FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTIONibre

8/11/2019 FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTIONibre

1/6

RESEARCH

FOUCAULT AND

CAPITALIST RATIONALITY:

A RECONSTRUCTION

AIi Muhammad Rizvi

La Trobe University, Melbourne,

[email protected]

'Introduction

A certain Wlderstanding ofcapitalist rationali ty penneates Foucault's work. However the historical

mode of Foucaul t' s presentat ion makes i tdi ff icul t tograsp the origina li ty and the sys tematic nature of his

analysis. Inrecent years, the work canied out byauthors related towhat has been dubbed the govemmentality

school has gone a long way towards repairing the situation (Burchell e/al 005: 1991, Rose e/ aI, eds: 1996,

Rose: 1993). However, theemphasis of their work hasbeenon liberalism ratherthanon capitalism.

I The

primordia l r el at ion between l iber al modes of governance and capit al is t r at iona li ty i s not very c le ar in thei r work.

It i s t he purpose o f th is p ap er t o t ry t o sh if t t he emphasi s o f t he an al ysi s t hro ugh rec on st ru ct in g t he fr amewo rk

of Foucaul t' s c oncept ion of c apit al ism and i ts r at iona li ty .

I arg ue t hat Wld er st andi ng t he doubl e cb ar act er of fte edom i s c ent ral t o Foucau lt 's Wl der st andi ng o f

capitalis t rationality. The originality ofFoucault's ana1ysis lies inhis realisa tion that capitalism manages individuals

and popula ti on s ( pr imar il y) t hr ough Ih :edom and not (p rima ri ly ) t hro ugh re pr es si on . I a rg ue th at I h: edom i s t he

cond it io n t ha t makes possi bl e t he co rr el ati on b etween wha t Foucau lt t erms as t he acc umu1at io n o f men and t he

accumulation of capital .

MARKET FORCES - .JANUARY 2006

/' ~

l'

23

RESEARCH FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECONSTRUCTION

I would like tostate a few disclaimers atthe beginning. Iam not going todiscuss the work of

govemmentalitytheorists. Critiquingtheir workisnot myaim.Rather,Itreattheir insightsasmystartingpoint

inorder todevelopa certain reading ofkey Foucauldian texts. Secondly Iam notgoing toreconstruct the

Foucauldianconceptof capitalist ration8Iityasa whole. Myaim ismoremodest andmore basic.My aim isto

point towardsthe condition(s) thatmake(s) possiblecapitalism asan order.

A few words are called for on the terms used. Foucault uses capitalism inap historical sense. It is inan

historical sense that Foucault investigates themeaning and conditions ofcapitalism. Foucault Wlderstand:sthree

different things through theterm capitalism: a)A political order which accumulates individuals and populations

ina certain manner. Foucault calls this the regime ofthe accumulation ofmen. b)On the other hand Foucault

Wlderstands capitalism to mean an economic system that isgeared towards the accumulation of wealth. Foucault

calls this the regime of the accumulation of capital .2 c)Thirdly capitalism means for Foucault an order that is

the basis of the two regimes mentioned above. Here capitalism isnotjust apolit ical oran economic system; it

isprimordial andis thecondition of thepossibility ofboth.At this level accumulation isunderstood ina primordial

sense. It isnot yet differentiated into accumulation ofwealth (economy) and accumulation ofmen (polity). It,

rather, provides the condition for any such a differentiation.

I use the term primordial (UrspriJnglichkei/) ina Heideggerian sense It is meant toconvey a simple

but often neglected fact. We Wlderstand particulars only inthe context ofa 'whole' . However the whole does

not reveal i tself tous directly. Itremains implicit Itrequires a special effort tomake itexplicit (Brandom, 1994,

Brandorn, 2000) . The 'whole' i s the condi tion inthe context of whose implici t awareness we approach

par ti culars . Wenever encoWlter the 'whole' as such. However , we can make the 'whole' expli ci t thorough

approaching particulars with this specific purpose. Inour case

a

&

b

are particulars which are Wlderstood in

the context of c however c i snot expli ci t. I t r emains implici t By concent ra ting on a or b orboth , with the

purpose ofrnaking cexpl ic it wecan make the sense ofcapit al ism asa 'whole' expli ci t One of the purposes of

the present essay isto make

c

explicit. However

c

can only be made explicit byeither concentrating on

a

or

b

oronboth.

