Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mitchell Dean
a
To cite this article: Mitchell Dean (2014): Michel Foucaults apology for neoliberalism, Journal of
Political Power, DOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2014.967002
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2014.967002
Mitchell Dean*
Department of Management, Philosophy and Politics, Copenhagen Business School,
Frederiksberg, Denmark; Department of Humanities and Social Science, University of
Newcastle, Ourimbah, Australia
This lecture evaluates the claim made by one of his closest followers, Franois
Ewald, that Foucault offered an apology for neoliberalism, particularly of the
American school represented by Gary Becker. It draws on exchanges between
Ewald and Becker in 2012 and 2013 at the University of Chicago shortly before
the latters death. It places Foucault in relation to the then emergent Second
Left in France, the critique of the welfare state, and, more broadly, the latetwentieth-century social-democratic take-up of neoliberal thought. It indicates
three limitations of his thought: the problem of state veridiction; the question
of inequality; and the concept of the economy. It also indicates how these might
be addressed within a general appreciation of his thought.
Keywords: Foucault; Ewald; Becker; neoliberalism; Second Left; economy;
state
The title of my talk is Michel Foucaults apology for neoliberalism. I know its
a bit provocative. The word apology is in inverted commas, so that is acceptable;
but the phrase apology for neoliberalism slightly misquotes the words of perhaps
his closest and most inuential follower. Nevertheless, on this evening, the 30th
anniversary of his death, I want to raise the question of Foucaults critical and
political legacy, given his status today as among the most inuential thinkers in the
contemporary human and social sciences. What is at stake is less Foucault himself
than ourselves in a time of the active withdrawal of the critical vocation of these
sciences, in which the vocabulary of power would itself be suspect and replaced by
the idiom of governance, and in which empirical analysis is encouraged but narrowed. In our universities, academic quality has become increasingly measurable in
monetary terms. Certainly a cool and contextualized investigation of the case for
this apology is warranted. But so too would be a thinking beyond Foucault, or at
least to a place that is necessarily somewhat different from his to move laterally
like a craysh as he put it (2008, p. 78).
*Email: md.mpp@cbs.dk
Lecture delivered at Remembering Foucault event, Department of Law, London School of
Economics. The event was associated with the conference Governing Academic Life. I
must thank Anne Barron and Mary Evans for organising the event and for the invitation to
present this lecture, and to my colleagues, Sverre Raffnse, Marius Gudmand-Hyer and
Kaspar Villadsen for their moderation of a draft of this lecture.
2014 Taylor & Francis
M. Dean
a decisive slip of the tongue that assumed Beckers disagreement with Foucault.
Becker immediately roundly corrected this. He also easily batted away Ewalds one
critical venture that the notion of human capital gave rise to a reductive vision of
man and a poor behaviorism by observing the richness of a vision of man based
on choice (ibid., pp. 1718). In the second meeting, Ewald weighed in to correct
Becker on his supposition that Foucault was a socialist:
Franois Ewald:
Gary Becker:
Franois Ewald:
In an essay dated from the mid-1990s, Ewald concerned himself with the nature
of philosophical acts and explained what he had learnt from Foucault about the
present. Foucault posited that our current situation (actualit) is very fundamentally post-revolutionary: if there was an event in the 1970s, it was the disappearance of the revolution (1999, p. 85). In a nod to Francis Fukuyamas thesis, and
an explicit reference to Alexandre Kojve, Ewald suggests that it is clear that the
end of revolution and the end of History represent the same event: it is an event in
our consciousness of time (1999, p. 85). What is left belongs only to the order of
administration, of management. But this does not mean that the state assumes a
central importance. Quite the contrary, for the end of revolution brings about the
end of the philosophical relevance of the state: The stakes are with respect to
power, and this a totally different location, a totally different zone, a totally different type of reality (Ewald 1999, pp. 8687).
In Ewalds view, this situation does not portend a world without events. Rather,
anything can emerge from it. It makes possible new philosophical acts or events
which have the value of acts concerning being (Ewald 1999, pp. 84, 90). What
would a philosophical act look like, then, in the realm of a politics without revolution and with an irrelevant state, which has been reduced to the order of management and administration? It would seem to Ewald that Foucault found an exemplar
in Beckers theory and in neoliberalism.
