Andrew Wicking
Melbourne College of Divinity, University of Melbourne, Australia

This paper takes as implicit the principle that positive engagement with the fundamental concerns delineated by the Common Good movement¹ requires, in the first place, the deployment of the most correct and conducive critical and intellectual tools by those, or by us, who would engage, articulate and fight for such concerns.

Equally necessary is the practice of a robust ethic of self-critical thoughtfulness. In this vein ‘Globalization from Below’ is intended as a contribution to such practice, aimed at fostering well-considered and critically tested thought and theory - essential for any movement aspiring to real connection and positive effect.

The present argument is based on the presumption that the meaning and purpose of our lives is today most characteristically focused through and defined by political and especially economic relationships. This paper contests, however, that although the crises we face are but symptoms of the same underlying condition - namely a highly centralised, global system of production and distribution - the problem itself is not ultimately that.

Rather, it is one of right-relationship. In this way it will be argued that the most urgent requirement for the significant and lasting economic and political transformation of our current global condition - divisions entailed by the problems of economic injustice, accountability in government, climate change, global health, poverty and religiously motivated conflict - is a fundamental reassessment of who and what we are in our relationship to each other. Central to this reassessment is a threefold consideration..

Firstly, a recognition of the manifest economic and political structures and systems that, continually evolving, contextualise, articulate and determine our relationships in the first place; secondly, an acknowledgement of the continued disposition of these structures and systems to exclude the great religions, in their critical-prophetic role, from the mechanisms of popular culture; and thirdly, the imperative to develop a conceptual analytic for articulating these considerations - entailed by globalized and globalizing economic divisions - into a broader politic of co-operation and tolerance.

We begin then with the observation that the principles and values of the world’s great religious traditions were developed in an age of localised economic and social interaction and have, patently, been held in place since (especially those of Semitic origin) by the now globalized political and economic dominance of the European and American cultural spheres. Therefore, if it is accepted that the true religious or developmental wisdom of the world’s great religions is prevented from its rightful function as the dominant cultural motive of humankind, and if it is accepted, even provisionally, that the frustration of this role is related to the dominant secular and materialistic philosophical trend in league with the secular State, then it should be reasonable to assert that an analytic to adequately determine the context in which the principles and values of the world’s great religions are received, lived, embodied, expressed or suppressed, is imperative for any movement that seeks to articulate a new, peaceful cultural destiny for the world at large. To this end, the present paper seeks to introduce a critical concept for the analysis of contemporary economic and political transformations - the ‘governmentality’² analytic.

As we will see, this analytic works to describe the ways in which control and dominion is exercised not just through the operations of the State but also by means of a vast array of technologies that are encouraged and implemented by individuals and collectivities (not always with intention or in full consciousness) in the economic, social, cultural, religious and private realms of life. Thus, the present paper posits Foucault’s analytic of ‘governmentality’ as an efficacious critical concept for the wider, fundamental reassessment of our current global condition.

From 1970 until his death in 1984, Michel Foucault held the Chair of ‘History of Systems of Thought’ at the Collège de France. In fact, Foucault's early and unexpected death meant that two of the key series of lectures have remained largely unpublished ever since, namely the lectures held in 1978 and in 1979.³

In these lectures Foucault deploys the concept of government or "governmentality" as a "guideline" for the analysis he offers by way of historical reconstructions, embracing a period starting from Ancient Greek through to modern neo-liberalism.

For the purposes of the present argument, and for those whose concerns lie at the intersection of theology, religion and economics, the gravamen of Foucault s work on governmentality (and the rationality of the State, more broadly) is its disruption of commonly inherited "modem" conceptions about government, knowledge and power and, most pertinently, Foucault’s working hypothesis on the reciprocal constitution of power techniques and forms of knowledge.

By this account, power is not only repressive but also productive, insofar as every system of knowledge depends on social arrangements of power for the production and

maintenance of that knowledge - instead of presuming the existence of ahistorical truths that demand particular historical practices in the present, Foucault attends to the ways in which truth is practiced, our changing relations to truth, and the history of truth.