Lastly Iuse the term necessity and contingency inentirely historical terms. Itwas one ofthe innovations

ofFoucault togive us the notion ofhistorical necessity. An idea or a relation may be necessary today but itcan

lose its necessity tomorrow and can become acontingency. Foucault claimed that historical practices are both

empirical andtranscendental. They are empirical as faras they are (inprinciple) always surpassable (Veyne,

1997: 228). However they are t ranscendenta l and hence necessary and const itut ive as long as they are not

effaced (ibid.) - as long as they are our present Thus when I c laim that the relation between the regime of the

accumulation of men and that ofcapital isnecessary Imean bythat historical necessity and not any other sort

of necessity.

If Accumul at ion o fMen and Accumul ati on of Cap ita l

Foucault's analysis of the relationship between the regimes of theaccumulation of menand the

1iccumulationof capital provides us thespaceto reconstruct thecondition(s)of thepossibilityand continued

sustenance of capitalism as an order.It isnormally Wlderstoodthat Foucault studies the strategies of the

accumulation ofmen as thefunction ofthe problem of governance but what isseldom Wlderstoodis that

Foucaulttreatstheproblemof governancenotin isolationbut inrelationshiptotheproblemof theaccumulation

ofcapital.The problemis notjust thegovernancebut the

typeof governance

thatprovides thespace inwhich

24

MARKET FORCES

-

.JANUARY 2006

fl

r


2/6

FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIOi\ALlT\': ARECONSTRtCTION RESEARCH

h indr an ces t o c ap it al a cc umu lat io n a re t he l eas t w hi le i ts p os si bi li ti eS a re b ei ng u ti li sed t o t h e m ax imum. Thu s

the problem is not just one of producing docile bodies but one of producing docile bodies which are also

useful . The pu rp ose of p rodu cing do cility is to maxi mise utili ty. Th e typ e of do cility that hampers u tility i s

u nacceptable. Th erefo re the prob lem of g overn an ce in Fo ucault is the p ro blem o f the gov ernance for cap ital

a cc um ul at io n ( and f or not hi ng e ls e) . Ac co rd in g t oFouc au lt , d isc ip li nes , w hi ch a r t he ' tec hn iq ue s' fo r a ss ur in g

t he o rd er in g o f mu lt ip li ci ti es and e nh an ci ng gov er nan ce , h av e t he pur po se o f i n cr eas in g bot h t he ' do ci li ty '

and the 'u tility' of all th e elemen ts of the system (DP: 218 ). Fou cault in g eneral terms makes i t c lear that:

The two processes- the accumulation ofmen and the accumulation of capital-cannot be separated;

i twould not have been possible to solve the problem of the accumulat ion of men without the growth ofan

apparatus of product ion capable ofboth sus ta in ing them and using them; conversely, the techniques tha t

made the cumulat ive mul tipl ic ity ofmen useful accelerated the accumulat ion of capit al . . . Each makes the

other possible and necessary; each provides amodel for the other (DP: 221).

However the problem isnot jus t ofshowing how the sys tem ofproducing docil ity i scor re la ted with

the sys tem ofut il ity maximisat ion and how the techniques used inone sys tem could be projected on toand

used in the other. Foucault's analysis points to a level deeper and subtler than this. Foucault 's analysis points

towards thefa :t tha t haw prior to thi s co ; la tion and as the condi tion of theposs ibil it y of th is corre lation

there exists a more primordial relationship between the system oftheaccumulation of men and the system of

the accumulation of capital.

It is n ot the case that there is o ne sy stem for t he pro duction o f d ocility -of g overn an ce and there is

another system for the production of utility - of capital, which are then correlated and reinforce each other.

