Governmentality
Mechanisms concerned with the establishment of the security—population—government (or later in the lecture as he re-cognizes it as a history of “governmentality.”). In this series he attempts to make inventory of this problem of government.
Advice to prince on how to conduct himself, exercise power, enforce law within the cities however, continue to obtain respect from his subjects is rendered by scholars from the Greco-roman antiquity.
 |
| Michel Foucault in 1975. Credit...Camera Press |
Between the 16th and the 18th
centuries a series of significant treatises presented themselves not exactly as
an advice to the prince nor yet as treatise on political science but as arts of
government. These treatises presented themselves as responses,
attending to the social conditions resulting from the palpable ‘developmental’
(industrial, political, religious and economic) activities of the period.
Another predominant social condition present in
the period identifies Foucault is the popular “return to Stoicism”. People of
the period were concerned about the idea of “reactualization” as they navigated
through the problems of governance of oneself, one’s soul and conduct which
were of course corollaries of the catholic and protestant pastoral doctrines.
Additionally, there is a problem of the government of children, with the
emergence of the problem of pedagogy in the 16th century. Perhaps
the last of these problems is the government of the state by prince.
These
problems, both in their severity and variety, are characteristic of the 16th
century and can be traced to the intersection of two movements.
1. dismantling
feudal structures, organizes and sets up the great territorial, administrative,
and colonial states. (state centralization)
2. In
complex interactions with the first there is the Reformation and then the
Counter Reformation, questions how one wishes to be spiritually directed here
on earth for one’s salvation.( religious dispersion and dissidence)
Foucault opines that it is at the meeting point
of these two movements the sixteenth century problems arise like “how to be
governed, by whom, to what extent, to what ends and by what methods”
So how the definition of the government of the
state evolved?
Within and through the vast literature that
explodes between the 16th and the 18th centuries Foucault
highlights
some key ideas about what a government actually is. To do this, he compares
this literature to a book that was often criticized, rejected and was a sort of
constant point of repulsion (point de répulsion) for this literature on
government during that time: Machiavelli's The Prince. By understanding how
people reacted to The Prince, we can better understand the different
ideas about government that were popular during this period. So how this extensive
body of Anti-Machiavelli literature[1] reconstruct the Prince ?
the Prince is
characterized by a single principle: For Machiavelli, the Prince exists in a
relationship of singularity and externality, of transcendence, to his
principality (meaning the prince is not simply a part of the principality but stands outside of it, exerting power over it). Machiavelli’s Prince receives his principality either through
inheritance, or by acquisition, or by conquest; in any case, he is not a part
of it, but external to it. It makes no difference whether the link that binds
him to his principality is one of violence, or tradition, or one established
through the compromise of treaties and the complicity or agreement of other
princes, it is, in any case, a purely synthetic link; there is no fundamental,
essential, natural, and juridical connection between the Prince and his
principality: externality, the Prince’s transcendence, is the principle. A
corollary of this principle is, of course, that inasmuch as it is an external
relationship, it is fragile and constantly under threat. It is threatened from
outside, by the Prince’s enemies who want to take, or re-conquer, his
principality, and it is also threatened internally for there is not a priori
reason for his subjects to accept the Prince.
From the principle and its corollary an
imperative can be deduced, which is the objective of the exercise of power is
to sustain and protect the principality. The principality is the relationship
between the prince and his subjects and territory. The art of governing, as
described by Machiavelli, focuses on preserving this fragile connection between
the prince and his principality.
“Broadly speaking, from between the lines of
these implicitly or explicitly, anti-Machiavellian treatises, The Prince
emerges as a treatise on the Prince’s ability to hold on to his principality.
The anti-Machiavellian literature wanted to replace this ability, this
know-how, with something different and new: an art of government. Being able to
hold on to one’s principality is not the same as possessing the art of
governing; the art of government is something else. What does it comprise?”
what does La Perrière understand by “to govern” and
“governor”; how does he define these terms?
“Governor may be applied to any monarch, emperor,
king, prince, lord, magistrate, prelate, judge, and the like.” (we also talk
about “governing” a household, souls, children, a province, a convent, a
religious order, and a family.)
While these comments may seem purely
terminological, they have significant political implications. Machiavelli's The
Prince, as it is often understood, presents a unique perspective where the
prince is external and transcendent to the principality. However, in these
authors, we see that governance is multifaceted, involving various actors and
practices. This means that there are multiple forms of government within a
state, and these forms are intrinsic to the state itself. This plurality and
immanence of government practices set it apart from the singular, transcendent
nature of Machiavelli's prince.
