1

TheSignatureofPower:reignandgovernment–

MitchellDean 21May2013

PoliticsGroupSeminar,DeptofManagement,PoliticsandPhilosophy,CopenhagenBusinessSchool.

Iwantedtotalkmoreoftheformandstyleofmyforthcomingbook(The Signature of Power,Sage)thanitscontents,oratleastasmuchaboutformasthecontents.

It’saformthatcontainsstoriesandmysteries,startingwithamurderandendingwithaceremonyofstatelyacclamation,anditgetscaughtupinamaximtowhichitreturns,‘thekingreigns,butdoesnotgovern’.Butanotherstory,notinthebook,becauseitoccurredwhileIwaswritingthebook,istoogoodtopassup.

AboutoneyearagoattheUniversityofChicago,SchoolofPoliticalScience,aseminarwasheldwithFrançoisEwald,thegeneralco‐editorofFoucault’slectures,andGaryBecker,theChicagoeconomistandfoundingthinkingof‘humancapital’onFoucault’s1978‐9lecturesonAmericanneoliberalism.

Themoderator,BernardHarcourt:

“AsateaserforthisseminarIwilltellyouthatinagloriousemailthatProfBeckersenttomethedaybeforeyesterday,GaryBeckerwrote(referringtoMF’swork),“Ilikemostofit,andIdonotagreewithmuch…”

ProfBeckerinterrupts:“Idon’tdisagreewithmuch….”

2

ThemoderatorthenaskswhetherhehascommittedaFreudianslipandcontinuesreadingtheemail:“Ilikemostofit,andIdonotdisagreewithmuch.IalsocannottellwhetherFoucaultisdisagreeingwithme”.

Inthebook,ItalknotofaFreudianslipbuta‘Foucauldianslip’,thistimeinrelationtoBrunoLatour’sattempttodeactivatewhatIcallthesignatureofpower,todeconstruct,renderitidle,andhisdenialtoFoucaultthestatusasatheoristofpower…LatourinfactattributesthisstatustoFoucault’s‘transatlanticdestiny’.BlametheAmericans!

TheothermanpresentatthisChicagoseminarisFrançoisEwald,Foucault’sassistant,student,(only?)successfuldoctoralcandidate.HeisalsotherecipientoftheLegionofHonorbutnotforhisworkonFoucaultbutforhisworkastheintellectualvoiceofanemployer’sassociation,Medef,advocatingtheimplementationofneoliberalreformshefirstlearntaboutintheseverysamelecturesbyFoucault.

IstartwithEwald,theyoungMaoistagitator,arrangingameetingwithFoucaultin1972,onthesitewherethebodyofaminer’sdaughter,ateenagedgirl,hadbeenfound,murdered,inthenortherntownBruay‐en‐Artois.Aplacardwasplaceatthesitereading:“Onthisspot,BrigitteDewèrve,thedaughterofaminer,wasmurderedbythebourgeoisieofBruay’.Intheconclusion,IendwithhisEwald’saward,atwhichthemanpresentingtheaward,oneofJacquesChirac’seconomicadvisors,asks:

“Whathappenedinsideofyouin1968?Whythiscloseproximity,backthen,toMaoism…?Whattransformation[occurred]inyourmindduringyourclosecollaborationwithMichelFoucault?”

3

Thisisnotexactlymyquestion,butitisIthinkagoodstory.And,inlastyear’sseminarwithBecker,EwaldprovidessomethingofananswerbyfollowingwhathecallsFoucault’s‘apologia’forBecker.Thequestionof68wasoneofdesireforDeleuzeandpowerforFoucault.Firstamicrophysicsofpowerandthennotatheoryofthestatebutananalysisofgovernment,governmentality,andthatBeckerandAmericanneoliberalismareapartofthetruthtellingofgovernmentthatFoucaultwassointerestedin.TurningtoBeckerhesays:

‘Youproposeatheoryofman,avisionofman,thatisnon‐moralandnon‐juridical….Certainkindsoftruth‐tellingaredeathforliberty,otherkindsoftruth‐tellinggivenewpossibilitiesforliberty.Andhe[Foucault]seesyourwork,yourkindofanalysesascreatingthepossibilitytopromote,toenvisionnewkindsofliberty…yourworkoffersthepossibilityofthinkingaboutpowerwithoutdiscipline’.