Prior to this and as the condi tion of the possibi li ty of thi s cor re la tion and reinforcement , there exi st s, soto

s peak . aprimordial order which i sa t once the way of governance and capit al accumulat ion. The pol ity in

capitalist order isalready a capitalist polity. It isnotjust an instrument inthe hand ofcapitalists. No wonder

Foucault defines disciplines as the unitary t echnique bywhich the body is reduced as a 'poli ti ca l' force a t

the least cos t and maximised asa useful force (DP: 221 emphasi s added). Thus the capit al is t government

and the capit al is t sys tem of product iv ity and exchange are two s ides of the same coin (HS: 140-141). Ina

capitalist system both polity and economy are geared towards the singular aim of simultaneously producing

utili ty and docility. The polity and economy are equally productive ina capitalist order. Ina capitalist system

wea lt h and men a re equall y tr ea ted a s c ap ita l. They a re gea red towa rd s a ccumu la tion i na manner t ha t

maximises utili ty and docility of both simultaneously. Not only men need docility wealth also needs docility.

Both men and wealth need to be bared fi'om accumulating in non-capitalist forms.

III. Rc~ime of the Accumulation of i\lcn

Foucault s ay s th at . . . t he e conomi c sys tem t ha t p romo te s th e a ccumula tion o f c api ta l a nd t he

system of power that ordains the accumulation of men are, fi'om the seventeenth century 011,correlated and

unseparable phenomena. . . . (FR: 67) . MyPwPose intherest of th is essay i s to t ry to f ind out what makes

these two processes inseparable . Since Foucaul t does not s tudy the process of the accumulat ion ofcapi ta l in

any det ai l our only w indow t o t hi s i s t o concen tr ate on t he p roce ss o f t he a ccumu la tion o fmen whi ch is

analysed by Foucault inconsiderable detail inhis wolks.1n what follows 1shall concentrate on the constituent

e lements ofFoucault 's analysi s of theaccumula tion ofmen with the sole pwpose ofanswer ing the quest ion

i \IARKET FORCES -.JANUARY 2006

25

RESEARCH

FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECONSTRUCTION

ra is ed above . I hope that t his w il l a lso p rovi de t he answe r to our que sti on conce rn ing t he condit ion o f t h e

possibili ty ofcapitalism as anorder.

111.1Capitalist Subjectivisation Regime

Subjectivity is defined by Foucault as a form of organisation of self consciousness (pPC: 253)

implying that there may beforms oforganisation of self-


3/6

'FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECONSTRUCTION

RESEARCH

control and dependence, and t ied tohis own ident ity by a conscience or sel f-knowledge. Both meanings

suggest aform of power which subjugates and makes subject to (SP: 212 emphasi s added). The form of

power Foucaul t mentions here i s thepower of~ement I tmanages individuals and popu1at ions bytying

their activit ies totheir identity, byreferring back all diversity toidentity and hence 'imposing' singularity over

multiplicity. As Foucault puts it: 'This form ofpower applies itself toimmediate everyday 1ifi:which categorises

the individual, marks him byhis own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law oftruth on

him which bemust recogni se inhimself ' (SP: 212). Thi s double game that f teedom plays inthe sys tem can be

understood asconceiving fteedom asa centre ftom which rays emanate inevery direction, only toconverge

back to the centre. Identity provides the basis of this convergence. The notion ofidentity and self-subjection

are very important inthis context beCause through them singularity isimposed not ftom above but emerges

ftom within. It is important because ifpower is (solely) imposed ftom above. i tcan hamper utili ty and would

defeat the purpose of the whole exercise. '

Inthe Kantian tradition morality plays the same role. Through Kant's conception of morality asself-

determination room isprovided for diversity but tIuough theconception of categorical imperative singularity is

