135
14
135 I. In a 1979 memo about governmentality, Michel Foucault establishes that the analysis of governmentality as a “singular universality” implies that everything is political. 1 Foucault explains his conclusion by “de-construct- ing” the phrase “everything is political.” This leads to the set of questions that he introduces when he talks about the terms biopolitics and biopower, whose meaning provides a new perspective regarding the history and development that shaped modern forms of government. I will character- ize these problems in detail before I return back to the aforementioned passage. These problems pertain to the question of the status of the political raised by the term “biopolitics,” which leads us to the center of the question posed in the passage. Foucault coined the term “biopolitics” in the 1970s in order to describe a technology of power developed in the eighteenth century that “constitutes masses”; that is, it does not address individuals but rather directs itself toward a collection of living beings. Biopolitics is, * Translated from the German by Jennifer Bierich and David Pan. 1. This refers to a manuscript without a title, a bundle of eleven numbered pages. The lines quoted here were transcribed and reproduced in the “Situierung der Vorlesungen” by the publisher of the lectures from 1978–79, Michel Sennelart. According to Sennelart, the manuscript is difficult to understand, and therefore he only published this section. Michael Sennelart, “Situierung der Vorlesungen,” in Michel Foucault, Die Geburt der Biopolitik: Vorlesung am Collège de France 1978–1979, vol. 2 of Geschichte der Gouvernementalität (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2004), pp. 486f. Astrid Deuber-Mankowsky Nothing is Political, Everything Can Be Politicized: On the Concept of the Political in Michel Foucault and Carl Schmitt * Telos 142 (Spring 2008): 135–61. www.telospress.com
Transcript of 135
135
I.
In a
197
9 m
emo
ab
ou
t g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty,
Mic
hel
Fo
uca
ult
est
abli
shes
th
at
the
anal
ysi
s o
f g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty a
s a
“sin
gu
lar
un
iver
sali
ty”
imp
lies
th
at
ever
yth
ing
is
po
liti
cal.
1 F
ou
cau
lt e
xp
lain
s his
co
ncl
usi
on
by
“d
e-co
nst
ruct
-
ing
” th
e p
hra
se “
ever
yth
ing
is
po
liti
cal.
” T
his
lea
ds
to t
he
set
of
qu
esti
on
s
that
he
intr
od
uce
s w
hen
he
talk
s ab
ou
t th
e te
rms
bio
po
liti
cs a
nd
bio
po
wer
,
wh
ose
mea
nin
g p
rov
ides
a n
ew p
ersp
ecti
ve
reg
ard
ing
th
e h
isto
ry a
nd
dev
elop
men
t th
at s
hap
ed m
od
ern
fo
rms
of
go
ver
nm
ent.
I w
ill
char
acte
r-
ize
thes
e p
rob
lem
s in
det
ail
bef
ore
I r
eturn
bac
k t
o t
he
afo
rem
enti
on
ed
pas
sage.
Thes
e p
rob
lem
s p
erta
in t
o t
he
qu
esti
on
of
the
stat
us
of
the
po
liti
cal
rais
ed b
y th
e te
rm “
bio
po
liti
cs,”
wh
ich
lea
ds
us
to th
e ce
nte
r o
f th
e q
ues
tio
n
po
sed
in
th
e p
assa
ge.
Fo
uca
ult
co
ined
th
e te
rm “
bio
po
liti
cs”
in t
he
19
70
s
in o
rder
to
des
crib
e a
tech
no
log
y o
f p
ow
er d
evel
op
ed i
n t
he
eig
hte
enth
cen
tury
th
at “
con
stit
ute
s m
asse
s”;
that
is,
it
do
es n
ot
add
ress
in
div
idu
als
bu
t ra
ther
dir
ects
its
elf
tow
ard
a c
oll
ecti
on o
f li
vin
g b
ein
gs.
Bio
po
liti
cs i
s,
* T
ransl
ated
fro
m t
he
Ger
man
by J
ennif
er B
ieri
ch a
nd D
avid
Pan
.
1.
This
ref
ers
to a
man
usc
rip
t w
ithout a
titl
e, a
bundle
of
elev
en n
um
ber
ed p
ages
. The
lines
quote
d h
ere
wer
e tr
ansc
rib
ed a
nd r
epro
duce
d i
n t
he
“Sit
uie
rung d
er V
orl
esungen
” b
y
the
pub
lish
er o
f th
e le
cture
s fr
om
1978
–79,
Mic
hel
Sen
nel
art.
Acc
ord
ing t
o S
ennel
art,
the
man
usc
rip
t is
dif
ficu
lt t
o u
nder
stan
d, an
d t
her
efore
he
only
pub
lish
ed t
his
sec
tion. M
ichae
l
Sen
nel
art,
“S
ituie
rung d
er V
orl
esungen
,” i
n M
ichel
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t de
r B
iopo
liti
k:
Vorl
esun
g am
Col
lège
de
Fra
nce
1978
–197
9, v
ol.
2 o
f G
esch
icht
e de
r G
ouve
rnem
enta
litä
t (F
rankfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Suhrk
amp
, 2004),
pp
. 486f.
Ast
rid
Deu
ber
-Man
ko
wsk
y
Not
hing
is P
olit
ical
,E
very
thin
g C
an B
e P
olit
iciz
ed:
On
the
Con
cept
of t
he P
olit
ical
in
Mic
hel F
ouca
ult a
nd C
arl S
chm
itt*
Telo
s 142 (
Sp
ring 2
008):
135
–61
.
ww
w.t
elosp
ress
.com
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
61
To
po
liti
cize
mea
ns
to lea
d b
iop
oli
tics
in
to h
isto
ry. A
nd
th
is is,
as
Fo
uca
ult
con
tin
ues
,
imp
laca
bly
lin
ked
to
an
oth
er p
rin
cip
le a
cco
rdin
g to
wh
ich
th
e p
ow
er th
at
on
e p
erso
n e
xer
cise
s o
ver
an
oth
er i
s al
way
s d
ang
ero
us.
I d
o n
ot
say
th
at
po
wer
is
in i
ts e
ssen
ce a
n e
vil
. I
say
th
at i
t is
in
its
mec
han
ism
s en
dle
ss
(wh
ich
do
es n
ot
mea
n,
ho
wev
er,
that
it
is a
ll-p
ow
erfu
l, o
n t
he
con
trar
y).
Th
e ru
les
for
lim
itin
g p
ow
er c
ann
ot b
e to
o s
tric
t. T
he
un
iver
sal p
rin
cip
les
that
den
y i
t op
po
rtu
nit
ies
that
it
wo
uld
tak
e ad
van
tag
e o
f ca
nn
ot
be
too
stri
ng
ent.
Po
wer
mu
st a
lway
s b
e op
po
sed
by
un
tran
sgre
ssib
le l
aws
and
un
lim
ited
rig
hts
.11
3
113.
Ibid
.
136
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
as F
ou
cau
lt d
efin
ed i
t in
a s
um
mar
y o
f le
ctu
res
fro
m 1
97
9,
in t
he
seco
nd
par
t o
f th
e H
isto
ry o
f G
over
nmen
tali
ty,
wit
h t
he
sub
titl
e “T
he
Bir
th o
f
Bio
po
liti
cs,”
“th
e w
ay t
hat
on
e h
as t
ried
sin
ce t
he
eig
hte
enth
cen
tury
to
rati
on
aliz
e th
e p
rob
lem
s th
at w
ere
pose
d t
o g
ov
ern
men
tal
pra
ctic
e b
y t
he
tota
lity
of
livin
g b
ein
gs
con
stit
ute
d a
s a
pop
ula
tio
n;
hea
lth
, h
yg
ien
e, b
irth
-
rate
, lif
esp
an, r
aces
.”2 I
n s
um
mar
y, b
iop
oli
tics
is
the
enti
rety
of
dis
cip
lin
ary
tech
niq
ues
an
d r
egu
lato
ry m
eth
od
s th
at o
pti
miz
e th
e p
op
ula
tio
n w
hil
e at
the
sam
e ti
me
const
itu
tin
g it as
a n
ew r
eali
ty.3
An
d w
hat
is
bio
po
wer
? F
ou
-
cault
des
crib
es b
iop
ow
er a
s th
e te
chno
log
y t
hat
, o
n t
he
on
e h
and
, re
fers
to
the
dis
cip
lin
e o
f th
e b
od
y w
hil
e, o
n t
he
oth
er h
and,
refe
rs t
o t
he
rule
ov
er
this
new
en
tire
ty o
f th
e p
op
ula
tio
n c
on
stit
ute
d b
y s
pec
ific
mec
han
ism
s o
f
regula
tion
and
know
led
ge.
In
th
is c
on
tex
t, F
ou
cau
lt d
iscu
sses
a t
ech
no
l-
ogy o
f p
ow
er d
irec
ted
at
“bod
ily
cap
abil
itie
s” a
nd
th
e “p
roce
sses
of
life
.”4
If b
iop
oli
tics
an
d b
iop
ow
er a
re b
ased
on
tec
hnic
al a
nd
sy
stem
-th
eore
tica
l
term
s, s
uch
as
rati
on
aliz
atio
n,
reg
ula
tio
n,
dis
cip
lin
e, g
ov
ern
ance
, st
an-
dar
diz
atio
n,
app
arat
us,
an
d h
om
eost
asis
, th
en t
he
qu
esti
on
ari
ses
of
ho
w
bio
po
wer
and
bio
po
liti
cs a
re t
o b
e dif
fere
nti
ated
fro
m o
ne
ano
ther
,5 a
nd
,
more
im
po
rtan
tly,
if
it i
s ap
pro
pri
ate
in t
his
co
nte
xt
to u
se t
he
no
tio
n o
f
poli
tics
at
all,
at
leas
t w
hen
on
e li
nks
the
conce
pt
of
po
liti
cs t
o q
ues
tio
ns
of
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g,
wil
l, s
elf-
det
erm
inat
ion
, an
d p
ub
lic
inte
rest
,6 a
s w
ell
2.
Pau
l R
abin
ow
and N
ikola
s R
ose
, ed
s., T
he E
ssen
tial
Fou
caul
t: S
elec
tion
s fr
om th
e E
ssen
tial
Wor
ks o
f Fou
caul
t, 19
54–1
984
(New
York
: T
he
New
Pre
ss, 2003),
p. 202.
3.
Cf.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, Si
cher
heit
, Ter
rito
rium
, Bev
ölke
rung
: Vo
rles
ung
am C
ollè
ge
de F
ranc
e 19
77-1
978,
vol.
1 o
f G
esch
icht
e de
r G
ouve
rnem
enta
litä
t (F
rankfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Suhrk
amp
, 2004),
p.
43. A
pop
ula
tion o
rigin
ates
wher
e th
e m
ilie
u b
ecom
es a
det
erm
inan
t
of
nat
ure
.
4.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, T
he H
isto
ry o
f Se
xual
ity,
vol.
1,
An
Intr
oduc
tion
, tr
ans.
Rob
ert
Hurl
ey (
New
York
: V
inta
ge
Books,
1980),
p. 139.
5.
Pet
ra G
ehri
g r
efer
s to
bio
poli
tics
as
a co
nce
pt
that
is
“more
phen
om
enolo
gic
al,”
“nar
row
er,”
and “
less
wel
l-dif
fere
nti
ated
” th
an the
idea
of
bio
pow
er.”
Pet
ra G
ehri
g, W
as is
t B
iom
acht
: Vo
m z
wei
felh
afte
n M
ehrw
ert
des
Leb
ens
(Fra
nkfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Cam
pus,
2004),
p.
14.
As
a re
sult
, sh
e p
refe
rs t
he
term
bio
pow
er a
s th
e m
ore
anal
yti
c ca
tegory
. M
arti
n
Sti
ngel
in p
oin
ts o
ut
that
Fouca
ult
him
self
did
not
pro
per
ly d
isti
nguis
h b
etw
een t
he
term
s
and s
ugges
ts t
hat
bio
poli
tics
should
be
rese
rved
for
the
“pow
er o
f re
sist
ance
and t
he
free
-
dom
of
the
indiv
idual
” to
“re
sist
the
dem
ands
of
the
pow
er-k
now
ledge
com
ple
x t
hro
ugh a
self
-det
erm
inat
ion t
hat
is
dif
fere
nt
from
the
one
that
is
bei
ng i
mp
ose
d.”
Mar
tin S
tingel
in,
“Ein
leit
ung:
Bio
poli
tik u
nd R
assi
smus,
” in
Bio
poli
tik
und
Ras
sism
us (
Fra
nkfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Dem
s, 2
003),
pp
. 7–25;
her
e, p
p. 15f.
6.
Fouca
ult
anal
yze
s th
e co
nce
pt
of
inte
rest
as
a fo
rm o
f th
e p
ub
lic
wil
l w
ithin
the
conte
xt
of
the
dev
elop
men
t of
the
hom
o oe
cono
mic
us.
It i
s im
port
ant
that
the
subje
ct o
f
pub
lic
inte
rest
, as
he
wri
tes,
has
to d
o w
ith t
he
subje
ct o
f a
“more
or
less
puri
fied
inte
rest
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
37
as t
o t
he
qu
esti
on
of
agen
ts a
nd
th
e so
ver
eig
n.
Wh
at F
ou
cau
lt s
eem
s to
pre
sent
wit
h h
is a
nal
ysi
s o
f b
iop
ow
er a
s th
e te
chn
olo
gy
of
po
wer
acc
ruin
g
to t
he
mo
der
n s
tate
is,
to
pu
t it
blu
ntl
y, n
oth
ing
les
s th
an t
he
mea
nin
g o
f
the
po
liti
cal,
en
com
pas
sed
by
th
e co
nce
pts
of
the
wil
l, t
he
sov
erei
gn
, an
d
the
dec
isio
n. T
his
is,
at fi
rst,
all
th
e m
ore
jar
rin
g b
ecau
se th
e co
nce
pt o
f th
e
po
liti
cal,
in
in
terp
lay
wit
h n
oti
on
s o
f p
ub
lic
sph
ere
and
cri
tiq
ue,
pre
sen
ts a
his
tori
cal
acco
mp
anim
ent
to t
he
his
tory
of
the
mo
der
n s
tate
.
Now
th
is c
risi
s o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l in
Fo
uca
ult
’s a
nal
ysi
s o
f b
iop
ow
er i
s
con
nec
ted
to
th
e cr
isis
in
to w
hic
h t
he
emer
gen
ce o
f b
iop
ow
er h
as d
is-
pla
ced t
he
sov
erei
gn
an
d t
he
enti
re a
rea
of
the
leg
al.
Th
e w
ell-
kn
ow
n
thes
is,
acco
rdin
g t
o w
hic
h s
ov
erei
gn
po
wer
has
bee
n d
isp
lace
d b
y b
io-
po
wer
,7 c
on
stit
ute
s o
nly
on
e si
de
of
the
sto
ry.
Th
e fl
ip s
ide
con
sist
s o
f a
fun
dam
enta
l ch
ang
e in
th
e re
lati
on
ship
of
his
tory
to
lif
e th
at a
cco
mp
anie
s
the
imp
lem
enta
tio
n o
f b
iop
ow
er.
Mo
der
n m
an i
s, a
s F
ou
cau
lt w
rite
s, n
o
lon
ger
a “
liv
ing
an
imal
” th
at i
s ca
pab
le o
f a
po
liti
cal
exis
ten
ce,
bu
t ra
ther
an “
‘anim
al’
wh
ose
lif
e as
a l
ivin
g b
ein
g i
s at
sta
ke
in i
ts p
oli
tics
.”8 W
hat
do
es t
his
mea
n?
It m
ean
s th
at t
he
dev
elop
men
t o
f k
no
wle
dg
e ab
ou
t li
fe,
the
imp
rov
emen
t o
f ag
ricu
ltu
ral
tech
niq
ues
, th
e ob
serv
atio
ns
and
mea
-
sure
men
ts o
f th
e li
vin
g,
and
th
e u
se o
f st
atis
tics
an
d p
rob
abil
ity
hav
e le
d
to t
he
resu
lt t
hat
lif
e h
as b
eco
me
man
ipu
lab
le a
nd
th
at t
he
op
tim
izat
ion
of
this
man
ipu
lab
ilit
y o
f li
fe h
as b
eco
me
the
ob
ject
of
po
liti
cs. A
s F
ou
cau
lt
tho
roug
hly
dis
cuss
ed i
n h
is l
ectu
res
on
th
e h
isto
ry o
f g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty,
po
liti
cs h
as b
een
tra
nsf
orm
ed i
nto
po
liti
cal
eco
no
my.
Th
e b
lurr
ing
of
the
div
isio
n b
etw
een
th
e sp
ace
of
eco
no
my—
as t
he
spac
e w
her
e re
pro
du
ctio
n
was
man
aged
—an
d t
he
spac
e o
f p
oli
tics
, as
it
exis
ted
in
th
e an
cien
t po
lis,
is b
oth
th
e ex
pre
ssio
n a
nd
th
e fl
ip s
ide
of
the
pro
cess
in
wh
ich
th
e li
fe o
f
the
hu
man
, u
nd
erst
oo
d i
n a
un
iver
sal
and a
bst
ract
way
as
a li
vin
g b
ein
g,
has
bec
om
e th
e obje
ct o
f p
oli
tics
.
that
has
bec
om
e ca
lcula
ting a
nd r
atio
nal
ized
.” F
ouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 375.
For
Fouca
ult
the
conce
pt
of
the
“pub
lic
inte
rest
” is
to b
e under
stood w
ithin
the
conte
xt
of
uti
lita
rian
ism
and the
idea
of
the
calc
ula
bil
ity o
f des
ired
goods
and ther
efore
bel
ongs
to the
bio
poli
tica
l ap
par
atus.
The
acti
on o
f th
e su
bje
ct o
f in
tere
sts—
as o
pp
ose
d t
o t
he
acti
on o
f
the
legal
subje
ct—
does
not
occ
ur
wit
hin
the
dia
lect
ic o
f re
nunci
atio
n,
tran
scen
den
ce,
and
an a
rbit
rary
com
mit
men
t to
the
contr
act,
but
rath
er u
nder
the
sign o
f an
inte
nsi
fica
tion o
f
inte
rest
.