In this way Foucault’s earlier book Archaeology of Knowledge⁴ focused on the verbal, or articulated discursive patterns (epistemes) that govern what can be ‘legitimately’ discussed, in an attempt to draw out the general structures of knowledge that allow for the existence of epistemes. The intention of this analysis was to account for the culturally relative and historically contingent ‘nature’ of all knowledge.

In his later genealogical period, Foucault traced the historical unfolding of these epistemes not just as verbal structures - i.e. discursive practices – but also as (and in terms of) ‘nondiscursive practices’ (e.g. that support various claims to knowledge). Thus, in this genealogy Foucault traced the historical unfolding of these epistemes, particularly in terms of the largely ‘non-discursive practices’ of social power, which he called dispostifs. Through these methods Foucault came to regard knowledge as constituting a ‘multiplicity of discourses’, a pluralism of epistemes, with none of them inherently better than any other. As such, these systems of discourse (epistemes) or systems of non-discursive practices (dispostifs), these "vast anonymous networks", in Foucault’s conception, are responsible for much of what we understand or accept as "given". In this view not only are many truth claims merely passing styles, they are in fact socially constructed as forms and representations of domination and power.⁵

Indeed, the term ‘governmentality’ itself pin-points a specific form of representation, where ‘government’ is defined as a discursive field in which exercising power is "rationalized". This occurs, among other things, by the delineation of concepts, the specification of objects and borders, and the provision of arguments and justifications. In such a manner government enables a problem to be addressed and offers certain strategies for solving or handling the problem; and in this way also structures specific forms of intervention - for a political rationality is not pure, neutral knowledge which simply "re-presents" the governing reality. Instead, government itself constitutes the intellectual processing of the reality which political technologies can then tackle. This is understood to include agencies, procedures, institutions and legal forms that are intended to enable us to govern the objects and subjects of a political rationality.⁶

Moreover, Foucault uses the concept of government in a comprehensive sense geared strongly to the older meaning of the term. For example, while the word government today possesses solely a political meaning, Foucault is able to show that up until well into the 18th century the problem of government (and self-government) was placed in a more general context: government was a term discussed not only in political tracts, but also in philosophical, religious, medical and pedagogic texts.⁷

In addition to this description of the control and management by the State or administration, "government" in this account also signifies problems of self-control, guidance for the family and for children, management of the household, and directing the soul. For this reason, Foucault ultimately defines government as conduct, or, more precisely, as "the conduct of conduct" and thus as a term which ranges from "governing the self" to "governing others".⁸ In this, the concept of governmentality proves fruitful, in theoretical terms, for an analysis of neo-liberalism and, by extension, for our consideration of the force and effect of globalisation.

To illustrate. The key feature of the neo-liberal rationality is the congruence it endeavors to achieve between a responsible and moral individual and an economic-rational individual: it aspires to construct responsible subjects whose moral quality is based on the fact that they rationally assess the costs and benefits of a certain act, as opposed to other alternative acts. As the choice of options for action is the expression of free will, on the basis of a self-determined decision, or so the neo-liberal notion of rationality would have it, the consequences of the action are borne by the subject alone, who is also solely responsible for them. This ‘strategy’ - where ‘strategy’ in a Foucauldian reading does not necessarily imply any kind of conspiratoral motive - leads ultimately to matters of social responsibility becoming a matter of personal provision. In this way, by means of the notion of governmentality, the neo-liberal agenda for the "withdrawal of the state" can be deciphered as a technique for government and governing. For example, the crisis of Keynesianism and the reduction in forms of welfare-state intervention can now be construed as leading less to the state losing powers of regulation and control and more as a re-organization or re-structuring of government techniques, shifting the regulatory competence of the state onto "responsible" and "rational" individuals.

