I have just come across an academic paper on Foucault and capitalist rationality by Ali Rizvi over at Foucauldian Reflections.
Capitalist rationality? That pulled me up short. I had understood political rationality in terms of neo-liberalism as a mode of governance, and then understood that mode of governance as a form of knowledge-power. I had interpreted some kinds of economics as neo-liberal (ie., the free market stuff+ minimal government + individual contracts) and read that as a form of political discourse.
Capitalist rationality? That would mean the rationality of self-reproducing economic system or order. That rationality is embodied with concepts and a shaping of economic conduct through economic and power relationships that work to maximize accummulation.
Ali says that the problem of governance in Foucualt's texts is the problem of governance for accummulation, and an assemblage of instrumentalities and mechanisms are in place to ensure docility and utility of human and the accummulation of capital. He then introduces the polity to show that liberal government and capitalist system are two sides of the same mode of governance.
Yes and no. Yes if we are talking about a neo-liberal mode of governance that governs a population through market mechanisms and instrumentalities. No if we are talking about liberal political institutions, as these have their dynamic and political logic, even if these institutions pass legislation dealing with the reform of industrial relations (eg., deregulation) and it becomes part of the rule of law.
Consider Parliament.
It is the democratic institution within our constitutional structure (in contrast to the bureaucracy and the legal system), which grounds its claims in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which is turn is a fundamental principle of constitutional law. Parliament operates in terms of political inconsistencies and constitutional ambiguities.
In his Conversations with the Constitution Greg Craven says that we are deal with a liberal political entity:
"...that mediates high constitutional functions through grubby politics, is the focus of absorbed but disgusted public attention, exists to bring down governments while shoring them up, and is simultaneously committed to democracy, practical outcomes, its British heritage and its own local style. Like anything interesting it seethes with contradictions as rotten meat crawls with maggots."
Now Ali is not dealing with governance not sovereignty. However, the logic and dynamic of the polity is different to that of the capitalist market as businessmen quickly discover when they come to Canberra to lobby. Presumably we are taalking more about governance as administration of the market and not the polity per se.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at November 20, 2004 10:54 PM | TrackBackGary,
You wrote, "Capitalist rationality means the rationality of self-reproducing economic system or order." I agree. However Foucault's unique contribution in this regard was to say that this requires producing and reproducing an 'empowered' capitalist subjectivity (among other things). Foucault further emphasised that freedom was central element in reproducing such subjectivity. So yes, the system is self reproducing but it needs 'initiations,' and for that it needs 'empowered' subjectivities. Discourse has its independent logic but in order to produce discourse one needs to utter first, only then the anonymous independent logic can operate. Foucault was alluding in this way towards a need of re-conceptualising relation between freedom and unfreedom, which seems to me something still to be explored.
My paper above would be best read with Lemke's paper you have been discussing here. In fact if I had read Lemke's piece before writing this, I would never had felt need to write it. However, this is not to compare my humble effort with Lemke's original piece.
BTW the paper was presented last year in a conference on Social Sciences, at ANU.
Ali,
I ran out of puff. That is why the post is so brief. And it was late.
I do agree with you that:
"Foucault's unique contribution in this regard was to say that this requires producing and reproducing an 'empowered' capitalist subjectivity (among other things). Foucault further emphasised that freedom was central element in reproducing such subjectivity."
Marx had forgotten Hegel's insight that civil society was a form of ethical life, and so the concepts of freedom, right, utility etc are embodied in economic relations. Or rather, for Marx these concepts are in the inverted sphere of circulation (the market) and not in the sphere of production. The latter is dull economic necessity that compels us to work more than we are paid for.
Your paraphrase of Foucault takes us into liberalism surely.Yet you seem to have displaced that political discourse (governmentality) at the beginning of the paper.
So I got a bit confused. And left the post. It was late. I'm still a bit confused.
My question: 'if the capitalist system requires 'initiations,' and for that it requires 'empowered' subjectivities for it to be self reproducing, then how do we talk about this without introducing liberalism.'
It seems to me that you answer in terms of the construction of capitalist individuality---a certain kind of free subject. How is that different from the construction of liberal individuality?
It seems to me that lot of what Foucault is saying refers to liberal individuality. Maybe it is just different names for the same object?
It is not that capitalist individuality requires the establishment of capitalist markets and states: our subjectivities arise from working and living within the workings of capitalist markets.
Posted by: Gary Sauer-Thompson on November 22, 2004 06:40 AM