Foucault and Capitalist Rationality

8/2/2019 Foucault and Capitalist Rationality

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foucault-and-capitalist-rationality 1/6

RESEARCH

FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY:

A RECONSTRUCTIONAIi Muhammad Rizvi

La Trobe University, Melbourne,

[email protected]

!'Introduction

A certain Wlderstanding of capitalist rationality penneates Foucault's work. However the historical

mode of Foucault' s p resentat ion makes i td ifficu lt to grasp the origina li ty and the sys tematic nature of h is

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

school has gone a long way towards repairing the s itua tion (Burche ll e/a l 005: 1991, Rose e/ aI, eds: 1996,

Rose: 1993).However,the emphasis of their work hasbeen on liberalism ratherthanon capitalism. I The

p rimo rd ia l r el at io n b etw ee n l ib era l m od es o f g ove rn an ce a nd c api ta li st ra ti on al it y i s n o t ve ry c le ar i n t he ir work .

It i s t he p urp os e o f th is p ap er t o t ry t o s hi ft t he empha si s o f t he a na ly si s t hro ug h re con st ru ct in g t he fr am ework

o f Foucaul t' s concept ion o f cap it al ism and i ts r at iona li ty .

I argue that Wlderstanding the double cbaracteroffte edom is ce ntral to Foucault's Wlderstanding of

cap it al is t r at iona li ty . The o ri gi na li ty o fFoucaul t' s ana1ysi s l ie s i nh is r ea li sa ti on tha t cap it al ism manages i nd iv idua ls

a nd p op ula ti on s ( pr im ar ily ) t hr ou gh Ih :e dom and n ot (p rima ri ly ) t hro ug h re pr es si on . I a rg ue th at I h: ed om i s t he

c on dit io n t ha t m ak es p os si bl e t he c or re la ti on b etwe en wha t Fo uc au lt t erms a s t he a cc umu1 at io n o f m en a nd t he

accumulat ion o f cap it al .

MARKET FORCES - .JANUARY 2006

/' ~

l'

23

RESEARCH FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECONSTRUCTION

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

govemmentalitytheorists. Critiquingtheirwork isnot myaim. Rather,I treattheirinsightsasmy startingpoint

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

Foucauldianconcept ofcapitalistration8Iityasawhole.My aimis moremodestandmore basic.Myaim isto

pointtowardsthe condition(s) thatmake(s) possible capitalism asan order.

A few words a re cal led for on the te rms used. Foucault uses cap ital ism inap his to rica l sense . I t is inan

historical sense that Foucault investigates the meaning and conditions of capitalism. Foucault Wlderstand:sthree

different things through the term capitalism: a)Apolitical order which accumulates individuals and populations

ina certa in manner. Foucault cal ls this the reg ime ofthe accumulat ion ofmen. b)On the o ther hand Foucault

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

cal ls this the reg ime of the accumulat ion ofcapita l.2 c )Thirdly cap ital ism means for Foucault anorder! tha t is

the bas is ofthe two reg imes mentioned above . Here cap ital ism isnot jus t apo li tica l o ran economic sys tem; i t

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

sense. Itis not yet differentiated into accumulation ofwealth (economy) and accumulation of men (polity). It,

rather, provides the condition for any such a differentiation.

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

but often neg lected fac t. We Wlderstand particu la rs only in the context ofa 'whole' . However the whole does

not reveal itself to usdirectly. Itremains implicit Itrequires a special effort to make itexplicit (Brandom, 1994,

B ra ndorn, 2000) . Th e 'whole' i s t he c ondi ti on in the c on te xt of who se impl ic it awarene ss we approa ch

particu la rs . We never encoWlterthe 'whole' a s such. However, we can make the 'whole' exp lici t thorough

approaching particulars with this specific purpose. In our case a & b are particulars which are Wlderstood in

the context of c however c isno t exp lici t. I t remains implici t By concentra ting on a or b or both, with the

purpose ofrnaking cexplic it wecan make the sense ofcap ital ism asa 'whole' exp lici t One ofthe purposes of

the present essay isto make c explicit. However c can only bemade explici t bye ithe r concentra ting on a or b

oronboth.

