Discourse, Foucault

7/28/2019 Discourse, Foucault

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discourse-foucault 1/34

The "Paradox" of Knowledge and Power: Reading Foucault on a BiasAuthor(s): Tom KeenanSource: Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Feb., 1987), pp. 5-37Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191718 .

Accessed: 07/06/2013 14:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 5.14.1.196 on Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:26:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/191718?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/191718?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage



FOUCAULTIANPOLITICS

I. THE "PARADOX" OFKNOWLEDGE AND POWER:

ReadingFoucault on a Bias

TOM KEENANYale University

What f houghtreedtselfromommonense nddecidedothinknlyt theextremeoint f ts ingularity?hat f tmischievouslyracticedhebiasofparadox, nsteadf omplacentlycceptingts itizenshipn he oxa?Whatf tthoughtifferenceifferentially,nsteadf earchingut he ommonlementsunderlyingifference?'

In a series f mportantrticles ver hepast everal ears,omeofMichelFoucault'sbest nterpretersave repeatedlyeturnedo apowerful,ndparadoxical,riticism.oucault,hanksohis nnovativerethinkingf the nterplayetween elations f force power) ndrelationsfcognitionknowledge)nder he erm ower-knowledge,hasremovedhe asis or he racticaloliticalinkagef he wo. oomuch,t eems,snot nough.

This objections forcefullyummarizedn Jurgen abermas's

economicalittleormula:Why ight?" abermas eels hat oucault"cannotnswer"his uestion,he question f henormativeasis fhis ritique,"reciselyn ccountfhis uspicionsbout he mplicationofknowledgenpowerelationsfor nstance,he normalizing"ims f

AUTHOR'S NOTE: A version f this rticlewas initially rittenor and deliveredt apanel called "The Paradox of Knowledge nd Power" at the 1985 AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociationmeeting.Thanks to those on thepanel-Fred Dallmayr,FolkeLindahl,Diane Rubenstein, nd Stephen chneck-and to BillConnolly, om Dumm,and ElissaMarder ortheir omments.

POLITICAL THEORY, Vol. 15No. 1, February 9875-37? 1987Sage Publications,nc.

5







6 POLITICAL THEORY / FEBRUARY1987

power-knowledgeetworks).oucault'sredicamenttemsrom hatHabermas eems ofind n admirableesture:oucault'sonsistentrefusal togivea status o theother"to install he other nditsknowledges thenegationfthe ame, hus educingtsalterityomanageabler integrableroportions)n order to defend imselfagainst naturalisticetaphysicshichdealizesounter-powerntopre-discursiveeferent."2aving one o,however,oucault annotexplain ow negets othe fight"the xercisefforcenresistance)fromome why"a rightased n reason rtruth).Where oucaultwouldeem ohave nowledgendpowerinkedstightlyspossible,gapor"aporia" pens p, nsidehe houghtfpower-knowledge.3

Nancy raser iagnoseshe roblems"normativeonfusion."heis willing,erhapsmore o thanHabermas,o takeup Foucault's"empiricalnsights"nto hepositivityfpower elations,ut he lsoworries bout the tendencyf theseunderstandingso turnonthemselvesndundercutheir wndeployment.heproblemsagainoneof rossinggap:Fraserwantsoknow howFoucault] ot romthe uspensionf he uestionf heegitimacyfmodernowero his]engaged ritique f bio-power."Whileraising he prospecthatFoucaulthinkse s politicallyngagedet tillomehowormativelyneutral,"he does not thinknormlessngagementossible:His"rejectionfhumanism.. puts oucaultn he aradoxicalositionfbeing nable oaccount or r ustifyhe orts fnormativeoliticaljudgments emakes ll thetime-for xample,discipline's a badthing." gain, he poria eems oneutralizeranarchizection ydisconnectingnowledgeromhenormshat ranslatet nto orce.4

Charles aylor grees hat hispositionsparadoxical. oucaultobviouslyisjointshat ayloralls he standardink" etweenowerand knowledgend underminesthefamiliarerrainof] an oldEnlightenment-inspiredombination."Thistandardiew f he ombina-tion ounds hegesturefpoliticalritiquenthe ssentiallyognitivenaturefpower: ower,nderstoodsdominationr hempositionfconstraint,orks y fraud,llusion,alse retences,"y reventingurpurposes nd desires rom eachingulfillmentor perhaps

venformulation)ndthenmaskinghatfact.Becausedissimulationsessentialothe xercisefpower,ruthrknowledgedeterminedsunconcealment)anreversend rase hemposedrrorsndwithhemthe omination:Thenegationf he nedomination)akesssentialuseofthenegationftheotherdisguise)." ecausepower lready(ab)usesknowledge,ritiqueandeploygainstt "a truthhat reesus. "5







Keenan/ READINGFOUCAULTON ABIAS 7

Foucault eversesnd hreatensounhingehisssential,fnegative,articulation.ebracketshe ruth-erroristinctionithinregimesf

truth,"ndbinds hese egimesothe xercisefpower.He takes hecognitiveessence" fpower little oofar, erhaps,ndapparentlyconverts critical r dialectical egationbasedonopposition)ntosterile ierarchy,ven n identity.ecausehe insists n the"closeintrication"f truth,"atherhan rror,withystemsfdominance,"he canonly ee"truths subordinatedopower,"s "imposed yaregimefpower," o that theregimes identifiedntirely ithtsimposedruth." ence hefamiliarcheme inds tselfnvertedna

classic oucaultianhiasmus:he mpositionf he ne domination)makes ssentialse of the mpositionf theothertruth). ndthereverse o onger olds-"unmaskinganonly estabilizepower]; ecannot ringbout new table,reer,essmendaciousorm f tby hisroute."6

ThispositioneavesTaylor isconcerted,hough,ecause heres"unmasking."oucault'sworkdoes offermportantnsightsntomodern olitics; ndeed,his analyses re actively nd effectivelyinscribedncontemporarytrugglesrecall henfamousinsurrectionof ubjugatednowledges').utFoucaultwon'tndorse hese nowl-edges snorms,sgrounds or programmaticoliticaltruggle,orwill efindnthemnyGoodto beuniversallyffirmed.articipatingin strugglesertainlynvolves nowledge, ut thecontent f theknowledgeoes notvalidate he truggle.e offersnsights,utnotwhatTaylor allsa "critique,"herehenegation rovercomingfwhatscriticizedpromotesgood,"wherehe nmaskingsthe route"tobetterormsfpower. oucaultworriesboutnsurrectionsosed nterms fthe ruthhat rees s.And his esistanceototalization,oaffirmingome owersver thersased ntheir elativegain n ruthorfreedom,"nturn isorientsaylor.t leadshim o thebreakingpoint, thebreak nFoucault'shought,hepoint hatdisconcerts,where eadopts Nietzschean-derivedtancefneutralityetweenhedifferentistoricalystemsfpower, ndthus eems oneutralizeheevaluationshat rise utofhis nalyses."7

Foucault's eutralizationf he ower-knowledgeink nthis evel,even s onanother e eeminglyntricateshem othe oint f dentity,disturbshesehreeritics. herigor f heir orks to etusmeasurejust what s at stake n the "standard ink."Foucault's trangehyperbolizationndneutralizationeaves im n difficultredicament,as Taylor ees t: He dashesthehope .. that heres somegood wecanaffirms a result f heunderstandinghis]analyses iveus.And by he







8 POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY1987

same oken e eems oraise questionfwhetherrnot heres uchthings a way ut.This s ratheraradoxical...."8

It sa testimonyo he rgencyf he ssues hat aylornd he therschoose ot o inger opelessn hisporeticaradox,ut atherresentit as a question equiringmmediateesolution:ither oucault asrewrittenhe tandardefinitionsfpower ndknowledge,r heisincoherent.s thepossibilityf anothersemanticield"9 or hesefamiliarhilosophemessnotraised,he onclusionsunavoidable.fFoucault annot free isposition fthis aradox, eeminglyinkedwith he mpossiblettempto standnowhere,"henhis"positionultimatelys ncoherent."''0aradox, poria: opes ashed, oway ut.

Wecan endorsehese onclusions,ake hem t their ord, utnotthe easoninghat eads othem. etus agree hat oucault's ork nforms r ocalcentersfpower-knowledgeells he toryfa certainunhinging,breakncoherence,difficultyf oincidence,ven s itinsistshat othing ore han dashkeeps owerndknowledgepart.Buttheparadoxdoesnotarisefromonfusion,rresponsibility,revasion,r ven rom hat aylornjudiciouslyalls the og manatingfrom aris n recentecades."'"Ierhaps oucaultwasright hen ewarnednLa volontee avoir hat this ordowers ikelyo ead onumberfmisunderstandings."'2here heres incoherence,tdoesnot ome bout ecause oucaultndentifiesrhierarchizesower ndknowledge,rbecause eresistsffirmations,ut atherecause ehasputthe xistingsemanticields" fpower ndknowledge,nd withthemheirelations,nquestion.. because,n a "word,"f he ash,the that

eparatesnd oinspowernd

knowledge.Nowifthis neffaceablyaterialittle laceholderdashes our]hopes" or he amiliarnegative)ombination,f t eemsodefacehepicturefa good future e can affirm ith(in) urpresent nder-standing,f ts aradox r poriaeaves swith oway ut, hent snoaccident hat hisdifferanceftherelation omes o be thoughtnrhetoricalparadox,poria) ndtemporalaffirmation,ope) erms.3Formuch fWesternhought,he urden fmakinghe assage romknowledgeopower ndbackhasfallen ndiscourse,anguagensofaras t srhetorical-tropendpersuasion,ognitivend ctive,onstativeandperformative.nd he rossing ithinhetoricnevitablyaisesnits urn(s)he roblemf ime nd iming.ne hingsclear-we annotbegin oaddresshese uestions ithoutuspendinghepresupposedsemanticieldsf power" nd knowledge,"ithouteadinghe ash,itsrhetoric,ts emporality,tsmilitant ateriality.







Keenan /READING FOUCAULT ON A BIAS 9

What s a paradox?And what s at issue n calling hepower-knowledgeelationaradoxical? eginningoaddresshis equiresdetourhroughhe ieldfrhetoric,ecausehe uestionfparadoxsnothingfnotrhetorical.

