|USFDC Home | USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
Transdiscursive Cosmopolitanism: Foucauld ian Freedom, Subjectivity, and the Power of Resistance by Joanna K. Rozpedowski A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Government and International Affairs College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Michael T. Gibbons, Ph.D. Cheryl Hall, Ph.D. Mark Amen, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 24, 2009 Keywords: Foucault, globalization, governme ntality, postmodernism, self-enactment Copyright 2009 Joanna K. Rozpedowski
Mei Parentes cosmopoliticum, Anna et Jerzy Rozpedowski, hunc thesis dedico Quidquid agis, prudenter agas et respice finem. ~ Where the tree of knowledge st ands, there is always Paradise -Nietzsche
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Professor Michael Gi bbons for his enduring intellectual guidance and generous research atmosphere. It was my good fortune to have benefited most agreeably from an Independent Reading on Michel Foucaults works conducted by Professor Gibbons in the Summer 2008 term; a nd I am very grateful for his superb introduction and outstanding scholarly expos of this complex politico-philosophical material. I would like to thank Professor Ma rk Amen for a year of exquisite academic lectures and engaging discus sions on globalization. I grat efully acknowledge and thank Professor Cheryl Hall for her meticulous cri tical evaluation of the manuscript and her many intelligent and instructive observations, which helped to better define the final version of this study. As a student absorbed with Foucaults litera ture, I must admit, following in the philosophers footprints, that any intellectual shortcomings on my part are simply good intentions left undone.
i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER I. COSMOPOLIS A BR IEF HISTORY: FROM AGORA TO GLOBAL FORUM .......................................................................................................9 The Discourses on Cosmopolitan Universe ...........................................................12 CHAPTER II. THE POSTMODERN TURN AND A CASE FOR COSMOPOLITANISM: A FOUCAU LDIAN CHALLE NGE TO THE REALIST ORTHODOXY .......................................................................................... 29 Poststructuralism in Inte rnational Relations .........................................................35 Injunction of Realism ............................................................................................37 Foucaults Postmodern Paradigm: The Question of Political Sovereignty ..........44 Genealogy, Archeology, and Di scourse in Politics ..............................................46 Foucault on Sovereignty .......................................................................................50 The State of Being qua Creative Becoming ..........................................................57 A Prelude: Political Significance of Space ...........................................................60 CHAPTER III. THEORIZING POLITICA L SPACE, GOVERNMENTALITY, AND SOVEREIGNTY ................................................................................................63 Postmodernism and the Rise of the Politics of Social Space ................................69 On the Art of Government .....................................................................................78 The Foucauldian Subject .......................................................................................83 The Problematic of Subjectiv ity, Freedom, and Resistance .................................87 CHAPTER IV. THE ROLE OF DISC OURSE IN TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS: FOUCAULTS PHILOSOPHY I N POLITICAL PRACTICE ..............91 Case Study I: National/State Gender Di scourses and the Administration of Society .............................................................................................................94 Case Study II: Civil Libertie s and the State of Exception ..................................107 Case Study III: War Crimes, Ref ugeeism, and the Dilemmas of Citizenship ....................................................................................................130 The Power of Resistance and the Fou cauldian Ethics of Self-Creation .............140
ii CHAPTER V. FOUCAULDIAN COSMOPOLITANISM: TERRA INCOGNITA? ...........................................................................................................146 The Grand Narratives and Cosmopolitan Itineraries ...........................................147 Governance and Governmentality in an Era of Globalization ............................158 Diffused Nation-States and the Ch allenges of Self-Enactment ..........................165 Cosmopolitan Ontology ......................................................................................171 Conclusion: The Horizons of Cosmopolitan Democracy ...................................176 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................178
iii Transdiscursive Cosmopolitanism: Foucauld ian Freedom, Subjectivity, and the Power of Resistance Joanna K. Rozpedowski ABSTRACT The following project will consist in the study and examination of the concepts and theories that lie in the domain of politic al theory. The enquiry into the dimensions and complexities of the socio-political or ganization and the poli tical substance of individual human agents will be conducted with the intellectual assistance of the postmodernist turn of thought. I will interrogate and develop a specifically Foucauldian reading of international politics and the emerging global world order as well as situate Foucaults insights and theorizing in a cosmopolitan framework, which calls for a progressive reconceptualization of the dimensions of power and the modalities of state-citizen autonomy, and sovereignty. The thesis will proceed through five stag es of analysis: (i) examination of freedom and self-creation as foundati onal and fundamental to the cosmopolitan citizenship; (ii) investigatio n of governmentality, power an d the role of personal and political resistance in shaping new horizons of political order (iii) development of a structural approach to cosmopolitan democracy; enhanced by (iv) decoupling of identity
iv from citizenship, and prompted by (v) an inqui ry into and recalibra tion of the political space and sovereignty of states and political agents. I will contend for a conception of citizensh ip, illuminated by a postmodernist lens of analysis, set in a cosmopolitan framework and premised upon a notion of a layered and constituted dialectic, as the most adroit m odel for a re-articulatio n of the spirit of democratic qua cosmopolitan citizenship in the worl d of increasingly displaced loyalties, porous identities, and atrophied civic commitments. The study aims to inquire into the possi bilities of meaningfully addressing the fundamental question in political theory, that of : how is the state to be organized in an era of globalization accompanied by an unpreceden ted compression of space and time, and re-spatialization of socio-economic and political relations. The thesis will conclude with a synthesis of proposed theoretical assumptions that are to serve as the structural basis and philosophical guidance for the institutionalization of measures conducive to the enactment and perpetuation of cosmopolitan consciousness and cosmopolitical practice.
INTRODUCTION The main interest in life is to become someone else that you were not at the beginning The game is worthwhile as we dont know what will be the end. -Michel Foucault Globalization, it has been argued, engenders homogenization, engineers specious consensus, subsumes and absorbs individual ity into an undifferentiated being, and induces subjects surrender to the collec tive rhythm of the indifferent world of corporate symbolism and largely anonymous spaces dedicated to the cu ltivation of virtual pseudo-personal relations. Due to its ubiquitous presence, the phenomenon as a corpus of ideas, processes and interactions changes the very nature of the international realm of governance, resulting in decomposition and an organic disintegration of the connective tissue that ties social capital qua citizenship to its communitarian and democratic values. The multidimensionality of the phenomenon thus appears to make dichotomous demands upon the situated agent, as it presents bot h an occasion for challenging the ossified, asphyxiating, and inflexible modes of being and feeling a citizen, as well as prompts alienation from the public particip atory dialectics of socio-political existence which ensue in the praxes of individual ethical ambiguity, powerlessness and inertia. Furthermore, it is argued that contempor ary modes of globalization have shifted concentration of power from the states to other non-territorial and supr aterritorial entities, 1
as the importance and condition of territorial ization diminishes. Hence, it is possible to speak of the transition from statism th e centralized regulation and operation of territorial, bureaucratic and national governments1 to polycentrism a societal condition of governance in which power radiates from various dispersed nodes of supraand substate parties, that is; power as incar nated in historical social practices2 emanating from various nodes of power on a web of socio-political re lations. Such shifts have significant effects on governance, as the state beco mes an increasingly reconstituted and reconstructed, if not an obsolete bastion of power. In view of this, political space and political community are no longer defined an d limited by a strictly national, statistoriented framework. Increasingly, the phenom enon of power diffusi on signifies emerging multilayered governance, marked by development of regional and global institutions and laws governing the administration and management of globalization, and coextensively, a transnational citizenry. The emergent forms of new spatial arrangements, which testify to the redistribution of centers of power require for their concep tualization a transdiscursive, Foucauldian lens of analysis, in order to not merely understand them, but to recalibrate the architectonic function of political theory and practi ce itself. The purpose of the following study is to situate Foucault in a cosmopolitan framework and develop a specifically Foucauldian reading of the international politics. The following pages will be dedicated to the examination of Michel Foucaults contribution to the globalization-cosmopolitan citizenship debate. In the course of the analysis the following key terms will be taken under consideration and their theoretical 2 1 Scholte, Jan. 2005. Globalization. (New York: Palgrave MacMillan). Pg. 186. 2 Dreyfus, Hubert, L. 2004. Being and Power: Heidegger and Foucault. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 4 (1). Pg. 3.
influence upon the aforementioned dyad will be examined: power, governmentality, and sovereignty. I contend that a novel understanding of citizenship set upon a Foucauldian conceptual skeleton and rooted in three themes of analysis: (i) space, (ii) sovereignty, and (iii) subjectivity, can serve as one of the most adept schemas capable of advancing a cosmopolitical alternative more amenable to si tuating a constituted subject in a world of porous identities and shifting loyalties. The thesis will be divided into three secti ons; the first of which will concern itself with the debate on the ontological question of cosmopolis as employed in socioand historico-philosophical investigations of the an cients and the moderns, deemed especially pertinent as it captures and concretizes the quintessence of the evolution and materialization of critical analytical approaches to the realization of an alternative form of governmentality. The second section will be comprised of an analysis of the aforementioned conceptual dyads: power-discourse, governmentality-sovereignty. Third section will attempt to locate Foucaults subjectivity qua se lf-creation theorizing in the political enterprise, thus underscoring his inadvertent relevance to the cosmopolitical project. To date, contemporary scholarship in the poststructuralist International Relations tradition has employed Foucault to: (i) support deconstructions of realist in ternational theory, (ii) analyze modern discourses and practices of international relations, (iii) develop novel accounts of the c ontemporary global liberal order.3 In addition, recent attempts to situate Foucault in the Marxist framework have provided further 3 3 Selby, Jan. 2007. Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Li beral Governance and the Limits of Foucauldian IR. International Relations 3(21). Pg. 324.
substantiation for the students and scholars of political science and international relations interested in political theory and questions pertaining to the globalization of the political economy and governance to engage in th e study and analysis of Foucaults transdiscursive genealogical unfolding of the power problematic and the means of resistance. The Foucauldian approach to th e study of world politics via genealogy and deconstruction of political power, juridico -political discourse, governmentality and sovereignty, analysis of the birth of biopow er and biopolitics, and the investigation of mechanisms constituting the ontology of th e present, equips the discipline of International Relations with indispensable ev aluative and theoretical instruments, which enable further insight into the workings of structural power and th e role of agency in relations of power interposed, incorporat ed by and operating in the global arena. Scholars have also noted Foucaults enduring influence on war and security studies, institutional development, postcolonialism, femini st critique of the st ate, and theories of democracy. Thus, Edward Saids 1978 book, Orientalism, for instance, employs Michel Foucaults notion of a discourse (as an institutionalized way of thinking and a social boundary defining the limits of conventi onal wisdom) described by Foucault in The Archeology of Knowledge and in Discipline and Punish, to account for the ubiquitous presence of psychological and material elements of domination concentrated at the behest and at the disposal of the imperialistic gaze of power. Likewise, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in Empire (2000) conceptualize and situate the new paradigm of power in Foucauldian biopolitics, where the control of society over individuals is not conducted only through consciousness or ideology, but also in the body and with the body. For 4
capitalist society biopolitics is what is mo st important, the biological, the somatic, the corporeal.4 For it is in the space between bodies th at the relations cum actions, equipped with intentions, obtain the capacity of power. The intimate relationship between discourse, knowledge, and the ontological self, as a subject and also at the same time an object, rests on a presupposition that that entity which determines what can be voiced and talked about also determines what can be known, how the subject ought to think, and who the subject, the self, is. Furthermore, as contemporary debates about International Relations elusive actor, globalization, suggest, the question of power, its modalities instrumentalities, organization and distribution, is key to understanding the shifts and transformations in the scale and quality of human social relations. Th e spread of transplane tary and increasingly supraterritorial connections between people,5 and a transformation in spatial organization of social relations and transactions, generate unprecedented transcontinental and interregional flows and new networks of activit y, interaction as well as new sources and contests of power.6 The growing enmeshment of the local and global blurs distinctions between strictly domestic and global affair s and processes. Likewise, the decisional, institutional, distributive, and st ructural impacts7 of distant events have significant consequences on the socio-cultu ral and political-economic dyna mics of the local social order. The aforementioned supraterritori ality of connections suggests further 5 4 Hardt, Michael, Ne gri, Antonio. 2000. Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Pg. 27. 5 Scholte, Jan. 2005. Globalization. (New York: Palgrave MacMillan). Pg. 59. 6 Held, David. 1999. Global Transformations (Stanford Stanford University Press). Pg. 16. 7 Ibid. Pg. 18.
decentralization of more traditional unidir ectional power-relations themselves, and thus demonstrates a noticeable shift away from the dominant Hobbesian-Hegelian treatment of power qua sovereign police power-over to the Foucauldian notion of diffuse, nonegalitarian and mobile8 processes of confrontation and restructuring of force relations of power, re-conceptu alization of the sites of political resistance, and rearticulation of political space. 6 Thus, the project upon which I am about to embark will consist in the study and examination of the concepts and theories that lie in the domain of political theory. The enquiry into the dimensions a nd complexities of the sociopolitical organization and the political substance of individual human agents will be conducted with the intellectual assistance of the postmodernist turn of thought. I will argue for an inadvertent cosmopolitan slant that the thin communitarianism9 of Michel Foucault nonetheless contains in order to render, in terrogate, and develop a specif ically Foucauldian reading of international politics and the emerging global world order. It is not my intention to internationalize Foucaults admittedly narro w engagement with transnational politics, 8 Foucault, Michel. 1978. History of Sexuality Vol. I (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 92. 9 Mark Olssen in his book Toward a Global Thin Community represents Michel Foucault as thin communitarian. Olssens understanding of community deviates from a pre-modern notion of community defined by a substantive common goal and asserts an interactive multiplicity not ruled by any organizing or binding law or principle. Such a notio n recognizes community as an expression of tacit agreements, understandings, and rules which represent the basis of political reason as a pragmatic code for problem solving rather than a set of universal epis temological principles based on truth (38). This departure from an organic unity and totality and assertion of interdependence, relational reciprocity, and social and historical character of existence structured and sustained by an institutional and political outside, Olssen argues, is provoked by Foucaults six explicit themes contained in his political philosophy: (i) a social theory of practice; (ii) a conception of the historical constitution of the subject; (iii) a relational/dialogical conception of selfhood and ethics of agency, autonomy, and social interdependence; (iv) an agnostic conception of liberty as nondomination and equalization of power; (v) a critique of monistic communitarianism and totality; (vi) an oppositio n to governmental policies that conflict with selfcreation. (42).
but rather, to situate his insights and theo rizing in a cosmopolitan framework, which calls for a progressive re-conceptualization of the dimensions of power and the modalities of state and citizen autono my, and sovereignty. To render the cosmopolitan reading of Foucaults theo rizing more legible and make it compatible with the current literature on the subject, the thesis will proceed through five stages of analysis: (i) exam ination of freedom and self-creation as foundational and fundamental to the cosmopolitan citizenship; (ii) investigation of governmentality, power and the role of persona l and political resistance in shaping new horizons of political order (iii) development of a structural approach to cosmopolitan democracy that is enhanced by (iv) decouplin g of identity from citizenship, and prompted by (v) an inquiry into and recalibration of the political space a nd sovereignty of states and political agents. The evocation of Foucaults social philo sophy and its co-extensive political dialectic is meant to supplement the tradit ionally espoused Kantian moral and political stances toward cosmopolitan order as well as guard against the epistemic apodicticity of the problematic of globalization as depersonalizing totalization, and close the gap between the scope of human agency and the aspiration to cosmopolitical arrangements. Kants conception of citizenship as constituted by and constitutive of a common moral sense and self-legislating practic al reason is deemed insufficient for the realization of a meaningful individual political ex istence in an era of globaliza tion, and is thus in need of a revisionist schema. For this purpose an affirmative Foucauldian understanding of resistance qua a creative act of a social movement and political engagement will be advanced. I will, likewise, contend for a co nception of citizenship, illuminated by a 7
postmodernist/postructuralist lens of analysis, set in a cosmopolitan framework and premised upon a notion of a layered and constitut ed dialectic, as th e most adroit model for a re-articulation of the spirit of democra tic qua cosmopolitan citizenship in the world of increasingly displaced l oyalties and atrophied civic commitments. The thesis will conclude with a synthesis of proposed theoretical assumptions that are to serve as the structural basis and philos ophical guidance for the institu tionalization of measures conducive to the enactment and perpetuatio n of cosmopolitan consciousness and cosmopolitical practice. The following study w ill inquire into th e possibilities for addressing the fundamental question in political theory, that of how is the state to be organized in the era of globalization, unpr ecedented compression of space and time, and re-spatialization of socio-economic and politic al relations. Thus, the aim of the following study will be to use Foucault s philosophy as a toolbox fo r advancing a Foucauldian political theory, which permits us to rethi nk the conditions for cosmopolitan citizenship in an era of globalization. 8
CHAPTER I COSMOPOLIS A BRIEF HISTORY: FROM AGORA TO GLOBAL FORUM Homo sum: Humani nihil a me alienum puto. -Terence In Another Cosmopolitanism (2006) Seyla Benhabib inquires after the ontological status of cosmopolitan norms in a postmetaphysical universe, and their authority in a universe not backed up by a sovereign with the power of enforcement. Although, Benhabib does not hide her predilection for Kantian ethics the formal construct underlying her inquiry can no longer be substantiated by recourse to a 17th century rationalization of political order and moral standards of socio-political conduct. For one, the very assumption of a life lived within postmetaphysical struct ures of governance, rather than guided by intuited a priori innate duties vested in universal la ws and codes of obliging obedience, both eternal in duration and divine in character, presupposes a re-evaluation of values governed not by an assumption of intelligible teleology and purposiveness of providential linearity of history, but rather a dissociated, continge nt, and fragmented unfolding of constructs that come to constitute and de fine human praxis. Second, the displacement of identities and allegiances problematizes in new ways the concep tions of indivisible sovereignty, first introduced to the polit ical lexicon in 1576 by Jean Bodin in his 9
masterwork, Les six livres de la Republique ,10 giving salience to alternative formations not constrained and limited by the exclusiv e constructs of national socialization. Furthermore, the ontological plane of analys is requires that the state, classically considered an organic structure expressive of peoples social nature, be reconstituted to accurately portray and serve the plethora of variegated identities embedded in a global context. The decoupling of complex networks of identity from citizenship ought to be conducted with a rhizomatic11rather than concentric conception of political order in mind, to ensure fair representation and the surv ival of democratic spirit of governance. In thinking about the parameters of cosmopolitan governmentality, it is necessary to set it in the postructurali st school of thought and invoke the underlying premises of a Foucauldian strand of analysis. Just as the dawn of modernity marked the emergence in 17th and 18th centuries of the self-sustaining politi cal units, nation-states; the post-modern period is linked with the eclipse of nationa l sovereignty and demands institutions that overlap national boun daries and serve transnationa l social and economic needs.12 Conducting an analysis of a political subjec t matter under the guise of a presiding postmodernist theory does not absolve discourse of a habitu al recourse to modernitys 10 10 Bodin viewed sovereignty to be: (i) the essential elem ent of the state, whose (ii) legitimate holder is the king, who (iii) has absolute or indivisible supremacy that is not be shared with others, and whose (iv) power is subject to the laws of God, of nature, and of nations. 11 When Connolly in From Ethos to Pluralization speaks of rhizomatic plura lism he adopts an arboreal signifier to illustrate the ideal, which he describes thus: a rhizome ceaselessly adopts connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power and circum stances relative to the arts, sciences, and social struggles. A semiotic chain is like a tuber agglomerating very diverse acts, not only linguistic but also perceptive, mimetic, gestural and cognitive To be rhizomatic is to produce stems and filaments that seem to be roots or better yet connect with them by penetrating the trunk, but put them to strange new uses.(94) 12 Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Pg. 7.
rational methods of inquiry that were esta blished among European thinkers in the 17th century, and which promised intellectual certainty and harmony,13 and uninterrupted progress. Rather, the term implies a more ci rcumspect study and interpretation of the coexistent and co-determinative systems of know ledge and power that result in the sociopolitical arrangements of our time. Only thro ugh such a lens of an alysis and method of inquiry will the skeletal confi gurations of politics be revealed and its practices uncovered from the thicket of inter-dependent relations. 11 Thus, I will argue that five explicit dimensions and imperatives of Foucaults analysis parallel the requirements of the dom inant strands of the contemporary literature regarding the project of consolidating cosmopolitical arrangements, and which the project deems ineffaceable: (i) ethical self-creation; (ii) emphasis on pl uralist and polymorphous political ontology; (iii) view of history through the pris m of differentiation and discontinuity as opposed to tele ological unitarism and totalizat ion; (iv) utilization of the dialogical principle and an ti-atomism; (v) consolidat ion of a polycentric and democratically egalitarian socio-institutional level, which privileges openness and avoidance of closure within a deterritorialized and global cultural order. Naturally the above may well be called into question by i nvocation of opposites: How much liberty do the states systemic routinizations sanction and permit for acts of authentication via selfelected and identified modes of self-authorship? Is not history a cen tralizing and unitary element upon which the constructs of nations and states are enacte d? Do not vertical hierarchy rather than bureaucratically ineffa ble polycentrism character ize the institutions of the state? Is it not in the nature of co mmunities and states to be exclusionary and 13 Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Pg. 9.
partial rather than unconditionally unrestricte d in law and socio-political practice? Seyla Benhabib, once again, vocalizes the cosmopolitica lly intuitive argument by asserting that it lies in the exclusive parlance of strong democracies to unve il universalist rearticulation through which they fashion the meaning of their own peoplehood through contestation, repositioning, resignification, a nd reappropriation of fundamental principles via practices of jurisgenerative politics14 and the dialectic of rights and identities.15 The guarded recourse to legal norms provides a point of departure for the discussion of the modalities of self-creation in a Fouc auldian vein of analysis. The following chapter regards self-authorsh ip as fundamental and foundational of the cosmopolitan effort, and will, theref ore, precede formal and more extensive elaboration of Foucaults politi cal theory. I will proceed firs t by evoking the paradigmatic ancient premises of cosmopolitanism, as de rived from Classical Greek thought of the Stoics and the Romans. Second, I will draw para llels between the liber tine approaches to political and social orders of the ancien t Greek thinkers and Foucaults anormative critique of the modern, post-Enlightenment eras socio-political arrangements. Third, I will demonstrate the necessity for the post-stru ctural cosmopolitanism to incorporate into their expansive vocabulary the premises of a Foucauldian discursive paradigm, which distances itself from the liberal conceptions of positive and negative freedoms and relies 12 14 Benhabib in Another Cosmopolitanism regards jurisgenerative politics as a model that permits democratic people to think of creative interventions that mediate between universal norms and the will of democratic majorities(49). As a process, it permits for an interactive engagement centered upon acts of reappropriation and reinterpretation of guiding norms and principles, which not only make one a subject of such laws, but also their author. 15 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism.(Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 69.
more heavily upon the dialogical episteme for actions of affirmation and resistance which take place within the socially and historica lly constituted matrix, and which aim toward reworking of political subjectivity. The cri tical attitude of poststructural ethos reinvigorates the interrogation of limits which are set upon human thought, and enables their critical contestation and renegotia tion through argumentation. As Devetak points out, discourse ethics promotes cosmopolitan ideal where the political organization of humanity is decided by a process of dialogue in which participation is open to all who stand to be affected by the decision.16 By taking human individuality and subjectivity as effects of the operations of power, Foucault severs unive rsalism and essentialism, imposed and harbored by the foundationali st presuppositions, from the internal manifestations of the human person. It is at this juncture that th e discursive conditions, created by deconstruction of th e material fabric of socio-political relations, enable the practices of individualized self-creation. Conceiving of discourse in terms of a performative materialization rather than static set of preordered c onstructions, permits for the emergence of competing representations, practices, meanings, and narratives, which fashion and come to characterize political identities of hermeneutic subjects. The Discourses on Cosmopolitan Universe Cosmopolitanism, as a moral construct and a normative ideal, which is inextricably bound and structurally realized through the all-pervading processes of globalization, is said to promote a moralideological disassociation from tradition, 13 16 Devetak, Richard. 1995. Critical Theory in S. Burchill, A. Linklater et al. (eds.) Theories of International Relations (London: Palgrave). Pg. 172.
religious belief, and familial directives and prescripts, and move toward a narrower form of individualism reflected in ag ents ability to reason autonom ously, and thus to prescribe and employ the means toward ones own self -determination. The context and substance provided by the community, communitarians contend, as the foundations from which individuals derive their initial identity and proper moral aptitu de, are subject to increasing translation and universalization. The permeabilit y of borders and internationalization of norms of national society imply that dignity of individuals is no longer solely linked to their particular place in a constricted and bounded statutory group, but progressively more to their character as moral and universa lly-oriented human beings and citizens. It is this very collectivity of citizens that enacts ne wer and more distinctive sets of identities, open to and conscious of cosmopolitan solidarity.17 In addition, an expansion of social citizenship that is accompanied by a disp lacement of sentiment for communal and national belonging increasingly calls for in stitutional expression on a supra-national level. The contemporaneous accounts of cosmopo litanism as a political and social project and philosophy of bei ng are rooted in the ancien t Greek conceptions of the cosmic city of men. In the Hellenistic era, the Stoics instituted a ne w school of monistic and materialistic orientation of thought. Th e school or The New Academy was first established by Zeno of Citium, whose provoc ative, albeit utopi an, political tract, The Republic stipulated measures for the abolishmen t of organized civic institutions, courts, temples, the coinage system, conventional education, and marriag e, justified by an 14 17 Balibar, Etienne. 2004. We the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Pg. 55.
assumption that transgressions of justice, to which the establishment must be ready to dispense legal judgment, will not be co mmitted. The Stoics argued for the moral advancement to take place in conformity w ith nature and the attainment of rationality, happiness, and the good life were to constitute its most ideal ends. This distinct political philosophy of the Academy has its foundations in the ethical conceptualization of being as infused with nature, yet independent of it due to humans reliance upon reason. Nature is understood as a rational, harmonious, and divine entity. The politic al life, for Stoics, must coalesce with nature and through it, remain faithful to reason. Natures logos governs not only over the individual human agents, but also over the laws of the universe; and the link between the human nature a nd cosmos, between the human obedience to virtue and human obedience to the laws of natu re, is established solely by reason. Hence, the kosmos itself is the only true city in which all rational and divine human beings share, and in particular, all good and wise human ag ents. The natural rights of each citizen, in the Stoic tradition, not only referred to the me thod of arranging ones life in accordance with the limited stipulations of the state a nd various social entitlements, which inevitably emanated therefrom, but to the determinati on of the appropriate political media and an interchangeable sphere of communalist jurisdictions through which each person recognized and structured the moral space deemed most ad equate for the pursuit of amicable relations with the other human selves. The observable reconstruction of the city, the reformation of its conceptualization as dissociated from the earlier more groundi ng and tangible theori es of the state, inaugurates the notion of cosmopolitan thinki ng. It is this community of sages, the envisaged society of the wise citizens, the communal ideal of concor d and moral as well 15
as political virtue, that rise s above the artificial confines of the na tion-state, national identity, class or ethnic membership, and as such, pays homage to the universal rather than positive and temporal laws of humans ingenious creation. In the elitist view of Christoph Martin Wieland, a German Enlighten ment novelist, a true cosmopolitan is a sage, a person who has grown wise through experience and refl ection, and who knows what is most reasonable to do in given circumstances.18 Thus, the transcendent telos of society, for the Stoics, lies not in an agent s submission to conventi onal prescripts of the polis, but in recognition of and loyalty to moral virtue, regardless of the agents associative proximity, kinship, citizenship or location, which are but elements of happenstance rather than inherent constructs substantive to proper political organization and order. The Stoics define the city thus: The universe is in the proper sense a c ity, but those here on earth are not They are called cities, but are not real ly. For a city or people is something morally good, an organization or gr oup of men administered by law which exhibits refinement.19 The location of the city is the universe itself; and the mortal as well as the divine, in the Stoic theological understanding of nature, inhabit the premises of the city, remaining obedient to its legal accords and rules of ju stice, which stem from reason. The law, for the Stoics, does not emanate from the prescrip tions and the authority of the state, but rather finds its originative or efficient cause in logos, wh ich is one and common to all human agents. The internalization of the moral law and subsequent issuance of the law from within, dictates the principles and norma tive imperatives that are to guide the social 16 18 Kleingeld, Pauline. 1999. Six Varieties of Cosmopolitanism in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany. Journal of the History of Ideas. 60(3). Pg. 505-524. 19 Schofield, Malcolm. 1991. The Stoic Idea of the City. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 61.
life of the community of citizens of kosmos Hence, the etymological derivative of kosmou polite where kosmou denotes the universe or cosmos, and polite a citizen. For Stoics ones citizen status transcends the political border restrictions of the city-state, and constitutes a novel orientation in thought, where a de facto citizenship refers to the cosmos at large. Further, an individual is bound by a dual or a binary form of citizenship: (i) natural citizenship in the grand universe of the human race in which, as Plutarch so eloquently states, the universe is a city and the stars citizens20, as well as (ii) artificial citizenship, contingent upon the accidental circumstances or geographical location of ones birth. Yet, for the Stoics, to achi eve a truly cosmopolitan sense of being, only a single, natural form of citizenship, which is the source of our most fundamental and social obligations21 is the sufficient, ideal, and indispensible requirement. For as Diogenes the Cynic asserted felicitous ly, echoing the Stoic narrative: My country is not one tower, one roof, But the whole earth is a citadel and Ready for us to spend our life in.22 Moreover, an emphasis on the rule of law was seen as the grounding and necessary element deemed essential for the defin itive articulation of boundaries and the preservation of the city itself, and which Di ogenes conceived as a refined and habitable construction to which people may have recourse for the dispensati on of justice. As a citizen of the universe, therefore, to be mo rally refined is to share in the experience of 17 20 Schofield, Malcolm. 1991. The Stoic Idea of the City. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 76 (From Plutarchs De Communibus Notitiis). 21 Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. Journal of Political Philosophy (5). Pg. 29. 22 Schofield, Malcolm. 1991. The Stoic Idea of the City. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg.145.
the law, which gives expression and substanc e to the political constitution and natural citizenship in the universe. Habitation in a co smic city is analogous to the Aristotelian notion of habituation to virtuous conduct and leading a life in accord with law within the bounds of the collective polis. Only, here, the polis assumes an extrapolated cosmopolitical significance. Similarly, a perpetuation of cosmopolitan sentiments is noticeable in the writings of Seneca, Cicero, and Marcus Aurelius, the Roman political thinkers. For Seneca, the cosmic city is a morally justifiable construct, which the human mind conceives in a binary sense, as: The two commonwealths ( res publicae): one great and truly common in which gods and men are contained, in which we look not to this or that co rner, but measure the bounds of our state ( civitas ) with the sun; the other the one to which the particular circumstances of our birth have assigned us ( urbs ).23 The conception of the city, as emanating fr om the Stoic tradition and adopted by the Roman philosopher, is the association of mi nds sharing in the communal and ordered intellectual feat, which is not subject to any spatial delimitations. Seneca writes: The very reason for our magnanim ity, is not shutting ourselves up within the walls of one city, but in going forth into intercourse with the whole earth, and in claiming the world as our country, that we have a wider field for our virtue Look how many broad stretching countries lie open behind you, how many peoples?24 18 As expressed in this passage, the Stoic de termination to not to confine ones moral aspirations to a fixed communal order and a stat ic political affiliation, but to traverse the 23 Schofield, Malcolm. 1991. The Stoic Idea of the City. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 93. (From Senecas De Otio) 24 Heater, Derek. 1996. World Citizenship and Government: Cosmopolitan Ideas in the History of Political Thought. (New York: St. Martins Press). Pg. 18.
world in the spirit of rational optimism infused with a sense of responsibility and service to the people of heterogeneous identities and moral sensibilities, constituted a paradigm for cosmopolitan thinking, which the Romans emulated. Under the early tractates of Roman jurisprudence, established upon fixed, immutable and universal principles of natural law and in correspondence with the St oic creed, equality under law constituted a normative stipulation to be as certained and propagated. Human agents, Cicero insisted in De Officiis, are equal, not in respect to their wealth or accumulated property or learni ng, but by natural human predisposition to reason and honor the moral law. The legal order, as described in the early Roman writings, did not place delimiting conditions up on human agents by conferring equality under law solely to declared citizens, pr ivileged by birth or residence. The unconditionality of this procedur e was not subject to arbitrarin ess, and in all matters of significance, systematically codified laws th at were applicable to all civilized people were to be preserved. The continuity of this stream of juri sprudential thought and recognition of the equality of human agents under law were given significant expression and recognition in the 18th century documents, such as th e Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, as well as, the 20th century Universal Declar ation of the Rights of Man ratified by the United Nations. The Roma n law, because of its early emphasis on equality and universal reason, in a sense, transcended the specific and coincidental manifestations of spatial aspects of citizensh ip. The three branches specific to the Roman law consisted in: jus natural the natural law in its ideal form; jus civile civil law applicable to Roman citizens, and jus gentium which governed the non-citizens of the Roman Empire. As the imperial ambitions expanded along with the acquisition of 19
landmass, the concept of jus gentium the law of nations common to all civilized people, constituted a transcendent precept. The late r institutionalization of legal procedure and stipulations of the Roman law by the states of Europe had an irrevocable influence upon the jurisprudential and political orientation and thinking of the Continents intellectual elite, giving rise to subsequent conceptual an alyses of the state, its sovereignty, questions of justice and its viola tions and inadequacies. The broad extrapolations of the huma n universal condition imbued with a cosmological perspective ini tiated by the Classical Greece, bracketed by Platonists, Aristotelians, and Stoics, enabled a view of human life as contingent upon two distinct orders: (i) an Order of Nature ( cosmos ) evidenced by practical ac tivities revolving around the annual cycle of seasons, and the monthly ch anges of tides; (ii) an Order of Society ( polis ), evidenced in the organization of the administration of cities and collective enterprises, ensuing in a pol itically organized unit, the polis. Thus the belief that the structure of Nature reinforces a rational Social Order25 led to a manifest presupposition of a link between nature and social artifice, between cosmos and polis and an eventual philosophical fusion of orde rs into a single unit, cosmopolis The broad outlines of the universe combined did not limit themselves to mere speculations, but found expression in the universal language of the 17th century rati onalists and new philo sophers, such as Descartes, Leibniz, or Newton. Here, the conception of the mental and the material, of the mechanical phenomena and of their intellectual underpinnings called for new patterns of social practice and thought. The fusion of the systems of thought, which deemed 20 25 Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Pg. 68.