7.
This
pro
cess
has
to d
o w
ith t
he
tran
sform
atio
n o
f th
e le
gal
mec
han
ism
and t
he
mec
han
ism
for
dis
cip
line.
As
Fouca
ult
str
esse
s, t
he
thre
e re
gim
es o
f p
ow
er d
o n
ot
sup
er-
sede
each
oth
er i
n s
tages
, b
ut
rath
er p
resu
pp
ose
eac
h o
ther
and a
re i
nte
rwoven
wit
h e
ach
oth
er. C
f. F
ouca
ult
, Si
cher
heit
, Ter
rito
rium
, Bev
ölke
rung
, p
. 26.
8.
Fouca
ult
, T
he H
isto
ry o
f Sex
uali
ty, 1:1
43.
160
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
Fo
r F
ouca
ult
, th
e p
oli
tica
l o
rig
inat
es i
n t
he
con
fro
nta
tio
n b
etw
een
var
yin
g g
over
nm
enta
liti
es,
var
yin
g f
orm
s o
f th
e ar
t o
f g
ov
ern
ance
, to
whic
h t
he
art
of
de-
sub
ject
ivat
ion
an
d t
he
art
of
self
-go
ver
nm
ent
also
bel
on
g.1
10 H
is o
wn
po
liti
cal
eng
agem
ent
was
car
ried
ou
t u
nd
er t
he
sig
n o
f
this
art
of
de-
subje
ctiv
atio
n.1
11 I
t in
volv
ed a
co
nsi
sten
t en
gag
emen
t in
th
e
rights
of
the
go
ver
ned
, an
en
gag
emen
t fo
r th
e ri
gh
t o
f d
e-su
bje
ctiv
atio
n,
wit
hin
an
in
tern
atio
nal
or
glo
bal
sp
ace.
He
thu
s def
end
ed h
is s
upp
ort
fo
r
the
Iran
ian
rev
olu
tio
n—
up
on
wh
ich
he
com
men
ted
in
a s
erie
s o
f in
tell
ec-
tual
rep
ort
ages
for
the
Cor
rier
e de
lla
Sera
—in
a M
ay 1
97
9 a
rtic
le e
nti
tled
,
“Does
it
Mak
e S
ense
to
Reb
el?”
in
wh
ich
he
poin
ts t
o t
he
nec
essi
ty o
f
reco
nst
itu
ting
his
tory
ag
ain
st t
he
tota
lizi
ng
and
in
div
idu
aliz
ing
ten
den
cies
of
bio
pow
er:
Peo
ple
reb
el,
that
is
a fa
ct.
In t
his
way
sub
ject
ivit
y (
and
no
t ju
st t
hat
of
gre
at m
en b
ut
of
any
giv
en p
erso
n)
ente
rs i
nto
his
tory
an
d b
low
s it
s
life
in
to i
t. A
pri
son
er s
ets
her
lif
e ag
ain
st a
n e
xce
ssiv
e p
un
ish
men
t. A
men
tall
y ill
per
son
do
es n
ot w
ant to
be
inca
rcer
ated
an
d r
ob
bed
of
rig
hts
.
A p
eop
le s
ets
itse
lf a
gai
nst
a r
egim
e th
at o
pp
ress
es i
t. I
n t
his
way
, th
e
pri
son
er d
oes
no
t b
eco
me
inn
oce
nt,
th
e m
enta
lly
ill
per
son
do
es n
ot
bec
om
e h
ealt
hy,
an
d t
he
peo
ple
do
no
t ta
ke
par
t in
th
e p
rom
ised
fu
ture
.
An
d n
o o
ne
mu
st s
ho
w s
oli
dar
ity
wit
h t
hem
. N
o o
ne
mu
st b
elie
ve
that
thes
e v
oic
es m
igh
t si
ng
mo
re b
eau
tifu
lly
th
an o
ther
s an
d p
ron
ou
nce
th
e
fin
al t
ruth
. It
is
eno
ug
h t
hat
th
ey a
re t
her
e an
d t
hat
ev
ery
thin
g a
ttem
pts
to s
ilen
ce t
hem
in
ord
er t
hat
it
bec
om
es m
ean
ing
ful
to w
ant
to l
iste
n t
o
them
an
d u
nd
erst
and
wh
at t
hey
say
. A
qu
esti
on
of
mo
rali
ty?
Cer
tain
ly
a q
ues
tio
n o
f re
alit
y. A
ll t
he
dis
app
oin
tmen
t o
f h
isto
ry w
ill
no
t ch
ang
e
that
. Bec
ause
su
ch v
oic
es e
xis
t, th
e er
a o
f h
um
ans
do
es n
ot h
ave
the
form
of
evo
luti
on
, b
ut
of
his
tory
.11
2
110.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, W
as is
t Kri
tik?
Vor
trag
geh
alte
n am
27.
5.19
78 in
Par
is, tr
ans.
Wal
ter
Sei
tter
(B
erli
n:
Mer
ve,
1992),
pp
. 12, 15.
111.
The
inte
nsi
ve
occ
up
atio
n w
ith a
n e
thic
s or
aest
het
ics
of
the
self
that
was
tak
en
up
aft
er t
he
lect
ure
s on t
he
his
tory
of
gover
nm
enta
lity
sta
nds
under
the
sign o
f th
is a
rt o
f
self
-gover
nm
ent
in t
he
sense
of
an a
rt o
f de-
subje
ctiv
atio
n o
r an
art
of
crit
ique.
Fouca
ult
des
crib
es t
he
connec
tion b
etw
een a
res
ista
nce
agai
nst
gover
nm
enta
lity
and a
n e
thic
of
the
self
(w
hic
h c
annot
be
dis
cuss
ed h
ere
due
to s
pac
e li
mit
atio
ns)
in a
lec
ture
of
Feb
ruar
y 1
7,
1982, on the
her
men
euti
cs o
f th
e su
bje
ct: “W
hil
e th
e th
eory
of
poli
tica
l p
ow
er a
s in
stit
uti
on
norm
ally
ref
ers
to a
juri
dic
ally
conce
ived
leg
al s
ubje
ct,
it s
eem
s to
me
that
the
anal
ysi
s
of
gover
nm
enta
lity
—th
at i
s, t
he
anal
ysi
s of
pow
er a
s an
ense
mb
le o
f re
ver
sib
le r
elat
ion-
ship
s—m
ust
be
bas
ed o
n a
n e
thic
s th
at i
s def
ined
by t
he
rela
tionsh
ip o
f th
e se
lf t
o i
tsel
f”
(Fouca
ult
, H
erm
eneu
tik
des
Subj
ekts
, p
. 314).
112.
Fouca
ult
, D
its
et E
crit
s, 3
:991.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
59
In s
up
po
rt o
f h
is c
riti
qu
e o
f le
ftis
t p
osi
tio
ns
that
cla
im a
co
nti
nu
ity
bet
wee
n
dif
fere
nt
stat
e fo
rms
(su
ch a
s th
e w
elfa
re s
tate
, th
e ad
min
istr
ativ
e st
ate,
the
bu
reau
crat
ic s
tate
, th
e fa
scis
t st
ate,
and
th
e to
tali
tari
an s
tate
) in
ord
er
to b
lam
e th
e st
ate
in g
ener
al f
or
a p
rox
imit
y t
o t
ota
lita
rian
ism
, F
ou
cau
lt
pre
sents
th
ree
reas
on
s: “
Fir
st,
bec
ause
I t
hin
k t
hat
th
is t
hem
atic
in
crea
ses
the
inte
rch
ang
eab
ilit
y o
f th
e an
aly
ses,
an
d d
oes
th
is e
ver
mo
re r
apid
ly.
In
the
end,
for
exam
ple
, an
an
aly
sis
of
soci
al s
ecu
rity
an
d t
he
adm
inis
trat
ive
app
arat
us
up
on
wh
ich
it
dep
end
s, b
egin
nin
g w
ith
a f
ew d
isp
lace
men
ts a
nd
bas
ed o
n a
few
wo
rds
wit
h w
ho
se m
eanin
g o
ne
can
pla
y, w
ill
po
int
to
the
anal
ysi
s o
f co
nce
ntr
atio
n c
amp
s.”1
05 T
he
seco
nd
, re
late
d r
easo
n i
s th
at
this
in
flat
ion
ary
cri
tiq
ue
foll
ow
s a
log
ic that
Fo
uca
ult
des
crib
es v
ery
acc
u-
rate
ly a
s a
“gen
eral
dis
qu
alif
icat
ion
th
rou
gh
th
e w
ors
t ca
se.”
10
6 T
he
thir
d,
and
poss
ibly
mo
st s
erio
us,
rea
son
fo
r F
ouca
ult
is,
fin
ally
, th
at t
his
so
rt o
f
anal
ysi
s al
low
s o
ne
“to
av
oid
th
e p
rice
of
the
real
ity
of
the
pre
sen
t.”1
07
The
real
ity
th
at th
ese
po
siti
on
s m
iss
is th
at, as
Fo
uca
ult
alr
ead
y u
nd
er-
lin
ed i
n t
he
late
19
70
s, t
he
pre
sen
t is
no
t ch
arac
teri
zed
by
th
e in
crea
sin
g
po
wer
of
the
stat
e b
ut
by
th
e ex
pan
sio
n o
f a
neo
-lib
eral
go
ver
nm
enta
l-
ity
an
d,
as a
co
nse
qu
ence
, b
y t
he
dis
app
eara
nce
of
the
stat
e. F
ou
cau
lt’s
atti
tude
to t
hes
e d
evel
op
men
ts,
as h
is r
emar
ks
con
cern
ing
bo
th a
po
ssib
le
neo
-lib
eral
pen
al l
aw a
nd
a n
eo-l
iber
al s
oci
al p
oli
cy s
ho
w,1
08 i
s n
ot
nec
es-
sari
ly a
cri
tica
l o
ne,
or
at l
east
no
t a
jud
gm
enta
l o
ne.
He
do
es n
ot
dem
and
mo
re s
tate
, b
ut
rath
er h
e at
tem
pts
to
tes
t o
ut
the
crit
ical
po
ten
tial
of
the
neo
-lib
eral
ism
th
at h
e an
aly
zes.
He
pre
sents
a th
oro
ug
hly
su
rpri
sin
g im
age
on
th
e h
ori
zon
of
his
an
aly
sis.
Th
is i
mag
e d
oes
no
t p
rese
nt
the
idea
l o
f a
tota
lly d
isci
pli
nar
y s
oci
ety
no
r th
e so
ciet
y o
f a
gen
eral
no
rmal
izat
ion
an
d
excl
usi
on
of
the
no
n-n
orm
aliz
able
, b
ut
rath
er t
he
“pro
gra
mm
atic
th
eme
of
a so
ciet
y i
n w
hic
h t
her
e w
ou
ld b
e an
op
tim
izat
ion
of
the
syst
ems
of
dif
fer-
ence
s, i
n w
hic
h o
ne
wo
uld
all
ow
ad
equ
ate
spac
e fo
r fl
uct
uat
ing
pro
cess
es,
in w
hic
h t
her
e w
ou
ld b
e a
tole
ran
ce f
or
ind
ivid
ual
s an
d t
he
pra
ctic
es o
f
min
ori
ties
, in
wh
ich
th
ere
wo
uld
be
no
po
ssib
ilit
ies
of
infl
uen
cin
g t
he
pla
yer
s o
f th
e g
ame
bu
t o
nly
th
e ru
les
of
the
gam
e, a
nd
in
th
e en
d in
wh
ich
ther
e w
ou
ld b
e in
terv
enti
on
s th
at w
ou
ld n
ot le
ad to
th
e in
ner
sub
ord
inat
ion
of
ind
ivid
ual
s b
ut
to t
hei
r in
tera
ctio
n w
ith t
hei
r en
vir
on
men
t.”1
09
105.
Ibid
., p
. 263.
106.
Ibid
.
107.
Ibid
., p
. 264.
108.
Cf.
ib
id., p
. 346.
109.
Ibid
., p
. 359.
138
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
“The
intr
od
uct
ion
of
the
eco
no
my
in
to t
he
exec
uti
on
of
po
liti
cs i
s,”
in F
ou
cau
lt’s
wo
rds,
“th
e p
rim
ary
mis
sio
n o
f go
ver
nan
ce.”
9 T
o g
ov
ern
th
e
stat
e, i
s, i
n o
ther
wo
rds,
to
ap
ply
eco
no
mic
s o
n “
the
lev
el o
f th
e st
ate
as
whole
” an
d t
her
efore
to
th
e in
hab
itan
ts,
the
reso
urc
es,
and
th
e co
ndu
ct o
f
all
and
of
ever
y s
ing
le i
nd
ivid
ual
. In
do
ing
so,
on
e ca
n n
ote
th
at e
con
om
y
shal
l b
e u
nd
erst
oo
d h
ere
as a
sci
enti
fic
dis
cip
lin
e. A
cco
rdin
g t
o F
ouca
ult
,
it i
s “a
n a
thei
stic
dis
cip
lin
e,”
“a d
isci
pli
ne
wit
hou
t G
od
,” a
nd
a “
dis
ci-
pli
ne
wit
ho
ut
tota
lity
.” E
cono
my
bec
om
es t
he
star
tin
g p
oin
t fo
r b
oth
th
e
rati
on
aliz
atio
n o
f g
ov
ern
men
tal p
ract
ices
—an
d th
us
of
po
liti
cs its
elf—
and
the
det
erio
rati
on
of
sov
erei
gn
po
wer
: “e
con
om
ics
is a
dis
cip
lin
e th
at n
ot
only
man
ifes
ts t
he
use
less
nes
s b
ut
also
th
e im
poss
ibil
ity
of
a so
ver
eig
n
per
spec
tiv
e, t
he
per
spec
tiv
e o
f th
e so
ver
eig
n o
n t
he
tota
lity
of
the
stat
e
that
is
gov
erned
.”1
0
At
the
beg
innin
g o
f th
e fi
rst
vo
lum
e o
f his
lec
ture
s o
n t
he
his
tory
of
gover
nm
enta
lity
, F
ou
cau
lt d
escr
ibes
his
pro
ject
as
the
inv
esti
gat
ion
of
the
“rat
ion
aliz
atio
n o
f g
ov
ern
men
tal
pra
ctic
es i
n t
he
exer
cise
of
poli
tica
l
sover
eign
ty.”
11 G
over
nm
enta
lity
des
crib
es,
acco
rdin
gly
, a
go
ver
nm
enta
l
pra
ctic
e th
at i
s si
tuat
ed b
etw
een
th
e p
ole
s o
f ra
tion
aliz
atio
n a
nd
poli
tica
l
sover
eign
ty,
and
in a
cer
tain
way
lin
ks
the
two
. Y
et,
a b
alan
ce b
etw
een
both
po
les
do
es n
ot
exis
t. T
he
resu
lt i
s th
at t
he
rati
on
aliz
atio
n o
f g
ov-
ernm
enta
l p
ract
ice
in t
he
exer
cise
of
po
liti
cal
sover
eig
nty
tra
nsf
orm
s th
e
latt
er f
rom
wit
hin
—st
ruct
ura
lly—
and
em
pti
es i
t ou
t. T
he
rati
on
aliz
atio
n
of
go
ver
nm
enta
l p
ract
ice
beg
an i
n t
he
seco
nd
hal
f o
f th
e se
ven
teen
th
and e
ighte
enth
cen
turi
es i
n t
he
cou
rse
of
a p
roce
ss i
n w
hic
h t
he
secu
rity
app
arat
us
tran
sform
ed a
mult
ipli
city
of
ind
ivid
ual
s in
to a
pop
ula
tio
n.
In
contr
ast
to s
ov
erei
gn
ty,
wh
ich
cap
ital
izes
on a
ter
rito
ry,
and
in
con
tras
t
to d
isci
pli
ne,
whic
h a
rch
itec
ton
ical
ly s
ket
ches
out
a sp
ace
and
po
ses
the
pro
ble
m o
f th
e fu
nct
ion
al a
nd
hie
rarc
hic
al o
rder
ing
of
elem
ents
in
th
is
spac
e, s
ecu
rity
, as
Fo
uca
ult
ch
arac
teri
zes
this
new
dis
curs
ive
form
atio
n,
atte
mp
ts to
dep
loy
a s
erie
s of
even
ts a
nd
po
ssib
le e
lem
ents
as
a “m
ilie
u.”
12
In t
his
mil
ieu,
the
seri
es o
f ev
ents
mu
st b
e re
gu
late
d w
ith
in a
mu
ltiv
alen
t
and m
alle
able
fra
mew
ork
. Th
e se
cure
d s
pac
e re
fers
to
a “
seri
es o
f p
oss
ible
even
ts,”
13 a
nd
th
us
to t
he
“tem
po
ral
and
ale
atory
.”1
4
9.
Fouca
ult
, Si
cher
heit
, Ter
rito
rium
, Bev
ölke
rung
, p
. 144.
10.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 387.
11.
Fouca
ult
, Si
cher
heit
, Ter
rito
rium
, Bev
ölke
rung
, p
. 14.
12.
Ibid
., p
. 40.
13.
Ibid
.
14.
Ibid
.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
39
It i
s n
ot
dif
ficu
lt t
o r
eco
gn
ize
in t
he
bac
kg
rou
nd
th
e th
ou
gh
ts o
n p
rob-
abil
ity d
evel
op
ed b
y m
ath
emat
icia
ns
and p
hil
oso
ph
ers,
su
ch a
s B
lais
e
Pas
cal
(16
23
–62
),
Pie
rre
Fer
mat
(1
60
7–
65
),
and
G
ott
frie
d
Wil
hel
m
Lei
bn
iz (
16
46
–17
16
). N
ow
, h
ow
ever
, th
e fu
ture
ser
ies
of
even
ts,
wh
ose
po
ssib
ilit
y h
as b
eco
me
calc
ula
ble
, m
ust
be
insc
rib
ed i
nto
a s
pac
e in
ord
er
for
them
to
be
able
to
be
reg
ula
ted
. T
his
in
scri
pti
on
occ
urs
, as
Fo
uca
ult
mak
es c
lear
, b
y m
akin
g t
he
“mil
ieu
” in
to a
det
erm
inan
t o
f n
atu
re t
hat
con
nec
ts t
he
“nat
ure
” o
f p
hy
sics
15 a
nd
lat
er t
he
“nat
ure
” o
f b
iolo
gy
wit
h
the
“nat
ure
of
the
hu
man
,”1
6 a
nd
co
nse
quen
tly
wit
h t
he
pop
ula
tio
n.
