Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:41:15.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The soldier’s tale: Problematising Foucault’s military foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Brieg Powel
Brieg Powel*
Affiliation:
Lecturer, International Politics, Aberystwyth University
*
* Correspondence to: Brieg Powel, Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3FE, Wales, UK. Author’s email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The popularity of Foucauldian understandings of government in International Relations (IR) has led to a vibrant debate over the utility of Foucault’s work for the discipline, especially over its applicability outside Western liberal societies. By concentrating on governmentality’s international applicability, however, IR scholarship has neglected Foucault’s account of the foundations of modern social mentalities, apparatuses, and techniques. Foucault frequently based his ideas on historical research, with warfare and military affairs featuring prominently in his accounts of discipline and governmentality.

Based on a problematisation of the military aspects of Foucault’s thought, this article challenges Foucauldian IR scholarship to revisit governmentality’s foundations and reconsider the contemporary relevance of Foucault’s account of government. Foucault neglected the heterogeneity of European militaries, such as their reliance on impermanent, auxiliary, and non-Western forces. He thereby missed the opportunity to develop a more sophisticated account of the relationship between force, the military, government, discipline, and biopolitics. Moreover, this article challengesFoucauldian IR scholarship to revisit the empirical foundations of Foucault’s work and reconsider the geographical and temporal extent of the relevance of Foucault’s account of government as a result.

Keywords

FoucaultGovernmentalityHistoryMaterialismDomestic/International
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 833 - 854
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (London: Penguin, 1991)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège De France 1977–78 (New York: Picador, 2007)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège De France 1978–79 (New York: Picador, 2008)Google Scholar.

2 Agamben, Giorgio, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Dillon, Michael and Reid, Julian, ‘Global liberal governance: Biopolitics, security and war’, Millennium, 30:1 (2001), pp. 41–66 Google Scholar; Dillon, Michael and Reid, Julian, The Liberal Way of War: Killing to Make Life Live (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar; Edkins, Jenny, Pin-Fat, Veronique, and Shapiro, Michael (eds), Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics (London: Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar; Dauphinee, Elizabeth and Masters, Cristina (eds), Living, Dying, Surviving: the Logics of Biopower and the War on Terror (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007)Google Scholar; Closs Stephens, Angharad and Vaughan-Williams, Nick (eds), Terrorism and the Politics of Response (London: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar; Vaughan-Williams, Nick, ‘The generalised bio-political border? Re-conceptualising the limits of sovereign power’, Review of International Studies, 35:4 (2009), pp. 729–749 Google Scholar. A notable exception (discussed below) is Wasinski, Christophe, ‘On making war possible: Soldiers, strategy, and military grand narrative’, Security Dialogue, 42:1 (2011), pp. 57–76 Google Scholar.

3 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 354.

4 Foucault, Discipline and Punish.

5 Foucault, Michel, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège De France 1975–76 (London: Penguin, 2003), p. 253 Google Scholar.

6 Selby, Jan, ‘Engaging Foucault: Discourse, liberal governance, and the limits of Foucauldian IR’, International Relations, 21:3 (2007), pp. 324–345 (p. 331)Google Scholar.

7 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘Governmentality of what? Populations, states and international organizations’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), pp. 413–427 Google Scholar; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘The limits of governmentality: Social theory and the international’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:2 (2010), pp. 223–246 Google Scholar; Chandler, David, ‘Critiquing liberal cosmopolitanism? The limits of the biopolitical approach’, International Political Sociology, 3 (2009), pp. 53–70 Google Scholar; Chandler, David, ‘Globalising Foucault: Turning critique into apologia – a response to Kiersey and Rosenow’, Global Society, 24:2 (2010), pp. 135–142 Google Scholar.

8 Vrasti, Wanda, ‘Universal but not truly “global”: Governmentality, economic liberalism, and the international’, Review of International Studies, 39:1 (2013), pp. 49–69 Google Scholar; Death, Carl, ‘Governmentality at the limits of the international: African politics and Foucauldian theory’, Review of International Studies, 39:3 (2013), pp. 763–787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Walker, R. B. J., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Walker, R. B. J., After the Globe, Before the World (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001 [orig pub. 1954])Google Scholar.

10 Joseph, ‘The limits of governmentality’, pp. 240–1.

11 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 354.

12 Dean, Mitchell, ‘Nomos and the politics of world order’, in Wendy Larner and William Walters (eds), Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 40–58 (p. 53)Google Scholar.