We understandhetoric ere s a way of approachinganguagethatmphasizeshe trangenterplayetweents ognitiveossibilities(constative,nformative,escriptivetatements)nd ts active apa-bilitiesitspragmatic,erformative,rperlocutionaryorces) r, n

otherwords, he intersectionnd interferenceetweenrope ndpersuasion.4

What s a trope?n the section n rhetorict thebeginningfRaymondoussel,oucault urnso he ighteenth-centuryhetoricianDumarsais o defineanguagentermsf ts internal ovement,"s asystemftransformationsn which word rphrase anbedetachedfrom nemeaningrsignificationosettle nanother,as if t hadturned n itself o tracearound fixedpointa wholecircle fpossibilitiesthemeaning,'stheyaid)."ForDumarsais,'words reoftenurnedway detournes]romheirrimitiveeaningo ake nnew newhichmore r ess ivergesromtbut hat till as relationoit.Thisnewmeaningfwordss called heirropologicaleaning,ndwe call thisconversion,hisdetourwhich roducest,a trope.'Foucaultdds hat it s nthis pace fdisplacementtheturn'tour]andthedetour,'s Dumarsaisays) hat ll the iguresfrhetoricreborn."15

Thus nAristotle'sxampleAchilless a lion," heword ion smetaphoricallyetachedromts our-leggedild eferentnd eappliedto theHomeric ero, urnedroundhe ixed xisofresemblancehatcompareshetwocreaturesn terms ftheir hared trengthndferocity.he ropemakesomethingnown,rovides nowledgeboutAchilleshat an be verifiedrfalsified,ndexpands hereserve fpossible escriptions.ion means omethingew,now,but t onlymeans t to theextent hat tpreservestsbondto the"primitivemeaning." he resourcefulnessywhich anguage urns its ownpovertyntowealth"n this conomyfreuseworks n a principlefsubstitution:ordshange laces, tand n for achother,ross verfrom nemeaningoanother.hehegemonyfmeaningsfar rombeing uestioned:n the ontrary,hetorics designedoexploitheexchangeabilityfwords oexpand hehorizon fmeaning.







10 POLITICALTHEORY I FEBRUARY1987

Theeconomyfparadoxsexemplary,hen,nthattrecovershenegativityfa connectionor hepurpose fconveying positivemeaning oremphatically.he urn epends ot na comparison-resemblance,ontiguity,r omprehension-butn he bsence f uchaxes, on thelack of connection,n opposition. o whenPierreFontanier,arlyntheninteenthentury,ame oupdate umarsais'streatise,e ncludedhe iguref aradoxisme,hich is recursoradomitted,ith his efinition:

an rtificef anguageywhichdeas ndwords hichre rdinarilypposednd

self-contradictoryind hemselveseconciledndcombineduchthat,whileseemingoconflictndmutuallyxclude ach ther,heytrikehentellectiththeirmost urprisinggreementndproducehetruest,eepest,ndmostenergeticeaning.

Fontanierummarizedyreferenceo etymology:rom heGreekpara, gainst r ountero, nddoxa, pinionrbelief,paradoxsanideathat ontradictsmore enerallyccepteddea, npurpose. hetrope linksogetherordswhichppar oand, f akeniterallya la

lettre],eallywouldcontradicthemselves,ndthanks o thisverycontradiction,hroughmpliedrunderlyingntermediarydeas, . .admirablyscapesttoa more erfectarmony."'6ichard anhamhasrecentlyroposed his conomicalefinition:a seeminglyelf-contradictorytatement,hich et s shown o be (sometimesn asurprisingay) rue."'7

Common o these efinitionss notonly hepersuasiveffectfsurpriseroducedy he rope ut he ialecticalrick ithwhicht s

accomplished.herhetoricalaradox resentsnoppositionnordertodissolvet.Theoperationsbased na binaryystem:ppearancerreality,emblancer ssence,xplicitr mplicit,alse r rue, hereheextremityf he ppositionnthe evel fthe irstermliteral)eadsone ograsp unityntheevel f he econdfigurative).aradox, orthe hetoricians,sa matterf ppearance"seeming')nd ts rasure,andthe ropeworks y xaggeratinghe ppearanceofconflict)ndthenremovingt. Becausetheideas or words re symmetrically

opposed, necantaketheother s itsownnegationndreveal heunderlyingpresupposedutnotyet xplicit)mediationshatbringthemogether.ut he aradoxsrequirednorder obringhe onflictto thepointofself-resolution.ecauseonewants o much o say"either-or,"ohold o he oxa hat nemust etruend he theralse,theexperiencefthe ruthftheparadoxforcesheacceptancef"both-and,"he ranscendencefexclusion. hecontradictioneals







Keenan /READING FOUCAULT ON A BIAS II

itself,nce ts ifferencesindmediation;or ontanier,he uestionsfparadox re how o re-establishneby he xcess f he ther?,"willwefind,norder o supplementthegap]betweenhem,omethingimplied hich e-connectsne to theother,ffacingheirontrarietyand ncompatibility?"n atrue aradox, paradox f ruth,he nswerwillbeyes.Then heparadox, lways elf-effacing,anstep side oallow he nderlyingruthfharmonyopresenttsmore erfectnion.Theconflicts a step oward nity,n instrumentfthe ruth fthewhole, transferencell the morepowerfulince t proceeds ynegation.8

But, hetoricallypeaking,herere t east wo aradoxes. uriednor longsideach f hese efinitionssanother, ore adical,ersionfthecontradictionhere hedifferenceannot e eradicatedrinte-grated.ontaniereferso tas the isk f iteralism,ffailingoreadfiguratively:ead la ettre,ithoutecourseo omethingimplied,"contradictionill reveal nothingut puregibberishgalimatias],nothing ut a bizarre nd monstrousoupling fdiscordantndsenseless ordsvide esens], rofwordstcross-purposesa contre-sensj."'9 hisparadox uffersrom kind fcommunicationreak-down:Thedifferenterms anfindno common round, o sharedcenter,othird erm rtonguentowhichheyanbetranslatedndtheirifferencesvercome. hat s ost,withoutecourseo emblance,is the bilityorecoverhe ontradictions a symmetricalne, oshowthattnevereally as contradictionut nlynagreementaitingobeuncovered,meaning aitingo beforcefullynderlined. ithoutthenegativityfappearance, ontanieruggests,here s only heabsence vide]of meaning, r worse, ontre-sens,ctive onflict,countersense,omethingorkinggainst r nterferingithmeaning.Where,n he aseof he estheticaradox,he xcess f ne stablishedtheother,nd thegapbecame hemeasure, ere he xcess s itselfexcessive. hecouplingsforced:Where toughtoprovideusttheextra nergyo ecurehe ffectfunification,ere tproves nrecov-erable. henegativeppearancehat nthe irstasedriveshe onflicttowardharmonyannotbe overcome.he transfernterferes.heeither-orersists,ndresistsot nlyts ollapsento oth-andut lsoany ecisionetweenhe erms.hey emaininked,utncompatible,withoutommon eason rtrutho unite hem. incethisparadoxcannot eerased nthe xperiencefcontradiction,utwasdesignedfromhe tart o be erased,t canonlybeexcluded s monstrosity,stutteredonsenserantisense.







12 POLITICALTHEORY / FEBRUARY1987

Theconflictetweenhese efinitionssstructuredike paradox,butwhich ne?Thisparadox fparadox emindss thatwecannot

always vercomeurdifferences,nd sinceparadox lways equiresdifference,twill lways ehauntedy he hreathat he ifferenceillnotgo away, hat henecessaryexcess" r dividewillremain,ooverflowhebounds f ymmetry.hisdifferencehat anhinge,ndunhinge,he elation,rbetter,hat andoneitherimply.uthow anwetell he ifferenceetweenhe ifferences-betweenhe xcess hatreestablishes relation nd theexcessthat eaves the connectionmonstrouslypen-when he xemplarsfourdecisiontselfrewhatwemustecide etween?ndwemust ecide: achparadoxspreciselythe rrorenouncedy he therndcannot oleratehe oincidence.This econd rder aradox raporia,theparadox fparadox,wouldthus ame he ifficultyndnecessityfdistinguishinghesemomentsoftransferencendinterference,rpaying eedto thedemands fcognitivenificationwhat s the truth f contradiction?)ithouteffacinghe ctiventerferencef anguagethe monstrousouplingfdiscordantnd enseless ords"),nother ords,f anguages atonceandneithernowledgendpower,fwordsmeaningnd s forcet nunrecoverablerommeaning,ndasneither.Atonce"?20

When read-and know thasbeen ttributedome-the hesisknowledgespower,"r powersknowledge,"begino augh, incetudyingheirelationsprecisely y roblem.f hey eredentical,would othave o tudyhemnd

would e pared lot f atiguesaresult.hevery act hat pose he uestionftheirelationroveslearlyhat do not dentifyhem.21

What s at take n he paradox" fpower-knowledge,ewill rgue,snothingmore,but also nothingess,thantherhetoricnd thetemporalityfthedashthatoinsandseparatesnowingnddoing,cognitionndforce. utwhat ort fparadox s t?

Fraser,Habermas,ndTaylor ind t mpossible,onfused,nco-

herent. utFoucault'sriticsre ertainlyot he nly nes obecometransfixedyhisreelaborationftheproblem.22here s abundantevidence n all sidesof the nvestmentsade n securinghe inksbetweenognitionnd ction, swell sof he orce f reassuringrorthodoxiew f he elation.hedifficultash hatoins nd eparatesthe wowords ascome ofunctions a kind phantasmaticlankspace, obefillednwithhehopes nddesiresf he nterpreter.23







Keenan/ READINGFOUCAULTON A BIAS 13

Readersmoreympathetico Foucault hare he bsession ut resometimesess legant. arthGillan nd Charles emert,o takeustone xample,reatpower-knowledge"s Foucault'sroper ame,theconcept ith hich e suniquelydentified."nd he ashbetweenhewordsmeans implyhat heyre fused"reven he ame hing.Toknow is to exercise the power of . . . domination;hence, power-knowledge."Cognitive elationsretheexercise fpower." This[disciplinary] nowledge s a power." "Knowledgemust be power.""The effectivenessfpower s knowledge. ndtheeffectivenessfknowledges .. power."124

This s probably otwhat oucault ad nmind,ndcertainlyotwhathis texts ay.As hepointed ut n one ofhis ast nterviews,respondingo a questionbout hese inds f nterpretation,if hadsaid, rmeant osay, hat nowledge aspower, would ave aid t,andhavingaid t, wouldhavehadnothing ore osay-once theyweredentified,hyhould workohard tshowingheir ifferentrelations?"25hat s atstakes "the uestionf heir elation"s such.The dash is nota signofequivalence, or does it mark covertdissimulation.twill ake ime, utwewill rgue hat t s a mark flinguistic,iscursive,hetoricalredicament,n unfoldingoliticalparadox.

Foucault sed he hraseouvoir-savoirperhapsor he irstime)as the working ypothesis"nthe oursehegaveat theCollege eFranceor 971-1972.is ourse escriptionade he takes lear romthe tart:

Relationsfpowerwith he truggleshatraversehemnd he nstitutionshatmaintainhem) o notmerelyacilitaterobstructnowledge;heyre ontentneitherofavorr timulatet,nor ofalsifyr imitt; .. the roblems thus otsolelyodetermineow owerubordinatesnowledgendmakest ervets ndsnor odetermineow tsuperimposestself n tand mposes n t deologicalcontentsndlimitations.o knowledgean be formed ithout system fcommunication,f ecording,f ccumulation,fdisplacement-whichs tselfformfpower.. . Nopower,nthe ther and, an beexercised ithoutheextraction,ppropriation,istribution,rretentionfknowledge.tthisevel,

there snot earningconnaissance] onone side and society ntheother, rscienceand the tate, ut rather hefundamentalorms f pouvoir-savoir."26

The hypernegativityf this ntroduction-itsnsistencen therhetoricfneither-norndrejectionf two-sidedoth-and-andtheultimateondensationfthe uestionfthe elationn the nigmaticdash, houldhavewarnedwayfromhe tart hosewhohoped o







14 POLITICAL THEORY / FEBRUARY 1987

recognizen t he amiliarchemasf ubordinationr uperimposition.Andwhen oucaultpelled hingsut bitmore nSurveillert unir,

the elation asonly omplicatedy ts reatmentnder heheadingf"s'entre-lacer,"o nterlace,ntangle,ntertwine.Aknowledgesavoir]... is formed ndentangledwith hepractice fthepower pouvoir] opunish."27he takes f he ntanglementere ranslatedn a hesitantbutneverthelessmperativeode:

Perhaps.. wemustbandonwhole raditionhatets s maginehathereanonly eknowledgehereower elationsre uspendednd hat nowledgean

only evelop utsidef tsnjunctions,ts emands,nd tsnterests....Wemustadmit atherhat ower roduces nowledge. .; that ower ndknowledgedirectlymplyr mplicatene nother;hat heresnopowerelationithouthecorrelativeonstitutionf field fknowledge,or s therenowledgehat oesnotpresupposend constitutet the ametime ower elations. hese are]"power-knowledge"elations.28

The polemical, oth philosophicalnd political, urden f thepouvoir-savoirntanglementrknot annow egraspedn ome etail.

Foucault emandsilfaut) hatwegive p the houghthat owerndknowledgerenot lways lreadymplicatedneachother.heres noexteriorityr exclusion, o outsidehors de) ofuncontaminatedinnocence,omargin,ofreepace longsidene nwhichhe theranplayunaffected.either o they ome ogetherver ime, s iffirstindependentnd thenoined.Neitherower orknowledgeelationsoperate ithoutavinglreadyresupposedhe perationf he ther.Just s onecannotpeak truthopowerhatwouldtself e free f

power elations,o too effectsfpower renotmerelyhe ccidentalby-productsf hendependentonstitutionfknowledge.ower oesnotwork implyymposingonstraintsr ontentsnknowledge,ustas knowledgeoesnotmerely ask, erve, r expose ower. ower'srole annot elimitedofacilitationor oobstruction-whileucheffectso occur,hefundamentalechanismsfpower elationsrenotnegative. heexteriorityequired or uch tructuress lacking.Thus,wherenowledgesconcerned,ower elationso not implyay

"no." On thecontrary,ccordingo Foucault'shypothesis,heystimulate,xcite,ncite nowledge.ower ndknowledgeretangledup in theknot fa "not-without."achpresupposesheother: oknowledge ithoutower, o powerwithoutnowledge. o outside,nopriority.

Thisogic such s t s) of he not-without"eappearednLavolontedesavoir,where oucault alled tthe rule f mmanence":between







Keenan/ READINGFOUCAULTON ABIAS 15

techniquesfknowledgend trategiesfpower heres no exteriority[nulle xteriorite]."he onstitutionf field fknowledgeependsnthe nstitutionf a possible bjectwithinower elations,nd,viceversa, owerakes s ts argetnlywhatscapable fbeingnvestedycognitiveelations.he force fthis tructurefco-implicationndpresuppositionhreatenso liminatenyubstantiveifferenceetweenpower ndknowledge.29

Althoughoucault'shetoricf eversalswell nown,histtemptederasure fborderines oesnot implynverthe tradition's"odels,but xceedshem. heres a turning,utnot he onversionfpowerandknowledgento achother,ndcertainlyotoutofeachother.While oucaultrases he xteriorityf he ppositionetweenowerandknowledge,ntricateshem s closely s a dash will llow, heaccount ftheiromplicityofthe ffacementfopposition)n turnreiteratesnew isjunctions tovercomeshe ther.he rasuref heattemptedrasureeavesnothinguttheresiduer the xcess f aninterior,dividedmutualinteriority"arked y dashn he nottedspace of the ntertwining.here s an "interior"ere, utnot theantithesisrthe ppositefthe xterior,ot henside f he utside.

What emains?hedouble rasureeaves dash, "difference."nfact,withouthedifferenceherewouldbe no articulation. ulleexteriorite',ut owerndknowledgereneverthelessarticulateditheach thernthe asis f heir ifference,"inkedn incessantomingsandgoingsallies tvenuesncessantes]"hat efusetabilization.he"interior"sdifferentiated,oldedndpocketed, ultiplyensed.In" t,power ndknowledgeelationsre somehowuperimposedn eachother,makeeach other ossible,withoutither eing educiblersubordinate-and ertainlyotidentical-to heother.Differencewithoutxteriorityr precedence. esistingdentitys muchasopposition,ith heir ifferences their inge, owerndknowledgeinhabitach ther,arasitizeach ther,etnsideach ther-butntoadouble nsidewithoututside. eitherne,withouthe ther. ach sthe ther'snside: uch re he omingsndgoingsf heiroincidence,theirimmanence.30

Whatmakes his ifficulttructureossible, othe xtenthat t spossible?oucault as a direct-whichoesnotmean, asy-answer:discourse,hat ssaid, equese dit.Quickly, ecould ay:Discoursemakeshe ifference.It s withiniscoursehat owerndknowledgecometo articulatehemselves."onsiderhe xample, rivilegedyFoucault, f onfessionI'aveu],n eventn anguagenvestedt oncebyrelationsfpowernd ofknowledge.t is a "formfknowledge-








power":a techniqueor roducingruth"hat unfolds ithinpowerrelationship."nd t sdiscursive-noty ccident,ut ecessarily.necannot onfess ithoutanguage, ithoutpeakingrwriting,ithoutthe ventfutterance.smuch s onemightike o gnorehisinguisticmoment,t cannotbe evaded:Thedifferentialelations fpower-knowledge reentangledwithin, otwithout, iscourse,madepossibleby inguistictructuresndevents.31

But f he nswer o the uestionwherend when repowerndknowledgerticulated?"s "indiscourse,"hat oes he iscursivityfthecoincidencemply?A rhetoric, temporality,nd . . . a fragility.

What sdiscourseuch hat hevertiginoustructurecondensednthe ash) fdifferenceithoutxteriority,f he omingsndgoingsfthedouble eversednterior,spossible?orstarters,iscourseoessomething:parler,'estfaire uelquechose," s Foucault ays nL'archeologieu avoir,to peakstodosomething,odosomethingother han xpresswhat nethinksor]translatehat neknows.""Discoursesremade f igns,utwhat hey o is morehan se hesesignsodesignatehings."o the nalysisfdiscourse ustddresst san "operation," "technology,"nd "notat all [as] a systemfrepresentations.32

Thatoperations extraordinarilyomplex, s might e expected.Returnothe onfession,hat eculiar itual fdiscourseddressedoademandthat tbe at onceperformative"j'avoue, I confess . .") andconstative". . .thatmy ruths. . .'). Therhetoricityf speech ctivitythat equireshat woradicallyifferentesturesone:the vowal,matternlyof performance,o be judgedsimplyn terms f itsaccomplishmentr failure; heother: heavowed, question fknowledge,obe udgedn ermsf ts ruthalue) oinciden he ameutterance,lacestrangeurdensn heanguagehatmustrticulatet.What sthe ense,he iming,r he ension,f nabysmaltteranceike"if tellthetruthboutmyself,s I amnowdoing" as Foucaultpreciselyut t naninterview)?33hat cansaythis,ndwhen?performativeoesnothave odescribetself,ut hisnedoes:Not nlydoes tdowhatt ays, ut t ayswhat t

does t ays.And he onstativesayingstheperformativeoing-itmakes hedescriptionossible ydoing t, ndwhattdoes snothingtherhan escribetselfoing,heperformative.hus he hastomultiplytself,itetself,ndcitetselfciting:s I amdoing ow.Thetemporaltructuref hisnow,"whichgives he imewithinhe same" tteranceor t east wos,requireskindof nternalinge rfold, xceeds hepresentthefirsterson







Keenan / READING FOUCAULT ON A BIAS 17

present) n which tseemstodepend.34 hepresent f theconfessiondivides itself nd its subject:Hence the inevitableproblem,whichFoucaultsaysattended ecessarily ponthegeneralizationfconfes-sional techniques r rhetorics, f "thepresenceof consciousness oitself" nd the eopardy nto which t s putbythe material vent theMnonce) f languagesaid. The subjectdiffersitself" n the"same"utterance, ut heutterancemust lso allowthe onfessionotakeplace,as a "ritual of discourse wherethe subjectwho speaks [qui parle]coincideswiththesubjectof theutterance de l'enonce]." Discoursemustbe denseenough, ufficientlynterfolded,o enable thedifferentspeechacts,with heir ncoordinateds andtimes, o coincide ndtoremain ifferent.35utthenecessityfthese olds, f nternal ifferen-tiation, uggestshatdiscoursemaynot be exactly locus ofstability.

Foucault did not hesitateto draw out the implications f thediscursivity,hedifference,f thedash in "power-knowledge,"o aradicalpoint:Thecomplex hetoricityndtemporalitypenedup nthediscursive itualwherepowerand knowledge re entangled utsthepossibilityf that rticulationnquestion.This sperhaps he houghtavoidedbymany fhis nterpreters,fnotby Foucault:

It s within iscoursehat ower ndknowledgeometoarticulatehemselves.ndforthisveryreason,we mustconceivediscourse s a series of discontinuoussegments, hose acticalfunctionsneitherniformor table.... Wemust llowfora complex and unstableplay in whichdiscourse s perhaps at once theinstrumentndeffect fpower, ut lso anobstacle, stumbling-block,point fresistance.36

Becausethey equire anguage ohappen-its rhetoric nd itstempo-rality-the relations of power and of knowledgecan always bedisengaged,s cantherelation etween ower ndknowledge. ecausethearticulation etween owerand knowledge s discursive,hen helinkcan neverbe guaranteed. he samediscourse hattransportsherelation an undermine,lock,distort, isable t. Ifthevehicle fthecoincidences discourse, hetransferenceetween hetwocannotbe

totalized, nified,ntegrated,rotherwisetabilized. t sunpredictable.When discoursemust be thought f as a "series of discontinuoussegments," nterferencelways alreadyremainsa possibility nd athreat. heplay jeu) of hedifference,otboundto tself y xteriorityor ultimate ontinuity,pens therelation o the chance or alea ofdisarticulation.








