"War is the politics by other means", wrote Clausewitz. Michel Foucault extended this hypothesis when he suggested "Politics is the war by other means". In these two conjectural statements one fact is common, i.e. politics and war are inseparable. Michel Foucault delivered eleven lectures in 1976 at the College de France, which were published titled "Society must be Defended", reflected upon the nature of war and its role in defining politics and public right.
Unconventionally, since he is known for, Michel Foucault examined the motive of the masters of order, such as, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and their concept of Sovereignty, its limited or unlimited authorities, and connected this theme to the necessity arose in Europe to establish a philosophical/juridical concept of sovereignty instead of historical/political one. Historically, war has been an instrument to establish sovereignty; once the order is established, there is always a quest stop further destabilizing forces. Historically, however, war or revolution was a means to recreate sovereignty or to establish a new order. But in mediaeval age and thereafter, history was used as a strategic tool just like war to achieve something which was otherwise possible through politics or war only. By this way, Foucault brings his discussion on the connection and affection between power, knowledge, and politics.
History in modern period became a contesting sites to establish sovereignty and its authorities; whether limited or unlimited, or to bring an equilibrium between the authorities of sovereign and the rights of citizens. History is used to exemplify why natural rights are historically evolved truth or untruth as the case may be, in a sense that, everything is there, good or bad, just or unjust, and beautiful or ugly. It is upto historians to find a few dots and build narratives.
Foucault examines the nature of Anglo Saxon and Norman relationship after the infamous conquest and found history a very useful tool for the legitimacy of power, governance, or domination. Foucault believed that it was Normans' conquest over Saxons made Thomas Hobbes very anxious, that may be one reason why he advocated for an "enlightened absolutism" in form of Leviathan or monarchial authorities, as a giant lamp of powers, which was juridically an artificial artefact felt to be installed in oder to protect the rights of vanquished Saxons, in the name of natural right to life and to prohibit conquest as a legitimate means to establish sovereignty or new order. Since, this unsettling feature was predominant among European Nations.
He further examines the French, German, and British monarchies and its lineage with Roman imperium. In order to establish unlimited powers of king, most of the historical writings were used to show the lineage with the Roman empire. To the contrary, counter-history also emerged at the same time, for example, French historians like Henri de Boulainvilliers and Francois Hotman, unhappy with the working of French monarch, raised the cause of nobility, and shown a lineage of Franks with Germans. As per their narratives, Franks were Germans' brothers who invaded Gaul so as to free it from the tyranny of Romans. By this historicism, Boulainvilliers was able to show the limits of monarch's authorities as well the rights of citizens against the French Sovereignty. Foucault finds this history as a counter-history, whose agent or point of reference was opposite to the history embedded around imperial necessities. Imperial powers were no longer an exclusive voice or agent of history in that period; now historical voices were multifarious and diverse. It also shows the historical abilities of story telling. Michelle Perrot stated that "history is narrative" following the line of Paul Ricœur. History is not discovered rather crafted or invented strategically. 1760 onwards, France had almost a ministry responsible for the development of historical narratives. People were appointed to write books and other works which may be of use of legislators, historians, and general public. This example exemplifies the power of history as a value of story telling about a time and space, too foreign to be conceived through human's cognitive capacities.
Foucault moves in the subsequent lectures on the definition of nation, which was a cultural one; common custom or language was largely a basis to construe a nation. In mediaeval Europe, cultural wars among the nations, even within a common state, was prevalent. In due course of time, the definition of nation became political, whereas it was hyphenated with state. No society was conceived as nation unless it has potentiality to be state in that period, i.e. a society must have a common territory, population, and sovereignty, as well as it has capacity to secure itself and to administer justice for its members to qualify as a nation-state. The question of nation doesn't remain a cultural question from then onwards, rather a political one. Nation now required a political structure based upon Constitution, and war was transformed into constant conflicts of interests, known as politics. That's how various nations based upon common culture merged into a giant state as a political institution and its apparatuses were established to govern its members.
Governance requires excercise of disciplinary powers over the human's body, mind, and soul. Individually, every member of the society witnesses subtle form of power prevalent in every socio-political, military or juridical institution. Discipline is also possible through normalizing practices, which is used to sanitize deviant or abnormal behaviours. Power in disciplinary sense no longer remained an exclusive tool for military organizations. It was applied as a model for prison reform, a tool to normalize students in the educational institutions, a set of methods deployed by juridical or political institutions to make certain value judgments.
Governance didn't remain a disciplinary question only when political institutions acquired biopower to take care of masses' life. Sovereign now no longer remains merely as a magistrate or judge to punish criminals, rather it has acquired immense power to protect and preserve the life itself. In Foucault's nomenclature it is "Bio-Power". All the racial discourse in Nazi regime or Soviet Russia before or at the time of Second World War became possible due to this transformation of sovereign powers; from night -watchman to father or caregiver. However, the reversal of traditional sovereign powers; i.e. from power to punish or power to use "legitimate violence" (Max Weber) to having a power to "make live or let die" (Foucault), resulted into one of the biggest paradoxes. On the one hand, sovereign as a welfare state started to take care of health, hygiene, sexuality, and education of the masses, on the other hand, same authority got power to manufacture atomic bomb or biological weapons, which may be antithetical to life itself. The nature of war transformed in such a way that politics has become a war by other means.
Comments
Post a Comment