're-imposed' onthis diversity. Self-determination ismoral only tothe extent that i tcan ultimately converge

back to this singularity. Foucault considered the form of amorali ty acceptable toeveryone. . . as catastrophic

precisely because it isthe imposition ofa singularity over diversity. Similarly Foucault praised Greek morality

because itlacked theconception ofimposition of singularity over diverse moral experiences, indiverse domains

concerning diverse strata ofpopulation. There was no single morality for all . Foucault praises Greek morality

for having several forms off teedom (pPC: 245). InGreek moral ity there was no one s ingle domain that

would uni fY all moral domains (pPC: 26] ). Chr is ti anity effec ted thi s change by int roducing the not ion of

moralityas asingularity (a)mong the great tIansfonnations that Christianity was to bring about was the notion

that the ethics offlesh was suited for women as for men. Inthe ancient morality, on the other hand self control

i saproblem only for the individual who must bemasterofhimsel f and master ofothers and not for those who

must obey others. That i swhy thi s e thics concerns only men and does not have exact ly the same form when

applied torelations with one's own body, with one's wife, orwith boys (pPC: 261-262). Modem capitalism

derived itsconception ofmorality ftom Christianity and applied it(with modification of course) tomanage the

ever-growing diversity that isthe hal1mark of capitalist societies.

The important thing tonote isthat the conception ofmorali ty provides the means tomanage individuals

and populat ions f tom within bycrea ting a cri te rion of propr ie ty within each and every individual. Thi s i s

impor tant again because i tprovides the bas is for the management of individual s, and the diversi ty of the ir

desires with the minimum use ofovert oppression. This facil itates the minimisation of any negative impact on

their productivity.

11I .2 Capital is t Truth Regime

Foucault's overall conception of truth is fi1irlyHeideggerian. The notion of universal truth isa dangerous

chimera as it is a tool toimpose singularity inthe name ofobjectivity. It is a chimera because human finitude

leaves norooin forthe transcendence of the sort that goes hand inhand with the notion ofobjectivity. Truth for

Foucaul t on the other hand i s 'produced ' within discourse and i t i s meaningless to speak of t ru th out side

discourse. As Foucault puts it, . . . the problem does not consist indrawing aline between that ina discourse

which fulls under the category ofscientificity or truth, and that which comes under some othercategory, but in

seeing how historically effects oftruth are produced within discourses which inthemselves are neither truenor

MARKET FORCES

-

JANUARY 2006

1~1

~,

27

RESEARCH FOUCAULTANDCAPITALISTRATIONALITY:ARECONSTRUCTION

false (FR: 60, emphasis added).8 Thus truth isalways anembodied and embedded truth. It isembedded inthe

overall discursive structures and isproduced and reproduced tIuough this very embeddedness.

The 'genera l pol it ics' of t ruth establi shes what would becounted as t ruth and what would becounted

asuntruth ina socie ty (FR: 72) . Thi s 'genera l pol it ics' of t ru th imposes s ingulari ty over the mul tiple t ru ths

accepted inany society. But what distinguishes the 'general polit ics' oftruth incapitalist societies ftom other

societies is i tsunique blend ofdiversity and singularity, docility and utili ty. The same double bind operates here

which we saw operating inthe subjectivisation regime. On the one hand the requirements ofproductivity and

utili ty entail and demand increasing profusion and diversity ofthe multiple forms of truths but the requirements

of capitalist governance demand that this multiplicity be traceable to the singularity ofcapital accumulation. All

the diversity and multiplicity must converge to this single truth that defines all truths (FR: 72-73).

The capitalist truth regime plays animportant role inthisregard The 'objective' truths, that arecompatible

and conducive tothe singularity of capital accumulation, are constantly produced, reproduced and circulated

about the individual, h is body and soul so as. to s tandardi se lnormali se his ways of act ing and being ( in the

context of the diversities that are allowed). The capitalist truth regime ensures that only those ways ofacting,

behaving and being are considered normal and hence rat ional tha t can besubsumed under the s ingulari ty of

capital accumulation. All other subjectivit ies are labelledlstigmatised asunnatural, abnormal, delinquent and

hence irrational and are rigorously excluded and marginalized (FR: 73-74).

The particular fimction that the capitalist truth regime plays in this regard istwo fold First itstandardises

and normalises behaviour. It then presents that behaviour asthe 'correct' and 'right' behaviour. Hence making

surethatindividuals accept itftom within and itisnot seen as imposed ftom above. Second1y, it invents/evolves

proceduresItechniques togain access to individuals and populations. The purpose isto render them manageable.