stability and mutuality as chief virtues of so cial organization, necessitated an expressive political order and a refashioning of the new Europe of nations. Leibnizs commitment to resolving the problem of accommodation of th e continents diversity of characters, languages, and intellectual formations, ensued in characteristica universalis, or the universal system of characters to be util ized in diplomatic negotiations, international relations, scholarly exchanges, and philosophical debates, and as its author argued: will constitute a new language which can be written and spoken. This language will be very difficult to construct, but very easy to learn. It will be quickly accepted by everybody on account of its grea t utility and its su rprising facility, and it will serve wonderfully in communication among various peoples.26 This ideal, Leibniz continues: is the highest effort of the human mind; and when the project is accomplished, it will simply be up to humans to be happy, since they w ill have an instrument that exalts the reason no less than the telescope perfects our vision.27 As Stephen Toulmin contends, the exploration of the possibility of the universal language was fundamental to establishing a shar ed view of nature and humanity.28 Yet Leibnizs minimum of rational conceivability uni fied under a single system of natural philosophy, was deemed an insufficient explanat ion by the mechanists and dualists of his era. Thus, a new framework for modernity ca me to be identified with the Cartesian dichotomy, which stipulated clear distincti ons between the mental and the material experiences and set the standard for reorderi ng of political and institutional systems of human organization. The 1700s established the law-governed understanding of the 21 26 Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Pg. 100. 27 Ibid., Pg. 104. 28 Ibid., Pg. 105.
world, in which rational history of humanity and the causal history of nature intertwined but not intervened in each others trajectory of regularities. This, in tu rn, gave rise to the conceptualization of the system of politics that recognized both the laws of morality as premised upon the stipulations of reas on, and the movement toward a civic commonwealth or, as Kant would have it, a universal civic society which administers law among men as necessitated by mate rial conditions of history. Kant dissociated himself from the prevalent question of the era What constitutes man? as a scientific paradigm of study or a circumscribed political agent committed to a semi-mechanic operation within the rigid feudal constitution of the state, and, in turn, engaged in the reflection on the ontology of being, th e transcendent rights and binding obligations that ough t to guide ones actions. Thus in his moral and political writings, principal among them Toward Perpetual Peace and Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View Kant committed himself to a systematic meditation on the course of human history in the period influenced by religious and political zealotry, which materialized itself either through the cosmopolitan project of consolidating and unifying nations within the Orbis Christianus, or the transgressive colonizing ambitions of states. In The Doct rine of Rights Kant claims that human beings are not in their very essence politic al animals, and that entering into social condition is not merely an exercise that st ems from moral necessity, but a geographically structured phenomenon. The political communit y, Kant claims, would not be necessary if the earths surface were an infinite plane rather than a sphere, where humans, could so 22
distribute themselves on it that they could not come into community with one another.29 Hence, by some form of natural necessity, th e peoples of the eart h have entered in varying degrees into a universal community, and it has developed to the point, Kant states, where a viol ation of laws in one part of the world is felt everywhere.30 Thus, as Jan Plug in Citizens of Modernity from the Cosmopolitan Point of View observes, Kants cosmopolitanism, being predicated on the conception of community as commonality31, exists in: (i) the realm of adheren ce to a singular entity localized in particular spatial dimensions, whose citizenbody aligns its commit ments primarily with the exclusive interests of the state, and (ii) the common superstructure kosmos in which all beings, by necessity, partake. A mo ral citizen, thus, in Kantian terms, is a member of a particular polity, which first and foremost, enables all individual agents to share in its moral orientation; and second, th e formation of an ethical commonwealth is an effect of that very moral community of shared morality. The responsibility of each agent, as Phillip J. Rossi asserts in The Moral Dimensions of Citizenship in Kants Ethical Commonwealth32, is to work with one another cooperatively in order to sustain conditions for reasoned argument and ensure ag reement on issues of fundamental social concern. Kant recognizes that the ensuing sensus communis requires of agents moral and 23 29 Mulholland, Leslie, A. 1990. Kants System of Rights. (New York: Columbia University Press). Pg. 17. 30 Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch in H.S. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 107-108. 31 Plug, Jan. 2001.Citizens of Modernity from a Cosmopolitan Point of View. The New Centennial Review 1(1). Pg. 8. 32 Rossi, Phillip J. 1998. Public Argument and Social Responsibility: The Moral Dimensions of Citizenship in Kants Ethical Commonwealth. In Sidney Axinn (ed.) Autonomy and Community. (Albany: State University of New York Press).
political autonomy. In her conceptualizati on of Kantian autonomy, Onora ONeill implies that the individuated human condition must be considerate of the following three maxims: (i) an agent is to think for oneself; (ii) to think from the standpoint of everyone else, and; (iii) always think consistently.33 Whereas, (i) and (ii) concern directly the autonomous status of the individual agent, (iii) calls for active a nd definitive public engagement in the communicative components of the political order. Further, it is through the conformity and unity of general wills of all mo ral agents, Kant upholds, that a political community can be established and freely entered into. Such an establishment holds humanity as an end in itself and thus, mediates between the concept of inner moral duty and the demands of the extern al public law, through the means of a categorical imperative. This community of free wills culminates in the Kantian idea of a moral world, in which agents, apart from c onsidering their personal values and private projects, remain committed to, and respec t the moral personality of others, which subsequently leads to general public morality that adequately advances the values of all. The political agent, on Kantian account, instead of being enwrapped in it self as if it were the whole world, understands and behaves its elf as a mere citizen of the world34 and recognizes the totality and interrelatedness of other human beings. Kants revered union of wills thus defined and consolidated the parameters of the moral order and the cosmopolitan right, and constituted the first modern articulation of the political cosmopolis. Kants interpretation of the Enlight enment as mans release from his self24 33 ONeill, Onora. 1989. The Public Use of Reason in Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kants Practical Philosophy. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 42-49. 34 Kant, Immanuel. 1978. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. (London: Feffer & Simons, Inc.). Pg. 128.
tutelage constitutes a precursory vision of subjective political emancipation from mans inability to make use of his understa nding without the guidance of another35 and opens a window of possibility for counter-being, or t he art of not being governed quite so much.36 What characterized modernity, and made it fecund for a post-modern argumentation, was an orderly division of the world into two structures influencing the systems of thought that superimposed themselv es on the social and political organization of life. The naturalistic and social orders illuminating one another brought about the new picture of the cosmopolis, which fr om the 1600s on, distinguished itself by a systematic inquiry into the ideal methods and ideal languages by which the knowledge of the universe was to be obtained. Such striving s, pursued with uttermost deliberateness, were short-lived and intermittent, however; for upon reaching a fissure in the systems of thought, the beliefs in ideals of unity and uni versality of humankind and its occupations collapsed, only to give birth to darker visions of decay, chaos and disharmony; where the tearing of moral and social fabric of po litical life aggravated the human condition by dislodging the centrality of all things deemed stable and unassailable, the family and the transcendent Telos. John Donne, the 17th century British poet, in his 1618 Anatomy of the World, put it thus: And now the Springs and Sommers which we see, Like sonnes of women after fifty bee. And new Philosophy cals all in doubt, 25 35 Kant, Immanuel. 1991. What is Enlightenment? in H.S. Reiss Kant: Political Writings. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 54. 36 Foucault, Michel. 1997. What is Critique? in Sylvre Lotringer and Lysa Hochroth (eds.) The Politics of Truth. (New York: Semiotext(e). Pg. 29.
The Element of fire is quite put out; The Sun is lost, and thearth, an no mans wit Can well direct him, wh ere to looke for it. And freely men confesse, th at this worlds spent, When in the Planets, and the Firmament They seeke so many new; they see that this Is crumbled out againe to his Atomis. Tis all in peeces, all cohaerance gone; All just supply, and all Relation: Prince, Subject, Father, S onne, are things forgot, For every man alone thinks he hath got To be a Phoenix, and that there can bee None of that kinde, of which he is, but hee.37 What seemed socially, politically, and spiritua lly coherent at the cu sp of the century, has made an Augustinian turn, in the process of which the failure to maintain a rational organization of administration and preser ve the soundness of social relations was attributed to the innate deprav ity of humanity, the original sin. This re ligious explanatory import validated itself through a string of armed conflicts, the Thirty Years War being an example par excellence, the participants of which, the Pr otestant and Catholic armies of Europe, sought to prove thei r theological supremacy, both on the battlefield and within the parameters of their political establishmen ts. None other than Alexander Pope in his Essay on Man was able to give expression to the di stortions and ambiguity of the fallen nature of the human experience, which led him progressively farther away from the Morean utopian shores and the Kantian state of perpetual noblesse oblige: Placed on this isthmus of a middle state, A being darkly wise, and rudely great: [Man] hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest, In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast; In doubt his mind or body to prefer, Born but to die, and reasoning but to err; 26 37 Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Pg. 65.
Alike in ignorance, his reason such, Whether he thinks too little, or too much: Chaos of thought and passion all confused; Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled: The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!38 Why is it, then, that in this vilified state, human beings are nonetheless capable of creating social systems? What accounts for th ese drastic changes in the episteme, read productions of knowledge, and subsequent overturns and substitutions of all sociopolitical discourses? Michel Foucault as a le gal materialist and a legal realist thought productions of power to be always-already embedded in human social relations. Thus, relations of power, Foucault writes, are interwoven with other kinds of relations (production, kinship, family, sexuality) for wh ich they play at once a conditioning and a conditioned role.39 In this polyvalent state of na ture, the self-organizing, logically purposive, and intentional networks of relati ons are the precondition for the emergence of an ensemble of new modes and mechanisms of power, which force a social settlement. The multi-directionality, de-centeredness, ubiquity, impersonality, and relationality of power, however, account for the systems instab ility, and results in changes to the modes rather than the forms of the systems of power. By system, Foucault contends, we must understand an ensemble of relations which maintain themselves, transform themselves, independently of the things which they bind.40 Powers substrate is not self-generating nor self-sustaining, but organized ar ound and conditioned by an ever-changing environment. Hence, the contemporary poli tical governance, polycen trically arranged 27 38 Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Pg. 115. 39 Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge. (Brighton: Harvester). Pg. 142. 40 Foucault, Michel. 2001. Dits et ecrits. (Paris: Gallimard). Pg. 542.
under the multidimensional processes of globalization, dislodges the neat dual conceptualizations of the early cosmopolis. The artifice, rath er than the metaphysical or predetermined tendencies of nature, now comes to define the political and civic life of social subjects, thus allowing for the requisite versatility and fluid ity in the understanding of overlapping social contexts and identities, and sets before the subjects a new task, that of vigilance against ready articulations of new institutional arrangements, which may unleash new destructive forces inimi cal to the possibilities of being free41 its modes of organizing knowledge and its productive capacities. 28 41 Dumm, Thomas L. 1996. Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield). Pg. 153.
CHAPTER II THE POSTMODERNIST TURN AND A CASE FOR COSMOPOLITANISM: A FOUCAULDIAN CHALLENGE TO THE REALIST ORTHODOXY A spectre is roaming through Europe: the Postmodern. -Portoghesi, citing Le Monde When in 1939, Arnold Toynbee in the footnotes to his Study of History proposed to refer to the formative period between 1918 and 1939 as post-modern, he concretized, constricted, and historicized in time an id ea, whose fragmentary vision of social order assembled by Leibniz, Hegel, Nietzsche or He idegger was yet to emerge as a totalized paradigm. The word postmodern, Docherty claims, from its very inception is characterized by an ambiguity on the one hand it is seen as a historical period; on the other it is simply a desire, a mood which looks to the future to redeem the present.42 It is possible, thus, to point to th e polyvalent applicability and pe culiar tension created by the simultaneous adoption of the term in aesthet ics and cultural and political studies. Moreover, it is claimed that only under the rubric of the postmodern it is possible to catch a glimpse of the intimate relationship and a discourse between the aesthetic style and material history as political reality, be tween the realm and structure of language and the realm of being and structure of consciousne ss. It is no accident, perhaps, that Centre 29 42 Docherty, Thomas. 1993. Postmodernism: A Reader. (New York: Columbia University Press). Pg. 2.
Pompidou as a post-modernist architectural fe at that fuses museum exhibitionism and library intellectualism with theatre, ci nema, literature, and the spoken word, was a brainchild of the president of the Fren ch Republic. Likewise, with the dawn of postmodernist thinking came the rays of micropolitical analyses which shed light on the vicissitudes of the grand universalist narratives, and transformed political engagement into specifically local and intertextual, which like postmodern literary texts, intended to absorb and transform one another. Societ y came to symbolize not only a temporal distortion, fragmented and non-linear in its narration, but increasi ngly confabulated by technocultural and hyperreal simulations, and noticeable changes in space-time relations. The aspiration of postmodernism, then, in all its tangential aspects was, in John Barths words, to somehow rise above the quarrel be tween realism and irre alism, formalism and 'contentism' and to neither merely repudiate nor merely imitate either his twentiethcentury Modernist pare nts or his nineteenth-century premodernist grandparents.43 The paradigms pastiche thus aimed at replen ishing the vast reservoir of a democratic experimental spirit in a post-atomic age by rethinking Enlightenment subjectivity, and transposing and refracting singula rity and sovereignty of an E Pluribus Unum with an E Unibus Pluram The formal structure of the postmodern para digm is attributed to have derived its roots from the Frankfurt School, and most es pecially the 1944 work of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment. In the context of the rising state capitalism and mass culture, not only did th e authors rebel against the Enlightenment 30 43 Barth, John. 1980.The Literature of Replenishment: Postmodernist Fiction. Atlantic Monthly (January). Pg. 67.
consensus on the teleological path, historical progress, and emancipatory power of knowledge, but deemed reason reduced to form and conformed to rules of computation and utility, the princi pal illusionist of pow er and a locus of ideology, which enabled domination, manipulation, and enslavement. The theme of subjectivity with which postmodernism in inherently concerned, and which inescapably posits the problematic of proper aesthetic and political engagement in a world of ritualistic c onfirmations of agreed upon reality, calls for a ruptu re of such ritual, the er uption of history into the consciousness in such a way that the aesthetic or formal structures of consciousness must be disturbed.44 Assuming the lack of totalizing meta narratives and disturbed continuity and uncertainty of means and ends, the authors in the postmodern tradition, such as Lyotard, Baudrillard, Benjamin, or Bauman, poi nt to the startlingly normal intertwining of imminently present facades of civilized modernity with barbarity. The Arendtian banality of evil transmogrifies into Baumia n rationality of evil and finds its selfserving purpose in the technologically engine ered normalcy or familiarity of/with modernity. Thus, every ingredi ent of the Holocaust, writes Bauman, was normal not in the sense of the familiar but in the sens e of being fully in keeping with everything we know about our civilization, its guiding spirit, its priorities its immanent vision of the world.45 In this rationalization of place and the human subject, fear alone becomes less economical. Reason, in lieu of a ccess to tools of forceful resi stance, permits the victim to become complicit in its ways in hope of surviv al. It was, after all, modernisms penchant to set reason on the pedestal, while also submitting for comprehensive examination and 31 44 Docherty, Thomas. 1993. Postmodernism: A Reader. (New York: Columbia University Press). Pg. 8. 45 Bauman, Zygmunt. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. (Ithaca: Cornell Univers ity Press). Pg. 7.
rationalization that element which by an edict of the law belongs to the public power, the body. Postmodernism, according to Johanna Oksala, rethinks the subject and its emancipating potential by positing restraint and limiting forms of subjectivization as historically contingent.46 Zygmunt Bauman presents two dominant visions that assisted les Lumieres of Europe in articulating and advancing th e Kingdom of Reason a nd structuring sociopolitical organizations around conceptualizatio ns that defied human proclivity toward unmitigated stasis: (i) The Faustian man of Ni etzsche, conveyed an image of power and its superiority, considering all other human fo rms as inferior to itself Faustian man was a romantic the maker of history, not its product. History itself was a triumph of the daring, the courageous, the insightful, the profound, the clear-head ed over the slavish, cowardly, superstitious, muddled and ignorant.47 (ii) Freudian vision of modernity in which the reality principle supersedes th e pleasure principle provoking people to trade off part of their freedom (and happi ness) for a degree of security, grounded in hygienically safe, clean, a nd peaceful environment.48 With the deliberate and calculated imposition of patterns, individual human im poverishment and partial intellectualism became symptomatic of modernitys always nascent, ongoing, and open-ended processes of subjectivization, wh ich is to be understood as a procedure for the objectification of 32 46 Oksala, Johanna. 2005. Foucault on Freedom. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 47 Bauman, Zygmunt. 1993. The Fall of the Legislator in Thomas Docherty (ed.) Postmodernism: A Reader. (New York: Columbia University Press). Pg. 130. 48 Ibid., Pg. 131.
ones own self, subsequent constitution of oneself as a subject, and a simultaneous, binding of oneself to a power of external control.49 It is argued, in the postmodern vein, th at excessive and unc ontested predilection for rationalism (reminiscent of Webers view of history as progressive rationalization) produces an administered society, not a rationa l society: reason is replaced by efficiency and by the aesthetic and formal vacuities of rationalism.50 Reason thus stands as the judge and jury of inclusion and exclusion, and a categorical definer of rules which are to apply universally. This production of mass normativity around which rules of social behavior and conceptualization of reality are formed, Baudrillard in Simulacra and Simulation contends, calls reality into ques tion and subverts its principles of legitimation. The arising hete rotopias and simulacra, as loci of struggle against normalization, which by necessity transpose time and space, reproduce images with dual and contestable meanings, which either: (i) reflect reality; (ii) pervert reality; (iii) imitate and artificially simulate reality; or, (iv) bear no relation to reality. As such, postmodernitys concern with caricaturing r eality lies in ascribing value and moral appraisal to the artificially produced phenomena, rather than the actuality of its experience. And it is this very suspicion that gives birth to an he rmeneutic enterprise concerned with authenticating the credib ility of surface-level meanings through strip[ping] off the concealment, unmasking of interests"51 and an in-depth exploration of 33 49 Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Pg. 119. 50 Docherty, Thomas. 1993. Postmodernism: A Reader. (New York: Columbia University Press). Pg. 14. 51 Ricoeur, Paul. 1970. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. (New Haven: Yale University Press). Pg. 33.
untenable claims. Lyotard referred to postmodernism as rewriting of modernity, whose negations in the words of Octavio Paz, even in the highfalutin sphe res of politics, have become repetitions: rebellion has become method, criticism has become rhetoric, transgression has become ceremony. Negation has ceased to be creative.52 Thus, an epistemology ( gnosis ) has been contaminated and replaced by pure ontology ( praxis ), and the uprooted representation of human subjectivity and identity have been placed in the consensually agreed upon framework of rationalized automatism, which deems all action a priori predictable and knowable. The history of Western thought points to two trajectories of deliberating and legitimizing social and political orders: (i ) the European Enlightenment model, which assumes the presence of a foundational, rational, and truthful knowle dge that determines socio-political and cultural practices, bestows institutional legitimacy, and ensures communitarian integrity. It displays a tendenc y to portray society a s a potentially unified subject with a unified will53; (ii) the postmodernist model, which is inherently antifoundational, and rejectionist in its attitude toward a coherent totality. It is far from accepting the Platonic realm of forms or a set of objective truths by which the ordering of society takes place. The postmodern conditi on, Madan Sarup argues quoting Lyotard, is one in which the grands recits of modernity the dialectic of Spirit, the emancipation of the worker, the accumulation of wealth, the clas sless society have all lost credibility.54 34 52 Docherty, Thomas. 1993. Postmodernism: A Reader. (New York: Columbia University Press). Pg. 15. 53 Olssen, Mark. 2009. Toward a Global Thin Community (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers). Pg. 141. 54 Sarup, Madan. 1993. Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism. (Athens: The University of Georgia Press). Pg. 145.
It is, moreover, characterized by speculativ e and allusive thought, which questions the intentions of ideological conditioning and power relations. Autonomous subjectivity and abstract reason are problematized and revealed as mediated, continge nt, and provisionary, set within the historical horiz ons of fragmentary truths and knowledges from which there is neither escape nor recourse to some tran scendent universal. The very framework of ideological conditioning, which self-legitimizes itself through repetition of the contents of the world it structures and shapes, is contested by the postmodernist paradigm, phrased in the cultural politics of 1968 and the overb earing effects of insurgent technology and scientization of society. Its methods have been represented by Foucault in his 1975 genealogical magnum opus, Discipline and Punish, where a relentlessly institutional analysis of the 18th century penitentiary, its system of highly structured techniques of control, have cast a shadow on the modern bureaucratic-i ndustrial state and societal arrangements, and suggested a premise of subj ectivity as by-produced and ritualized in the habits of existence. Before, however, conducting a more comp rehensive study of Foucaults political insights in regards to human subjectivity and spatial reconf iguration of govern mentality to which his writings allude, it is necessary to develop an understanding of the relation between postmodern thought and liberal politi cs, with which politics in general, and International Relations as discipline, in par ticular, in the Western hemisphere have been up to now concerned. Postructuralism in International Relations 35
The postmodern (poststructural) strain of thought entered International Relations in the 1980s with the works of Richard As hley, Michael Shapiro, and R.B.J. Walker, who emphasized the relationship between power and knowledge, representation and identity, while cultivating a cr itical attitude toward realist and neorealist theories. David Campbell argues that postructuralism, as expr essed by its critical attitude rather than general theory, marks a different perspective on the relation between theory and practice, and sets up theory as practice.55 This, in turn, permits for the examination of the means by which predominant knowledges and practices have been establishe d and solidified in socio-political consciousness. Such treatment and approach to the question of politics, accompanied by a Lyotardian distrust of metanarratives with which it has become invested, provokes a number of questions, which provide an overarching framework through which implicit truths are interpreted and contested. The paradigm, thus, purports to analyze and inquire after: (i) the origins of the state and how it has come to be regarded as an indispensible unit of analysis; (ii) pr actices of statecraft, which appear as both essential and natural; (iii) problematization and investigation of state identity and foreign policy; (iv) representations of sovereignty and productions of subjectivity. In this way, postmodernism tries the limits of liberal thought, which has assumed a position of neutrality, or what Joseph Raz has labeled as epistemic abstinence, in regards to social ends, and the maintenance of fair-minded equilibrium among competing interests and actors. Liberalisms early embrace and entrench ed belief in the superordinate position of regulatory mechanisms ensuing from and ensured by the market forces, Foucault argued, 36 55 Campbell, David. 2006. Poststructuralism in Tim Dunne et al. (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 206.
has led the subscribing political unit to form a novel conception of its raison dtat ; that of maximal enrichment, which necessitates reorganization of the means of production, rationalization of labor, harmonization of economic and political power, and finally, cultivation of the relational aspects of iden tity by means of the modification of social nature, and construction of institutions and di scourses that implant the internal logic of the operating system within the individual subjects psyc he. The art of government, which up to now adhered to Aristotelian logic that set priority on the admixture of specialized knowledge ( techne ) and wise judgment ( phronesis ), transmogrified into a political process and a disciplinary regime informed solely by the former.56 It should be noted that postmodernism does not aim at subversion of the political and social modi vivendi, but rather at an inquiry and explanation of the assume d natures, truths, and functions, which stem from its agnosticism toward facts and habits implicated in the ever present productive and restrictive relations of power. Only through rendering the institutional substrate more transparent, can the devolution of its practices be comprehended. Injunction of Realism Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of heir nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the 37 56 In Governmentality Foucault thus sees the art of g overnment manifested: [the art of government] has as its purpose not the act of government itself, but the welfare of the population, the improvement of its condition, the increase of its wealth, its longevity, health, etc.; and the means that the government uses to attain those ends are all in some sense immanent to the population itself; it is the population itself on which government will act either directly, through large s cale campaigns, or indirectly through techniques that will make possible, without the full aw areness of the people, the stimulatio n of birth rates, the directing of the flow of population into certain regions or activities, an d so on. In sum, the art of government is the art of managing the processes of life on the scale of the state.
first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and we shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do. -Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War The intention of the following section is not to summarize the contesting claims of the grand theoretical narratives, but to shed light on how a specifically Foucauldian version of postmodernism challenges the co re realist assumpti ons about politics. Prima facie Foucauldian postmodernism and realism shar e a core conjecture about political life, that of the omnipresence of pow er. Be it vested in intentions and motivations of actors, systems, institutions, ideologies, and knowledges, power plays an instrumental and terminal function. On a substantive level of analysis, however, the two traditions significantly diverge. There are six general principles and four pa rticular aspects of the realist paradigm, which have characterized the political norms of engagement and practice. They are: (i) realisms belief in government set on the principles of objec tive laws root ed in human nature; (ii) rationalization of interests in term s of power; (iii) belief in the objectivity and universal validity of interest a nd its role as the governing prin ciple of political action; (iv) adoption of ethics based in political consequentialism and recourse to prudence as the supreme virtue in politics; (v ) maintenance and preservation of the autonomous political sphere resulting in a refusal to align moral as pirations and right of st ates with the divine plan; (vi) view of the realist paradigm as intellectually autonom ous and sui generis.57 38 57 Morgenthau, Hans. 2006. Six Principles of Political Realism in Phil Williams (ed.) Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations ( Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth). Pg. 57.
The principles are supported with the fo llowing assumptions about the international domain of politics, which are the following: (i) the assumption that nation-states are the only consequential actors in international rela tions; (ii) assumption that political action and relations among states are directed primarily towards enhancing national security qua military capability, ideological coherence, an d territorial soundness; (iii) assumption that international relations are a competitive conflict-based zero-sum game; (iv) assumption that coercion, economic and military capabilit y testify to states power and influence.58 The institutionalized practices of realpolitik, grounded in the Thucydidean logic and implicated in the theoretical conception of sovereignty and balancing of power to which the aforementioned have given rise, have prevented moving beyond their immediate sphere of application and tainted any such attempts, as crassly utopian. For instance, the organization of the world into states and articulation of state-centric ethics of international conduct in terms of power, its gain, sustenance, and maximization, a priori determined that politics exhausts itself within its set reasons of the state and its proclivity for temporary alliances of convenience, in hibiting gestures of lasting reciprocal recognition and cooperation, and ov erlooking the possib ility of mutual responsibility for political subjects by endowing citizens and non-citizens, alike, with positive rights and duties. Foucault presents a highly original read ing of discursive po wer, which subverts strictly mechanical understanding of its applic ation and consequences. It is precisely his method of analytically delving into the origins of the ratio nality of realist assumptions, 39 58 R.L. Merrit and Bruce M. Russet.1981. From National Developmen t to Global Community. (London: George Allen and Urwin). Pg. 149.
which permits him to create an opening for questioning of their core modes of operation. In congruence with his typica l genealogical method of analys is, Foucault in Omnes et Singulatim uncovers the Biblical and Home ric narratives which have imbued politics with an early rationalization of power. In so doing, Foucault questions the formality of an ahistorical and dislocated obj ectivity of realism, which not only denies the subject any involvement in the processes of political life, but erases the importance of her emplacement within history and its many con tingencies. Furthermore, Foucault shows the problems of relations between the ruler and the ruled, betwee n the political power as a legal framework, and pastoral power and th e development of pastoral technologyas duty, devotedness, and general shepherdness. Here, Fou cault shows, power aspires toward service rather than domination, guida nce of subjects rather than mere knowledge about them. As evidenced by Platos works, Critias, The Republic The Statesman and Laws, the Greek notion of commanding men, Fou cault notes, was ultimately reducible to a more subordinated act of keeping watch. The Platonic shepherd-magistrate became the dominant theme of monastic t hought of medieval Europe, wher e: (i) the responsibility for the destiny of the whole flock, and (ii) th e flocks obedience to and compliance with shepherds will, aimed at weaving of a strong fabric for the political life of the city.59 The subjects act of submission (Latin subditi or the Greek apatheia ), in turn, was not only elevated to the status of virtue, but made into an in dividualized path to salvation, ensured by confessional techniques for the se lf cross-examination of conscience. The economic, cultural, and sociopolitical st ructures, however, Foucault observes, 40 59 Foucault, Michel. 2006. O mnes et Singulatim in The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature (New York: The New Press). Pg. 183.
necessitated an epistemological and practical turn away from the Greco-Roman practices of obedience, self-knowledge, and confession to ward a justification of the state power. The appearance of the (a) reason of state60, and (b) theory of police61 eventuated in the art of governing, that is, a reflection on the nature of what and who is being governed (enhanced by the implementation of arithmetic and statistics), and understanding of the states own material capacities for the enla rgement, sustenance and preservation of its strength indispensible for correct government. The above challenges the realist paradigm in two ways: (i) it shows the historical variability, fluidity, and conti ngency of the reasons and functi ons of the state power; (ii) it presupposes that the changing rationality of states capacities may eventuate in a radical recalibration and transmogrification of the state apparatu s and practices of statecraft, even at the expanse of its own dissolution, should it j udge that its power of governing is better achieved by some other mode of organization. Hence, what appears as natural and without a pres ent alternative, is shown to be an effect of artificial constitution, a fungible and changeable a doption of perspec tive, and a historical production of knowledge. Above all, an obstinate insisten ce on the preservation of the discourse on sovereignty, as an untouchable condition and fact of political existence, inhibits rationalization of the modes of power, which, as Friedrich Balke argues, have long ceased to operate according to the accepted model of sovereignty.62 41 60 The doctrine of reason of state, Foucault writes, a ttempted to draw contrasts between the principles and methods of the secular government from that of the socio-cultural and divine. 61 The doctrine of the police ponder s the nature of the instruments wh ich the state has at its disposal, uncovering of the reasons and aims for their implementation ,and an area for the states rational activity. 62 Balke, Friedrich. 2005. Derrida and Foucault On Sovereignty. German Law Journal. 60 (1): 80.
At another level of analys is, Foucault distinguishes be tween disciplinary power and juridical power. In T wo Lectures Foucault notes: we should direct our researches on the nature of power not towards the juridical edifice of sovereignty, the State apparatuses and the ideologies which accompany them, but towards domination and the material operators of power, towards forms of subjections and the inflec tions and utilizations of their localized systems, and towards strategic apparatuses.63 I suggest, that the juridical power may be read more closely as a characteristic of a realist conceptualization of power, wher eas disciplinary power, as a political transgression in its regicidal, postmodernist intentions, is therefore, more amenable to cosmopolitan treatment. According to the ju ridical power model: (i) power is possessed; (ii) power is hierarchical and flows from top to bottom; (iii) power is prohibitive, sanctioned, and repressive. The disciplinary model holds power to be: (i) exercised rather than possessed; (ii) disseminated, rhizomatically distributed, flowing from the bottom up; (iii) mobile and productive; (v) analytic rather than hermetically enclosed within the confines of a theory. Foucault acknowledges the multiplicity of force relations and thus regards power as always contested, non-institutionalized, intentio nal, and non-subjective. The state itself, as that human community and political entity which claims a monopoly on power, Mitchell contends, is reduced to an effect of a set of detailed processes of spatial organization, temporal arrangement, functional specification, supervision, and surveillance,64 which the realist tradition justif ies metaphysically, thus inevitably creating the appearance of the world divided in to sovereign states competing for survival 42 63 Foucault, Michel. 1976. Two Lectures in Michael Kelly (ed.) Critique and Power (Cambridge: The MIT Press). Pg. 40. 64 Mitchell, Timothy. 1991. The Limits of the St ate: Beyond Statist Approaches and Their Critics. American Political Science Review 85 (1). Pg. 90.
in an anarchical system. Foucauldian standpoint disputes the presupposition of stable human nature, arguing that orders create norms, identities, communities which sustain the subject; proposes an ethics of action under whic h resistance is affected by architecture of repression; asserts multipolarity as status quo; and contends that the rationalization of structural organization and re lations are emplaced in malleable disciplines and microcontexts rather than inert grand theories of the state and its rigid raison dtat Foucault shares with realists, to a certain degree, an equally pessimistic view about the possibility of socio-political tranquili ty. Society, he admits, is a war of all against all, as the battles for the status of truth rage even in times of relative peace during which new social institutions arise through which an unspoken warfare for domination is continuously expressed.65 In sum, the intellectual and pragmatic dominance of the realist paradigm in its unquestionable assertion of a community of sovereign states generates a built-in consensus and a discourse of limits. Internat ional relations concedes the fact that the state sovereignty and a system of states are ab solute; that power is centralized; that it is riddled with often imbalanced, conflictual power struggles for domination; that states are rational actors relying on utilitarian calculu s for political gain; that maximization of power is based in ethics of intention, whose predictability is rooted in human nature. As R.B.J. Walker contends, the emphasis on th e claim of state sovereignty obscures the attempt to explain its consequences,66 preventing a conceptual turn that responds to the 43 65 Pickett, Brent. 2005. On the Use and Abuse of Foucault for Politics. (Lanham: Lexington Books). Pg. 23. 66 Walker, R.B.J. 1995. From International Relations to World Politics in Joseph A. Camilleri et. al (ed.) The State in Transition. (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers). Pg. 32.
emergence of novel forms of global organiza tion and the changing nature of the sociopolitical standards of international life. The political life of states, Luigi Bonanate suggests, resembles a series of hierarch ically linked concentric circles, which progressively elide the preroga tives of state sovereignty, a nd which are characterized by a conceptualization of the international system which: (i) overrides anarchy, or an international consensus on the content of inter-state relations as represented by alliance and hostility, of peace and of war; (ii) repudiates the use of international violence ; (iii) promotes interstate pluralism, which responds to reciprocal acknowledgement of respect in alliance formation and free organization; (iv) encourages democratization of the international system based on coexistence mutual recognition of equal prerogatives, rights and duties both of th e states own nationals and of foreign citizens; (v) promotes collective acceptance of elementary principles of equity and respect of fundamental rights of individuals regardless of citizenship.67 Foucaults Postmodern Paradigm: the Question of Political Sovereignty The Foucauldian re-conceptualization of sovereignty, of the self, of political endeavor as art rather than governmental ro utine, of discourse as space, serves as a precedent for a postmodernist cosmopolitan th eory and practice, and bears twofold implications. First, the de-routinization of po litical practices permits the reinterpretation and re-situation of their symbolic meanings in relation to newly legitimized forms of social interaction. Second, systems of cultural signification and meaning become 44 67 Bonanate, Luigi. 1995. Ethics and International Politics. (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press). Pg. 120.
modified through practice and normalizati on procedures, which both incorporate and reconstitute power, and coextensively a lter the national self-understanding, formal allocation of procedural rights and bestow al of social status, and amend external behavioral practices of states social groups, and citizens alik e. The Foucauldian analysis, by subverting mere symbolism of the uncontes table state sovereignt y and the essential subjectivity of citizens, has re generated interest in effectiv e challenging of subjective standards and norms, and continues to provide a theoretical schema for highlighting the political significance of power, sovereignty, resistance, and governmentality, while also defining a framework for the achievement of s ubstantive change via cr eative acts of selfauthorship. As a conceptual t ool, it permits for a variegated approach to questions of power relations by situating this universally recogni zed concept power at the epicenter of discourse. It thus avoids epistemic constriction, which may dismiss its utility when addressing historically, politically, an d culturally distinct problems and novel conceptualizations of being in the world. Moreover, a critical approach to foundationalist and historic schemata permits the emergen ce of formal hermeneu tics of the political enterprise. This is not inconsequential, as the complex political and existential problematic embedded in the domestic, intern ational and global cont exts, requires not merely an empirical and procedural unde rstanding, but a substantive grasp of the intermediary processes which structure an d constitute the anatomy and autonomy of actors implicated in the always-already political and essentially human relations. Accordingly, the following section will examin e how Foucaults genealogical enterprise and his critical interrogation of discursive practices permits to reveal the underlying and 45
determining elements of human subjectivity, and conditions for resistance and selfenactment. Genealogy, Archeology, and Discourse in Politics In Sexuality and Solitude, Foucault ma kes the following assertion: Let me announce once and for all that I am not a structur alist, and I confess, with the appropriate chagrin, that I am not an analytic philosopher.68 The tendency to situate Foucault in one overarching intellectual tradition runs the risk of compartmentalizing his transdiscursive and transdisciplinary thought and thus misconstruing his ambitious archeological/architectonic and genealogical enterprise qua research activity. Foucaults Two Lectures (1976) and an interview T ruth and Method contained in the book Power/Knowledge (1980) offer an expansion on his research methodology. Thus, genealogy is to be understood as a for m of history which can account for the constitution of knowledges, discourses, domains of objects, etc. wi thout having to make reference to a subject which is either transcendental in relation to the field of events or runs in its empty sameness throughout the course of history.69 The fundamental function of the genealogical project, Foucault contends, is to: entertain the claims to atte ntion of local, discontinuous, disqualified, illegitimate knowledges against the claims of a unitary body of theory which would filter, hierarchize and order them in the name of some true knowledge and some 46 68 Foucault, Michel. 1997. Sexuality and Solitude in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 176. 69 Foucault, Michel. 1984. Truth and Power in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Foucault Reader. (New York: Pantheon Books). Pg. 59.