Within a few years of these statements, and guided by his understanding of
Foucaults actuality, Ewald would be able to join in relations of power on the side
of the neoliberal fraction of business in France and seek a fundamental restructuring to the corporatist welfare state. For the disillusioned Maoist, Foucault was less
the theorist who extended politics to the domain of multiple local struggles and
more one who diagnosed the vacuity of a politics around the couple revolution/
state. It was not the extension of politics but its limitation that Ewald would take
from Foucault. This limitation would lead him to advocate a social restructuring
that would depoliticize the economy and be a last chance for organizations of
employers and employees to be the organizers of civil society (Ewald, cited in
Behrent 2010, pp. 620621).
For many of us, Ewalds interpretation of Foucaults lectures and their political
trajectory is completely mistaken. Thomas Lemke, for example, argues that
Foucault offers a critical genealogy of neoliberalism superior to ideology critique.
For Lemke, this critique sheds a sharper light on the effects of neoliberal
M. Dean
This statement concerns governing crime, but not just that. It is all quite straightforward when it is read in terms of the movement of Foucaults thought through forms
of power. What is envisaged then is a form of regulation that is not one of a sovereign power exercised through law, or of disciplinary society with its norms, or even
of the general normalization of a biopolitics of the population. It is not one of the
major forms of regulation discussed by Foucault previously in the 1970s, but rather
a new programme and vision:
On the horizon of this analysis we see instead the image, idea, or theme-program of a
society in which there is an optimization of systems of difference, in which the eld
is left open to uctuating processes, in which minority individuals and practices are
tolerated, in which action is brought to bear on the rules of the game rather than on
the players, and nally in which there is an environmental type of intervention instead
of the internal subjugation of individuals (de lassujettisement interne des individus).
(Foucault 2008, pp. 259260, 2004, p. 265, original French)
We have seen that Foucault expresses reservations about the project of the manipulation of choice through environmental interventions of the behavioural type. These
would seem simply to be the costs in his language, the dangers of a form of
regulation that he nds has certain benets or at least, a certain opening. Chief
among these is that regulation no longer entails the internal subjectication
M. Dean
intended for the larger public. The closest example in the Anglophone world one
can think of is perhaps that of Anthony Giddenss book, The Third Way (1998).
Here, a prominent thinker, social theorist and intellectual tried to cast a general
policy framework or a form of statecraft for a newly elected centre-Left
government, in this case, the British Labour Party, that would learn from marketoriented philosophies and developments. What makes Foucaults apology or
apologia relevant, in retrospect, is not its distinctiveness, but that it starts to mark
out a now well-trodden intellectual pathway for progressive thought in the years
following the post-war Long Boom and amidst trenchant questioning of Keynesian
macroeconomic policies and the welfare state from both Right and Left. He identies a particular intellectual-political space even if his ethos prevents him from fully
occupying it.
So let me come back to the present. I have argued at length elsewhere for the
need for an analytics of sovereignty and a political archaeology of glory and for
the limits of Foucaults understanding in these areas (Dean 2013). Indeed, I would
suggest that his view of sovereignty as grounded in a right of death reproduces
the liberal scary imaginary of sovereignty and state. Here, however, I indicate
three more modest but interrelated lines that are closely tied to this discussion of
neoliberalism.
The rst of these concerns the problem of the relationship between the market
and truth. The fundamental thesis of The Birth of Biopolitics is that the market
becomes the site of veridiction (or truth-telling) for liberalism and neoliberalism.
This means quite simply that the the market must tell the truth, it must tell the
truth in relation to governmental practice (Foucault 2008, p. 32). A liberal art of
government thus deploys the market as a regime of veridiction, so that it constitutes
a set of rules enabling one to establish which statements in a given discourse can
be described as true or false (Foucault 2008, pp. 32, 35). There are of course different conceptions of the market: as natural or as constructed, as founded on
exchange (Adam Smith) or as realizing the principle of competition (the Ordoliberals). But the idea of the market as a site for the production of truth and falsehood
that is unknowable by the sovereign or its representatives is close to Friedrich
Hayeks view of the market as a kind of gigantic information processor superior to
highly limited human knowledge or the meddling of political actors. In his efforts
to deconstruct the state, Foucault manages to back into another cold monster, that
of the market, and reproduces the asymmetry between the invisible hand of the
market and the (im)possibility of sovereign knowledge that is found in liberalism.