The capit al is t t ru th regime creates the normative t ruth about individuals and populat ions . However i t a lso

provides the resources needed tohave access totheir factual truths. The truth of individuals and populations in

both senses isneeded tomaintain their productivity and manageabili ty atthe same time.

The central theme ofthetechniques ofcorrection and education isself-discipline. This istheessence of

discip1inarytechnologies and discipline is impossible without self-discipline. Self-discipline is made possible

through the production ofa soulwithin every individual. This soul isthe effect of the production of the truth of

an individual (mboth senses) andof theemployment ofthe techniques ofobservation, surveillanceand conection.

The truth regime is productive in this sense and isdirectly related tocapitalist production.

,

The capitalist soul isnot achimera oril lusion but areal effect ofthe microphysics ofpunitive power and

the general form of power der ived f tom i t The capit al is t soul i sproduced through a privi leged access tothCi

truth ofindividuals. The truth regime literally produces capitalist individuality. The capitalist soul iswhat makes

possible sel f- surrender to the logic of capit al (DP: 29-30). As Foucaul t put s i t: The man descr ibed for us,

whom we are invited toftee, isalready inhimself the effect of a subjection much more profound than himself.

A 'soul ' inhabit s him and brings him toexis tence, which i s i t se lf a fac tor in the mas tery tha t power exerc ises

over the body. The soul i s the effec t and ins trument ofa pol it ical anatomy; the soul i s the pri son of the body

(DP: 30, emphasis added). Thecapitalist truth regime through the production ofthe capitalist soul pre-structures

any exercise offu:edom ftom withinhenoe fulfilling thedual needs ofmaximising utility and docility.

28

MARKETFORCES - JANUARY2006

Jf11


4/6

FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY : A RECONSTRUCTION

RESEARCH

11I .3 The Capital is t Sta te

The s ta te may be def ined as the s truc ture oflegit imate obediences. Foucaul t uses the word s ta te in

two senses: l imited and broad. The l imited sense of the word s ta te cor responds tothe ensemble ofcoercive

and administrative insti tutions, what Foucault calls inrtitutionr ofpower (HS: 141 emphasis retained). But

Foucault claims that these great insti tutions ofpower are supplemented byand depend upon the rudiment of

anatomo - and bio-pol it ics created. . . as techniques ofpower present a tevery level of the socia l body and

utilised byverydiverse insti tutions (the family and the army, school and the police, individual medicine and the

administration ofcollective bodies). . . (HS: 141emphasis inoriginal). Foucault's insight isthattbe structures

ofIegitimate obediences are notonIy saturated inthe 'institutions ofpower' but onthe other band are permeated

throughout the social body. The penetration of these structures (relations) ofIegitimateobediences was made

possible bythe invention ofwhat Foucault interchangeably calls society and population. Population isdefined

as a group ofbeings l iv ing ina given area (pPC: 83) . Thus socie ty can beunders tood as individuals in thei r

relations.

The i nnovat ion of th e bou rgeo is ie was t o c rea te th es e concep ts and t urn t hem in to t he obj ec t o f

gove rnment I twas s ai d th at gove rnment not onl y has t odea l w it h a t err ito ry , w ith a doma in and w it h i t:

subjects, but that i talso has todeal with acomplex and independent reali ty thathas itsown laws and mechanisms

of reaction, i ts regulation as well as its possibili ties of disturbance. This new reali ty issociety (FR: 242). The

society and population as theobject ofgovernment provide the way ofpenetration fortbestructures ofIegitimate

obediences (power relat ions) deep into the socia l body. Incapi ta li st soc ie ti e power relat ions are rooted in

the sys tem ofsocial networks (SP: 224). I t i s through these power relat ions rooted inthe sys tem of socia l

networks and i ts a ll ied micro ins ti tu tions such as the school, the hospi ta l, e tc , tha t the s ta te has been able to

have access toand the abi li ty to s truc ture relat ionships (SP: 224). Ina s imilar fashion i t is through the power

relat ions rooted inthe sys tem ofsocial networks tha t the s ta te has been able to have access toand s truc ture

relations between self and self i .e. toindividualise (SP: 214).