arbitrary idea of what constitutes scie nce and its objects Genealogies are precisely antisciences70 To resurrect knowledge sedated by centraliz ing powers of institutions and sanctioned scientific discourses, in order to account for its subj ection and struggle against its formalized and ossified unitary theoretical postulates, is to enga ge in genealogy. This emancipation of historical know ledge from that subjection,71 which genealogy as a tactic undertakes in order to reactivate lo cal knowledges, requires a proper methodology that Foucault terms, archeology through which local discur sivities are analyzed and their historical relevance brought into play in the representation and constitution of the present. Foucault writes, archaeological anal ysis individualizes and describes discursive formations. . Far from wishi ng to reveal general forms, archaeology tries to outline particular configurations.72 Discourse, for Foucault, constitutes in stitutionalized and re gulated linguistic practices that shape and cons truct the objects of knowledge and testify to their truth value, which is internal to a given disc ourse, and beyond which objects manifestations cease to produce any meaning. Discourse is, therefore, a group of statements, which provides language appropriate to a particular topic and particular historical time period, and which consolidates and is, in turn, consolidated by an array of social practices. The hermeneutic approach to socio-political situ atedness by way of linguistic constructs is 47 70 Foucault, Michel. 1994. Two L ectures in Michael Kelly (ed.) Critique and Power. (Cambridge: MIT Press). Pg. 22. 71 Ibid. Pg. 24. 72 Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge. (London: Tavistock Publications). Pg. 157.
elemental to a Derridian decons tructive tradition, in which the ethical and the political are implicated in the historical, temporary and contingent structural configurations that convey and are mediated by ideas, knowledges and systems of power. This approach is especially pertinent to Fou caults genealogical enterprise aimed at revealing the artificiality of the ontological and episte mological underpinnings of subjectivity and socio-political practice, me thodically constituted and re-constituted by the dynamic interaction of knowledge and power. In his 1970 inaugural lect ure to the College de Fr ance, entitled Orders of Discourse, Foucault for the first time introduced the concept of power, which from then on permeated his subsequent works, such as Discipline and Punish (1975) History of Sexuality (Vol. I-III) (1976) and Power/Knowledge (1980) With this, the dominant conception of power in the H obbesian, Machiavellian, Shakesp earian or Kantian edition, as a centralized system of coercion which a ffects its absolute possessor absolutely, as the possession of power inevitably corrupts the free judgment of reason,73 begins to signify for Foucault an interplay of nonega litarian and mobile re lations relations [that] are both intentional and nonsubjectiv e [where] power is exercised from innumerable points74 and where an equal resistance is an admissible principle for action. This understanding of power has not been immu ne from criticism. Charles Taylor insists that Foucaults opposition between th e old model of power, based on sovereignty/obedience, and the new one ba sed on domination/subjugation leaves out 48 73 Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch in H.S. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 115. 74 Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 94.
everything in Western histor y which has been animated by civic humanism or analogous movements.75 Likewise, resistance, itself, has been called into question. Michael Walzer, for instance, denies that Foucault provides adequate reasons for his calls to resistance resistance for the sake of what ? Walzer asks by way of a critique, for the sake of whom? To what end? None of thes e questions can be satisfactorily answered76, he concludes. 49 Admittedly, power, and by extension, resistance, so conceived has mandated a Copernican revolution in thought, a K uhnian paradigm shift requiring greater decipherment of discourses and epistemes that structure and concretize human political reality, and accompanying it scientization and valorization of disciplinary forms of knowledge and social organization. Thus, in Society Must Be Defended Foucault postulates that in order to conduct a concre te analysis of power relations, one would have to abandon the juridical notion of sovereignty as this model, Foucault argues, presupposes the individual as a subject of natural rights or original powers; it aims to account for the ideal genesis of the state; a nd it makes law the fundamental manifestation of power.77 The requisite abandonment of a habitu al association of man or human nature with unchanging historical essences reified by discursi ve practice, and fostered by the Enlightenment and its normative pr esuppositions, offered a possibility for a reshuffling of configurations and classifi catory schemas, while placing contingency, 75 Taylor, Charles. 1985. Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 166. 76 Walzer, Michael. 1989. The Company of Critics: Social Criticism and Political Commitment in the Twentieth Century. (London: Peter Haben). Pg. 191. 77 Foucault, Michel. 1997. Society Must Be Defended in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 59.
arbitrariness and discontinuity at the center of analysis. Moreover, the reversal of the Platonic adage, led Foucault to posit the soul as bodys carceral st ructure, reified and maintained by: (i) the central ity of mans universal Enlightenment pathos; and (ii) circumscription and constitutiveness of man by the order of things, that is, present practices and institutions defining the system s of normativity, culminating in the critical meta-study of social organizations of thought and discipline. The reconstitution of ones ontology through resistance to sovereign power structures and a demand placed upon self-authorship constitute the core existen tial requirements posed by the poststructuralist approaches to a cosmopolitan pathos. It is thus that human history unveils itself anew, as a history of choices, by way of which politic al agents claim their personal sovereignty and enter into a democratic, civil and political cosmopolitan society. Foucault on Sovereignty Theory of sovereignty is the great trap we are in danger of falling into when we try to analyze power. -Michel Foucault To better analyze the mechanisms of pow er, Foucault insists on departing from the juridico-political notions of sovereignt y, which date from the Middle Ages and are constituted around the questions of monarchy, and engaging in an analysis of power which escapes entrapment and justification of its means in the theory of sovereignty. But even such an analysis, Foucault notes, which should logica lly have led to doing away with the theory of sovereignty and its ju ridical substantiations altogether, as an organizing principle of political and social life, has merely accommodated 50
complementarities, while working to amelio rate the more acerbic confrontations. The problem, as Foucault sees it, lies in (i) the conflict between a right of sovereignty and a mechanics of discipline; (ii) the conflict of ends between the jurisp rudential guarantee of rights and the disciplinary normalization; and which arose as a re sult of sovereigntys grand democratizing gesture, and a subs equent establishmen t of a public right articulated with collective sove reignty and enshrined in juridical codes. The devolution of hierarchically ordered degrees of power in to the general economy of discipline that runs throughout society78 constitutes a transition from th e paradigm of sovereignty to that of governmentality. The politico-juridical negative concep tion of monarchic power and sovereignty, intricately bound to territoriality, and pr emised upon Roman law and its Grotian interpretation, as the principl e of restraint and regulation, ha s posited the inviolability of the state, as the basis for a requisite formality in international relations, characterized by a perpetual struggle for survival and optimi zation of power under the dictates of the ius belli A formal system enshrining the reason of state and guaranteeing the impermeability of its boundaries, Foucault contends in Secur ity, Territory and Population, resulted in: (i) a diplomatico-military technology that consists in ensuring and developing the forces of a state through a system of alliances, and th e organizing of an armed apparatus in the search for a European equilibrium or bala nce of power under the guiding treaties of Westphalia; (ii) policy/police designed to incr ease forces from within; (iii) apparatus of 51 78 Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. 2000. Empire. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Pg. 88.
commerce and population-wealth increasing the quantitative potential of the state.79 In his analysis, Foucault intent on inverting Clausewitzs thesis, sees law as a contingently expeditious mean, born in the middle of expeditions conquests and burning cities raging within the mechanisms of power to constitute the secret driving force of institutions of law and order.80Politics as war pursued by other means privileged therefore, war, and by extension, sovereignt ys presiding mandate as the appropriate media for Foucauldian study; as their extensiv e politicization permitted for the regulation and advancement of subjects happiness, whic h in turn, enhanced the functionality of the apparatus of the state. How and under what conditions a rule rs sovereignty over the state can be maintained?81 How, since when and how, did people begin to imagine that it is war that functions in power relations, th at an uninterrupted combat undermines peace, and that the civil order is basically an order of battle? Who firs t thought that politics was war pursued by other means?82 The application of an archival examination of the problematic of power, sovereignty and politics as structured discourses and practices has led Foucault to [their] problematization, unde r which objects or co ncepts constitution comes to the fore and becomes the subject for reflection and analysis. In attempting to 52 79 Foucault, Michel. 1997. Security, Territory, and Population in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 69. 80 Foucault, Michel. 1997. Society Must Be Defended in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 61. 81 Foucault, Michel. 1990. Governmentality in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Essential Foucault (New York: The New Press). Pg. 230. 82 Foucault, Michel. 1997. Society Must Be Defended in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 60.
account for the power, domination, and governmentality problematic, it is essential to underscore the concepts non-clas sical interpretations and a ssociations which Foucault introduces into political theory. In his lecture on Governmentality, the term government is associated with the rationality, technology and art of governing or regulating conduct [of others or of oneself]. This technology of state forces leads to the development of an ensemble of institutions vested with the res ponsibility of enacting rational and conscious means, tactics, t echniques and procedures for ordering and managing a population. We need to see things, Foucault writes in Governmentality, not in terms of the replacemen t of a society of sovereignty by a disciplinary society and the subsequent replacement of a disciplin ary society by a societ y of government but form a triangular conceptualization of s overeignty-discipline-government, which has as its primary target the population and as it s essential mechanism the apparatuses of security.83 Barry Allen in Foucault and Modern Political Philosophy interprets Foucaults governmentality neologism as that which combined the idea of government or the power to direct conduct, with the idea of a peculiar mentality with which the activity of government has been approached in modern times: the presump tion that everything can, should, must be managed, admini stered, regulated by authority.84 In this way, not only the physical expansion of governmental bureauc racy, but also an increased specialization in all forms of expert management of know ledge and administration, which increasingly 53 83 Foucault, Michel. 1990. Governmentality in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Essential Foucault (New York: The New Press). Pg. 243. 84 Allen, Barry. 1998. Foucault and Modern Political Philosophy in Jeremy Moss (ed.) The Later Foucault: Politics and Philosophy. (London: Sage Publications). Pg. 179.
and insidiously infiltrated into every dimension of individual life, came to typify the modern nation-state and the disciplinary so ciety it brought about, along with the birth of the police state designed to see to livi ng and to maintain and augment the happiness of its citizens85 which was deemed necessary, if not indispensible, for the consolidation of strength and the very surv ival of the state itself. By retracing the political history of sovereignty, Fouc ault shows how an alternative, seemingly less authoritaria n, less self-legitimating and entrapping modus operandi takes root, whereby power ceases to be conceived in terms of law, prohibition, liberty, and sovereignty86 and requires for its di screte constitution neither the law nor the king. This, in turn, leads to the abolishment of a systemic consensus which stipulates that the only legitimate power emanates from the juridico-political theory of sovereignty which establishes and concentrates authority in the enigmatic and indivisible Leviathan, making it a condition sine qua non as pure sovereignty is i ndivisible, or it is not.87 To dethrone the king via powers imminent in so ciety is to negate the transcendental metaphysics of legitimized sove reignty, and to deny it an ex clusive loyalty of a citizen and subject. Foucault reveals that the historic o-political discourse has attempted to situate the sovereign in fictitious immanence im buing him with a peculiar foreignness and estrangement inaccessible to his subjects, wherein his incontestability has lain. A 54 85 Allen, Barry. 1998. Foucault and Modern Political Philosophy in Jeremy Moss (ed.) The Later Foucault: Politics and Philosophy. (London: Sage Publications). Pg. 186. 86 Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 90. 87 Balke, Friedrich. 2005. Derrida and Foucault on Sovereignty. German Law Journal 1 (1 January 2005). Pg. 76.
genealogical decipherment, however, procur ed by Foucault, deconstructs the myth, eventuating in nothing less than regicide. From now on, knowledge rather than ostentatious signs of sovereignty88 is to serve as a textual and practical vade mecum for the administration of society. The kings dethro nement presents itself as an opportunity for positing an alternative realm of existence, where neither citizen-subjects personality nor individual identity are reduced to and exhausted by a single inert skeleton. The techniques of analysis offered by Foucault, permit for a re-conceptualization of political reality, by recognizing the fluidity and hybridity of social affiliations and narrative genres which accompany them. For Aristotle, the essence of the polis has lain in its pedagogical purpose that defined the political destiny and fortune of citizens. In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill proposed the first element of good government, being the virtue and intelligence of the human beings composing th e community, the most important point of excellence which any form of government can possess is to promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themselves.89 With Foucault, a nominally and substantively different utility is being assigned to the st ate and its governmental practices. Foucault contends that the state does not have an esse nce or an essential pur pose, and it is not a universal or an autonomous source of power The state is nothing el se but the mobile effect of a regime of multiple governmentalities.90 The government thus shows itself 55 88 Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 220. 89 Mill, John Stuart. 1884. Considerations on Representative Government. (London: Ballantyne Press). Pg. 12. 90 Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978-79. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Pg. 77.
through disciplinary techniques which struct ure the social command via a diffuse network of dispositifs or apparatuses that produce and regulate customs, habits, and productive practices 91 which reach beyond the corporeal manifestations of being and enter the realm of consciousne ss, and which eventuate in docile and malleable social bios It is also evident in Foucaults analysis that it is precisely th e learned residuals of habits and customs that insert themselves in economic and poli tical practices, which enable the structures, mechanisms, a nd justifications of power to function.92 The individual within the system so concei ved is a fabricated atom, an artifact and a product of a technology of control, and an ideologica l representation of society. Foucault argued that the transition from the sovereign state to the disciplinary state, inevitably resulted in the tran smogrification of the states raison dtre In The Political Technology of Individuals, Foucault outlines the new raison as that devoted to taking care of men as a population. It wields its pow er over living beings as living beings, and its politics, therefore, has to be a biopolitics.93 The state is, thus, not merely invested with the potential for basal re course to coercion but with intelligence and productive capacity, an aesthetics which is to sculpt a nd refine the skeleton and the mind of the citizen it is interested in governing. The pro cesses underlying the new political anatomy of disciplinary society are no longer unified under a rigid, monolithic framework of operation, but rather show themselves as 56 91 Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. 2000. Empire. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Pg. 23. 92 Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978-79. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Pg. 85. 93 Foucault, Michel. 1988. The Political Technology of Individuals in Luther Martin et al. (eds.) Technologies of the Self. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press). Pg. 160.
a multiplicity of minor processes, of different origin and scattered location, which overlap, repeat, or imitate one a nother, support one a nother, distinguish themselves from one another according to their domain of application, converge and gradually produce the blueprint of a general method adopted in response to particular needs.94 The social construction of s ubjects predisposed and more amenable to the requirements of economic production necessitate s and justifies the utilizati on of closely administered institutional modes of discip linarity and management of populations. Thus, life itself, says Foucault, becomes an object of power. With this, the philosopher breaks with the tradition of a benign analysis of sovereig nty and the liberal convention of analyzing sovereignty from the point of restraint on power and dares to inquire after the extra-legal means and reasons for its exercise. With govern ment, Foucault writes, it is a question not of imposing law on men, but of disposing things of employing tactics rather than laws, and even of using laws themselves as tactics.95 The law qua jurisprudence was dethroned from its central position within th e apparatus of state and replaced with a regime of discipline and tactics of disposal. The State of Being qua Creative Becoming In conceiving of the basic human unit of social organization, the state, under globalization, it is necessary to invoke some unifying philosophical presuppositions. The following will certainly assume more about the function and purpose of the state than Sir Thomas Mores sinister adage had purported to capture, when he believed the state to be: 57 94 Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg.138. 95 Foucault, Michel. 1991. Governmentalit y in Graham Burchell et al. (eds.) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press). Pg. 95.
a conspiracy of the rich who call their intrigues laws. A contrario, in Book I of the Politics Aristotle insisted on the state being a community of some kind established with a view to some good a body of c itizens sufficing for the purposes of life.96 For Cicero, the state or the common wealth was that association and federation of men bound together by principles of justice.97 In the Revolt of the Masses the polis is not primarily a collection of habitable dwellings, Ortega y Gasset wrote, but a meeting place for citizens, a space set apart for publ ic functions. The city is not built to shelter from the weather and to propagate the species but in order to discuss public affairs.98 Neither one of the above definitions is exhaustive; ye t common to all three is an identification of the state with a public space, a community of individual citizens bound to share and propagate the good in accordance with the laws of justice. This democratic assumption, which is premised upon a primarily communita rian logic, defines the parameters of citizenship by: (i) investing public sp aces with the opportuni ty for the use of autonomous public reason, endowed with an appropriate level of critical reflection, which in turn; (ii) enhances the norms and nomos of the political unit, even or, perhaps, all the more so, when invested with a spirit of resistance. Genesis, continuity, totalization: these are the great themes of the history of ideas, and that by which it is attached to a ce rtain, now traditional, form of historical analysis. . But archaeological description is precisely such an abandonment of the history of ideas, a systematic rejec tion of its postulates and procedures, an attempt to practice quite a different history of what men have said.99 58 96 Aristotle. 1947. Politics in Richard McKeon (ed.) Introduction to Aristotle. (New York: Random House, Inc.) 1252a-1275a. 97 Radford, Robert T. 2002. Cicero: A Study in the Origins of Republican Philosophy. (Kenilworth: Rodopi). Pg. 76. 98 Ortega y Gasset, Jose. 1931. The Revolt of the Masses. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company). Pg. 151. 99 Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge (London: Tavistock Publications). Pg. 138.
The attitude of resistan ce, abandonment and dissoci ation, proposed above and employed by Foucault in his archival enterprise, however disowned by a communitarian principle as the bonds of mutual constitutiveness become subject of gradual dissolution (and thus is constitutively more in tune with a cosmopolitan mode of dialectical enterprise between the world and the self), creates an opening for selfauthorship, under the edicts of which the self voluntarily discovers the imaginative horizons and aspires towa rd their surpassing. It is the acting and reflecting person, then, who in the vivacity of the spirit is not simp ly able to turn the power of consciousness back upon the self and its imaginations,100 but also to intend a nd to project oneself toward the self of ones own ambition. The im plied subjectivity sugge sts a retreat into the self in order to excavate the potential fo r the development of pe rsonal reason, or to find logos already dwelling there. The methodological approach in enacting the ethical subject (Foucault), the liber al self (Sandel), the cosmopo litan self (Hill) is through a process of self-reference by which the individual delimits that part of himself that will form the object of his moral practice, define s his position relative to the precept that he will follow, and decides on a certain mode of being that will serve his moral goal.101 The portrait of creative becoming, wh ich Foucault adroitly paints on his philosophical canvas, necessarily regards existence as preceding essence, however, distrusting the essential beingness which aspires toward nothing less than metaphysical transcendence. To posit coming into being as an existential task, and by extension, a 59 100 Mounier, Emmanuel. 1952. Personalism. (Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press). Pg. 37. 101 Foucault, Michel. 1985. The History of Sexuality, Volume II: The Use of Pleasure. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 28.
cosmopolitan project, based on the understandi ng of the historical and socio-political narratives that define the psyche/soul and confine th e body, and which impinge upon and encumber the being that already is, and th e one that is not yet, is to presuppose that agents posses an affinity toward self-discipl ine, self-cultivation, a nd an ethical aesthetic, an array of artistic and stylistic gifts whic h issue in practices of creativity and resistance. In this way, the constitutionality of human ontology is rarely natural, definite, exact, and unambiguous, but rather invariably optional, plastic, contingent and indeterminate. In view of the above, it become s necessary to inquire after the relevance of the state in the development of beings qua citizens in the expanded sphere of concern it is invested with under globalization. Question of this kind is not inconsequential, as increased privatization of human existence and rearrangement of public spaces for democratic deliberation, alter the capacity and the paternalis tic role of governments, and through it, realign citizens referenc e points for self-i dentification. A Prelude: Political Significance of Space The liberal order provides numerous exemplars of context-dependent radical thought, intent on either habitu ating citizens in good (Aristot le), maximizing the greatest happiness (Mill) or deliberating upon and selecting the principl es of justice from behind the veil of ignorance (Rawls). All of the above presupposed that the human condition is necessarily immersed in and intimately tied to the polis or the state, and the spaces delineating its function, which form the funda mental identity rooted contextually to a collective of customs and more s. From Hobbes through Locke and Rawls political theory has relied upon arguments aimed at legitimation of political power and justification of the 60
legal system as maintaining order, promoti ng safety and enshrining popular consent by providing positive guarantees, protocols protecting natural rights, persons, and property. The political significance of space, physical as well as mnemonic, generates a set of questions concerning its character and c onstitution and above all its influence upon the citizen-subject. Space, as definitional, such, by which rules of spatial behavior are explicitly articulated and codified; histori cal, situated in a specific context, and; cultural, predicated upon a plethora of speci fic significations and meanings, define(s) and circumscribe(s) the parameters for political engagement. It aggregates and excludes, impinges upon and confines, initiates and disrupts the scope and structure of political action. In her book, Radical Space (2003), Margaret Kohn, reasoning about the potentialities of spatial analytics and the so cio-political and cultural importance of the spatial dimension vis--vis subjectivity and citizenship, raises the following concerns by asking: Is there something about shared physical presence that intensifies and transforms political experience? Could particular spaces serve a transformative political project as well as a disciplinary regime?102 Could the space left open in the spirit of counterpolitics, or politics of sedition constitute as equally compelling an act of a nonetheless political resistance as the sp ace inhabited and occupied? What becomes of the territory, the demos, the democratic proc ess, war and intrigue, when space which presided over and orchestrated socio-political behavior faces its own annihilation by the insatiable time assiduously loyal to the progres sively space-compressing pro cesses and technologies of globalization? 61 102 Kohn, Margaret. 2003. Radical Space. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Pg. 2.
The above questions will constitute the foundation for a Foucauldian analysis of spatial politics. As James F. Keeley in Tow ard a Foucauldian Analys is of International Regimes suggests, Foucault does not th eorize or hypothesize; he produces jarring interpretations that uncover and promot e struggles, therefore, we cannot deduce hypotheses form his work; instead, we ca n adopt an attitude of fundamental contestability, apply Foucaults analyt ic devices, and explore possibilities.103It is precisely this methodology, sustai ned by an attitude of contes tability, which will preside over the following chapter. A doption of this analytic procedure inevitably dilutes the foundations of any strict, quantifiable, object ive disciplinary science and its uncontestable truth by denaturalizing dominant narratives, while providing instruments for critical analysis of political actors and their relations on the stage of the international theater, as well as opening prospects for conceptua lizing a normative core of democratic engagement under the auspices of a cosmopo litan form of being. Since, transnational processes of, and contests to, globalizati on extend themselves beyond national borders, the idea of democracy premised upon a rigidly demarcated political forum, can no longer be viably sustained. As a consequence, the philosophical and pragmatic ends of atomistic and sheltered political commun ities or territorial nation-stat es must be rethought. And the conceptual and legal underpinnings a nd duties of citizenship, which are a conditio sine qua non of every democratic polity, must be revised and expanded beyond spatial confines of the nation-state, in order to assume an increasin gly mediating and dialogically engaged role. 62 103 Keeley, James F. 1990. Toward a Foucauldian Analysis of International Regimes. International Organizations 44(1). Pg. 96.
CHAPTER III THEORIZING POLITICAL SPACE, GOV ERNMENTALITY, AND SUBJECTIVITY The present epoch will perhaps be above all the epoch of space. W e are in the epoch of simultaneity: we are in the epoch of juxtaposition, the epoch of the near and far, of the side-by-side, of the dispersed. We are at a moment I believe, when our experience of the world is less that of a long life developing through time than that of a network that connects points and intersects with its own skein. Michel Foucault, Of Other Spaces In theorizing political space it is incumbent to consider the public s phere and social space that defined and enabled the essential nature of the political enterprise. Though familiar investitures of the Greek agor a or the Roman forum provided the necessary schemas for architectural design and accommodation of the democratic debate in the ancient world, and the writings of the Enlig htenment of Kant and Mill equipped it with theoretical imaginings of a place destined for collectiviza tion of rational individuals in the attempt to reach agreements on issues of common concern, the more substantial theorization of space as the cornerstone of transformative po litics in an era of deterritorialization, internal fragmentation, and physical-intellectua l dispersal remains yet to be conceived. The analysis and understanding of the spatial dimension and repositioning of the state, apart from its geographic placem ent, cannot be accomplished without the examination of the definitive political markers of citizenship and sovereignty, which are deeply implicated in the political proce ss and operation of imagined communities at 63
local, national, and global levels. Camilleri et al. in the State in Transition (1995), claim that the statist paradigm has monopolized our understanding of the political, putting a stranglehold on international relations, and constraining a variant discourse around the concepts of state, security, and power. The marked polycentrism of modern governance, Scholte points out, is distinctly multi-layered and trans-scalar, creating an impression of a shrunk or partial sovereignty.104 The fluctuating and shifting internationalism provides, therefore, the test ing-ground for the adaptive capacities of states. Adaptation, by definition, requires revision and adjustment which are a result of a reflex response to the changing circumstances. Camilleri et al. argue that states symbolic and formal reactions permit for the articulation of their pos sible trajectories, wh ile at the same time, reawakening reflection on the means by which the state has been conceptualized thus far. Before considering, however, the conseque nces and various decouplings of ethnonationalist projects, ontological and ethical dilemmas, and identity politics to which respatialization of politics unde r globalization inevitably gives way, it is necessary to concentrate on the transitions a nd alterations in the sphere of public space and discourse in order to uncover their impacts upon human and citizen agency and subjectivity. This chapter will be dedicated to th e analytic exploration of the pu blic sphere, which links the liberal ideologies of the enlightenment to its constitutive social structures105and attempts to redefine the utility of public political deba te in the age of globali zation, corporatization of the state and privatization of public locales of socio-political activity, whic h issue, on a 64 104 Scholte, Jan. 2005. Globalization. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Pg. 190. 105Kohn, Margaret. Foucault and Freemas onry. Accessed on April 2, 2009 at
personal level, in considerably greater a nonymity, autonomy, and dislocated authority that re-disciplines public consciousness a nd transmogrifies citizen sovereignty, while simultaneously and paradoxically, making the su bject more politically transparent. In recent literature, political theorists have begun to turn their analytic attention to the progressive privatization of public spa ces and the resultant democratic privation accompanied increased atomization and degr adation of value systems, which have traditionally placed emphasis on democratic ideals of participation and reasoned deliberation. Due to spatial extensiveness of modern democracies and technological regulatory apparatuses in place, the disappearance of mental and material agoras, the centrally located open market areas and the designated physical spaces where the public life of the city and discussion of political affairs occurred, have called for a reconceptualization and transfor mation of public engagement in political discourse. Kohn argues that the privatization of public space s has undermined the opportunities for public speech and reinforced patters of existing social segregation.106 Since, space encodes power, Lefebvre contends, it lays down the law because it implies a certain order and hence a certain disorder, and thus commands bodies107 which become readable through the sites of their emplacement in th e powergeometry of social relations.108 A dynamic public sphere situated in a non-intimi dating public space ensures the survival of a democratic civil society. Only a democr atic state Walzer claims, can create a 65 106 Kohn, Margaret. 2004. Brave New Neighborhoods. (New York: Routledge). Pg. 3. 107 Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers). Pg. 142. 108 Massey, Doreen 1993. Power-Geo metry and a Progressive Sense of Place in John Bird et al. (eds.) Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change. (London: Routledge). Pg. 59.
democratic civil society;109and only a democratic civil so ciety can build sustainable social ties and a sense of mutual obligation by weaving together isolated individuals110 into a larger social body. Today, Bennett and Entman point out, the public sphere is comprised of any and all locations, physical or virtual, where id eas and feelings relevant to politics are transmitted or exchanged openly.111 It is important to note that a dislocation and a relocation of public space from pure and e xperienced physicality to more anonymous and abstract virtuality has not pr oduced visible alterati ons in the originative premise of public space, which conventionally relied upon its own di stinction and alterity as the organizing principle of discursive interaction that inst itutes itself in separation of, if not in overt opposition to, the state mandate. Nancy Fraser desc ribes the public sphere as that arena, which is conceptually distinct from the state; it is a site for the production and circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical of the state.112Theoretically, its supposed alienation from economic relati ons and independence from unsolicited encroachments of the market forces, permits the public sphere to function as a theater for debating and deliberating rath er than for buying and selling.113 This historically 66 109 Walzer, Michael. 1995. The Concept of Civil Society in Michael Walzer (ed.) Toward a Global Civil Society (Providence: Berhah an Books). Pg. 24. 110 Jenlink, Patrick. 2007. Creati ng Public Spaces and Practiced Places for Democracy, Discourse, and the Emergence of Civil Society. Systemic Practice and Action Research 20(5). Pg. 432. 111 Bennett, Lance and Entman, Robert. 2001. Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 3. 112 Fraser, Nancy. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere : A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. (Cambridge: The MIT Press). Pg. 110. 113 Ibid., Pg. 111.
performative exercise in deliberative democr acy and the geographic expansiveness of its effects, Habermas argues, were furthered by the 15th century development of the printing press. This, in turn, gave rise to all forms of printed media, which created the foundation for a type of national narrative that fost ered the development of the nation state.114 With the rise of multidirectional and multipoint global discourse, the proliferation and presence of technologically viable lo w-threshold of access discourse locales has redefined the public function of piazzas and squares, replaci ng the public face of the citizen with the inscrutability of a computer generated gra phic, while substituting for gradually evolving relations of trust the immediacy of guarded demeanor and general mistrust, as well as replacing socio-political transparency with oblique manipulation and abrasive deceit. Paradoxically, the wider avenues for the cultiv ation of positive ends and more engaged public dialogue via communication and political participation generated by the evolutionary pace of technology, point also to potentially destabilizing trends. Doug Walton underscores the following four, as in dicative of the alte ring character and priorities of the contemporary demos : (i) the degradation of value systems; (ii) the decline in civic engagement; (iii) the sub-optimiza tion of political campaigning, and (iv) the suboptimization of media on entertaining.115The respatialization of political and institutional enterprise augurs a reconfiguration and readju stment of policy and politics. Jean-Marie Guehenno points to the adverse effects of the multiplication and increased reliance upon public opinion surveys. The amplification a nd technologically enabled instantaneity of 67 114 Walton, Doug. 2007. Revitalizing the Public Sphere: The Current System of Discourse and the Need for Participative Design of Social Action. Systemic Practice and Action Research 20(5). Pg. 374. 115 Ibid., Pg. 376.
volatile but monolithic public opinion polls, Guehenno argues, does a disservice to a representative democracy on account of mi nimizing the will and the need for public debate, mediation, confrontation of perspectiv es, and compromise, as representatives dare not contradict the publics already variable sentiments.116 Thus the states legitimation is now not only derived from its ability to ensure and propagate the material summum bonum of its citizens, but a bove all, from the loyalty to pub lic passions and the technical mobilization of the apparatu ses of knowledge capable of gauging them. Technocratic governance sustained by the in transigence of technology in m odern society threatens the survival of a spontaneous spir it of public and democratic as sembly, yielding the floor to specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart self-sat isfied with attaining a level of civilization never before achieved,117 but journeying under a blind guide of a tyrannical majority consisting of a virtua l mass public opinion. A natural objection may be raised about the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion embedded in an amalgam of capitalist and neoliberal orders. A much less explored function of pub lic opinion lies not in its volatility and capriciousness, but in its cr itical nature, which not only aims to check domination, but democr atize governance itself.118 This presupposition, however, raises two problems. First, for the public opinion to stand the test of legitimacy, according to public-sphere theory, it must show itself base d in and upholding two principles of (a) inclusiveness; and, (b) partic ipatory parity. The inherent hyb ridity and disaggregation of 68 116 Guehenno, Jean-Marie. 1999. Lavenir de la liberte. La democratie dans la mondialisation. (Paris: Flammarion). Pg. 47. 117 Weber, Max. 1992. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (London: Routledge). Pg. 182. 118 Fraser, Nancy. 2007. Transnationalizing the Public Sphere in Identities, Affiliations, and Allegiances ed. Seyla Benhabib, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 55.
the enterprise of opinion building contests legitimacy, as territo rially unbounded masses of interlocutors often reveal themselves, af ter close examination, as monochromatically homogeneous transnational elites, who posse ss, above all, the means necessary for effective global networking,119 the modern prerequisite of political pa rticipation. Because the systems of communication ex tend the sphere and possibilities for civic engagement, and increasingly call for a more democratized forms of citizenship under the mutually affecting norm of globalizatio n, they are also the inadvertent cause of tensions between democratic principles whic h advocate the inclusi on of a broader array of political actors, and civic ideals that put a moratorium on a tolerable number and nativity of such actors. It becomes incumben t, therefore, to not only investigate the ramifications of the respatialization of pol itical dialogue, along w ith its prio rities and commitments, but the new status anxiety of ci tizens themselves, whose legally proscribed rights, privileges, duties, and obligations to fellow compatriots, in an era of globalization, ineluctably transcend the institutional limits of the state, and encompass an assemblage of heterogeneous existential responsibilit ies and dilemmas for which no formal constitutional mandate exists. Postmodernism and the Rise of the Politics of Social Space When in 1969 from the ashes of post-war European political turmoil, the New Constructivism as an art movement took sh ape, the artists of the period took upon themselves a project of advancing a new society and raising the social aesthetic 69 119 Fraser, Nancy. 2007. Transnationalizing the Public Sphere in Identities, Affiliations, and Allegiances ed. Seyla Benhabib, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 56.
