Foucault's "Governmentality" (Summary)

 

In his lecture on governmentality, Foucault aims to begin an exploration of the concept of government.

 

Throughout the Middle Ages and classical antiquity, a multitude of treatises were presented as 'advice to the prince'. These works covered topics such as proper conduct, the exercise of power, and strategies for maintaining the loyalty and respect of subjects, as well as promoting obedience to divine law. However, a notable shift occurred from the mid-sixteenth century to the late eighteenth century, during which a significant series of political treatises emerged. These works were no longer simply offering advice to rulers; rather, they delved into the 'art of government'.

 

The notion of government as a general problem seems to have solidified in the sixteenth century, marked by discussions on diverse questions. This includes inquiries into personal conduct, as evident in the revival of Stoic philosophy during this period. Additionally, there were discussions on the governance of religious communities, encapsulated in Catholic and Protestant pastoral doctrine. The governance of children also became a significant concern, reflecting the escalating field of pedagogy during the sixteenth century. Lastly, the governance of the state by rulers emerged as a central question, albeit perhaps as the final topic to be addressed.

 

The multitude of issues surrounding how to govern oneself, be governed, govern others, gain acceptance as a ruler, and strive for excellence in governance all characterize the complexity of the sixteenth century. This era stands at the intersection of two processes: one dismantling feudal structures and paving the way for modern governance frameworks; the other marked by religious reforms and dissension.

 

This duality of state centralization alongside religious dispersion and dissidence seems to intensify the problem of governance, leading to questions about how to be ruled, by whom, and for what purpose. This presents a broad problematic of government in general.

 

In examining the vast literature on government up until the eighteenth century, I aim to highlight certain points that are crucial in defining the political form of government. One way to do this is by comparing this literature with a seminal text that continuously drew opposition and critique: Machiavelli's The Prince. Examining the relationship of subsequent works to Machiavelli's text can offer insights into the evolution of political thought and governance theories.

 

It's important to note that Machiavelli's "The Prince" wasn't immediately condemned; rather, it was respected by his contemporaries and later generations up to the end of the eighteenth century or the start of the nineteenth century. During the early nineteenth century, especially in Germany, "The Prince" resurfaced alongside discussions shaped partly by Napoleon's era, the Revolution, and the challenges of governance in the United States. Additionally, it coincided with the emergence of political and strategic concerns highlighted by figures like Clausewitz, particularly relevant during the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Machiavelli's work also intersected with the issues of Italian and German territorial unity.

 

Between the initial acceptance of Machiavelli's work in the sixteenth century and its rediscovery in the nineteenth century, there was a period of debate and varied responses. Some praised Machiavelli, while others vehemently criticized him from both Catholic and Protestant perspectives. Implicit critiques also emerged in works that indirectly challenged Machiavelli's ideas.

 

This debate shouldn't be solely seen through the lens of Machiavelli's text and its scandalous aspects. It was about defining an art of government. Some rejected the idea of a new art of government centered on the state and reason of state, labeling it as Machiavellianism. Others argued that Machiavelli's work was an imperfect representation of a rational and legitimate art of government. Still, others sought to justify aspects of Machiavelli's writings to validate a particular art of government.

 

Regardless of whether interpretations of Machiavelli were accurate, the debates attempted to articulate a form of rationality intrinsic to the art of government, separate from the prince's interests and his dominion over the state. This differentiated understanding of the art of government from the prince's capacity, as some saw in Machiavelli's writings, or criticized it as a new form of Machiavellianism.

2

The political concept presented in Machiavelli's "The Prince," whether real or imagined, sought to distance itself from the idea of a prince being inherently separate from his principality. According to this view, the prince stands in a singular and external relationship, even transcendent, to his realm. He may acquire his principality through inheritance, conquest, or treaties, but he remains detached from it. This connection is seen as synthetic and fragile, susceptible to external threats from enemies and internal challenges from subjects.

 

This perspective leads to a focus on the prince's ability to maintain his rule over the territory and subjects he possesses, rather than on governing effectively. Anti-Machiavellian literature aimed to replace this focus with a new concept: the art of government. Retaining a principality differs from the broader skill of governing. But what does this art of government entail?

 

Examining an early text in this anti-Machiavellian tradition, Guillaume de La Perriere's "Miroir Politique," sheds light on this question. La Perriere defines a governor as someone who can be a monarch, king, lord, judge, or similar figure. He and others writing on the art of government emphasize that governance extends beyond ruling a state to include managing households, souls, children, provinces, religious orders, and families.