Moreover, if these assumptions are correct and the neo-liberal strategy does indeed consist of replacing (or at least supplementing) out-dated rigid regulatory mechanisms by developing techniques of self-regulation, then political analysis must start to study the "autonomous" individual's capacity for self-control and how this is linked to forms of political rule and economic exploitation.

In other words, and most importantly, the real theoretical strength of the analytic (or concept) of governmentality consists of the fact that it describes neo-liberalism not just as ideological rhetoric or as a political-economic reality, but above all as a political project that endeavors to create a social reality that it suggests already exists. This enables us to shed sharper light on the effects neo-liberal governmentality has in terms of (self-) regulation and domination - characteristics of our globalised economy.

As we have just seen, the concept of governmentality originates from Foucault’s comprehensive concept of government which refers not only to political processes or state agencies, but in a more general sense to the art of guiding people: Foucault defines government as conduct, or, more precisely, as "the conduct of conduct" and thus as a term which ranges from "governing the self" to "governing others".

He argues that government does not only concern politics, but also the government of the self. For example, it could be argued that the way a nation is governed and the way individuals govern their own behaviour are part of the same construction.

Furthermore, by ‘government’ Foucault meant not so much the political or administrative structures of the modern state as he meant the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be directed: including the government of children, of souls, of communities, of families, of the sick. To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action of others.

We can see then that whereas traditional notions of power located authority in conventional spots of domination in a rigid hierachical schemata, Foucault shows that power breaks out everywhere – it’s locus classicus is not simply in instiutional or hegemonic power, but in varied and complex relations and negotiations among and between the powerless as well.

Even more specifically, the analytic nature of governmentality concentrates on those rationalities and technologies that aim to systematically direct and control individuals, and collectivities, and serves to elucidate forms of self-government as well as those forms, often institutional or organisational, of governing others.

Government then, in this definition we are developing, refers to more or less systematised, regulated and reflected modes of power that go beyond the spontaneous exercise of power over others. Most vitally however, these considerations of governmentality demonstrate that globalisation, as commercialisation, is produced and reproduced in the very ways we think and feel and see and play, and not just in the way we work, buy, sell and consume. No less in the religion we practice.

That is to say, within the context of the manifest economic and political structures and systems that, continually evolving, contextualise, articulate and determine our relationships, the ‘governmentality’ analytic, characterised by a theoretical shift away from the study of "power" as an oppressive, substantial force imposed from the "top down "in the political hierarchy⁹, and instead directed toward the forms and the strategies through which power is manifested and divested, concealed, revealed, exchanged, repressed and expressed, successfully works to draw out the means through which a symptomatic neo-liberalism extends its dominion – i.e. by propogating certain cultural forms. In turn, such cultural forms produce reality through "rituals of truth", so-called, creating a particular style of subjectivity with which one conforms or resists. And because individuals and collectivities are taken into this subjectivity they become part of the normalizing force. Indeed, it is, arguably, in this context that the legitimacy and role of the religious traditions has been largely superseded by globalized, neo-liberal economic strategies and forms which nonetheless keep these same traditions in place, so that the conventional religious culture (of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and even certain dimensions of Hinduism and Buddhism) tends to be associated, strategically and ‘ritually’, with certain positive moral values, yet, arguably, always also tends to propogate (in the style of the secular and materialist trend) a negative evaluation if not inevitably divisive understanding of human developmental and communal existence.

As such, this reading in the spirit of Foucault clearly attests to the need of a thorough-going interdiciplinary and inter-cultural reassesssment of not only the structures of instiutional or hegemonic power, but also the varied and complex relations and negotiations among and between the indivduals.

We might in fact say that Foucault’s concept of governmentality represents a theoretical movement not focused on discovering who we essentially, ontologically are, but at determining who we could be and who is exactly meant by this ‘we’.

In conclusion, this paper has attempted to demonstrate the necessity for an adequate conceptual appartus as a prerequisitie to a fundamental reassessement of our economic and religious inheritance.