imagination to the level of u tility, with the narratives concretely derived from the masses contextualized in socially pre-defined poli tical situations. Lacan himself promoted the use of neo-constructivis t theory to modify society through an integration of social life with action and art. Thus, the concept of ideological art, discontented with mere decoration of society and replication of agr eed to reality on canvas, aimed, primarily, at an erasure of boundaries between art and life. Foucault referred to this conceptual framework as the neo-dialectic paradigm of discourse that denoted the bridge between society and reality. Society thus became, as Derrida would have it, a part of the economy of consciousness, and artistic psychological mechanisms and the accompanying outburst of expressionism became the symbolic portrayals of the world, which conveyed and referenced social and economic problems of the times. The apparent realization that the so-called reality is not so real at all and its constituent elements, but consensually agreed upon norms and habits reified with an aid of absorbent human consciousness and its predisposition for orderl y attachments, labels, and categories, has resulted in the appropriation of socio-political narratives to the masses, in the midst of which discourse has become created and act ualized, and subjects given dimension and contextualization. The image of the world as implicitly and mutually constituted by norms, shared understandings, and intersubje ctive truths presupposed a recognition based on the realization that the existence of the worl d and political as well as social facts was not independent of our minds, but organized into categories, which necessitated an interpretative/hermeneutic approach. Plastic and performance art thus created a forum for the publication of commentaries on the soci o-political dimension of existence, and narrated in fragmentary pieces, th e artificiality and f ungibility of political constructs. Not 70
only did the artist become the despondent interpreter of the symbolic function of politics, but chief among them, a public conscience of resi stance, who situated his/her art within a silent space destined to reverberate the many conflicts and struggles of the citizensubjects of whom the work was a carbon-copy, and resolutely addre ssed to the guardians of the governmental order. With the accelerated transformation of comm unal life into social life, in the 18th century, the publicity of human interiority has begun to constitute a novel paradigm of existence. The progressively increasing differentiation of units, heightened secrecy, and multitude of possibilities for population dist ribution and proliferation of information resulted in the creation of public loci for participatory rational-critical debate and variegated practices of consensual politics. Margaret Kohn distinguishes three potent addendums to the public sphere, whose progressive disappearance in the late 20th century the social scientists, chief among them Robert Putnam, bewa il: labor unions, houses of the people, and civic associations. In her analysis, Kohn assigns to space corporeal, symbolic, intuitive, experi ential, and cognitive dimensi ons, which facilitate the development of identities and po litical practices, incl uding practices of re sistance. Such a conception of space opposes the traditional form ulations advanced by Michel de Certeau, Ernesto Laclau, or Ludwig Feuerbach, who deem spatial denotations of place, locales, milieus, nations as static, resistant to transf ormation, and therefore, fixed and subject to control. In political theory, Jeremy Benthams Panopticon serv es as a paradigmatic image of the aforementioned fixity of spatial conditioning, which, like the paradigm of the nation-state, delimits the movement of its ow n potentiality that necessarily looks beyond its confines. 71
Early in the 20th century, in his 1930 book, The Revolt of the Masses, Jose Ortega y Gasset, mindful of the accelerated agglomera tion of masses and the sense of stifling, indocile, and invincible urba n plenitude stemming from th e ever greater rationalization of industry, reignited the deba te on the spatial components of politics. He pointed to the pervasively held sentiment of nationality and the institutions surviving from the past as objects of a progressive con ceptual elision. Their anac hronistic function gradually dwarfed by the machinery of industrializa tion began to constitute an obstacle to expansion.120 Ortega y Gassets prescience in rega rds to the respatialization of sociopolitical and economic domains provided an ea rly critique of the global acceleration of mass movements and a blueprint for analytical theorizing of alternative configurations, i.e. the Union of European States. Si milarly, Foucault, who took upon himself the analysis of themes and haunting obsessions of the 19th century, referred to the problematic of spatial propinquity between human elem ents as the problem of emplacement, which has, in the new era, supp lanted the medieval space of localization, thus, putting under review the sacral givens of the social order: the oppositions between private space and public space, between family space and social space, between cultural space and useful space, between the space of leisure and that of work.121 Classical political theory, however, by c onfining space to geography (as seen in Aristotle, Montesquieu, Kant) and by downgrading it to disc ursive non-entity, inhibited transformative visions and act ion based in political possibilities, thus making it ill 72 120 Ortega y Gasset, Jose. 1930. The Revolt of the Masses. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company). Pg. 150. 121 Foucault, Michel. 2008. Of Other Spaces in Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter Heterotopia and the City (London/New York: Routledge). Pg. 16.
prepared to reform its field of knowledges in order to address a new and emerging reality, which revealed itself in various transgressions of glob alization. How is it that in an order in which political organization and conflict are premised upon the nation-state, political theory, so far, has failed to inquire into attenuating measures, modes of citizenship that necessarily reach beyond the institutional and geographical confines? It is necessary to emphasize that political theorys fundamental areas of specialty, which claimed to have uncovered the ultimate read ing of political reality, with the onset of globalized thinking, proved inept, however, in answering questions of: (i) the role and relevance of the post-Westphalian state; (ii) the reconciliations and decouplings of pluralism, multiculturalism, and political membership in the identity-conscious and rapidly changing world; (iii) the inevitability and omnipresence of international conflict, possibilities for democratic peace, and inte rnational justice; (iv) the structurally, economically, politically, or religiously motivat ed deterritorialization of political actors and terrorist organizations; (v) the geographi c, multi-nodal redistribution and capacity of non-governmental organizations to se t the standards fo r novel modes of institutionalization of authority and global gove rnance. All of the a bove presume a spatial component that makes the immediacy of thei r compiled dilemmas all the more politically relevant in accommodating the changing ratio nality of government and its proactive mechanisms of governmentality. Critics assert that the adopted paradigm of postmodernism is likely to be equally less forthcoming with responses to the new modes of global society and governance. Zygmunt Bauman argues, that: 73
This postmodern reality of the deregulated/privati zed/consumerist world, the globalizing/localizing world, finds only a pale, one sided and grossly distorted reflection in the postmodernist narrativ e. The hybridization and defeat of essentialisms proclaimed by the postmode rnist eulogy of the globalizing world are far from conveying the complexity and sharp contradictions tearing that world apart.122 The argument defended in this thesis begs to differ. Although, postmodernism in political theory does not account for the many unartic ulated experiences and complexities to which Bauman scathingly refers, its method of genealogical uncovering, nonetheless, permits for a detailed and complex analysis of micro-contexts. Th e investigation of a preponderant political function of space in Foucaults writings yields an insight into situated conditioning of groups and sub-groups of citizen-subjects placed in variegated and prefigured social milieus. Thus, the di scourses created by the school, army barracks, prisons, clinics, concentration camps retrace a heterotopian reality, which references the grander and more global relations of power. Postmodern theorists identify the 20th century as a marking point for the disappearance of a distinctive private realm which caused, in turn, a transformation of the public sphere. The mass-based consumer culture, Kohn argues in Radical Space (2003), inserted itself into the home, breaking down the realm of interiori ty and privacy, while the mass-media eviscerated the line between the public and the priv ate, subordinating both to the homogenous standards of consumer culture. The same may be said of the internet and the proliferating social networ k sites, where political agency interweaves 74 122 Bauman, Zygmunt. 1998. Globalization: The Human Consequences. (New York: Columbia University Press). Pg. 101.
with superficial curiosity and publicity on demand and becomes the norm for the consolidation of vi rtual citizenship.123 As brought up earlier in the discussion, modern political theory, until quite recently, overlooked the power of the place or of the political sp ace and the theoretical significance of spatial politics. Michel Foucault suggested two reasons for this longstanding dismissal of space in political theory: (1) Space used to be either dismissed as belonging to nature, (2) Or, considered as the residential site or field of expansion of peoples, of a culture, a language, or a state.124 In other words, space was and still largely contin ues to be conceived as either nature or a community. It was/is conceived as either inci dental or as antithetical to change and innovation that are critical for political transformation.125 Why then, in this era of infinite spatial arrangements enabled by the globa lizing world, should we be conscious and concerned with distinctly political space? 75 123 More recent utilization of technology and social networking cites demonstrates an active public and politically engaged citizenry. For instance, in the course of a $500 million green refit of the Empire State Building, the drop in the lake of the Green Revolution, the people working in the building will be able to use the internet to monitor how much energy is being used, and where. This is an illustrative example of a Foucauldian dispersion of power and surveillance from the bottom up, and an instance of a repositioning of spatial politics. The recent cases of the G-20 Summit demonstrations in London and Moldovas and Irans anti-government protests, suggest that oppositional move ments are now able to form via Twitter and are but another example of a much decentralized spatial political organization. As oppositional movements, the green revolutionaries and sophisticated technology users practice reverse subjectivization under which the state becomes the object of analysis and scrutiny, and where control over space is perfected via technology so as to organize the movements activities without be coming, itself, the subject to violent repression, confiscation or censorship. 124 Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge. (New York: Pantheon Books). Pg. 149. 125 Kohn, Margaret. 2003. Radical Space. (Ithaca/London: Cornell University). Pg. 19.
It is important to underscore that spaces create our subjectivity as individuals and citizens; they delineate our place in the chai n of social relations; they hierarchize, disadvantage by demoting and honor by promoting. They create subjects, citizens, power relations, and sites of resistance. They force social consciousness. Space also functions symbolically as a repository of historical meanings that reproduce social relations, and as mnemonic devices for recovering memories.126 The power of place and spatial arrangements comes from the fact that social relations, as inevitable and immutable, are the extension of the world we inhabit. What happens then, when the world enters, or even pushes uninvited onto our up to now private and exclusionary spaces? What responsibility are we to take for the images that weigh heavily on our citizen conscience, yet the persons depicted in them as suffering are not our immediate compatriots to whom we would otherwise have sacrosanct duties? Do we have, in the globalized order, special obligations to strangers and enemies, regardless of political border demarcations or of enemy lines, perhaps, even despite them? How do we redesign political spaces to incorporate the demands of non-citizens, a nd enact spaces of resistance and advocacy which provide a context for political speech, reflections and action? 76 I argue that the Foucauldia n postmodern paradigm offers five modes of procedure in attending to these questions: (i) thinking of democratic freedom as a mean of selfcreation, which is fundamental to both the maintenance of communitarian soundness and the development of a cosmopolitan way of being, which regards none that is human, alien; (ii) calling for a criti cal investigation of the character and mentality of global governance, of power and the role of personal and political resistan ce in shaping new 126 Kohn, Margaret. 2003. Radical Space. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Pg. 3.
horizons of political order (iii) of developi ng structural approaches to cosmopolitan democracy; which are enhanced by (iv) a deco upling of identity from citizenship, and are prompted by (v) an inquiry into and recalibration of the politi cal space and sovereignty of states and political agents; and, finally, (v i) a consolidation of a polycentric and democratically egalitarian socio-institutional level, which privileges openness and avoidance of closure within a more de territorialized globa l cultural order. The post-modern period is linked with the inevitable eclipse of national sovereignty and calls for a cr eation of institutions that overlap national boundaries and serve transnational social and economic needs.127 Conducting an analysis of a political subject matter under the guise of a presiding postmodernist theory implies a more circumspect study and interpretation of the co-existent and co-determinative systems of knowledge and power that result in the soci o-political arrangements of our time. Only through such a lens of analysis and method of inquiry will the skelet al configurations of politics be revealed and its practices uncovered from the thicket of inter-dependent relations. 77 For Foucault, the modern individual is an historical achievement and an effect of the operations of power, whose identity is culturally cons tructed though a series of exclusions. Social spaces, tangible material local sites and institutions, such as the modern city, the clinic, the prison, the military barracks, the university as well as virtual domains, are formations that link together the diverse field of power relations, which outstrip in their unifying capacity, shared la nguages or mutual religious commitments. The global virtually enfranchised citizen, in addition to the contingencies of space, is 127 Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press). Pg. 7.
now also exposed to the contingency of spee d, which increases as a consequence of new technologies that affect not merely comm unications and information, but also the processes of deliberation, decision-making, issues of surveillance and security, and ultimately the citizens own subjectivity. An acceleration of speed l eads to a compression of space; and increased speed, which overcomes great distances leads to the disorganization of regular working capacities of systems, ultimately resulting in a prophetic reality predicted by Paul Virilio, in that the more speed increases, the faster freedom decreases.128 This observation calls, therefore, for vigilance against the seeming opportunities offered by unbounded promises of technological progress, requiring not only the protection of law in a progressively less state-centric world, but of global ethic and an art of living and gove rning that does not encumber upon human development. On the Art of Government Foucault contends that th e realist paradigm promoted by Machiavelli and the Florentine political tradition in the 16th Century concerned with governmental enterprise which centered on the state, the reason of state, and terr itorial sovereignty has been extended to an art of government in which economy becomes a standard for political practice. To govern a state, will mean theref ore, to apply economy, to set up economy at the level of the entire state, which means exercising towa rd its inhabitants ... a form of surveillance and control,129 that is, engage in active and continuous administration of the 78 128 Virilio, Paul. 2007. Speed and Politics. (Cambridge: The MIT Press). Pg. 142. 129 Foucault, Michel. 1990. Governmentality in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Essential Foucault. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 234.
socio-political nucleus, the population. The Western penchant for rationalization, classification, schematization, tabulation, and recording, which constitutes and is constituted by a particular systematicness of pol itical culture, infused the individual under studied surveillance with imagery and voca bulary that essentiali zed, homogenized, and fossilized its unanimous content, and made it thus, unamenable to contestation, while the political practice associated with it, enabled a much more precise isolation of elements, i.e. the population and its sub-groups, ope ning them to analytical scrutiny and intervention. Thus in modern times, one pa radigmatic model for spatial partitioning and orderly redistribution of human subjects was to place them under the alert, objectifying, and permanently registering gaze, wh ich gives power of mind over mind130 and which by its disciplining techniques automatizes a nd disindividualizes in order to normalize. 79 One of the salient examples, which Fou cault meticulously analyzes in his work, Discipline and Punish is Jeremy Benthams Panopticon. The structure, based on the principle of perpetual surveillance was orig inally conceptualized as a prison with a central tower that rendered celled inmates, lo cated at its peripheral edges, permanently subjected to the guards omnipresent ga ze. Bentham thus illu strated the powers visibility without its unveri fiability. The Panopticon, or the house of certainty engendered a technique which encouraged self-regulation and moral reformation. The prisoner in the cell is seen, yet unable to ascertain the exact moment of the guards concentrated gaze. The inmate thus becomes the object of unidirectional information and classification, but never a subject of communi cation. This, in tur n, induces a state of conscious and permanent visibility, because the surveillance, even if at times 130 Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 206.
80 discontinuous, is permanent, and internalized by the subject being observed. The inmate becomes the principle of his own subjection in assuming responsibility for the constraints of power. The structure possesses a functiona l basis, that of: (i) individualizing observation and analytical arrang ement of space, and (ii) la boratorial experimentation on men in order to analyze behavioral responses to stimuli. Its role is disciplinary, one aiming at increased docility and utility of mu ltitudes, effectively neutralizing agitations, coalition, and revolts, yet its premise is democr atic rather than tyrannically repressive in that it is a spatial arrangement which permits for observation of any of the observers. The image of power deducted from the application of the panoptical arrangement in society is one not of restrictiveness, prohibition, unidi rectionality, but of asymmetry, mobilization, dissimulation, invisibility, unveri fiability, and omni-presence. Its principle of operation does not so much inhere in a person, as in an arrangement and distribution of bodies, lights, gazes, and in mutual relations in which individuals are caught up.131 Power is now a strategy without a strategist, which natu rally does away with the ostentatious model of possessed, absolute, and undivided sovere ignty, which deems al l power as legally sanctioned and primarily repressive (rather th an productive) in exercise. With Foucault, as Charles Pierce noted, the law of the habit qua docile subjectification, becomes ultimately the law of the mind. Further, Mada n Sarup proposes an important reading of Foucaults illustration of the a pparatuses of power presented in Discipline and Punish which he terms a parable about human s ubjectivity in which F oucault shows how at some historical period the sovereign rulers self-ascribed value of individualization, and the juridical anonymity of the masses underwent a conceptual and pract ical reversal and 131 Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 202.
transformation. Now, the bureaucratic body is seen as anonymous, while the subject is individualized132 and vested with the responsibility of internalizing the morality of the societal order. On the model of the aforementioned multi-nodal observation, some of the heaviest surveillance states, such as, Chin a, Russia, Singapore, Great Britain, and the United States now employ a combination of visu al surveillance, database registries, and tracking techniques to probe more deeply into the increasingly transnationalized human psyche. Thus, in present-day London alone there are approximately 4.2 million CCTV cameras for face and movement recognition. Tr affic databases process 35 million plates per day. National identity registers collect DNA and biometric information of all citizens and foreign nationals. In its instrumental application, tec hnology is, as Heidegger argued, a way of revealing the truth(s),133 always present as standi ng-reserve an d ordered to insure the possibility of surveillance.134 Thus, as Heidegger observed, the human subject in the technological age is, in a particul arly striking way, challenged forth into revealing.135 Exposition becomes the location of politics,136 a site of struggle for information, which constitutes either a stratagem against power or a direct consequence of it. 81 132 Sarup, Madan. 1993. Poststructuralism and Postmodernism. (Athens: The University of Georgia Press). Pg. 76. 133 Heidegger, Martin. 1993. The Question Concer ning Technology in David Farrell Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger Basic Writings (San Francisco: Harper Collins). Pg. 318. 134Ibid., Pg. 322. 135Ibid., Pg. 326. 136 Agamben, Giorgio. 2000. Means without End. (Minneapolis: Minnesota Univ ersity Press). Pg. 92.
Since Hobbes, political theory has aimed to legitimize the use of political power and provide justification of the legal system as maintaining order, promoting safety and enshrining popular consent by providing posi tive guarantees and protocols protecting natural rights, persons, security and property. The implied consent has been exclusionary by design as slaves, women and children have historically failed to possess rights of access to the public realm which enabled the voicing of arguments and acting upon their premises. The spatial localization of the passi ve a-political agents within the privatized sphere of the household prolonged personal privation and ensured an erasure of autonomy, which became overwhelmed by th e weight of states knowledge about each component of the citizen-subjec ts life. As such, the individu als relation to the spatial arrangements of social and po litical constructs has played, therefore, a fundamental role in the citizens conception of their own ontology, and of their own constitutional and instrumental role in the society at large. Ther efore, the political significance of space, to which Foucault turns, as: (i) th e conveyor of values and rank; (ii) a silent speaker; (iii) a marker of places and indicator of values; (iv) guarantor of the obedience of individuals promoting better economy of time and gesture; (v) connector of character to category, and (vi) a discourse, which natu ralizes beings into the environment which they inhabit, while mythologizing and extend ing control over th em, plays a crucial role in addressing the developmental gaps created by globalizatio n, gaps resulting from situational politics that yield the unprecedented opulence of some and a remarkable deprivation of the many. Emplacement within diffuse socio-po litical and economic networks intoned by physically and temporarily mobile spatial arra ngements of the glob alizing world, rather than resulting in a flattening out of difference and disrupt ion of domination, 82
consolidates space as that entity which unfailingly speaks of the human condition, fixes citizen subjection, frames sensations, mana ges responses and controls, and mandates characteristic gestures crucial to the formation of individuals137 inescapably beset by immanence and lack of se lf-generated agency. The Foucauldian Subject Foucaults analytics of space are intimately related to his history of the subject. He was deeply interested in the histor y of thought and how space and ideas were indivisibly linked.138 His adopted modus operandi was that of a diagnostician committed to a study of the conditions and differentiations of human existence and relations between a broad array of social organizations and cultural conjectures, and an uncovering of regularities that constitute objects. With F oucault, one begins with discourse, before moving to the object139 in order not to see, as Deleuze would claim, something imperceptible in the visible,140but to interrogate the imperceptible in order to unearth and render exposed the visible. The diagnosis of the networks of relations set in spatial configurations is essential to illustrating th e relationships and disc ourses that comprise the subject, testify to her s ubjugation, and open sites for coun ter-resistance. In his Two Lectures on Power, Foucault respatializes politics thus: 83 137 Kohn, Margaret. 2003. Radical Space. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Pg. 18. 138 Boyer, Christine M. 2008. The Many Mirrors of Foucault and their Architectural Reflections in Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter (eds.) Heterotopia and the City. (London/New York: Routledge). Pg. 57. 139 Ibid., Pg. 57. 140 Deleuze, Gilles. 2007. Two Regimes of Madness. (Cambridge: The MIT Pr ess). Pg. 278-279.
We should try to discover how it is th at subjects are gra dually, progressively, really, and materially constituted thr ough a multiplicity of organisms, forces, energies, materials, desires, thoughts, etc. This would be the opposite of Hobbess project in Leviathan, and of that I believe, of all jurists for whom the problem is the distillation of a single will from the particular wills of a multiplicity of individuals Well, rather than worry about the problem of the central spirit, I believe that we must at tempt to study the myriad of bodies which are constituted as peripheral subjects as a result of the effects of power.141 The formation of subjects is defined by thr ee sets of relations: (i) subjectification, under which human sciences and discrete loca les of knowledge problematize the existent man; (ii) subjugation, which implemen ts processes of normalization to elide abnormality, delinquency, and otherness of subj ects; (iii) resistance, or the subjects self-constitution as object, who regains radical freedom trough an ethics and aesthetics of the self, and thus situates herself beyond the domination of power, whose methods Foucault explicated by points (i) and (ii). Bu t, how do we create, Boyer asks, in the empty space where we the spectators are positioned, new relational possibilities?142 Perhaps, the opportunity for achieving new re lational possibilities lies in forms of relationship to the self as the subject of ethi cal actions. For what is morality, Foucault asks, if not the practice of libert y, the deliberate practice of liberty?143, which invests the subject with the responsib ility to rethink political ha bits, introduce new ways of 84 141 Foucault, Michel. 1990. Two Lectures on Power in Power/Knowledge. Colin Gordon (ed.). (New York: Pantheon). Pg. 97-98. 142 Boyer, Christine M. 2008. The Many Mirrors of Foucault and their Architectural Reflections in Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter (eds.) Heterotopia and the City. (London/New York: Routledge). Pg. 64. 143 Foucault, Michel. 1991. The Ethic of Care for th e Self as a Practice of Freedom in James Bernauer and David Rasmussen (eds.) The Final Foucault. (Cambridge: The MIT Press). Pg. 4.
thinking and seeing, requiring orig inality and creativity in wa ys of speaking, in posing questions to politics and the forms of political rationality on which it rests.144 Foucault, in questioning th e genesis of human subjectiv ity, differs fundamentally from Kant or Husserl, the canonical refe rence points in Western philosophy, in the identification of the sources of th e self. Up to now, the classical transcendentalist/ideal ist tradition of thought considered the subject as a metaphysical fact and all reality as routinely subordinated, relativized and able to be cognized and apprehended by the subject. Further, the argum ent went, the objective, empirical worlds and the worlds of subjects could not be pres umed to be explicable through one another, but referred, as Husserl stated, to some pure absolute and transcendental object, a rational source of consciousness. With Fr eud, one recognizes the drive of the passions as the source of the self, and its conditions of conflict and intermittent periods of homeostasis as the foundations of consciousness The same may be said of Foucault, if it be recognized that the substantive source of subjectivity is lodged in power rather than Freudian passions along with its multiple drives and conflicts, which comprise the content of subjects consciousness. With this, Foucault severs with the Cartesian conception of being premised upon I think, ther efore I am, which refuses finality and stipulates that one is not a subject (in a condition of constituted stasis), but is being a subject (in a condition of permanent becoming, who refers for ones ultimate existential justification to Divine Reason). Foucault notes: The relations between experiences (like madness, illness, transgression of laws, sexuality, self-identity), forms of knowledge [savoirs] (like psychiatry, medicine, 85 144 Rajchman, John. 2006. Foreword in Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature. (New York: The New Press). Pg. xv.
criminology, sexology, psychology), and power (such as the power which is exercised in psychiatric and penal institutions, and in all other situations which deal with individua l control). Our civilization ha s developed the most complex system of knowledge, the most sophisticated structures of power: what have this kind of knowledge, this type of power made of us?145 The Foucauldian subject in reacting to the world turns a mirror, at the same time, as a constituted entity embedded in a netw ork of relations, onto ones own self. For Foucault, subject is not a substance but a form, a histor ical event, a phenomenon set in and constituted by history. It is above all, a bodily matter constrained by its soul. The question of identity for Fou cault was reduced to the depl oyment of power on subjects from the very moment of con ception to natural death. But, as Foucaults anti-humanist stance would suggest, since sources of ideas are not deposited in autonomous subjects, how does he deduct subjectivity from obj ects, systems of power, repressions, productions, alterities that l ack it? Perhaps this question asks too much of Foucault. Perhaps, in the true postmodernist vein of which Foucault remains unconvinced, the philosopher seeks not profundity but dens ity, complexity, and convolution, not transcendental deduction of causal forces or an underlying philosophical reality, but mere identification of surface manifestations. Pe rhaps, finally, Foucaults method serves heuristic purposes for un earthing the basal natures of ontological quarrels comprised of political actors challenging the abstractions, idealizations, as well as tangible and inevitable permutations and raptures in th e models for civil or ganization of society, offering not an officious systemic response, but shreds of an uncommon insight. In a 86 145 Foucault, Michel. 2006. Omnes et Singulatim in Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault The ChomskyFoucault Debate on Human Nature. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 190.
characteristic way, Foucaults method of st udy, suspends daring quest ions which call out for an exhaustive response, and which ex emplify the conditions of modernity. The Problematic of Subjectivity, Freedom, and Resistance Foucaults theory of subjectivity seems to preclude the role of agency in the projects of counter-resistance and emancipation from the relations of power, as subjects cannot be conceived to reasonably exist outsid e of what defines their subjectivity in the first place. To do so, would be to assert Ca rtesian subjectivity ca pable of flourishing outside of any relations of pow er and processes of subjectification. Habermas, for one, enjoins Foucaults subjectivity claim by pointi ng to the norms of standardization to which Foucauldian subjects are inadvertently c onfined, and though which their humanity is expressed, if not exhausted. Habermas argues: From Foucaults perspective, socialized individuals can only be perceived as exemplars, as standardized products, of so me discourse formation as individual copies that are mechanically punched out.146 This instrumental conception, then, erases indivi dual autonomy and authenticity, and negates any attempts at subversion or counter -action on the part of the subjected; as subjects are always implicated in and defined by political discourse, which holds as its end, identification of the means of subjecti on. Thus, subjectivity and subjection, as Balbus argues, are correlative terms,147 co-present phenomena constituted by the intentional relations of power, operating, as if instructed, to ensure one anothers 87 146 Habermas, Jurgen. 1987. The Philosophic Discourse of Modernity. (Cambridge: MIT Press). Pg. 239. 147 Balbus, Isaac. 1988. Disciplini ng Women in Jonathon Arac (ed.) After Foucault (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press). Pg. 152.
manifestation. Such an interpretation may, indeed, lead to what Lentricchia labels as a monolithic determinism,148 rendering resistance highly im probable. Foucault, however, anticipated the problem of determinism, whic h is why he asserted in The Subject and Power149: (i) the subjects essential freedom; (ii) the possibility of recalcitrance, or a choice of the multiplicity of behavioral practices that are to act as subjects escape mechanism(s) over which power is exercised, precisely because of and insofar as, the subject is and remains free. Power is, itself, conceived as that decentered, mobile and reversible capacity capable of value-neutral150 social change. Kevin Jon Heller makes an important distinction between: (a) power rela tions involving indivi duals, and (b) power relations involving groups. The former, Heller contends, admit of physical determination, by which the subject may be reduc ed to irreversible conditions, i.e. torture or execution. The latter are, in principle, reversible, therefore, never completely neutralized, subjugated or powerless. The hegemony of one group over a nother is neither tota l nor absolute, but set in contingency defined by material and di scursive sites of st ruggle. With every relation of power, therefore, there is a coterminous relation of resistance, by which one can construct new rational behaviors, different from the initial program but which thus respond to their objective, and in which play between different groups can take place This play can perfectly solidify an institution because several strategies of several groups have come to intersect at this particular place.151 88 148 Lentricchia, Frank. 1988. Ariel and the Police: Michel Foucault, William James, Wallace Stevens (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press). Pg. 70. 149 Foucault, Michel. 1982. The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry Vol. 8. 150 The conventional paradigm which regards any appli cation of power as institu tionalized and necessarily repressive, and all relations of power as entailing domin ation is foreign to Foucault. Rather, power is that never localized site, that medium through which productions, reversals, and modifications of forms of knowledge and discourses occur. 151 Foucault, Michel. 1989. What Calls for Punishment? in Foucault Live. (New York: Semiotext(e)).
As Heller notes, the power exercised by subject-position X will always be opposed by the power exercised by subject position Y (Y1, Y2 Yn).152 This speaks to subjectivity being never exclusively a materi al construct of dominant powe r relations; rather, at each juncture where hegemonic power asserts itself, a counter-power is likewise elicited. Thus, resistance is not a futile enterprise, as He ller points out, because ev en the lesser forms of power nevertheless contradict the operations of its better consolidated rivals, and therefore never position themselves in power-l ess immanence. Resistance, itself, is: (a) a form of power; (b) a condition of freedom; and it necessarily exists: ) because all social formations pr oduce both hegemonic and counter-hegemonic subject-positions; 2) because no indivi dual or group, no matter how hegemonic, can control all of a social formations mechanisms of power; and 3) because all mechanisms of power are potentia lly capable of counter-hegemonic reappropriation.153 If socio-political reality, on this account, is one of perpetual contestation between the mechanisms of power, from whence is the su bjects freedom, when placed within the power-resistance matrix, derived? According to Foucault, there are two forms of power relation; those involving: (i) liberation; a nd (ii) domination. Because individuals are always in the dual position of concurrently undergoing and exercising power, there exists a potential for reversibility of the status quo. Individual claims, on both sides of the power-resistance spectrum, are able to co-app ear and co-exist. Lack of this potential would materializes itself in the fixed form s of domination, by which the abuse of power would show itself in the imposition on others ones whims, ones appetites, ones 89 152 Heller, Kevin, J. 1996. Subjectif ication and Resistance in Foucault Substance. 25(1). Pg. 99. 153 Ibid., Pg. 102.
desires.154 Directly connected with the impositi on of limits on ones desires is the education in the practices of the self. Foucau lt deducts from the individuals dedication to the relationship of the self to the self, knowledge of the se lf, or the self striving towards itself155 in order to find foundations for acti ons, an other-directe d ethic of care, which aims to reduce an impulse for dom ination and produce the good for oneself and others. 90 154 Foucault, Michel. 1991. The Ethic of Care for th e Self as a Practice of Freedom in James Bernauer and David Rasmussen (eds.) The Final Foucault. (Cambridge: The MIT Press). Pg. 8. 155 Foucault, Michel. 2005. The Hermeneutics of the Subject. (New York: Picador). Pg. 202.
CHAPTER IV THE ROLE OF DISCOURSE IN TRANS FORMATIVE POLITICS: FOUCAULTS PHILOSOPHY IN POLITICAL PRACTICE. But if we are not to settle for the affirmation of the empty dream of freedom, it seems to me that this historic-critical attitude must also be an experimental one. I mean that this work done at the limits of ourselves must, on the one hand, open up a realm of historical inquiry and, on the other, put itself to the test of reality, both to grasp the points where change is possible and desirable, and to determine the precise form this change should take. -Michel Foucault, What is Enlightenment? In any given discourse, the operation of the power and knowledge dynamic is at its most salient. Discourse, according to Foucault, transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it.156 Its task is to measure the productive effects of power and knowledge utilized in various power confrontations. Power, howev er, can only be understood in relation to a given discursive co ntext in which it inheres. A nd, as Foucaults thesis posits, contexts can only be conceived in terms of power which is constitutive of and immanent in them.157Discourse, therefore, makes possible an an alysis of multiple and mobile field 91 156 Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 101. 157 Taylor, Charles. 1985. Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 173.
of force relations;158of the reciprocal effects of power invested in public political enterprise, and a representation and recons truction of the states of domination and consequences of being dominated. This mutually affective and reinforci ng dynamic of power vis--vis contexts allows for identification of normal, homeostatic societal patterns. The achievement of stability, equilibrium or homeostasis in social life presumes dominance of certain discourses, which in turn check for and mi nimize social anomalies. Dominant norms, beliefs and values, in any given well functioning order, must be subjectively internalized for that order to remain in equilibrium. Individual subjects beco me socialized in dominant norms though the social system and its institutional framew ork that operates and administers them in accordance with la w or contract. To facilitate political and economic interaction, ensure conceptual stability and preserve internal coherence in group consciousness, it is, therefore, essential fo r collectively held belie fs to persist over long periods of time. Furthermore, historic political, social and economic crises can induce change in the dominant discourse, and thereby reorient the societal selfunderstanding. In view of the above, change in the functional social framework amends the context and power relations operating in it, a nd thereby redefines the constitution of the internal dynamics of the state actor, its ideational preponderance and behavior reified by its habitual recourse to indivisible political and legal sovereignty. I wish to demonstrate how the reversibil ity in discourses, th erefore the functional operation of rhizomatically distributed nodes of power, affects the state policy vis--vis 92 158 Taylor, Charles. 1985. Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 102.
its citizen subjects, and how the role of th e supra-national bodies begins to play an increasingly mediating role in internationa l politics and policy. The proposed overview will be instrumental in identifying global trends in socio-political and legalistic thinking. It will help to characterize historic, political, economic a nd societal crises and their influence or ability to induce change in the dominant discourse s, which ensure conceptual stability and preserve internal coherence in group consciousness, as well as affect the direction and spur alternative reorientations of pragmatic policymaking. Thus, three case studies of (i) the state-gender discourses and equal employment opportunity law in Japan, (ii) the protection of civil liberties vis-a-vis sporadic acts of organized terrorism, and (iii) war crimes and refugeeism, will instanti ate the way in which global institutional formations and non-governmental organizatio ns, at the urging of vociferous citizen action, have effectively moved beyond the paradi gm of strictly stat e-to-state relations, broadened political space for deliberation, and incorporated citizen interests into their political enterprise. 93
Case Study I: National/ State-Gender Discour ses and the Administration of Society Over the course of two decades, Japanese society has been entrenched in a gender discourse brought about by the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Law in April of 1986. The contributors to the deba te can be divided al ong the traditionalistprotectionist and reformist-feminist lines of argument. The former have argued that Equal Employment Opportunity Law (EEOL) repres ents an unjustified interference of governmental power at the expense of well organized corporate stru cture along with an established bureaucratic tradit ion and expressed socio-cultura l norms. The latter, despite overt deficiencies in the deployment and enforcement mechanisms of the law, have recognized the important power function of the EEOL as both a promissory note and a measure of progress on the issues of access and equality of women, who have historically been denied their political and economic share in the Japanese social structure.159 It is not to say that feminist activ ists uniformly and uncritically hailed the promulgation and application of the law, which promised, among other things, equality in job recruitment, training and promotion of women workers. To the contra ry, a good majority of feminists considered the law unacceptable, due to th e lack of binding legal obligations on employers, and insubstantial c onferral of rights on women.160 Furthermore, the laws formulaic language, it has been noted, provided for a weak negotiation-based approach to EEOL implementation, favoring thus volunt arism and persuasion over compelled 94 159 Yount, Mark. 1993. The Normalizing Powers of Affirmative Action. in John Caputo et al.(ed.) Foucault and the Critique of Institutions. (University Park: The Pennsylvan ia State University Press). Pg. 193. 160 Gelb, Joyce. 2000. The Equal Employment Opport unity of Law: A Decade of Change for Japanese Women? Law and Policy 22 (3, 4). Pg. 385.
compliance with its letter. Five years before the implementation of the law, a significant percentage of management level personnel, in a 1981 survey, had indicated that discriminatory practices, which account for [disproportionate] discrepancies between mens and womens work and income, stem from inherent differences between sexes.161 Sex-stereotyping remains an issue today. Companies, in response to EEOL, have increasingly begun to implement a two-track system of employment: the managerial, sogoshoku and the clerical, ippanshoku, or the mommy track. Feminist groups have attempted to resist this overt circumven tion of the law through increased litigation practices in a society culturally adverse to l itigious strategies. Recent statistical data show that in 2003 womens share in administrative and managerial jobs was only 9 per cent, and womens wages were 50-60 per cent that of mens162 The contributions of theorists such as Chizuko Ueno, Aoki Yayoi or Kanejiro Seiko have resulted in a substantial output of literature challenging the culturally preserved gender roles, in particular, th e household division of labor and culturally embedded perceptions of political-social-economic utility of Japanese women qua mothers. An important consequence of th e debate has been a gradually increasing confrontation between femini st groups and power-patriarchy via mediating media of political action encoded in the Equal Empl oyment Opportunity Law (1986), the Basic Law for a Gender Equal Society (1999), and the Law for the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims (2001). Notwithstanding some critics views of 95 161 Mioko, Fujieda. 1985. The UN Decade fo r Women and Japan: Tools for Change. Womens Studies International Forum 8 (2). Pg. 122. 162 Horiuchi, Mitsuko. 2003. Women and their Way of Work. Tokyo Shimbun Graphical Series No. 577. Pg. 1
the employment law as being largely spinele ss, it is possible to advance a counterclaim by regarding it as a centralizing mechanism of positive power in that, the law serves as both an enabling mechanism for resistance to state power through a variety of dispersed discursive power sites, wome n, and a constructive reform of social power relations encapsulated in the traditional normative impe ratives of patriarchy, interestingly only recently more actively contested by Japanese feminist scholarship. Nevertheless, a long tradition of feminist activism in Japanese so ciety had secured a tangible social contract between the state and women by way of which a particular will of the few has become the professed general will of t hose subject to the shared ascr iptions and prescriptions of the law. Furthermore, the notion of the generalizability of the [collective] will, can be seen as a way of formulating the constitutive norm of decision-making for communities with shared goods.163 The shared good in this context refers to the law itself as both an ingredient in the problematizing and reconcep tualizing processes of norms implicit in the culturally ingrained social beha viors in respect to agents of concern, here women, and an element mandating the reconstitution of public spaces in which normalizing functions are to eventually take place, such as the household and corporate bureaucracy. The womens shared significance of acti ng to secure shared ends (aims and objectives) in an act-restrictiv e juridical and socio-political construct of Japanese order must be conceived in no lesser terms than those of power both as resistance to and an exercise of. Thus this power dynamic is nothing but, as Foucault would have it, a reflection of the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they 96 163 Taylor, Charles. 1985. Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 101.
operate and which constitute their own or ganization; as the process which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, tran sforms, strengthens, or reverses them (Foucault: 1990, 92). Moreover, rela tions of power are not extern al to the social, political, and economic processes, but ra ther are immanent in them, constituted by them, and are the immediate effects of [their] divisions, inequali ties, and disequilibriums.164 One might wish to ask, how the norms constitutive of social practices set and enduring in institutional structures, having become upset by powers immanent in them and externalities imposed upon them, change di scourses that inform, and eventually reconstitute these societal practices and thei r coextensive institutions? The answer to this question will emerge, I think, after a broader discussion of the meaning and the role of discourses is advanced. The contested civil right to equal employment for women long victimized by nonrepresentation and discrimination shifts so cietal paradigms by problematizing power relations inherent to them. Opportunity to equal employment, due to being problematized, subjects institutions and corporate employers to a new range of regulations, to the production of new measures, new data and new documentation accounting for levels and substance of gender discrimination.165 For women, this unprecedented gain and expression of power is important for two reasons. First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Law becoming public had offered means of enforcing, however incidentally, 97 164 Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 92. 165 Yount, Mark. 1993. The Normalizing Powers of Affirmative Action. in John Caputo et al.(ed.) Foucault and the Critique of Institutions. (University Park: The Pennsylvan ia State University Press). Pg. 195.
procedural rights to nondiscrimination as discriminatory hiring practices had been deemed illegal. Second, the discourse of equal employment opportunity had turned societys attention to the substan ce of the problem. The shift from de jure recognition of womens right to equal employment opportunities to the possibility of de facto equality in employment and opportunity has acquired a stat us of a moral imperative crucial to the pursuit of justice.166 What then, does it imply for Japan and ge nder-power relations in the domain of employment? Three things can be implied: 1) Japans societal self-understanding has changed as a result of reciprocal conditi oning between global and micro-contexts167 inducing changes in societal di scourses. An example illustra ting this effect can be found in Article 24 of the Constitution, enacted in 1947 at the urging of the Allied Powers, which states that laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes.168 As such, it defeated the up to now professed norm of essential gender roles, and imbued Japanese consciousness with al ternative modes of conceiving of social relations that define its national character. With the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, in 1979, Japan has been mobilized to draft legislation on equal opportunity and treatment of women in employment, which ma nifested itself in the Equal Employment 98 166 Yount, Mark. 1993. The Normalizing Powers of Affirmative Action. in John Caputo et al.(ed.) Foucault and the Critique of Institutions. (University Park: The Pennsylvan ia State University Press).Pg. 195. 167 Taylor, Charles. 1985. Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 168. 168 Milhaupt, Curtis J. et al. 2001. Japanese Law in Context: Readings in Society, the Economy, and Politics. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Pg. 614.
