modification in Foucault’s method and diagnostic style that occurred between the introduction of biopolitics in 1976 (in Society Must Be Defended) and the lectures of 1978 (Security, Territory, Population) and 1979 (Birth of Biopolitics).
    [Show full text]