Th
e
con
cep
ts o
f li
fe a
nd
th
e li
vin
g b
ein
g,
as b
eco
mes
cle
ar,
are
con
nec
ted
,
fro
m t
he
mo
men
t th
at e
con
om
y d
eter
min
es p
oli
tics
, w
ith
th
e te
chn
ical
dis
curs
ive
app
arat
us
of
the
nat
ura
l sc
ien
ces.
17 T
he
ten
sio
ns
that
res
ult
als
o
det
erm
ine
the
con
cep
t o
f b
iop
oli
tics
.
The
mo
der
n S
tate
, as
Fo
uca
ult
fu
rther
em
ph
asiz
es,
is n
o l
evia
than
,
no
r is
it
a m
on
ster
or
a m
ort
al G
od
. It
is
mu
ch m
ore
lik
e a
bo
dy
wit
ho
ut
a
hea
d,
and
fu
nct
ion
s, a
s su
ch,
mo
re l
ike
an o
rgan
ism
co
nce
ived
as
a li
vin
g
syst
em t
hat
mu
st s
urv
ive
by
mea
ns
of
its
feed
bac
k m
ech
anis
ms.
So
it
is
no
t as
ton
ish
ing
th
at F
ou
cau
lt c
har
acte
rize
s th
e co
nce
pt
of
go
ver
nm
enta
l-
ity,
wit
h w
hic
h h
e d
esig
nat
es t
his
new
fo
rm o
f g
ov
ern
men
tal
acti
on
lin
ked
to t
he
mo
der
n S
tate
, u
sin
g t
he
met
aph
or
of
a sh
ip a
s a
com
bin
atio
n o
f
man
euv
er a
nd
co
mm
un
icat
ion
: “W
hat
do
es it m
ean
to
pil
ot a
ship
[go
uver
-ne
r]?
It c
erta
inly
mea
ns
to l
ead
th
e sa
ilo
rs,
bu
t it
als
o m
ean
s to
tak
e o
ver
resp
onsi
bil
ity
fo
r th
e sh
ip a
nd
its
car
go
; to
pil
ot
a sh
ip a
lso
mea
ns
to t
ake
hee
d o
f th
e w
ind
s, th
e cl
iffs
, th
e st
orm
s, a
nd
th
e ch
ang
ing
wea
ther
. It is
th
is
con
stru
ctio
n o
f a
rela
tio
nsh
ip b
etw
een
the
sail
ors
an
d t
he
ship
th
at m
ust
be
sav
ed a
nd
th
e ca
rgo
th
at m
ust
be
bro
ugh
t in
to h
arb
or
and
th
eir
rela
tio
n-
ship
s to
all
th
ose
ev
ents
, su
ch a
s th
e w
ind
s, th
e cl
iffs
, an
d b
ad w
eath
er, th
at
char
acte
rize
th
e p
ilo
tin
g o
f a
ship
.”1
8
The
art
of
go
ver
nin
g l
ink
ed t
o b
iop
oli
tics
sta
nd
s in
a h
idd
en r
elat
ion
,
as i
s cl
ear
her
e ev
en i
n t
he
cho
ice
of
met
aph
ors
,19 t
o t
hat
“ex
per
imen
tal
15.
Lam
arck
fir
st i
ntr
oduce
d t
he
conce
pt
of
mil
ieu i
nto
bio
logy.
How
ever
, th
e te
rm
was
als
o u
sed i
n N
ewto
nia
n p
hysi
cs,
to w
hic
h F
ouca
ult
all
udes
. In
this
conte
xt
it m
eans,
“that
whic
h i
s nec
essa
ry t
o r
eport
on t
he
dis
tance
eff
ect
of
one
body o
n a
noth
er b
ody”
(Fouca
ult
, Si
cher
heit
, Ter
rito
rium
, Bev
ölke
rung
, p
. 40).
Thus,
the
mil
ieu i
s th
e ca
rrie
r an
d
the
circ
ula
tory
ele
men
t of
an e
ffec
t.
16.
Ibid
.
17.
Ibid
.
18.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 146.
19.
The
term
gover
nm
enta
lity
is
rela
ted h
ere
to t
he
Engli
sh w
ord
“gover
nor,
” w
hic
h
can a
lso b
e use
d i
n t
he
sense
of
centr
ifugal
gover
nor.
158
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
On
e m
ust
kee
p t
hes
e p
ub
lic
app
eara
nce
s in
min
d i
n o
rder
to
be
able
to
un
der
stan
d
Fo
uca
ult
’s
apo
log
y
for
lib
eral
ism
, p
arti
cula
rly
G
erm
an
“ord
ered
lib
eral
ism
” (O
rdol
iber
alis
mus
), a
s w
ell
as h
is s
trid
ent
crit
iqu
e
of
the
soci
alis
t m
odel
, w
hic
h,
he
wri
tes,
lac
ks
an “
intr
insi
c g
ov
ern
men
tal
rati
on
alit
y.”1
00 I
n c
on
tras
t to
th
e so
cial
ist
mo
del
, li
ber
alis
m d
oes
no
t h
ave
to b
e tr
ue
or
fals
e: “
On
e as
ks
wh
eth
er a
lib
eral
ism
is
pu
re, ra
dic
al, co
nsi
s-
tent,
mil
d, e
tc. T
his
mea
ns
that
on
e as
ks
wh
ich r
ule
s it
set
s it
self
an
d h
ow
it
imp
lem
ents
th
e co
mp
ensa
tion
mec
han
ism
s an
d c
ontr
ol
mea
sure
men
ts t
hat
it h
as e
stab
lish
ed w
ith
in i
ts g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty.
I b
elie
ve
that
wh
en o
ne
has
,
by c
on
tras
t, s
uch
a s
tro
ng
des
ire
to p
ose
to
soci
alis
m t
his
in
dis
cree
t q
ues
-
tion c
once
rnin
g t
ruth
, w
hic
h o
ne
nev
er p
ose
s to
lib
eral
ism
—n
amel
y t
he
ques
tio
n,
‘Are
you
tru
e o
r fa
lse?
’—it
is
bec
ause
soci
alis
m l
ack
s an
in
trin
-
sic
go
ver
nm
enta
l ra
tio
nal
ity a
nd
th
is [
lack
of
a] g
ov
ern
men
tal
rati
onal
ity,
whic
h i
s es
sen
tial
to
it,
has
, as
I b
elie
ve,
up
to
the
pre
sen
t d
ay n
ot
bee
n
over
com
e, a
nd
on
e en
ds
up
rep
laci
ng
th
is p
rob
lem
of
an i
nn
er g
ov
ern-
men
tal
rati
onal
ity w
ith
th
e re
lati
on
ship
of
confo
rmit
y w
ith
a t
ext.
”10
1 O
ne
must
, h
ow
ever
, ad
d a
t th
is p
oin
t th
at F
ou
cau
lt u
nd
erst
and
s th
e g
ov
ernm
en-
tal
rati
onal
ity o
f li
ber
alis
m t
o b
e th
at “
crit
ical
go
ver
nm
enta
l re
aso
n”
that
form
ula
tes
the
con
dit
ion
of
its
ow
n l
imit
atio
n i
n t
he
qu
esti
on
of
ho
w o
ne
can m
anag
e n
ot
to g
ov
ern
too
mu
ch.1
02 P
oli
tica
l ec
on
om
y i
s, a
s F
ouca
ult
sub
seq
uen
tly m
ain
tain
s—ag
ain
st S
chm
itt’
s re
ject
ion
of
lib
eral
ism
and
th
e
mix
ing
of
the
poli
tica
l w
ith t
he
eco
no
mic
—“a
kin
d o
f g
ener
al r
efle
ctio
n
on t
he
org
aniz
atio
n,
dis
trib
uti
on
, an
d l
imit
atio
n o
f p
ow
er i
n s
oci
ety.
”10
3
Lib
eral
ism
is,
as
Fo
uca
ult
su
mm
ariz
es,
“no
dre
am t
hat
co
llid
es a
gai
nst
real
ity
an
d f
ails
to
in
scri
be
itse
lf t
her
e”;
it c
on
stit
ute
s an
“in
stru
men
t o
f
real
ity
cri
tiq
ue:
the
crit
iqu
e o
f an
ear
lier
go
ver
nm
enta
lity
fro
m w
hic
h o
ne
seek
s li
ber
atio
n.”
10
4 A
nd
it
is p
reci
sely
fo
r th
is l
ack o
f a
gen
eral
ref
lect
ion
on t
he
qu
esti
on
of
the
lim
itat
ion
of
pow
er i
n s
oci
ety
th
at F
ou
cau
lt r
ebu
kes
soci
alis
m.
Fo
uca
ult
pre
face
s h
is e
igh
th l
ectu
re i
n 1
97
9 w
ith
so
me
gen
eral
co
m-
men
ts c
on
cern
ing t
he
met
hod
olo
gic
al r
each
of
his
an
aly
sis
of
mic
rop
ow
er
in o
rder
to
then
fo
rmu
late
on
th
is b
asis
a r
adic
al c
riti
qu
e o
f th
e re
curr
ing
phob
ias
of
the
stat
e an
d t
he
resu
ltin
g i
nfl
atio
nar
y c
riti
cal
com
mo
np
lace
s.
100.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 136.
101.
Ibid
.
102.
Ibid
., p
. 29.
103.
Ibid
., p
. 30.
104.
Ibid
., p
. 438.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
57
no
t d
eter
min
e h
isto
ry b
ut
rath
er h
isto
ry d
eter
min
es b
iolo
gy.
An
d f
rom
th
is
he
dev
elop
s a
bio
po
liti
cs t
hat
tri
es t
o r
etri
eve
the
po
liti
cal
fro
m o
ut
of
this
rad
ical
his
tori
city
.
Let
us
retu
rn t
hen
to
his
his
tory
of
go
ver
nm
enta
lity
an
d a
sk,
firs
t,
wh
om
he
is a
dd
ress
ing
wit
h h
is c
on
tin
ual
hin
ts a
nd
ref
eren
ces
to a
cu
rren
tly
pre
vai
lin
g a
nd
rec
urr
ing
ph
ob
ia o
f th
e st
ate,
fro
m w
hic
h h
e is
at
pai
ns
to
dis
tan
ce h
imse
lf w
ith
his
de-
my
thif
icat
ion o
f th
e st
ate.
Th
e an
swer
lea
ds
us
to F
ou
cau
lt’s
ap
olo
gy
fo
r li
ber
alis
m a
nd
to
his
aff
init
y w
ith
neo
-lib
-
eral
idea
s, w
hic
h i
s n
o l
ess
rad
ical
th
an w
hat
is
imp
lied
by
his
pro
xim
ity,
des
crib
ed a
bo
ve,
to
th
e th
ink
ing
of
evo
luti
on
an
d t
he
com
mit
men
t to
a
thin
kin
g o
f ra
dic
al h
isto
rici
ty.
The
refe
ren
ces
to a
cu
rren
tly
pre
vai
ling
ph
ob
ia o
f th
e st
ate
are
an a
llu-
sio
n t
o t
he
ideo
log
ical
str
ug
gle
s an
d d
iffe
ren
ces
that
wer
e b
ein
g f
ou
gh
t
ou
t, a
lso
in
Fra
nce
, in
th
e se
con
d h
alf
of
the
19
70
s in
rel
atio
n t
o t
he
po
li-
tics
of
the
Red
Arm
y F
acti
on
(R
AF
). M
ich
el S
enn
elar
t p
oin
ts o
ut
in h
is
con
textu
aliz
atio
n o
f th
e le
ctu
res
on
th
e his
tory
of
go
ver
nm
enta
lity
th
at
“‘th
e G
erm
an q
ues
tio
n’
as i
t w
as p
ose
d i
n a
n u
rgen
t w
ay b
y t
he
deb
ate
on
ter
rori
sm”
was
fo
r F
ou
cau
lt,
on
e o
f th
e “e
ssen
tial
key
s to
un
der
stan
d-
ing
con
tem
po
rary
po
liti
cs.”
98 S
enn
elar
t re
call
s as
wel
l th
e m
ean
ing
th
at
atta
ched
to
th
e K
lau
s C
rois
san
t af
fair
in
te
rms
of
Fo
uca
ult
’s p
oli
tica
l
eng
agem
ent as
wel
l as
in
ter
ms
of
its
theo
reti
cal im
pli
cati
ons.
Kla
us
Cro
is-
san
t w
as t
he
law
yer
fo
r th
e B
aad
er-M
ein
ho
f G
roup
an
d i
n J
uly
19
77
had
req
ues
ted
po
liti
cal
asy
lum
in
Fra
nce
in
ord
er t
o a
vo
id p
oss
ible
im
pri
son
-
men
t in
Ger
man
y. H
e w
as e
xtr
adit
ed t
o G
erm
any
aft
er t
he
dea
th o
f th
e
Baa
der
-Mei
nh
of
pri
son
ers
and
th
e k
idn
app
ing
an
d m
urd
er o
f H
ans-
Mar
tin
Sch
leyer
on
No
vem
ber
16
, 1
97
7,
and
was
sen
ten
ced
th
ere
to t
wo
an
d a
hal
f y
ears
of
pri
son
fo
r su
pp
ort
ing
a t
erro
rist
org
aniz
atio
n.
Fo
uca
ult
sup
-
po
rted
his
req
ues
t fo
r as
ylu
m b
y r
efer
rin
g t
o t
he
“rig
hts
of
the
go
ver
ned
”
to m
oun
t a
def
ense
in
a c
ou
rt o
f la
w. H
e to
ok
par
t in
man
y d
emo
nst
rati
on
s
agai
nst
th
e ex
trad
itio
n a
nd
ev
en b
rok
e a
rib
at o
ne
of
thes
e d
emo
nst
rati
on
s.
Yet
, h
e al
so m
ade
clea
r th
at h
is s
up
po
rt o
nly
rel
ated
to
th
e d
efen
se o
f th
e
rig
hts
of
the
law
yer
an
d n
ot
the
po
liti
cal
go
als
of
the
RA
F.
In c
on
tras
t to
Fo
uca
ult
, D
eleu
ze a
nd
Gu
atta
ri s
ign
ed a
pet
itio
n i
n w
hic
h W
est
Ger
man
y
was
des
crib
ed, i
n a
cco
rd w
ith
th
e R
AF, as
a p
ote
nti
al p
oli
ce s
tate
. Fo
uca
ult
bro
ke
off
co
nta
ct w
ith
Del
euze
aft
er t
his
; th
ey n
o l
on
ger
sp
ok
e to
on
e
ano
ther
.99
98.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 454.
99.
Cf.
Eri
bon, M
iche
l Fou
caul
t, p
. 372.
140
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
epis
tem
olo
gy”2
0 t
hat
No
rber
t W
ien
er c
alls
cyb
ern
etic
s:2
1 t
he
scie
nce
of
the
com
mu
nic
atio
n,
con
tro
l, a
nd
reg
ula
tio
n p
roce
sses
in
mac
hin
es a
nd a
ni-
mal
s.2
2 B
iop
oli
tics
sh
ares
wit
h c
yb
ern
etic
s no
t ju
st t
he
un
iver
sali
zati
on
of
the
stat
isti
cal
poin
t o
f v
iew
,23 b
ut
also
th
e p
oin
t o
f v
iew
of
a co
nsi
sten
t
imm
anen
ce.
“I s
earc
hed
,” a
s W
ien
er r
ecal
ls t
he
nam
ing
of
cyb
ernet
ics,
“fir
st f
or
a G
reek
wo
rd t
hat
mea
nt
‘mes
sen
ger
’, b
ut
kn
ew o
nly
ang
elos
. In
Engli
sh i
t sp
ecif
ical
ly r
efer
s to
an
‘an
gel
,’ o
r a
mes
sen
ger
of
Go
d, an
d w
as
ther
efo
re d
ism
isse
d. T
hen
I l
oo
ked
for
a sp
ecif
ic w
ord
fro
m t
he
do
mai
n o
f
contr
ol
and
reg
ula
tio
n.
Th
e o
nly
wo
rd t
hat
occ
urr
ed t
o m
e w
as t
he
Gre
ek
word
fo
r p
ilot,
whic
h w
as k
yber
nete
s. F
rom
this
I c
reat
ed th
e w
ord
‘cy
ber
-
net
ic.’ L
ater
I l
earn
ed t
hat
an e
qu
ival
ent
had
bee
n u
sed
sin
ce t
he
beg
in o
f
the
nin
etee
nth
cen
tury
by
the
Fre
nch
ph
ysi
cist
Am
pèr
e in
a s
oci
olo
gic
al
conte
xt;
bu
t I
did
no
t k
no
w t
his
at
the
tim
e.”2
4
As
the
theo
rist
of
scie
nce
Do
nna
Har
away
str
esse
s, t
he
cyb
ern
etic
mec
han
izat
ion
that
ch
ang
ed th
e w
orl
d s
o r
adic
ally
in
th
e se
con
d h
alf
of
the
twen
tiet
h c
entu
ry r
epre
sen
ts,
afte
r th
e C
op
ern
ican
rev
olu
tio
n,
Dar
win
’s
theo
ry o
f ev
olu
tion, an
d F
reud
’s p
sych
oan
aly
sis,
the
fou
rth
maj
or
slig
ht
to
man
kin
d’s
nar
ciss
ism
.25 A
dm
itte
dly
this
is
agai
n o
nly
on
e si
de
of
the
sto
ry.
The
oth
er s
ide,
whic
h h
isto
ry i
tsel
f has
su
ffic
ien
tly
dem
on
stra
ted
, is
th
at
cyb
ern
etic
s is
fu
lly c
om
pat
ible
wit
h a
fo
rced
an
thro
po
cen
tris
m.