Opportunity Law of 1986, once again reorie nting Japans self-understanding. The same U.N. panel in a report issued in 2003 furthe r stressed the importance of sensitizing and training public officials and members of the judiciary to eliminate gender-based stereotypes, and end gender-b ased occupational segregation.169 2) Changes in discursive contexts have disrupted and altered tradi tional power relations. Recent discussions on revising the Constitution and amending Article 24 sparked protests among women, who have come to view the lawmakers proposals as a bid to return to pre-war social model, confining women to home and primary care of the family. The womens unprecedented positive-power agency at self-determination and self-representation of the female bodypolitic, in voicing concerns about governme nts move aimed at undermining guarantees of sexual equality, implicitly challenged th e socially institutionalized gender-based stereotypical expectations, and ways that Japa nese historic socio-cu ltural practices have come to organize womens lives. 3) As conceptual stability has been undermined, horizontal and diffuse, rather than hierarchi cal and linear power rela tions have begun to emerge, challenging and modifying the normative framework. Here, power is a positive social presence, as it is no longer held firmly in the hands of patria rchy, but exerts itself in all aspects of life and in all directions.170 Contests to power open the possibility for the states ontological transforma tion, and by extension, consolidate new derivatives and strategies of power that define the very li mits of and prospects for substantive sociopolitical change. 99 169 United Nations. 2003. Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. New York. 27 March 2009.
I demonstrate how the globa l conceptual contestabili ty of power impacts and informs Japanese cultural and societal no rms in respect to women and labor issues entailed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Law. I argue that norms constitutive of societal practices, upset by economic externalities and imperatives of globalization as well as domestic revisionist rhetoric aimed at problematization of state-gender relations, change the terms of understanding of cu ltural typologies and social systems normalization procedures in respect to women and womens rights, including labor rights. I distinguish between three paradoxes, which further problematize the questions of power-gender relations in Japa n, and reconstitute their dyn amic: 1) The processes of a global socio-political and economic enmeshment and attempts at preservation of cultural distinctiveness; 2) The enactment of labor laws favoring equalization of sexes and maintenance of gendered employment practices ; 3) The rise of unconventional feminist discourses and ossification of in stitutionalized interpretations of basic beliefs and mores of Japanese social reality. The above stated problematic is not exclusive to Japanese society. Nonetheless, as a representative democracy and the second largest economy in the world, it is incumbent upon Japan to take an ethical, rather th an historically and culturally grounded utilitarian171 perspective on woman issues in reconciling questions of 100 171 I argue that womens precarious social position in Japan has historically been deemed to possess an inherent utilitarian value, even among those social reformers (i.e. Yukichi Fukuzawa) who displayed keen interest in bettering womens status. Throughout its history, the ruling patriarchy deployed traditional mechanisms of subordination to meet the traditional Imperial ideal of women as good wives obedient to their husbands, and their husbands subservient to the Emperor. World War II Japan utilized woman labor only in the absence and as a replacement of male labor force committed to active military service, and only for the purposes of militarist expedience. For Japan to be strong and independent, Fukuzawa argued, care of women as primary bearers of children must be enhanced, not for the sake of women qua women, but for the sake of [male] posterity, which is to be endowed with the necessary vigor of spirit and mind requisite for prosperous nation.
traditionalism and social protectionism with the requirements of liberty and substantive equality (equality of opportunity and results), in view of the contemporary discourses on equal opportunity to employment. This chapter argues that an intra-societal contestation of power-gender relations in Japanese society, which results from open engagement in public discourse with an intention to rein terpret culturally preserved presuppositions about socially constructed gender roles, will induce a range of emancipating individual and collective decisions and choices necessary for the countrys balanced and efficient functioning in the global politic al-economic order. Such a contestation will be enabled and informed by an increasingly transsocietal diffusion of power, that is, a dispersal of positive power nodes among women, feminist groups and activist, as well as agencies and international commissions at a supranational level vested with the responsibility to check the behavior of states. This chapter further argues that pow er-gender issues ought not to be regarded as marginal to a we ll functioning national a nd international socioeconomic structure, but ought to be perceive d as the very foundati on and an increasingly compelling determinant of this structure s relevance and functionality, progressively more enmeshed and inescapably operating with in the context of accelerating globality. 101 What impact do processes of globalizatio n have on Japanese socio-cultural norms and gender discourses? Aoki Yayoi argues that recognition of the existing systems of global exploitation and discrimi nation, entailed in the pro cesses of globalization, goes hand in hand with a growing awareness of the reality of sexual discrimination at the level of individual experience.172 The historical and chiefly ec onomic dependence of Japanese women can be summarized by four distinct socio-political conditions. First, under the 172 Buckley, Sandra. 1997. Broken Silence. (Berkeley: University of California Press). Pg. 10.
feudal system that reinforced the gender hi erarchy of servitude, the weak and gentle female subject was to regard her husband as the lord and obey al l his orders and not disobey him in the least.173Second, under cultural reificatio n of traditional Confucian teachings, the womans role and virtue, according to the interpretation of Nishimura Shigeki, lay in cultivating harmonious relationships among members built on trust, a fundamental sense of humanness, and above all, a commitment to loyal action on behalf of others.174 Third, under the construction of the fa mily system that was carried on by male descendants, women had no part in inheritance.175Finally, the prevailing ultranationalist ideologies relegated womans res ponsibilities for education of children, care of the household and husband.176 The above further normalized the dominant Japanese gender and cultural narrative by pr ivatizing female ontology. Th e states exercise of the juridical power over women subjects reinforced the discursive no tions of servitude, 102 173 Shirai, Atushi. 1992. Nationalism and Feminism in Yukichi Fukuzawa, the Most Influential Leader of Enlightenment in Modern Japan. History of European Ideas 15 (4-6). Pg. 688. 174 Yamamoto, Yutaka. 1990. A Morality Based on Trust: Some Reflections on Japanese Morality. Philosophy East and West 40 (4). Pg. 453. 175 Shirai, Atushi. 1992. Nationalism and Feminism in Yukichi Fukuzawa, the Most Influential Leader of Enlightenment in Modern Japan. History of European Ideas 15 (4-6). Pg. 689. 176 As Yuval-Davis notes and Whitehead and Demirdirek in Sexual Encounters, Migration and Desire in Post-Socialist Context(s) paraphrase, women have often been specifically identified as bearers of community norms and values, as the objects, rather than subjects, of the nation or ethnic group. (2004:6). Thus, gender as a social institution mandates, apart from, yet implicit to social functions and social history, an acknowledgment of a set of explic it institutional components, such as: gendered statuses, gendered division of labor, gendered sexual scripts, gender ideology and imagery; and on an individual constitutional level gendered personality, gender identity, and gendered processes. The above system of stratification ascribes status by reinforcing or substantially limiting opportunities for individual achievement. Further, legitimized choice restrictions, derived from agents place in the social order through a priori established boundaries and claims imposed upon agents existence by legitimate authority of the law, society and state, privilege but a restricted constellation of true identities and freedoms in a grand galaxy of patriarchal order.
motherhood and separate sphe res of existence and privat e-public engagement. This deeply ingrained and indelible modus vivendi characterizing Japanese social order has featured prominently in the debates on Equa l Employment Opportunity Law. Employers opposed to legislating equality of employment stated that women were both physically and emotionally different from men and ther efore subject to different treatment in workplace.177 It can be argued that the consolida tion of power through reinforcement of culturally mandated gender differences, whic h impact and are determinative of the quality of inter-personal interactions, c onstitutes a global hazard for it undermines the creative potential of otherwis e economically and politically productive individuals. Thus feminist approaches to deconstruction of privileged, masculine, logocentric acts of ordering, evaluating, categorizing, which neces sarily involve deployment of power and discourse, correctly extend be yond the limits of the state.178 As the consolidation of this newly acquired power induces an alternative definition of social reality, discourse formation, and ultimately, an altered soci etal self-understanding. The state as the superstructural unit, as Foucault sees it, is far from being able to occupy the whole field of power relations179 and must rely for its effectiv e survival on pre-existing, active power-networks that are constitutive of it. According to Foucault, the investment of power in the social body produces mastery and self-awareness. But once power, Foucault contends, 103 177 Molony, Barbara. 1995. Japans 1986 Equal Employment Opportunity Law and the Changing Discourse on Gender. Signs 20 (2). Pg. 274. 178 Foucault, Michel. 1994. Truth and Power in Paul Rabinow (ed.) The Essential Foucault. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 309. 179Ibid., Pg. 309.
produces this effect, there inevitab ly emerge the responding claims and affirmations, those of ones own body ag ainst power, of health against the economic system, of pleasure against th e moral norms of sexuality, marriage, decency. Suddenly, what had made power strong becomes used to attack it. Power, after investing itself in the body, fi nds itself exposed to counterattack in the same body.180 The encounter of the resisting societal body with global macro-discourses has shown itself to mobilize the Japanese politi cal, economic, institutional regime of the production of truth181and undergo cultural recalibration a nd systemic structural change, along with redefinition of socio-political power dynamics The global United Nations initiatives on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women have already borne tangible national fruits in the form of legislating for cessation of gender discrimination in employment. Thus the en meshment of the macro-micro contexts influences and invites a reexamination of cu ltural particularities and perspectives which constitute them. The nation-as-family, subject of the emperor, loyalty, filial piety, maternal desire and voluntar y self-sacrifice are telling of the Japanese conception of social ethic. Centuries long habituation of citizens in Japane se practices and mores have imbued interpersonal interactions with values aimed at the maintenance of harmony, trust and mutual concern. It is inev itable, therefore, for the disc ourses entering the sphere of the traditional to meet with resistance. Feminist theories presuppose the existence of the socially encoded norms of c onduct and practice; however, th ey do not ascend to them 104 180 Foucault, Michel. 1980. Body/Power in Colin Gordon (ed.) Power/Knowledge. (Brighton: Harvester Press). Pg. 56. 181Foucault, Michel. 1994. Truth and Power in Paul Rabinow (ed.) The Essential Foucault. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 317.
indisputably. At every point relations of power inherent in any system, have, in the case of Japan, been problematized and their truth values questioned, invalidating, by extension, the sanctity of the traditional presumption. The contests have revealed tensions, as one side seeks to open up discour ses that are too closed and self-righteous and the other to protect establishe d truths it considers threatened.182 The Equal Employment Opportunity Law by problematizing gender has revealed the systemically enforced socio-cultural ga ps between labor and role, men and women, employer and employee, state and the global order. It has further enabled the Foucauldian exercise of power, through challenges to and eventual usurpation of possessed power by the state and patriarchal hierarchy, in c onstructing new power-dyna mics, definitions and structures within a historic framework of global gender contexts and discourses. The implications of this precedent are two-fold: first, the de-routinization of cultural practices has reinterpreted and resituated their symbolic meanings in relation to newly legitimized forms of social interaction. Second, systems of cultural significat ion and meaning have become modified through practice183 and normalization procedures, which both incorporate and reconstitute power, and coextensively alter the national selfunderstanding, formal allocation of procedural rights and bestowal of social status and civil equality. A Foucauldian analysis of a universally recognized and reciprocally affecting power-gender dynamic, by subverting mere symbolism of culturally-distinct legal 105 182 Connolly, William E. 1992. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Pg. 60. 183Yelvington, Kevin A. 1995. Producing Power. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press). Pg. 20.
reforms and regenerating interest in effectiv e challenging of social standards and norms, provides a theoretical schema for highlighti ng the political signifi cance of gender and a framework for the achievement of substantive change. As a conceptual tool, it has permitted a variegated approach to questions of power-gender relations by deconstructing the presiding rationales of domination and subj ugation. Perhaps, as some claim, the legal reforms incorporated and vested in the E qual Employment Opportunity Law are but tips of an iceberg. Nevertheless, effective modifica tions to labor practices have already taken place, and Japans national consciousness on ge nder issues has been raised and sustained by an omnipresent global refere nt. It is well documented in history that perceptually illusive tips of an iceberg can, indeed, sink the ship of patriarchal grandeur. 106
Case Study II: Civil Liberties and the State of Exception Are basic rights subject to mediation? Are civil liberties, freedoms from unwarranted and arbitrary in terference of power, amenable to change? To what extent should active and positive liber ties be sacrificed to gover nmental efficiency, and how much of that efficiency ought to be subject to the mechanisms of legality? What supplementary content is to be given to the ideas of freedom and liberty by the contemporary discourse on, and active engageme nt in the "war on terrorism" led within the globalized context? And to what exte nt can the traditional expressions of civil liberties be protected or safeguarded agains t passive compromise in the United States, Asia or Europe? The contemporary period is one of intens e scholarly, legal a nd socio-political debate about the conceptual framework which ought to define a free society's mediation between the above stated questions. It is po ssible to distinguish a dichotomous, inverse relationship between the concepts in operati on in both the domestic and international discourses of the post-September 11 world, t hose of civil libertie s and security, due process of law and the state of war, tradition of democratic values and the state of exceptional emergency. Findings by Davis and Silver undersco re this relationship, by pointing to psychological or soci otropic determinants that aff ect policy stances; as such "the greater the people's sense of threat, the lower their suppor t of civil liberties", and the lower the people's trust in government the greater their resistance to security versus 107
personal liberty policy trade-offs.184 The prima facie malleability of civil liberties is greater in times of danger. It may be surmised, therefore, that the greater the ability of governmental agencies to decode, in th e general public, a sense of psychological insecurity, exacerbated by on-demand access to variegated sources of informational media, the more intensely the state may a dvocate, and more readily and extensively deploy delimiting measures on rights and li berties; as the peop le's psychological insecurity is expected to influence their wi llingness to trade civil liberties for personal security.185 In other words, extreme circumstan ces may call for extreme measures; the implementation of which may be subject to contention and unwelcome encroachment on traditional legal protections of the human person and citizen, but the perceived need for which is so great, as to disavow any public opposition. Hence, "national security considerations linked to foreign affairs, have in U.S. history "resulted in severe setbacks for civil liberties,"186as the Alien and Sedition Act of Congress legitimizing the arrests, convictions and imprisonment of j ournalists criticizing the government,187 President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the Civil War, post-World War I "Palmer raids" on suspected immigrant radical s, and World War II Japanese internment or the McCarthy era cases demonstrate, a nd the recently introduced Patriot Act and Protect America Act measures continue to reassert. In exercising its governmental norm 108 184 Davis, Darren W. and Silver, Brian D. 2004. "Civil Liberties v. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America." American Journal of Political Science 48 (1). Pg. 28. 185 Ibid., Pg. 31. 186 Dorsen, Norman. 1989. "Foreign Affairs and Civil Liberties." The American Journal of International Law 83 (4). Pg. 841. 187 Oneck, Joseph. 2003-2004. "Critique." Journal of Law and Religion 19 (1). Pg. 85.
over security, territory, and population, the state effectively applied its juridical power to that idea which it has valorized the most, and the promotion of which constituted its ultimate raison dtat the guarantee of unmitigated civil liberty. Compared to the United States, Japan, a site of "more than 200 bombings between 1969 and 1989," has adopted a less "alarmist" and more incremental and "methodical" policy, "focused on the root ca uses of terrorism more than on the immediate actions that were required in a crisis."188 Likewise, the skeptical atti tudes of the Scandinavian countries, Italy or Greece towards the European Union-wide policies, aimed at circumscription of civil lib erties via European arrest warrants, border control, transnational police and judicial cooperati on and immigration monitoring practices, may illustrate a distinctive "social definition of reality"189which reflects the society's historically embedded cognitive, normative, and instrumental beliefs and agreed upon institutional configuration. Such "social definition of reality" may be seen in the ascriptions attached to the events of 11 September 2001 that became, according to Rasmussen, "-11 by means of globalizatio n." Global media infrastructures and the "extension of social spaces"190 for communication, have contextualized people's collective rationalization of the scale and timing of the event, which embedded itself 109 188 Katzenstein, Peter J. 2003. "Same War: Different Views: Germany, Japan, and Counterterrorism." International Organization 57 (4). Pg. 743. 189 Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 2001. The Institutional Embedding of Market Economies: The German Model and its Impact on Japan in Wolfgang Streeck and Kozo Yamamura The Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Pg. 41. 190 Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby. 2002. "'A Parallel Globalization of Terror': 9-11, Security and Globalization." Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 37 (3). Pg. 326.
inexorably in the ontology and collective memory of the international society.191 Peter Katzenstein drew an important distinction in the perceptual frameworks of the terrorist acts of 11 September between states: a) the act of "war" (United States); b) the "crime of global terrorism" (Europe/Germany); c) a "crisis" event (Japan).192 The perceptual and cognitive variation, which can be accounted for in terms of "past institutionalized practices and different concep tions of self and other,"193 Katzenstein argued, has framed and typified the state actors external response. Since grave injustices have often been motivated, as the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 states, by "racial prejudice, wartime hyste ria, and failure of political leadership", how then, will the intensification and prolifera tion of the notion of collective "ontological insecurity,"194 and the accretion of formal and info rmal methods for the conduct of "war" by the state actor or actors, the very defini tion of which shifted from a state-centric confrontation to a diffused notion of (ideol ogical, economic, cultural or civilizational) protracted conflicts, alter the tone and ma nagement of democratic participation and global discourse? Henceforth, the following pages will attempt to provide an overview of the dynamic discursive inter-exchanges betw een the two contested concepts, those of civil liberties and war on terrorism. 110 191 Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby. 2002. "'A Parallel Globalization of Terror': 9-11, Security and Globalization." Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 37 (3). Pg. 334/342. 192 Katzenstein, Peter J. 2003. "Same War: Different Views: Germany, Japan, and Counterterrorism." International Organization 57 (4). Pg. 732. 193 Ibid., Pg. 733. 194 Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby. 2002. "'A Parallel Globalization of Terror': 9-11, Security and Globalization." Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 37 (3). Pg. 331.
Since discursive hegemony, that is, a dominance of a discourse in any given society, facilitates adoption of institutions congruent with it, any hasty revision of basic beliefs and norms results in conceptual am biguity and attempts at renegotiation and reconciliation of c onflicts, such as, between the newly introduced laws and the traditional societal practices and beliefs, in particular and by way of illustration, between the U.S. Patriot Act and concerns for civil liberties. As such, the basic guarant ees of essential civil liberties may become subject to greater scru tiny when conditions th at have ensured an unobstructed protection of such lib erties have altered as a resu lt of external pressures and unforeseen challenges, i.e. intensification of terrorism or outside threats to national security. The minimization of liberties ma y very well be an accidental byproduct of governmental policy aiming at ensuring greater national security, or inversely, constitute a mean through which such security may be atta ined. In the words of J.R. Lucas: "just as we need men to interpret laws, so we need the laws to identify the men."195 An ad verbum interpretation of the aforementioned statement solicits the law to stand as the arbiter of power, however, the law in the hands of the po wer is capable of legitimizing, in times of extreme socio-political crisis, selective acts against the public good and human dignity, or be that power which determines what shall henceforth constitute the good and dignity. Agamben contends that a selective suspensi on of legal norms and abrogation of civil liberties are a result of a calcu lated rationalization on the part of the state, which issues in a juridical paradigm set upon a skeleton of a permanent state of exception. "[T]he extension of the military authority 's wartime powers into the civil sphere, and a suspension of the constitution (or of those constitutional norms that protect 111 195 Lucas, J.R. 1966. The Principles of Politics. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Pg. 27.
individual liberties), in tim e the two models end up merg ing into a single juridical phenomenon that we call the state of exception.196 Much of the up to now published research has concentrated on the causal and reactive accounts of terrorism. It has been acknowledged that "increased complexity on all levels of society and economy creat es opportunities and vulnerabilities."197 And that acts of terrorism, committed to "force the state to show its true repressive face"198 often alter the government's, policy's, urban ec onomy's and city administration's operational structure, followed by a restitution of au tonomous governance and shift towards intergovernmental oversight and cooperation, a doption of new legal mechanisms, added responsibility and increased secrecy in their exercise. A society which exploits "momentary panic to impose longlasting limitations on liberty"199 must itself do so in measures so as not to destroy the democr atic balance of power and cancel citizens' recourse to law. Whereas some contend that liberal democracies are able, by their very construction, to withstand such moral hazards as negotiation between the revocability of liberties and commitment to indivi dual dignity in times of crisis,200others argue that persistent inadequacies in respecting the Bill of Rights when forei gn affairs are at stake 112 196 Agamben, Giorgio. 2005. State of Exception. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Pg. 10. 197 Crenshaw, Martha. 1981. "The Causes of Terrorism." Comparative Politics 13 (4). Pg. 381. 198 Ibid., Pg. 387. 199 Balibar, Etienne. 2004. We The People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Pg. 208. 200 Ignatieff, Michael. 2004. The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Pg. 11.
are not merely a question of the limits of resist ance and survival of a democratic tradition, but serious shortcomings in its pragmatic exercise and a sign of rhetorical hypocrisy.201 Since history itself is neither an exclusively sufficient nor an exha ustive justification for the perceptual and pragmatic response to the changing geo-political climate, nor can it serve as an ultimate and reliable via media between theory and abstraction, an evocation of a terminal state of exception puts a moratorium on the democratic regimes will to reconcile competing claims on i ndividual liberties vis--vis spor adic acts of violence. In view of the global character of the war on te rrorism vis--vis civil liberties impacts, it is possible to distinguis h five general trends: 1) Globalization makes the realiz ation of universal security risks more salient and blurs the lines of distinction between traditional state-system categories. 2) Common security risks issue in comparable, parallel legal responses independent of state nomenclature and socio-po litical traditions of governance. 3) Direct civilian security risks and the ge neral unpredictability of the scale and timing of terrorist attacks, tend to susp end publics notions of and claims to inalienable rights to full a nd unobstructed liberty for the duration of the global war on terrorism rhetoric and sporadic r ecurrence of disclosed terrorist planning through highly publicized arrests or chronica lly resurging overt vi sibility of police activity. 4) Unmitigated state power in the area of security and monopoly on information gathering, control, and diffusion creat e relations of co-dependence, and 113 201 Dorsen, Norman. 1989. "Foreign Affairs and Civil Liberties." The American Journal of International Law 83 (4). Pg. 850.
5) Any differences in approaches and res ponses to terrorism by state authorities ensue from different threat perceptions a nd historical experiences, as well as the intensity and the scale of perpetrated acts of terror. The global war on terrorism has come to denote a policy stance by way of which this highly contested concept has come to symbolize both a rejection of, a ssault upon, and a defense against any activities referred to as terrorism. In view of innumerable proposals and the absence of an explicit United Nations definition of terrorism, partly due, as Bruce Hoffman in his book Inside Terrorism argues, to the insidious presence and ubiquity of the term in modern di scourse and its historically changing meaning,202scholars have come to espouse variegat ed formulations, such as the use of violence against random civilian targets in orde r to intimidate or to create generalized pervasive fear for the purpos e of achieving political goals,203 or, An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, empl oyed by clandestine individual groups or state actors, for idio syncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby-in contrast to assassination-the di rect targets of violence are not the main targets.204 Martha Crenshaw holds terrorism to repr esent a systematic inducement of fear and anxiety to control and dire ct a civilian population,205 in addition to recognizing 114 202 Hoffman, Bruce. 1998. Inside Terrorism. (New York: Columbia University Press). Pg. 13-15. 203 Alexander, Yonah. 1976. International Terrorism: National, Regional and Global Perspectives ( New York: Praeger). Pg. 14. 204 Schmid, Alex, et al. 1988. Political Terrorism. (New Brunswick: Transaction Books). Pg. 28. 205 Crenshaw, Martha. 1981. "The Causes of Terrorism." Comparative Politics 13 (4). Pg. 380.
terrorism as the result of an elite disaffection, or alternatively, as a strategy of a minority that lacks other means with a r eformist, anarchist or reactionary slant aimed at an ever more destructive and spectacular violence.206 Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) harbors the following operational definition of terrorism, as premeditated, politically motivated viol ence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to in fluence an audience. Moreover, the term international terrorism means terrorism invol ving citizens or the territory of more than one country.207 The United Nations General Assembly in the Resolution 60/1 reaffirmed that acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations are activities aimed at th e destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territori al integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately c onstituted Governments, a nd that the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism."208 Entailed in the above stated defini tions is the notion of moral wrong and unjustifiability of terrorism as a political act of violence directed against persons with an intention of inflicting injury or harm. Framing of the concept in these terms, Virginia Held argues, precludes the possibility to ques tion whether given acts of terrorism might be justified,209 especially in view of invasive stru ctural violence of dominant neoliberal 115 206 Crenshaw, Martha. 1981. "The Causes of Terrorism." Comparative Politics 13 (4). Pg. 386. 207 U.S. Department of State. 2004. Patterns of Global Terrorism. 12 Jan. 2009. < http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/45313.pdf >. Pg. 12. 208 U.N. World Summit Outcome. 2005. 16 Mar. 2009.< http://www.unodc.org/u nodc/en/terrorism/ Index.html > 209 Held, Virginia. 1994. Taking Sides.(Guilford: The Dushkin Publishing Group). Pg. 292.
acts and discourses, and their respective imp act on exogenous agents, who are neither the principal nor equal parties to the Western monologue. It is important to observe that denunciations of terrorism are usually applie d to the opponent and rarely to the tactics and acts of ones own government, or governments falling under a given acceptable rubric of conduct and tolerable rules of gove rnance, by no means devoid of moral and legal culpability for perpetrations of unof ficial violence or unintended collateral consequences. Critical theory introduces an explanatory, practical and normative evaluation to the discussion of terrorism. Thinkers such as Alain Badiou view terrorism as an intrinsically propagandistic term that tends to obscure the nature, or igins and causes of terrorist actions.210 Along with Kapitan, Badiou cr iticizes the obfuscatory and pernicious contrasts made between the Western values and terrorist projects, especially in view of the Wests existential sins committed in the course of the wars of decolonization of the post-Second World War period.211 Castells, on the other hand, points to the changing ontology of the s urveillance society spurred by global networking and greater decentralization of technology.212 Lyon provides a normative evaluation of this current trend in terms of decreasing trust and solidarity, an emphasis on control rather than care, and further creation of cultures of fear, suspicion, and secrecy.213 116 210 Ojeili, Chamsy et al. 2006. Critical Theories of Globalization. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Pg. 123. 211 Ibid., Pg. 123. 212 Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture The Power of Identity. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing). Pg. 27. 213 Lyon, David. 2003. Surveillance after September 11. (Cambridge: Polity Press). Pg. 44.
The instances of the latter would be the U.S. Department of S ecurity, Patriot Act, F.I.S.A. Act, Protect America Act, passage of antiterrorist legislation in the United Kingdom, addition of Articles 278b to 278d to the Austrian Criminal Code incorporating incrimination of terrorism, addition of terrorisms definition to Denmarks Penal Code and Belgiums, Greeces and Finlands Criminal Codes respectively.214 Under the U.S.A. Patriot Act, for instance, the federal government may now: a) use foreign counterintelligence in domestic criminal inves tigations; b) carry out surveillance of any religious, civic, or political organization in the United Stat es, without suspicion of wrongdoing; c) encourage private citizens to report on the suspicious activity of other people; d) under the sneak and peak warrants [c overtly] enter a dwelling on the basis of reasonable suspicion alone without givi ng prior notice; e) carry out electronic surveillance and physical searches; f) access pe rsonal records of United States persons under Section 215 of the Act by requesting any tangible thing (inclu ding books, records, papers, documents and other items), without that persons knowledge; g) carry out more extensive surveillance of memb ers of domestic organizati ons, anti-war protesters and civil rights activists.215 In addition, to adequately contextu alize the war on terrorism/terrorism discourse vis--vis law it is necessary to do so with an aid and in terms of discourse theory. Habermas, in Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, argues that there is a conceptual and internal relation, between the 117 214 E.U. CFR-CDF. 2003. The Balance Between Free dom and Security Within the EU 24 Apr. 2009. < http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/apr/CFR-CDF.2002.report.en.pdf >. Pg. 12. 215 McCarthy, Michael T. 2002. Recent Developments. Harvard Journal on Legislation 39 (2). Pg. 435453.
rule of law and democracy.216 As such, law and democracy function due to a synthetic regard for law as both a system of coercive la ws and a source of legitimacy of rules and norms implicit in the law qua law. Modern law, Habermas asserts, lives off a solidarity concentrated in the value orientation of citizens and activity issuing from communicative action and deliber ationmediated by legal in stitutions and procedures [that cannot be] replaced by coercive law.217 Further, democratic procedure in terms of discourse theory, makes it possible for issu es and contributions, information and reasons to float freely; it secure s a discursive character for political will-formation,218 which grounds and legitimizes the democratic pro cess. In this context, globalization, in creating a transnational space and extension of social spaces beyond their traditional confines,219 gives rise to new forms of power-c ontesting supranational alliances and networks of opposition and terror, which challenge the balance setting norm for international peace and efforts at intact pr eservation of the sovereign states system. Terrorism, according to Crenshaw, is designated to disrupt and discredit220 the process of government and constitutes, thus, the uninten ded third pillar, in addition to the national state and international organization, of power usurpation. The aforementioned transpires in Ulrich Becks theory of reflexivity a nd risk society, which regards terrorism as a 118 216 Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. (Cambridge: The MIT Press). Pg. 449. 217 Ibid., Pg. 33. 218 Ibid., Pg. 448. 219 Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby. 2002. "'A Parallel Globalization of Terror': 9-11, Security and Globalization." Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 37 (3). Pg. 326. 220 Crenshaw, Martha. 1981. "The Causes of Terrorism." Comparative Politics 13 (4). Pg. 386.
largely negative consequence of the processe s of globalization themselves, and calls for creation of new types of respons es to the ever changing modes of socio-political, cultural, and economic power confrontations. Some argue that war on terrorism in its current usage has in itself a terrorizing effect in inducing reason-obscuring fear.221 Others point to the terms ill-defined, demagogic notion that provides a warrant for any government which wants to engage in ruthless suppression of dissidents, and dismiss it as both simplistic and self-serving.222 Still others consider the globa l war on terrorism to be a me re rhetorical device, as the absence of legally valid war on terrorism 223 delegitimizes, if not nullifies its claims. The pragmatic response to war on terror rhetoric has been a remarkably unanimous and rapid demonstration of NATO solidarity, and readiness for a collec tive response against any member.224 And the recurrent utilization or lit eralizing of the term has dissolved the legal boundaries between what a government can do in peacetime and what is allowed in war.225 On September 29, 2001, Justice Sandra Day OConnor, quoted in the New York Times predicted that American citizens were likely to experience more restrictions on 119 221 Brzezinski, Zbigniew. 2007. Ter rorized by War on Terror. Washington Post B01. 11 Oct. 2007
personal freedom than had ever been the cas e. It will cause us , Justice OConnor asserted, to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on.226 Implicit in the remark is a belief in what Sniderman et al. in The Clash of Rights: Liberty, E quality, and Legitimacy in Pluralist Democracy term the contestability of rights, or a realization of a clas h between external threats, civil liberties and societys democratic principles and values. In consequence, due to protracted armed conflict, the notion of a perpetually indefinite state of war has supplanted the peace-time law enforcement rules with more permissive war-time international humanitarian law, characterized by suspension of the right to speedy trial (as trial occurs once conflict ends) and permitting acts of firing of shots at enemy combatants without warning. Congruently, as Hardt and Negri argue in Empire, the contemporary socio-economic and political c limate has made it increasingly difficult for the ideologues to name a single, unified en emy rather, the authors assert, there seem to be minor and elusive enemies everywhere a phenomenon accompanied by the rising trend in proliferation of minor and indefinite crises, or omni-crises.227 In view of the above, the Club de Madrid work ing group, in its 2005 report, ca lled for the rejection of the notion of the war on terrorism stating that it is contrary to the basic principles of democracy and international law for any pers ons not to fall under the protection of the law, especially in the instances when prac tices such as indefin ite detention without access to judicial review, extrajudicial ex ecution, and inhuman and degrading treatment 120 226 Greenhouse, Linda. 2001. In a New Climate of Unity, Justices Face Divisive Issues. The New York Times. 15 Feb. 2009. < http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/us/in -a-new-climate-of-unity-justices-facedivisive-issues.html > 227 Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. 2000. Empire. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Pg. 189.
in the course of interrogations228 have become the extralegal norm. In addition, the application of the term war on terrorism entails the possibility of indefinite human rights suspension, and sets a dangerous global legal precedent. Despite its contentious nature, war on terrorism is a referent point for any governmental/military/intelligence activity that aims at curbing acts of terrorism. The definition of war or engaged warfare ha s, itself, undergone evolution and change, especially in spatial and temporal terms as the traditional battlefield is no longer delimited to specific physical place and time constraints imposed by observable military losses and casualties. The operational defi nition of war is understood to denote an actual, intentional and widesp read armed conflict between political communities.229 Terrorist organizations fall under the rubric of political comm unities. As such, shifts in the ability to effectively target non-territorially established networks of terrorist organizations, have altered: a) the constitution of a battlefield; b) formal instruments for declaring war and establishing conditions for armistice, truce or legally documented and recognized surrender; c) the strategic appro aches to combating a non-traditional enemy, a diffused network of agents and multiple advers aries, rather than a conventional army. The war on terror has altered the publics perception and experi ence of war as a political means of mass mobilization, which called for utter individual self-s acrifice that was responsive to the climate of urgency and ubi quitous sense of patriotism, rather than 121 228 Club de Madrid. 2005. Towards a Democratic Response. 19 Feb. 2009. < http://media.org/docs/CdMSeries-on-Terrorism-Vol-3.pdf. >Pg. 13. 229 War.2005. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 19 Feb. 2009. < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ >
voluntary acknowledgment of its moral imperatives and claims. In The Constitution and the Common Defense Walter Mills wrote: In a free society, foreign and military policies especially when they risk or eventuate in war can be justified onl y as they express a common good, or the total interest of the whole community. A free man cannot be compelled or even asked to sacrifice his life in battle for anyt hing less; if he dies in the service of any private or partisan or class or special interest not his own, he dies a slave.230 The global dimension of the war on terror has recalibrated notions of traditional practices and political values along with individual civic and moral obligations that attest to the conception of the common good. As su ch, contracted mercenaries and special interests have come to redefine the premises of justified military engagement and civic duty to the nation in general, and citizens needs in particular. The war on terrorism in its present ethical, strategic and legal ambi guity, has come to symbolize the Hobbesian state of war of the West against the indis tinguishable mass of Oth er, and has become further exacerbated by a Foucauldian dispersion and readjustment of omni-present power relations. Therefore, it is imperative to ask a bout the impact of the global character of conflict on the political character and constitution of the political systems themselves and the socio-political, psychological, an d economic security of citizens. In the Federalist No. 8 Alexander Hamilton expresse d the following concern: Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will after time give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of con tinual danger, will compel nations the most attached to 122 230 Mills, Walter. 1959. The Constitution and the Common Defense. (New York: The Fund for the Republic).Pg. 5.
liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights.231 The notion of security, Tehranian suggests, can be conceptualized in political, psychological, cultural and communicational terms. Political security encompasses freedoms of speech, conscience, and assembly. It is based on the principle that upholds and honors the right to life in a society where fundamental human dignity and rights are protected against the abus es of the government.232 The 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states th at all human beings are born free and equal and the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms serve as the founding documents institutionali zing this idea beyond the narrow political recognitions rendered to it by the nation state. Psychologi cal security concerns the principles of freedom from fear, the right to privacy, and tolerance of differences.233 In normative literature, the principles of non-vi olence and the idea of being a good neighbor promulgated in the 1995 reports of the Commission on Global Governance have assisted in conceptualizing the theoretical basis fo r arms-control theorist s, such as Thomas Schelling and his analysis of the psychology of threats, strategies of defense, coercion and violence, and Robert Jarvis study of the perception and misperception in international relations. Moreover, cultural secu rity, which concerns the right to freedom of identity and communication security that covers issues concerning freedom and 123 231 Mills, Walter. 1959. The Constitution and the Common Defense. (New York: The Fund for the Republic).Pg. 5. 232 Tehranian, Majid. 1999. Worlds Apart: Human Security and Global Governance. (London: I.B. Tauris Publishers).Pg. 44. 233 Ibid., Pg. 39.
balance of information flows and security of mediated and unmediated communication234 are cited as having aided in th e delegitimization of violence and development and empowerment of civil so ciety in advancing democratization and security. Implicit in the above discussion is the no tion of civil liberties, without which none of the entitlements to security could be give n salience. Civil libertie s, defined as certain rights, such as the right to vote, the right to equality in public places without any interference or restriction from the governme nt, the freedom of speec h, expression, press, assemble, and worship have been bestowed to all U.S. citizens under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Civil liberti es in Europe derive their statutory recognition from Frances 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man of the Citizen and the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights and its Five Protocols, to which all EU countries are signatories. In Japan the 1947 C onstitution and subsequent establishment of the Civil Liberties Bureau on February 5, 1948235 institutionally protect, promote and mediate between contentious claims to individual right s and liberties. Within the realm of comparative political theory, justice in transition and the states legal responses to it, constrained both by a political an d institutional tradition, are continually evaluated on the basis of a democratic norm. The strength of democratic 124 234 Tehranian, Majid. 1999. Worlds Apart: Human Security and Global Governance. (London: I.B. Tauris Publishers). Pg. 45-47. 235 Rosch, Joel. 1987. Institutionalizing Mediation: The Evolution of the Civil Liberties Bureau in Japan. Law and Society Review 21 (2). Pg. 243.
protections and institutions is paramount to political s ecurity in lib eral states.236 The global war on terrorism acts as a catalyst in transitioning or modifying the conceptions and practices of justice and the logic of governance, which naturally issue in the extension of limits within which sovereign power is to be exercised. Because a liberal state perceives its fundamental raison dtre in consolidating a security arrangement which, by the nature of its constitution, aims to deter external th reats to its ontology, Michael Ignatieff in his book The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror recognizes one of the central demo cratic paradoxes, when he asks: When democracies fight terrorism, they are defending the proposition that their political life should be free of violence. But defending terror requires violence. It may also require coercion, deception, secr ecy and violation of rights. How can democracies resort to these means without destroying the values for which they stand?237 What constitutes the moral check on seemingly unrestrictive and invasive power, when majority interests and entitlement s to individual freedom and dignity that comprise a given polity are no longer the prudential limits on governmental action, or are revocable in times of existential crises? What ought to be the modus operandi in cases in which overt conflicts between security, c onstrued under the rubric of the war on terrorism, and civil liberties arise? And whose security and liberty is more at risk in the abstractly defined conflicts? Is formal acc ountability and visibility of the centralized 125 236 Tehranian, Majid. 1999. Worlds Apart: Human Security and Global Governance. (London: I.B. Tauris Publishers). Pg. 45. 237 Ignatieff, Michael. 2004. The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Pg. vii.
systems actions238a sufficient public stipulation in monitoring and preserving individuals recourse to civil liberties? Questions of this type are important, as c onflicts or lack of broader consensus in the international definition of terrorism, and situational risk analys is of each countrys counterterrorism measures reveal as ma ny institutional tendencies and patterns as inconsistencies in adhering to the general, albeit, abstract norm of the global war on terrorism. For instance, Denmarks 2002 anti-terrorism law in addi tion to forbidding instigation of terrorism or offering advice to terrorists, and banning financing of radical groups, also contains serious cu rbs on free speech, guaranteed in the Danish constitution, and significantly extends the powers of the police by sanctioning electronic eavesdropping on suspected ra dicals in a country with a long liberal tradition of tolerance. Moreover, the lack of legal in struments that can adequately address the changing policies on terrorism pre-charge de tention in the United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Spain, and Italy, to name but a few, have wide ranging human rights and civil liberties implications, as large variations in detention, charge and investigation proceedings often exceed the legal norm and u ndermine the civility and moral authority of countries engaged in such practices. The United Kingdom, for example, with the Terrorism Act of 2006, has put in place a twenty -eight day pre-charge detention law, and proposes to increase the dete ntion period without official charge to fifty-six days.239 In 126 238 Dershowitz, Alan M. 2003. The Torture Wa rrant: A Response to Professor Strauss New York Law School Law Review 48. Pg. 158. 239 Russell, Jago: 2007. Terrorism Pre-Charge Dete ntion Comparative Study. The National Council for Civil Liberties. 9 Oct. 2007 < http://www.liberty humanrights.org.uk/ publications/1-policypapers/index.shtml >. Pg. 4.
France, detention without charge for a terrori st suspect cannot exceed four days, in Spain ten days, and under Japans proposed Kyoubouzai Hoan (conspiracy or collusion law) much tougher yet, as of 2006, unspecified measur es are to take place in this domain. The U.S. Patriot Act allows the US Attorney General to detain without charge aliens suspected of terrorism for a pe riod of seven days. An extrem e variant of this detention practice is the U.S. Guantanamo Bay pris on for the unlawful combatants, not only beyond the protection of the laws of the United States and thei r call for specific charge on the basis of probable cause unde r the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to prevent an unreasonable seizure, but falling under no explicit category of either the International Law or the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. By virtue of specific designation, i.e. enemy co mbatants, radical groups or suspected radicals governments actively e ngaged in the war on terroris m are able to circumvent explicit mandates of the law (national and international alike) and its authority to legitimize and delegitimize practices which th e international community deems to be in strict violation of both civil liberties and human rights. In addition, interpretation of selfdefense has been greatly widened and legal provisions and principles of the humanitarian law have become almost irrelevant.240 The psychologically ubiquitous and pervasive war on terrorism and resulting civil liberties curtailments, in the very vagueness and abstractness of its conceptual framework, affect most often countries, 127 240 Club de Madrid. 2005. Towards a Democratic Response. 19 Feb. 2009. < http://media. org/docs/CdMSeries-on-Terrorism-Vol-3.pdf > Pg. 27.
citizens and institutions that have been th e primary architects of the current sociopolitical order. The current state of the US-EU war on terrorism discourse as well as the passage and implementation of political, institutional and legal mechanisms that progressively inhibit the exer cise of many of the fundament al individual freedoms, or alternatively penalize any such exercise w ith negligible due cau se, redefine civic obligations and moral imperatives of privat e citizens and public officials, alike. A Foucauldian reading suggests that by stripp ing legal protections or altering their pragmatic application, the state, under aut onomously defined conditions of exception, amends the premises of the social contract and re-constitutes itself though a series of exclusions, which transform the abnormality, s poradicity, and crisis events into routinized, normal features of the globalizi ng world. The soverei gns power of the sword is reinforced by policing technologi es, which: (i) aim at the implementation of micro-practices that divide isolate, and objectivize;241 and (ii) aim to induce participatory self-scrutiny, self-examinati on, and confession in order to reactivate techniques of rehabilitation and normalization that are to eventuate in a voluntary choice of positioning oneself on the side of the right The scale of the anomalous phenomena to which terrorism belongs, along with its often opaque and complex nature, reinvigorates, on the part of the state, the pursuit and ut ilization of the mechanisms of security [ despositifs de securite] in order to better define the fi eld of possible interventions. The disciplinarity of the bios which accompanies the curtailment of civil liberties operates 128 241 Coleman, Mathew, Agnew, John. 2009. The Problem with Empire in Jeremy Crampton and Stuart Elden (eds.) Space, Knowledge, and Power. (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing). Pg. 321.
through the social body, which becomes, as a result, malleable under duress and conscious of its subjectivization thr ough added, conspicuous and inconspicuous, techniques of surveillance. The problematic of the state of excepti on vis--vis the legal prerogatives of citizens affirm ed by a liberal ethos is base d on the question of longevity of the intermediate suspension of rights and the degree of insight in to citizens private sphere of socio-political ex istence. The exigency of democratic survival, however, depends upon the ability to deci pher law from life, for in meeting the basic principles of justice and minimal rights of citizens, the democratic nor ms, according to Olssen, must protect three indissoluble conditions: (i) the ba sic rights of all citizen s individually and as groups to freedom of speech, thought, assemb ly, expression, lifestyle, and choice; (ii) that no person or group is manipulated into accepting values represented by public institutions; and (iii) that public offi cials and institutions are democratically accountable in princi ple and practice.242 Democracy, as an equalizer of power relations and progenitor of dialogue and habits of nondominance, inhibits gestation of narrow national interest and institutional regimes of exclusion enveloped in indefinite perception and rationalization of threat, whic h violate the liberal will of citizen subjects and dissolve their claims to unobstructed representation as a legal person, rather than mere political corpus subject to infinite command. 129 242 Olssen, Mark. 2009. Toward a Global Thin Community. (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers). Pg. 211.
Case Study III: War Crimes, Refugeeism and the Dilemmas of Citizenship To be rooted, writes Simone Weil in The Need for Roots is the most important and least recognized need of the human soul Rootedness obliges and privileges, binds and deinvisibilizes. The geographical space allo cated to growing roots, conveys social rank and political value, and natu ralizes beings into the environment which they inhabit, and within the confines of which they beco me legitimated subjects and bearers of right. Aware of this basic human need for sociopsychological stability, the world community in Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declar ation of Human Rights extended protections over safe shelter and habitable human dwelling for thousands of displaced victims of forced uprootings of the 20th Century, induced by wars, military campaigns, occupations and political programs of denati onalization and mass extermination. In times of forceful ascensions of some European powers and prompt disso lutions of others, during the period between the two world wars, the status of the Rights of Man became conjoined with the fates of nation-states. Thus, refuge eism, deemed a temporary condition and a by-product of some crisis ev ent, was historically redressed either by assimilation, repatriation or naturalization. By promulga ting every persons right to citizenship, that is, the right to belong to a nation state, the United Nations moved from basic norms of the international law to a new cosmopolitan regime, a metajuridical proclamation of rights that was to apply universally; a promulgation, however, which never transgressed the immanent category of the nation-state, but reasserted it and took it 130
for the sole sovereign agent capable of turning a human being into a citizen.243 The universal declaration of the human rights, therefore, is not so much a document endowing and privileging the human sphere with rights, as an obligation im posed upon the state to mobilize itself and extend its generosity in declaring that huma n sphere a recognized political unit, and thus, by extension, ensure the states own survival by admitting to naturalization those persons wh ich make up its very own foundation for sovereignty and which show themselves as a fully integrated citizen-body. Social and po litical integration, through interiorization of the mechanisms of power proper to a given nation-state, transforms stateless alienation into disciplined subjectivity, a political aberration of refugeeism into the norm of citizenship. It is at this very moment, as Foucault observes, that life has now become an object of power244 and has been inescapably inscribed into its techniques of administration and technologies of biopower. The United Nations commitment to univers al human rights, best exemplified by its humanitarian interventionism, creates an institutional paradox. On the one hand, the organization constituted as a so ciety of states with a global outreach, abolishes the statist paradigm of non-interference and sovereignty es tablished by Hobbes, who insisted on the self-sufficiency of state units be ing in a state of nature in thei r relations with one another. On the other hand, due to lack of comprehens ive theory of the global order, the United Nations cannot but integrate in and place under the protectorate of th e state, the human agents which it sought, in the first place, to extricate from underneath its rule. The 131 243 Two criteria, surviving from the Roman code, serve to identify a subject as citizen: (i) ius soli territorial birth; and (ii) ius sanguinis blood-descent or birth from citizen-parents. 244 Foucault, Michel. 1994. Les mailles du pouvoir in Dits et ecrits (Paris: Gallimard) Pg. 194.
victims of genocides, ethnic cleansings, and prot racted civil wars generate a broad range of new positive and negative duties; and al though the premise for intervention rests precisely on the assumption that neither their nor our humanity is exhausted by juridical citizenship, our collective destiny, nonethel ess, is congealed by an institutional framework of the state vested with the pow er to acknowledge or annul our political existence. Presently, there are close to sixteen m illion stateless noncitizens, populating regions of Bangladesh, Bhut an, Latvia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar and Thailand. Displaced by migration, refugee fli ghts and ethnic expulsions, the often ignored and most vulnerable strata of the nameless ma ss of noncitizens, lacking adequate proof of citizenship, remain without basic rights to schooling, healthcare, gainful employment and property ownership, and de facto lie outside the bounds of equitable legal protection.245 Does statelessness, then, presen t us with an opportunity to envision a realm of existence devoid of habitual recourse to legal citizenship, or a Sisyphean burden that persists in the proliferation of its own limits? Cosmopolitans claim that it is incumbent upon us to expand our moral imagination and recognize the fluidity and heterogeneity of social affiliations and narratives, in order to redress the ills of legal and socio-psychological uprootedness and offer a program for organizing political enti ties and human persons in accordance with 132 245 In its 2007 Global Trends Report on Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons, the UNHCR (The UN Refugee Agency), estimates that there are: 11.4 million Refugees under UNHCR mandate; 4.6 million refugees under UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) mandate. Bringing the total number of refugees to 16 million; 26 million conflict generated internally displaced persons (IDPs); 25 million natural disaster IDPs. Bringing the total number of IDPs to 51 million. In sum, the total number of refugees and IDPs is 67 million.
133 cosmopolitan ethics that go beyond state sovereignty and, thus, redefine the political condition of being human. A viable mean encapsulated in the Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions (CHCs),246 which obliges states to ap ply the minimum principle of primum non nocere above all, do no harm permits for a rationalization of an international moral code by effectively aiding in regulating the interactions between human agents and states. In its form, cosmopolitan harm conve ntions entreat states bound by them to make no legally relevant dis tinctions between the insiders and outsiders, and accept the premise that insiders do not have the moral right to impose insecurity and fear on ot her societies, and finally recognize that the boundaries of mo ral community are not identical with, but extend beyond, the frontiers of their bounded political community.247 David Held enumerates eight universal principles th rough which equal significance of each human person can be protected. They are: (i) equal worth and dignity; (ii) active agency; (iii) personal responsibility and accountability; (iv) consent; (v ) collective decision-making about public matters through voting procedures; (vi) inclusiveness and subsidiarity; (vii) avoidance of serious harm; (viii) sustainability.248 Seyla Benhabib, on the other hand, postulates the already unprecedented normative in stantiations of the global civil society, which show themselves in the agencies of negotiation, articulation, observation, and 246 Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions (CHCs) are laws or conventions that protect the individual or substate communities from the evils perpetrated by states (like war, conquest and other forms of damage caused by aggressive states in pursuit of their trad e, investment, environmental and political interests). (Linklater, Andrew. 2002. Cosmopo litan Harm Conventions in Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen (eds.) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 17. 247 Linklater, Andrew. 2001. Citizenship, Humanity, and Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions. International Political Science Review 22(3). Pg. 264. 248 Held, David. 2005. Principles of Cosmopolitan Order in The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, ed. Gillian Brock and Harry Brighouse. ( Ca mbridge: Cambridge University press.) Pg.12.
monitoring, processes of naming and shaming, sanctions, and humanitarian interventions that aim to attenuate the monopoly on full mob ilization of state power against groups and citizens.249 As a pressing existential task and a duty to be made manifest in the third millennium, these approaches necessitate, however, above all, a renegotiation and reconfiguration of our current discursive commitments. Precisely because citizenship has histor ically signified participation in the biopolitics of the state, and characterized itself by duties and obligations emanating from a developed sensus communis, its abrogation, in the case of refugeeism, seems an existential depravation. Agamben argues that su ch a state constitutes a state of exception, the bare life, abandoned by law and inha biting a zone of juridical ambiguity.250 The more radical interpretation, however, would dare to suggest that re fugeeism puts citizenship in question, whereby reduction of its learned practices to comm unity, habitual recourse to political participation, superfic ial cultivation of virtues of patriotism, loyalty, piety and obedience to the community and the law inadvertently lead to an act of dissention and abstention sustained by a radi cal freedom from oppressive discourses centered around the political construction of the responsibilities of citizenship. In this vein of reasoning, Foucault suggests that the state of political dissidence and thus, by extension, also of existential ambiguity is a significant agent of the spread of what could be called antistatism, or state-phobia, 251 which is nothing but a crisis of governmentality, of state and 134 249 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg.71. 250 Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Pg. 29. 251 Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978-79. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Pg. 76.
civil society, and of politics of life experi enced on a global scale. Finally, refugeeism may present itself as a Socratic gadfly, which not only contests the legal assumptions, dogmas, and underpinnings of citizenship, but serves as an irritating moral and intellectual conscience252 of the globalizing world by questioning and inviting reexamination of dominant conceptions and binding categories of citizenship.253 It was, after all, the peripatetic Socr ates, who embodied, as Steven Johnston contends, the critical homeless ethos, which demonstrated that neither the city nor the immediate community can or should be the unquestioned site of id entification, or of loyalty and allegiance.254 Does it mean, then, as Dowden puts it, th at the deepest community is found not in institutions or corporations or churches but in the secrets of a solitary heart? Cosmopolitans would argue to the contrary, claiming that the secrets of a solitary heart ought to find moral and legal expression in th e institutions, corporations, and churches of the modern megapolis. Refugeeism, by its nature, necessarily dec ouples identity from citizenship, making the former, however, ineffable within the current confines of the politic al order so used to equating the absence of formally recognized ju ridical citizenship w ith automatic political alienation, followed by a withdrawal of public recognition. Rather th an dispossession and existential erasure, the refugees state of te mporary or prolonged statelessness is also a condition of effective suspension of rights and responsibilities. According to James 135 252 Villa, Dana. 2001. Socratic Citizenship. (Princeton: Princeton Univer sity Press). Pg. xii. 253 I do not wish to reduce an uncertain and oppressive condition of refugeeism to an academic thought experiment, but to suggest that the oppressiveness of the condition lies precisely in the discourses and the consensus created around the concep t and practices of citizenship, their static nature, and tailored, pragmatic cut which can only fit state centric ideations. 254 Johnston, Steven. 2007. The Truth about Patriotism (Durham: Duke University Press). Pg. 84.
Morrissey, refugeeism occurs when some aspect of the social envi ronment is upset and presents an imminent threat to survival of the population, issuing in a precipitous, often undesired and unplanned flight.255 It is both an involuntary f light from the state and an exile of counter-resistance. As a historical fact, the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires at the end of World War I introduced pronounced fissures into the European identity consciousness. Agamben contends that refugeeism of the period, by breaking the identity between the human and the citizen and between nativity and nationality, brought the originary fiction of sovereignty to crisis.256 As such, when the state abuses its powers by impairing e ssential freedoms, violating basic rights, endangering social life, it rescinds its right s of sovereignty and representation. With its juridical legitimacy compromised, the state cann ot claim the right to intervene nor put a delimiting hold on individuals. The state does not have an essence. The st ate is not a universal nor is it itself an autonomous source of power. The state is nothing else but the effect, the profile, the mobile shape of a perpetual stratification (etatisation) or stratifications In short, the state has no heart no interi or The state is nothing else but the mobile effect of a regime of multiple governmentalities.257 The state finds itself in crisis due to its perceived inability to account for and know the mass of individuals that inhabit it, wh ich prohibit its eventual descriptive characterizations of groups and specifica tion of more encompassing criteria for normalization. Political diss idence, which refugeeism may fall under, should be 136 255 Morrissey, James. 1983. Migration, Resettlement, and Refugeeism: Issues in Medical Anthropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly Vol. 15 (1). Pg. 3. 256 Agamben, Giorgio. 1996. Means without End. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Pg. 20. 257 Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Pg. 77.
perceived, Foucault contends, as primarily a crisis of governmentality, a struggle against totalization and objectification. Foucault clai ms that the condition of refusal of what the subject is presents itself is a form of resist ance to the spreading we b of individuations and totalizations of modern power structures, a repudiation of the amalgam of closed totalities that constitute the sources of the self. We have to imagine and to build up what we could be to get rid of a political double blind the political, ethical, so cial, philosophical problem of our days is not to try to liberate the individual from the state, and from the states institutions, but to liberat e us both from the state and from the type of individualization which is linked to the state. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us for several centuries.258 In Means without End Agamben puts Foucaults call for im aginative creation of forms of subjectivity to practice. By ta king the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over Jerusalem as a concrete point of departure, and a site of war crimes, forced expulsions, migrations, and refugee flights, Agamben pr oposes a topologically innocu ous solution with important juridical effects for international relations His vision for a peaceful solution rests in Jerusalems becoming a capital of two separa te states dispossessed of any real or symbolic territorial partitions, whereby its o ccupants enter into a relation of reciprocal extraterritoriality.259 Mutual sharing of one politically significant regional space between two communities attempts to elide the up to now defended concept of the right ( ius ) of the citizen and replace it with the concept of refuge ( refugium) of one territorial space. The extraterritorial singular community permits its inhabitants, in a condition of exodus 137 258 Foucault, Michel. 1984. The Foucault Reader. Paul Rabinow (ed.). (New York: Pantheon Books). Pg. 22. 259 Agamben, Giorgio. 1996. Means without End. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Pg. 23.
from each other, to nonetheless reciprocally in-determine and articulate each other. Further, the refugee territories as spaces of expulsion create perforated heterotopias, spaces of otherness that re flect and act back upon the te rritories of subsequent occupation; those, in turn, involuntarily intern alize the images and constitute themselves in tandem. Agamben contends, that: Only in a world in which the spaces of states have been thus perforated and topologically deformed and in which the citizen has been able to recognize the refugee that he or she is only in such a world is the political survival of humankind today thinkable.260 In his 1967 lecture to the Cercle det udes architecturales entitled Of Other Spaces, Foucault turned his interest toward spatial analytics of what he termed as localized utopias and counter-s paces. In the attempt to sketch the parameters of socio scientific thought in relation to the dynamics of power, F oucault argued that spaces of normalization always coexist al ongside alternative modes of subsistence set in different temporalities and spatialities that mark and mold counter-discourses, sites of transgression, and resistance. The other spaces, being an articulate embodiment of counter-power, a principle of political emancipati on, and a model of social transformation, locus of self-fashioning,261risk also becoming sites of domination and oppression. Concretely, the spaces of normalization embodied in efforts aimed at consolidating the nation-state of Israel, meet with counter-sites of Palestinian resistance, the spaces of existential deformation, alienation, emblems of severed possibilities, and incubators of moral-religious conflicts. Be ing far from benign counter-discourses, the 138 260 Agamben, Giorgio. 1996. Means without End. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Pg.25. 261 Kohn, Margaret. 2003. Radical Space. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Pg. 91.
seemingly marginalized Palestinian condition of continual exile and forced refugeeism embeds itself in the officially commissioned co nstruction of Israeli state-centric politics, and inverts, reinterprets, contests, as well as reverberates its rati onal justification. The occupied territories are above all heterotopias of crisis inhabited by individuals who, in their relation to the rest of the state-regulated global order, manifest themselves in crisis due to living a life within a strictly delineated and superi mposed boundaries of the West Bank and its six hundred checkpoints by wh ich lives are simulated and made inadvertently artificial. The problem of demographic propinqui ty and strategic emplacement shows itself in fenced settlements, which rather than abdicating politics to politics, are themselves extensions of state metanarratives, and a visi ble manifestation of a new political space based on the theme of inclusive ex clusion/exclusive inclusion. The walled settlements, as sanctuaries of expressively lived life of a citizen-subject, in themselves, constitute Foucauldian counter -emplacementsin whichall the other real emplacements are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted.262 Every architectural wall, writes Boyer, functions as a machine of elimination; its primordial function lies in the ability to separate, exclude circumscribe and avoid those things that bear offence263 Paradoxically, just as it was the West that thought itself more imprisoned by the Berlin Wall than the East, so Jeru salem today presents itself as that 139 262 Foucault, Michel. 2008. Of Other Spaces in Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter Heterotopia and the City. (London: Routledge). Pg. 17. 263 Boyer, Christine. 2008. The many mirrors of Fo ucault and their architectural reflections in Michael Dehaene et al. (ed.). Heterotopia and the City. (London: Routledge). Pg. 66.
city of split realities separated into two ideology camps compel[ing] those on each side to gaze over the wa ll at each other yet rema in[ing] a captive of their own imaginary beliefs and ideals.264 Two ideologies battling for the correct political modus vivendi that requires techniques to materialize it, and discourses that will give form to the conjectures of our [human] psychology265 manifest a need for architectural imagination, that is, a necessary discursive creativity which dares to uncover duplicities and take up Foucaults question: Through what system of exclusion, by eliminating whom, by creating what division, through what game of negation and reje ction can society begin to function?266 Rather than providing a readily articulated conclusi on, Foucault urges to make the above inquiry a critical premise an instrument of those who fight, those who resist and refuse what is. Its use should be in processes of conflic t and confrontation, essays in refusal.267 The Power of Resistance and the Fou cauldian Ethics of Self-Creation How is political refusal possible if the Foucauldian subject is always-already ingrained from within with a hi storical constitution, whereby any and all activities issuing from her conscious choice are delimited by an outcome of the techniques of individualization and socialization, which embody the dominant metanarratives of political orders? How are the achievement of ontological freedom imaginable and the 140 264 Boyer, Christine. 2008. The many mirrors of Fo ucault and their architectural reflections in Michael Dehaene et al. (ed.) Heterotopia and the City. (London: Routledge). Pg. 65. 265 Zenghelis, E. 2005. Text and Architecture: Architecture as Text in Martin van Schaik and Oskar Macel (eds.) Exit Utopia. (Munich: Prestel). Pg. 255. 266 Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge. (New York: Pantheon Books). Pg, 28. 267 Foucault, Michel. 2000. Questions of Method, in James Faubion (ed.) Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, Volume III: Power. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 236.
project of individual self-creation sustainable? Preci sely because Foucaults philosophy admits of instability and reversibility in the relations of power, it occasions an opening for freedom. As Wendy Brown in States of Injury observes, insofar as power always issues in resistance, the subject being capable of practicing resistance inevitably practices freedom. Power268 is never settled nor congealed into an unalterable form, but always dynamic, mobile, and operating within a comp lex realm of relationa l interdependencies. Resistance, as co-extensive with and always in a position of interiority rather than exteriority to the relations of power, is onl y actualized when power is manifest. Foucault writes: If there was no resistance, there would be no power relations. Because it would just be a matter of obedience So resist ance comes first, and resistance remains superior to the forces of the process; pow er relations are obliged to change with the resistance.269 Since Foucauldian power is not, as the liberal Enlightenment tradition holds, a negotiated attribute or a commodity possessed and exch anged, but a de-centered, multidirectional, intentional, non-subjective, and, in itself, subjectless and non-coercive ensemble of 141 268 From the 1980 exchange between Foucault and Michael Bess, published in The History of the Present Issue 4 (Spring 1988). Power should not be understood as an oppressive system bearing down on individuals from above, smiting them w ith prohibitions of this or that. Power is a set of relations. What does it mean to exercise power? It does not mean picking up this tape recorder and throwing it on the ground. I have the capacity to do so materially, physically, sportively. But I would not be exercising power if I did that. However, if I take this tape recorder and throw it on the ground in order to make you mad, or so that you cant repeat what Ive said, or to put pressure on so that youll behave in such and such a way, or to intimidate you well, what Ive done, by shaping your behaviour through certain means, that is power. Im not forcing you at all and Im leaving you completely free thats when I begin to exercise power. Its clear that powe r should not be defined as a constraining force of violence that represses individuals, forcing them to do something or preventing them from doing some other thing. But it takes place when there is a relation between two free subjects, and this relation is unbalanced, so that one can act upon the other, and the other is acted upon, or allows himself to be acted upon. Therefore, power is not always repressive. It can take a certain number of forms. And it is possible to have relations of power that are open. 269 Foucault, Michel. 1997. Ethics: Subjectivity, and Truth. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 167
practices, it is necessarily countered, not with a single locus of great Refusal270 but with a multiplicity of microand macroresistance(s), which To resist, it must be like power. As i nventive, as mobile, and as productive as power. Like power, it must organize itself, coagulate and cement itself. Like power, it must come from below and distribute itself strategically.271 There are two distinct concep tualizations of resistance in Foucaults philosophy, which Kevin Thompson and Mark Kelly label, as (i) negative; and (ii) positive. The former, articulated in Foucaults The Will to Knowledge characterizes itself by a practice of freedom from limitations The latter, expressed in The Subject and Power concentrates on the practices of self-formation.272 The two conceptions invariably rely upon the will, as that human capacity, agency, or a life force capable of insubordination, a Nietzschean will to power. Foucauldian resi stance is not to be understood in terms of a set of relativized political manifestos which lie beyond cross-examination and critique, rather, its ethical efficacy ought to be seen as always intimately bound with questions it can posit to its own fundamental rational calcul us which motivates it; as resistance may very well be either on the side of or against the systems of contro l and domination. The human freedom from limitations is analogous to a Kantian release from [ones] selfincurred tutelage; tutelage, wh ich is the mans inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Resistance cu m critique institutes the art of not being governed quite so much as do cile subjects of impersonal systems and tactics of power, 142 270 Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 9596. 271 Foucault, Michel. 2001. Dits et ecrits. (Paris: Gallimard). Pg. 267. 272 Kelly, Mark. 2009. The Political Philosophy of Michel Foucault. (New York: Routledge). Pg. 105.
but as discerning observers of the forms of do mination and prescient interpreters of their consequences. As such, subjects will not en join themselves to be reduced to mere reactive nodes dispossessed of positive means of resistance, but rather, subjects concerned with their own ont ological self-understanding and constitution, from within which critique unravels. The Socratic injunction of know thyself issues in a Foucauldian genealogy, a method of disclosing historical ly layered discourses and power relations along with their motives and impacts upon human subjectivity. Foucault by analyzing three such variegated trajectories, as (i) pastoral pow er, (ii) disciplinary power, and (iii) biopower sets a distinctive premium on the return to the Greek conception of subjectivity enveloped throughout with a discriminating eye for the modes of self-enactment. In the passage worth citing at length, Foucault disclo ses the epochal transitions and rationales comprising the hermeneutics of the present self. I think that if one wants to analyze the genealogy of the subject in Western civilization, one has to ta ke into account not only t echniques of domination but techniques of the self. Lets say: one ha s to take into account the interaction between these two types of techniques techniques of domination and techniques of the self. One has to take into acc ount the point where the technologies of domination of individuals ove r one another have recour se to processes by which the individual acts upon himsel f. And conversely, one has to take into account the points where the techniques of the self are in tegrated into structures of coercion or domination. This contact point, where th e individuals are driven and known by others is tied to the way they conduct themselves and know themselves, in what we can call, I think, government. Governi ng people, in the broad meaning of the word is not a way to force people to do what the governor want s; it is always a versatile equilibrium, with complement arity and conflicts between techniques which assure coercion and processes thr ough which the self is constructed and modified by oneself.273 143 273 Foucault, Michel. 1999. Religion and Culture Jeremy Carrette (ed.). (New York: Routledge). Pg. 162.
By comprehensively studying the relations be tween pastoral power and the policing reason of the state, the relation between conf essional techniques a nd the types of bodily subjectivity shrouded in the mortality of the flesh, Foucault deepens his analytics of the subject in order to derive optimum tec hniques for resistance. The recovery and reinstitution of the Greco-Roman ethics of aesthetic existence and accompanying it technologies of the self, or cultivation of the relations of oneself to oneself, i.e., selfwriting, truthful speaking, abstinence, self-denia l, appeal for guidance, exercise of free and deliberate choice, by which subjects conduct their own conduct, constitute for Foucault, the penultimate revers al of the relations of power.274 The Greco-Roman embrace of a philosophical life permeated by moral reflection and an attendance, a return, to the self as ontologically prior to theoretical knowledge and care for the many, which a thoroughly political life demands, aims to ensure the subjects freedom, while at the same time, making one an object of ones own diligence.275 This existential condemnation of oneself to the self is not a limiting condition but an extension of deliberative space for a creative reconcilia tion of political rights and duties with inherently human capacities and opp ortunities. Ethics as self-cre ation requires a choice of a style of existence which materializes and ac tualizes a certain visi on of the self, and for 144 274 Foucault departs from the knowledge of the self grounded in reason, or the Cartesian paradigm, and advances a philosophical car e for ones own self as fundamental to a new relationship between the subject, truth, and modes of power. 275 Foucault, Michel. 1988. The Care of the Self. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 47.
which it is always possible, Foucault conte nds, to make something altogether novel out of what it has been made into.276 145 276 Olssen, Mark. 2009. Toward a Global Thin Community. (Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers). Pg. 44.
CHAPTER V FOUCAULDIAN CRITICAL COSMOPOLITIANISM: TERRA INCOGNITA? Let observation, with extensive view, Survey mankind, from China to Peru; Remark each anxious toil, each eager strife, And watch the busy scenes of crowded life; -Samuel Johnson Paragons of compassion: the great cosmopolitan souls, who surmount the imaginary barriers that separate Peoples and who, following the example of the sovereign Being who created them, include the whole human Race in the benevolence. -Jean-Jacques Rousseau The evocation of Greco-Roman, and particularly Epicurean and Stoic theories of ethical self-enactment, constitutes but one, however, incidental connection of Foucault to contemporary conceptualizations of the co smopolitan ethos. A second, less superficial opening for a Foucauldian approach to cosmopo litanism is contained in his emphasis on and relevant analytics of asymmetrical and la yered distribution of pow er relations and the rich possibilities of multiple realizations at the level of the discursive that enables varied articulations of the good,277 presently occasioned and propelled by the complex processes of globalization. A third reason for advancing a Foucauldian reading of 146 277 Olssen, Mark. 2009. Toward a Global Thin Community. (Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers). Pg. 201.
cosmopolitanism can be found in a clear challenge that such an enterprise vis a vis institutional embeddedness and normative construction of rights poses to Kantian rationalists, Rawlsian contra ctualists and Sandelian commun itarians, who long claimed to have either advanced a pursuit of a cosm opolitan commonwealth, or warned against any such utopian conjectures. In this chapter, I wish to explore the tensions and complementarities between Foucaults polit ical philosophy and cosmopolitanism, by first delving into the premises of cosmopolitan assumptions articulated by Seyla Benhabib, who follows a Kantian jurisprudential-mora lity, and Martha Nussbaum, who defends an ancient Greco-Roman political code; and sec ond, by positing a set of reasons legitimizing a far more Foucauldian approach to cosmopolitic s. It is important to remember that the fundamental question of the political discourse how to govern? predominant in the 15th and 16th centuries, with the inauguration of cosmopolitan thinking provides an opportunity for inquiring more profoundly into what Foucault set at the pedestal of his explorative theory: how not to be governed like that, by that, in the name of principles such as that, in view of such objective s and by the means of such procedures.278 This circumspect Foucauldian critical attitude which permits for thoughtful indocility and desubjectivization widens the horizons of historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them.279 The Grand Narratives and Cosmopolitan Itineraries 147 278 Foucault, Michel. 1996. What is Critique? in James Schmidt (ed.) What is Enlightenment? (Berkeley: University of California Press). Pg. 384. 279 Foucault, Michel. 1984. What is Enlightenment? in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Foucault Reader. (New York: Pantheon Books). Pg. 50.
In an attempt to make cosmopolitanism legible, it is essential, first, to draw upon three exit questions, which Seyla Benhabib in the book Another Cosmopolitanism (2006) utilizes in her explication of the theorys utilitarian and pragmatic application. Second, the provided analysis, instructed by the answ ers Benhabib offers, will provide the context for a succinct summation of an alternative vi ew of a cosmopolitan ethic, advanced by Martha Nussbaum in her 2003 book Cultivating Humanity, 1994 Boston Review article, Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism in corporated in an edited tome, For Love of Country? and her 1997 essay on Kant and Stoic Cosmopo litanism. Lastly, alternative readings and decipherments of the political philos ophy of cosmopolitanism will set the tone and context for future dialectical explorations that reach beyond the emphatic and schematic themes the authors under review proffer. 148 Following in the footprints of Arendt and Jaspers, who prece ded the author in their reflections on the status of international law and the norms of international justice, Benhabib inquires after: (i) the ontologic al status of cosmopolitan norms in a postmetaphysical universe; (ii) the authority of norms that lack support of a sovereign vested with the power of enforcement, a nd; (iii) the ways of reconciling cosmopolitan norms with the fact of divided humanity.280 In a brief response to her above posited promissory notes, the author of Another Cosmopolitanism rearticulates, and claims as her own, the meaning of cosmopolitanism qua order and norms. Hers is a distinctly Kantian understanding, flavored by a multiperspectival jurisgenerative politics by which a meaning of rights is not only legally and pol itically contested by both the excluded and privileged political actors, but, above all, re posited, resignified, and reappropriated 280 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 70.
149 in sum reconstituted via differing situational approaches to the dilemmas of being and faring in the world of multiple and competing constellations of meaning and signifying. The ostensible commotion at the core of poli tical process seems to contradict the legality of a well-ordered society guided by rules and norms for which a positive and postmetaphysical, rather than natural, ethi cal justification exis ts. In a universe of disaggregated citizenship, it is imp lied, one cannot rely on the singularity and commonality of collective identity for soci al support and moral sustenance which, up to now, have given one a tangible as well as symb olic confluence of the sense of self. This very paradox, embedded in the notions of boundedness and aggregation on the one hand,, and unscripted itineraries, on the other, which provoke an existential disenfranchisement and challenge the habits of the heart, do es not go unnoticed in Benhabibs work. The proposed remedy is found in democratic it erations, which presume to offer normative and institutional solutions to the paradoxes of democratic legitimacy, and synthesize complex ways of mediating the willand opi nionformation of democratic majorities and cosmopolitan norms.281 What follows is a substantiv e account of newly recognized, largely optional, avenues of being an exis tent and a subject to the contents of cosmopolitan laws. The author recognizes the increased weight of proof and justification that rest upon those choosi ng to reach beyond the establis hed cosmopolitan normativity citing crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes, which have been given a universal assignation of moral objectiona bleness, and which prohibit and deem incomprehensible the formation of legal defens e, as perpetrations against, and paradigms of maladjustment to, the generalizable nor ms that ought to govern the behavior of 281 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 45.
sovereign states and extend political imagination of citizens. The resultant novo ordo saeclorum endows individuals, rather than states, with indivisibl e rights and claims. This, in turn, eventuates in a model of cosm opolitan law based less on non-binding treaties, propounded by the international law, and incr easingly upon responsiv e legal authority which disciplines and emends the will of all sovereign political actors. The societal and political image proposed is that of cosmopolitan norms [that] go beyond lib eral international sovereignty by envisaging conceptual and juridical space for a domain of rights-relations that would be binding on nonstate actors as well as state actors when they come into contact with individual s who are not members of their own polities.282 This all-inclusiveness is an outgrowth of the discourse theory of et hics, in the vein of which Benhabib voices her arguments for a n ecessary mediation between the moral and the political, and which articulates a universalist moral standpoint283 that is unlimited in the scope of subjects and themes the mor al conversation involves and engages. Naturally, a secondary set of questions arises that pertains to: (i) the requirements, obligations, and values that the cosmopolitan norms impose u pon acting persons, and; (ii) the provenance, sustenance, and enforcement of the ordering of the foregoing norms. In her response to point (ii) Benhabib asserts that only and exclusively, polities with strong democracies are capable of universalist rearticulation and reconfiguration of citizenship,284and that a Rawlsian version of selfenclosed moral universes does not do justice to the dynamic reality of the politics of peoplehood qua negotiation. Her 150 282 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 24. 283 Ibid., Pg. 18. 284 Ibid., Pg. 69.
illustration of the French laffaure du foulard, or the German jus soli naturalization laws, follows a developmental trajectory of rights that in their constitutiveness are nothing but, and above all, the effects of negotiations that seek to overturn the stringency of alienating categories. As to point (i), Benhabib contends that the same democratic polities over the course of the evolution of cosmopolitan norms extending from crimes against humanity to norms extending to refuge and immigrati on have absorbed reflexive gestures of hospitality that re-constitute the boundaries of the demos and impose novel forms of civil and legal obligations to aliens, foreign co-citizens, and third-country nationals. Here, Benhabib does not hide her predilection for Kantian ethics, a nd her deductions are informed by a specific view of the individu al as a citizen of a universal state of mankind.285 Hospitality, so conceived, ascribes to the individual the status of being a right-bearing person and translates the language of morals to that of juridical rights,286 which do not expire with the crossing of states political borders. The author acknowledges that moral obligat ions and duties aris ing as a consequence of membership in bounded communities, or communities of place, and the moral perspective that one is required to adopt by virtue of ones own humanity, inevitably re sult in tensions and, by extension, minimized receptivity toward the other in which the ethical manifests itself.287 To attenuate this discordant appr ehension, the ethical dimension ought and must, Benhabib asserts, illuminate the juridi co-political sphere, which is to narrate, 151 285 Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch in H.S. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pg. 99. 286 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 149. 287 Ibid., Pg. 158.
express, and define the new contours of cosmopolitical citizenship, and in which individuals are not only the ob jects but also the authors of the law to which they are subject.288The process of greater democratizati on of the increasingly porous borders, on this reading, calls for the establishment of legal frameworks for navigating and coordinating the policies and prac tices that simultaneously (i) instill and maintain respect for essential human rights; (i i) consolidate and advance a sphere of communal inclusion of foreigners; (iii) create opportunities for publ ic representation, and; (iv) recognize the rights to asylum and legal immigration. The a bove conditions, if met, would complement Kants Third Definitive Article for Perpetual Peace, which Benhabib evokes, which stipulates measures and imposes limits upon the cosmopolitan rights deference to and recognition of universal hospitality. 152 The uncoupling of the id eally-typical manifestations of citizenship, i.e. territorial integrity, residency, administ rative subjection, cultural membership, and democratic participation, results in a de-emphasis on rights by entitlement and a greater recognition of moral claims to inalienable legal status ir respective of the primordial sources of origin. The proposed paradigm is far from reconcilia tory, however, as the relationship between a cosmopolitan ethic and democratic self-gove rnance, between grounded sovereignty and delinked human rights is far from being po litically amicable and settled matter. Mediation of continuous semantic, ideational and pragmatic conflicts, rather than their totalization or transcendence, then, constitutes for Seyla Benhabib an apt preface to cosmopolitanism, which is capable of articulating via (a) democratic iterations, and (b) jurisgenerative politics, a form of political condition that in sists less on an incautious 288 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 168.
democratic consensus and compromise, a nd increasingly more on overlapping and interconnected networks of dissension and contestation that eventuate in better pronounced works of self-authorship. Far from being an exhaustive and compre hensive footnote to political theory, cosmopolitanism, like the most regal of symphonic works, is subject to multiple variations on a single theme. Martha Nussbaum, in her edited volume For Love of Country, purports to present one such interpreta tion of the concept, while seeking to identify and define the multifaceted reverber ations her Stoic-in-style and Kantian-innotation philosophy evokes. Hers is a cosm opolitanism of exile, which is, by nature, Janus-faced. Nussbaum extends the practices of citizenship and absolves them of a strictly territorial reality via cultivation of three capacities: (i) a distanced capacity for critical self-examination and context-boundedness; (ii) an ability to see oneself as a citizen of the world, bound to others by ties of moral con cern, rather than a citizen of a strictly delineated a nd delimited local region or group, and; (iii) a capacity for a generous narrative imagination, which is to confer a privileged and empathy-inducing insight into the emotions and desires of persons. The undertones of Stoicism, which saw education for world citizenship as requiring a transce ndence of the definition of oneself that was thickly embedded in the context of group loyalties and identities, are generative. Thus the transcendent telos which Nussbaum recognizes and cultivates in her philosophical output, lies not in the agents submission to th e conventional prescripts of the polis, but in recognition and loyalty to moral virtue, irrespective of the agents associative proximity, kinship or citizenship, which are but elements of happenstance rather than substantive constructs of ones own and ones circumstan tial political ordering. Therefore, proper 153
internalization of the moral law mandates th at reason and moral capacity of human agents ought to attract our first allegiance and respect. Cosmopolitanism is intrinsically valuable, Nussbaum contends, for it recognizes in people what is especially fundamental about them, most worthy of respect and ac knowledgment: their aspirations to justice and goodness and their capacities for reasoning 289 Yet, one of the greatest obstacles to rational deliberation, Nussbaum admits, is the unexamined feeling that ones customs and preferences are the natural and neut ral expressions of superior humanity. What renders the rationalist views of St oicism and Kantianism relevant, for Nussbaum, is their undivided focus on th e non-arbitrary rational human core, fully capable of setting itself an ambitious goal of transce nding the confining and the parochial. In Kant and Stoic Cosmopo litanism Nussbaum writes this about her intellectual allies: [theirs was] a politics based upon reason rather than patriotism or group sentiment that was truly universal ra ther than communitarian one that was active, reformist, and optimistic rather than given to contemplating the horrors or waiting for the call of Being.290 In Nussbaums accounts and visions of the cosmopolitan ethos the worth of reason in each and every hum an being, revered by the Stoics as the causa efficiens of moral law that dictates the principl es and normative imperatives that are to guide all human conduct and ordering of the social life of bei ngs and communities, occupies a super-ordinate position. Unlike Benhabibs sober cosmopolitanism imbued with legal doctrinaire and empathically abstemious pronouncements that ground 154 289 Nussbaum, Martha C. 2002. For Love of Country? (Boston: Beacon Press). Pg. 8. 290 Nussbaum, Martha C. 1997. Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. Journal of Political Philosophy 5. Pg. 2.
themselves in the rigidity of universally recognized norms, Nussbaum s version insists on the emotive residuals that mold the contours of our rational capacities and filter and order them according to the political and social roles the agents are called upon to play. In generous engagements with a stranger, Nu ssbaum writes, we enact a duty of the moral imagination we never do meet a mere ab stract human being. But we meet the common in the concrete, as well as the concrete in the common.291 Entering thus as far as possible, into the experi ences of others via generou s imaginings, defines the framework of cosmopolitan largesse, which sanctions a continuous, rather than sporadic and isolated, spontaneous and generous im agination of other persons, in order to eliminate the inherently aversive structural position of foreignness. This romanticized view of cultivating our humanity in a complex, interlocking world, Nussbaum contends, involves understanding the ways in which common needs and aims are differently realized in different circumstances.292 The narrative imagination, then, enables one to enact oneself as an intelligent participant in the dramatic circumstances of others, which, in turn, requires a developed mo ral common sense and critical rationality. Such alternative visions of political reality are not immune from criticism. Leo Marx in his article, Negl ecting History (1994), asks: 155 If cosmopolitanism is as superior am ong conceivable views of the world as [Nussbaum] persuasively demonstrates, why has it so rarely been adopted? Why has its appeal been so larg ely restricted to small, eccen tric, avant-garde, or elite groups? Why have institutions like the League of Nati ons or the United Nations, or movements like the World Federalist failed to elicit widespread support? Why do more parochial nationalistic creeds usually carry the day?293 291 Nussbaum, Martha C. 2002. For Love of Country? (Boston: Beacon Press). Pg. 141. 292 Ibid., Pg. 10. 293 Marx, Leo. 1994. Neglecting History. Boston Review (October/November) Pg.17-21.
An apt, yet far from intellectually satisfying, however, basally legitimate is the Aristotelian response. Recognizing that virtues, as opposed to vices, are harder to indulge in, as they require a prolonged lesson in c onsistent moral habituation, discipline and courage, the cosmopolitan ethos, like virtue and good manners, will not have the staying power when met with gruff and uncouth temperaments. Moreover, as Derrida himself in On Cosmopolitanisms and Forgiveness points out, the difficulty in negotiating and reconciling a contradictory imperative of unconditional hospitality, which the Kantian cosmopolitan pathos prescribes, with conditional political and legal righ ts to residence, multiplies moral difficulties and conflicts be tween an obliging duty and a jurisprudential right. Nussbaum, along with her eminent predecessors, the Cynics and the Stoics, recognizes that the worth of reason and moral purpose does not necessarily abide with social rank and status, national origin or location. Yet, reason alone, sustained by an emotive referent, is to be the effluent s ource of self-legislating moral conduct that does not obtrude the expression of one s personality and identity. Setting reason at the pedestal and granti ng it an irrevocable status capable of thrusting individuals into the universe of cosmo politan ethos presents it with a structural problem. As Roxanne Euben points out, a vernacular idiom constituted by European culture around which contemporary philosoph ies of cosmopolitanism gravitate, evinces and reinforces the valorization of a particular stance of skepticism toward certain modes of belonging and knowing that is itself the product of a specific genealogy rooted in a particular culture and religious tradition.294 In sum, the purported ecumenicalism of cosmopolitanism is still but a provincial articulation of geographically and 156 294 Euben, Roxanne L. 2006. Journeys to the Other Shore. Princeton: Princeton University Press). Pg. 181.
philosophically enclosed conditions that rarely transpire beyond the coordinates of EuroAmerican time and space.295 A true cosmopolitan sensibility requires of agents an equally weighted Occidental an d Oriental framework of reference, wary of constructing reality from the ill-articulated scrap heaps of historically and politically marginal investitures. The reciprocity in mutual disclosures vi a the language of rights, particularly human rights, may be a potent step in the dir ection of untying the i nherently rooted from the circumstantial and accidental, the obscu re and nebulous from the authentic and honest, and the intransigent from the mutable and malleable. The existential task before the readers and writers of the cosmopolitan magna moralia is not to iconiz e an image, but naturalize the practice, by dissenting from the quotidian routines bereft of awe and wonder about the lives of those whose mnemon ic repositories, representational systems, and imaginary conjurations are not of our own making, but from w hose endearing touch everyone walks away richer not having received gr ace and surprised but richer in himself, newer to himself than before, broken open, blown at and sounded out by a thawing wind, perhaps more unsure, tenderer, more fragile, more broken, but full of hopes that yet ha ve no name, full f new will and currents, full of new dissatisfaction and undertows 296 The project of cosmopolitanism, as outlined by Benhabib and Nussbaum, ought not to be conceived as a mere idealistic or abstract fi gment of human imagination or a contrivance of a discerning intellectual sensitivity, but as an increasingly tangible possibility that will test and unravel the ingenuity of human thought and reason in consolidating a political reality with a more pronounced humanis tic and cosmopolitical orientation. 157 295 Euben, Roxanne L. 2006. Journeys to the Other Shore. Princeton: Princeton University Press). Pg. 181. 296 Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967. Ecce Homo. New York: Vintage Books. Pg. 269.
Governance and Governmentality in an Era of Globalization Organizational dimensions of globa lization suggest patterns of global stratification; as globalization transforms th e organization, distribution and exercise of power, it creates hierarchies and asymmetries of power and control of access to global networks and infrastructures. Concurrently, transnationalization of political activity, itself, takes place in the context of greater in ternationalization of the state. It is seen by proliferation of social movements, associ ations, and citizen democracy by means of which the populous comes to exert power across national borders. Globalization, and alongside it, cosmopolitanism, as the two concep tually contested concepts, are essentially appraisive, internally complex and relatively open to disputes about the proper standard of meaning and use. One may come to restrict cosmopolitanism297 to an ontological plane reified by an existential pa radox, that is, a dynamic state of being enmeshed in and yet standing apart, ethically, from the parochial, rooted and static iden tity. The concept is conceived in the context of and often acco mpanied by the phenomenon of globalization. Held et al. in Global Transformations capture a three-fold inte rnal dynamic of the process of globalization. 298 The authors articulated per ception of globalization centers on 158 297 Appadurai, Pollock, and Bhabha define cosmopolita nism thus: Cosmopolitanism is a project whose conceptual content and pragmatic ch aracter are not only as yet unspeci fied but also must always escape positive and definite specification, precisely because specifying cosmopolitanism positively and definitely is an uncosmopolitan thing to do. (From Cosmopolitanism Pg. 1). Benhabib sees cosmopolitanism as a celebration of the compromising of boundaries between cultures, and as envisaging a world order of settled jurisprudential norms. Kant perceived cosmopolitan largesse as exhausted by the union of wills, which defines the framework of cosmopolitan right limited to conditions of universal hospitality. Nussbaums cosmopolitanism reverberates Diogenes claim of allegiance to the worldwide community of human beings and views all claims to national or other identity as morally irrelevant. 298 Globalization as a corpus of ideas, processes, and interactions embodies a substantial transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, assessed in terms of their increasing (i) extensity of regularized interactions and networks of social relations, (ii) intensity of global
widening, deepening and speeding up of worl dwide interconnectedness visible in all aspects of contemporary social life. Also William Scheuerman, distinguishes five core features of gl obalization: (i) deterritorialization the increasing occurrence of social activities independently of geographical location of the participants involved; (ii) social interconnectedness the ongoing reorganizatio n of human relations beyond geographical and political boundaries; (iii) acceleration of social life the proliferatio n of high-speed transport, communication and information technology; (iv) long-term process which concerns not sudden or recent events but in volves long-term constituents of modern society; (v) multi-pronged process, where features of gl obalized society display themselves in different domains of social activity, such as economics, politics, environmental problems, media and culture law and ethics, military technology and defense. As a heterogeneous development which lacks precise definition, the sheer impact of the scale of social and economic change induces a sense of political fatalism and chronic insecurity, as the tempo and ubiquity of change seem to outstrip the capacity of national governments and individual citizens to control, contest and re sist it. In view of the above, political space and political community are no longer defined and limited by the national, statist-oriented framew ork. Increasingly the phenomenon of power diffusion signifies emerging multilayered governance, marked by development of 159 interconnectedness, (iii) velocity and institutional, structural, and distributive impacts of global flows, which collectively generate [unprecedented] transcontinental and interregional flows, [new] and more diffused modes and nodes of activity and interaction, and provide [new] opportunities for the exer cise and contestation of power (Held, David. 1999. Global Transformations).
regional and global institutions and laws governing the administra tion and management of globalization.299 However theoretically fecund the debate on the seemingly limitless horizons of globalization and the range of possibilities ensuing as a result of its unprecedented transformationist underpinnings, it is important to underscore that neither globalization nor cosmopolitanism have dissolved the functio nal basis of the orga nizing principle the state the very structure which the theories most avid followers purport to increasingly marginalize, initiating thus a process of gradual withering way of the state, and by extension, a withering away of nation-bound identities reinfor ced by a citizen status. Any perceived weakening of states, Rosenau ar gues, has not been followed by authority vacuums so much as it has resulted in a vast growth in the number of spheres in which authority has moved.300 In addition, the emergence of state-nations, micro-nations, region-nations, and regional unions brought the problems of identity and territorial affiliation to the fore of socio-political debate. The states sole, autonomous, sovereign and capacious authority in forming and deciding the questions of identity-politics, Hall and Biersteker301 argue, on the domestic and international arena has been significantly dislodged. A pertinent question arises, therefore, as to the extent to which the citizen160 299 Increasingly, transnational proce sses of and contests to globalization extend themselves beyond national borders, and ensue in what is referred to as a transnational civil society. On the basis thereof, Held concludes that the idea of democracy can no longer be based on atomistic and sheltered political communities or territorial nation-states, and that citi zenship in a democratic polity itself must involve a mediating role. (Held, David. 2000. The Changing Contours of Political Community). 300 Rosenau, James. 1999. Toward an Ontology of Global Governance in Approached to Global Governance Theory. Martin Hewson and Timothy J. Sinclair. (N ew York: State University of New York Press). Pg. 294. 301 Hall, Ronald and Biersteker, Thomas. 2002. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
subject, and on this reading, the self-enacting cosmopolitan citizen,302 ought to rely upon the state for her political identity, socio-cultu ral guidance, and moral fruition in an era of pronounced globalization. Transformationists, such as Rosenau and Giddens, unlike their skeptical counterparts, Hirst and Thompson, who share a penchant for mythologizing the phenomenon, admit that the contemporary patt erns of globalization profoundly change the constitutional and operational basis of stat es and societies. The logic of governance is now exposed to multiple challenges emanating from: (i) interregional networks, systems of interaction, and exch ange; (ii) deterritor ialization and reterrit orialization of socioeconomic and political space that issue in subnationalization, regionalization, supranationalization of economic zones, mechanisms of governance and cultural complexes; (iii) polyarchy, a mixed actor syst em, which replaces a v isible presence of rule with the invisible government of banks, companies, international organizations, and quasi-supranational institutions. This, in itself, does not imply that the sovereign and legitimate position of the state as the principal political actor has been annulled; rather, a Foucauldian lens of analysis would suggest the changing logic or rationality of government by which civil society is redefined from a passive object of government to be acted upon into an entity that is both an object and a subject of government.303 The amalgams of non-state actors, ra ther than acting to usurp power from the centralized state 161 302 Contemporary accounts of cosmopolitan democracy consist in articul ating conditions for cosmopolitan citizenship qua multiple citizenship. Thus, Helds account of cosmopolitan democracy, for instance, implies the demand for multiple citizenships in (i) the geographically local communities, (ii) the country or region-based communities, and (iii) the inter-nationa l or cosmopolitical communities. (Held, David. 2000. The Changing Contours of Political Community). 303 Neuman, Iver and Sending Ole Jacob. 2006. Govern ance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power. International Studies Quarterly 50(3). Pg. 652.
authority, are directly implicat ed in the processes of its di ffusion, creating a web of power relations on a scale never before encounter ed. The state, Guehenno contends, being no longer the main mediator between the gene ral public good and the public administrative apparatus, has transmogrifie d into a sum total of networks of highly specialized administrative agencies, which, through their effective mobilization, ensure the states continued legitimacy.304Thus, the generators of expert knowledge provided by mercenary organizations, armies, and corporations, rather than the general will, public consensus and public interest, dictate th e proper means of governance and come to constitute the logical components of new global governmentality. The foundation of the new modes of governmentality is not so much the bare sove reign power as it is knowledge; although, it is progressively more difficult, in a constan tly networked world, to distinguish when and in what capacity, and under what guise, the Baconian knowledge is power. David Held in The Changing Contours of Political Community credits the nation-state with an enduri ng and immensely powerful capability, that of an unmitigated access to a formidable range of resources, bureaucratic infrastructural capacity and technologies of coordination and control.305 Yet, it is no longer selfevident, Scheuerman argues, that nation-states can be described as self-sufficient schemes of cooperation for all the essential purposes of hum an life as the political units are now subject to increasingly deterrito rialized activities over which they have limited control, and they find themselves nested in webs of social relations whose scope 162 304 Guehenno, Jean-Marie. 1999. Lavenir de la liberte. La democratie dans la mondialisation. (Paris: Flammarion). Pg. 44. 305 Held, David. 2000. The Changing Contours of Political Community in Barry Holden (ed.) Global Democracy: Key Debates. (London: Routledge). Pg. 21.
explodes the confines of national borders.306 Martin and Schumann307 suggest that the decline of state as an organizing principle of economic life augurs a transition in power concentrations from democratically orga nized electorates to an unaccountable global web of financiers. The presumption of un accountability calls therefore for the enaction of new moral imperatives, or as Vaclav Ha vel stresses, an equati on of globality with responsibility, which in a world of unqualifie d interdependence permits for structuring communities that transcend parochial affiliations defined by narrow national interests and territorial loyalty, without compromising, however, the objective mutual trust of all actors involved. Likewise, Seyla Benhabi b contends that the transce ndence of the nation-state is occurring in the direction of the privatization and corporatization of sovereignty, rather than in the direction of cosmopolitanism, by which public power of democracy and popular sovereignty is endangered by pr ivate commercial and administrative competence.308 In their article, Governance to Govern mentality: Analyzin g NGOs, States, and Power, Ole Sending and Iver Neuman recognize the accelerating influence of the nongovernmental sphere, composed of non-state ac tors, in reorienting the focus of modern states to forms of knowledge and techni cal means for optimizing global governance. However, because government, for Foucault, signifies a range of techniques and practices, performed by different actors, aimed to shape, guide, and direct individuals 163 306 Scheuerman, William. 2006. < http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2006/entries/globalization/ > Pg. 3. 307 Martin, H, Schumann, H. 1997. The Global Trap : Globalization and the Assault on Democracy and Prosperity. (London: Zed Books). Pg. 40. 308 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 177.
and groups behavior and actions in particular direction309 the types of non-state actors in existence also reflect the changing gove rnmental rationality concerned with the perpetuation of its productive operation of power and definition of its matrix of competence. Thus, rather than standing apart, Sending and Neuman argue, NGOs (i) are integral to the practices of governing in m odern society in their capacity to mobilize technologies of agency; (ii) are rarely in opposition to the political power of the state, but rather, make up its most central feature in their ability to carry out regulatory functions and assure of the states indissoluble existence and legitimacy.310 In sum, the authors imply that NGOs constitute the append ages of the state capable of articulating and channeling its evolving rationality, as well as identifying new sources for the conferral of legitimacy upon government al entities and their practices.311 Sending and Neuman note that the micro-level relations be tween the state and non-state actors in cases involving the antipersonnel land-mines ban, regional development, and advocacy for reproductive health and rights permit the latter to institutionalize themselves as privileged loci of knowledge and technical expertise that lay the groundwork for international advocacy and policy. The multiplayer and po lyarchic networks of non-governmental, inter-governmental and corporate entities which comprise the state under globalization are not implicated, however, in a zero-sum game through which the authority of the former is enhanced at th e expanse of the latter. Th e kind of new governmentality emerging, the authors argue, is clothed in pract ices, techniques, and rationalities of rule 164 309 Neuman, Iver and Sending Ole Jacob. 2006. Govern ance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power. International Studies Quarterly 50(3). Pg. 656. 310 Ibid., Pg. 658.
that: (i) are progressively better defined by autonomous political subjects possessing the expertise and ability necessary to responsibly align themse lves with and channel the political will-formation crucial for governing; (ii) enhanc e the operations of political power through, rather than on civil society; (iii ) permit for governing through autonomous subjects, rather than on passive objects.312 It is precisely the interactive exchange between the subjects, non-governmental, and governmental entities that defines the limits of states intervention and its ubiquitous regulatory function and issues in the practices of counter-act ion, which, as the next sections wi ll show, articulates the premises for the Foucauldian theory of international citizenship. Diffused Nation-States and the Ch allenges of Self-Enactment In his book, The Global Soul Pico Iyer, an author of a hybrid Indian-British identity, raised the problematic of permanent transience, di sorientation and disconnection accompanying citizenship in th e International Empire ma de up of an unprecedented opacity of fusions and confusions. Iyer describes the state of privileged homelessness as a site of sporadic but discrepant affiliations and a state of tentative bliss issuing from a lack of binding obligations to one fixed community. In this condition of neither exile nor expatriati on nor refugeeism, the global soul Iyer writes, lives in the: metaphorical equivalent of internati onal airspace his currency might be air miles (40 percent of which are now earned on the ground), and the main catechism he knew by heart might involve fastening your seat-belt low and tight across your lap. His memories might be set in airports that looked more and more like transnational cities, in cities that looked like transnational airports. Lacking a binding sense of we, he might nonethel ess remain fiercely loyal to a single 165 312 Neuman, Iver and Sending Ole Jacob. 2006. Govern ance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power International Studies Quarterly 50(3). Pg. 668.
airline His sense of obligation might be different and his sense of home, if it existed at all, would lie in the ties a nd talismans he carried round with him. Insofar as he felt a kinship with anyone it would, most likely, be with other members of the Deracination-state.313 Communitarians, such as Amitai Etzioni, voice concerns over th e interweaving of identities that complicate the process of socialization and consensus-building on the uniform moral code, of which the state and civ il society have, traditionally, been the main enforcers and promoters. It is, above all, the anchoring of individuals in communities, Etzioni contends, that permits them to remain independent of the state and to resist its pressures. A visible absence of such social foundations opens isol ated individuals to totalitarian pressures.314 Alasdair MacIntyre goes even further in asserting that the communitarian315 context is an indivisible an d non-negotiable condition for the establishment of the moral self. To divest oneself of context or the moral starting points, MacIntyre argues, and thus transcend the dimensions of local and communal identity, inevitably leads to individual moral vacu ity; for when the fundamental grounds and instruments for proper moral flourishing provided by the community are eliminated, the possibility of holding any reason for maintain ing a moral disposition toward humanity is extinguished. An individual being upon transcending the dimensions of the localcommunal identity, MacIntyre contends, in seeking and aspiring to be at home 166 313 Iyer, Pico. 2000. The Global Soul. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 19. 314 Etzioni, Amitai. 2001. The Monochrome Society. (Princeton: Princet on University Press). Pg. 226. 315 Communitarianism denotes a perspective on ethics and political philosophy that emphasizes the psycho-social and ethical importance of belonging to communities, and which holds that the possibilities for justifying ethical judgments are de termined by the fact that ethical reasoning must proceed within the context of a communitys traditions and cultural understandings. (Buchanan, Allen. 1998. Community and Communitarianism).