 

In contrast to Machiavelli's prince, who holds a unique and transcendent position, various forms of governance operate within society, such as family leadership or religious authority. These forms are immanent to society, unlike the prince's external position. Despite the diversity of governance within society, there remains a need to define the specific form of governing applicable to the state as a whole.

 

La Mothe Le Vayer, in the following century, categorizes forms of government into three fundamental types: self-government, family governance, and state governance. Each corresponds to a distinct area of study: morality, economy, and politics, respectively. Despite their differences, these types of governance exhibit essential continuity, demonstrating the interconnectedness of various forms of authority within society.

 

While the doctrine of the prince and juridical theories of sovereignty emphasize the prince's distinct power, the art of government seeks to establish continuity between different forms of authority, both upward and downward.

 

Guillaume de La Perriere's work highlights two important aspects of governance. Firstly, there's the idea of upwards continuity, which suggests that to govern a state effectively, one must first learn to govern oneself, personal belongings, and family. This pedagogical formation ensures that the principles applied to personal affairs can be extended to state governance. Secondly, there's downwards continuity, which implies that when a state is well-governed, individuals within families will behave appropriately, maintaining a harmonious society. This concept eventually evolved into what we now understand as "police," focusing on maintaining order and discipline within society.

 

Central to this continuity is the concept of "economy," which refers to the proper management of individuals, goods, and wealth within the family. This idea transcends into political practice, with the art of government aiming to introduce this meticulous attention to the management of the state. This concept of "economy" evolved over time, eventually becoming associated with the broader field of economics as we understand it today.

 

Another critical aspect of governance highlighted by La Perriere is the notion that government is about arranging things in a way that leads to a desirable outcome. However, the term "things" here doesn't just refer to objects but encompasses the complex interactions between individuals and their surroundings. This includes factors like resources, climate, habits, and relationships. The metaphor of governing a ship is often used to illustrate this point, emphasizing the need to manage both the crew and the vessel itself, considering various external factors like weather conditions and potential hazards.

 

Similarly, governing a household involves more than just safeguarding property; it entails managing individuals within the family, considering events like births and deaths, and making decisions that affect the family's well-being. Thus, the focus of governance lies in managing the intricate interplay between people and their environment, with property and territory being just one aspect of this broader complex.

In the writings of Frederick the Great, particularly in his work "Anti-Machiavel," the concept of governance emerges as a central theme. He contrasts Holland with Russia to illustrate that effective governance is not solely about the size of a territory but rather about the proper management of resources and people. Frederick argues that governing effectively means managing things, or the elements within a state, in a way that leads to desirable outcomes.

 

This idea is further elaborated by La Perriere, who defines government as the proper arrangement of things to achieve convenient ends. Unlike sovereignty, which focuses on obedience to laws imposed by the ruler, government is concerned with achieving specific objectives that benefit each element within society. This requires the strategic disposition of resources and the implementation of tactics to achieve desired outcomes.

 

Moreover, La Perriere emphasizes the qualities required of a good ruler, including patience, wisdom, and diligence. Patience entails ruling without resorting to force, symbolized by the example of the bumblebee king ruling the hive without needing a sting. Wisdom involves understanding the objectives to be achieved and the means to attain them, while diligence requires governing with the mindset of serving those who are governed.

 

This understanding of governance diverges from traditional notions of princely rule as depicted by Machiavelli. It emphasizes a more holistic approach to leadership, where the ruler's actions are guided by wisdom and aimed at serving the well-being of society.

 

This conceptualization of governance was not just a theoretical abstraction but had practical implications. It influenced the development of administrative structures in territorial monarchies, contributed to the emergence of statistical analyses of state affairs, and intersected with the principles of mercantilism and the science of police, which focused on regulating economic and social activities for the benefit of the state.

3

In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the concept of the art of government began to take shape, focusing on the notion of "reason of state." This idea emphasized that states are governed based on rational principles intrinsic to them, rather than solely relying on natural or divine laws. The art of government sought its rationality within the specific realities of the state, rather than adhering to transcendental rules or moral ideals.

 

However, the development of the art of government faced several obstacles. Historical crises such as the Thirty Years War and financial instability hindered its progress. Additionally, mental and institutional structures, particularly the dominance of sovereignty as the central principle of political organization, posed challenges. The preeminence of sovereignty meant that governance was often seen as an exercise of sovereign power, limiting the autonomy and specificity of the art of government.

