Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Marc Djaballah, Foucault, trente ans après, Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 2016/1 (Tome 141)

Résumé

Français

Revue critique d’un ensemble d’ouvrages éditant des textes de Michel Foucault (1926-1984) ou portant sur son oeuvre, parus en français à l’occasion du trentième anniversaire de sa mort.

English
Michel Foucault after Thirty Years
Critical review of a few books either compiling texts by Michel Foucault (1926-1984) or studying his work, published in French on the occasion of the 30th celebration of his death.

Jodi Sita and Marco Amati, The Panopticons are coming! And they’ll know when we think the grass is greener, The Conversation, August 22, 2016

Eye-tracking technology helps us understand how people interact with their environment. This can improve policy and design, but can also be a tool for surveillance and control.

Extract

[…]we asked park users in the City of Melbourne to view films of walks.

We used eye tracking – a technology that allows us to look deeply into exactly what you are looking at or paying attention to. Eye trackers follow your gaze as you look naturally around a scene. We see where your eye dwells and what things you skip over.

[…]

French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that a panopticon ably maintains social and power imbalances while using that most passive method of control: observation. As governments and private corporations increasingly use eye-tracking data, everyone can act as observers, recorders and the observed – whether they intended to or not.

In this sense we could argue that the increasing development of eye tracking could usher in the age of the mass panopticon. Yet, the relationship between a selfie society, an “all-seeing, all-knowing” culture and the future of eye tracking in open domains remains to be “seen”.

Gildas Salmon Foucault et la généalogie de la sociologie Archives de Philosophie, 2016/1 (Tome 79)

Résumé

Français

Quarante ans après Surveiller et punir, La Société punitive montre qu’avec le concept de discipline, Foucault entendait proposer une généalogie de la sociologie, et en particulier du programme durkheimien. Refusant de faire du droit la mise en forme d’exigences immanentes à la conscience collective, il traite la moralisation de la pénalité comme une stratégie mise en place au XIXe par une bourgeoisie soucieuse de se prémunir contre les nouveaux illégalismes suscités par les transformations de la propriété capitaliste. En prenant pour fil conducteur la confrontation avec l’évolutionnisme sociologique qui sous-tend l’histoire de la pénalité retracée par Foucault, cet article se propose de mettre en évidence les gains obtenus au moyen de la méthode archéologique de dissolution des continuités historiques, mais aussi les apories que rencontre la généalogie pour rendre compte de la formation des sujets politiques modernes non plus à partir des formes de solidarité, mais à partir du principe d’une guerre civile sous-jacente à la société.

Mots clés
Discipline Durkheim Foucault Généalogie Guerre civile Modernité Pénalité Sociologie

English
Forty years after Discipline and Punish, The Punitive Society reveals that with the concept of discipline, Foucault intended to propose a genealogy of sociology – and especially of the durkheimian program. Refusing to regard law as an expression of immanent demands of the collective consciousness, he treats the moralization of the penalty as a strategy put in place in the nineteenth century by a bourgeoisie anxious to guard against new illegalisms raised by the transformations capitalist property. Taking as a core theme the confrontation with the sociological evolutionism underlying the history of penalty traced by Foucault, this article aims to highlight the benefits obtained by the archaeological method of the dissolution of historical continuities. It underscores, however, the paradoxes facing genealogy to account for the formation of modern political subjects on the principle of a civil war underlying society, rather than from the social forms of solidarity.

Mots-clés (en)
Civil War Discipline Durkheim Foucault Genealogy Modernity Penalty Sociology

skornickiArnault Skornicki,La grande soif de l’etat. Michel Foucault avec les sciences sociales, Les Prairies Ordinaires, 2016.
288 pages, 20 €
ISBN 978-2-35096-116-3

Michel Foucault n’est pas réputé être un théoricien de l’État, mais un penseur du pouvoir partout où il se trouve (dans l’école, la prison, la caserne, l’usine, l’hôpital). Et pourtant, il apparaît qu’il s’était lancé dans une grande généalogie de l’État moderne. Cet ouvrage se propose de dissiper ce paradoxe en démontrant deux choses.

Oui, il existe bel et bien une théorie foucaldienne de l’État : elle n’est ni systématique ni achevée, mais on peut la reconstituer tant à partir de la fabuleuse richesse des textes de Foucault qu’en le faisant dialoguer avec de grandes entreprises voisines, venues de la philosophie et des sciences sociales : le marxisme, Weber, Elias et Bourdieu, entre autres.

Oui, la généalogie est compatible avec la sociologie. Les concepts de biopolitique, discipline, pastorale, gouvernementalité ne sont pas autre chose que des outils pour saisir l’étatisation des rapports de pouvoir, c’est-à-dire les processus de monopolisation politique qui, du Moyen Âge à nos jours, sont au principe de nos prétendus Léviathans en Europe. L’État ? Non pas le plus froid de tous les monstres froids, ni seulement un grand appareil répressif, mais l’effet et l’opérateur de gouvernementalités multiples, de rationalités hétérogènes, de dispositifs variés.

Ceci n’est pas un nouveau livre sur Foucault. C’est un livre sur l’État et la possibilité toujours vivante d’en faire une théorie, retrempée dans l’eau acide de la généalogie.