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

ofFoucau lt tog ive us thenotion ofh istorical necessi ty . An ideaor a relat ion may benecessary today but i tcan

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

empirical and transcendental. They are empirical as far asthey are (inprinciple) "always surpassable" (Veyne,

1997: 228). However they are transcenden ta l and hence necessa ry and "cons ti tu tive as long as they are not

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

accumulat ion ofmen and tha t ofcapita l isnecessa ry Imean bytha t h is to rica l necessi ty and not any other sort

of necessity.

! If Accumulat ion o fMen and Accumulat ion of Cap it al

Foucault's analysis of the relationship between the regimes ofthe accumulation ofmen and the

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

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

accumulation ofmen asthe function oftheproblem ofgovernance but whatis seldom Wlderstoodis that

Foucaulttreatstheproblemof governancenot inisolationbut inrelationshiptotheproblemof theaccumulation

ofcapital.Theproblemis notjust thegovernancebutthe typeof governance thatprovidesthe spacein which

24 MARKET FORCES -.JANUARY 2006

flr!



FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIOi\ALlT\': ARECONSTRtCTION RESEARCH

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

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

useful . The pu rp ose of produ cing do cility is to m axi mise utili ty. Th e typ e of do cility that ham pers u tility i s

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

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

t he o rd er in g o f mul ti pl ic it ies " and e nh an ci ng gov er nan ce , h av e t he pur po se o f i n cr eas in g " bo th t he ' do ci li ty '

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

towards thefa :t tha t haw prior to thi s co" '; la tion and as the condi tion of theposs ibil it y of this corre lation

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

the accumulation of capital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foucault s ay s th at " ". . . t he e conomi c sys tem t ha t p romo te s th e a ccumula tion o f c api ta l a nd t hesystem of power that ordains the accumulation of men are, fi'om the seventeenth century 011,correlated and

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

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

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

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

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

i \IARKET FORCES -.JANUARY 2006 25

RESEARCH FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECONSTRUCTION

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

possibili ty ofcapitalism as anorder.

111.1Capitalist Subjectivisation Regime

"Subjec tivi ty" i s def ined byFoucault as a form of "organi sa tion ofse lf consc iousness" (pPC: 253)

implying that there may beforms oforganisation of self-<:onsciousness other than subjectivity/subject. Idefine

manageable subjectivity asa subjectivity that has two characteristics; i thas some degree offieedomldiversity

and secondly thi s diversi ty i samenable to organisat ion under as ingular ity. Wecannot talk ofa manageable

subjectivity without the presence ofthese two elements. Management techniques are not operable onindividuals

who a re not a ll owed f re edom. One canno t t alk o fmanag ing s lave s i n t hi s s en se . Hence Foucau lt a ss er ts

" powe r is exe rc is ed ove r f re e s ub je cts , a nd only i nso fa r a s t hey a re fr ee " ( SP : 221 emphas is p rovi ded) .

Similarly one cannot talk of manageable subjectivity ifdiversity cannot be traced back to a singularitY. Diversity

tha t cannot be t raced back toa s ingulari ty leads to "dangerous subject iv ity" (pPC: 125-151), a subject iv ity

that isnot manageabie.

The apparent paradox of capit al ism is tha t inorder to increase the uti li ty and product ive capacity of

individuals and populations itrequires continuous expansion inthe ambitoffteedom and diversity. But inorder

to make individuals docile and hence governable, i tneeds to limit this diversity. It is on the maintenance of this

delicate balance between diversity and singularity that the sustenance and continuity of the whole capitalist

system rests. Curbing fieedom and diversity would decrease utili ty and productivity and hence slow down the

motorofproduction and innovation on whosc:ever-increasingspeed thelegitimacy ofthe whole system depends.