Well,Iwon’tdrawconclusionshere:itwouldbetooeasytoconflateFoucaultwithneoliberalism,neoliberalismwithadvancedliberalgoverning,andsoforth.ButinthisanswerFoucaultisdecisiveforEwald’stransitionfromtheMaoistmilitantcollectivetothenolessmilitant‘thoughtcollective’ofneoliberalism.ButIwouldsaythatthissearchforanon‐moral,non‐juridical,post‐disciplinary,anti‐statist(andonecouldaddnon‐hierarchical,post‐structural)searchforpowerhasnotjustbeenundertakenbycertainintellectualsinFrance.Thistoo,Ibelieveis,ourpresent,allowingthe‘we’inthiscasetobethoseofuswhoworkinthesocialsciencesoratleastontheiroutermostmargins.

Sowhatkindofbookisit?

4

Theory?Seemssomewhatoutofvogue,evenabjected,inthesocialsciences.Notagrandedificebutaseriesofexercisesandinsomesenseindicatingthedevelopmentofanalyticalframeworks.

Contributingtosocialandpoliticalthought–suppositionisthatpowerisacentralconceptinboth.

Moreaplayingwithandanextension,ratherthanacorrectionandcompletion,ofananalyticsofpower.

Butconsideritsformanditsstyleratherthanitsdisciplinarybackground.

Detectivenovelorpoliceprocedural–reinstatepowerasmystery,powerassecret,powerasarcana,thearcana imperii,arcana rei publicae.ThemysteryisperhapsnotwhokilledBrigitteDewèvre,theminer’sdaughterin1972,norevenwhoorwhatkilledthestudyofpower.Butwhyareanalyses,onceimaginedtobecritical,soreadilyunderstoodandtakenupbythoseweonceimaginedtheirtargets?Foucault’slecturesonneoliberalismhavenotonlybeenendorsed,asabove,byBecker,butlaudedbyadiscussionpaperattheWalterEuckenInstituteinFreiburg–EuckenthefounderoftheGermanOrdoliberals.ButthereisalsothiswiderquestionandmoreimportantquestionofthestatusofpowerinthesocialsciencesthatIwanttokeepbearinginmind.Whyisthestudyofpowercaughtbetweenformalismandabstractionandapparentanalyticaluselessness?

Thetextappearsisshortsections,between400and2500words,exercisesor‘essays’inthemselves,accommodatinganargumentthatwasnotalwayslinear,thatsoughttojugglemultiplereferencesanddenseintertextuality,andtriedtokeepthemallinplay.SometimesIwouldallowmyselfdigressionsuchasthemeetingofJacobTaubeswithSchmittinthecurrent

5

chapter(7,onReignandGovernment),simplybecauseitsomehowintensifiedthestakesinthethemesofthebook,orwasjusttooremarkableananecdotetoleaveout.Butevensomethingmoreprofoundwouldemerge–TaubesdescriptionoftheracepoliciesofNazismasa‘theo‐zoology’.IamalsostruckbySchmitt’semphaticresponsetoTaubesreadingofStPaulonGod’slovefortheJews:Ididnotknowthat’.

Iwantedtoplaywithexpressionism,withimagery,withmetaphor.Still,againstabstractorconvolutedorqualifiedargument,defensibleuptothelastcomma,Iwantedeachsectionornearlyeachothertodeliverapunch,orapunchline,andfacedwiththechoicebetweenscholasticeruditionandeffectivesimplificationIknowinglychoosethelatter.Thereisnoknowledgewithoutsimplification,noinsightwithoutfocus.

Inanycase,theacademicdiscussionofpowerisnowsotediousIwantedtotrysomethingabitdaring,Ihopetogetitbackonthefrontpage,oratleastontothesportspagesorcelebritypages,ifAgambenisrightintalkingaboutasocietyofthespectacle,afterGuyDebord.

Butthetitle?The Signature of Power.It’sinthesingular.Ididwanttodiluteit–makingitpluralseemsweakandpostmodern.Inaneraofequivocationandambivalence,everythingisconductedintheplural.