Discoursetransportsvehicule] nd producespower; treinforcest,but it alsounderminest,exposes t,renderstfragile r breakable ndmakes tpossible o

thwartt.37

The link betweenknowledge nd powercan alwaysnot take place,because of its place. The discourse that makes it possible alsounderminest,preciselyecausepower ndknowledgeredifferent:otidentical,withoutxteriorityrpriority,eterogeneouslynteriorized.Coincidence s notcopresence, o thatthedifferencehat allowsthearticulatiom,s opposedto identityrexteriority,lears spaceanda

timefor certain isjunction.In a sense, he uestion f herelation etween ower ndknowledgehasreceivedwoanswers: articulation,"o interlockedhatwecannottake forgranted hepossibility f telling hemapart, and "hetero-geneity,"o differenthatwecannotnotdistinguishhem.Andthe wodepend neach other. elling hedifferenceecomes rgentlyecessary(and Foucault's texts militateagainst this errorof confusionasrigorouslyspossible) o theprecise xtenthat t sradicallympossible

(it is the samerigor f these exts o refuse heopposition).The textserase hedifferencehey nsist n,anderase heirnsistencenreiteratingthedifference.

In a phrase, heproblemhere snot ustthat hese woconclusionsmustbothbedrawn rom oucault's exts, r that hey oexist nsomeambiguityr"seeming" aradox,but hat heyreatodds, utobliquelyacrosseachother.Wecannot imply ecidebetweenhem, rforboth.To chooseone version ftherelation-transferencer nterference-is

tocommit xactly heerror heother ersionhasalready ndone.Thisleavesusreading hedashbetweenpouvoirnd savoir.The"answer" othe uestion f herelation s themeaninglessittleyntactical lug hatholdsthewords ogethernd apart.Therelation emains nquestion,dividedbetween heasymmetricalnswers oucault's texts ffer. hedifferences notmerely etweennterferingnswers, utbetween nanswer there s a relation, overned ysuch and such a law) and aninterferenceith hevery ossibility f an answer. his nterferencef

interference,hich s not symmetrical,annot be mistaken or thesemantic ichness fthequestionortheparadoxicalprofundityftheaestheticituation. t sstrictlyndecidable ndwraps hereader fthequestion nto an uncomfortable ouble bind: The dash ofpouvoir-savoirmust, ndcannot,be read,other han s thematerialmarker fan unreadable ap.







Keenan/ READINGFOUCAULTONABIAS 19

Inother ords,f he oincidences lreadyo difficulthatt nswersto nootheraw than hat fceaseless,wisting,omings-and-goings,

then herupturer breakdownhat hreatenshevehicle annot estructureds a simple ailure ut nstead s thepossibilityf anuncontrolledcceleration r spin. t is thispossible pin,withinlanguage,hatwe wouldcall rhetoric, paradoxofparadox. tsinfoldedimingnd pacingmake olitics,s the tutteringoincidenceofpowerndknowledge,nowingnddoing, ossible,nddangerous.

Theproblemsnot omuchodefinepoliticalposition"whichomes own ochoice n a pre-constitutedhessboard)ut o maginendbringnto xistencenew chemasfpoliticization.38

Politicallypeaking,here oes hiseaveFoucault?n anaporia fhopeless eutrality,paradox fnormlessngagement,n"impossibleattempto tand owhere"?f he erytructurehatmakes he assage

betweenowerndknowledgeossiblelsothreatenstwith isarticu-lation,iscontinuity,ndheterogeneity,hatort fpoliticsspossible?Canthe hetoricalnd emporalaradox eerased-canFoucaultreehis "position" f paradox?Or wouldthat be to efface heverypossibility,ndnecessity,fpoliticss such?

Letuspracticehe eculiarias, he lant,fparadox nd pproachthese uestionsbliquely.olitically.

Inthe astdays fDecember981, acques errida,isitingrague

tomeetwith issidenthilosophers,asarrestednd ailedfor hreedays yCzech uthorities.fterisrelease,ewas sked y olleaguesinParis odraw lessonnthe oliticsfphilosophyromhe pisode,andwe are old hat

among therhings,e nsistedn thedifficultyheres inmakingnethico-politicalesturesupportinghe esistancef he raguehilosophers,ho emandrespect orhuman ightslesdroits e l'Homme] ndarticulatehatwith

philosophyf the

ubject, heperson,ndividualiberty,tc.)coincide ithphilosophicalaborgovernedythenecessityfdeconstructingreciselyuchphilosphemes.39

The questionshathaverecurrentlytructuredurreading indthemselvesddressederewith onsiderableorce, ndrepeathem-selves: owdoesknowledge"the ecessityfdeconstruction')oincide








with he ction rpower f nethico-politicalesture?Where ndwhen,if tcan, does thiscoincidence ccur?, nd whatare thestakes ofits

(non)occurrence?t tdoes,howandwhys tdifficult? hat s the aw,andtheforce, f thecoincidencen tsdifficulty?

It may seemsurprisingrunjustified,r at leastdifficult,o makeDerrida nd Foucaultcoincide round his uestion f heir nowledgeand theirpower, especiallygiven theirexplicit and verypublicdifferences, ut in factthe structure nlyreiterates he rhetoricalproblematicf ouressayoncemore.Afterll, as ShoshanaFelmanhaspointedout,"systems fthought re notnecessarily pposed in the

samewaytheir uthors re: it is alwayspossibleto have chosen thewrong dversary. o be sure,differences,ometimes adicalones,doexist:butthesedifferences,eing symmetrical,ften ludethe implestructurefopposition."40

Let us put this symmetryo the testofexample.Foucaulthas hisown difficultoincidences.A fewmonthspriorto Derrida'sPragueaffair,n June19,1981, t a press onferencentheGeneva nterconti-nentalHotel, Foucault oined withactivists rom wo international

"humanitarian" rganizationsMedecins du Monde and TerredesHommes) ndothers,n the Comite nternationalontreePiraterie"(CICP), to announce a new humanrights nitiativen defenseofVietnamese oat people.WesternfficialsndVietnameseyewitnessesdescribed ens of thousandsof people,fleeingVietnambut notyetreceivedsrefugeeslsewhere, eing ttackedntheGulf fThailandbypirates, ndkidnapped, aped, ortured,ndmurdered.n theface ofinactionbygovernmentsnd the ncapacity fexisting nternational

organizations, aid the actor Yves Montand, "we cannot let thismassacrehappen."So, under thesignof a Rilke versereading allterrifyinghings are perhaps nlyhelpless hings awaiting urhelp,"theCICP proposed ending fleet fnongovernmentalavalvessels-including new hipof tsown-into the rea toprotect heboatpeopleand dissuadethepirates. oucault,whofrequentlynvolvedhimselfnthesedoctors'unorthodox olitico-humanitariannitiatives,sed theopportunityo theorize the gestureof the action itself.He neverpublishedhisstatement, utafter is death thenewspaper iberationdid,calling t"Face aux gouvernements,es droitsde l'Homme."Thebrief extmay urprise eaders:41

Weare hereonly s privatendividuals, hohave no other laim o speak, nd tospeaktogether,han certain hareddifficultyn acceptingwhat shappening.







Keenan /READING FOUCAULT ON A BIAS 21

I knowfullwell, ndwe haveto facefacts, hat heres not muchwe cando aboutthereasonswhichead men nd women oprefereaving heir ountries ver iving

in them.Thatfact s simply eyond ur reach.Who,then,hascommissioned s? No one.Andthat s precisely hat stablishesourright.tseems omethatwe must ear nmind hree rinciples hich, believe,guide thisinitiative,ike themanyotherswhich have preceded t (the Ile deLumiere, he Cap Anamour, nd Avionpour le Salvador, but also TerredesHommes,Amnestynternational).

1.-There existsan international itizenry, hichhas itsrights,whichhas itsduties, nd whichpromises o raise tself p against very buse ofpower,nomatterwho the author r the victims.After ll,we are all governed nd,tothat

extent, nsolidarity.2.-Because they laim o concern hemselves ith hewelfarebonheur] ftheirsocieties, overnmentsavearrogatedothemselvesherightodrawupa balancesheet,to calculatetheprofits nd losses,of thehuman misfortunemalheur]provokedby their ecisionsor tolerated y theirnegligence.t is a dutyof thisinternationalitizenrylways o make n issueofthismisfortune,okeep t ntheeyes ndearsofgovernments-its not rue hat heyre notresponsible. eople'smisfortune ustnever e a silent emainderfpolitics.tfounds nabsolute ightto riseup and to address hosewho holdpower.

3.-We must eject hedivision ftaskswhich s all toooften ffered:ndividualscanget ndignant ndspeakout,while t sgovernments hich eflectnd act. t strue thatgood governmentsike the hallowed indignation f the governed,providedtremainsyrical. believe hatwe must ealizehowoften,hough,t stherulerswhospeak,whocanonly nd want nly ospeak.Experiencehows hatwecanandmust ejecthe heatrical oleofpure ndsimplendignation hichweareoffered.Amnestynternational, erredes Hommes,Medecinsdu Monde areinitiatives hichhavecreated newright:heright fprivatendividuals ctuallyto intervenen theorder of politicsand internationaltrategies. he will of

individualsmustnscribetselfn a reality verwhich overnmentsavewanted oreserve monopoly or hemselves-amonopolywhichwemustuproot ittle ylittle very ay.

Was tunjustf hisext'sosthumousditoro uggesthatt couldbeuneNouvelledeclaration esDroitsdel'homme`? tsprinciples-its"rights"nd"duties"-certainlyecall hose ftheWesternumanisttraditionhatFoucault swidely elieved ohave rejected"Nancy

Fraser).ndividuals,s citizens,averightsndobligationsdroitstdevoirs]42gainst r nthefaceofabusive ulers-governmentshathave ttemptedoreserveothemselveshe ower ospeak nd oact.Thisnongovernmentalitizenryan andmustntervene,erballyndactively,ndnotmerelyetndignant,gainstbuses fpower: ere,norder oassertnd oaddresshemisfortunef therssuch sthe oatpeople).And hat esponsibilityncludesssigninghe esponsibilityor








misfortuneogovernments,o matter owthey ttempto account orit, to explain taway, or otherwise o evade it.Butanother, nprece-

dented, nterventions also required: ctually, ffectivement,nventingandundertakingtrategiesnd tactics f ctingn nternationalolitics,where overnmentsavehithertotoncemonopolized ndsquanderedtherights ndmeans o act. Their rrogationf peech nd actionmustbe wrested way,by reordering r reinscribingoliticalreality-byclaiming herighto do, anddoing,what heywillnot.43

Ifthese erms restandard, herhetoricaltrategiesrstylewith(in)which hey redeployed re not ofamiliar. hisdeclarationeinscribes

its all-too-easily ecognizedphilosophemeswithsome ratherunor-thodoxgestures hatdisplacethe elf-evidencef their ontext. n thisregard, oucaultfollows peculiar ourse,one thatwouldappearatfirst o be negative ut thatwe willargue s rather, otpositive, utaffirmative.he first entence xemplifieshisstrategy.t mimesacertainelf-positioning,presentationfcredentials,n establishmentof a right r claim[titre] o speak,onlyto remove t or relocate totherwise:What ntitles s todo this?Wehaveno other laim ospeakthan . . a difficulty,"difficulty ithwhat s happening,with hepresent nd theprospect hat twillbe thefutureoo.Difficultyntitles:not a position, oreventhe ackof a position, utthe ffirmationf adifficultyithinhepresent. o soonerdoesthe ffirmationay tsyes,initiate tselfnto hedifficulty,han t sechoed bythe econdyes ofapledge. This nternationalitizenry. promisesengage] o raise tselfup against very buse ofpower."The initiative ffirmationakestheperformativeharacter f a promise, future-orientedpeech ctthatdoeswhat tsays.Once thedifficulty-ints ntolerablendirreducibledifficulty-isffirmed,he nitiativeosigns tselfwith promise hatprojects t(self) nd opens (into) a future, pledgethatbinds thedifficultynthepresentnto anunforeseeableuturereated n the ct.Thedeclaration sthispromise, his ngagement,nd thepromises theaffirmation,fthedifficultynd its future. he promise equires hedeclaration:What tsays tdoes itcould not do withoutaying.

Thiscomplicatedittle ext ubmitsts rightsnd obligations o thesame initiative hetoric f difficulty.he citizenrymustresistthereductionfothers'misfortuneo unrestemuet,a mute race r eftoverofpolitics nd ts alculations. hethreat fthedoubleeffacement,hechance that misfortune ill be leftwordless,and not simplythemisfortunetself, alls for tsactive nd insistentssertion. People'smisfortune ustnot be allowedto be a silent emainderf politics. t








founds n absoluterightorise ndtoaddress hosewhoholdpower."Against hepossibilityf hat ffacementnsists he mperativehat tbe

addressed, duty oact,tospeak,and to write. hegesture faddressaffirmsherightomemoryf a futureurvival, reste,where tmightotherwise e effaced,nd ts ffacementilenced. he name nd the racemust e preserved, ept nword ndactofmemory,o that hepeopleofthenamewillnot hemselves eerased nthe ilent, alculated, blivionofpolitics.What remains fter hecalculation, he remainder ftheoperation, s misfortune:n unmasterablend uneliminable emnantthat n itsstubborn xcess"founds n absolute right" nd creates nobligation, orespond.

The misfortunatenes, hough, avenotdelegated hisnoble askortheauthorityo performt to anyone,have not ceded their ights r(what remainsof) theirvoices to thiscommittee, ave not chosenFoucault oranyone lse n Genevato speakontheir ehalf.They, ndtheir easons, re beyond each.Where sthis ightfounded,"hen?nthenameofwhom r what s t xercised?Who hascommissioned stodo this?No one.And that sprecisely hat stablishes urright."' 'estcela ustement uifait notredroit.Personne.Becausetheres no one,there s a right.The committeelike the other nitiatives o whichFoucaultrefers) asnever lected, epresentso one,hasno mandate rauthority. here s no originalownerorpossessorofrights, o self-present ource here mediatedor representedn its (temporaryndultimately ccidental)absence.Uprooting he monopoly laimed bythosewhohavebeendelegatedhat uthoritynd those ightswe areallalready governed), he initiative f the initiatives,heir nstitutiveperformance,as pragmaticallycreated," ffectivement,hisnewright:to speakand to intervene,utsideor beyond his ogicof delegation,where heresno one. n a gesture otunlike he ne Derridahas calledcoupdedroit, he nitiativenitiatests newright,"makesor creates t,based on no one: No one "articulates nd conjoinsthetwodiscursivemodalities,heto-be ndthe ought-to-be,onstative ndprescriptive,factand right lefait t edroit]." o one . . . makes ourright. heinvention,heintervention,reates he right o intervene,nacts therighto act, nitiates heright o initiate.44

What s this newright"?s ita "norm"?How can we readthis irect,if omplicated, rticulationf an ethico-politicalesturewith warpedvocabulary frights nd obligations?

The reading is particularly ifficult iven Foucault's elaboratecritiqueof the termright, heapparently rejectionist"ritique hat








leads his interpreterso worry bout "normative"poriasand confu-sions. His insistencehere on a "founded""absolute right" eems

retrograde i.e., limitedto an Enlightenment-inspiredritiqueofgovernmentsy the assertion ftherights f a misfortunateumanitytheyhave triedto forget) nd perhapsembarrassing.s notMichelFoucault themost ommittedpponent fthediscourse frights,heoperator fthe heoreticaluillotine hatdecapitates otonly hekingas politicalpowerprinciplebuttheindividual, hehuman, and thehumanism fhuman ightss well?Wasnotman'sface rasedfromhesand at theedgeofthe ea in thefinalwordsofLes mots t eschoses?

Doesn't"right" elongpreciselyo theuridicalvocabularyfpower ssovereigntyut of whichFoucault triedto twist?Did not "power-knowledge" eplace right"? oesn't"right" resupposestheobject fits legitimationr thetarget f itsclaimsexactly heconception fpower snegative,epressive,nterdictive,gainstwhich oucaulttriedto rethinkower spositive, rovocative,ndproductiveofexactlyhesubject,ndeed hatwould claim tsrights ndthus ecure hatplayofpower)?Did notFoucaultcontend hatrightntheWest s theKing'sright nddemandwith istinctivepigrammaticconomy hatwe"cutoff heKing'shead"?45

The answerto thesequestions s ofcourse yes. Againand again.Foucaultmeasured isdistance romndsuspicions f theoryfrightmost xtensivelyntwo1976 ectures t theCollegede France. Rightshouldbeviewed," esaid,"not nterms f egitimacyo beestablished,but nterms f themethods fsubjugationhat t nsitigates."46

Hisphilosophicalbjectionso thediscourse fright ook he orm fa certainhesitationwithregardto the thought f theproperthatunderwritest.Right sproper oMan as such:as man,manhasrights,man's ownrights. his property epends n its turn n a thought fpresence. ossessionrequires hepresence fthe ubject o itself; elf-possessionfoundsall otherpropertynd proprieties. n thatbasis,rights an also bedelegated, ransferred,rrepresented.hediscourseofrightlaborates herulesgoverninguch xchanges,ulminatingnatheory fpoliticalrepresentation.Power s taken o be a right,"aidFoucault,

which neis abletopossess ike a commodity,ndwhich necan inconsequencetransferralienate, itherwholly rpartially,hrough legal ctthat stablishesright,uch as takesplacethroughessionorcontract.

Thismeans hat he heory frightan beput ntoplayboth ndefenseof, nd nthe ssaulton,kings ndtheirovereignty.Theessential ole








of the theory f right, rommedieval imesonwards,was to fixthelegitimacy f power." To that extent, ays Foucault, its "essential

function" as nothing ther han toefface hedominationntrinsicopower,"eitherby ustifyingr by puttingimits n theking'sor thestate'spower. Challengesmade in the nameofrights o regimes hatabused them, aid Foucault elsewhere, did notput in questiontheprinciplehatright houldbe theform fpower nd thatpower lwayshad to be exercised n theform f right."47

Foucault proposedundoing, eversing,xposing heeliminationfthefact fdominationnthe heoryfright,oshow howrights, na

generalway, he nstrumentfthisdomination-which carcely eedssaying-but also to show the extent o which nd theforms nwhichright.. transmitsnd brings ntoplayrelations otofsovereigntyutofdomination." My general roject," e said," hasbeen, nessence, oreverse hemodeof nalysis ollowed y he ntire iscourse fright,to invertt"-to show,not which ightswhether ivine, ndividual,rhuman) re egitimate,ustified, nd authorized, utrather, ow forcerelations ave been enabledand naturalizedn the name of"right."48

This inversion, hough,undid more than ust the effacement fdomination.tundid hevery erms fthe nalysis. he"avoidance" fthe questionof the legitimate ight o exercisepower, n favorofspecifyingust what symmetriesfforce right"made possible, edtheanalysis o "thepointwherepower urmountsherulesofrightwhichorganize nd delimitt nd extends tself eyond hem. These o-called"disciplinarymechanisms fpower,"Foucault said in La volontedesavoir,are "irreducibleo representationy right." he discourseofright s "absolutely eterogenous o new procedures f power,whichoperatenotbyright utbytechnique, otby aw butbynormalization,notby punishment ut by control,which re exercised n levelsandformswhich xceed debordent] he tate nd its apparatuses."49

Yet the discourse of rightcontinuesto provide the "code" forinterpretingranalyzing hemechanisms f power hathas overrun rexceeded ts conceptual imits, nto a "horizonwhich f necessity adnothingncommonwith he difice fright." ut, nspite f he act hatdisciplinary ower s"impossible odescribentheterminologyfthetheoryf overeignty,"ight ontinues o serve s themodelor code forits nvestigationnd egitimation.oucault's inversion"ims o exposetheunreliabilityf his ode: "A system frighthas been] uperimposeduponthemechanisms fdiscipline n such way s to conceal ts ctualprocedures,he lement fdominationnherentn ts echniques,nd toguarantee o everyone, yvirtue f thesovereigntyf theState, the








exercise of his propersovereign ights."Moderndemocracieshavetaken over the code of rightwhileoperatingnew mechanisms f

discipline: n theonehand, here re nokings utonly henetworksfdisciplinaryuadrillage,whileon theother, a discourse.. basedonpublicright, hoseprinciplef rticulations .. thedelegativetatus feach citizen." But right whethermonarchicor democratic)anddiscipline are "incompatible," radicallyheterogenous." Althoughrights a necessarycompanion o this uadrillage,tcannot nanycasebe transcribednto t."'50

Their oincidence rsuperimposition,not o much he inkingsthe

perpetualxchange nd encounter fmechanismsfdisciplinewith heprinciplefright,"51roves ifficultor he nalysis f nd the trugglesagainst xisting ower elations. or thediscourse fright-preciselyothe xtent hat t ssimply nverted rundone nd ts ffacementftheimbalance fpower elationsmade egible-reassertstself,omesbackto haunt heanalysis nd the truggles an unreliable utunshakablecode. The reversal,whilebringinghefactofdomination o light ndpointing o thedisciplines' ebordement f the rulesofright, annot

preventtsrecurrencend ndeed hreatenso retain hevery ermshatithadexposed as inadequate.

