Hello (this is longer than I intended, sorry for filling inboxes..)
I agree with the need to think about Foucault's work (especially the
governmental work) and influence critically, and to "remember him
carefully" in Felix's phrase. One area in which we must be particularly
cautious is with regards to resistance to governmental rationalities.
Previous debates about the discursive or disciplinary determinist
tendencies of Foucault's work have highlighted his lack of emphasis on
resistance. I don't think his arguments for the inevitability of
resistance made in interviews and articles in the latter stages of his
life necessarily negate an emphasis and structure in his other works which
draws attention away from the ways in which techniques and policies could
fail or be resisted. As O'Malley argued in Economy and Society, the
governmentality literature can give the impression of a certain
"omnipresence" of governing forces and their ability to internalise all
resistance in effective "problematizations" (although I try to find these
tendencies un-inspiring rather than depressing!). In this sense, it may be
necessary to combine Foucault's work with compatible yet challenging
authors: Deleuze's emphasis on rhizomes and nomads is often a refreshing
change from Foucault's tactics, striations and rationalities, while lots
of work on memory as a political resource offers methodological and
theoretical antidotes to often overly pessimistic views of society???
Secondly, I agree that there is a lot of interesting work taking place in
the "non-Anglo" world. My own research explores the concept of "colonial
governmentality". This can bring together a range of interests and
authors, including the origins of elements of liberalism in the
"laboratories" of colonial societies, Stoler's work on the place of race
in Foucault's writings, and the ratio of discipline: biopolitics in place
specific governmental rationalities. My work focuses on India, in which
the Subaltern Studies Group have moved towards a more Foucauldian (I
think?!, over Foucaultian?) stance over their earlier Gramscian approach.
While there are problems with taking a governmental framework outside of
the place and period in which Foucault applied it, I think this opens up
many interesting questions. Not just the effect of the "periphery" on
"metropolitan" politics, but also the variety of different forms of
resistance that emerged and how local tactics were adapted to meet them;
whether violent or non, literary or non-representational etc
Anyway, great to see this debate taking place, I would love to hear about
the different type of geographical work using a governmental approach...
Cheers
Steve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Legg
Department of Geography
University of Cambridge
Downing Place
Cambridge
CB2 3EN
www.geog.cam.ac.uk/people/legg/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|