anywhere becomes a citizen of nowhere316 a persona of displaced moral obligations, devoid of any grounding moral constitution and instruments for personal ethical flourishing. An individual, when the need sh all arise, and upon conspiring to sublimate any patriotic volitions, may thus elect to ackno wledge and privilege abstract and distant interests of humanity over the immediate intere sts of the state [nation-state] of which she remains a de jure citizen as an entity sine qua non that encapsulates, communitarians hold, the only substantive and normative pres criptions for a genuine exercise of moral concern. Arendt reverberates the claim to an undivided devotion to ones moral starting points by emphasizing that a citizen is by definition a citizen of a country among countries and cannot simultaneously hold dual and often conflicting loyalties, and be thought to honor them equally we ll, for nobody can be a citizen of the world as he is the citizen of his country.317 With the affirmation of a m onolithic identity tied to singular citizenship comes a rejection of moral re lativism often accompanying more resolute claims to an unbounded deontological horizon lyi ng at the core of cosmopolitan largesse. Sharon Anderson-Gold in her book Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights (2001) suggests that as far as individual citizen s and states coexist in a state of mutual external influence, citizens are not completely subordinated to st ates in their claims to legal standing, and their legal personality is neither expr essed nor exhausted by their nationality. It is precisely in the cultivation of int ernational citizenship that Foucault saw an opening for resistance to the sole monopoly of the state in articulating the acceptable threshold of tolerance. In Confronting G overnments: Human Rights in a three point 167 316 MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. (London: Duckworth Press). Pg. 156. 317 Arendt, Hannah. 1968. Men in Dark Times (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company). Pg. 84.
manifesto published in Liberation in June of 1984, Foucault summarized the obligations and responsibilities of the new individual right to international citizenship, which include: (i) an obligation to sp eak out against every abuse of power irrespective of its authorship and victimhood. After all, Foucault asserted, we are all members of the community of the governed, and thereby obliged to show mutual solidarity.318 (ii) A duty of the international citizenship to always bring th e testimony of peoples suffering to the eyes and ears of governments The suffering of men must never be a silent residue of policy. It grounds an absolute right to stand up and speak to those who hold power.319 (iii) A new right of private individuals to effectively intervene in the sphere of international policy and strategy.320 With this Foucault inaugurates a new political reality in which the will of individuals is to make a place for its elf by wrestling lit tle by little and day by day321 with the monopoly of governmental right to decide the means and tactics for international intervention. Foucault points to the rising role international nongovernmental organizations, such as Amnesty In ternational or Terre des Hommes, play in attacking the roots of th e expressed political rationality of the state and its manifestations of power. These new extraterrito rial formations engaged with a practical critique that takes the form of a possible transgression322 effectively cut off the head of the king by 168 318 Foucault, Michel. 2006. Confronting Governments: Human Rights in The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature (New York: The New Press). Pg. 212. 319 Ibid., Pg. 212. 320 Ibid, Pg. 212. 321 Ibid., Pg. 212. 322 Foucault, Michel. 1984. What is Enlightenment? in Paul Rabinow (ed.) The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon Books). Pg. 45-46.
freeing themselves from under the hold of the exclusive juridico-di scursive model of uncontestable state sovereignty. The emerging world culture reinforced by values and goals of transnational actors has a potential of highlighting the wa ys by which the up-to-now irreconcilable normative and practical conceptua lizations of political justi ce, liberty, and equality can become not only more transparent, but di alogically engaged across borders. The augmentation of the meaning323 and re-assignation of right s claims, which ultimately follow, can result in the growth of the politi cal authority of individuals, who in a newly occasioned public sphere negotiate their political status, that between agents and subjects, and thus turn from docile bodies into subjects vested with identity. Situating deliberation at the exterior of the state unit provides an opportunity for the definition and consolidation of the parameters of transnational activism, which ceases to regard citizenship and national membership as th e exclusive minimum standard commanding gestures of altruism and political philanthropy. This assertion is not foreign to Foucault, who, according to Mark Olssen, offers a po litical understanding of a deliberative association of non-governmental actors, wh ich is premised not merely on a single universal principle, but on a distributive in tent which aims at the minimization of domination and the equalization or balance of countervailing powers on a global scale instrumental in determining the means and ends of governance. 324 This point is well articulated in James Bohmans Democracy across Borders, who proposes a model for global democracy based upon a de-centered model of democratic equality and a 169 323 Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pg. 49. 324 Olssen, Mark. 2009. Toward a Global Thin Community. (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers). Pg. 202.
republican precept of non-domination. In its fa ilure to provide a sufficient condition for democracy, Bohman contends, fixed nation al borders, as a limit to democratic deliberation, must be rethought in order to permit fo r alternative and more pluralistic fora for public deliberation. The proposed decentered model of democracy is thus to proceed across overlapping local, national, co ntinental, and international communities and jurisdictions collaborating with one anothe r in tandem, and with all citizens retaining the power to initiate deliberation and set the rules that will guide political activity.325 Embedded in the above is a call for a mini mal right to contestation, a Foucauldian resistance, which rationalizes and problemati zes the normalized procedural, juridical, and political status quo. It is, init ially, a principally linguistic-d iscursive analysis concerned with unraveling the constructive components of the system of inclusions and exclusions, and theories in which they are rooted. It is not however, a wholly communicative act which presumes, as Habermas does, that the fo rce of a better argumen t wins out. Rather it is a site of struggles premised upon layers of interactions between mass publics and governmental institutions, which ensue as a result of political decentralization and dispersion of the loci of power.326 In sum, the practical implementation of the right to contestation and the possibility of its multiple realizations requires: (i) that rights be assigned to all; (ii) openne ss and symmetrical or ganization of power relations between individuals, countries, groups, agencies be ensured; (iii) institutional structures both within and beyond the nation-state to assure access to the means of expression and 170 325 Schattle, Hans. 2009. Democracy Across Borders Book Review in Perspectives on Politics Vol. 7 (2). Pg. 397. 326 Bohman, James. 2007. Democracy across Borders: From Demos to Demoi. (Cambridge: MIT Press). Pg. 44.
redress be instituted; (iv) a public institut ional system of legal aid, rights of protection, assistance, of exit, and relocation be estab lished; (v) a global ethic of life-affirming constructive norms that guide institutions and determine the practices that constitute convention and custom 327 be enacted to ensure a vibrant civil society invested with a power to check the merits and deme rits of the governmental power. Cosmopolitan Ontology On an ontological plane of analysis the pr oliferation of fragmented lifestyles of choice or of necessity inevitably induces an uninhibited feeling of standing among partial men for the complete man, and an a ppraisal not of personal wealth, but of the common wealth.328 An increased sense of a fluid and fragmented self negates the universalized position of one true, unified, an d fixed self and privileges a Foucauldian view of the historical subject as constitute d by discursive practices, and abiding by an imperative of creating oneself as a work of art. Since, as Mark Poster contents, the capitalist culture confines self-con stitution to the activity of work,329 it is possible to speak of the liberal post-Westphalian self-constitutional ethos as exhausted within the political borders of a nation-state. After all, it was the theory of democracy that presupposed a congruence and an overlapping network of codependences between the demos, citizenship, electoral mechanisms, th e nature of consent, and the boundaries of 171 327 Olssen, Mark. 2009. Toward a Global Thin Community. (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers). Pg. 214-216. 328 Emerson, Ralph Waldo. 1996. The Poet in Emerson Essays and Poems. (New York: Literary Classics). Pg. 448. 329 Poster, Mark. 1993. Foucault and the Problem of Self-Constitution in John Caputo and Mark Yount (eds.) Foucault and the Critique of Institutions. (University Park: Pennsylvania State University). Pg. 78.
the nation-state.330 The rise of hybrid counter-ide ntities under globalization, which, Scholte argues, decenter the self,331 upset stability and narrative continuity, and as such, manifest a radical change in the re sponses of subjects to the effects of power relations, auguring a necessity for the reevaluation of social codes and predominating models for political engagement. So far as there can be no identi ty without nationhood, through which an individual becomes existentia lly totalized, political ly transparent, and intelligible, the cosmopolitan ethos, which inve rts the above politico-juridical discourse, breaks-up the states monopoly on socio-political terminal definition of identity, and calls forth for an alternative modus vivendi by which the subject thinks herself a part of humanity, and whose fate cannot be separate d from that of which she is a member.332 The Foucauldian cosmopolitan subject is, therefore, one who through critical deliberation, investigates historical events that have lead to the understand ing of the self as a member of bounded and exclusionary community of c itizen-subjects, and who, assisted by a mature understanding of her own self-constitu tion, seeks to give new impetus to the undefined work of freedom.333 This knowledge of the self however, Foucault contends, cannot be separated from the corrective care of the self, or des ubjectification through which the subject unlearns what one has learned, or unbecomes what one has 172 330 Held, David. 2000. The Changing Contours of Political Community. In Barry Holden (ed.) Global Democracy: Key Debates. (London: Routledge). Pg. 18. 331 Scholte, Jan. 2005. Globalization: A Critical Introdu ction. (New York: Palgrave MacMillan). Pg. 253. 332 Increasingly, salient debates on economic instabilities, environmental degradation, military technology and defense systems, humanitarian interventionism, legal legitimacy and ethical equity, testify to the social interconnectedness and call for solutions based on an all affected principle of stru ctured global response. 333 Foucault, Michel. 1984. What is Enlightenment? in Paul Rabinow (ed.) The Foucault Reader. (New York: Pantheon Books). Pg. 46.
become334 resisting not only normalization, but also tending toward that free, vigilant self, which the subject has never quite been before. Critics of the aesth etics of the self, as propounded by Foucault, chief among them, Richard Wolin, Charles Taylor, Nancy Fraser and Jurgen Habermas, contend that a narcissistic preoccupation with the integrity of the self, its style of being, and its ethics of existence precludes any possibility of holdi ng a more encompassing concern for and duty toward others. Not only do the aforemen tioned critics posit an existentially counterintuitive argument, by which internal self-determination and self-definition do not require an a priori understanding of and feeling oneself an individual saturated with reason and emotion, but invalidat e the relational possibilities with other human beings, which are naturally contingent upon and follow from mature self -examination. Graham Longfords reading of Foucauldian project of self-enactment suggests that rather that feeding on personal gratificati on and self-aggrandizement, the care of the self occasions rather than suppresses the r ecognition of obligations and responsibilities to others.335For the instructions for self-fashioning borro wed from ancient Greeks implicitly aim to weaken the fixity and stability of identity, revealing not only its contingency as a product of habits, universalizing narratives, and inherited practices, but opening a field of possible future actualizations, which awaken cu riosity and promote interest in a plethora of highly differentiated identities. In being wa ry of articulating mode ls for self-enactment which would reproduce the stifling closure of routine social practices, Foucaults 173 334 McGushin, Edward F. 2007. Foucaults Askesis. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press). Pg. 106. 335 Longford, Graham. 2001. Sensitive Killers, Cruel Aesthetes, and Pitiless Poets: Foucault, Rorty, and the Ethics of Self-Fashioning. Polity 33 (4). Pg. 587.
aesthetics of the self meets the prec onditions for experimental and productive cosmopolitan existence, whose conceptual co ntent and pragmatic character are not only as yet unspecified but also must always escape positive and de finite specification, precisely because specifying cosmopolitanism positively and definitely336 would be an exceedingly un-cosmopolitan thing to do. Sin ce the cosmopolitan ethos increasingly calls for transformation in the system of ethics, the adoption of the Greco-Roman ensemble of practices, advocated by Foucault, as a model ai med at the enactment of oneself as a work of art through a method of genealogical i nquiry that separate[s] out from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do, or think,337 creates room for reflexive action and leaves individuals the liberty to transform the system338 of inhibitive constr aints and restraints. Dreyfus and Rabinow attribute to Foucault a certain cosmopolitanism that neither condones universalism nor sides with relativism, but which a dvocates an engaged ethos. Thus, rather than uncovering d eep truths, an engaged Foucau ldian subject is to concern herself with invent[ing] new wa ys of thinking in order to resist being led passively by those who claim an exclusive, categorical poli tical mandate for defining the direction of her thought.339 The prescribed morality that is to preside over the subjects task of critiquing the functional basis and logical underpi nnings of institutions is to take the form 174 336 Breckenridge, Carol A. et al. 2000. Cosmopolitanism (Durham: Duke University Press). Pg. 1. 337 Foucault, Michel. 1984. What is Enlightenment? in Paul Rabinow (ed.) The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon Books). Pg. 46. 338 Foucault, Michel. 1982. Sexual Choice, Sexual Act: An Interview with Michel Foucault Salmagundi No. 58-59. Pg. 10-24. 339 Kelly, Mark. 2009. The Political Philosophy of Michel Foucault. (New York: Routledge). Pg. 130.
of a transformative morality centered on the incessant analysis and questioning of the elemental consistency of norms embodied by the system. Such questioning cannot be effectively conducted unless the questioner constitutes oneself as a subject of moral conduct and evaluates, in tandem, the substance of ones own consciousness by developing, as Foucault suggests in The History of Sexuality Volume II : The Use of Pleasure, a relationship with the self sustaine d by self-reflection, se lf-knowledge, selfexamination, accompanied by the decipherment of the self by oneself, and the transformations that one seeks to accomplish with oneself as object.340 This descriptive prescription by internal reflection on the nature of moral intuitions unravels the essential content of the political program and constitutes an instrument, which Foucault identifies as inherent and fundamental to all three cate gories of existence: emancipation, resistance, and self-enactment. Such an enterprise of en acting permanent resistance as a guarantee of freedom is inevitably sacrilegious in its attitude toward habits qua predetermined dispositions, which have been made a virtue out of a necessity. However, only though such a dissidence, and a continuous, layered, reciprocal dialectic al exchange between theses and antitheses, can a Foucauldian subjec t judge when morality collapse[es] into a mere set of mores manners, customs, conventions to be changed at will,341 and never be self-satisfied or complacent toward thos e moral standards and institutional regimes, which as long as they are socially accepted are never dreamt of being doubted, contested, or revoked. 175 340 Foucault, Michel. 1985. The History of Sexuality, Volume II: The Use of Pleasure. (New York: Vintage Books). Pg. 29. 341 Arendt, Hannah. 2003. Responsibility and Judgment. (New York: Schocken Books). Pg. 54.
Conclusion: The Horizons of Cosmopolitan Democracy La liberte cest lexile et je suis condamne a etre libre. Jean Paul Sartre Since the early times of recorded writings, a human subject has sought both selfhood and order, divine perf ection and the experience of li ved reality. The systems of thought, refracted in a myriad of institutional set ups, readily ascribed either to appearances of comfortable conventionalism or overreachi ng radicalism. Historical scrutiny places a cosmopolitan ethos, accord ing to Thomas Schlereth, within the intellectual confines of an ideal rather than a much s ought after practical doctrine. One which invested itself with description of la tent manifestations of institutional narrow mindedness, but which ultimately failed in providing prescripts for its effective overcoming. An ethos which, in its Stoic disdain for patr iotism, aspiration toward harmonious international relations, belief in the primacy of personal dignity, devotion to reason and equal moral worth irrespective of socio-political affiliation, and the emphasis on the rule of law, acknowledged an early de feat with the resilient paradigm of the nation-state. Yet, the conditions of existence and the appealing logic of transnationalism propelled by the currents of globalization, rath er than serving as an ultimate graveyard to the cosmopolitan project of freedom, have seem ed to revive the ideal anew and offered a fecund ground for its practical in corporation into the systems of governance and doctrines of law. It is no accident that Thomas Pogge contemplates the inscription of Rawlsian original position into the system of just ice, and the neo-Kantian paradigms proffer duties to non-compatriots, a nd the neo-liberal th eorists argue for the extension of 176
177 principles of democracy to non-governmental actors, regional political entities, and citizens intent on mediating th e ethical, moral, and political norms with pressing existential problems of environmental, humanitarian, or military nature. As Foucault himself admitted, the 19th century was a century of utopia; the 20th and a dawning 21st century is one of heterotopia, in the absence of which dreams dry up, and espionage replaces adventure.342 The prosaic sobriety of the international theater of political life is disturbed with Foucault s meticulous multi-linear analysis of the systems and relations of power, and it is this very analytical-critical gaze of the Foucauldian subject, which prohibits the reality to appear ready-made, the self, conventional, irresponsible, and dogmatic.343 Since, as Jean-Marie Guehenno contends, the democratic associations of the future will be associations of r eason, and at the same time, associations of memory and ambitious cr eations of our freedom, as well as always fragile inheritances of our history,344 the labor of diverse inquiries and interrogation of their rationalities will always implicate, in the process, a h istorical ontology of ourselves which works on our limits and gi ves form to our impatience for liberty.345 This is the very call echoed by the cosmopolitan ethos, whose horizons must also be problematized in order to give dimension to th e arts of self -creation and governance in an era of globalization. 342 Foucault, Michel. 2009. Of Other Spaces in Michael Dehaene and Lieven de Cauter (eds.) Heterotopia and the City. (London: Routledge). Pg. 22. 343 Gasset, Jose Ortega. 1941. History as a System. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company). Pg. 239. 344 Guehenno, Jean-Marie.1999. Lavenir De La Liberte. La Democratie Dans La Mondialisation (Paris: Flammarion). Pg. 150. 345 Foucault, Michel. 1984. What is Enlightenment? in Paul Rabinow (ed.). Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth. (New York: The New Press). Pg. 315-317.
178 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Means without End Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 2000. State of Exception Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005. Alexander, Yonah. International Terrorism: National Regional and Global Perspectives New York: Praeger, 1976. Allen, Barry. "Foucault and Mode rn Political Philosophy" in The Later Foucault: Politics and Philosophy, edited by Jeremy Moss. London: Sage Publications, 1998. Anderson-Gold, Sharon. Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. Arac, Jonathan, ed. After Foucault New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988. Arendt, Hannah. Men in Dark Times New York: Hardcourt Brace & Company, 1968. Responsibility of Judgment New York: Schocken Books, 2003. Aristotle. Politics in Introduction to Aristotle New York: Random House, 1947. Axinn, Sidney, ed. Autonomy and Community Albany: State Univer sity of New York, 1998. Balbus, Isaac. "Disciplining Women" in After Foucault, edited by Jonathon Arac. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988. Balibar, Etienne. We the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Balke, Friedrich. "Derrida and Foucault on Sovereignty German Law Journal 1, no. 1 (2005): 71-85. Barth, John. "The Literature of Replenishment: Postmodernist Fiction." Atlantic Monthly no. January (1980). Bauman, Zygmunt. "The Fall of the Legislator." In Postmodernism: A Reader, edited by Thomas Docherty. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
179 Globalization: The Human Consequences New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Modernity and the Holocaust Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. Beck, Ulrich. What Is Globalization? Cambridge Polity Press, 2000. Benhabib, Seyla. Another Cosmopolitanism Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ed. Identities, Affiliations, and Allegiances Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Bennett, Lance and Entman, Robert. Mediated Politics: Communi cation in the Future of Democracy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Bohman, James. Democracy across Borders: From Demos to Demoi. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007. Bonanate, Luigi. Ethics and International Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. Boyer, Christine M."The Many Mirrors of F oucault and Their Architectural Reflections" in Heterotopia and the City edited by Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter. London/New York: Routledge, 2008. Breckenridge, Carol A.et al. Cosmopolitanism. Durham: Duke University Press, 2000. Brock, Gillian and Brighouse, Harry, ed. The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Brown, Wendy. States of Injury. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Terrorized by War on Terror Washington Post 11 Oct. 2007. Buckley, Sandra. Broken Silence. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Camilleri, Joseph A., ed. The State in Transition. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995. Campbell, David. "Poststructuralism" in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity edited by Tim Dunne et al. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2006. Caputo, John and Yount, Mark, ed. Foucault and the Critique of Institutions University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1993.
180 Carrette, Jeremy, ed. Religion and Culture. New York: Routledge, 1999. Castells, Manuel. The Information Age: Economy, Socie ty, and Culture the Power of Identity Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2000. Chomsky, ed. The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature New York: The New Press, 2006. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De Officiis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Connolly, William E. The Ethos of Pluralization Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1995. Connolly, William E. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Crenshaw, Martha. The Causes of Terrorism. Comparative Politics 13, no. 4 (1981): 379-99. Davis, Darren W. and Silver, Brian D. "Civil Li berties V. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America." American Journal of Political Science 48, no. 1 (2004): 28-46. Dehaene, Michael, and De Cauter, Lieven, eds. Heterotopia and the City London: Routledge, 2008. Deleuze, Gilles. Two Regimes of Madness Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007. Derrida, Jacques. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. New York: Routledge, 2001. Dershowitz, Alan M. The Torture Warra nt: A Response to Professor Strauss. New York Law School Law Review 48 (2003): 275-94. Docherty, Thomas. Postmodernism: A Reader New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Dorsen, Norman. "Foreign Affairs and Civil Liberties." The American Journal of International Law 83, no. 4 (1989): 840-50. Dreyfus, Hubert, L. Being and Power: Heidegger and Foucault. International Journal of Philosophy 4, no. 1 (2004): 1-21. Dumm, Thomas L. Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996.
181 Elden, Jeremy Crampton and Stuart, ed. Space, Knowledge, and Power Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2009. Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "The Poet" in Emerson Essays and Poems New York: Literary Classics, 1996. Etzioni, Amitai. The Monochrome Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Euben, Roxanne. Journeys to the Other Shore Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Faubion, James, ed. Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984 New York: The New Press, 2000. Flood, Christopher. "Some European Thoughts in the Wake of 9/11." South Central Review 19, no. 2/3 (2002): 50-63. Foucault, Michel. The Archeology of Knowledge New York: Pantheon Books, 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge London: Tavistock Publications, 1972. The Birth of Biopolitics New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Body/Power in Power/Knowledge edited by Colin Gordon. Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980. The Care of the Self New York: Vintage Books, 1986. Confronting Governments: Human Rights in The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature. New York: The New Press, 2006. Discipline and Punish New York: Vintage Books, 1977. Dits et Ecrits Paris: Gallimard, 1994. The Ethic of Care for the Se lf as a Practice of Freedom in The Final Foucault edited by James Bernauer and David Ra smussen. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991. Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth New York: The New Press, 1997. Governmentality in Essential Foucault edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: The New Press, 1990.
182 . Governmentality in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality edited by Graham Burchell. Chicago: The Un iversity of Chicago Press, 1991. Hermeneutics of the Subject. New York: Picador, 2005. The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction New York: Vintage Books, 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume Ii: The Use of Pleasure New York: Vintage Books, 1985. Les mailles du pouvoir in Dits et ecrits. Paris: Gallimard, 1994. Of Other Spaces edited by Michie l Dehaene and Lieven De Cauter. London/New York: Routledge, 2008. Omnes Et Singulatim in The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature New York: The New Press, 2006. The Political Technology of Individuals in Technologies of the Self edited by Luther Martin et al. Amherst: Massachusetts University Press, 1988. Power/Knowledge New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. Security, Territory, and Population in Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: The New Press, 1997. Sexual Choice, Sexual Act: An In terview with Michel Foucault. Salmagundi no. 58-59 (1982): 10-24. Sexuality and Solitude in Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: The New Press, 1997. Society Must Be Defended in Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: The New Press, 1997. The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry 8 (1982). Truth and Power in Foucault Reader edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984. Truth and Power in The Essential Foucault edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: The New Press, 1994.
183 Two Lectures in Critique and Power, edited by Michael Kelly. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994. What is Critique in What is Enlightenment? edited by James Schmidt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Fraser, Nancy. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy" in Habermas and the Public Sphere edited by Craig Calhoun. Cambridge The MIT Press, 1992. Transnationalizing th e Public Sphere in Identities, Affiliations, and Allegiances, edited by Seyla Benhabib, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Gasset, Jose Ortega. History as a System New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1941. The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1931. Gelb, Joyce. The Equal Employment Oppor tunity of Law: A Decade of Change for Japanese Women? Law and Policy 22, no. 3,4 (2000): 385-407. Greenhouse, Linda. In a New Climate of Un ity, Justices Face Divisive Issues. The New York Times 2001. Guehenno, Jean-Marie. Lavenir De La Libe rte. La Democratie D ans La Mondialisation Paris: Flammarion, 1999. Habermas, Jurgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contribut ions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1996. The Philosophic Discourse of Modernity Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987. Hall, Ronald and Biersteker, Thomas. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Heater, Derek. World Citizenship and Government: Co smopolitan Ideas in the History of Political Thought New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996. Heidegger, Martin. The Ques tion Concerning Technology in Martin Heidegger Basic Writings, edited by David Farrell Krell. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993. Held, David. Global Transformations Stanford University Press, 1999.
184 Changing Contours of Political Community in Global Democracy: Key Debates edited by Barry Holden. London: Routledge, 2000. Held, Virginia. Taking Sides. Guilford: The Dushkin Publishing Group, 1994. Heller, Kevin. Subjectification and Resistance in Foucault. Substance 25, no. 1 (1996): 78-110. Hewson, Martin and Sinc lair, Timothy J., ed. Approached to Global Governance Theory New York: State University of New York, 1999. Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Holden, Barry, ed. Global Democracy London: Routledge, 2000. Horiuchi, Mitsuki. Women and Their Way of Work. Tokyo Shimbun Graphical Series 577 (2003). Ignatieff, Michael. The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Iyer, Pico. The Global Soul. New York: Vintage Books, 2000. Jenlink, Patrick. Creating Pub lic Spaces and Practiced Places for Democracy, Discourse, and the Emergence of Civil Society. Systemic Practice and Action Research 20, no. 5 (2007): 429-40. Johnson, Chalmers. The Sorrows of Empire New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004. Johnston, Steven. The Truth About Patriotism Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. Kant, Immanuel. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View London: Feffer & Simons, Inc., 1978. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch in Kant: Political Writings edited by H.S. Reiss. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1991. What Is Enlightenment? in Kant: Political Writings edited by H.S. Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Katzenstein, Peter J. Same War: Di fferent Views: Germany, Japan, and Counterterrorism. International Organization 57, no. 4 (2003): 731-60. Keeley, James F. Toward a Foucauldian Analysis of International Regimes. International Organization 44, no. 1 (1990): 83-105.
185 Kelly, Mark. The Political Philosophy of Michel Foucault New York: Routledge, 2009. Kleingeld, Pauline. Six Varieties of Cosmopolitanism in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany. Journal of the History of Ideas 60, no. 3 (1999): 505-24. Kohn, Margaret. Brave New Neighborhoods New York: Routledge, 2004. Foucault and Freemasonry. < http://www.unf.edu/~hkoegler/Postmodern ism/KoeglerDocs/OtherDocs/Kohn.p df >, 2009. Radical Space Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2003. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1991. Lehmbruch, Gerhard. The Institutional Embe dding of Market Economies: The German Model and Its Impact on Japan in The Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism edited by Wolfgang Streeck and Kozo Yamamura. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Lentricchia, Frank. Ariel and the Police: Michel Fouc ault, William James, Wallace Stevens Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988. Linklater, Andrew. Citizenship, Humanit y, and Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions. International Political Science Review 22, no. 3 (2001). Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions in Conceiving Cosmopolitanism edited by Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Lucas, J.R. The Principles of Politics Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. Lyon, David. Surveillance after September 11 Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003. MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory London: Duckworth Press, 1981. Marx, Leo. Neglecting History. Boston Review no. October/November (1994): 17-21. Massey, Doreen. "Power-Geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place" in Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change edited by John Bird et al. London: Routledge, 1993. McGushin, Edward F. Foucault's Askesis Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2007.
186 Milhaupt, Curtis J. et al. Japanese Law in Context: Readings in Society, the Economy, and Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Mill, John Stuart. Considerations on Representative Government. London: Ballantyne Press, 1884. Mills, Walter. The Constitution and the Common Defense New York: The Fund for the Republic, 1959. Mioko, Fujieda. The U.N. Decade for Women and Japan: Tools for Change. Womens Studies International Forum 8, no. 2 (1985): 121-23. Molony, Barbara. Japan's 1986 Equal Employ ment Opportunity Law and the Changing Discourse on Gender. Signs 20, no. 2 (1995): 268-302. Morgenthau, Hans. Six Principles of Political Realism in Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations edited by Phil Williams. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006. Morrisey, James. Migration, Resettlement, and Refugeeism: Issues in Medical Anthropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15, no. 1 (1983). Mounier, Emmanuel. Personalism Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1952. Mulholland, Leslie A. Kant's System of Rights New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. Munro, Vanessa E. Legal Feminism and Foucault a Critique of the Expulsion of Law. Journal of Law and Society 28, no. 4 (2001): 546-67. Neuman, Iver and Sending, Ole Jacob. Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power. International Studies Quarterly 50, no. 3 (2006). Nietzsche, Friedrich. Ecce Homo New York: Vintage Books, 1967. Nussbaum, Martha. Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. Journal of Political Philosophy 5 (1997). Nussbaum, Martha C. For Love of Country? Boston: Beacon Press, 2002. Ojeili, Chamsy. Critical Theories of Globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Oksala, Johanna. Foucault on Freedom Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
187 Olssen, Mark. Toward a Global Thin Community Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2009. Oneck, Joseph. Critique. Journal of Law and Religion 19, no. 1 (2003/2004): 85-87. O'Neill, Onora. Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Pickett, Brent. On the Use and Abuse of Foucault for Politics. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2005. Plug, Jan. Citizens of Modernity from a Cosmopolitan Point of View. The New Centennial Review 1(1). (2001). Pollock, Sheldon, et al. Cosmopolitanism Durham: Duke University Press, 2002. Rabinow, Paul, ed. The Foucault Reader New York: Pantheon Books, 1984. Radford Robert T. Cicero: A Study in the Origins of Republican Philosophy. Kenilworth: Rodopi, 2002. Rajchman, John. Foreword in The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature New York: The New Press, 2006. Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby. A Parallel Globa lization of Terror': 9-11, Security and Globalization. Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 37, no. 3 (2002): 323-49. Ricoeur, Paul. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970. Rosch, Joel. Institutiona lizing Mediation: The Evolution of the Civil Liberties Bureau in Japan. Law and Society Review 21, no. 2 (1987): 243-66. Rossi, Phillip J. "Public Argument and Social Responsibility" in Autonomy and Community edited by Sidney Axinn. Albany: St ate University of New York Press, 1998. Roth, Kenneth. The Law of War in the War on Terror. Foreign Affairs (2004). Russell, Jago. Terrorism Pre-Charge Detention Comparative Study. The National Council for Civil Liberties, 2007. Russet, R.L. Merrit and Bruce M. From National Development to Global Community London: George Allen and Urwin, 1981.
188 Sarup, Madan. Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1993. Schaik, Martin von and Oskar Macel, Oscar ed. Exit Utopia Munich: Prestel, 2005. Schattle, Hans. Democracy across Borders: Book Review. Perspectives on Politics 7, no. 2 (2009). Schmidt, James, ed. What Is Enlightenment? Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Schofield, Malcolm. The Stoic Idea of the City Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Scholte, Jan. Globalization New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. Schumann, Martin H. The Global Trap: Globalization and the Assault on Democracy and Prosperity London: Zed Books, 1997. Selby, Jan. Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Li beral Governance, and the Limits of Foucauldian IR. International Relations 3, no. 21 (2007): 324-45. Shirai, Atushi. Nationalism and Feminism in Yukichi Fukuzawa, the Most Influential Leader of Enlightenment in Modern Japan. History of European Ideas 15, no. 46 (1992): 687-93. Taylor, Charles. Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Tehranian, Majid. Worlds Apart: Human Security and Global Governance. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1999. Toulmin, Stephen. Cosmopolis Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Villa, Dana. Socratic Citizenship Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Virilio, Paul. Speed and Politics. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007. Walton, Doug. Revitalizing the Pu blic Sphere: The Current Sy stem of Discourse and the Need for Participative Design of Social Action. Systemic Practice and Action Research 20, no. 5 (2007): 369-86. Walzer, Michael. The Company of Critics: Social Critic ism and Political Commitment in the Twentieth Century London: Peter Haben, 1989.
189 The Concept of Civil Society in Toward a Global Civil Society edited by Michael Walzer. Providence: Berhahan Books, 1995. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge, 1992. Williams, Phil, ed. Classic Readings and Contemporar y Debates in International Relations 2006. Yamamoto, Yutaka. A Morality Based on Trust: Some Reflections on Japanese Morality. Philosophy East and West 40, no. 4 (1990): 451-69. Yelvington, Kevin A. Producing Power. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995. Yount, Mark. The Normalizing Powers of Affirmative Action. In Foucault and the Critique of Institutions, edited by John Caputo et al. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Zenghelis, E. Text and Architectur e: Architecture as Text in Exit Utopia edited by Martin van Schaik and Oskar M acel. Munich: Prestel, 2005. Reports and on-line Resources The Balance between Freedom and Security within the E.U." in E.U. CFR-CDF : State Watch, 2003. Global Trends Report on Refugees. The United Nations Refugee Agency, 2007. Patterns of Global Terrorism. The Unite d States Department of State, 2004. Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. New York: United Nations, 2003. Towards a Democratic Res ponse. Club de Madrid, 2005. U.N. World Summit Outcome. 2005. War in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2005.
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200385Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002064181
007 cr bnu|||uuuuu
008 100323s2009 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003094
Transdiscursive cosmopolitanism :
b Foucauldian freedom, subjectivity, and the power of resistance
h [electronic resource] /
by Joanna K. Rozpedowski.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 189 pages.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: The following project will consist in the study and examination of the concepts and theories that lie in the domain of political theory. The enquiry into the dimensions and complexities of the socio-political organization and the political substance of individual human agents will be conducted with the intellectual assistance of the postmodernist turn of thought. I will interrogate and develop a specifically Foucauldian reading of international politics and the emerging global world order as well as situate Foucault's insights and theorizing in a cosmopolitan framework, which calls for a progressive re-conceptualization of the dimensions of power and the modalities of state-citizen autonomy, and sovereignty.The thesis will proceed through five stages of analysis: (i) examination of freedom and self-creation as foundational and fundamental to the cosmopolitan citizenship; (ii) investigation of governmentality, power and the role of personal and political resistance in shaping new horizons of political order (iii) development of a structural approach to cosmopolitan democracy; enhanced by (iv) decoupling of identity from citizenship, and prompted by (v) an inquiry into and recalibration of the political space and sovereignty of states and political agents. I will contend for a conception of citizenship, illuminated by a postmodernist lens of analysis, set in a cosmopolitan framework and premised upon a notion of a layered and constituted dialectic, as the most adroit model for a re-articulation of the spirit of democratic qua cosmopolitan citizenship in the world of increasingly displaced loyalties, porous identities, and atrophied civic commitments.The study aims to inquire into the possibilities of meaningfully addressing the fundamental question in political theory, that of: how is the state to be organized in an era of globalization accompanied by an unprecedented compression of space and time, and re-spatialization of socio-economic and political relations. The thesis will conclude with a synthesis of proposed theoretical assumptions that are to serve as the structural basis and philosophical guidance for the institutionalization of measures conducive to the enactment and perpetuation of cosmopolitan consciousness and cosmopolitical practice.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Advisor: Michael T. Gibbons, Ph.D.
x Political Science
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.