Har
away
,
in r
efer
rin
g t
o s
oci
ob
iolo
gy,
wh
ich
inv
esti
gat
es th
e so
cial
beh
avio
r of
apes
as e
mb
lem
atic
for
the
fun
ctio
nin
g o
f h
um
an s
oci
etie
s as
co
mm
and
-co
ntr
ol
com
mu
nic
atio
n s
yst
ems,
ev
en t
alk
s ab
ou
t a
hyp
erhu
man
ism
.26
20.
Cf.
Hei
nz
Foer
ster
, “C
ircu
lar
Cau
sali
ty:
The
Beg
innin
gs
of
an E
pis
tem
olo
gy
of
Res
ponsi
bil
ity,
” in
Cla
us
Pia
s, e
d., C
yber
neti
cs—
Kyb
erne
tik:
The
Mac
y-C
onfe
renc
es
1946
–195
3 (Z
üri
ch:
Dia
phan
es, 2003),
1:1
4.
21.
She
likew
ise
bas
es g
over
nm
enta
lity
on the
univ
ersa
l p
oin
t of
vie
w o
f st
atis
tics
. Cf.
Norb
ert
Wie
ner
, M
athe
mat
ik—
mei
n L
eben
(F
rankfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Fis
cher
, 1962),
p. 267.
22.
Ibid
., p
. 220.
23.
As
Wie
ner
des
crib
es in
his
auto
bio
gra
phy,
“th
e st
atis
tica
l poin
t of vie
w, a
s it
cle
arly
man
ifes
ted i
tsel
f in
my e
arly
res
earc
h,”
not
only
forc
ed h
im t
ow
ard “
a new
per
spec
tive
on
ord
er a
nd r
egula
rity
” b
ut
wil
l in
fluen
ce, b
y w
ay o
f cy
ber
net
ics,
“al
read
y e
xis
ting s
cien
ces”
and “
the
phil
oso
phy o
f sc
ience
its
elf,
” es
pec
iall
y i
n t
he
area
s of
“sci
enti
fic
met
hods
of
epis
tem
olo
gy.
” Ib
id., p
. 267.
Cf.
Ast
rid D
eub
er-M
ankow
sky,
Pra
ktik
en d
er I
llus
ion.
Kan
t, N
ietz
sche
, Coh
en, B
enja
min
bis
Don
na J
. Har
away
(B
erli
n:
Vorw
erk 8
, 2007),
pp
. 71ff
.
24.
Wie
ner
, M
athe
mat
ik—
mei
n L
eben
, p
. 63.
25.
Jose
ph S
chnei
der
, D
onna
Har
away
: L
ive
The
ory
(New
York
: C
onti
nuum
, 2005),
pp
. 114
–57;
her
e, p
p. 139f.
26.
Donna
Har
away
, P
rim
ate
Visi
ons:
Gen
der,
Rac
e, a
nd N
atur
e in
the
Wor
ld o
f M
oder
n Sc
ienc
e (N
ew Y
ork
: R
outl
edge,
1989),
p. 110.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
41
Wh
at d
isti
ng
uis
hes
th
is c
yb
ern
etic
hyp
erh
um
anis
m is
the
com
bin
atio
n
of
contr
ol
and
co
mm
un
icat
ion
, o
f sy
stem
atic
an
d h
iera
rchic
al t
ho
ug
ht,
of
fun
ctio
nal
reg
ula
tio
n a
nd
rep
rese
nta
tio
nal
ru
le.
Th
ese
asso
ciat
ion
s, a
s is
clea
r ev
en in
th
e li
tera
l se
nse
of
the
wo
rd, al
so a
pp
ly to
th
e co
nce
pt o
f g
ov
-
ern
men
tali
ty.
Th
us,
th
e F
ren
ch w
ord
gou
vern
eur
is r
elat
ed t
o t
he
En
gli
sh
wo
rd g
over
nor,
wh
ich
can
mea
n r
egen
t o
r p
resi
den
t b
ut al
so, in
a tec
hn
ical
sen
se,
cen
trif
ug
al g
ov
ern
or.
On
e u
ses
the
wo
rd c
entr
ifu
gal
go
ver
no
r to
des
ignat
e th
e te
chn
ical
ap
par
atu
s th
at h
old
s th
e sp
eed
of
stea
m e
ng
ines
in
a
con
stan
t st
ate
by
mea
ns
of
a n
egat
ive
feed
bac
k m
ech
anis
m. T
his
am
big
u-
ity
of
the
wo
rd g
over
nor,
wh
ich
lin
ks
pre
sid
ent
and
cen
trif
ug
al g
ov
ern
or,
refl
ects
a f
un
dam
enta
l am
big
uit
y t
hat
res
ult
s fr
om
th
e o
ver
lap
bet
wee
n
bal
ance
an
d c
on
tro
l, tec
hn
ical
fu
nct
ion
alit
y a
nd
hie
rarc
hy,
co
mm
un
icat
ion
and
th
e p
oli
tics
of
rep
rese
nta
tio
n th
at is
lin
ked
to
th
e re
gim
e o
f so
ver
eig
nty
.
Th
is a
mb
igu
ity
det
erm
ines
bo
th th
e ru
lin
g p
ract
ices
of g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty a
nd
bio
po
liti
cs s
imu
ltan
eou
sly
; it
res
ult
s in
a s
tru
ctu
ral in
stab
ilit
y in
th
e re
gim
e
of
go
ver
nm
enta
lity
. In
oth
er w
ord
s, o
ne
can
no
t d
ism
iss
the
po
ssib
ilit
y t
hat
the
regim
e o
f g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty a
nd
bio
po
wer
can
lea
d to
ex
cess
ive
con
tro
l,
to a
to
rpid
hie
rarc
hy,
an
d t
o a
dea
dly
“ex
cess
of
rule
.”2
7 F
ou
cau
lt c
ites
, as
extr
eme
inst
ance
s, t
he
war
reg
ime
of
Naz
ism
28 b
ut
also
th
e “s
tate
so
cial
-
ism
” th
at h
e ca
lls
“a d
irig
ist
eco
no
mic
s an
d p
lan
ned
eco
no
my
th
at a
rose
ou
t o
f th
e p
erio
d o
f 1
91
4–18
an
d i
ts g
ener
al m
ob
iliz
atio
n o
f re
sou
rces
an
d
peo
ple
.”2
9
One
can
ass
um
e th
at F
ou
cau
lt w
as a
war
e o
f th
e o
rig
ins
of
the
term
“bio
poli
tics
” in
Nat
ion
al S
oci
alis
t v
oca
bu
lary
, a
lin
k th
at J
örg
Mar
x m
etic
-
ulo
usl
y t
race
s in
his
ess
ay “
‘Th
e W
ill
for
a C
hil
d’
and
th
e C
on
tro
ver
sy
abo
ut
the
Ph
ysi
olo
gic
al I
nfe
rtil
ity
of
Wo
man
.”3
0 W
hil
e M
arx
, li
ke
man
y
oth
ers,
ple
ads
for
a se
par
atio
n o
f p
oli
tics
fro
m n
atu
re a
nd
po
liti
cs f
rom
bio
logy,
an
d i
nsi
sts
on
th
e ri
gh
t o
f ea
ch i
nd
ivid
ual
ov
er h
is o
r h
er o
wn
bo
dy
an
d l
ife,
Fo
uca
ult
war
ns
agai
nst
th
e b
elie
f th
at o
ne
cou
ld u
nd
erm
ine
the
regim
e o
f b
iop
ow
er b
y a
pp
eali
ng
to
th
e li
fe a
nd
th
e ri
gh
ts o
f h
um
ans
as
27.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 441.
28.
Cf.
the
lect
ure
on M
arch
17,
1976,
wher
e F
ouca
ult
exp
lici
tly a
nd t
horo
ughly
dea
ls w
ith N
atio
nal
Soci
alis
m a
nd s
tate
-im
pose
d r
acis
m. M
ichel
Fouca
ult
, In
Ver
teid
igun
g de
r G
esel
lsch
aft:
Vor
lesu
ngen
am
Col
lege
de
Fra
nce
(197
5–76
) (F
rankfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Suhrk
amp
, 1999),
pp
. 276
–93.
29.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 441.
30.
Jörg
M
arx,
“‘D
er
Wil
le
zum
K
ind’
und
der
S
trei
t um
die
p
hysi
olo
gis
che
Unfr
uch
tbar
kei
t der
Fra
u:
Die
Geb
urt
der
moder
nen
Rep
rodukti
onsm
ediz
in i
m K
rieg
sjah
r
1942,”
in B
iopo
liti
k un
d R
assi
smus
(F
rankfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Suhrk
amp
, 2003),
pp
. 112
–59.
156
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
of
“exp
erie
nce
” w
ith
“th
e li
vin
g”
to a
Nie
tzsc
hea
n a
ffir
mat
ion
of
the
thin
kin
g o
f ev
olu
tion
as
the
thin
kin
g o
f a
radic
al h
isto
rici
ty o
f li
fe.
Wh
at
links
evolu
tio
n w
ith t
he
his
tori
city
of
thin
kin
g i
s, a
s F
ou
cau
lt d
escr
ibes
in
num
ero
us
tex
ts,
the
mea
nin
g t
hat
acc
rues
to
ch
ance
, an
d t
hu
s to
err
or,
in
the
thin
kin
g o
f ev
olu
tio
n.
“Fo
r at
th
e m
ost
fun
dam
enta
l le
vel
of
life
, th
e
pla
y o
f co
din
g a
nd
dec
od
ing m
akes
ro
om
fo
r a
rand
om
nes
s w
hic
h,
bef
ore
lead
ing
to
sic
kn
ess,
def
icie
ncy
, o
r d
efo
rmat
ion, is
so
met
hin
g l
ike
a dis
tur-
ban
ce i
n t
he
info
rmat
ion
sy
stem
, so
met
hin
g l
ike
an ‘
ov
ersi
gh
t.’
In t
he
end
life
is,
an
d t
her
ein
lie
s it
s ra
dic
al c
har
acte
r, t
hat
wh
ich
can
err
.”9
5 A
nd
th
e
circ
um
stan
ce t
hat
liv
ing
th
ing
s ex
ist
that
can
rec
og
niz
e li
fe a
nd
ther
eby
reco
gn
ize
life
as
that
wh
ich
can
err
wo
uld
its
elf
be
the
con
seq
uen
ce o
f an
erro
r, o
f ch
ance
.
Fo
uca
ult
’s m
eth
od
olo
gic
al ap
pro
ach
, as
th
e co
nce
pts
o
f v
aria
tio
n,
seri
es,
ran
dom
nes
s, p
op
ula
tio
n,
etc.
m
ake
clea
r, b
orr
ow
s th
eore
tica
lly
info
rmed
con
cep
ts f
rom
sy
nth
etic
evo
luti
on
ary
bio
log
y i
n o
rder
to t
hen
turn
th
em c
riti
call
y (
for
exam
ple
in h
is 1
976
rev
iew
in
Le
Mon
de o
f
Jacq
ues
Ru
ffié
’s D
e la
Bio
logi
e à
la C
ultu
re)
agai
nst
bo
th h
um
anis
tic,
anth
rop
oce
ntr
ic p
oli
tica
l th
eori
es a
nd t
he
crit
iqu
es o
f ra
cism
bas
ed u
po
n
them
th
at c
on
dem
n r
acis
m c
ateg
ori
call
y w
hil
e to
lera
tin
g i
t p
ract
ical
ly.
In
the
face
of
an e
volu
tio
nar
y-b
iolo
gic
al d
efin
itio
n o
f th
e co
nce
pt o
f ra
ce th
at
lead
s to
a d
eco
nst
ruct
ion
of
the
bel
ief
in t
he
exis
tence
of
race
, F
ou
cau
lt, in
this
rev
iew
, w
ith
the
sig
nif
ican
t ti
tle
“Bio
-his
tory
an
d B
io-p
oli
tics
,” c
om
-
mit
s h
imse
lf i
n s
upp
ort
of
a p
roce
ss o
f “r
acia
liza
tio
n”
that
he
des
crib
es
as f
oll
ow
s: “
On
e m
ust
im
agin
e a
hum
anit
y i
n w
hic
h r
aces
do
no
t st
and
nex
t to
eac
h o
ther
bu
t w
hic
h r
ath
er c
on
sist
s o
f p
op
ula
tio
n ‘
clo
ud
s,’
wh
ich
are
inte
rwo
ven
wit
h e
ach
oth
er a
nd b
len
d a
gen
etic
fie
ld t
hat
bec
om
es
more
val
uab
le t
he
mo
re a
ccen
tuat
ed i
ts p
oly
mo
rph
ism
bec
om
es.”
96 T
he
his
tori
city
of
this
sy
nth
etic
th
eory
of
evo
luti
on
res
ult
s fr
om
th
e fa
ct t
hat
pop
ula
tio
ns
are
not
def
ined
by
pro
toty
pes
but
thro
ug
h t
he
coll
ecti
on
of
var
iati
ons
that
cea
sele
ssly
dev
elop
an
d d
isso
lve.
Fo
uca
ult
dra
ws
fro
m
this
th
e co
ncl
usi
on
: “I
t is
his
tory
th
at d
elin
eate
s th
ese
coll
ecti
on
s b
efo
re i
t
allo
ws
them
to
dis
app
ear;
one
can
no
t lo
ok
th
ere
for
cru
de
and
fin
al b
iolo
gi-
cal
fact
s w
hic
h w
ould
im
pose
th
emse
lves
fro
m t
he
core
of
nat
ure
ou
tsid
e
of
his
tory
.”9
7 H
e p
rese
nts
ther
eby
a “
bio
-his
tory
” in
wh
ich
bio
log
y d
oes
95.
Ibid
., p
. 69.
96.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, “W
ill
Kla
us
Cro
issa
nt
be
Extr
adit
ed?”
in F
ouca
ult
, D
its
et
Ecr
its,
3:1
28.
97.
Ibid
.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
55
no
thin
g.”
91 T
he
exte
nt
to w
hic
h t
his
dec
isio
n b
orn
ou
t o
f n
oth
ing
, w
hic
h
is b
y d
efin
itio
n a
dec
isio
n b
etw
een
fri
end a
nd
en
emy,
in
terf
eres
wit
h t
he
Sch
mit
tian
rea
din
g o
f R
om
an C
ath
oli
cism
bec
om
es c
lear
in
th
e fo
llo
w-
ing
sen
ten
ce,
wh
ich
pre
ced
es t
he
abo
ve
qu
ote
d c
om
mit
men
t to
Ro
man
Cat
ho
lici
sm a
s a
po
liti
cal
form
: “F
rom
th
e st
andp
oin
t o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l id
ea
of
Cat
ho
lici
sm, t
he
esse
nce
of
the
Ro
man
-Cat
ho
lic
com
plex
io o
ppos
itor
um
lies
in
a s
pec
ific
, fo
rmal
sup
erio
rity
ov
er t
he
mat
ter
of
hu
man
lif
e su
ch a
s
no
oth
er i
mp
eriu
m h
as e
ver
kn
ow
n. It
has
su
ccee
ded
in
co
nst
itu
tin
g a
su
s-
tain
ing c
on
fig
ura
tio
n o
f h
isto
rica
l an
d s
oci
al r
eali
ty th
at, d
esp
ite
its
form
al
char
acte
r, r
etai
ns
its
con
cret
e ex
iste
nce
at
on
ce v
ital
an
d y
et r
atio
nal
to
th
e
nth
deg
ree.
”92 T
he
fig
ure
of
the
sov
erei
gn,
and
th
us
the
fig
ure
of
the
leg
-
isla
tor,
ach
iev
es f
or
Sch
mit
t a
vic
tory
ov
er f
orm
less
mat
ter,
wh
ich
rev
eals
itse
lf t
o b
e th
e tr
ue,
ori
gin
al e
nem
y.9
3
As
wil
l b
eco
me
clea
r in
th
e fo
llo
win
g,
it i
s p
reci
sely
th
is e
xtr
emel
y
amb
iguo
us
idea
of
the
dec
isio
n t
hat
dem
on
stra
tes
the
dec
isiv
e d
iffe
ren
ce
bet
wee
n S
chm
itt’
s co
nce
pt
of
the
po
liti
cal,
bas
ed o
n t
he
fig
ure
of
the
leg-
isla
tor,
an
d F
ou
cau
lt’s
co
nce
pt
of
po
liti
ciza
tio
n.
The
real
is
no
t lo
cate
d f
or
Fo
uca
ult
in
a d
ecis
ion
fo
r d
iffe
ren
tiat
ion
,
wh
ich
mu
st f
rom
his
no
min
alis
t p
oin
t o
f v
iew
ap
pea
r to
rem
ain
ab
stra
ct,
no
r in
a d
isti
nct
ion
bet
wee
n t
wo
id
eal
sph
eres
, su
ch a
s th
e p
oli
tica
l an
d
the
econ
om
ic,
bu
t ra
ther
in
th
e te
nsi
on
bet
wee
n t
he
un
iver
sal
and
th
e h
is-
tori
cal,
bet
wee
n t
he
gen
eral
an
d t
he
sin
gula
r, o
r, a
s h
e w
rite
s in
his
19
78
ho
mag
e to
th
e h
isto
rian
of
scie
nce
Geo
rges
Can
gu
ilh
em, b
etw
een
th
e co
n-ce
pt o
f li
fe a
nd
th
e li
ving
. “P
hen
om
eno
log
y s
ou
gh
t th
e o
rig
inal
mea
nin
g
of
ever
y a
ct o
f co
gn
itio
n i
n ‘
exp
erie
nce
.’ B
ut
is i
t n
ot
rath
er t
o b
e fo
un
d i
n
the
liv
ing
bei
ng
its
elf?
” T
he
kn
ow
er i
s in
th
is p
hen
om
eno
log
ical
sce
ne
the
bio
logis
t, w
ho
att
emp
ts t
o a
scer
tain
“w
hat
it
is t
hat
tu
rns
som
eth
ing
in
lif
e
into
a s
pec
ific
ob
ject
of
cog
nit
ion
an
d,
at t
he
sam
e ti
me,
wh
at c
an l
ead
to
the
circ
um
stan
ce t
hat
, am
on
gst
liv
ing
th
ing
s, b
ecau
se o
f th
e fa
ct t
hat
th
ey
are
livin
g t
hin
gs,
th
ere
can
be
enti
ties
who
can
att
ain
un
der
stan
din
g a
nd
in t
he
end
can
un
der
stan
d l
ife
itse
lf.”