 

Mercantilism, while representing early attempts to apply the principles of government to political practices and state knowledge, ultimately fell short due to its focus on enhancing the sovereign's power and wealth accumulation. Mercantilism relied on traditional instruments of sovereignty such as laws and decrees, rather than developing new tactics for governance.

 

Throughout the seventeenth century, the art of government remained constrained within the framework of sovereignty, unable to fully develop its own principles and methods. Contract theory, which explored the relationship between rulers and subjects, offered some theoretical basis for the art of government but remained largely within the realm of public law.

 

The art of government also faced challenges in its reliance on the family as a model. This model, while suitable for certain aspects of governance, proved inadequate for addressing the complexities of territorial possessions and royal finance.

 

However, the emergence of demographic expansion and increased agricultural production in the eighteenth century provided new opportunities for the art of government. The problem of population became a focal point, leading to a recentering of economic considerations beyond the family model. This interconnected process facilitated the development of the science of government and the evolution of economic thinking in relation to governance.

The development of the science of government led to a reevaluation of the concept of economy, shifting it from its traditional association with family management to a broader understanding focused on population and wealth. This shift allowed for the identification of specific population-related issues and marked the beginning of new governmental tactics and techniques.

 

Population became central to governance, with the improvement of population welfare and conditions becoming the primary goal of government. Techniques and campaigns were developed to influence population behavior indirectly, often without their full awareness. The population became both the subject of government intervention and the object in the hands of the government.

 

Furthermore, population became the focal point for government observation and knowledge. The emergence of political economy, characterized by the interconnections between population, territory, and wealth, was a result of recognizing new networks of relations. This transition from an art of government to a political science revolved around the theme of population and led to the birth of political economy.

 

While the importance of sovereignty persisted, it took on a new dimension. Instead of deriving government principles from sovereignty, the focus shifted to finding a legal and institutional basis for sovereignty in a context where government techniques were already established. This shift is evident in Rousseau's writings, where he discusses the changing nature of political economy and the need for new definitions of government.

The development of discipline remains significant alongside the emergence of governmental techniques aimed at managing populations. Rather than viewing society as transitioning directly from a sovereignty-based system to a disciplinary one and then to a governmental one, it's more accurate to see these elements as interconnected. Sovereignty, discipline, and government form a triangle of power, with population management as the primary focus and security apparatuses as essential tools.

4

The historical shift towards governmentality is closely linked to the emergence of population as a central concern, alongside the isolation of the economy as a distinct field of study. This trio of government, population management, and political economy has remained influential since the 18th century.

 

In hindsight, a more precise title for the lecture series would be "A History of Governmentality." This term encompasses three main aspects:

 

The complex system of power structures, knowledge, and techniques used to govern populations, with a focus on political economy and security apparatuses.

The long-term trend towards the dominance of governmental power over other forms, resulting in the development of specific governmental institutions and bodies of knowledge.

The transformation of the medieval justice-based state into the administrative state, gradually shifting towards a more government-centric approach.

While the state often holds a central place in contemporary discourse, it may be overemphasized both in terms of its perceived power and its functional importance. Perhaps what truly shapes modernity is not the state's centralization but rather the process of "governmentalization" – the increasing focus on governance techniques within the state apparatus.

 

 

 

We currently exist within an era characterized by "governmentality," a concept first recognized in the 18th century. This phenomenon of the state becoming increasingly governed is paradoxical. While the problems and techniques of governance have become the primary political issues, this very governmentalization has also enabled the state's survival. The continual definition and redefinition of the state's competence, as well as the distinction between public and private spheres, are made possible by the tactics of governmentality.

 

We can roughly outline the historical forms of power in the West in three stages:

 

The state of justice, rooted in feudal territorial regimes and characterized by a society governed by laws and reciprocal obligations.

The administrative state, emerging with the delineation of national boundaries in the 15th and 16th centuries, characterized by regulation and discipline.

The governmental state, defined not solely by territoriality but by the management of population, its density, and economic factors. Territory is only one component of this state, which operates through security apparatuses.

In subsequent lectures, I will delve into how governmentality emerged from the archaic Christian pastoral model and the diplomatic-military techniques developed on a European scale, particularly after the Treaty of Westphalia. This phenomenon owes its existence to specific instruments, such as the police, which were contemporaneously developed alongside the art of government in the 17th and 18th centuries.