Againstisciplinaryechanisms.. we induselvesn situationherehe nlyapparentlyolid ecoursevailable or stodayiespreciselyn a returno thetheoryfright....Whenodaynewantsoobjectn omeway othe isciplinesand llof he ffectsfpowerndknowledgehatre inkedo hem, hats t hatonedoes, oncretely,nreal ife, hat o the yndicate aMagistraturerothersimilarnstitutionso, fnotpreciselynvoke his ight,his amousormalight...?But believehat e ind urselvesn kind f lindlleyvicolocieco] ere.52

Theextreme ifficultyfthis blind lley" snotmerely hat here snowayout,that hepath s closedoff t oneend.In that ituation,twould sufficemerelyo reverse irections,earnfrom ne'smistakes,andfind new lley.TheblindFoucaultfinds s n scomplicated y hefact hatwehave noplaceorroomtoturn, hatwe are na senseblind(to) ourselves: aced with he rreducibilityfdisciplineo right, iththeirradical heterogeneity,hat do we do in our struggle gainstdisciplinesfnot nvokethisvery,ncompatible,ight? oucaultmaypose thisas a "rhetorical uestion," s itwere,but it should notbetaken ightly. e providesnoanswer,nd notbecausethe nswer stooobvious. The predicament e arewrittenntoby"right"s not easilyescapedor evenavoided.The disciplines avetheorizednd codified








themselvesn theincommensurableanguage f right.We know,negatively,hat he ode s nadequate,nerror,ndthatts nversion

and xposuresnecessary.ut he eversalails o xorcisehe ode, ndattemptso deployt (reversedrnot)against hedisciplinesnlytightenhe ind. heheterogeneityf he roblemnd ts nlyvailableanswer rovokes kindofmutual nterferencendmultiplieshedifficulty.gainsthedisciplines,heonly ecoursesa returnotheveryodeofrighthat he nalysisf hose isciplinesasdiscredited,doublinghe lindnessn ndof he lley. his icolo ieco s tructuredlike viciousircle,he cceleratingredicamentnwhichach olution

to a problemeturnss toitat an increasedevel fdifficutly.heblindnessf he lleyncites,nd s nturn yperactivatedy, ur wnblindness:ightnscribess n double ind, double lind, doubleblind lley.

In a sensitiveeadingfthis roblem, abermas asaccuratelyfcriticallyharacterizedoucault'sredicamentere s anotherporia.Heappreciateshe ttemptoresist simplenversionf he iscourseofhuman ights:Thehumanisticritique.. which ases tselfn theobsoletecontrast etweenegitimatend illegitimateowers, . . etc.,and fights gainst nstances fexploitationor] . . . repression s indangerf einforcinghehumanismhat asbeen roughtromeavendown to earth nd has congealedntoa normalizingorce." hisobjection,e ays,ufficesslong sthe oint smerelyactical,if heonly oncerns themobilizationfcounterpower,"ut tdoesnotanswerhe uestion:Why ight?"till, ince he answer" ould avetoprovideew tandardsfjusticend rationaleortruggle,herescertainecessityoFoucault's esitationnthe ouble lind lley: Ifonetries oobtainhemplicitlysed tandardsutof hendictmentsagainsthe isciplinaryowers, ne ncountersnowneterminationsfromhe xplicitlyejectedormativisticanguageame."53

Given his poria-theunreliabilityndunavoidabilityfthe ermright-onemightxpect oucault implyoreach or notherocab-ulary, codeproperodisciplinetechnique,ormalization,ontrol,and so on),respondingo hisown mperative:Wemust uild nanalyticfpowerwhich ill o ongerake ights tsmodelnd ode.ButFoucaulttakesthepredicamenteriously: avingrevealed"position"obe poretic,ne annotimplyhangeanguageamesndmake heaporiavanish.Anaporia from-poros,withoutassage,impassable)ssomethingnecannot et utof, nd t spreciselyhisradical bsence fpossiblehoiceshat haracterizeshedouble lind








alley. The difficultys not one of political naivete,simplicity, rignorance, nd cannot be dissolvedwitha technical, erminological

measure. hus, n thefinal aragraph f he ame ecturewhosehorizonnecessarily ad nothingncommonwithright, oucaultsurprisinglyconcludedthattherewas no alternativeo right, r onlyalternativerights. ven fhehadtried o overturnr turn wayfrom heclassicalright fsovereignty,his eversalwasonly ne turnna doublegesture,coincidentwith different o(ve)ment, reinscriptionf the"same"term oward newpossibility:Oneshould urn.. inthedirectionfnewright, newhichmustndeedbe anti-disciplinary,utat the ame

time iberated romheprinciplefsovereignty."54Atwhattime?How is thispossible?What s thedifferenceetween

the right" f he entire iscourse fright"obeundone nd the right"ofthe newright"o beactivelyutback ntoplay?Howdoes Foucaultnegotiate hetwistingntoand out ofright?We should not hesitate oassimilate he "newright" f this ecture o theone(s) enunciated rinitiatednGeneva.But hat oesnodistance oward freeingoucault'sposition of theparadox" involved n at once makingthepractical

gesturewith heword"right" nd submittinghevery ameword tothe theoretical nd rhetoricalwork of decapitation,undoing,andreinscription.

Howcanwe not)make he thico-politicalesturef upportingheresistance nd protestof people, with ts referenceo les droits del'Homme, oincidewith hephilosophical ecessity fproblematizingor"eschewing"55hemodelofrights,hevery ermsnwhich hegestureismade?

Right rectum)s,as the traight,pposed ot nly othe urved,ut lsoto theoblique.56

What fpoliticshad nochoicebuttopracticehebias-as prejudice, ssidestep,s cutacrossthegrain-of paradox?Needless to say, we are notproposing oucault's"newright" s a

model, formula,ra theoreticalxample obereapplied lsewhere,sifwecouldanalyze hepolitical rphilosophical) ifficultiesf n "old"termndthen eplace twith newonethatwoulddo its ob better.t sneitherhilosophicallyorpoliticallyorrect(ed). herightnunciated








as a theoreticalpossibility nd initiatedat Geneva marks, n itsdifficulty,othingther han permanentolitical redicament.tdoesnot voidortranscend,utonly epeatswithmphasis,hese ifficulties.It displaces and temporalizes ts terms, nd playsthemout as theparadoxof right": claimbased nthe ffirmationf difficultynthepresent nd secondedby a promiseto a futurea double bond); aremainder hreatened ith ilencewhoseright o a futures opened nassertivememory; nd a coup de droit, he nitiation ftheright oinitiate, he nterventionf a right o intervene, here here sno one.Theseare notclassicalrights, utthey ecallor rememberhem.Theyclaim a certain ight o "right": heyguarda linkwith hatpastwhiletwistingrknottingtalmostbeyond ecognition,peningtoutof tspresentnto tsfutureifficulties.ndthese aradoxically olded indsinscribewithin hem hat emporal redicament-ahead fand behindthemselves.hedoubleblind lley, hen, annotbe ignored:Wemustnegotiatewith hetermswehave,even"after" heir roblematization.Because thewordsdisperse nyattemptttotalization: n thecase ofright, ot only tsrigidnscriptionnto system fclassical overeigntybut lso thenegativework fcontrollingrevenmerelyircumscribingitsunreliability. e recallthefuturesf a right eyondright, rightwithout ight, utonlybymaking eferencergesturingothe rights"wehave. There s"nowayout,"becausethere s no"out"-not becausethe resentssomehowelf-enclosedrself-identical,utonthe ontraryprecisely ecause tdifferstself ndthusmakespoliticsnecessary. heonlyway out sout ofpolitics.

What sthe awortheforce fpersistencendresistancehat llowsthedash-whetherbetween owerandknowledge, hegesture nd its

deconstruction,rthe wo rights"-tobedrawn, rased, ndredrawn?Whatgoverns hemateriality f thedash thatwe read,efface, ndrewrites if nly tutteringlynable ithero respect rreject t?What sthenecessityfnegotiation? he law is, according o Foucault, that"theres nogeneralaw ndicatinghe ypes frelation."57erhaps nlya rhythm,he ntolerableension f he lteration.. ofdifferentashes.

Earlier we characterizedhistensionof the "at once" as an internalheterogeneity,r an infolding. olitics,though,demands that thisinfolding eunfolded, hat tbedeployedcross ime. oucault uggeststhis ntwodiscussions fthepolitical sesof rights": ndefendingayrights,it s mportantohavethepossibility-and he ight-tochooseyour wn exuality.... Still, thinkwehaveto go a stepfurther....Notonlydo wehavetodefend urselves, utwehaveto affirmurselves."58








That is to say, affirmomething hatcan onlybe affirmednd notdefended-because t snot yet).Likewise, nrightsnprison: There

are mmediatemeasures otake .. [aimed at]eliminatingll abusesofrightsn thewaythe aw is applied .. butthen ensuite]-orrather,tonce [tout de suite]-it's a questionof taking t all up again at theroots.... We must ry owto rethinkhe ntirehing: ot t all toavoiditsreality, utrather ever oaccept nythingself-evident's given."'59That can onlyhappen n a future, ut a future hat s inscribed s adifferenceithin henonpresencefthepresent, rhythm odulatingand opening hepresent o a differencehatseems to incapacitatets

present venas it hyperactivateshe future lready within t.60 heterms, hough, annot be found nywherelse. The paradoxrepeatsitself:onpeut tre n faceetdebout,"'61utnotwithout ifficulty.hepoliticss nthenegotiation f hedifferenceetweennsuitend tout esuite,n the nscriptionf he ffirmativestep urther"nto hedefense.

Hence Foucault's formulation f the temporaltask of politicalcriticism:

It is fruitfuln a certainwayto describe hat-which-isymaking t appear assomethinghatmight otbe,orthatmight otbe as it s, . . byfollowinginesoffragilitynthepresent,nmanaging ograspwhy nd howthat-which-isight olonger e thatwhich s.

"The present," hat s to say,"is a time ike no other, rrather, timewhich snever uite ikeanyother."162

Thisthought fdivisions within"hepresent,ts nternal isplace-

mentor fragility,pens politicsonto its futures. t disqualifies hemetaphoricxtension y"likeness" f thepresentnto a future ll itsown, magined s enough like"thispresent o replace t. It is in thissense hatwe takeFoucault's laim hat imaginer nautre ysteme,elafait ctuellementncorepartie u systeme."163)hatopensup is a timenever uite ikeanyother.Not thefuture fthepresent, ot a futuregoodtobehopedfor rom positionornegation)nthepresent,ut hepromise ndthe ffirmationfthefuture,ffutures,s other, s never

quite ikeanyother, s what sonlypossibleor,better, hat s always)not yetpossible: that whichmightno longerbe what is. But thisnegative-future-conditionalvent an ustas little epassivelywaitedas activelymagined-it does not happenin a future resent: t willalwayshavealready iolentlynterferedith hepresence fourpresentand our position(s) within t. Foucault calls it thus a caesura, a








(rhetorical)nterruption,thestraightine of thefuturehat gainandagaincutsthe mallesthickness f thepresent."

On both idesof hewound,wealways ind hat thasalready appenedandthatthad alreadyhappened,and thatit has alreadyhappenedthat t had alreadyhappened)and that t willhappen again (and that t willhappenagainthat thappen gain): it s lessa cut than n indefiniteibrillation.

