inventing ourselves
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/25/2019 Inventing ourselves
1/4
Inventing our selves
- . . the latter. But Foucault conceives of power
ivity within (ces
_from
the
macro
to
the
micro _
throuashthat
.
-'hicb
t
152
verses
a: ; : a ~ : e r e d , held in check, administered,
steered, g ~ i d : ~
P e r s o ~
are r ~ l ~ ~ h e y are led by
o t h ~ r s or have come
to
direct or
reguJat by
means
o f ~ h i c Foucault, 1979a;
Miller and
Rose, 1988,
1990 . To anal ~ t h e 1 r o 1 i
actions (
the self
and power,
then, is
not a matter of
lay the
reJa.
t
ons between . mentin
.
h h our autonomy is
suppressed by
the
state,
but
0
r
1
. 8 the
ways m
w
ic .
nvestigar
. which subiectivity has become an essential
obiect
t iog
the
ways m
J
d d
J
arget a
f
Ce
rtain
strategies,
tactics,
an
proce
ures
of
regulation
nd
resource
or
d
d
h
h
.
der
the
terms
that are
a c c o ~ e
so ig
a
political value .
To cons1 b l h . . m
our
ton
omv fulfillment, respons1 J ity, c 01ce - from thispers .
present - au
Pect1ve
. .
1
to question whether
they mark
a
kmd of culmination oferb
is certam Y . . ica
l
t
. But
this
does
not unply that
we
should
subject
these
terms t
evo u
10n.
. . . . o a
. . 'or example bv cla1mmg that the rhetonc of reedom 1s an ideoJ .
cnt1que, , 08J
l ask for the workmgs
of
a pol1t1cal system that secretly demes it.
Wi
~ : o : : d
rather, examine the ways
in which
t b e ~ e
ideals
of
the
self
are
boun:
up
with
a profoundly
a m b i ~ u o u s
set
of relat10ns
between human subjects
and
political
power.
Following Foucault, I have
suggested
that we use the
term government as a portmanteau notion to encompass the multiple strat-
egies, tactics, calculations,
and
reflections that have sought to
conduct
the
conduct of human beings (Foucault, 1986a; Gordon,
1986,
1987;
see this
volume, especially Chapters
1 and 2 .
We
can explore these relations along three interlinked dimensions.
The
first
dimension,
roughly political , Foucault
termed
governmentality ,
or
'men-
talities of
government : the
complex of notions, calculations,
strategies,
and
tactics through which diverse authorities - political, military, economic,
theological, medical, and so forth - have sought to act upon the lives
and
conducts
of
each and
all
in
order to
avert
evils and achieve such desirable
states as health, happiness,
wealth, and tranquillity (Foucault, 1979b).
From
at least the eighteenth century, the
capacities of humans,
as subjects, as
citi
zens,
as individuals, as selves, have emerged
as a central target and
resource
for
authorities.
Attempts
to
invent
and
exercise
different
types
of
political
rule have b 1
een
mt1mate Y lmked
to conceptions of
the nature
of
those who
are to be
ruled The auto b. . .
th
.
h .
nomous su ~ e c t I V t y
of the
modern
self
may
seem
e antJt es1s
ofpolif
J
ratio f h .
ica
power. But Foucault s argument suggests an explo
n o
t
e
ways
m
whi h th. . . . . l
feature
of
c
is
autonom1zat1on
o the self is itself
a centra
Th c o n t ~ m p o r a r y
governmentality.
e second dunension
s
d
tional . However .t . uggeste by Foucault s writings is roughly institu-
l
I entads constru1 . . . . .
ea
way,
that
is
t ,
ng mst1tut1ons
m a particular
technolog1-
th
0
say,
as
human
tech
1
rough
the
asylum to
th no
og1es .