94 F
ou
cau
lt e
xp
and
s th
e re
pla
cem
ent
91.
Sch
mit
t, O
n th
e T
hree
Typ
es o
f Jur
isti
c T
houg
ht, p
. 23.
92.
Sch
mit
t, R
oman
Cat
holi
cism
and
Pol
itic
al F
orm
, p
. 8.
93.
This
corr
esp
onds
to the
mea
nin
g that
ori
gin
al s
in tak
es in S
chm
itt’
s co
nce
pt of
the
poli
tica
l. S
ee G
ross
, C
arl S
chm
itt u
nd d
ie J
uden
, pp
. 314ff
.
94.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, “D
as L
eben
: die
Erf
ahru
ng u
nd d
ie W
isse
nsc
haf
t,”
in D
er T
od
des
Men
sche
n im
Den
ken
des
Leb
ens:
Geo
rges
Can
guil
hem
übe
r M
iche
l Fou
caul
t, M
iche
l F
ouca
ult ü
ber
Geo
rges
Can
guil
hem
, ed
. M
arce
lo M
arques
(T
üb
ingen
: E
d. D
iskord
, 1988),
p. 67.
142
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
livin
g b
ein
gs.
For
this
lif
e, a
s w
ell
as t
he
hu
man
as
liv
ing
th
ing
, ca
n o
nly
“ass
um
e o
ffic
e” th
rou
gh
bio
po
wer
its
elf.
31 E
ven
when
on
e ta
kes
th
e in
stal
-
lati
on
of
life
as
po
liti
cal
them
e “a
t it
s w
ord
,” a
s F
ou
cau
lt s
ays,
an
d u
ses
it a
gai
nst
th
e sy
stem
th
at h
as t
aken
co
ntr
ol
over
lif
e, o
ne
is s
till
en
gag
ing
in b
iop
oli
tics
. As
he
sum
mar
izes
, li
fe, ra
ther
th
an l
aw,
in t
he
cou
rse
of
the
nin
etee
nth
cen
tury
, b
ecam
e th
e ob
ject
of
po
liti
cal
stru
gg
les,
ev
en w
hen
they
are
art
icu
late
d i
n t
erm
s o
f le
gal
dem
ands.
32 A
s opp
ose
d t
o h
um
ans
and h
um
an r
igh
ts,
Fo
uca
ult
tal
ks
abo
ut
leg
al s
ub
ject
s33 a
nd
th
e ri
gh
ts o
f
the
go
ver
ned
.
He
him
self
bec
ame
acti
vel
y i
nvo
lved
in s
upp
ort
of
thes
e ri
gh
ts i
n
num
ero
us
stru
ggle
s si
nce
May
19
68
, in
dif
fere
nt
loca
tion
s ar
ou
nd
th
e
worl
d a
nd
in a
var
iety
of
med
ia f
oru
ms.
Alo
ng
th
e w
ay h
e co
nsi
sten
tly
avoid
ed s
pea
kin
g i
n t
he
nam
e o
f so
me
per
son o
r th
ing
, su
ch a
s, f
or
exam
-
ple
, h
um
an r
igh
ts.
Ag
ain
st t
he
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e in
tell
ectu
al,
wh
o s
eek
s to
form
th
e p
oli
tica
l co
nsc
iou
snes
s o
f o
ther
s, a
nd
ag
ain
st t
he
sov
erei
gn
of
what
ever
pro
ven
ance
, F
ou
cau
lt s
ets
up
th
e “s
pec
ific
in
tell
ectu
al”3
4 w
ho
should
ex
erci
se t
he
tru
th. F
or
Fo
uca
ult
, th
e ta
sk o
f th
is i
nte
llec
tual
is,
fir
st,
“to d
evel
op
an
aly
ses
wit
hin
her
fie
ld o
f ex
per
tise
, re
exam
ine
ost
ensi
ble
cert
ain
ties
an
d p
ost
ula
tes,
an
d re
eval
uat
e ru
les
and
in
stit
uti
on
s,”
and
,
seco
nd
, “t
o p
arti
cip
ate
in t
he
cult
ivat
ion
of
a p
oli
tica
l w
ill.
”35 T
he
inte
l-
lect
ual
, as
Fou
cau
lt r
emar
ked
in
a 1
97
3 t
alk
wit
h a
Ren
ault
em
plo
yee
in
the
new
spap
er L
ibér
atio
n, i
s li
nk
ed t
o t
he
info
rmat
ion
ap
par
atu
s, n
ot
to
the
pro
du
ctio
n a
pp
arat
us:
he
can
wri
te i
n n
ewsp
aper
s, s
pea
k o
n t
he
rad
io,
and m
ake
him
self
gen
eral
ly u
nd
erst
ood
. F
urt
her
more
, h
e is
tie
d to
the
“old
app
arat
us
of
info
rmat
ion
”36 a
nd
po
sses
ses
kno
wle
dg
e co
nv
eyed
by r
ead
-
ing b
oo
ks.
Fo
uca
ult
so
ug
ht
to a
pp
ly t
his
kno
wle
dg
e in
his
po
liti
cal
stru
ggle
s in
ord
er t
o c
reat
e p
ub
lic
sph
eres
fo
r th
ose
peo
ple
wh
o w
ere
excl
ud
ed f
rom
31.
Fouca
ult
, T
he H
isto
ry o
f Sex
uali
ty, 1:1
43.
32.
Ibid
.
33.
On t
he
conce
pt
of
the
legal
subje
ct w
ith r
esp
ect
to t
he
stat
e an
d i
n c
ontr
ast
to t
he
subje
ct o
f in
tere
sts,
cf.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
pp
. 375ff
.
34.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, “D
ie p
oli
tisc
he
Funkti
on d
es I
nte
llek
tuel
len,”
in D
its
et E
crit
s,
vol.
3,
1976
–197
9, e
d.
Dan
iel
Def
ert
and F
ranço
is E
wal
d (
Fra
nkfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Suhrk
amp
,
2003),
pp
. 145
–52.
35.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, “I
nte
rvie
w m
it F
ranço
is E
wal
d,”
in M
ona
Win
ter
and W
olf
gan
g
Zän
gl,
Mic
hel F
ouca
ult:
Ein
e G
esch
icht
e de
r W
ahrh
eit (
Munic
h:
Rab
en, 1987),
p. 58.
36.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, L
ibér
atio
n, M
ay 2
6, 1973. C
ited
in D
idie
r E
rib
on, M
iche
l Fou
-ca
ult:
Ein
e B
ibli
ogra
phie
, tr
ans.
Han
s-H
ors
t H
ensc
hen
(F
rankfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Suhrk
amp
,
1991),
p. 361.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
43
the
info
rmat
ion
ap
par
atu
s. I
n 1
97
1,
Fo
uca
ult
fo
rmed
th
e w
ork
ing
gro
up
for
info
rmat
ion
ab
ou
t p
riso
ns
(Gro
up
e d
’in
form
atio
n s
ur
les
pri
son
s, o
r
GIP
) an
d s
upp
ort
ed t
he
esta
bli
shm
ent
of
the
pre
ss a
gen
cy,
Ag
ence
de
Pre
sse
Lib
érat
ion
, th
at p
lay
ed a
dec
isiv
e ro
le i
n t
he
lau
nch
of
the
new
spa-
per
Lib
érat
ion.
37 T
he
GIP
set
its
elf
the
task
of
coll
ecti
ng
an
d d
isse
min
atin
g
info
rmat
ion
. A
s F
ou
cau
lt s
tres
sed
: “I
nfo
rmat
ion
mu
st c
ircu
late
so
th
at
ind
ivid
ual
exp
erie
nce
can
bec
om
e co
llec
tiv
e k
no
wle
dg
e. A
nd
th
is m
ean
s
po
liti
cal
kn
ow
led
ge.
”38 T
he
des
ired
in
form
atio
n d
oes
no
t re
fer
to t
heo
ries
,
bu
t ra
ther
to
th
e fa
ctu
al l
ivin
g c
ircu
mst
ance
s o
f th
ose
wh
o a
re e
xcl
ud
ed
fro
m t
he
app
arat
us
of
info
rmat
ion
. T
his
info
rmat
ion
led
, in
th
e ca
se o
f th
e
pri
son
ers
supp
ort
ed b
y th
e G
IP, t
o th
e re
cog
nit
ion
th
at th
eir
“co
mp
lete
lac
k
of
rig
hts
”39 w
as t
he
big
ges
t p
rob
lem
th
at t
hey
fac
ed. “T
he
just
ice
syst
em,”
as F
ouca
ult
su
mm
ariz
es,
“sen
ds
a p
erso
n t
o p
riso
n,
and
th
is p
erso
n h
as
no
ch
ance
to
def
end
his
rig
hts
ag
ain
st t
his
sy
stem
.”4
0 T
his
lac
k o
f ri
gh
ts
corr
esp
on
ds
to t
he
excl
usi
on
fro
m t
he
pub
lic
sph
ere,
an
d f
or
this
rea
son
it
is i
mp
ort
ant
to c
reat
e a
pub
lic
do
mai
n f
or
tho
se w
ho
hav
e n
o r
igh
ts.
Fou
cau
lt’s
po
liti
cal
op
po
siti
on
is
dir
ecte
d a
gai
nst
ex
cess
ive
stat
e co
n-
tro
l, a
gai
nst
th
e ex
cess
es o
f th
e g
ov
ern
men
t, a
nd
ag
ain
st t
he
po
liti
cs o
f
rep
rese
nta
tio
n—
even
wit
hin
on
e’s
ow
n r
ank
s. H
is p
oli
tica
l st
rug
gle
is
a
stru
gg
le f
or
the
pub
lic
wo
rd. A
s h
e sa
id i
n h
is w
ell-
kn
ow
n i
nte
rvie
w w
ith
Gil
les
Del
euze
: “W
hen
dis
cou
rses
su
ch a
s th
ose
of
pri
son
ers
and
pri
son
do
cto
rs b
eco
me
stru
gg
les,
th
ey b
eco
me
so b
ecau
se t
hey
, at
lea
st f
or
a
mo
men
t, a
pp
rop
riat
e th
e p
ow
er t
o s
pea
k a
bo
ut
the
pri
son
.”4
1
Fou
cau
lt i
s in
sist
ent
that
it
is n
ot
an i
ssu
e o
f op
po
sin
g o
ne
theo
ry i
n
the
nam
e o
f an
oth
er t
heo
ry,4
2 y
et t
his
dem
and
was
its
elf
a co
ncl
usi
on
th
at
he
dre
w f
rom
his
an
aly
ses
of
po
wer
an
d t
he
his
tory
of
stru
gg
les
for
po
wer
.
37.
Eri
bon, M
iche
l Fou
caul
t, p
. 356.
38.
Fouca
ult
, D
its
et E
crit
s, 2
:216.
39.
Ibid
., 2
:219.
40.
Ibid
.
41.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, “I
nte
rvie
w m
it G
ille
s D
eleu
ze,”
in V
on d
er S
ubve
rsio
n de
s W
is-
sens
(M
unic
h:
Han
ser,
1974),
p. 130.
42.
Fouca
ult
aim
s th
e cr
itic
ism
of
com
bat
ing o
ne
theo
ry i
n t
he
nam
e of
anoth
er a
t th
e
endle
ss d
ebat
es o
f le
ft-w
ing m
ovem
ents
in F
rance
in the
1970s.
Fouca
ult
dis
tance
d h
imse
lf
from
this
form
of
a p
oli
tics
of
truth
in h
is f
irst
lec
ture
on t
he
his
tory
of
gover
nm
enta
lity
on
Januar
y 1
1,
1978,
wit
h t
his
pro
voca
tive
form
ula
tion:
“In t
his
reg
ard I
would
sugges
t one
single
im
per
ativ
e to
be
use
d c
ateg
ori
call
y a
nd a
bso
lute
ly: nev
er d
o p
oli
tics
” (F
ouca
ult
, D
ie
Geb
urt
der
Bio
poli
tik,
p.
17).
Agai
nst
this
“p
oli
tics
of
truth
,” h
e se
t up
his
ow
n p
oli
tica
l
engag
emen
t as
a p
erso
nal
, p
hysi
cal,
and r
eal
engag
emen
t th
at c
asts
the
issu
es i
n c
oncr
ete,
pre
cise
ly d
efin
ed t
erm
s w
ithin
a p
arti
cula
r si
tuat
ion.
154
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
Fouca
ult
wan
ts t
o d
o t
he
opp
osi
te:
“to
sta
rt w
ith p
ract
ice,
as
it p
rese
nts
itse
lf,
but
also
as
it r
efle
cts
up
on
and
rat
ion
aliz
es i
tsel
f, i
n o
rder
to
see
from
th
ere
ho
w p
arti
cula
r th
ing
s, a
bou
t w
ho
se s
tatu
s o
ne
wo
uld
nat
ura
lly
ask q
ues
tio
ns,
can
rea
lly
con
stit
ute
th
emse
lves
: st
ate
and
so
ciet
y, s
ov
er-
eign a
nd s
ubje
cts.
”87
Fo
uca
ult
als
o u
ses
the
con
cep
t of
the
real
, h
e is
als
o c
riti
cal
of
rati
o-
nal
izat
ion
, an
d h
e al
so w
ants
mo
re r
eali
ty. In
co
ntr
ast to
Sch
mit
t, h
ow
ever
,
he
do
es n
ot b
egin
wit
h a
n id
eal o
r a
“cla
ssic
al m
odel
” o
f th
e st
ate,
nor
wit
h
univ
ersa
ls, b
ut
rath
er h
e co
nsi
sten
tly
bas
es h
is a
nal
ysi
s o
n “
con
cret
e p
rac-
tice
s” i
n o
rder
, as
he
form
ula
tes,
to
in
teg
rate
“u
niv
ersa
ls i
nto
th
e p
atte
rn
of
thes
e p
ract
ices
.”8
8 T
hu
s, i
nst
ead
of
try
ing
to
sub
sum
e p
ract
ices
un
der
a univ
ersa
l sc
hem
a o
r p
atte
rn,
Fo
uca
ult
tri
es t
o i
nte
gra
te u
niv
ersa
ls,
such
as s
tate
, p
op
ula
tio
n,
sov
erei
gn
, et
c.,
into
th
e p
atte
rn o
f co
ncr
ete
pra
ctic
es.
This
co
nsi
sten
t, s
pec
ific
ally
Fo
uca
uld
ian
no
min
alis
m a
llow
s th
e dec
on-
stru
ctio
n o
f th
e fo
rmu
lati
on
“ev
ery
thin
g i
s p
oli
tica
l” t
o d
eco
nst
ruct
at
the
sam
e ti
me
the
myth
ical
dis
cou
rse
of
the
stat
e an
d t
o t
ran
sfo
rm f
inal
ly t
he
scie
nti
fic
anal
ysi
s in
to s
om
eth
ing
po
liti
cal.
Wh
ile
Sch
mit
t al
so t
urn
s ag
ain
st t
he
hyp
ost
atiz
atio
n o
f co
nce
pts
, h
e is
no n
om
inal
ist.
A c
on
sist
ent
no
min
alis
m w
ou
ld t
hre
aten
or
des
tro
y “
go
od
juri
spru
den
ce”
and c
ou
ld h
ave
at m
ost
a c
erta
in l
atit
ud
e in
civ
il t
raff
ic
law
, as
he
wri
tes
in h
is e
ssay
“O
n t
he
Th
ree
Typ
es o
f Ju
rist
ic T
ho
ug
ht.
”
“Gen
uin
e ju
rist
ic t
ho
ug
ht,
” h
e su
rmis
es,
“at
leas
t in
pub
lic
law
, is
co
n-
cep
tual
ly r
eali
stic
.”8
9 T
his
co
nce
ptu
al r
eali
sm d
oes
no
t o
nly
lea
d t
o t
he
com
mit
men
t to
Rom
an C
ath
oli
cism
as
the
po
liti
cal
form
th
at “
has
su
c-
ceed
ed i
n c
on
stit
uti
ng
a s
ust
ain
ing
co
nfi
gu
rati
on
of
his
tori
cal
and
so
cial
real
ity
that
, d
esp
ite
its
form
al c
har
acte
r, r
etai
ns
its
con
cret
e ex
iste
nce
at
once
vit
al a
nd
yet
rat
ion
al t
o t
he
nth
deg
ree,
”90 b
ut
also
to
th
e af
firm
atio
n
of
rep
rese
nta
tio
n a
s a
pro
cess
in
wh
ich
fo
rm is
the
ori
gin
of
tru
e su
bst
ance
,
or
the
con
cret
e. T
his
mea
ns,
fo
r th
e q
ues
tio
n o
f th
e re
lati
on
ship
bet
wee
n
stat
e an
d s
ov
erei
gnty
, th
at t
he
sov
erei
gn
sta
te r
equ
ires
fo
r it
s co
ncr
ete
man
ifes
tati
on a
per
son
ific
atio
n—
and t
hu
s th
e fi
gure
of
the
leg
isla
tor.
Th
e
legis
lato
r re
pre
sen
ts,
in a
str
on
g s
ense
of
the
word
rep
rese
nta
tio
n,
“th
e
dec
isio
n i
nher
ent
to l
aw,”
wh
ich
, “n
orm
ativ
ely
sp
eak
ing
, is
bo
rn o
ut
of
87.
Ibid
.88.
Ibid
.89.
Car
l S
chm
itt,
On
the
Thr
ee T
ypes
of J
uris
tic
Tho
ught
, tr
ans.
Jose
ph W
. B
ender
sky
(Wes
tport
, C
N:
Pra
eger
, 2004),
p. 44.
90.
Car
l S
chm
itt,
Rom
an C
atho
lici
sm a
nd P
olit
ical
For
m, tr
ans.