Amidst the various forms
of government operating within society and the state, we must identify a
particular type suitable for the entire state.
François de La Mothe Le Vayer, in his
pedagogical works for the French Dauphin, identifies three main types of
government, each associated with a specific field of study: self-government,
which falls under morality; family governance, which is part of economics; and
state governance, which belongs to politics[2].
Traditional theories of sovereignty often
emphasize the discontinuity between the power of the prince and other forms of
power. These theories seek to justify and explain the unique authority of the
prince. In contrast, the "arts of government" postulate
an essential continuity between different levels of governance, such as self-government,
family governance, and state governance -- upward and downward continuity in
the context of governance. Good governance at the state level can lead to
positive outcomes at the individual and family levels, and vice versa. (The
concept of "police[3]"
begins to emerge in this context. It refers to the idea that good governance at
the state level can have a positive impact on individual behavior and social
order.)
The "arts of government" approach is
more holistic and interconnected (multifarious) than traditional theories of sovereignty. It
recognizes the interconnectedness between different levels of governance and
emphasizes the importance of understanding these connections in order to
effectively govern.
the "economy"[4]
is the central element in this continuity. Economy, in this context, refers to
the proper management of individuals, goods, and wealth, similar to how a
father manages his family. The essential issue of government is to introduce
economic principles into political practice. This means that effective
governance must take into account economic factors and manage resources in a
way that benefits the population.
the concept of "economic government"
introduced by Quesnay foreshadowed the growing importance of the economy in
modern political discourse. While Quesnay may have used the term in a slightly
different sense, it ultimately reflects the shift towards a greater emphasis on
economic issues in government.
Guillaume de La Perrière’s text, there is the
following [phrase]: “Government is the right disposition of things arranged so
as to lead to a suitable end.”
Things are people and their interactions with
other things, such as traditions, habits, and ways of thinking. They are also
people in relation to events like accidents, misfortunes, famine, epidemics,
and death.
“Government is the right
disposition of things that one arranges so as to lead them to a suitable end.”
Government therefore has a purpose, it arranges things, in the sense I have
been talking about, and it arranges things [for an end]*. Here again I think
government is very clearly distinguished from sovereignty.
The sovereign is not
simply entitled power without further qualification. The sovereign, to be a
good sovereign, must always propose an end, that is to say, as the texts
regularly say, the common good and the salvation of all.
Pufendorf says:
“Sovereign authority has only been conferred on them [these sovereigns] in
order that they make use of it to obtain and preserve the public utility [. .
.]. A sovereign must on no account consider his own advantage, unless it be
also advantageous for the state.” Now what does this common good, or this
salvation of all, which is regularly invoked by jurists and laid down as the
very end of sovereignty[5],
comprise?
jurists and theologians say, the common good exists when all subjects obey the law without fail. In essence the word “public good” means obedience/submission to law. (either of the earthly sovereign or of the absolute sovereign, God). This means that the end of sovereignty is circular; it refers back to the exercise of sovereignty. The good is obedience to the law, so that the good proposed by sovereignty is that people obey it. Whatever may be its practical effects, this idea is not so far removed from Machiavelli saying that the Prince’s main objective must be to preserve his principality.
In La Perrière’s new definition “Government is defined
by La Perrière as a right way of arrang ing (disposer) things in order to lead
(conduire) them, not to the form of the “common good,” as the texts of the
jurists said, but to a “suitable end,” an end suitable for each of the things to
be governed.”
This implies, first of
all, a plurality of specific ends. This involves maximization of wealth
production, provision of sufficient means of subsistence and other specific
finalities.
In traditional models of sovereignty, the law
itself was the primary tool for achieving obedience. However, in modern forms
of government, the focus has shifted towards using tactics and strategies to
achieve desired outcomes. This involves arranging things in a way that produces
specific results, rather than simply imposing laws.
Foucault believes is a significant difference
between the traditional concept of sovereignty and the modern understanding of
government. In traditional models of sovereignty, the goal of government is to
maintain its own authority and power through the use of laws. However, in
modern forms of government, the focus has shifted towards achieving specific
goals or outcomes. These goals may involve improving the economy, promoting
social welfare, or enhancing national security. To achieve these goals,
governments use a variety of tactics and strategies, rather than relying solely
on laws. This shift represents a significant departure from the traditional
model of sovereignty, where the law was the primary instrument of governance.
The development of the art of government was
closely linked to the growth of administrative structures and the emergence of
new knowledge about the state. The theory of the art of government was
connected to the creation of government agencies, bureaucracies, and other
mechanisms for implementing policies and managing resources. Additionally, this
period saw the development of new forms of knowledge, such as the study of the
state's different elements, dimensions, and factors of strength, which was known
as "statistics." These developments were interconnected and
contributed to the evolution of modern forms of government.