Inst1tut1ons
from the
pnson,
as practices
that put
le
workplace, the
school and the home
can e seen
the
hum b m P ay certain a . .
th d . an eings that inhab
t h
ssumpt10ns
and
ob1ect1ves concerrung
e esign
of
institutional
1
t em (Foucault, 1977). These
are
embodied in
space, the arrangements
of institutional time
and
-
7/25/2019 Inventing ourselves
2/4
overning nt rprising individuals
153
d
es of
reward
and
punishment,
and the
operation of systems
vitY
proced
. u ~ g m e n t s .
They
can
be
thought
of
as
'technological'
in that
acu an
JU . f h . . .
of
r t n ~ the
c a \ c u \ a t ~ d
orchestration o .t
e
act1v1t1es of humans under a
neY
see
. na\ity directed toward certain goals. They attempt to simulta
t .
a\
ratio
. . . f . d' d
pracuc
maximize
certain capac1t1es o
1n
i v ~
uals
and constrain others in
neous\y with particular knowledges (medical, psychological, pedagogic)
rdance d ( .b' l' d' . . . .
acc
0
toward
particular en s respons1 11ty, 1sc1phne, diligence, etc.).
In
what
and d
with
what consequences are
our
contemporary notions of subjec
~ a y s
a ~ o n o m y
and enterprise
embodied within
the
regulatory practices
of
a
uve au , ( . f )
. .
tive\y
'modern iorm o lle.
dtsunc . .
r
. . . f
The third ~ \ ~ e n s 1 o n ior 1 n v e s t 1 g a t ~ o n . o the o e ~ self corresponds to a
h\y 'ethical fie\d, 1nsof
ar as
ethics is understood
in
a 'practical' way as
roug
. d . '
odes
of eva\uat1ng
an
acting upon oneself that have
obtained
in different
~ i s t o r i c a periods (Foucault, l 986a,
1 9 8 8 ~
see my discussion in Chapter l
of
this
vo\ume).
Foucault examined these in terms
of
what
he
called 'technolog
ies of
the
self', techniques which permit individuals
to
effect by their own
means
or with the he\p
of
others
a
certain number
of
operations
on
their own
bodies
and souls, thoughts, conduct
and
way
of
being, so as to transform
themselves in order to
attain
a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom,
perfection, or immortality (Foucault, 1988,
p.
18). Ethics are thus under
stood
as means by which individuals come to construe, decipher, act upon
themselves in relation to the true
and
the false, the permitted and the forbid
den, the desirable and the undesirable. Along this dimension, then,
we
would
consider the ways in which the contemporary culture of autonomous subjec
tivity
has been embodied
in
our
techniques for understanding and improving
our
selves in relation to that which is true, permitted, and desirable.
'Enterprise culture'
can be
understood in terms of the particular connec
tions that
it
establishes between these three dimensions. For enterprise links
up a seductive ethics of the self, a powerful critique of contemporary institu
tional and political reality,
and an apparently coherent design for the radical
transformation of contemporary social arrangements. In the ~ t i n g s of ne.o
\iberals' like Hayek and Friedman, the well-being of both poht1cal and social
existence is to be ensured not by centralized planning and u r e a u c r a c ~ but
through the 'enterprising' activities and choices of a u o ~ o ~ o u s ent1t1es
businesses, organizations, persons - each striving to max1m1ze ~ t s ~ : ' n advan-
. t by means of tnd1v1dual and
tage by inventing and promoting new pro3ec s
local calculations of strategies and tactics, costs and benefits H a y ~ k , l9_76
;
nose
1993) Neohberalism
Fnedman
\982
for an extended d1scuss1on, see N '
' ' f r l h1losophy It
const1-
is thus more than a phenomenon at the level o po itica P . . ld
f how authonties shou use
tutes a mentality of government, a
co1:1ception
. h ds they should
their powers in order to improve national well-being, t e en d .
. h th y should use, an '
cruc1a
y,
seek, the evi\s they should avoid, t e means e
e nature of the persons upon whom they m ~ s t ~ c : . . n g a political rationality
Enterprise is such a potent language for art1cu a
1
-
7/25/2019 Inventing ourselves
3/4
54
Inventing our selves
because
it
can
connect
up
these general political defbe .