Butwhatisthissignature?Itisneitherasignnoraninterpretation;aconceptnorameaning;itbelongsneithertoadiscourse,anepisteme,arationalitynorevenparadigm,althoughitcouldbeparadigmatic.Itissomethingthatmarksconceptsandwords,thatplacesconceptsandwordsinadeterminatefieldofpragmaticandconceptualrelations,andthusthatlinksthesciencesofsignstointerpretation,semioticstohermeneuticsandsemantics.

6

Inthecaseofpower,thesignaturetakesachangingandreversiblebinaryform:powertoandpowerover,powerasforceandpowerasright,potentia andpotestas,constitutiveandconstitutedpower,repressiveandproductivepower,softpowerandhardpower.Todaythecharacteristicbinaryisbetweenajuridicalandinstitutionalconceptionofpowerandaneconomicormanagerialone.Itisthisarchitectureoftheconceptthatrequiresthatanyspecificdelineationofpowersetsupthisfieldbywhichitkeepsreferringtoitsapparentopposite,evenwherethatoppositeisrepressed,displaced,escapedfrom.ThatiswhyFoucault–wholikeHamletishauntedbytheghostofthesovereignandischaracterizedbyacertainindecision,butwhosoughttomakeavirtueofit–isalsosoproductiveatheoristofsovereignty.

Toengagewithandusetheconceptof‘power’,weneedtorecognizeitssignature,understandhowitoperatesandthedifferentformsittakes,andmobilizeitinouranalyses.Thatananalyticsofpowercannotbeaccomplishedwithoutthisbecausethesignatureisintegraltohowwethinkabout,exerciseandexperiencepowerrelations.

Thusthreepoints:

Signaturemarks.

BinarycharacterofSoP.

Needtokeepitinplay.

Iknowthisappearsasimple,evenlogical,pointbasedonthenatureofdistinctionsbutitisremarkablehowlittleitisobserved.EventhreethinkersaseminentasMichelFoucault,CarlSchmittandGiorgioAgambeneach,intheirownway,recognizestheirversionsofthissignature.Atthemoment

7

whentheyseekintheirdifferentwaystoescapethissignature,theirthoughtisatitsweakestandmostvulnerable.

Thesignatureistheleastexcitingpartofthebook;itbearsthesamerelationtotheresearchesofthebookasastampinyourpassportdoestoyourvoyagetoamysteriousland,theexplorationofanewcontinent.

Ishouldsaysomethingaboutthephrase,‘theKingreigns,butdoesnotgovern’.Allthethreethinkersaboveaddressthearcanaofthisastonishingphrase,sotoodoesSchmittcrucialtheologicalinterlocutor,EricPeterson.BothSchmittandFoucaulttracesittoAdolpheTiersaround1830,whoSchmittcallsarepresentativeofthebourgeoismonarchy,le roi regne mais il ne gouverne pas,andSchmitttoaround1600aftertheremovalofthePolishking,SigismumdIII,fromtheSwedishthrone,inLatin,asrex regnat sed non gubernat.

Foucaultconflatesitwithhisown‘cuttingtheking’sheadoffinpoliticalthought’andIhaveagreatdealoffunwithitshowinghowinallourattemptstodecapitatetheking,tomutilatehisbody,tocarryitofftothefourendsoftheearth,toburyandburnit,westillhavetheproblemoftheplaceofthesovereign,aplaceoccupiedbygloryandkingship,symbolized,accordingtoAgamben,bytheemptythrone.

Theuselessking,theidleking,themutilatedking,thewoundedking….andnotthevisionofanall‐powerfulandall‐knowingking…thesearethemostrecurrentimagesofsovereigntywehave,thelatterbeingakindofliberalgovernmentalconstruct.

Iwillletthechapter(7)speakforitself.Ihavedistributedthechaptertitlestoshowwhereitfits.Whenwritingabookthereare(afteranotoriousSec.