13 See, for example, Burchell, Graham, ‘Liberal government and techniques of the self’, in Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne, and Nikolas Rose (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Rationalities of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Dillon and Reid, ‘Global liberal governance’;

Kiersey, Nicholas J., ‘Neoliberal political economy and the subjectivity of crisis: Why governmentality is not hollow’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), pp. 363–386 Google Scholar; Death, ‘Governmentality at the limits of the international’; Vrasti, ‘Universal but not truly “global”.

14 Burchell, ‘Liberal government and techniques of the self’, p. 20.

15 Joseph, ‘The limits of governmentality’, p. 228.

16 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal political economy and the subjectivity of crisis’; Read, Jason, ‘A genealogy of homo-economicus: Neoliberalism and the production of subjectivity’, Foucault Studies, 26 (2009), pp. 25–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenow, Doerthe, ‘Decentring global power: the merits of a Foucauldian approach to International Relations’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), pp. 497–517 Google Scholar; Venn, Couze, ‘Neoliberal political economy, biopolitics and colonialism’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), pp. 206–233 Google Scholar; Weidner, Jason R., ‘Governmentality, capitalism, and subjectivity’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), pp. 387–411 Google Scholar; Vrasti, ‘Universal but not truly “global”.

17 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, pp. 225–6.

18 Ibid., p. 270.

19 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal political economy and the subjectivity of crisis’, p. 380.

20 Read, ‘A genealogy of homo-economicus’, pp. 27–8.

21 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 105.

22 Vrasti, ‘Universal but not truly “global”.

23 Basham, Victoria M., ‘Effecting discrimination: Operational effectiveness and harassment in the British Armed Forces’, Armed Forces & Society, 35:4 (2009), pp. 728–744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Basham, Victoria M., War, Identity and the Liberal State: Everyday Experiences of the Geopolitical in the British Armed Forces (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar; Basham, Victoria M., ‘Raising an army: the geopolitics of militarizing the lives of working-class boys in an age of austerity’, International Political Sociology, 10:3 (2016), pp. 258–274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Higate, Paul, ‘The private military and security contractor as geocorporeal actor’, International Political Sociology, 6:4 (2012), pp. 355–372 Google Scholar; McSorley, Kevin, ‘Towards an embodied sociology of war’, The Sociological Review, 62:S2 (2014), pp. 107–128 Google Scholar.

24 Higate, ‘The private military and security contractor as geocorporeal actor’, p. 369.

25 Basham, ‘Raising an army’, pp. 268–9.

26 Aradau, Claudia, ‘Security that matters: Critical infrastructure and objects of protection’, Security Dialogue, 41:5 (2010), pp. 451–514 (p. 498)Google Scholar. See also Bashamm War, Identity and the Liberal State, p. 11.

27 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, p. 331.

28 Ibid., p. 325.

29 Ibid., pp. 337–8. See also Joseph, ‘Governmentality of what?’, p. 414.

30 Chandler, ‘Globalising Foucault’; Joseph, ‘The limits of governmentality’.

31 Joseph, ‘The limits of governmentality’, p. 242.

32 Joseph, ‘Governmentality of what?’, p. 203; Joseph, ‘The limits of governmentality’, pp. 237–8.

33 Chandler, ‘Globalising Foucault’, p. 136.

34 Joseph, ‘The limits of governmentality’, p. 241.

35 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 135-69.

36 McSorley, ‘Towards an embodied sociology of war’, p. 116.

37 Foucault, Society Must Be Defended.

38 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, pp. 301–6; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, p. 6.

39 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 110.

40 Ibid., pp. 107–8.

41 Ibid., p. 108.

42 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, p. 295.

43 Ibid., p. 283.

44 Ibid., pp. 284–5.

45 Dean, Mitchell, Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 176 Google Scholar.

46 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 354.

47 Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, ed. Colin Gordon (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), p. 77 Google Scholar.

48 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 354.

49 Hobson, John M., ‘What’s at stake in “bringing historical sociology back into International Relations”? Transcending “chronofetishism” and “tempocentrism” in International Relations’, in Stephen Hobden and John M. Hobson (eds), Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 3–41 Google Scholar (p. 6).

50 For an argument proposing Foucault to be a historical sociologist, see Dean, Critical and Effective Histories.

51 Veyne, Paul, quoted in Jurgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures (Cambridge: Polity, 1987), p. 275 Google Scholar.

52 Murray, Oswyn, ‘Introduction’, in Paul Veyne (ed.), Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (London: Penguin, 1990), p. viii Google Scholar.

53 Deluze, Jacques¸ Foucault (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), p. 49 Google Scholar.

54 Foucault, Michel, ‘Nietzsche, genealogy, history’, in Paul Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader (London: Penguin, 1991), pp. 76–100 (p. 90)Google Scholar.

55 Ibid., p. 88.

56 See, for example, Bennett, Jane, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Braun, Bruce and Whatmore, Sarah (eds), Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Coole, Diana and Frost, Samantha (eds), New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

57 Coole, Diana, ‘Agentic capacities and capacious historical materialism: Thinking with new materialisms in the political sciences’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 41:3 (2013), pp. 451–469 (p. 453)Google Scholar.

58 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 135.

59 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, pp. 300–6.

60 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 164.

61 Ibid.

62 Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1 (New York: Vintage, 1990), p. 144 Google Scholar.

63 Foucault ‘Nietzsche, genealogy, history’, p. 86.

64 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 135.

65 Gat, Azar, The Origins of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to Clausewitz (Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 25 Google Scholar.

66 Ibid., p. 27; Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 136.

67 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 136.

68 Ibid., p. 138.

69 Ibid., p. 138.

70 Ibid., p. 153.

71 Ibid., pp. 154–6.

72 Ibid., p. 156.

73 Ibid.

74 Weber, Max, ‘The origins of discipline in war’, in Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (eds), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, 3 vols (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968)Google Scholar, Vol. III, pp. 1150–5.

75 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, p. 5.

76 Ibid., p. 4.

77 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 294; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, pp. 5–7.

78 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, pp. 291–2.

79 Ibid., pp. 285–6.

80 Ibid., pp. 300–6.

81 Ibid. p. 306.

82 Ibid, p. 305.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid.

85 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, p. 6.

86 Ibid.

87 Ibid., pp. 53–4.

88 Ibid., p. 52.

89 For a fuller overview, see ibid., pp. 5–7.

90 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 108.

91 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, p. 54.

92 Ibid., p. 53.

93 Ibid., pp. 52–3.

94 Wasinski, ‘On making war possible’.

95 Kiersey, Nicholas J., Weidner, Jason R., and Rosenow, Doerthe, ‘Response to Chandler’, Global Society, 24:2 (2010), pp. 143–150 (p. 146), emphasis in originalGoogle Scholar.

96 See various contributions in Rogers, Clifford J. (ed.), The Military Revolution Debate: Readings on the Military Transformation of Early Modern Europe (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1995)Google Scholar; Parker, Geoffrey, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West 1500–1800 (2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Black, Jeremy, A Military Revolution? Military Change and European Society 1550–1800 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991)Google Scholar. On the notion of multiple revolutions, see

Rogers, Clifford J., ‘The military revolutions of the Hundred Years’ War’, in Rogers (ed.), The Military Revolution Debate, pp. 55–94 Google Scholar; and

Rogers, Clifford J., ‘Tactics and the face of battle’, in Frank Tallett and D. J. B. Trim (eds), European Warfare 1350–1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 203–235 Google Scholar.

97 On the medieval origins, see Rogers (ed.), The Military Revolution Debate; Rogers, ‘Tactics and the face of battle’. On the eighteenth century, see Black, A Military Revolution?.

98 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 136–7.

99 Richard Bean, ‘War and the birth of the nation state’, Journal of Economic History, 33:1 (1973), pp. 203–21 (p. 206).

100 Howard, Michael, War in European History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 14 Google Scholar.

101 Bean, ‘War and the birth of the nation state’, p. 206.

102 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, pp. 305–6.

103 For an overview of total war and its societal effects, see Black, Jeremy, The Age of Total War, 1860–1945 (Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010)Google Scholar.

104 Brodie, Bernard, War and Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1973), p. 412 Google Scholar. See also Heuser, Beatrice, The Evolution of Strategy: Thinking War from Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 357–361 Google Scholar.