I t i s h e re t ha t we a rr iv e at t he s econd and br oade r concept ion o f t he st ate . I n t hi s b roader sens e t he

s ta te would inc lud~ both the s ta te in the res tr ic ted sense and the whole sys tem ofsocial networks. Thi s can be

fur therelaboratedlunderstood with reference totheconcept ofgovernment Whi le s ta te in the l imited sense

cor responds totherest ri ct ed sense ofgovernment asan ins ti tu tion (SP: 224), the s ta te in the broader sense of

the word corresponds tothe broader sense ofthe government toinclude both the govenunent ofthe individual

(government ofindividuali sa tion) and the government ofpopula tion. The s ta te in the broader sense i snot an

insti tution but a particular rationali ty of government, a form ofpolit ica1 power(pPC: 24). It isto this broader

sense oftbe state that Foucau1t isreferring when hewrites: ... sincethe sixteenthcentuIyanew politica1form

of power has been continuously developing. This new polit ical structure

.. .isthestate (SP:213). Itisinthis

sense tha t thes tate has been the condi tion of the formation and development ofcapi ta li sm and can be termed

as the capitalist state.

The capit al is t s ta te i sa total ly new phenomenon inthe known his tory of s ta tehood. The way thi s i sso

can be understood bycontrasting the capitalist state with the forms of state that existed before.

As against feudal socie ti es where the s ta te was essenti al ly separated f rom the individual and socie ty , in

the modem period this separation between state and society cannot bemaintained. Infeudal societies the state

functioned largely innegative terms inthe sense that i ts basic relationship with individuals and society wasthat

MARKET FORCES -JANUARY 2006

.l

(' J

,

29

RESEARCH

FOl'CA liLT . .\ :' oiDCAP ITA L\ST R.\' n 0 ;' , AU I \ :AK~L\J I I ' I K IA 11\

ofprohibit ion and inhibit ion (HS: 135). The stale in feudal societies did not possess nor did itneed the power

over individuals and the social body that isthe hallmark of the present times. The power the state possessed

over the individual and society was essentially negative (HS: 136). The feudal stale swings between the two

extremes of taking lifeor letting live, i thas nopower over lifein itsposit ivity. Nor has itany interest inseeking

such apower. The feudal s ta te 's relat ion to l ifehasbeen pure negat iv ity (HS: 136).

;,

A new form of s ta te has , however , emerged inthe capit al is t e ra . I f the previous form of s ta te swung

between extremes of taking life orlett ing livethis new state assigns itself the task oflife administration (HS:

136). Power in the capitalist state isnot exercised in the name ofthe sovereign who must bedefended but

inthe name of the existence of everyone , inthe name ofthe entire population . The modem capitalist state

takes the responsibil ity for and guarantees the individual's continued existence byassuming the right to

manage l ife. Thus modem sta le power i s exerc ised at the level ofl ife, the species , the race, and the large

sca le phenomenon ofpopula tion (HS: 137). Whi le the feudal s ta te was centred on the phenomenon of

death, the capitalist state iscentred on life; i t legit imises itself as the manager oflife (HS: 138).

The change i n t he natu re o f t he st ate men ti oned above has w idened i ts amb it to in cl ude ' lif e' in i ts

totality. Inthis sense the capitalist state includes 'every thing' [this corresponds to the early modem concept

of'poli ce ' as found inCameral ism and Gennan Polizeiwissenchaft (pPC: 79) ]. Thus the capit al is t s ta te i sa

'totalising' force inthe manner the feudal state wasnot Itmust administer l ifeas a whole. What Meszaros has

written about the totalising character ofcapital isequally true of the capitalist state9: (I)he capital system is

(the) first one inhistory which insti tutes itself asan unexceptionable and irresistible totaliser . . . . (1995: 41),

Capitalist state power , Foucault writes, is both an individualising and a totalising [read socialisingJ

form ofpower. Never , I th ink, in thehi story ofhuman socie ti es -even intheold Chinese socie ty - has there

been such a tricky combination inthe same political structureofindividualising techniques, and oftotalisation

procedures (SP: 213). Nothing escapes the capitalist state. 10

IV. Conclusion

The re a re two pos sible ways of under st anding the r elat ionship between the r eg imes of the a ccumulat ion

o f me n and t he acc umu la ti on o f c ap it al . O ne v iew i s th at r el at io ns a re e xt em a1 t o c on cep ts a nd h en ce cont in ge nt