On the other hand expansion inthe ambit off reedom and diversi ty totheextent tha t i tbecomes unt raceable to

a singularity would de-link diversity fi'om capital accumulation. Itwould become ungovernable (hence creating

a crisis ofgovernance) in the sense that i twould no longer bea capitalist governance i.e. governance for capital

accwnulation. (and italone)

Thus curbing fieedom isnot what capitalism requires. The continued existence of capitalism requires

the continued expansion of the sphere of freedom. However, capitalism requires that this expansion be geared

towards the single end o£ capital accumUlation. The problem ofcapitalism isnot fieedom but the intransigence

off teedom, the possibi li ty tha t f reedom may take forms that are not t raceable to the s ingulari ty of capit al

accwnulation. Thus the problem of capitalism isneither servitude norfteedom per se, $e problem ofcapitalism

is the problem of the iptransigence offieedom (SP: 22l-222).S

F ree dom i sc en tra I fo r t he f un ct io ni ng o f a c ap it al is t s ys tem not onl y a s t h e p re cond it io n f or enhan ci ng

u ti li ty a nd d iv er si ty but fo r i ts d oubl e r ol e a s t he p rec ondi ti on f or enhan ci ng d iv er si ty a nd imposi ng s in gu lar it y on

mul tipl ic ity (SP: 221). H is tori ca1ly f te edom has played the role of" imposing" s ingula ri ty ove r mul tipl ic ity through

th e process o f su bjectivisatioll, throu gh t he creati on of a s ub jectivity /su bject Two key con cepts, wh ich hav e

b ee n ope rat io nal is ed t o cr eat e a nd j us ti fY ca pi ta li st s ub je ct iv it y, h av e b een v el )' impor tan t, v iz .: t he not io n o f

i den ti ty ( in t he n at ur al l aw t rad it io n) and mor al it y ( in t he Ka nt ia n t ra di ti on ). 6

T he not io n o fi den ti ty p rovi de s t he f oca l p oi nt t ow hi ch a ll d iv ers it y a nd mul ti pl ici ty r efe rs . I n t he n at ur al

l aw t radi tion f ie edom isde fined interms ofbeing one 's t ruelau thenti c s el f. The forma tion of c apit al is t s ubje ct iv ity

is closel y related to th e n otion ofidentity to th e extent th at Foucau lt defi nes the mean ing of the term sub ject in

terms of the notion ofidentity: "There are two meanings of the word subject: subject to some one else by

26 MARKET FORCES -JANUARY 2006

01



'FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECONSTRUCTION RESEARCH

control and dependence, and tied toh is own identity by a consc ience or self-knowledge. Both meanings

s ugge st a form of power which s ubjuga te s and makes subject to" (SP : 212 emphasi s a dd ed ). The form o f

powe r Foucaul t men tions h ere i s th e power o f~emen t I tmanage s ind ividu al s a nd popu1a tions by tying

their activities to their identity, byreferring back all diversity to identity and hence 'imposing' singularity over

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

the ind iv idua l, marks h im byhisown ind iv idua li ty , a ttaches h im to h is own identity, imposes a law oftruth on

him which bemus t recognise inh imse lf ' (SP: 212). This double game tha t fteedom plays in the sys tem can be

understood asconce iv ing fteedom asa cen tre ftom which rays emana te inevery d irec tion , only toconverge

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

are very important in th is con text beCause through them s ingula ri ty is imposed not ftom above but emerges

ftom within. I t is important because ifpower is (solely) imposed ftom above . i tcan hamper u ti li ty and would

defeat the purpose of the whole exercise.'