Frieder Vogelmann, Reading Practices: How to read Foucault?, Krisis, Journal for Contemporary Philosophy Issue 2, 2016

Review of: Daniel Zamora and Michael Z. Behrent, Eds. (2016), Foucault and Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press, 152 pages; and Mitchel Dean and Kaspar Villadsen (2016), State Phobia and Civil Society. The Political Legacy of Michel Foucault. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 196 pages.

Does Foucault have sympathies for neoliberalism? Is his analysis of it therefore rather an “apology” (Becker, Ewald and Harcourt 2012: 4) than a critique? Is his theoretical and political antistatism complicit in the neoliberal dismantling of the welfare state? Such are the questions that have sparked a lively discussion in the last year, mostly on various web blogs[1] but also in journals (Hansen 2015) – and in books, as the two under review here.

Set off by Daniel Zamora’s interview with the strange title “Can We Criticize Foucault?” in the journal Ballast (an English translation appeared in Jacobin),[2] the bold and sweeping accusations that not only had Foucault himself been at least uncritical, if not supportive of neoliberalism, but also that “Foucault scholasticism” (Behrent 2016 [2014]: 54) is therefore implicated in the neoliberal strategy and that this constitutes Foucault’s “political legacy”, (Dean and Villadsen 2016) seem to have touched a sensitive spot within current Foucaultian scholarship. Although Johanna Oksala (2015) is fundamentally right in her assessment that “this debate itself seems misguided,”[3] there is something to learn from this misguided debate because it brings out two questions mostly left unattended by all its participants (but see Erlenbusch 2015): How do weread Foucault? And how does Foucault read (neoliberals like Gary Becker, for example)? By way of reviewing first the English edition of Daniel Zamora’s Critiquer Foucault (2014), and second Mitchell Dean’s and Kaspar Villadsen’s monograph State Phobia and Civil Society (2016), I will argue that the questions of how we read Foucault and how Foucault reads are not sufficiently addressed.

read more

Ron Purser and Edwin Ng, Cutting Through the Corporate Mindfulness Hype, Part One Huffington Post, March 22, 2016

Extract
Michel Foucault made an astute observation: “You know the difference between a real science and a pseudoscience? A real science recognizes and accepts its own history without feeling attacked.” Hopefully, management science scholar-practitioners promoting corporate mindfulness research would contemplate on this statement.

Ron Purser and Edwin Ng, Mindfulness and Self-Care: Why Should I Care? Part Two, Huffington Post, April 6 2016

Extract

Though we are skeptical about celebratory claims, we actually do hope that mindfulness might become a disruptive technology to transform prevailing systems. However, we insist on the importance of collective attentiveness towards the workings of power, which have shaped the dominant individualistic-therapeutic approach to mindfulness and the stresses we face in our private and public lives.

I’d like to clarify the notion of governmentality that guides our work. The blended concept of govern-mentality derives from the work of Michel Foucault. Governmentality does not refer only to the processes of the state. Rather, to think about governmentality is to explore how diverse types of knowledge, expertise, and practices are developed to guide people’s voluntary conduct.

Consider, for instance, the contemporary interest in “wellness“. We learn about the research conducted by medical institutions on exercising or meditation. This knowledge filters through the advice we find in the media. With the help of a trained expert or through our independent efforts, we might cultivate a daily practice of jogging or yoga or mindfulness. Companies and institutions might incorporate a wellness program into their operations.

To put it another way, governmentality plays out formally and informally as the everyday “rules of the game” for responsible conduct. Under the conditions of neoliberal capitalism, the logics of governmentality are imbued with the moral rhetoric of “free choice” and are geared towards self-optimizing, consumerist and entrepreneurial ends.

Ron Purser, Ph.D.. is Professor of Management at San Francisco State University. His article, “Beyond McMindfulness,” in the Huffington Post went viral in 2013.
Edwin Ng, Ph.D., is an author and cultural theorist currently based in Australia. He has written commentaries on the cultural translation of Buddhism and mindfulness for Salon.com and the Buddhist Peace Fellowship.

Robin Rymarczuk, The Heterotopia of Facebook, Philosophy Now, Issue 107, August/September 2016

The other spaces and faces of Michel Foucault by Alex Lawrence Foucault images © Alex Lawrence 2015 Please visit preposterous.carbonmade.com

The other spaces and faces of Michel Foucault by Alex Lawrence
Foucault images © Alex Lawrence 2015 Please visit preposterous.carbonmade.com

Robin Rymarczuk is Michel Foucault’s ‘friend’.

Facebook was founded on February 4, 2004, by Mark Zuckerberg and his Harvard University room-mates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. What started out as an on-campus online ‘hot or not’ tool resulted in the registration of a billion users by 2012. Its rapid growth and perpetually expanding corporate power, as well as its part in the ‘digital privacy’ controversy, has attracted many seeking to explain its remarkable popularity as well as peoples’ discontent with it. Although interesting and important, these studies focus predominantly on what users do on Facebook, leaving underexposed what Facebook does to the user.

Facebook possesses properties that can be construed not just in terms of globalized online networks, but also in terms of a type of space. In these terms, Facebook is a world within the world that attracts or repels people by its geography as much as by its social life. So what kind of space is Facebook? I claim that it’s what philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984) ingeniously called “un espace autre” – “an other space”; better known as a heterotopia. As I will elaborate, understanding Facebook as a heterotopic space offers a style of critical thinking that invites moral reflection on digital culture and its relation to other spaces in our everyday lives.

Read more

%d bloggers like this: