•, THE ART OF GOVERNING CONDUCT Liberalism and the Paradox of Regulated Freedom By Christine Standish BA (Hons) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy· University of Tasmania June 2000 11 This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of the Candidate's knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgment is made in the text of the thesis. This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Date iii ABSTRACT This project draws on Michel Foucault's work on "governmentality," as well as his scattered texts on liberalism, to explore a central liberal concern: the "freedom-regulation" problematic. Foucault took liberalism to be an art of government that promises prosperity and well being for the whole through liberty of the individual. From this perspective there is a problem in determining just what is free, what has to be free and what needs to be regulated, The two central poles of the liberal freedom-regulation problem are located in the principle of economic liberty - achieving the objective of unregulated economic activity; and the rule of law - which is necessary to ensure order, predictability and certainty. It is this relation that yields the paradox this thesis sets out to investigate. For on the one hand it is central to liberalism that individuals be as free as possible to pursue their own interests in the economic sphere. Indeed the prosperity and well being of society depends upon it. On the other hand, it is less clear what degree of freedom should be extended to the private realm of morality and personal conduct. The thesis will show that the development of liberal political economic systems presented a challenge to the inventive capacities of moral philosophers and political economists who sought to devise ever new technologies of government which could control and restrict behaviour whilst continuing to embrace the spirit of "natural" individual liberty. Given that liberalism was concerned with discovering the best way to govern, in line with its central principles of individual economic liberty and the rule of law, the most effective form of regulation was seen as self-regulation, or self-discipline. However, as I will demonstrate an analysis of liberal thought, from the late seventeenth century until the present day, reveals that despite their rhetoric major thinkers within the Anglo-Scottish tradition considered the principle of self-regulation to be an impossible ideal that could not be widely deployed in the general community. Basically, they see it as an untrustworthy governmental technique as only an elite few are possessed with the strength of character to render them capable of such ethical practice. In general there is recognition that for the majority of the population behaviour and conduct needs to be overtly controlled through governmental techniques of regulation and order. Hence the importance of investigating the paradox of regulated freedom that continues to be deeply embedded in the fabric of liberalism. iv Acknowledgments I suppose it would be a cliche to say that completing a doctorate constitutes a major piece of work on the self. But say it I will! While it has, largely been a solitary undertaking there are acknowledgements to make and people to thank. First, I would like to express my appreciation to my Supervisor, Dr. David Martin Jones for helping me see the project to completion. While we did not always agree the conversations were interesting and stimulating and his advice was invaluable. Indeed, without his guidance the dimensions of the project would have been very different. I would also like to thank my Associate Supervisor, Dr. Phillip Barker, whose advice and supportive emails helped me through some dark moments of doubt. I am grateful to the School of Government for its support over the last few years and I would like to acknowledge the financial assistance I received through an Australian Post­ graduate Award Scholarship. Dr. Terry Narramore has offered unqualified support over the years and for that and for his companionship I am especially grateful. Special mentions too to my girls, Louise, Laura and Amy. Finally, to paraphrase Spike Milligan, I would like to thank myself for without me this project would not have been possible! I v CONTENTS Introduction 1 PART ONE: Foucault, Liberalism and Questions of Conduct Chapter One \, Setting the Scene: Foucault and Some Questions Concerning Conduct 22 Chapter Two The Complex Topology of Liberal Thought 63 PART TWO: Eighteenth Century Confrontations with the "Freedom-Regulation" Problem Chapter Three British Political Thought and the Subject of Interests and Passions 149 Chapter Four Bernard Mandeville: governing the conduct of commercial man 196 Chapter Five David Hume: Palliating the Incurable Weaknesses of Men 255 Chapter Six Adam Smith: Regulating for Freedom 318 Conclusion 358 Bibliography 370 vi What an enormous price man had to pay for reason, seriousness, control over his emotions - those grand human prerogatives and cultural showpieces! How much blood and horror lies behind all 'good things'! Friedrich Nietzsche INTRODUCTION If one outstanding contribution should be singled out in Foucault's research, on which further research can be continued, this is constituted by a new understanding of the formation of the modern disciplined man. Alessandro Pizzorno Since the mid 1980s there has emerged a large and impressive body of work that has engaged in various ways with Michel Foucault's notion of "governmentality." This has sought to "diagnose the forms of political rationality which govern our present" and explore "the inventiveness of liberal and neo­ liberal forms of government."1 Indeed, the proliferation of studies in this field 1 Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne and Nikolas Rose, "Liberalism, Neo Liberalism and governmentality: introduction," Economy and Society 22 (No. 3 1993): 265. See for instance the sh1dies in governmentality contamed in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon & Peter Miller (eds.) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Gqvernmentality with two lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991); Jacques Donzelot, The Policing of Families (New York: Pantheon, 1979); Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne & Nickolas Rose (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government (London: UCL Press, 1996); James Tully, "Governing Conduct" ed. E. Leites, Conscience and Casuistry in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) p. 12-71; Nikolas Rose, Governing the Soul: the shaping of the private self (London: Routledge, 1990); Rose, Inventing Our Selves: Power and Personhood (Cambridge: University Press, 1996); Rose, Powers of Liberty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Ian Hunter, Culture and Government (London: Macmillan, 1988); Hunter, Rethinking the School: Subjectivittj, Bureaucracy, Criticism (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1994); Jeffrey Minson, Genealogies of Morals: Nietzsche, Foucault, Donzelot and the Eccentricity of Ethics (London: Macmillan, 1985); Minson, Questions of Conduct: Sexual Harassment, Citizenship and Government (London: Macmillan, 1993); Mitchell Dean, The Constitution of Poverty: Toward a Genealogy of Liberal Governance (London: Routledge, 1991); Barry Hindess, Discourses of Power: From Hobbes to Foucault (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996); Dean & Hindess, Governing Australia: Studies in Contemporary Rationalities of Government (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Duncan Ivison, The Self at Liberty: Political Argument and the Arts of Government (Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1997); Barbara Cruikshank, The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and other Subjects (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1999); M. Valverde, Diseases of the Will: Alcohol and the Dilemmas of Freedom (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1998). There are also many articles d~oted to the study of governmentality. See for instance, the special edition of Economy and Society 22(No. 3 1993) containing: Rose, "government, authority and expertise in advanced liberalism," p 282-299; Hindess, "Liberalism, socialism and democracy: variations on a governmental theme," p 300-313; G. Burchell, "Liberal government and techniques of the self," p. 267-282; Vicki Bell, "Governing Childhood: Neo Liberalism and the Law," p. 390-405; and Barbara Cruikshank, "Revolutions Within; self-government and self esteem," p. 327-344. See also Mitchell Dean, "A genealogy of the government of poverty," Economy and Society 21(No. 3 1992): 215-251; Dean, " 'A social structure of many souls': Moral regulation, government and self formation," Canadian Journal of Sociology 19(No. 2 1994): 145- 2 has, claims Mitchell Dean, constituted a "new sub-discipline across the human sciences: one that is problem centred and present-oriented."2 This project analogously seeks to explore what Foucault identifies as a central liberal concern: the "freedom-regulation" problematic.3 That is, the problem liberalism faces in determining, within an art of government, which promises prosperity and well being for the whole through liberty of the individual, just what is free, what has to be free and what needs to be regulated. The two central poles