Thisaffirmationf the never uite ikeany)other, nother ther hanour own,and of theeventof theother, an onlybe an appeal to the

future r the excess of "another aw and anotherforcebeyondthetotality fthispresent."t demands, ays Foucault,"an affirmativethoughtwhose nstrumentsdisjunction."64

Foucault wasonce bold-or ironic-enoughto call this nterferencea "truth," readingn and ofthefuture. What am tryingodo isprovoke n interferenceetween urreality nd theknowledge fourpasthistory,"esaid n an interview.Twoyears gotherewas turmoilin severalprisons n France,prisoners evolting.n twoprisons, he

prisoners n their ellsreadmybook. Theyshouted hetext o otherprisoners.... I hope that hetruth fmybooks is inthefuture."65Where nd when ould onepossibly stand" omake, rrespond o,

thiscall of thefuture? . . "nowhere"?, ever? s itpossible?How,bywhatright,ouldone not)act nsuch a situation? oes thefibrillatingdashpreventhispossibility,r does t mark he iming nd the pacingof an unavoidable,howeverparadoxical,coincidence s difficulty?What re therhythmsndthe ites hat nfoldnthedash?What ort f

decisioncan be made between philosophical ffortnd a politicalgesturendiscord?Can either nebeforgottennd theother ursuedwithmpunity,s if ach werenotprecisely he rror enounced ytheother,he rror hat t anonly ndo?The fact hat hese re not imply)rhetorical uestionsdoes not makethem ny essurgent oreasiertobear.

Thephilosophicalabor s aneffortfunderstandinghatproducesnegativeknowledge oncerning herisks nd stakesof a set ofterms

(right,ndividual,nd so on). The exposureof theunreliabilityfthisdiscoursedemands tsundoing, ts reversal r decapitation.But theorderofaction, hegesture f nterventionntheexisting elations fforce,snotparalyzed r ncapacitated y hisknowledge,justs itdoesnotremain ntouched. gesturesmade, omethingets inscribednareality,"eople nterferer"intervene,ctually,nthe rder fpolitics."








Butnot without ifficulty,r perhapsevenparadox. The interestfFoucault's "declaration"sfinally otsimply hat e at oncesupports

humanrights hile e-constitutingrproblematizinghem uthowheperforms heirdifficult oincidencewhile refusing o allow eithergesture oescapeunscathed. hepurityrproprietyf hephilosophicalwork sundoneby hereinscriptionf he erm nderminedna struggletheorized n already-deconstructederms,while the ethico-politicalgesture finds itselfrobbed of any extrapolitical r philosophicalauthority.

So Foucaultdoes neither f he wo hingsimply,rat eastnot nthe

style o which hey reaccustomed. he coincidence sdifficult,nd tsdifficultyannot eforgottennthe xcitementf he oincidence. achmomentf hedoublegesturendoes he ther; hey onotderive rom,nordo they round, achother.They arearticulated n thebasis thenonbasis)oftheir ifference,ndthedifference ill lways hreatenoturnntodisarticulation,ust as theparadoxwillalwayshavealreadycollapsed.Thedifficultyfcoincidence s thenecessity fnegotiation,its nevitabilitynd mpossibility.t ispoliticalecause t simpossible.

Ifnegotiation eremerely ossible, oliticswouldbeunnecessary. utthere redoublebinds, veryday, hich s whypolitics sdifficult,ndwhich s whypolitics s notprogramming.ifficult s it is,thecoin-cidencewill lwayshavealready aken lace-future nterior-more rless, ike tor not.But t s a coincidence,nsomethingike he verydaysense-it cannot be programmed, uaranteed n advance withanycertainty,redicted, r pre-dictated. truly emporalpredicament:utterly ithout uarantees,xcept hat twillhappen.Only nthis enseiswhatwecall the"relation" fpower-knowledgeparadox: Itmustmaintain rsupport n intolerablend insupportable ifference ith-out oppositionor resolution.The unpredictability,he bias or theobliquity, f therelation s the risk, hepredicament,heparadoxicalchance,ofpolitics s ofreading. t isdifficult.

NOTES

1. Michel Foucault,"TheatrumPhilosophicum," ritique 82 (Novembre1970),885-908 t 897-trans. byDonald Bouchard ndSherry imon, nLanguage,Counter-Memory,Practice Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversityress, 1977), 165-196 t 182.Thiscollection fessayswillhereafterereferredoas LCMP. Allquotations rom renchnouressayhavebeensilentlymodifiedwhennecessary.







Keenan/ READINGFOUCAULTON A BIAS 33

2. This sanobjectionhat errida admade o Foucault's istoiree afolie eryearlynd hat oucaultubsequentlyndorsed.tmights well enoted erehat,or s,

themost ompellingeadingsfFoucault emainhose fJacques errida,CogitondtheHistoryfMadness,"Writingnd Difference,rans. yAlan Bass (Chicago:UniversityfChicago ress, 978), 1-63; hoshana elman,WritingndMadness,trans. yM. N. Evans, . Felman,nd B. MassumiIthaca:Cornell niversityress,1985).

3. Jurgenabermas,TheGenealogical ritingfHistory:nSomeAporiasnFoucault's heoryfPower,"rans.yGregorystrander,anadian ournalf ocialand PoliticalTheory 0,no. 1-2 1986), 1-9 t 7-8.

4. Nancy raser,Foucault n Modern ower: mpiricalnsightsndNormativeConfusions,"raxis nternational,no. 3 (October 981), 72-287;Foucault's ody

Language: Post-HumanistoliticalRhetoric?"almagundi1 (Fall 1983), 5-70;"Michel oucault: YoungConservative'"thics6,no.1 October 985), 65-184;"TheFrencherrideans:oliticizingeconstructionrDeconstructingolitics," ewGermanritique3 Fall1984), 27-154.hese rgumentsre ited romFoucaultnModen ower," 82-284,nd Young onservative,"72.

A strangeersionf heFraser-Habermasbjections raised yStephenWhiten"Foucault's hallengeo Criticalheory,"mericanolitical cience eview0,no.2(June 986), 19-432:

Withoutnyway f onceptualizinguridicalubjectivity,oucault'secommen-dation f ollectiveesistanceas uch blindndundifferentiatedharacters tobe almost oliticallyrresponsible.e provides s, ultimately,ith oway fdistinguishinghe esistancefthewomen'smovementr thePolish olidaritymovementrom,ay, heKu KluxKlanorJim ones' eople's emple.p. 430)

It is not learwhy,speciallyfter eading oucault,newould equire theoryfjuridicalubjectivityr ofpowernorderotell heKKKfrom olidarity.hilosophydoesnotneed operformheseasks or s.

5. Charles aylor, Foucault nFreedomndTruth," olitical heory 2,no. 2(May1984), 52-183t174,152,172-173,52, 81, mphasisdded. ee lso he xchangebetween illiamonnolly,Taylor, oucault,ndOtherness"ndTaylor,Connolly,Foucault,ndTruth,"olitical heory3,no.3 August 985), 65-376nd377-385.

6. Taylor,Foucault," 75-176,mphasisdded.7. Taylor,Foucault,"52, 62, 76.8. Taylor,Foucault,"52.9. Taylor,Foucault,"73.Much fwhatsproblematicnTaylor'sssayss aptured

in his hrase.twould evaluableo nalyzeloselyhe ystematicrifthat akes aylorfromefiningowers "domination"the symmetricallay fmobilend nequal orce

relations) s Foucault-at least n the textsTaylor onsiders-does, o power s"imposition,"nd then o "constraint,"prevention,"impediment,"nd blockage.Taylor inds p withower nderstoods the mpositionf onstraintndesireor tsformulation)-preciselyhe egativend juridico-discursive"iew rom hich oucaulttried odisengagets nalysis. olding o the efinitionsoucaults tryingo displace,especially ith phraseike otherwisehe ermoses ll meaning"p. 176)-misses hepoint. hepointstoput he xistingmeanings"f he ermn uestion,o rgue or heinadequacynd he olitialffectsf he semanticield."








10.Taylor,Foucault,"66, 81.11.Taylor,Foucault,"72.

12.MichelFoucault, a volonte' e savoir Histoire e la sexualite') (Paris:Gallimard,976), 21;Historyf exuality: An ntroduction,rans.yRobert urley(NewYork:Vintage,978), 2. HereafterS andHS.

13.SeeTayloronemporality,Foucault,"77-180. ithhis entencee lsogesturetowardhe mportantork fPauldeMan onrhetoric,emporality,ndpolitics,heimplicationsfwhich oliticalheoryas argelyet o address. ee"TheRhetoricfTemporality,"lindnessnd nsight2nd d.) Minneapolis:niversityfMinnesotaPress, 983), 87-228;s well sAllegoriesfReading(Newaven: aleUniversityress,1979); heResistanceoTheoryMinneapolis:niversityfMinnesotaress, 986),ndthe orthcomingestheticdeology.

14. SeedeMan,AllegoriesfReading;elman,WritingndMadness,4-25.15. Michel oucault, aymond ousselParis:Gallimard,963), 3-24; eath nd

the abyrinth,rans. yCharles uas Garden ity, Y:Doubleday,986), 5.16. PierreFontanier, es Figures u Discours, d. byGerardGenetteParis:

Flammarion,9771821-1830]),37, 64.17.Richard anham,A Handlist fRhetorical ermsBerkeley:niversityf

Californiaress, 968), 1.18. Fontanier,es Figures, 38, 140.See, foran example f theconsiderable

pseudodialecticalotalizingowerf estheticaradox,hework f heAmericanritic

Cleanthrooks,speciallyThe anguagef aradox"nd TheHeresyfParaphrase,"inTheWell-WroughtrnNewYork:Harcourt,race, 947), -21, 92-214.19.Fontanier,esFigures,40.20. See theprovocativerticleswhich ame omy ttentionfterhis rticle as

largelyritten)yRichard lein,Underragmaticaradoxes," ale renchtudies 6(1984), 1-109; ichard leinndWilliam.Warner,NuclearoincidencendKoreanAirlineisaster,"iacritics6,no. (Spring986), -21.

21. Michel oucault,StructuralismndPost-Structuralism,"nterviewith erardRaulet,rans.yJeremyarding,elos 5 Spring983), 95-211t 210.

22. Although,ompare ithMarkCousins ndAtharHussain,Michel oucault(NewYork: t.Martin'sress, 984), 01, 27, 50. Theresone rea owhichoucaultandhiscommentatorsavegiven central rominenceutwe do not, hepower-knowledgeelationship"p. 227).

23. On anotherhetoricalash, lso ocatedomewhatenselyetweennowledgeandpower, eeDeborahEsch, Toward Midwiferyf Thought: eadingKleist'sMarquise on . . ," Textual nalysis:omeReaders eading,d.byMaryAnnCaws(NewYork:Modern anguage ssociation,986), 44-155.

24. Garth illanndCharles emert, ichel oucault:ocialTheorys Transgres-sion NewYork:Columbia niversityress, 982), ,56,60,73,75,84,86, mpahsis

added.25. MichelFoucault, Le souci de la ve'rite',"nterviewithFranqois wald,Magazine ittiraire07Mai1984), 8-23t22.This assagesomittedromhe nglishtranslation:TheRegard or ruth,"rans. yPaulPatton, rt nd Text 6 Summer1984-1985),0-31.

