In chapter 12 in The Birth of Biopolitics Foucault elaborates on the concept of 'homo economicus' or economic man. Specifically, Foucault describes homo economicus as irreducible to the subject of right as the "homo economicus is integrated into the system of which he is a part, into the economic domain...by a dialectic of spontaneous multiplication" (292). Interestingly, Foucault claims that the homo economicus "strips the sovereign of power inasmuch as he reveals an essential, fundamental and major incapacity of the sovereign...an inability to master the totality of the economic field" (292).This created a dilemma in regards to the idea of sovereign governance. The sovereign would need a frontier to exercise power yet not intervene in the market. "The market will be, if you like, a sort of free port or free space in the general space of sovereignty”(293). The second possibility is the physiocratic proposal, where the sovereign respects the market and exercises a parallel power. This sovereign will act as a “geometer of the economic domain forming part of his felid of sovereignty” (293). Foucault notes that civil society operates as a governmental technology where “the rational measure must be juridicially pegged to an economy understood as process of production and exchange” (296).The civil society is an omnipresent government that allows the economy to be and functions with it, but governs through rules of right that manage national and social dynamics. This society exists through the negotiations and obligations of contract, a social bond that binds citizens to territory, while the market remains unconstrained.
In Foucault’s discussion of governmentality or how to govern, he seeks to uncover precisely how societies govern and the sets of practices and conditions that influence the functioning of society. Much like his discussion of sexuality and the penal system, Foucault focuses on the ‘how’ questions, not for the purpose of legitimating a particular discourse but to discover the mentality or rationality of the discourse. Gordon’s introduction to Foucault’s ideas on governmentality provides clarity to his ideas, specifically the relationship of truth and governmental reason. As Gordon notes, “Foucault advances the thesis of a regular, though variously actualized interdependence between the ‘government of men’ and what he calls the ‘manifestation of truth’. Tracing the mentality of government from the ancient practice of ‘pastoral power’ to the raison’d’etat, liberalism and neo-liberalism, Foucault offers scholars a set of tools to observe and critique the art of governing. The rational art of governing is inextricably linked with police power:
“Police is a science of endless lists and classifications; there is a police of religion, of customs, of health, of foods, of highways, of public order, of sciences, commerce, manufactures, servants, poverty…Police science seems to aspire to constitute a kind of omnivorous espousal of governed reality, the sensorium of a Leviathan.” (Gordon, 10)
Moving to the modern science of governing, Foucault discusses liberalism and the shift in governmental rationality influenced by thinkers like Adam Smith. This governmentality focused on economics and conceived the state as an enterprise itself, as the state must have intrinsic limits yet fiscally prosperous. Therefore the liberal governmentality is concerned with what government can actually do and accomplish within certain boundaries, but not at the expense of prosperity. Foucault describes the invisible hand of economics as lateral to the art of governing as economic sovereignty is not possible.
Foucault’s essay on governmentality begins by discussing the rationality of governing influenced by Machiavelli’s The Prince. In order to understand the governmental rationality of contemporary societies Foucault discusses the transformations of rationale from older societies. Machiavelli’s ‘princely advice’ seemingly influenced the art of government. As Foucault explains:
“This politics of The Prince, fictitious or otherwise, from which people sought to distance themselves, was characterized by one principle…the prince stood in a relation of singularity and externality, and thus of transcendence, to his principality. The prince acquires his principality by inheritance or conquest, but in any case he does not form part of it, he remains external to it”. (Foucault, 90)
Foucault explains that the essential issue in the establishment of the art of government is the “introduction of economy into political practice” (92). Combining economic and governmental principles would be the subject for modern governments. In concluding, Foucault offers a three point explanation of what he terms “governmentality”:
1. The ensemble formed by the institution, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which has as its target population, as its principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means apparatuses of security.
2. The tendency which, over a long period and throughout the West, has steadily led towards the pre-eminence over all other forms (soveignty,discipline,etc.) of this type of power which may be termed, government, resulting, on the one hand, in the formation of a whole series of specific governmental apparatuses, and on the other, in the development of a whole complex of savoirs.
3. The process, or rather the result of the process, through which the state of justice of the Middle Ages, transformed into the administrative state during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, gradually becomes ‘governmentalized’. (102-103)
Questions
1. Following Foucault’s approach of understanding the totality of relations and rationality of discourses how does our current political rationality reflect the changes in the market economy that is becoming more globalized?