Most important for us are the implications for state and public authority. While
Foucault does indicate that utility acts as a measure internal to the assessment of
public authority in classical liberalism, this measure is not a regime of veridiction
but of jurisdiction, that is of the legal delineation of public authority (2008,
p. 44). Foucaults decentred and decomposed state, unlike the abstract and universal
notion of the market, does not act as a principle of veridiction for governmental
practice. But, against the enthusiasms of contemporary anti-statism, from new
managerialists, civil society advocates, to the Tea Party, we require an analysis of
how state ofce can be a site of particular modes of truth-telling with particular
ethical comportments such as discretion, impartiality and party political neutrality
that are supported indeed by technologies of the self and different styles of
self-cultivation. While Foucault views liberalism as fundamentally a critique of
state reason, he fails to analyse the persistence of a state rationality within the
liberal-democratic constitutional state and its forms of public authority.
There is no doubt that this can be remedied by Foucaults own work on forms
of truth-telling or veridiction, particularly in his last two lecture series that deal
with parrhesia (20102011), and his schemata for the analysis of techniques of the
self in the second and third volumes of The History of Sexuality (19851986).
These provide key resources for the task of analysing the techniques of self-cultivation of the public ofcial and the forms of truth-telling characteristic of public
ofce. Such a project, it must be said, has been initiated by a group of thinkers
originally located at Grifth University in Australia, some two decades ago.1
The second line concerns the problem of inequality or, rather, of inequality and
subjectivity. We have seen that the question of subjectivity was at stake not only in
Ewalds case for the apology, but also in Foucaults analysis of neoliberalism. By
focusing on questions of subjugation and subjectivity, on the way in which we are
subjectied in technologies of power and we work on ourselves (or subjectivate)
through techniques of the self, Foucault belonged very much to the politics of his
time, that is to say, the time of the post-revolutionary movements of the 70s concerned with a politics of identity and difference, a critical ontology of ourselves
as he would say. In our time, whatever weight we might give to the recent nancial
crisis and ongoing sovereign debt problems in Europe, or the movements against
debt and the one percent in Europe and the United States, or indeed the notoriety
of an economist such as Thomas Piketty, economic inequality has become again
the target and focus on political action and public debate. Foucault frankly had very
little to say about it. Perhaps his best word on it was the unsourced attribution to
the Ordoliberal Wilhelm Rpke that inequality is the same for all (Foucault 2008,
p. 143), which at least reminds us that the problematization of inequality does not
necessarily point in the direction of greater equality.
The solutions Foucault offered to the crisis of the welfare state are very much
to the point here. When dening the present situation in the interview on social
security, Foucault explicitly refused the structural social and economic situation, the
totality of economic and social mechanisms and claimed to speak only of the
relation between peoples feelings, their moral choices, their relationship with
themselves, and the institutions that surround them (2008, pp. 161162). In this
respect, his vantage point is not very different from the generation of social theorists and policy-makers who would follow him, among them Giddens and Ulrich
Beck. They would advocate active policies, life planning and reform in the name
of individualization for clients of the welfare state and new decentralized organizational forms. From the perspective of our time, after the nostrums of Labours
Third Way and US welfare reform under Clinton, and other such experiments
from Australasia to the Nordic countries, the diagnosis and solutions that might
have sounded somewhat fresh in Foucaults time are now rather depressingly familiar. We might say that the movements of the 70s (against institutionalization, over
identity and the politics of difference) objected to the Marxist and socialist attempt
to answer the question of subjectivity with that of inequality. What the history of
welfare-state reform over the last two decades amply demonstrates is that it is not
possible to answer questions of economic inequality in the language of subjectivity
without intensifying domination and increasing inequality itself. We can use
Foucauldian governmental and ethical analytics to analyse the demand for a work
M. Dean
Notes on contributor
Mitchell Dean, author of Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (2nd ed.,
Sage 2010), is professor of Public Governance, Copenhagen Business School and professor
of Sociology, the University of Newcastle, Australia. His most recent books are The Signature of Power (Sage 2013) and State-Phobia and Civil Society (co-authored with Kaspar
Villadsen), to be published by Stanford University Press in 2015.