G. L
. U
lmen
(W
est-
port
, C
N:
Gre
enw
ood, 1996),
p. 8.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
53
thro
ugh
th
e ex
iste
nce
of
enem
ies,
”80 a
nd
co
ncl
ud
es b
y s
ayin
g,
“wh
at i
s at
issu
e is
to
say
: n
oth
ing
is
po
liti
cal,
ev
eryth
ing
can
be
po
liti
cize
d,
ever
y-
thin
g c
an b
eco
me
po
liti
cal.
Po
liti
cs is
no
thin
g m
ore
or
less
th
an th
at w
hic
h
aris
es o
ut
of
the
resi
stan
ce t
o g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty,
the
firs
t up
risi
ng
, th
e fi
rst
con
fron
tati
on
.”8
1
III.
Fo
uca
ult
’s c
on
cep
t o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l is
, h
ow
ever
, al
so p
oli
tica
l. Y
et,
it i
s
no
t se
lf-r
efer
enti
al i
n t
he
sam
e w
ay a
s S
chm
itt’
s co
nce
pt
of
the
po
liti
cal.
It d
oes
no
t al
ign
its
elf
wit
h r
efer
ence
to
a s
itu
atio
n o
f d
ecis
ion
, n
or
do
es
it d
epen
d o
n a
my
thic
al n
oti
on
of
the
stat
e o
r th
e so
ver
eig
n.
Th
e tr
ans-
form
atio
n i
nto
th
e p
oli
tica
l b
egin
s in
Fo
uca
ult
rat
her
wit
h t
he
anal
ysi
s o
f
that
form
of
“sin
gu
lar
un
iver
sali
ty”
in w
hic
h g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty i
mp
lies
th
at
ever
yth
ing
is
po
liti
cal.
A s
ing
ula
r u
niv
ersa
lity
, as
Fo
uca
ult
wri
tes,
has
“in
the
end a
n e
ven
tfu
l re
alit
y.”8
2 G
ov
ern
men
tali
ty i
s, a
s F
ou
cau
lt d
efin
es i
t in
his
Her
men
euti
cs o
f the
Sub
ject
, “t
he
stra
teg
ic f
ield
of
mo
vin
g,
chan
gin
g,
and
rev
ersi
ble
po
wer
rel
atio
nsh
ips.
”83 G
over
nm
enta
lity
do
es n
ot d
esig
nat
e
her
e a
stru
ctu
re,
no
r a
“rel
atio
nsh
ip b
etw
een . . .
var
iab
les,
” b
ut
in e
ffec
t a
“sin
gula
r u
niv
ersa
lity
,” w
ho
se v
aria
ble
s—as
Mic
hae
l S
enn
elar
t el
abo
rate
s
in h
is e
xce
llen
t co
nte
xtu
aliz
atio
n o
f th
e 1
97
8–79
lec
ture
s—“r
esp
on
d t
o
the
circ
um
stan
ces
thro
ug
h t
hei
r al
eato
ry i
nte
ract
ion
.”8
4 F
rom
th
is p
ersp
ec-
tiv
e, t
he
stat
e ap
pea
rs n
eith
er a
s a
un
ity
nor
as s
ov
erei
gn
, b
ut
rath
er a
s th
e
“mob
ile
effe
ct o
f a
syst
em o
f m
any
go
ver
nm
enta
liti
es”8
5
This
d
eco
nst
ruct
ive
inte
rpre
tati
on
of
go
ver
nm
enta
lity
co
rres
po
nd
s
to t
he
met
ho
d c
ho
sen
by
Fo
uca
ult
. H
e d
evel
op
s it
ou
t o
f th
e d
ecis
ion
to
spea
k o
f g
ov
ern
men
tal
pra
ctic
e an
d,
at t
he
sam
e ti
me,
“to
lea
ve
asid
e a
cert
ain n
um
ber
of
con
cep
ts—
such
as,
fo
r in
stan
ce, so
ver
eig
n, so
ver
eig
nty
,
peo
ple
, su
bje
cts,
sta
te,
mid
dle
-cla
ss s
oci
ety—
trea
tin
g t
hem
as
pri
mar
y,
pri
mit
ive,
or
giv
en o
bje
cts.
”86 I
nst
ead
of
beg
inn
ing
wit
h th
ese
“un
iver
sals
”
use
d b
y s
oci
olo
gic
al a
nd
his
tori
cal an
aly
sis
as w
ell as
po
liti
cal p
hil
oso
ph
y,
80.
Ibid
., p
. 486.
81.
Ibid
.82.
Fouca
ult
, Si
cher
heit
, Ter
rito
rium
, Bev
ölke
rung
, p
. 67.
83.
Mic
hel
Fouca
ult
, H
erm
eneu
tik
des
Subj
ekts
: Vo
rles
ung
am C
ollè
ge d
e F
ranc
e 19
81–1
982
(Fra
nkfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Suhrk
amp
, 2004),
p. 314.
84.
Sen
nel
art,
“S
ituie
rung d
er V
orl
esungen
,” i
n F
ouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 484.
85.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
pp
. 115 a
nd 1
7.
86.
Ibid
., p
. 15.
144
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
His
po
liti
cal
stru
ggle
s, i
n p
arti
cula
r h
is c
on
sist
ent
avo
idan
ce o
f b
oth
a
rep
rese
nta
tive
spea
kin
g f
or
oth
ers
and
a f
orm
atio
n o
f p
arti
es,
bu
t al
so t
he
mea
nin
g t
hat
he
imp
ute
s to
th
e p
ub
lic
wo
rd a
nd
to
th
e ci
rcu
lati
on
of
info
r-
mat
ion
ab
out
the
“act
ual
lif
e ci
rcu
mst
ance
s” o
f th
ose
th
at h
ave
no
rig
hts
,
are
the
resu
lt o
f his
met
ho
dolo
gic
al n
om
inal
ism
. T
ho
ug
h F
ou
cau
lt d
id n
ot
dev
elop
his
ow
n t
heo
ry o
f th
e p
ub
lic
sph
ere,
his
pub
lic
eng
agem
ent
cor-
resp
on
ds
to a
des
crip
tio
n o
f th
e fu
nct
ion
s th
at b
elon
g t
o t
he
pub
lic
sph
ere
in t
he
reg
ime
of
gov
ern
men
tali
ty.
In h
is 1
97
8 le
cture
s en
titl
ed, “
Sec
uri
ty, T
erri
tory
, Pop
ula
tio
n,”
Fo
uca
ult
links
the
ori
gin
s of
the
pub
lic
sph
ere
at t
he
end
of
the
six
teen
th c
entu
ry t
o
the
pop
ula
tion
and
to
th
e m
od
ern
sta
te.
Ref
erri
ng
to
th
e fo
rmer
, h
e w
rite
s
that
th
e p
ub
lic
sph
ere
is t
he
pop
ula
tio
n “
seen
fro
m t
he
per
spec
tiv
e o
f it
s
op
inio
ns,
of
its
man
ner
of
doin
g th
ings,
of
its
con
duct
, its
cu
sto
ms,
its
fea
rs,
its
pre
jud
ices
, [e
tc.]
”43 a
nd
co
ncl
ud
es f
rom
this
that
“[t
]he
pop
ula
tio
n i
s
ther
efo
re e
ver
yth
ing
th
at e
xte
nd
s fr
om
bio
logic
al r
oo
ted
nes
s th
rou
gh
th
e
spec
ies
to t
he
op
en s
pac
e o
ffer
ed b
y t
he
pub
lic
spher
e.”4
4 T
he
pop
ula
tio
n,
consi
der
ed i
n t
erm
s o
f it
s st
atu
s as
hu
man
sp
ecie
s an
d a
s p
ub
lic
sph
ere,
should
be
und
erst
oo
d a
s a
new
rea
lity
to
th
e ex
tent
that
bo
th “
are
for
the
mec
han
ism
s o
f p
ow
er t
he
rele
van
t el
emen
ts a
nd
the
rele
van
t sp
ace
wit
hin
whic
h a
nd
wit
h r
esp
ect
to w
hic
h a
ctio
n c
an t
ake
pla
ce.”
45 G
ov
ernm
ent
acti
on
can
acc
ord
ing
ly r
elat
e to
th
e p
op
ula
tion
in
dif
fere
nt
way
s. F
or
the
rela
tio
nsh
ip b
etw
een
th
e p
ub
lic
sph
ere
and
th
e m
od
ern
sta
te,
it i
s d
ecis
ive
that
Fo
uca
ult
lin
ks
the
con
stit
uti
on
of
the
anti
thes
is b
etw
een
th
e p
ubli
c an
d
the
pri
vat
e sp
her
e w
ith
th
e “p
rob
lem
atiz
atio
n o
f th
e co
nd
uct
of
con
du
ct
and t
he
spec
ific
atio
n o
f th
e d
iffe
ren
t fo
rms
of
cond
uct
ing
th
e co
nd
uct
.”4
6
The
pub
lic
sph
ere
is n
ot o
nly
on
e o
f th
e sp
aces
th
rou
gh
wh
ich
go
ver
nm
ent
acti
on
is
dir
ecte
d t
ow
ard
the
pop
ula
ce.
It i
s, a
t th
e sa
me
tim
e, t
he
spac
e
wit
hin
wh
ich in
div
idu
als
const
itu
te them
selv
es a
s le
gal
en
titi
es a
nd
in
tu
rn
crit
iciz
e th
e go
ver
nm
ent.
Fo
uca
ult
lin
ks
the
form
atio
n o
f th
e p
ub
lic
spher
e w
ith
th
e d
isso
luti
on
of
pas
tora
l p
ow
er,
wh
ich
, in
co
ntr
ast
to g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty,
foll
ow
s a
theo
-
logic
al m
od
el a
nd t
he
exam
ple
of
God
, an
d l
egit
imat
es i
tsel
f th
rou
gh
th
is
theo
log
ical
mo
del
. G
ov
ern
men
tali
ty d
oes
no
t d
iffe
ren
tiat
e it
self
fro
m p
as-
tora
l p
ow
er b
y m
odel
ing
its
elf
on
som
eth
ing
els
e; r
ath
er,
it d
isti
ng
uis
hes
43.
Fouca
ult
, Si
cher
heit
, Ter
rito
rium
, Bev
ölke
rung
, p
. 115.
44.
Ibid
.
45.
Ibid
.
46.
Ibid
., p
. 335.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
45
itse
lf,
afte
r th
e “d
ego
ver
nm
enta
liza
tio
n o
f th
e co
smo
s,”
by
th
e fa
ct t
hat
it
mu
st m
anag
e w
ith
ou
t a
mo
del
an
d w
ith
out
div
ine
auth
ori
ty.4
7 I
n p
lace
of
such
a m
od
el,
the
res
publ
ica
is c
on
stit
ute
d,
acco
rdin
g t
o F
ou
cau
lt,
as t
he
pla
ce f
or
the
pub
lic
pro
ble
mat
izat
ion
of
ques
tio
ns
of
go
ver
nm
enta
l an
d th
e
con
du
ct o
f co
nd
uct
. R
elig
iou
s h
eret
ics,
th
e d
issi
den
ts o
f th
e M
idd
le A
ges
,
wer
e re
pla
ced
in
th
e tr
ansi
tio
n t
o t
he
sev
ente
enth
cen
tury
by
peo
ple
wh
o
wer
e ca
lled
“le
s p
oli
tiq
ues
,” o
r th
e p
oli
tici
ans.
Th
ey w
ere,
as
Fo
uca
ult
wri
tes,
“ti
ed t
o a
cer
tain
typ
e o
f th
ink
ing
. . .
, to
a c
erta
in w
ay o
f im
ag-
inin
g w
hat
a g
ov
ern
men
t m
ust
do
an
d u
po
n w
hic
h f
orm
s o
f ra
tio
nal
ity
it c
an b
e b
ased
.”4
8 P
oli
tica
lly
it
was
a p
arti
cula
r m
od
e o
f in
terr
og
atin
g
and
pro
ble
mat
izin
g t
he
go
ver
nm
ent.
“In
co
ntr
ast
to t
he
juri
dic
al-t
heo
log
i-
cal
pro
ble
m o
f th
e fo
un
dat
ion
s o
f so
ver
eig
nty
,” a
s F
ou
cau
lt s
tate
s, “
the
po
liti
cian
s ar
e th
e o
nes
wh
o a
ttem
pt
to t
hin
k t
hro
ug
h f
or
them
selv
es t
he
form
of
rati
on
alit
y o
f g
ov
ern
men
t.4
9 I
t is
th
is q
ues
tio
n o
f g
ov
ern
ance
th
at
con
stit
ute
s th
e re
s pu
blic
a, n
amel
y, a
s a
pub
lic
form
of
refl
ecti
on
on
th
e
art
of
go
ver
nan
ce.
It i
s fi
nal
ly t
hro
ug
h t
his
res
pub
lica
th
at,
acco
rdin
g t
o
Fo
uca
ult
, th
e st
ate
ente
rs i
nto
th
e fi
eld
of
hu
man
pra
ctic
es a
nd
th
ou
gh
t.5
0
Fro
m i
ts o
rig
in,
the
mo
der
n s
tate
, as
Fo
uca
ult
’s g
enea
log
y s
ug
ges
ts,
mu
st
be
un
der
sto
od
as
a q
ues
tio
nab
le g
ov
ern
men
tal
pra
ctic
e. I
nsc
rib
ed w
ith
in
this
pra
ctic
e is
no
t o
nly
th
e re
s pu
blic
a as
th
e p
ub
lic
pro
ble
mat
izat
ion
of
the
art
of
go
ver
nan
ce,
bu
t al
so t
he
qu
esti
on
of
wh
eth
er a
nd
to
wh
at e
xte
nt
the
lim
itat
ion
of
go
ver
nm
ent
is a
lso
a p
art
of
the
art
of
go
ver
nm
ent.
In
this
sen
se, th
e se
nte
nce
ref
erri
ng
to
th
e tr
ansi
tio
n f
rom
po
liti
cs t
o p
oli
tica
l
eco
no
my
nee
ds
a co
rrec
tio
n.
Fo
r th
e li
mit
atio
ns
on
go
ver
nm
enta
l ac
tio
n
do
no
t ar
ise
just
fro
m e
con
om
ics
bu
t al
so,
inso
far
as l
iber
alis
m c
an b
e
anal
yze
d a
s th
e p
rin
cip
le o
f g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty,
fro
m t
he
pub
lic
sph
ere:
“th
e
bir
th o
f ec
on
om
ists
, th
e b
irth
of
pub
lici
sts
are,
” ac
cord
ing t
o o
ne
con
clu
-
sio
n o
f th
e g
enea
log
y o
f g
ov
ern
men
tali
ty, “t
he
two
co
rrel
ativ
e el
emen
ts o
f
the
fiel
d o
f re
alit
y”
of
go
ver
nm
ent.
51 II.
Ho
w c
an o
ne
inte
rpre
t F
ou
cau
lt’s
dec
on
stru
ctio
n o
f th
e se
nte
nce
“ev
ery
-
thin
g i
s p
oli
tica
l” i
n l
igh
t o
f th
is “
cris
is”
of
the
po
liti
cal
in t
he
con
tex
t o
f
bio
po
wer
an
d b
iop
oli
tics
? T
o b
egin
wit
h,
let
us
foll
ow
Fo
uca
ult
’s t
rain
of
47.
Ibid
., p
. 343.
48.
Ibid
., p
. 357.
49.
Ibid
.
50.
Ibid
., p
. 359.
51.
Ibid
., p
. 114.
152
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
Wh
at S
chm
itt
sup
pre
sses
(o
r, a
s th
e ca
se m
ay b
e, s
ides
tep
s) w
ith
his
one-
sid
ed d
eter
min
atio
n o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l th
rou
gh
fore
ign
po
licy
is
the
inte
r-
dep
end
ence
of
the
reas
on
of
stat
e w
ith th
e co
nti
nen
tal eq
uil
ibri
um
bet
wee
n
stat
es a
nd
the
poli
ce.
He
mis
ses
the
fact
th
at t
he
stat
e is
pre
dic
ated
up
on
the
tran
sfo
rmat
ion
of
sov
erei
gn
po
wer
in
to b
iop
ow
er a
nd
th
e in
terd
epen
-
den
ce o
f v
ario
us
gov
ern
men
tal
rati
onal
itie
s. T
his
bec
om
es c
lear
wh
en o
ne
com
par
es h
is c
once
pt
of
the
old
co
nti
nen
tal
stat
es w
ith
Fo
uca
ult
’s s
ho
rt
sum
mar
y o
f th
e re
sult
s o
f his
gen
ealo
gy
of
the
mod
ern
sta
te s
yst
em a
fter
the
end
of
the
Thir
ty Y
ears
’ W
ar a
nd
th
e 1
64
8 P
eace
of
Wes
tph
alia
:
Th
us,
ap
art
fro
m t
he
theo
ries
th
at f
orm
ula
ted
an
d j
ust
ifie
d i
t, r
aiso
n d’
Éta
t ta
kes
sh
ape
in t
wo
gre
at a
ssem
bla
ges
of
po
liti
cal
kn
ow
led
ge
and
tech
no
log
y:
a m
ilit
ary
-dip
lom
atic
tec
hn
olo
gy
th
at c
on
sist
s in
sec
uri
ng
and
dev
elop
ing
th
e st
ate’
s fo
rces
th
rou
gh
a s
yst
em o
f al
lian
ces
and
th
e
org
aniz
atio
n o
f an
arm
ed a
pp
arat
us;
th
e p
urs
uit
of
a E
uro
pea
n e
qu
ilib
-
riu
m,
on
e o
f th
e g
uid
ing
pri
nci
ple
s o
f th
e tr
eati
es o
f W
estp
hal
ia,
was
a
con
seq
uen
ce o
f th
is p
oli
tica
l te
chn
olo
gy.
Th
e o
ther
ass
emb
lag
e is
th
at
of
“po
lice
,” i
n t
he
sen
se t
his
wo
rd h
ad a
t th
at t
ime,
th
at i
s to
say
, th
e se
t
of
mea
ns
for
bri
ng
ing
ab
ou
t th
e in
tern
al g
row
th o
f th
e st
ate’
s fo
rces
.