The "problematization" of government that I have presented should not be construed as fulfilling the proposition concerning the inevitability of domination or control. On the contrary, it should allow other practices and forms of subjectivity to become concievable and make visible new, emancipatory spaces of freedom. Indeed, for the purposes of building co-operation and fostering right relationship, it is a critique that uniquely, imperatively, can be applied to understanding the convergence of our present day crises, entailed by globalised economic, political and religious divisions.

Thus, the concept of governmentality as I have outlined here, and its pertinence and productivity as a theoretical implement, is in this way, about articulating a new collective will, with significance for the development of global policies for the common good.

ENDNOTES

[1] See, for example: Declaration Kenya: Africa and Globalisation for the Common Good:  The Quest for Justice and Peace
(www.commongood.info/declaration2005); and The Honoloulu Statement (www.commongood.info/honolulu2006).

[2] For an introduction to the topic see: Barry Allen, “Government in Foucault”, in: Canadian Journal of  Philosophy, Vol. 21, No. 4, 421-440; Colin Gorden, “Governmental rationality: an introduction”, in: Graham Burchell/Colin Gordon/Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. (1991) pp. 1-51;  Nikolas Rose/ Peter Miller, “Political power beyond the State: problematics of government”, in: British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 173-205 (1992).

[3] Refer to: Thomas Lemke,  “The Birth of Bio-Politics” – Michel Foucault’s Lecture at  the Collège de    France on Neo-Liberal Governmentality, in: Economy & Society, Vol 30. No. 2, pp. 190-207 (2001).

[4] Michel Foucault The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1991; trans. Alan Sheridan Smith. Originally published as L’Archaeologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1969.

[5] Over time, Foucault came to appreciate the possible relativism of this analysis and shifted posture to instead examine the so-called ‘constant components of knowledge’ that allow such a relativism, especially if such an examination is not to fall into the trap of relativism itself.

[6] Michel Foucault, ”Governmentality”, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (1991) P.103

[7] Foucault  (1978) `Governmentality', trans. Rosi Braidotti and revised by Colin Gordon, in Graham Burchell, et al  The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, (1991) pp. 87-104.

[8] Foucault, Power/Knowledge Harvester, Brighton (1980) P.119

[9]  “These models put forth a somewhat neutered version of power that, is defined in a strangely restrictive way is poor in resources, sparing of its methods, monotonous in the tactics it utilizes, incapable of invention, and seemingly doomed to always repeat itself” in  Foucault,  The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. London: Penguin, 1990. Trans. Robert Hurley. Originally published as Histoire de la sexualitie: La Volonte de savoir. Paris Gallimard (1976). P. 85.

Allen , Barry "Government in Foucault", in: Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 21, No. 4, 421-440.

Foucault, M Power/Knowledge Harvester, Brighton (1980).

Foucault, M. (1978) `Governmentality', trans. Rosi Braidotti and revised by Colin Gordon, in Graham Burchell, et al The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, (1991).

Foucault , M The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1991; trans. Alan Sheridan Smith. Originally published as L’Archaeologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard, (1969).

Gordon, Colin "Governmental rationality: an introduction", in: Graham Burchell/Colin Gordon/Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, (1991).

Hindess, Barry Discourses of Power. From Hobbes to Foucault. Oxford: Blackwell (1996)

Lemke, Thomas "The Birth of Bio-Politics" – Michel Foucault’s Lecture at the Collège de France on Neo-Liberal Governmentality, in: Economy & Society, Vol 30. No. 2 (2001).

Rose, Nikolas/Miller, Peter "Political power beyond the State: problematics of government", in: British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1992).

Declaration Kenya: Africa and Globalisation for the Common Good: The Quest for

Justice and Peace ( www.commongood.info/declaration2005 );

The Honolulu Statement 2006: (http://www.commongood.info/honolulu2006).

Copyright 2006 - Journal of Globalization for the Common Good - www.commongoodjournal.com