. i th . 1 J ration .
mulation of speci c programs at simu taneousJy b s WJth tb
d
.ffi .
pro
leni
. e o
tional practices
in
many
i
erent
socia
ocales,
and
p .
at1ze
o r o ~
.
r
. h Th
rovide
r . O' lllQ
g
uidelines
for transforming
t
em.
e vocabulary
of
ent . attonales
b ' 1 d
erpnse
th alld
a political rationality to e
trans
ate into attempts to us
enab'--
.
1
h govern
JtS
S
ocial economic,
and
persona
existence
t
at
have come to asPects
f
'
1
d .
k
appear o
atl
c Enterprise here not on y esignates a ind of oraanizat Problem.
0
Jona/ fo
individual units
competing
with one another on the market b
t
nn,Wirb
d
f
' u
tnore
ally
provides an
image
of a rno e o
activity to be
encouraaed . g ~ e r .
1 h
. . h
c
m
amuJtu
of arenas of
life -
the schoo t
e university,
t
e hospital,
the GP de
. .
h
s
surge
the factory and business o r g a n 1 z a t 1 0 ~ t e. am1 y, and the apparatus of
welfare. Organizations
are
problernat1zed in terms of their lack of ent
~ J a J
k d h
erpnse
which epitomizes their wea nesses
an
t eir ia1 ings. CorrelativeJv th
. d 1 . h J ey are
to be reconstructed by promoting an ut1
iz1ng
t e enterprising
capaciti
each
and all,
encouragin.g them to conduct
the 11selves with b o l d n e s s ~ :
vigor, to calculate for their
own advantage
to dnve themselves hard
and
t
accept risks
in
the pursuit
of
goals. Enterprise can thus be given a
t e c h n o l o g ~
ical
form by experts
of
organizational life,
engineering human
relations
through architecture, timetabling, supervisory systems, payment schemes
curricula,
and
the like to achieve economy, efficiency,
excellence,
and compet-
itiveness. Contemporary regulatory practices - from those
which
have sought
to revitalize the civil and public services by remodelling them as private or
pseudoprivate agencies with budgets and targets to those which have
tried
to
reduce long-term unemployment by turning the unemployed individual
into
an active job seeker - have been transformed
to
embody
the
presupposition
that
humans
are, could
be or
should be enterprising individuals, striving
for
fulfillment, excellence, and achievement.
Hence
the
vocabulary
of
enterprise links political rhetoric and regulatory
p r ~ g r a 1 1 s to
the
self-steering capacities
of subjects
themselves. Along this
third
dimension
of political
rule,
enterprise forges a link between the ways
w ~ are governed by others and the ways we should govern ourselves. Enter-
f e ~ ~ ~ b ; : e
d e s i ~ n ~ ~ e s an array.
f
rules
for t ~ e
conduct
of
one s
v e r y d a ~ ~ ~ i s
.
e r ~ . JnJt1at1ve
ambition, calculat1on, and personal respons1bi11ty.
The enterpns1ng self wi mak . f . . . . .
. e
an
enterpnse o its life seek to max1m1ze
1ts
own
human
capital
t
be '
pro1ect itself a
future
and
seek
to shape itself in order
0
come that which it h
active self and a
1
1
~ i s es to be.
The enterprising self
is thus both an
ea cu
at1ng
self.
lf
h .
acts upon itself
1
n d a se t at calculates about itself and that
~
er
to bette t
lf.
E
0
rm of
rule
that is intrinsicall ~
1
s ~ , nterpnse that is to say, designates a
n
the
ways
in
which Y
ethical: good government is to be grounded
For many critics t h ~ e r s o n s govern themselves.
apoth
is vocabulary f .
Such
eosts
of the
'capitalist
illu . ,
0
enterprise JS obfuscating rhetoric:
the
a r t i c u ~ ~ a s s e s s ~ e n t
is facile.