In the Kantian tradition morality p lays the same role. Through Kant' s conception ofmora li ty asse lf-

determination room isprovided fordiversity but tIuough the conception of categorical imperative singularity is

' re -imposed ' on th is d iversi ty . Self-de te rmination ismora l only to the exten t tha t i tcan u lt imately converge

back to this singularity. Foucault considered the"form of amorality acceptable to everyone. .. as catastrophic"

precisely because itis the imposition ofa singularity over diversity. Similarly Foucault praised Greek morality

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

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

for hav ing "severa l forms offteedom" (pPC: 245). InGreek morality the re was "no one s ingle domain tha t

would unifY a ll moral domains"(pPC: 26]). Chris tian ity e ffec ted this change by introducing the notion of

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

tha t the e th ics offle sh was suited for women as formen. In the anc ient morality, on the o ther hand self con trol

isaprob lem only for the ind iv idua l who mus t bemasterofhimself and mas te r ofo the rs and not for those who

mus t obey others. Tha t iswhy this e th ics concerns only men and does not have exactly the same form when

applied torelat ions with one 's own body, with one 's wife, o rwith boys" (pPC: 261-262). Modem capital ism

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

ever-growing diversity that isthe hal1mark ofcapitalist societies.

The important thingto note isthat the conception ofmorality provides the means tomanage individuals

and populat ions ftom within bycrea ting a cri te rion of proprie ty within each and every ind iv idua l. This is

important aga in because itp rov ides the bas is for the management ofindividuals, and the d iversi ty oftheir

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

their productivity.

11I.2 Capital is t Tru th Regime

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

chimera as i t is a too l to impose s ingu la ri ty in the name ofob ject iv ity. I t is a chimera because human fin itude

leaves noroo in forthe transcendence ofthe sort tha tgoes hand inhand with the notion ofob ject iv ity. Tru th for

Fouc aul t o n the o th er h and i s 'p ro du ce d' w ithin d is cour se a nd i t i s meaning le ss to s pea k of t ru th out side

d iscourse . As Foucault puts i t, " . . . the problem does not consist indrawing a line between tha t ina d iscourse

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

seeing how historically effects oftruth are produced within discourses which inthemselves are neither true nor

MARKET FORCES -JANUARY 2006

"

.)

'1~1~,

27

RESEARCH FOUCAULTANDCAPITALISTRATIONALITY:ARECONSTRUCTION

false" (FR: 60, emphasis added).8 Thus tru th isa lways anembodied and embedded tru th . I t is embedded in the

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

The 'genera l polit ic s' o ftruth estab lishes wha t would becounted as tru th and wha t would becounted

asun truth ina soc ie ty (FR: 72). This 'genera l polit ic s' o f tru th imposes s ingu la ri ty over the multiple tru ths

accepted in any society. But what distinguishes the 'general politics ' of truth incapitalist societies ftom other

societies is itsunique blend ofdiversity and singularity, docility and utility. The same double bind operates here

which we saw opera ting in thesubjec tivisa tion reg ime. On the one hand the requirements ofproduc tivi ty and

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

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

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

The capitalist truth regime plays animportant rolein this regard The 'objective' truths, that are compatible

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

about the ind iv idua l, h is body and soul so as. to s tandardise lnormalise h is ways of act ing and being (in the

context ofthe d iversi ties tha t a re a llowed). The cap ital is t t ru th reg ime ensures tha t only those ways ofac ting ,

behav ing and being are conside red normal and hence rat iona l tha t can besubsumed under the s ingu la ri ty of

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

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

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

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

sure that individuals accept itftom within and itisnot seen as imposed ftom above. Second1y, itinvents/evolves

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

The cap ital is t t ru th reg ime creates the normative tru th about ind iv idua ls and populat ions . However i ta lso

provides the resources needed to have access to their factual truths. The truth of individuals and populations in

both senses isneeded to maintain their productivity and manageability atthe same time.

The central theme ofthe techniques of correction and education isself-discipline. This isthe essence of

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

through the production ofa sou lwith in every ind iv idua l. This sou l is the e ffec t o fthe production ofthe tru th of

an individual (m both senses) andof theemployment ofthe techniques of observation, surveillanceand conection.