At
the
po
int
wh
ere
thes
e tw
o g
reat
tec
hn
olo
gie
s m
eet
we
sho
uld
pla
ce
com
mer
ce a
nd
mo
net
ary
cir
cula
tio
n,
thei
r co
mm
on
in
stru
men
t: i
t w
as
exp
ecte
d t
hat
fro
m e
nri
chm
ent
thro
ug
h c
om
mer
ce o
ne
wo
uld
hav
e th
e
po
ssib
ilit
y o
f in
crea
sin
g th
e p
op
ula
tio
n,
man
po
wer
, p
rod
uct
ion
, an
d
exp
ort
, an
d o
f eq
uip
pin
g o
nes
elf
wit
h s
tro
ng
an
d l
arg
e ar
mie
s.7
8
Whil
e S
chm
itt s
pea
ks
of
sover
eig
ns
wh
o f
ace
sov
erei
gn
s, F
ou
cau
lt u
ses
the
conce
pt
of
a co
mp
etit
ion
bet
wee
n s
tate
s.7
9 T
hat
wh
ich
Sch
mit
t im
agin
es
as a
n i
nner
un
ity
and
pea
ce i
s fo
r F
ouca
ult
th
e ef
fect
of
a h
isto
rica
lly
new
secu
rity
app
arat
us
that
ap
pea
rs w
ith t
he
rati
on
aliz
atio
n o
f g
ov
ern
men
tal
pra
ctic
e. W
hil
e S
chm
itt
ult
imat
ely
bas
es h
is c
once
pt
of
the
po
liti
cal
on
fore
ign
aff
airs
and
th
e p
oli
tics
of
rep
rese
nta
tion
, F
ou
cau
lt s
eek
s th
e p
oli
ti-
cal
in t
he
resi
stan
ce a
gai
nst
go
ver
nm
enta
lity
.
He
sum
mar
izes
th
e tw
o m
ean
ings
of
the
ph
rase
“ev
ery
thin
g i
s p
oli
ti-
cal”
in
th
e fo
llow
ing
se
nte
nce
: “S
tate
d
succ
inct
ly,
two
fo
rmu
lati
on
s:
ever
yth
ing
is
po
liti
cal
thro
ugh
th
e n
atu
re o
f th
ing
s; e
ver
yth
ing
is
poli
tica
l
78.
Mic
hel
F
ouca
ult
, Se
curi
ty,
Terr
itor
y, P
opul
atio
n: L
ectu
res
at t
he C
olle
ge d
e F
ranc
e, 1
977–
78, ed
. M
ichel
Sen
ella
rt, tr
ans.
Gra
ham
Burc
hel
l (N
ew Y
ork
: P
algra
ve
Mac
-
mil
lan, 2007),
p. 365.
79.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 21.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
51
the
wel
fare
of
the
pop
ula
tio
n,
trad
e, t
he
wo
rkfo
rce,
an
d t
he
po
or—
tran
s-
form
ed t
he
Ch
rist
ian
pas
tora
l p
ow
er t
hat
had
dev
elop
ed i
n l
ate
anti
qu
ity
ou
t o
f a
Ch
rist
ian
ad
apta
tio
n a
nd
a H
ebre
w c
on
cep
t o
f G
od
as
a sh
eph
erd
that
car
es f
or
his
peo
ple
lik
e a
shep
her
d c
ares
fo
r h
is h
erd
. A
s F
ou
cau
lt
des
crib
es i
t, t
his
mo
del
of
go
ver
nm
ent
bec
ame,
in
th
e co
urs
e o
f it
s ad
ap-
tati
on
th
rou
gh
Ch
rist
ian
ity
in
lat
e an
tiq
uit
y, t
he
bas
is o
f p
asto
ral
po
wer
.
In c
ontr
ast
to t
he
situ
atio
n w
ith
pas
tora
l p
ow
er,
the
ind
ivid
ual
izat
ion
by
the
po
lice
was
no
t ca
rrie
d o
ut
un
der
th
e si
gn
of
the
pas
tor
wh
o p
rov
ided
for
the
Ch
rist
ian
sal
vat
ion
of
each
in
div
idu
al m
emb
er o
f h
is f
lock
, b
ut,
rath
er,
un
der
th
e si
gn
of
the
op
tim
izat
ion o
f li
fe.
In t
his
way
, th
e p
oli
ce
did
not
focu
s o
n r
elig
ion
in
ter
ms
of
the
qu
esti
on
of
Ch
rist
ian
sal
vat
ion
or
tru
th,
bu
t in
stea
d i
n t
erm
s o
f g
uar
ante
ein
g t
he
qu
alit
y o
f m
ora
l li
fe.
Wit
h h
ealt
h a
nd
pro
vis
ion
ing
, it
s m
ain
co
nce
rn w
as i
nsu
rin
g s
urv
ival
, an
d
wit
h t
ran
spo
rtat
ion
, co
mm
erce
, an
d t
he
po
or,
it
imp
rov
ed t
he
qu
alit
y o
f
life
over
all.
As
Fo
uca
ult
su
mm
ariz
es,
the
task
of
the
po
lice
was
to
sec
ure
the
surv
ival
of
the
pop
ula
tio
n i
n g
ener
al a
nd
to
im
pro
ve
life
. Ju
st l
ike
the
pas
tora
l p
ow
er,
the
po
lice
go
ver
nm
ent
did
no
t ai
m i
ts e
ffo
rts
at l
egal
sub
ject
s b
ut
rath
er a
t “l
ivin
g i
nd
ivid
ual
s.”
Th
is g
ov
ern
men
t su
bo
rdin
ated
thes
e in
div
idu
als
to t
he
reg
ime
of
go
ver
nm
enta
lity
in
ord
er t
o s
tren
gth
en
the
nas
cen
t st
ate.
As
the
Ger
man
ter
m P
oliz
eiw
isse
nsch
aft (
po
lice
sci
ence
)
mak
es c
lear
, th
e w
ork
of
the
po
lice
sto
od i
n c
on
nec
tio
n w
ith
sci
ence
an
d
stat
isti
cs.
In o
rder
to
mai
nta
in t
he
equ
ilib
riu
m b
etw
een
sta
tes,
eac
h s
tate
,
as F
ouca
ult
exp
lain
s, h
ad t
o s
ecu
re i
ts o
wn
po
wer
s as
wel
l th
e p
ow
ers
of
the
oth
er s
tate
s. T
o t
hat
en
d,
a “p
rin
cip
le f
or
the
dec
iph
erm
ent
of
the
con
stit
uti
ng
po
wer
s o
f a
stat
e”7
4 h
ad t
o b
e d
evel
op
ed.
Th
is p
rin
cip
le i
s
stat
isti
cs,
wh
ich
was
un
der
sto
od
in
th
e li
tera
l se
nse
as
the
theo
ry o
f d
ata
abo
ut
the
stat
e o
r th
eory
of
the
stat
e (S
taat
sleh
re).
Sta
tist
ics,
acc
ord
ing
to F
ouca
ult
, b
ecam
e “a
nec
essi
ty a
s a
resu
lt o
f th
e p
oli
ce,
bu
t w
as a
lso
mad
e p
oss
ible
by
th
e p
oli
ce.”
75 T
he
po
lice
rep
rese
nt,
Fo
uca
ult
arg
ues
, a
“cir
cle”
th
at “
beg
ins
wit
h t
he
stat
e as
a r
atio
nal
an
d c
alcu
late
d p
ow
er o
f
inte
rven
tio
n o
ver
in
div
idu
als
and
th
en r
etu
rns
to t
he
stat
e as
a t
ota
lity
of
gro
win
g o
r in
crea
sin
g p
ow
ers.
”76 T
he
answ
er t
hat
Fo
uca
ult
giv
es t
o t
he
qu
esti
on
of
the
traj
ecto
ry o
f th
is c
ircl
e d
escr
ibes
pre
cise
ly t
he
con
nec
tio
n
bet
wee
n b
iop
ow
er a
nd
bio
po
liti
cs:
“th
rou
gh
th
e li
fe o
f in
div
idu
als,
wh
ich
no
w b
eco
mes
val
uab
le a
s m
ere
life
fo
r th
e st
ate.
”77
74.
Fouca
ult
, Si
cher
heit
, Ter
rito
rium
, Bev
ölke
rung
, p
. 454.
75.
Ibid
., p
. 455.
76.
Ibid
., p
. 470.
77.
Ibid
.
146
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
thoug
ht.
He
beg
ins
by
asc
erta
inin
g t
hat
th
e te
rm “
trad
itio
nal
ly”5
2 d
raw
s
up
on
tw
o m
ean
ing
s. T
he
firs
t co
mes
fro
m t
he
stat
e an
d i
nd
icat
es t
hat
th
e
poli
tica
l is
def
ined
by
th
e en
tire
sp
her
e o
f in
terv
enti
on
of
the
stat
e. T
o
say t
hat
ev
ery
thin
g i
s p
oli
tica
l w
ou
ld m
ean
, ac
cord
ing
ly,
that
th
e st
ate
is
ever
yw
her
e, d
irec
tly
or
ind
irec
tly.
In
ord
er to
dev
elop
th
e se
con
d m
ean
ing
,
Fouca
ult
ref
ers
to C
arl
Sch
mit
t’s
def
init
ion
of
the
po
liti
cal
and
ad
ds
the
foll
ow
ing
as
a su
pp
lem
ent:
“T
he
po
liti
cal
is d
efin
ed b
y t
he
om
nip
rese
nce
of
the
stru
ggle
bet
wee
n t
wo
en
emie
s . .
. th
is a
dd
itio
nal
def
init
ion
is
that
of
K. S
chm
idt.
”53
Car
l Sch
mit
t ela
bo
rate
d th
is d
efin
itio
n o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l in
The
Con
cept
of
the
Pol
itic
al (
19
32
), a
nd
th
en a
gai
n in T
heor
y of
the
Par
tisa
n (1
96
3),
wh
ich
added
a f
urt
her
dif
fere
nti
atio
n o
f th
e co
nce
pt
of
the
enem
y. S
chm
itt’
s g
oal
was
fir
st to
est
abli
sh th
e p
oli
tica
l as
an
in
dep
end
ent sp
her
e—an
d th
eref
ore
to r
evo
ke
or
rever
se t
he
mix
ing
of
the
po
liti
cal
wit
h t
he
eco
no
mic
. T
o
that
en
d,
he
del
imit
s it
fro
m t
he
alre
ady
ex
isti
ng
sp
her
es o
f th
e ae
sth
etic
,
the
mo
ral,
and
the
eco
no
mic
in
ord
er t
o e
stab
lish
th
e ar
chit
ectu
re o
f th
e
poli
tica
l ac
cord
ing
to
th
eir
exam
ple
. H
ow
do t
hes
e d
om
ain
s d
isti
ng
uis
h
them
selv
es?
Acc
ord
ing
to
Sch
mit
t, t
hey
ari
se o
ut
of
thei
r o
wn
sp
ecif
ic
“fin
al d
isti
nct
ions.
”54 I
n t
he
nex
t st
ep,
he
dec
lare
s th
ese
fin
al d
isti
nct
ion
s
to b
e in
tu
rn c
rite
ria.
55 T
he
aest
het
ic a
rise
s, a
cco
rdin
g t
o S
chm
itt,
ou
t o
f
the
opp
osi
tion
bet
wee
n b
eauti
ful
and u
gly
, th
e m
ora
l o
ut
of
the
op
posi
tio
n
bet
wee
n g
ood
and
bad
, an
d t
he
eco
no
mic
out
of
the
opp
osi
tio
n b
etw
een
har
mfu
l an
d u
sefu
l, o
r p
rofi
tab
le a
nd
unp
rofi
tab
le. B
y a
nal
og
y to
the
sim
ple
crit
eria
of
the
aest
het
ic, m
ora
l, a
nd
eco
no
mic
, S
chm
itt lo
cate
s th
e cr
iter
ion
for
the
po
liti
cal
in t
he
dis
tinct
ion
bet
wee
n f
rien
d a
nd
en
emy.
It
is c
ruci
al
for
an u
nd
erst
andin
g o
f th
e ce
ntr
al f
un
ctio
n p
lay
ed b
y t
his
dis
tin
ctio
n f
or
the
con
cep
t o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l th
at i
t b
e u
nd
erst
oo
d a
s th
e fi
nal
dis
tinct
ion
:
as t
he
ulti
mat
e dif
fere
nce
. It
s tr
ue
con
ten
t is
no
thin
g l
ess
than
th
e ac
t o
f
posi
tin
g,
the
fact
of
dis
tin
ctio
n i
tsel
f. T
he
dis
tin
ctio
n b
etw
een
fri
end
an
d
enem
y d
eno
tes,
acc
ord
ing
to S
chm
itt,
“th
e u
tmo
st d
egre
e o
f in
ten
sity
of
a
unio
n o
r se
par
atio
n,
of
an a
sso
ciat
ion o
r d
isso
ciat
ion
.”5
6
Th
e d
eter
min
atio
n t
hat
a “
fin
al d
isti
nct
ion
” co
uld
be
a “s
imp
le c
ri-
teri
on
” tu
rns
ou
t fr
om
th
is p
ersp
ecti
ve
to b
e a
mov
e th
at i
s it
self
alr
ead
y
52.
Ibid
.
53.
Ibid
.
54.
Car
l S
chm
itt,
The
Con
cept
of t
he P
olit
ical
, tra
ns.
Geo
rge
Sch
wab
(C
hic
ago: U
niv
.
of
Chic
ago P
ress
, 2007),
p. 26.
55.
Ibid
.
56.
Ibid
.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
47
po
liti
cal.
Sch
mit
t’s
po
liti
cal
crit
erio
n,
the
dis
tin
ctio
n b
etw
een
fri
end
an
d
enem
y, w
ants
to
be
un
der
sto
od
as
a p
oli
tica
l co
nce
pt,
an
d i
n S
chm
itt’
s
term
s th
is m
ean
s as
a p
ole
mic
al c
on
cep
t. S
chm
itt’
s co
nce
pt o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l
con
sequ
entl
y r
evea
ls i
tsel
f to
be
a se
lf-r
efer
enti
al c
on
cep
t, w
ho
se g
oal
is
the
esta
bli
shm
ent
of
ord
er,
wh
ich
is
to s
ay t
he
“po
ssib
ilit
y o
f u
nam
big
u-
ou
s, c
lear
dis
tin
ctio
ns”
bet
wee
n “
insi
de
and
ou
tsid
e, w
ar a
nd
pea
ce.”
57
Sch
mit
t se
es t
his
ord
er a
s id
eall
y e
mb
odie
d i
n t
he
con
tin
enta
l p
lura
lity
of
stat
es,
tog
eth
er w
ith
th
e st
ate
un
ity
per
tain
ing
to
it,
wit
hin
wh
ich
th
e
mo
der
n s
tate
em
erg
ed a
fter
th
e T
reat
y o
f W
estp
hal
ia. T
he
rein
stat
emen
t o
f
the
po
liti
cal
is,
for
Sch
mit
t, s
yn
on
ym
ou
s w
ith
th
e re
sto
rati
on
of
the
un
ity
of
the
stat
e an
d t
he
con
tin
enta
l p
lura
lity
of
stat
es.
This
bec
om
es c
lear
wit
h t
he
dif
fere
nti
atio
n o
f fo
rms
of
anta
go
nis
m
that
Sch
mit
t u
nd
erta
kes
in
The
ory
of t
he P
arti
san.
Sch
mit
t in
tro
du
ces
her
e th
e d
iffe
ren
ce b
etw
een
th
e co
nv
enti
on
al,
the
real
, an
d t
he
abso
lute
enem
y.5
8 S
chm
itt
un
der
stan
ds
the
con
ven
tio
nal
en
emy
as
the
enem
y s
tate
that
is
fou
gh
t “r
egu
larl
y”
by
an
oth
er s
tate
, w
hic
h is
to s
ay, ac
cord
ing
to
th
e
rule
s of
war
, w
ith
an
arm
y i
n a
dec
lare
d w
ar. T
he
real
en
emy
is
the
enem
y
of
the
par
tisa
n. T
ho
ug
h t
he
par
tisa
n d
oes
no
t u
se a
reg
ula
r ar
my
an
d d
oes
no
t re
pre
sen
t a
reg
ula
r st
ate,
he
fig
hts
, as
Sch
mit
t ex
pla
ins,
on
th
e si
de
of
“[t]
he
old
Eu
rop
ean
co
nti
nen
tal
stat
es,”
no
w o
n t
he
def
ensi
ve,
wh
ose
reg
ula
rity
had
tu
rned
to
“co
nv
enti
on
an
d p
lay
. . .
. O
ld r
egu
lari
ty n
o l
on
ger
was
any
mat
ch f
or
the
new
, re
vo
luti
on
ary,
Nap
ole
on
ic r
egu
lari
ty.”
59 T
he
par
tisa
n h
ad,
acco
rdin
g t
o S
chm
itt,
th
ereb
y r
enew
ed t
he
seri
ou
snes
s o
f
war
.60 I
t is
no
t co
inci
den
tal
her
e th
at h
e is
usi
ng
th
e ex
amp
le o
f th
e S
pan
-
ish
gu
eril
las
agai
nst
th
e in
vas
ion
by
th
e F
ren
ch a
rmy.
Sch
mit
t’s
par
tisa
n
pro
ves
to
be
a su
pp
ort
er o
f M
ette
rnic
h. A
s su
ch,
he
fou
gh
t o
n t
he
sid
e o
f
the
Res
tora
tio
n f
or
the
terr
ito
rial
ord
er o
f th
e so
ver
eig
n a
gai
nst
Nap
ole
on
’s
imp
eria
lism
an
d a
gai
nst
th
e d
isin
teg
rati
on o
f th
e o
ld,
terr
ito
rial
ord
er,
in
sho
rt,
agai
nst
th
e F
ren
ch R
evo
luti
on
. T
his
mak
es h
im f
or
Sch
mit
t in
to a
tru
e h
ero
. “T
he
par
tisa
n, w
ho
def
end
ed th
e n
atio
nal
so
il a
gai
nst
th
e fo
reig
n
inv
ader
, b
ecam
e th
e h
ero
, w
ho
act
ual
ly [
wir
klic
h] f
ou
gh
t ag
ain
st a
rea
l
[wir
klic
hen]
en
emy.