2. How does the discourse and preponderance of the concept of ‘terror’ influence the conception of the homo economicus in contemporary society? Can we locate any significant shifts in the government rationality that indicates any significant changes in governmental rationale?
In thinking about Marcus’s question about “terror” and looking for the American Airlines magazines article I spoke about last week, I came across an interesting article that addresses the issue of terror and government rationale. The article can be found here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2016179690_apusairlinepassengersdetained.html
ReplyDeleteThe article discusses an incident on a Frontier airlines flight which originated in San Diego, stopped in Denver, and ultimately landed in Detroit. Three passengers were escorted off the plane in handcuffs while SWAT officers with dogs searched the remaining passengers, luggage, and the plane. No threat was found. The article mentions a similar 9/11 incident on a flight from Los Angeles to New York. In both cases, the original cause for concern was that the passenger(s) spent too much time in the bathroom. Really? Now airline authorities are monitoring my bodily functions? I can’t help but think of my own airplane bathroom habits. Next time I’ll bring my stopwatch! Remember the days when passengers who spent too much time in the lavatory were accused of attempting to join the mile high club? These will now be known as the “good ol’ days.” When asked about the police reaction (which included fighter jet escorts until the plans landed safely), an FBI spokesperson stated that “The public would rather us err on the side of caution than not." I wonder if that is true and how long the public will continue to accept the 9/11 rationale as an excuse to infringe on our personal lives. In the meantime, keep those bathroom breaks to a minimum and keep you safety belt fastened at all times!
To the question: “How does the discourse and preponderance of the concept of ‘terror’ influence the conception of the homo economicus in contemporary society? Can we locate any significant shifts in the government rationality that indicates any significant changes in governmental rationale?”
ReplyDelete1. Noam Chomsky wrote an excellent piece in New Political Science called “Domestic Terrorism: Notes on the State System of Oppression" (Volume 21, Number 3 [September, 1999], pp. 303-324). You can find the full article here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199909--.htm.
Chomsky locates, in large part, a significant shift in government rationality and governmental rationale in the Nixon White House and, specifically, in Watergate. He writes:
“The lesson of Watergate is simple. American liberalism and the corporate media will defend themselves against attack. But their spirited acts of self-defense are not to be construed as a commitment to civil liberties or democratic principle, despite noble and self-serving rhetoric. Quite the contrary. They demonstrate a commitment to the principle that power must not be threatened or injured. The narrow ‘elites’ that control the economy, political life, and the system of conventional doctrine must be immune to the means of harassment that are restricted, in the normal course of events, to those who raise a serious challenge to ruling ideology or state policy or established privilege.” (Chomsky)
2. Ron Paul has echoed the concern that Watergate has had lasting, and disconcerting, economic implications. Last year, Paul testified on Capitol Hill about the role of the Federal Reserve in funding both Watergate and Saddam Hussein’s regime. You can find a brief report on Paul’s testimony here in The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/02/24/ron-paul-on-watergate-saddam-hussein-and-the-federal-reserve/.
Though some might be quick to dismiss Mr. Paul’s charges (and I confess that I don’t know enough about the topic to judge to what extent he is or is not on to something with his claims), I think the identification of Watergate as a key historical moment which yielded discourses of terror and complex economic shifts is on point.
3. Finally, a recent article in The National Law Journal called “Drawing the Parallels between Watergate and the War on Terror” lends some credence to Paul’s connection between Watergate and the War on Terror. You can read more here: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=900005372966.
David Leonard’s editorial is indeed an ominous last word on the subject:
“Afraid of the future, afraid of change, and afraid to speak, our nation of consumers rolls along merrily, closing the electric garage door behind us, while our government-armed with the three mantras of this administration: This (fill in the blank) policy is important and necessary for our: (1) national security, (2) national interest, or (3) national economy-implements programs that trample our civil liberties, give away our environment and our children's future to corporate interests, and moves us ever closer to the brink of war-real war. The parallels to the mentality of the Nixon White House are there, and they should concern us all.” (Leonard)
Following Foucault’s approach of understanding the totality of relations and rationality of discourses how does our current political rationality reflect the changes in the market economy that is becoming more globalized?