The search for an art of government was
influenced by the emergence of mercantilism and cameralism, which aimed to
rationalize the exercise of power and increase the wealth and power of the
state. This possibility was materalized through the use of statistical data to inform their policies
and strategies, reflecting a shift towards a more evidence-based approach to
governance. This development was closely linked to the broader search for an
art of government and contributed to the evolution of modern forms of
governance.
This idea of effective government wasn't just a
theory for philosophers and advisors. It developed alongside the large
administrative systems of monarchies and the new knowledge that emerged during
this time. Foucault argues that the full development of this art of government
was delayed until the 18th century due to historical factors such as the Thirty
Years War, major peasant and urban revolts, and the financial crisis of the
17th century.
Until the focus shifted from sovereignty to
other forms of government, the art of government couldn't fully develop.
Mercantilism was the first attempt to use knowledge and practice to improve
government. It was the first step towards a more rational approach to
government, focusing on practical methods rather than just moral principles.
Mercantilism was the first time the state was studied and understood in a way
that could be used to guide government actions.
Mercantilism aimed to make the country rich and powerful for the benefit of the ruler. It used laws and regulations to achieve this goal. In other words, its goal was to strengthen the power of the sovereign, and it used the tools of sovereignty to achieve this.
Mercantilism tried to use new ideas about government, but the old ideas (a collective mental construct by then) about sovereignty stopped it. In the 17th century, government was stuck between these two ideas. It tried to combine the new ideas with the old ones, but it didn't work very well.
How was the art of
government released from this blocked situation?
The release of mercantilism was influenced by several factors, including population growth in the 18th century, which was caused by increased wealth and agricultural production.
This refocusing on the
economy that started expanding into different vectors that were primarily
identified due to the problem of demographic explosion Foucault says,
facilitated the science of the government which went beyond the framework of
the sovereign.
Statistics used to be
used only by governments. Now, we use it to study people and their behavior.
We've learned that people have patterns of birth, death, illness, and
accidents. These patterns are not just about families, but also about larger
groups of people. Statistics help us understand how people's behavior affects
the economy. This has helped us see that the family is not the only important
thing in government.
When the population is
seen as entirely distinct from the family, the family is relegated to a lower
status within the population. It no longer serves as a model but becomes a
component within the population. Consequently, its significance lies in its utility
for gathering information on sexual behavior, demography, birth rates, crime or
consumption. The family transitions from being a model to an instrument,
becoming a key tool for governing the population rather than an idealized model
for good governance. This shift from being a model to an instrument in relation
to the population is crucial.
Secondly, the population
will be seen primarily as the ultimate goal of government. The purpose of
government is not merely to govern, but to enhance the population’s condition
by increasing its wealth, longevity, and health. The tools that the government
will employ to achieve these goals are inherently linked to the population
itself. This can be done directly through campaigns or indirectly through
methods that are not known to the people i.e. encourage higher birth rates or guide
population movements to specific regions or activities. Thus, the population
emerges as both the objective and the means of governance, rather than merely a
source of the sovereign’s power. It represents the needs and desires of the
people, while also being subject to governmental manipulation. In relation to
the government, the population is simultaneously aware of its desires and
unaware of the manipulations it undergoes.
The constitution of a
knowledge (savoir) of government is absolutely inseparable from the constitution
of a knowledge of all the processes revolving around population in the wider
sense of what we now call “the economy.”
In short, the transition
from an art of government to political science, the transition in the eighteenth
century from a regime dominated by structures of sovereignty to a regime
dominated by techniques of government revolves around population, and
consequently around the birth of political economy.
What is the role of
sovereignty in this context as the art of government has become political
science? what juridical form, what institutional form, and what legal basis
could be given to the sovereignty typical of a state.
Discipline hasn't
disappeared. The institutions that supported discipline in the 17th and early
18th centuries—schools, workshops, armies—are part of the development of large
administrative monarchies. Discipline was never more important than when governments
tried to manage populations. Managing populations isn't just about controlling
the overall mass of people or their results. It's about managing people in
detail, at every level.
We shouldn't think of
these things as replacing each other. Instead, we should see them as parts of a
triangle: sovereignty, discipline, and government management. The main goal of
this triangle is to manage the population, and security is the essential tool.
There's a connection
between the movement that challenges traditional ideas of sovereignty, the
movement that sees the population as a target for government intervention, and
the movement that identifies the economy as a separate area of focus. These movements
are all make interventions “in the field of reality”.
This he calls the history
of governmentality.
“By this word
“governmentality” I mean three things. First, by “governmentality” I understand
the ensemble formed by institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections,
calculations, and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific, albeit
very complex, power that has the population as its target, political economy as
its major form of knowledge, and apparatuses of security as its essential
technical instrument. Second, by “governmentality” I understand the tendency,
the line of force, that for a long time, and throughout the West, has
constantly led towards the pre-eminence over all other types of power—
sovereignty, discipline, and so on—of the type of power that we can call
“government” and which has led to the development of a series of specific
governmental apparatuses (appareils) on the one hand, to the development of a
series of knowledges (savoirs). Finally, by “governmentality” I think we should
understand the process, or rather, the result of the process by which the state
of justice of the Middle Ages became the administrative state in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries and was gradually “governmentalized.”
the fascination people
have with the state, both in terms of its power and its abuses. It identifies
two ways in which the problem of the state is often overvalued:
The Romantic View: This
view sees the state as a cold, monstrous entity that evokes strong emotions. It
is a lyrical and tragic perspective that often emphasizes the oppressive power
of the state.
The Reductionist View:
This view downplays the importance of the state by reducing it to a set of
functions, such as developing productive forces or reproducing relations of
production. Despite this reduction, the state is still seen as absolutely
essential, either as a target for attack or as a position of power to be
occupied.
Foucault argues both of
these views overemphasize the importance of the state. While the state is
undoubtedly a significant force in society, it is not the only factor that
shapes our lives. Other factors, such as economic forces, social relations, and
cultural influences, also play crucial roles.
Foucault Calls state as a
“composite reality” (a combination of various elements including institutions,
laws and social practices), mythicized abstraction (romanticized or idealized
idea of it), What truly matters for Foucault is not the state control over
society (étatisation) but rather “governmentalization” referring to increasing
role of government interaction with social and economic forces ie. domains like
healthcare, education and social welfare that shape our world.
"governmentalization" is a complex
phenomenon that has allowed the state to survive despite the challenges posed
by modern political realities. Its tactics to allow or not allow what falls
into its domain of governance defines its reach from time to time.
[1]
Examples Foucault mentions in his work are Thomas Elyot, The Governor,
published in 1580, Guillaume de La Perrière’s Le Miroir politique, published in
1555, Paruta’s La Perfection de la vie politique.
[2] He
was clear to mention that politics is not exactly economy or entirely morality
[3] Police,
in this context, refers to the techniques and strategies used to govern
individuals and maintain social order. It plays a role in ensuring the downward
continuity of government, ensuring that good governance at the state level
translates into positive outcomes at the individual and family levels.
[4] Economy,
is derived from oikos, a house, and nomos, law, and meant originally only the wise and legitimate government of the house for the common
good of the whole family. The meaning of the term was then extended to
the government of that great family, the state.
[5] in
political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making
process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of
sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and
international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and
government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin superanus
through the French souveraineté, the term was originally understood to mean the
equivalent of supreme power. However, its application in practice often has
departed from this traditional meaning.
In 16th-century France Jean Bodin (1530–96) used the
new concept of sovereignty to bolster the power of the French king over the
rebellious feudal lords, facilitating the transition from feudalism to
nationalism. The thinker who did the most to provide the term with its modern
meaning was the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who argued that
in every true state some person or body of persons must have the ultimate and
absolute authority to declare the law; to divide this authority, he held, was
essentially to destroy the unity of the state. The theories of the English
philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1712–78)—that the state is based upon a formal or informal compact of
its citizens, a social contract through which they entrust such powers to a
government as may be necessary for common protection—led to the development of
the doctrine of popular sovereignty that found expression in the American
Declaration of Independence in 1776. Another twist was given to this concept by
the statement in the French constitution of 1791 that “Sovereignty is one,
indivisible, unalienable and imprescriptible; it belongs to the Nation; no
group can attribute sovereignty to itself nor can an individual arrogate it to
himself.” Thus, the idea of popular sovereignty exercised primarily by the
people became combined with the idea of national sovereignty exercised not by
an unorganized people in the state of nature, but by a nation embodied in an
organized state. In the 19th century the English jurist John Austin (1790–1859)
developed the concept further by investigating who exercises sovereignty in the
name of the people or of the state; he concluded that sovereignty is vested in
a nation’s parliament. A parliament, he argued, is a supreme organ that enacts
laws binding upon everybody else but that is not itself bound by the laws and
could change these laws at will. This description, however, fitted only a
particular system of government, such as the one that prevailed in Great
Britain during the 19th century.
Disclaimer: This article is in the making.
Comments
Post a Comment