”61 B
y u
sin
g t
he
term
“re
al”
(wir
klic
h) t
wic
e in
th
is
57.
Car
l S
chm
itt,
Der
Beg
riff
des
Pol
itis
chen
: Te
xt v
on 1
932
mit
ein
em V
orw
ort u
nd
drei
Cor
olla
rien
(B
erli
n:
Dunck
er &
Hum
bold
t, 1
963),
p. 11.
58.
Ibid
., p
. 17.
59.
Car
l S
chm
itt,
The
ory
of t
he P
arti
san:
Int
erm
edia
te C
omm
enta
ry o
n th
e C
once
pt
of th
e P
olit
ical
, tr
ans.
G. L
. U
lmen
(N
ew Y
ork
: T
elos
Pre
ss, 2007),
pp
. 88
–89.
60.
Ibid
., p
. 88.
61.
Ibid
., p
. 89.
150
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
des
ign
ate
as p
oli
tics
su
ch t
hin
gs
as c
ou
rt i
ntr
igu
es,
riv
alri
es,
fro
nd
es,
and
atte
mp
ts a
t re
bel
lion
on
th
e p
art
of
mal
con
tents
, in
sh
ort
, ‘d
istu
rban
ces.
’”
Arg
uin
g h
ere
agai
nst
su
ch a
n e
xp
ansi
on
of
the
con
cep
t o
f p
oli
tics
, h
e
stat
es:
“It
mu
st b
e re
mem
ber
ed t
hat
bo
th w
ord
s, p
oli
tics
an
d p
oli
ce,
are
der
ived
fro
m t
he
sam
e G
reek
wo
rd,
poli
s. P
oli
tics
in
th
e la
rge
sen
se,
hig
h
poli
tics
, w
as a
t th
at t
ime
on
ly f
ore
ign a
ffai
rs, w
hic
h a
so
ver
eig
n s
tate
, fa
c-
ing o
ther
so
ver
eign s
tate
s th
at it re
cogn
izes
as
such
, car
ries
ou
t o
n th
e b
asis
of
this
rec
ogn
itio
n t
o t
he
exte
nt
that
it
mak
es d
ecis
ion
s co
nce
rnin
g m
utu
al
frie
nd
ship
, an
tago
nis
m,
or
neu
tral
ity.
”70
Sch
mit
t’s
conce
pt
of
the
po
liti
cal re
fers
sole
ly, as
bec
om
es o
bv
iou
s, t
o
that
po
liti
cal
acti
on t
hat
he
call
s “h
igh
po
liti
cs,”
or
fore
ign
aff
airs
. H
e h
as
as l
ittl
e to
say
ab
out
an a
nal
ysi
s o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l d
imen
sio
n o
f th
e p
oli
ce a
t
the
ori
gin
s of
the
mo
der
n s
tate
as
abou
t th
e an
aly
sis
of
the
sig
nif
ican
ce o
f
econo
mic
rel
atio
ns
for
the
ori
gin
s o
f a
plu
rali
ty o
f st
ates
. O
nly
un
der
th
e
cond
itio
n o
f th
ese
om
issi
on
s ca
n h
e li
nk
th
e m
od
el o
f th
e p
lura
lity
of
stat
es
wit
h t
he
rest
itu
tion
of
sov
erei
gn
ty i
n s
uch
a w
ay t
hat
he
is a
ble
to
dec
lare
,
in t
he
firs
t se
nte
nce
of
Pol
itic
al T
heol
ogy
(19
22
), t
hat
“S
ov
erei
gn i
s h
e
who d
ecid
es o
n t
he
exce
pti
on
”71 a
nd,
at t
he
sam
e ti
me,
can
ch
arac
teri
ze
the
idea
l st
ate
as “
a p
oli
tica
l en
tity
that
mai
nta
ins
a p
eace
ful
coh
esiv
enes
s
wit
hin
an
d a
co
hes
iven
ess
of
sov
erei
gn
ty w
ith
ou
t in
th
e co
nfr
on
tati
on w
ith
oth
er s
ov
erei
gn
s.”7
2 S
chm
itt’
s co
nce
pt
of
the
po
liti
cal
is n
ot
on
ly b
ased
on a
n i
dea
l m
od
el o
f th
e p
lura
lity
of
stat
es,
bu
t al
so o
n a
sim
pli
fied
an
d
myth
olo
giz
ed m
od
el o
f th
e st
ate
and
of
sov
erei
gn
ty.
In t
his
way
, S
chm
itt
sid
este
ps
the
ver
y d
imen
sio
n o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l th
at
Fouca
ult
dis
cern
s as
a p
oli
tici
zati
on o
f li
fe i
n t
he
con
tex
t o
f b
iop
oli
tics
and b
iop
ow
er a
nd i
n t
he
inte
rpla
y o
f re
aso
ns
of
stat
e w
ith
th
e p
oli
ce.
Th
e
poli
tici
zati
on o
f li
fe, an
d w
ith
it
the
tran
sfo
rmat
ion o
f n
um
ero
us
indiv
idu
-
als
into
a p
op
ula
tio
n, is
th
e ta
sk th
at f
alls
to
th
e p
oli
ce a
s it
is
con
stit
ute
d in
the
sev
ente
enth
cen
tury
. F
ouca
ult
dem
on
stra
tes
this
, m
ore
cle
arly
than
in
his
19
78 lec
ture
s, in a
lec
ture
en
titl
ed “
Om
nes
et S
ingu
lati
m: T
ow
ard
a C
ri-
tique
of
Po
liti
cal R
easo
n,”
giv
en a
t S
tan
ford
Un
iver
sity
in
Oct
ob
er 1
97
9.7
3
Her
e, F
ou
cau
lt d
evel
op
s th
e th
esis
th
at t
he
po
lice
—w
ho
se f
un
ctio
n i
s
des
crib
ed i
n c
onte
mp
ora
ry t
exts
as
the
surv
eill
ance
of
reli
gio
n,
hea
lth
,
70.
Sch
mit
t, D
er B
egri
ff d
es P
olit
isch
en, pp
. 10
–11
.
71.
Car
l S
chm
itt,
Pol
itis
che
The
olog
ie:
Vier
Kap
itel
zur
Leh
re v
on d
er S
ouve
räni
tät
(Ber
lin:
Dunck
er a
nd H
um
bold
t, 1
990),
p. 11.
72.
Sch
mit
t, D
er B
egri
ff d
es P
olit
isch
en, p
. 11.
73.
In t
he
foll
ow
ing,
I re
fer
to t
he
Fre
nch
tra
nsl
atio
n t
hat
app
eare
d i
n l
e dé
bat
41
(1986):
5–36.
N
OT
HIN
G I
S P
OL
ITIC
AL
, EV
ER
YT
HIN
G C
AN
BE
PO
LIT
ICIZ
ED
1
49
abso
lute
en
emy
has
acq
uir
ed a
new
—an
d u
nca
nn
y—
tim
elin
ess
agai
nst
the
bac
kd
rop
of
U.S
. fo
reig
n p
oli
cy a
nd
its
aim
fo
r a
new
wo
rld
ord
er,
par
ticu
larl
y, h
ow
ever
, af
ter
the
war
in
Ira
q a
nd
Geo
rge
W.
Bu
sh’s
cru
sad
e
agai
nst
th
e ax
is o
f ev
il. T
o tak
e o
ne
exam
ple
, th
e p
oli
tica
l sc
ien
tist
Ch
anta
l
Mo
uff
e h
as b
orr
ow
ed S
chm
itt’
s fr
ien
d/e
nem
y d
isti
nct
ion
an
d h
is d
efen
se
of
the
mo
del
of
the
old
co
nti
nen
tal
stat
es i
n o
rder
to
ap
ply
th
em t
o t
he
war
agai
nst
in
tern
atio
nal
ter
rori
sm.6
7 F
rom
her
po
int
of
vie
w,
the
imp
eria
list
ic
fore
ign p
oli
cy o
f th
e U
nit
ed S
tate
s ap
pea
rs a
s th
e re
flex
of
an i
nad
equ
ate
dif
fere
nti
atio
n b
etw
een
th
e p
oli
tica
l an
d t
he
mo
ral,
an
d i
nte
rnat
ion
al t
er-
rori
sm,
tog
eth
er w
ith
its
acc
om
pan
yin
g r
het
ori
c o
f ev
il,
app
ears
as
the
pro
du
ct o
f th
at f
ore
ign
po
licy
, o
r ra
ther
as
the
shap
e o
f it
s o
wn
qu
esti
on
.
Wit
h r
efer
ence
to
th
e S
chm
itti
an d
iffe
ren
tiat
ion
of
enem
ies
and
his
mo
del
of
the
plu
rali
ty o
f st
ates
, sh
e su
bsu
mes
ter
rori
sm u
nd
er t
he
cate
go
ry o
f
the
abso
lute
en
emy
an
d i
nte
rpre
ts i
nte
rnat
ion
al w
ar a
gai
nst
th
is e
nem
y a
s
an u
nli
mit
ed w
ar,
that
is,
as
a w
ar w
ith
out
a fi
xed
fo
rm t
hat
, as
Sch
mit
t
exp
lain
s, is
dir
ecte
d to
war
ds
the
ann
ihil
atio
n o
f an
op
po
nen
t w
ho
has
bee
n
des
ignat
ed a
s th
e en
emy
of
man
kin
d.
Even
if
it s
eem
s p
lau
sib
le t
o a
pp
ly t
he
Sch
mit
tian
dis
tin
ctio
n o
f en
e-
mie
s to
cu
rren
t af
fair
s, o
ne
sho
uld
no
t fo
rget
th
e o
ther
sid
e o
f S
chm
itt’
s
clas
sica
l m
od
el o
f th
e p
lura
lity
of
stat
es:
it r
edu
ces
do
mes
tic
po
licy
to
th
e
form
ula
“p
eace
, se
curi
ty,
and
ord
er.”
68 T
he
rest
ora
tio
n o
f th
e ex
alte
d t
ime
of
the
old
co
nti
nen
tal st
ates
do
es n
ot ju
st o
ccu
r u
nd
er th
e si
gn
of
a re
turn
to
the
plu
rali
ty o
f st
ates
an
d to
lim
ited
war
, b
ut al
so u
nd
er th
e si
gn
of
a re
turn
to t
he
un
lim
ited
wo
rk o
f th
e p
oli
ce.
Th
e o
ld E
uro
pea
n c
on
tin
enta
l st
ates
dec
lare
d b
y S
chm
itt
to b
e th
e cl
assi
cal
mod
el d
id n
ot
exis
t, a
s th
e li
mit
ed
per
spec
tiv
e o
f th
e th
eore
tici
an o
f th
e st
ate
sug
ges
ts,
bef
ore
or
bey
on
d t
he
rati
on
aliz
atio
n o
f g
ov
ern
men
tal p
ract
ice
and
th
e ec
on
om
izat
ion
of
po
liti
cs.
Rat
her
, th
ey o
rig
inat
ed, a
s F
ou
cau
lt e
xte
nsi
vel
y s
ho
ws,
in
th
e co
urs
e o
f th
is
rati
on
aliz
atio
n o
f g
ov
ern
men
tal
pra
ctic
e in
th
e d
evel
op
men
t o
f th
e se
cu-
rity
app
arat
us
and
th
e p
oli
ce.
“Th
e li
mit
atio
n o
f th
e in
tern
atio
nal
go
als
of
go
ver
nan
ce a
cco
rdin
g t
o r
easo
ns
of
stat
e, t
his
lim
itat
ion
on
in
tern
atio
nal
rela
tion
s co
rres
po
nd
s,”
as F
ou
cau
lt c
om
men
ts,
“to
a b
ou
nd
less
nes
s in
th
e
dep
loym
ent
of
the
po
lice
sta
te.”
69 S
chm
itt
him
self
wri
tes:
“W
ith
in s
uch
a
stat
e th
ere
was
in
dee
d o
nly
po
lice
an
d n
o m
ore
po
liti
cs, u
nle
ss o
ne
wer
e to
67.
Chan
tal
Mouff
e, “
Sch
mit
t’s
Vis
ion o
f a
Mult
ipola
r W
orl
d,”
Sou
th A
tlan
tic
Qua
r-te
rly
104 (
2005):
245
–51
.
68.
Sch
mit
t, D
er B
egri
ff d
es P
olit
isch
en, p
. 10.
69.
Fouca
ult
, D
ie G
ebur
t der
Bio
poli
tik,
p. 21.
148
AST
RID
DE
UB
ER
-MA
NK
OW
SKY
sente
nce
, S
chm
itt
emp
has
izes
th
e in
ten
sity
th
at h
e at
trib
ute
s to
th
e fr
ien
d/
enem
y d
isti
nct
ion a
nd
th
us
to t
he
poli
tica
l. A
cco
rdin
g t
o S
chm
itt’
s lo
gic
,
the
“fin
al d
isti
nct
ion
” o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l is
at
the
sam
e ti
me
the
mo
st r
eal,
bec
ause
it
dem
onst
rate
s th
e d
ecis
ion t
o d
iffe
ren
tiat
e. O
ne
can
def
ine
it a
s
a p
erfo
rmat
ive
spee
ch a
ct,
as a
rec
urs
ion
, o
r, l
ike
Sch
mit
t, a
s a
dec
isio
n.
Bec
ause
Sch
mit
t as
soci
ates
th
e le
ap i
nto
rea
l, c
on
cret
e li
fe w
ith
th
e ex
clu
-
sion o
f am
big
uit
y, d
oub
t, a
nd d
ivis
ion, t
he
frie
nd
/enem
y d
isti
nct
ion
, in
th
is
thin
kin
g f
orm
ed b
y b
oth
Kie
rkeg
aard
’s e
xis
tenti
alis
m a
nd
lif
e p
hil
oso
ph
y,
is n
ot
on
ly u
neq
uiv
oca
l b
ut
also
exis
ten
tial
. T
his
bec
om
es c
lear
in
th
at
wel
l-k
now
n d
ictu
m a
cco
rdin
g t
o w
hic
h t
he
enem
y, a
s S
chm
itt
form
ula
tes
it i
n t
he
sam
e p
assa
ge,
is
“the
shap
e o
f o
ur
ow
n q
ues
tio
n.”
62 T
his
dic
tum
is p
rece
ded
by
his
rh
eto
rica
l q
ues
tion
, “I
s it
no
t a
sig
n o
f in
ner
con
flic
t
to h
ave
mo
re t
han
on
e re
al e
nem
y?”
63 T
his
mea
ns,
co
nv
erse
ly—
and
th
is
is S
chm
itt’
s m
ain p
oin
t—th
at t
o h
ave
on
e re
al e
nem
y i
s th
e si
gn
of
inn
er
unit
y, w
hic
h i
s in
tu
rn t
he
pre
con
dit
ion
fo
r in
ner
sec
uri
ty.
“Th
e en
emy,
”
Sch
mit
t co
nti
nu
es,
“is
on
the
sam
e le
vel
as
am I
. F
or
this
rea
son
, I
mu
st
fight
him
to
th
e sa
me
exte
nt
and
wit
hin
th
e sa
me
bo
un
ds
as h
e fi
ghts
me,
in o
rder
to
be
consi
sten
t w
ith t
he
def
init
ion
of
the
real
en
emy
by
whic
h h
e
def
ines
me.
”64
Fo
r S
chm
itt,
the
abso
lute
en
emy
is,
in
co
ntr
ast
to t
he
real
en
emy,
an e
nem
y w
ith
ou
t a
fix
ed f
orm
. T
he
abso
lute
en
emy
is
no
t th
e eq
ual
enem
y w
ho
is
def
eate
d i
n c
om
bat
. R
ath
er,
he
is t
he
mo
rall
y c
on
dem
ned
enem
y a
nd
is
dec
lare
d t
o b
e th
e en
emy
of
hum
anit
y a
nd
mu
st t
her
efo
re
be
des
tro
yed
.65 T
he
abso
lute
en
emy
in
19
63
is,
acc
ord
ing
to
Sch
mit
t, a
n
acco
mp
anim
ent
and a
n e
xp
ress
ion
of
the
dis
ord
er o
f th
e te
chn
ical
ato
mic
age
and t
he
ato
mic
th
reat
. T
he
exp
ress
ion
of
this
dis
ord
er i
s th
e C
old
War
an
d i
ts p
ote
nti
al f
or
annih
ilat
ion.
Th
e m
akin
g a
bso
lute
of
the
enem
y
seem
s fo
r S
chm
itt
to b
e “i
mm
anen
t to
th
e ex
isti
ng
rea
lity
of
the
nucl
ear
age.
”66 S
chm
itt’
s dis
tin
ctio
n b
etw
een t
he
conv
enti
on
al,
the
real
, an
d t
he
62.
Ibid
., p
. 85, tr
ansl
atio
n a
lter
ed.
63.
Ibid
.
64.
Ibid
.
65.
As
Rap
hae
l G
ross
em
phas
izes
, S
chm
itt
dif
fere
nti
ates
alr
eady i
n T
he C
once
pt o
f th
e P
olit
ical
bet
wee
n t
he
enem
y i
n t
he
sense
of
the
stra
nger
and t
he
enem
y i
n t
he
sense
of
the
oth
er,
who l
ater
on b
ecom
es t
he
abso
lute
enem
y a
s th
e en
emy o
f th
e p
oli
tica
l. T
his
enem
y i
n t
he
sense
of
the
oth
er w
as e
mb
odie
d f
or
Sch
mit
t in
the
1930s
by t
he
Jew
s; t
hey
bec
ame
the
dom
esti
c en
emy.
Cf.
Rap
hae
l G
ross
, C
arl
Schm
itt
und
die
Jude
n: E
ine
deut
-sc
he R
echt
sleh
re (
Fra
nkfu
rt a
m M
ain:
Suhrk
amp
2000),
pp
. 310ff
.
66.
Sch
mit
t, T
heor
y of
the
Par
tisa
n, p
. 93, tr
ansl
atio
n a
lter
ed.