8

ofDefense):theknownknowns(whatyousetouttowrite)andtheknownunknowns(whatyousetouttodiscover),andunknownunknowns(whatyoudiscoverbutdidn’tknowitwastheretodiscover).Butthereisalsowhatyoudiscoverandareshockedbecauseyourealizeyoushouldhaveknownthat.Letmementionjusttwo:

TheissueoftheneworwhatSchmittcallstolma,meaningaudacityandjoyinthedangerofhavingnootherjustificationthanitself.SchmittenunciatesthisasaresponsetoHansBlumenberg’sThe Legitimacy of the Modern Age,‘thesilentsaviour’–asStefanSchwarzkofputsit–ofmostaccountsofintellectualhistoriesofcapitalism,post‐Enlightenmentrationalismandsciencetoday.Againsttheself‐empowermentorself‐assertionofreason,inwhichthepresentneedsnootherjustificationthanitsradicalcaesurawithatheological‐metaphysicalpast,Schmittsmellsacoup d’Etatorseizureofpoweragainstestablishedformsof‘legitimatelyconferredauthority’,anactofaggressiontowardtheologyandtranscendence.Schmittsumsupthiskindoflegitimation,whichisultimatelypolitical,intheverylastwordsofhisverylastbook:stat pro ratione Libertas, et Novitas pro Libertate(Freedomstandsforreason,andnoveltystandsforfreedom).ThisseemssoclosetoEwald’sunderstandingofhisowntransition.TheimplicationsthishasforhowwethinkaboutNietzsche’sgenealogicalquestionofemergenceandtheeminenceinthepresentofa‘momentofarising’ofadistinctionareprofound.

Itisnotsomuchformeaquestionofsecularizationthatisatstakeherebutarevaluationofhowwethinkabouttherelationbetweenoldandnew,transcendenceandimmanence,legitimacyandlegality,andtouseFoucault’sterminology,sovereigntyandgovernmentality.Foucaultwaivers

9

betweenattimesexploringthispreciseproblemdespitehistendencytovalorizethenew,oratleastthenever‐endingsearchforthenew:frommacrophysicstomicrophysics,fromdisciplinetobiopolitics,frombiopoliticstogovernmentality,fromgovernmentalitytoneoliberalism.ButofcourseitishisfollowerswhomakethemistakeoftryingtoupdateFoucault:frombiopoliticstoethopolitics,forexample.TheproblemwithFoucaultisnottobringhimuptodate;buttorestorehisarchaism,theproperplaceofthearche,whatisfoundational,inhisthought.

Iwantedalsotomentiontheideaoforderhere,howunreflectiveweareaboutthislittleword,whichbyitselfdoessomuchwork,andthewaytheologians,economistsandstate‐lawtheoristsinGermanyintheearly1930salldeployedthetermtoshow:

thattheformandnormsoflawcanonlyberevealedonthebasisofaconcreteorder,thatisSchmitt,

theformofthemarketthroughparticularinterventionsandpolicy,thatisOrdoliberalism,

andthekingdomofGodonthebasisofhiscreations(HermannKrings).

Inalloftheseexamples,order‐thinkingstitchestogetherthetranscendentandtheimmanentorders,andtheirrespectivepowers,fromthesideoftheimmanent,thatis,fromthesidenotofbeingbutofpraxis.ItisalsointerestingthatfortheOrdoliberalsthefigureofthispraxisistheenterprise,themeansofavitalpolitics,apoliticsoflife.

SoyoumightaskisthisSoPhistoricallyspecificoruniversal?DoIsidewithagenealogythatemphasizescontinuousmutation,usurpationandappropriation?Oronethatseekstoinstatethecontinuedeminenceofthe

10

momentofarising?FoucaultorAgamben?Ithinktheanswerisbothanneither.TheSoPisclearlyakeyareaofmoral,intellectualandpoliticalcontentioninourpresent.Butitisonlyavailablethroughanemergence,anarche,afoundation,amomentofarisingwefindthroughouthistoryandnotonlyOccidentalone.Butthismomentofarisingis–notmatterhowfarbacktothefringeofultra‐history(Dumezil)wego–isonlyavailableforusnow,touseinourpresent.Butbecauseitisnotsomethingfoundatonlyonetimeandnotanother,notsomethingthatcanbecontested,abandonedorabolished,thenitcannotbeamatterspecifictoourpresent,andthusneverasignofitsnovelty.