References
Becker, Gary, Ewald, Franois and Harcourt, Bernard, 2012. Becker on Ewald on Foucault
on Becker: American neoliberalism and Michel Foucaults 1979 Birth of Biopolitics
lectures. Institute for Law and Economics Working Paper No. 614. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Law School.
Becker, Gary, Ewald, Franois and Harcourt, Bernard, 2013. Becker and Foucault on crime
and punishment. Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Working Paper No.
654. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Law School.
Behrent, Michael C., 2009. Liberalism without humanism: Michel Foucault and the freemarket creed, 19761979. Modern Intellectual History, 6 (3), 539568.
Behrent, Michael C., 2010. Accidents happen. Franois Ewald, the antirevolutionary Foucault, and the intellectual politics of the French welfare state. The Journal of Modern
History, 82 (3), 585624.
Dean, Mitchell, 2013. The signature of power: sovereignty, governmentality and biopolitics.
London: Sage.
Dean, Mitchell, 2014. Rethinking neoliberalism. Journal of Sociology, 50 (2), 150163.
Ewald, Franois, 1999. Foucault and the contemporary scene. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 25 (3), 8191.
Foucault, Michel, 1985. The history of sexuality. Vol. 2: the use of pleasure (Robert Hurley,
Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michel, 1986. The history of sexuality. Vol. 3: the care of the self (Robert Hurley,
Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michel, 1988. Social security. In: Lawrence D. Kritzman, ed. Politics, philosophy,
culture. Interviews and other writings 197784. New York: Routledge, 159177.
Foucault, Michel, 2004. Naissance de la biopolitique [The birth of biopolitics]. Cours au
Collge de France, 19781979. Michel Senellart, ed. Paris: Gallimard/Seuil.
Foucault, Michel, 2008. The birth of biopolitics. Lectures at the Collge de France, 1978
1979 (Graham Burchell, Trans.). London: Palgrave.
Foucault, Michel, 2010. The government of self and others. Lectures at the Collge de
France, 19821983 (Graham Burchell, Trans.). London: Palgrave.
Foucault, Michel, 2011. The courage of truth. The government of self and others II:
Lectures at the Collge de France, 19831984 (Graham Burchell, Trans.). London:
Palgrave.
Giddens, Anthony, 1998. The third way. Cambridge: Polity.
Hunter, Ian, 1990. Personality as a vocation: the political rationality of the humanities.
Economy and Society, 19 (4), 391430.
Lazzarato, Maurizio, 2009. Neoliberalism in action: inequality, insecurity and the reconstitution of the social. Theory, Culture and Society, 26 (6), 109133.
Lazzarato, Maurizio, 2012. The making of indebted man. An essay on the neoliberal condition (Joshua David Jordan, Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
Lemke, Thomas, 2001. The birth of bio-politics. Michel Foucaults lecture at the Collge
de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30 (2), 190207.
Lopdrup-Hjorth, Thomas, 2013. Lets go outside. The value of co-creation. Frederiksberg:
Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies, Copenhagen Business
School.
Minson, Jeffrey, 1998. Ethics in the service of the state. In: Mitchell Dean and Barry
Hindess, eds. Governing Australia: studies in contemporary rationalities of government.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 4769.
10
M. Dean
Mirowski, Philip and Plehwe, Dieter, eds., 2009. The road from Mont Plerin. The making
of the neoliberal thought collective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Negri, Antonio. 2001. Interview. Le Monde. Available from: Libcom.org/library/interviewle-monde-negri [3 Oct 2001].
Tellman, Ute, 2009. Foucault and the invisible economy. Foucault Studies, 6, 524.