26. MichelFoucault, Histoire es systemse pensee:Theories t institutionspenales,"Annuaireduolkgede rance972Paris: ollegederance,972),83-286t283, eprintednAngele remer-Marietti,ichel oucaultParis: eghers,974), 01-205 t201-202.







Keenan/ READINGFOUCAULTONABIAS 35

27. Michel oucault,urveillertpunirParis:Gallimard,975), 7;DisciplinendPunish,rans.yAlan heridanNewYork: antheon,977), 3.HereafterP andDP.

28. SP, 32;DP, 27.29. VS, 129-130; S,98.30. VS, 130;HS,98.31. VS,132-133,8-83; S, 101, 8-61,mphasisdded.32. Michel oucault, 'archeologieu avoirParis:Gallimard,969), 72, 7;The

ArcheologyfKnowledge,rans.yA. M.SheridanmithNewYork: antheon,972),209, 9;VS, 92;HS,68-69.

33. Foucault,StructuralismndPost-Structuralism,"06.34. SeeJacques errida,Psyche:nventionsf heOther,"rans.yPhilip ewis

and Catherineorter,d. byWlad Godzich ndLindsayWaters, eading e ManReadingforthcoming).

35. VS, 86, 82; HS, 64, 61. See MichelFoucault, Discourse nd Truth: heProblematizationfParrhesia,"ranscriptsf Fall 1983 ectures t UniversityfCaliforniatBerkeley,d.byJoseph earson.n these ecturesoucaultnalyzedheproblemf ellinghe ruthbout neselfnderhe recisehetoricaligurearrhesia.Foucault haracterizedarrhesia,nfact,s a complexct nwhich he ubjectf heutterance,he ubject ho peaks,nd he subjectf he nunciandum"re llmade ocoincide,n anutterancef he ormI amthe newho hinkshis nd hat." oucaultargued hat his ripleuperimpositions notust performativetteranceAustin)r

speech ct Searle), ut "speechctivity,"ivents nusualersionf he commitmentbetweenomeonendwhat e r he ays"(p. ).Soparrhesiaisot hetoricalyvirtuefsome issimulationr wistingf he ruth,ut atherparadoxicaligurewithoutnyfigure,incet scompletelyatural.arrhesias he ero egreef hose hetoricaligureswhichntensifyhe motionsf he udience"p.9).

36. VS, 133;HS, 100-101,mphasisdded.37. VS, 133;HS, 101.38. Michel oucault,'Les rapportsepouvoir assant li'nterieurescorps,"'

interviewith ucetteinas, a Quinzaineitteraire47 1-15Janvier977): -6; rans-lated yLeoMarshalls"TheHistoryf exuality"nPower/Knowledge,d.byColinGordonNewYork: antheon,980),180-193t190. his olumeshereafteriteds PK.

39. "Annexe,"n Le retraitupolitique,ravaux ucentre erechercheshiloso-phiques ur epolitique,d.byJean-Luc ancyndPhilippeacoue-LabartheParis:Galil6e, 983), 01-205t203-204,.1.Derrida'sifficultiesith he vailable oliticalphilosophemesre xemplifiednhis emarksn he nefficacyr bliterationf he nitedNations' 973 eclarationhatapartheids a crime gainst umanity""Racism's astWord,"rans. yPeggy amuf,riticalnquiry2,no. [Autumn985],90-299):

If his erdictontinuesohavenoeffect,t sbecause he ustomaryiscoursen

man,humanism,nd human ights as encounteredtseffectivend as yetunthoughtimit,he imitf hewholeystemnwhicht akes nmeaning....Beyond heuridico-politicalrtheologico-politicaliscourse,. . itwas, twillhave obe, t snecessaryo ppeal nconditionallyo he uturef notheraw ndanotherorceying utsidepar-dela]he otalityf his resentp.298).

40. Felman,WritingndMadness,21.41. Michel oucault,Faceauxgouvernements,esdroitse 'Homme,"iberation

(30 Juin-lJuillet 984), 2. Myinformationboutthis nitiativeomesfrom he








Liberationditor's eadnote,s well s IsabelleVichniac,UnComitenternationalcontre a pirateriea affretern bateaupourvenir u secours es boatpeople'

vietnamiens,"Leonde(21-22uin 981), ;P.Sabatier,UnBateau ontreespirates,"Libiration20-21Juin1981),15;Bernard ouchner,Un vraisamourai,"MichelFoucault: nehistoiree averiteParis: ditionsyros, 985), 5-89.

42. Theres a slippagenFoucault'sext etweenroit nddevoir, hichs notjustifiedn hatext. odoubtt ould e,but ntilhent s worthwhileokeepnmindMauriceBlanchot'sseful autions bouttheir ifference,n a discussionfwhatincidentallyighteconsideredhemostmportantrecursoroFoucault'seclaration,the1960Declarationur edroit l'insoumissionans aguerre'Alg&rie,"e Droitl'insoumission'le dossier es121')ed.byFrancoisMasperoParis:Maspero, 961),90-91.

43. Althoughhis ext rovidesneof tsrare heoreticallaborations,oucault'smilitancyas often een onductednderhebanner f"rights"-withhewomen'shealthmovement,or he ightoabortion,ocontraception,nd othe ree seof ne'sbody;withhe ayiberationovement,orhe ightochoose ne's exuality;ithhelabor nion FDT,forheworker'sighto healthyob;withhenformationroupnPrisons,or he ightoknow bout risononditions;itholidarity,orhe ightsndlibertiesf people iving nderPolishmartialaw; and so on. Other xtendedconsiderationsf rights"anbefoundn Va-t-onxtraderlausCroissant,"enouvelobservateur7914Novembre977),2-63,bout he xtraditionf he aader-Meinhof

group'sawyeroGermanyfterehad oughtsylumnFrance;L'ethiqueesouci esoicomme ratique e liberte,"nterview,6ncordia (1984), 9-116 t 113-116.translationf heattersforthcomingnPhilosophyndSocialCriticism.

44. Jacques errida,Dclarations 'Independance,"tobiographies(Paris:alilee,1984), 1-32 t23,27, ranslatednNewPoliticalcience 5 Summer,986), -15. histext as nspired uch four nalysis. n"rights,"eealso ClaudeLefort,Droits e1'HommetPolitique," inventionemocratique:es imitese adominationotalitaire(Paris: ayard,981),5-86,ranslatedyAlan heridans"Humanightsnd olitics,"inClaudeLefort, hePolitical orms fModern ociety, ohn . Thompson,d.(Cambridge:ITPress, 986): 39-272,ean-FranqoisyotardndJacobRogozinski,"La Police e aPensee,"Autre ournal0 Decembre985), 7-34. efort'sext oesinsufficientustice o he paradox" hicht xactinglyrticulates:the ightsfman redeclared,nd hey redeclaredsrightshat elong oman; ut, tthe ame ime,manappearshroughis epresentativess the eing hosessencet stodeclare is ights.tisimpossibleodetachhe tatementromheutterances soon s nobodysabletooccupyhe lace, t distanceromllothers,rom hich ewould ave he uthorityograntrratifyights.husrightsrenot implyhe bject f declaration,t stheiressenceobedeclared"256-257).

45. MichelFoucault, Truth nd Power,"nterviewithA. Fontana nd P.

Pasquino, K,109-133t121, mphasisdded.46. Michel oucault,TwoLectures,"rans.yKate oper, K,78-108t96.Theselectures ere irstublishedn taliantranslatedrom transcribedape ecording)s"Corsodel 7 gennaio 976" nd"Corsodel 14gennaio 976," nMichel oucault,MicrofisicaelPotere:nterventiolitici,d. byAllesandroontana ndPasqualePasquino Torino:GiulioEinaudi, 977),163-177,79-194. heEnglish ersionsapparentlyranslatedromhetalian;he renchranscriptsemainnpublished.haveoccasionallyodifiedranslations,nwhichases hetalian eferencesprovided. any







Keenan/ READING FOUCAULTON A BIAS 37

of hesergumentsanbefoundnVS, 107-120; S,81-91.47. Foucault,TwoLectures,"8,95; VS, 116;HS,88.

48. Foucault,TwoLectures,"5-96.49. Foucault,TwoLectures,"6; VS, 118-119; S,89.50. Foucault,TwoLectures,"05-107,Corso el14gennaio 976," 91-192.51. Foucault,TwoLectures,"07.52. Foucault, Two Lectures," 07-108; oucault,Corsode 14gennaio 976,"

193-194.53. Habermas,Genealogical riting,"-7.54. VS,119;HS,90;Foucault,TwoLectures,"08; oucault,Corso el 4gennaio

1976," 94, mpahsisdded. herecoveryrrewritingf he ermights mportantnd

not ommon:nthenext,ndfinal,entencesf heecture,nfact, oucaultxplicitlyrules ut ny ecuperationf heword epression,nomatter hat he riticalseonewouldmake f t." Right" eceives o such tigma,nd sindeed eservedor new"possibilities.

55. Foucault,TwoLectures,"02.56. Immanuelant, EinleitungndieRechtslehre,"etaphysiker itten,and

Immanuel antsWerke,rsg. rnst assirerBerlin:.Cassirer,922),4: Das Rechte(rectum) irdls dasGeradeeils emKrummen,eils em chiefenntgegenesetzt."

57. Foucault,StructuralismndPost-Structuralism,"07.58. Michel oucault,Sex,Power,nd he olitics f dentity,"nterviewith ob

GallagherndAlexWilson, heAdvocate00 7 August 984), 6-30t 27.59. Michel oucault,11 aut out epensera loi et eprison,"iberation6Juillet

1981), .60. See Michel oucault,Questionsfmethod,"nterviewith istorians,rans. y

ColinGordon, deology Consciousness (Spring 981), -14at 12-13; On theGenealogyfEthics,"nterviewith .RabinowndH.Dreyfus,he oucault eader,ed.byPaul RabinowNewYork: antheon,984), 40-372t343; Polemics,olitics,andProblemizations,"nterviewith .RabinowndT.Zummer,rans.y ydia avis,FoucaultReader,381-390 t 385.

61. Michel Foucault, "Est-ildonc important e penser?.,"nterviewwithDidierEribon,Liberation 30-31Mai 1981),21.62. Foucault,StructuralismndPost-Strucuturalism,"06.63. Michel oucault,Pardela ebien t emal,"nterviewithyceetudents,ctuel

14 Novembre971), 2-47 t46; Revolutionaryction:Until ow,"' CMP,218-233at 230.

64. Foucault,Theatrumhilosophicum,"06,899;LCMP, 194, 85. ee note 9above.

65. Millicentillon, ConversationithMichel oucault," heThreepennyeview1,no.1 Winter/Spring980), -5 t 5.

TomKeenan is a Ph.D. candidate n Comparative iteraturet Yale University.He iscurrentlyfinishingaissertationalled"Fables ofResponsibility: n Politicsbetween iteraturendPhilosophy and editing collection fJacquesDerrida'swritingsn politicalquestions.

Discourse, Foucault

Documents

Transcript of Discourse, Foucault