T ~ ~ o ~
that
persons
are sovereign individuals .
tng
eth1caJ
presupposit. anguage
of enterprise
is only
one
way
of
ions
that a .
re very widely shared; that have
-
7/25/2019 Inventing ourselves
4/4
overning
enterprising individu ls
155
mmon ground for almost all rationalities, programs
and
e
o
fortn
a
in advanced liberal
democratic
societies.
G o v e m m ~ n t
in
cotfl
. s of ru . d b h . d
r b l l 1 q u ~ . . not characterize y t e utopian ream
of
a regulative ma-
ieues
is
.
f
h . l b
such
soCthat
will penetrate a r e g 1 ~ n s o t
1
e
soc1ha
?dy, and administer them
chioerY on good. Rather, since
at
east t e nineteenth century, liberal
for
~ ~ : ; ; g h t
bas been structured by the opposition between the consti
p01 1uc
11
. .,.,its of government
on
the one hand and on the
other
the desire
t ona hu h . l d .
tll ~ r r a n g e things s u e ~ t d ~ t socia ~ c o n o m c processes turn out for the
to . hout the need ior irect po it1ca
intervention
(Rose and Miller 1992)
b St
w1t
. . .
h f h .
Thus
the
formal
h ~ 1 u t a t ~ o n s
ofn
td
.e
powedrs
o t
estate
have entailed,
s
their
corollary,
the
prohf r ~ t 1 o n o ~ . ~ p e r s e a ~ r a y ~ f
programs
and mechanisms,
d
upled from the direct acttv1t1es
of
the pubhc powers, which nonetheless
eco .
h d .
mise
to shape events in t e
omains
of work,
the
market and the fam-
pro
h bl l
ily to
produce sue
pu 1c va ues
as wealth, efficiency, health, and well-
being
.
The autonomy
of
the . e l ~ is thus.not the eternal antithesis
of
political
power, but one
of
the ob1ect1ves and instruments
of modem
mentalities
and
strategies
for the conduct
of
conduct.
Liberal democracy, if understood as
an
art of government and a technology
of
rule, has long been bound up with
the
invention of techniques
to
constitute the citizens
of
a democratic polity
with
the personal capacities and aspirations necessary to bear the political
weight that rests on them (Rose, 1993). Governing in a liberal-democratic
way
means governing through the freedom and aspirations of subjects rather
than in spite
of
them. The possibility
of
imposing liberal limits
on
the extent
and scope of political rule has thus been provided by a proliferation of
discourses, practices, and techniques through which self-governing capabili
ties
can be installed
in
free individuals in order
to
bring their own ways
of
conducting and evaluating themselves into alignment with political objec
tives.
A potential, if always risky
and
failing, solution to the problem of the
regulation of private spheres produced by liberal democratic political
m ~ n -
talities has thus been provided through the proliferation ofexperts r o u n d ~ g
their authority
on
knowledge
and
technique: medics, social workers,
J ? S Y C ~ a -
trists, psychologists, counselors,
and
advisers (Rose,
1987
.
Govei:n1ng
in a
liberal democratic way depends
upon
the availability
of
u e ~
_echniques that
will shape, channel, organize, and direct the. e ~ s ~ n a l c a p a c 1 ~ 1 e s and
e l v e ~
of
individuals under the aegis
of
a claim to ob1ect1v1ty, n e u t r a l ~ t y , ~ n d t e c ~ r u c a l
efficacy rather than one
of
political partiality. T h ~ o u ~ h the ~ ~ r r e c t an::e:s
established by the apparatus
of
expertise, the objectives of h b e r ~ l , ~ . -
1
.
th
the selves of democratic citizens.
ment
can be brought into. a ig1;1ment
w1
been made both thinkable
And contemporary mutations 1n government have be
and practicable by the u l t i t u d ~ of
e c h n o l o ~ i e s
~ h : ~ ; ~ ~ n ~ ; a u : : n ~ : =
bled for enjoining and emplacing the regu ate r
selves.