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

",

The capitalist soul isnot achimera orillusion but areal effect of themicrophysics ofpunitive power and

the general form of power derived ftom it The cap ital is t sou l isproduced through a privi leged access to thCi

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

possible self-surrender to the log ic of cap ital (DP: 29-30). As Foucault puts i t: "The man described for us,

whom weare inv ited toftee , is a lready inh imse lf the e ffec t o fa sub ject ion much more profound than himse lf .

A ' soul ' inhab its h im and brings h im toex is tence, which is i ts elf a fac to r in the mas te ry tha t power exerc ises

over the body. The sou l is thee ffect and ins trument ofa polit ical ana tomy; the sou l is the prison ofthe body"

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

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

28 MARKETFORCES - JANUARY2006

Jf11



FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTION RESEARCH

11I .3 The Capital is t State

The state may be def ined asthe s tructure oflegit imate obediences. Foucaul t uses the word state in

two senses: l imited and broad. The l imited sense of the word state corresponds tothe ensemble ofcoercive

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

Foucault claims that these great "institutions ofpower" are supplemented byand depend upon "the rudiment of

anatomo - and bio-pol it ics created. . . as techniques ofpower present atevery level of the social body and

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

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

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

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

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

as"a group ofbeings l iving ina given area" (pPC: 83) . Thus society can beunders tood as individuals inthei r

relations.

The i nnovat ion of the bourgeo is ie was t o c rea te thes e concep ts and t urn t hem in to t he obj ec t o f

gove rnment I twas s ai d that " government not onl y has t odea l w it h a t err ito ry , wi th a doma in and wit h i t:!

subjects, but that italso has todeal with acomplex and independent reality thathas itsown laws and mechanismsof reaction, its regulation as well as its possibilities of disturbance. This new reality issociety" (FR: 242). The

society and population as theobject ofgovernment provide the wayof penetration fortbestructures ofIegitimate

obediences (power relat ions) deep into the social body. Incapi ta li st societies "power relat ions are rooted in

the system ofsocial networks" (SP: 224). I t i s through these power relat ions rooted inthe system of social

networks and i ts all ied micro ins ti tutions such asthe school, the hospi ta l, e tc , that the s tate has been able to

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

relat ions rooted inthe system ofsocial networks that the s tate has been able to have access toand structure

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

I t i s here that we arr ive at the second and broader concept ion of the s tate . In this broader sense the

s tate would includ~ both the s tate inthe res tr ic ted sense and the whole system ofsocial networks. This can be

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

corresponds totherest ricted sense ofgovernment asan ins ti tution (SP: 224), the s tate inthe broader sense of

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

(government ofindividuali sation) and the government ofpopulation. The state inthe broader sense isnot an

institution but a particular rationality of government, a form ofpolitica1 power(pPC: 24). Itisto this broader

sense oftbe state that Foucau1t isreferring when hewrites: " ... sincethe sixteenthcentuIya newpolitica1formof power has been continuously developing. This new political structure .. .isthestate"(SP:213). Itisinthis

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

as the capitalist state.

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

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

As against feudal societies where the s tate was essential ly separated from the individual and society, in

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

functioned largely innegative terms inthe sense that its basic relationship with individuals and society was that


.l

(' "J

,

29

RESEARCH FOl'CA liLT . .\ :' oiDCAP ITA L\ST R. \' n 0 ;' , AU I \ :AK~L\J I"I '! I KIA 11\ "

ofprohibition and inhibition (HS: 135). The stale in feudal societies did not possess nor did itneed the power

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

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

extremes of taking lifeor letting live, ithas nopower over lifein itspositivity. Nor has itany interest inseeking

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

;,

A new form of s tate has , however , emerged inthe capital is t era . I f the previous form of s tate swung

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

136). Power inthecapital is t s ta te i snot exercised " in the name of the sovereign who must bedefended" but

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

takes the responsibility for and "guarantees" the "individual 's continued existence" byassuming the right to

manage l ife. Thus modem stale power is"exerci sed at the level ofl ife, the species , the race, and the large

scale phenomenon ofpopulation" (HS: 137). Whi le the feudal s ta te was centred on the phenomenon of

death, the capitalist state iscentred on life; itlegitimises itself as the manager oflife (HS: 138).

The change i n t he natu re o f t he st ate men ti oned above has widened i ts ambit to incl ude ' lif e' in i ts

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

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

'totalising' force inthe manner the feudal state was not Itmust administer lifeas a whole. What Meszaros has

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

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

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

form ofpower. Never , I think, inthehistory ofhuman societies-even intheold Chinese society - has therebeen such a tricky combination inthe same political structureofindividualising techniques, and oftotalisation

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

IV. Conclusion

The re a re two pos sible way s o funde rs tand ing the relat ionship between the reg imes o f the accumulat ion

o f men and the accumulat ion o fc ap ital . One v iew is tha t r elat ions a re extema1 to concept s and hence con ting en t

A cc or di ng t o t hi s v iew we wo ul d no t have t o c once pt ua ll y l ook fu rt her t ha n de sc ri bi ng hi st or ical ly how t he se

two d if fe rent r eg imes interac ted throughou t h is to ry . This i sno t a FoucauIdian per sp ec tive . Foucaul t' s ana ly si s

point s towards p rimo rd ia l r elat io n between the two reg imes -the relat ion tha t makes the ir con ting en t h is to rica l

relation possible.

Ou r br ief su rv ey of t he r egime of t he a ccumul at ion of m en, as a nal yse d by Fouca u1t , poi nt s t o a si ngl e

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

capital accumulation and the regime of the accumulation of men. The subjectivisation regime works on

t he c ondi ti on of fr eed om. A ca pi tal is t s ubj ec ti vi ty c ann ot be c ons ti tut ed wi thout f reed om. The ma nag eme nt of

t hi s sub ject ivi ty i s a ls o impos si bl e wi thout fr eedom. F ree dom i s t he me ans t o pr oduc e a s ub ject iv it y whi ch i s

c apa bl e of max imi si ng ut il it y w it hout m aki ng i t t oo di ff icul t t om anag e. S imi la rl y t he ca pi ta li st t rU th r egime

wo rks o n t he as sumpt ion t hat d isc ipl ine mus t be ul timat el y ba sed on s el f- di sci pl in e. O therwi se i nd ivi dua ls

and populations cannot be managed without hampering productivity. Once again freedom seems to be the

c ent ra l co ndi ti on of t he wh ol e pr oc es s. An d fi nal ly, t he s tat e do es not co nt rol t hro ugh r ep re ss ion. I t d oes not

co nt rol t hro ugh d edu ct ion. I tmana ge s t hr oug h di ssemi na ti on an d mul ti pl ic at ion . I t i s b ase d o n t he s tr at egy of

30 i\IARKET FORCES -JANUARY 2006

fl J



FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTION RESEARCH

l if e enhancement and empowerment rathe r than cur ta ilment I t cur ta il s through enhancement and empowerment

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

i ndi vi dual s a nd pOpul at ions on t he c ondi ti on t ha t i tw il l i ncr eas e t hei r&ee dom and i t p re suppos es t hat th ey ar e

already tree.Only then i s i t p os sible todeve lop populat ions tha t a re max imis ing the ir u ti li ty and p roduct iv ity and

are manageable a t the same time. .

I fmy a cc oun t a bove i s c or re ct i tmakes the c or re la ti on be tween the reg ime o f the a ccumu la tion of

cap ital and the accumulat ion ofmen c lear. Capital ism is both a polit ical and aneconomic order. I t isbased on

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

for making the dual elements of productivity and manageability, utility and docility possible. Itis true for both

theregime ofcapital accumulation and theregirne of the accumulation ofmeo. Markets worlcon the premise of

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

system unmanageable. Similarly the regime of theaccumulation of men needs to accumulate individuals and

populations without making them unmanageable. Freedom isneeded to manage both markets and populations

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

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

That something is freedom.

'iOTES

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

the ir ana lysis on the ' regional ' a spec ts hence avoid ing grand themes like cap ital ism. A tendency which

certainly has basis inFoucault's own writings.

2.On a & b seeDP: 137-138.

3 .On Foucault' s v iews onorder see , OT: xxi-xxii.

4 . For Heidegger 's conception ofprimordial ity see BT and a lso Inwood (1999: 150-153).

5.This iswhyradica1 democracy is impossible within capitalism.

6 .I am not imply ing here tha t these traditions a re exc lusive . In fact Kant provides a l ink to both.

7 .Obviously this is not to imply tha t in acapita list sys tem power isnever imposed &om above . This isnot

the case, What I am t rying t o a rgue is t hat t hi s is not the primar y and basic mode of management i n a

capitalist system.

8.Thisis Heidegger pure and simple. Cf. BT sections 43-44 and Mulhall, 1996:94-104 for lucid and

excellentexpositionofHeidegger's basicinsighton this.

9 . Thi s i s d ue t o t he fa ct th at t he unde rl yi ng r at ional it y i s t he same .

II

I

I

I

I'

:t \)

10. Thi s i s t he ambi ti on of t hi s st at e, i ts nat ur e.

\IARKET FORCES -.JANUARY 2006

~.

-.--

RESEARCH FOUCAULT Ai\D CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECOi\STRUCTION

References

Rober t B random (2000 ) Art ic ul at ing reas ons : a n int ro duc tion to inferent ia li sm (Camb ridg e, Mass . ;

London: Harvard University Press, 2000).

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

(Cambridge, Mass: HarvardUniversity Press, 1994.).

Graham Burchell et a led s (1991 ) The Foucaul t e ff ec t: s tu di es in gov emmenta1 ity, w ith two lec tu res

by and an int en iewwith Mich el Foucaul t Chicago: Unive rs it y o fChica go P re ss

Hubert L .Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow (1983) Miche l Foucault: Beyond Struc tura lism and Hermeneutic s

Chicago Chicago University Press.

Michael Foucault (1984) The Foucault Reader ed. P .Rabinow Harmondsworth Penguin . (FR]

Michae l Fou caul t (1979) The H istory of Sexua li ty voL 1 :An Int ro duc tion London Penguin. [HS ]

Michae l Fou cau lt (1977) D isc ip line and Puni sh : the b ir th of p ri so n London Penguin (DP)

Michel FoucaultThe Order ofThings: An Archaeology of Human Sciences (NewYork:Random

House, 1970). (OT]

Michae l Fou caul t (1980 ) Power Knowledge: s el ect ed int ervi ews and o th er wri ti ng s 1972-1977 ed. C

Gordon New York Pantheon. (PK) ,

Mic hae l Fou caul t (1988 ) Pol it ic s, Phi lo sophy, Cul tu re: i nt ervi ews and othe r wri ti ng s 1977-1984 ed .

Lawrence D. Kritzman New YorkRoutledge. (pPC)

Micheal Foucault (1983) "The Subject and Power" as a fterwards to Dreyfus and Rabinow 983. (SP]

Miche l Foucault (1994) Oits e t ecrits 1954-1988 eds . Danie l Defert and Fran~ois Ewald Paris Gallimard .

Martin Heidegger (1996) Being and time: a trans la tion ofSein und Zeit ; .t rans la ted by Joan Stambaugh .

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

Michaellnwood (1999) AHeidegger d ic tionary Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Istavon Meszaros (1995) Beyond Capital London Merlin./'

S tephan MuIha1l (1996) Routledge philosophy guidebook to Heidegger and Being and time London;

New York : Routledg~, 1996.


[)

3132

I,II



FOUCAULT AND CAPITALISTRATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTION RESEARCH

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

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

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

Paul Veyne (1997) "The Final Foucault and His Ethics" inArnold I. Davidson ed. Foucault and hisInterlocutors LondonChicagoUniversity Press, 1997.

\IARKET FORCES - JANUARY 200633

Foucault and Capitalist Rationality

Documents

Transcript of Foucault and Capitalist Rationality