A cc or di ng t o t hi s v iew we woul d not h av e t o c on ce pt ua ll y l ook fu rt her t ha n d esc ri bi ng h is to ri cal ly how t he se

two d if fer en t r eg ime s i nt er ac ted t hr oughou t h is to ry . T hi s i s n ot a Fou ca uI di an p er sp ect iv e. F ou cau lt 's an al ys is

point s towards primordia l r el at ion between the two regimes

-

t he r el at ion tha t makes the ir c ontingent h is tori ca l

relation possible.

Ou r b ri ef su rv ey o f t he r eg im e o f t he a ccumu la ti on o fm en , as a nal yse d by Fouca u1 t, p oi nt s t o a si ng le

Qonclusion.

Freedom is the condition that makes possible the primordial /ink between the regimes of

capital accumulation and the regime of the accumulation of men. The su bjectivisation regime works on

t he c ondi ti on o ff reedom. A ca pi tal is t s ub jec ti vi ty c anno t b e c ons ti tu te d wi th ou t f reedom. The ma nag eme nt o f

t hi s su bj ect iv it y i s a ls o impos si bl e wi th ou t fr eedom. F ree dom i s t he me an s t o p rodu ce a s ub ject iv it y wh ic h i s

c ap ab le o f max imi si ng u ti li ty w it hout m ak ing i t t oo d if fi cu lt t o ma nag e. S imi la rl y t he ca pi ta li st t rU th r eg im e

wo rk s on t he as sump ti on t hat d isc ip li ne mu st b e u lt imat el y b as ed on s el f- di sci pl in e. O th erwi se i nd iv id ua ls

an d popu lation s can not b e managed witho ut hamperin g prod uctiv ity. On ce again freedom seems to be th e

cent ral co ndition of the wh ole process. An d fin ally, the state do es not co ntrol th ro ugh rep ression. It does not

cont ro l t hro ugh d educt io n. I tmanag es t hr ough d is semi na ti on and mu lt ip li cat io n. I t i s b ase d on t he s tr at egy o f

30 i\IARKET FORCES

-

JANUARY 2006

l


5/6

FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTION

RESEARCH

l if e enhancement and empowerment r athe r than cur ta ilment I t c urt ai ls through enhancement and empowerment

Here again freedom seems to be the condition of the working of the modem capitalist state. It manages

i nd iv id ual s a nd pOpul at io ns on t he c ondi ti on t ha t i tw il l i ncr eas e t hei r&ee dom and i t p re suppos es t hat th ey ar e

already treeOn ly t hen i s i t p os si bl e t o d ev el op popula ti on s t hat a re max imi si ng t he ir u ti li ty a nd p rodu ct iv it y and

are manageable atthe same time. .

I fmy account above i scorrec t i tmakes the cor re la tion between the regime of the accumulat ion of

capital and the accumulation of men clear. Capitalism is both a polit ical and an economic order. It isbased on

the condition of&eedom because &eedom provides on both sides an indispensable element that isthe condition

for making the dual elements of productivity and manageabili ty, uti li ty and docility possible. It istrue for both

the regime ofcapital accumulation and theregirne ofthe accumulation ofmeo. Markets worlc onthe premise of

&eedom but they need tobe managed so thatthis freedom isused tomaximise utili ty without making the whole

system unmanageable. Similarly the regime ofthe accumulation of men needs toaccumulate individuals and

populations without making them unmanageable. Freedom isneeded tomanage both markets and populations

trom within. As Foucault clearly saw these two systems are interrelated and conditioned oneach other. However

this correlation ispossible only because both regimes arebased on,and conditioned upon, something primordial.

That something is freedom.

'iOTES

I. Or to be more precise even when they discuss the .capitalism'.sideof theequation they tend to focus

the ir analysi s on the ' regional ' aspects hence avoiding grand themes l ike capit al ism. A tendency which

certainly has basis inFoucault's own writings.