105 See Smith, Rupert, The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (London: Penguin, 2005)Google Scholar.

106 See Lynch, Tony and Walsh, A. J., ‘The good mercenary?’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 8:2 (2000), pp. 133–153 Google Scholar; Mandel, Robert, Armies Without States: The Privatization of Security (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002)Google Scholar; Kinsey, Christopher, Corporate Soldiers and International Security: The Rise of Private Military Companies (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar; Singer, Peter W., Corporate Warriors: The Rise of Privatized Military Industry (2nd edn, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Krahmann, Elke, States, Citizens, and the Privatization of Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Abrahamsen, Rita and Williams, Michael C., Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Baker, Dean-Peter, Just Warriors, Inc.: The Ethics of Private Force (London: Continuum, 2011)Google Scholar; McFate, Sean, The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

107 Krahmann, States, Citizens, and the Privatization of Security, p. 2.

108 McFate, The Modern Mercenary, p. 19.

109 See Parrot, David, The Business of War: Military Enterprise and Military Revolution in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

110 Strachan, Hew, European Armies and the Conduct of War (London: Routledge, 1983), p. 9 Google Scholar.

113 Keegan, John, A History of Warfare (Kindle edn, London: Random House, 2011), loc. 1526–1527 Google Scholar.

112 Ferris, John, ‘Small wars and great games: The British Empire and hybrid warfare, 1700–1970’, in Williamson Murray and Peter R. Mansoor (eds), Hybrid Warfare: Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 199–224 (p. 200)Google Scholar.

113 See, for example, Barkawi, Tarak, ‘State and armed force in international context’, in Alejandro Colás and Bryan Mabee (eds), Mercenaries, Pirates, Bandits and Empires: Private Violence in Historical Context (London: Hurst, 2010), pp. 33–53 Google Scholar.

114 For an overview of Guibert’s ideas, see Heuser, Beatrice, ‘Guibert: Prophet of total war?’, in Roger Chickering and Stig Förster (eds), War in the Age of Revolution, 1775–1815 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 49–68 Google Scholar.

115 For example, Foucault, ‘Nietzsche, genealogy, history’, pp. 148, 150, 155, and 164.

116 Porter, Patrick, Military Orientalism: Eastern War through Western Eyes (London: Hurst, 2009), p. 42 Google Scholar.

117 Ferris, ‘Small wars and great games’, p. 201.

118 French, David, Raising Churchill’s Army: The British Army and the War Against Germany 1919–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 168 Google Scholar.

119 Maxwell, quoted in Lewis Gaddis, John, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 256 Google Scholar.

120 Guibert, quoted in Heuser, ‘Guibert: Prophet of total war?’, p. 63.

121 Barkawi, ‘State and armed force in international context’, p. 50.

122 Eisenhower, quoted in Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, p. 151.

123 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, pp. 291–2.

124 Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark, ‘The postcolonial moment in security studies’, Review of International Studies, 32:2 (2006), pp. 329–352 Google Scholar; Black, Jeremy, War in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Polity, 2009)Google Scholar.

125 Strachan, Hew, The First World War in Africa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Barr, James, Setting the Desert on Fire: T. E. Lawrence and Britain’s Secret War in Arabia, 1916–1918 (London: Bloomsbury, 2006)Google Scholar.

126 Foucault, ‘Nietzsche, genealogy, history’, p. 221.

127 Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince (Kindle edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012 [orig. pub. 1532]), locs 1537–40Google Scholar.

128 For instance, Baker, Just Warriors, Inc., pp. 31–47.

129 See McFate, The Modern Mercenary, pp. 50–60.

130 Weigley, Russell F., The Age of Battles: The Quest for Decisive Warfare from Breitenfeld to Waterloo (Blommington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2004), pp. 27–28 Google Scholar.

131 Ibid., p. 6.

132 Higate, ‘The private military and security contractor as geocorporeal actor’, p. 364.

133 Ibid., p. 356. See also Kinsey, Christopher, Corporate Soldiers and International Security: The Rise of Private Military Companies (London: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar.

134 See Knight, Ian, Zulu Rising: The Epic Story of iSandlwana and Rorke’s Drift (London: Macmillan, 2010), pp. 157–158 Google Scholar.

135 Tucker, Spencer C., Vietnam (London: University College London Press, 1999), pp. 172–174 Google Scholar.

136 Jones, Seth G., In the Graveyard of Empires: America’s War in Afghanistan (New York: W. W. Norton, 2009), pp. 319–321 Google Scholar.

137 Machiavelli, The Prince, loc. 1537.

138 Ibid., locs 1680 and 1687.

139 McFate, The Modern Mercenary, pp. 35–6. A notable and relevant exception was the American ‘Flying Tigers’ unit of combat aircraft. Manned by ex-US military personnel, this unit fought in China against Japanese forces, reinforcing the inside/outside Europe dichotomy.

140 Foucault, ‘Nietzsche, genealogy, history’, p. 88.

141 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, p. 108.