ReplyDeleteThese last two weeks seem to demonstrate how the current political rationality is adjusting to the global markets. Because of the interconnectedness of world markets nation states criticize each other’s economic policies instead of their human rights polices. Is the market agent over taking the “man” of rights? “New York: Optimism seems to be in the air and this is driving the stock markets in the US higher today. There are hopes that the crisis facing Europe may not blow out into default by Greece. United States and China have taken special interest and criticized the European leader for not doing enough to reassure the people across the world” (http://nvonews.com/2011/09/26/us-stock-market-today-djia-sp-500-index-up-in-early-trade/).
As the borders of sovereign states are swallowed by unlimited financial borders, strange alliances are formed. Here you have “communist” China and the “capitalist” U.S. coming out against "socialist" Europe because U.S. and Asian markets now share in the collective risks of a globalized market economy. “Asian stocks fell sharply Monday, adding to recent losses, as a lack of apparent progress on Europe's sovereign-debt problems fueled risk aversion and sent investors out of equities. While the Group of 20 nations meeting in Washington offered new steps, such as leveraging the European Financial Stability Facility through borrowing, nothing concrete emerged” (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/220215/20110927/australia-dollar-eud-aud-base-metals-china-gold-dow-jones-goldman-sachs-ftse-hang-seng-index-shangha.htm). Under the market regime, new truths are formed. The old labels: socialist, communist, capitalist do not seem to matter when faced with a global financial crisis. State based political ideologies in a sense collapse under the weight of the market's hegemony.
I think this feeds into the new terrors that homo economicous faces. It is not the threat of China taking over the U.S. with force it is the fear of the U.S. failing as market. "These are very critical days and weeks ahead, reminiscent very much of the touch-and-go situation we were in back in 2008," said Edward Meir, senior commodities analyst at brokers MF Global. "The key difference this time around is that it is countries and not companies that are in danger of going bust." (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/26/markets-global-idUSS1E78P1E020110926)A new globalized fear that seems to have appeared is, “What happens if my country goes bankrupt?” Could the United States Become Another Greece? (U.S. NEWS) In Greek Debt Crisis, Some See Parallels to U.S. (NYTIMES)Will the Greek Nightmare Become America’s Reality? (FrumForum) America is at risk, but its a new kinda a risk, its a risk driven by the global markets, which force the government's "hand," and shapes it political rationality.
The political reflects the market, because under the economic regime the market becomes truth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Marcus' question regarding the influence 'terror' poses on the economic man, I propose that governmental rationality must play a significant role in the ways it frames 'terror.' In other words, how 'terror' is conceived by the economic man affects his individual security. Despite the individual's existence as a citizen of a ' civil society,' as Foucault deems it, the economic man cannot tune out the threat of his individual security. Foucault would likely also mention this that as each individual enters a social contract to the state in which the individual's good furthers the aggregate. The economic man, he who is governed by the state also acts as a subject. Especially in today's governmental climate regarding security, man must be governable through "calculation, rationale and regulation" ( Foucault, 313). Therefore, the state must introduce terror as a threat to man and his individual rights. Once a threat is introduced, the economic man has little choice but to accept this constructed 'reality' and act accordingly. Civil society requires a social contract. Implicit in this contract is the individual or economic man's safety. Inasmuch, the state now controls ideology through the introduction of threats such as terror, assuring to be man's security blanket if threat were ever to affect him.
ReplyDeleteWhen engaging in this week's readings, I kept thinking about how Foucault's theories on governmentality relate to the current ongoing housing market/debt crisis. The U.S. housing market has always symbolized the epitome of freedom and the American dream. Citizens have the "free" choice to create money to obtain a portion of that dream. However, the flip side of the dream is the management of buying a house, the initial finances you need to be "qualified" for such a purchase, and the established credit you must have to obtain loans to finance a mortgage. Thus enters the system of banking. Automatically, if you do not establish credit, you are seen as a bad citizen by banks and you cannot afford luxurious purchases. Over the last few years,for those citizens approved for housing purchases, bankers made bad bets on their sub-prime mortgages with complicated credit default swaps resulting in a crash of the system of financial fluidity. Consequentially, political elements of the government stepped in to bailout banks. To protect against this from reoccurring the consumer protection act was instilled though generally incomplete in its true protection from incompetent banking and investing. The fragile housing and banking market made it possible to pinpoint these social problems whereby the government needed to step in and offer some form of "insurance" for consumers through the protection act. Seemingly, bank employees could not moderate their own ethical behavior which resulted in the need for government intervention; thus, by the government insuring Americans in this way, the links between the government and citizens in a civil society is very evident.
ReplyDelete