2.On a & b see DP: 137-138.

3. On Foucault's views on order see, OT: xxi-xxii.

4 . For Heidegger 's concept ion ofpr imordial ity see BT and also Inwood (1999: 150-153).

5. This iswhyradica1 democracy is impossible within capitalism.

6. I am not implying here tha t these t radi tions are exclusive . Infact Kant provides a l ink toboth .

7 .Obviously thi s i s not to imply tha t in acapi ta li st sys tem power i snever imposed &om above. This i snot

th e c as e, What I am t ry ing t oa rgue is t ha t t hi s is not th e p rimar y and ba sic mode o fmanagement i n a

capitalist system.

8.This is Heideggerpure and simple. Cf.BT sections 43-44 andMulhall, 1996:94-104 forlucid and

excellentexpositionofHeidegger's basicinsighton this.

9 . This is du e to the fact th at the underlying rationality is the same.

I

I

I

I

I

I'

:t \)

10. Th is i s t he amb it io n o f t hi s st at e, i ts n at ur e.

\IARKET FORCES -.JANUARY 2006

~.

-.--

RESEARCH

FOUCAULT Ai\D CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECOi\STRUCTION

References

Rober t Brandom (2000) Art iculat ing reasons : an int roduct ion toinferent ia li sm (Cambridge, Mass. ;

London: Harvard University Press, 2000).

Robert Brandom (1994) Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment

(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UniversityPress, 1994.).

Graham Burchell et a leds (1991) The Foucaul t effec t: s tudies in govemmenta1ity, with two lec tures

by and an inteniewwith Michel Foucaul t Chicago: Univers ity ofChicago Press

Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow (1983) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics

Chicago Chicago University Press.

Michael Foucaul t (1984) The Foucaul t Reader ed. P.Rabinow Harmondswor th Penguin . (FR]

Michael Foucaul t (1979) The His tory ofSexual ity voL 1:An Int roduct ion London Penguin . [HS]

Michael Foucaul t (1977) Discipl ine and Punish: the bir th of pri son London Penguin (DP)

Michel Foucault The Order ofThings: An Archaeology of Human Sciences (New York:Random

House, 1970). (OT]

Michae l Foucault (1980 ) Power Knowledge: s el ect ed in te rvi ew s and o ther w ri ti ng s 1972-1977 ed. C

Gordon New York Pantheon. (PK) ,

Michael Foucaul t (1988) Pol it ics, Phi losophy, Cul ture : interviews and other wri tings 1977-1984 ed.

Lawrence D. Kritzman New York Routledge. (pPC)

Micheal Foucaul t (1983) The Subject and Power as aft erwards toDreyfus and Rabinow 983. (SP]

Michel Foucault (1994) Oits et ecrits 1954-1988 eds. Daniel Defert and Fran~ois Ewald Paris Gallimard.

Mar tin Heidegger (1996) Being and t ime: a t rans la tion ofSein und Zei t ; .t rans la ted by Joan Stambaugh.

Albany, NY: State University ofNew York Press.(BT)

Michaellnwood (1999) A Heidegger dictionary Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

I st avon Meszaros (1995) Beyond Capital London Mer lin.

/'

Stephan MuIha1l (1996) Routledge phi losophy guidebook to Heidegger and Being and t ime London;

New York :Rout ledg~, 1996.

MARKET FORCES - JANUARY 2006

31

32

I,

I

I


6/6

FOUCAULT AND CAPITALISTRATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTION

RESEARCH

Nicholas Rose (1993) Towards a Critical Sociology of Freedom Inaugural Lecture delivered on 5 May

1992 at Goldsmith College University of London Goldsmiths College Occasional Paper.

Nicholas Rose et al eds. (1996) Foucault and Political,Reason London UCL Press.

Paul Veyne (1997) The Final Foucault and His Ethics inArnold I. Davidson ed. Foucault and his

Interlocutors LondonChicagoUniversity Press, 1997.

\IARKET FORCES - JANUARY 2006

33

FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTIONibre

Documents

Transcript of FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTIONibre