论书写国家历史的方式

Q2 Arts and Humanities Foucault Studies Pub Date : 2020-09-27 DOI:10.22439/FS.V1I28.6074
Eli B. Lichtenstein
{"title":"论书写国家历史的方式","authors":"Eli B. Lichtenstein","doi":"10.22439/FS.V1I28.6074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Foucault’s governmentality lectures at the Collège de France analyze the history of the state through the lens of governmental reason. However, these lectures largely omit consideration of the relationship between discipline and the state, prioritizing instead raison d’État and liberalism as dominant state technologies. To remedy this omission, I turn to Foucault’s early studies of discipline and argue that they provide materials for the reconstruction of a genealogy of the “disciplinary state.” In reconstructing this genealogy, I demonstrate that the disciplinary state marks the “dark side” of the liberal state, a dark side which is, moreover, largely obscured in the governmentality lectures. I further construe the difference between this early genealogy of the state and the later governmental studies in methodological terms. At stake in this difference is the historiographic status of capitalism and social conflict. Foucault’s governmentality lectures employ what I term an “idealist disavowal,” thereby treating capitalism and social conflict as irrelevant to the history of the state. The early disciplinary studies, on the other hand, enact a “materialist avowal,” by which these objects are avowed as central to the explanation of how and why the state develops. Finally, I argue that Foucault’s governmental genealogy of the liberal state is explanatorily and analytically incomplete, while the genealogy of the disciplinary state contributes to its completion on both fronts.","PeriodicalId":38873,"journal":{"name":"Foucault Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Ways of Writing the History of the State\",\"authors\":\"Eli B. Lichtenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.22439/FS.V1I28.6074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Foucault’s governmentality lectures at the Collège de France analyze the history of the state through the lens of governmental reason. However, these lectures largely omit consideration of the relationship between discipline and the state, prioritizing instead raison d’État and liberalism as dominant state technologies. To remedy this omission, I turn to Foucault’s early studies of discipline and argue that they provide materials for the reconstruction of a genealogy of the “disciplinary state.” In reconstructing this genealogy, I demonstrate that the disciplinary state marks the “dark side” of the liberal state, a dark side which is, moreover, largely obscured in the governmentality lectures. I further construe the difference between this early genealogy of the state and the later governmental studies in methodological terms. At stake in this difference is the historiographic status of capitalism and social conflict. Foucault’s governmentality lectures employ what I term an “idealist disavowal,” thereby treating capitalism and social conflict as irrelevant to the history of the state. The early disciplinary studies, on the other hand, enact a “materialist avowal,” by which these objects are avowed as central to the explanation of how and why the state develops. Finally, I argue that Foucault’s governmental genealogy of the liberal state is explanatorily and analytically incomplete, while the genealogy of the disciplinary state contributes to its completion on both fronts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38873,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foucault Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foucault Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22439/FS.V1I28.6074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foucault Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22439/FS.V1I28.6074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

福柯在法兰西学院的治理学讲座通过政府理性的视角分析了国家的历史。然而,这些讲座在很大程度上忽略了对学科与国家之间关系的考虑,而是优先考虑理性État和自由主义作为主导国家技术。为了弥补这一遗漏,我转向福柯早期对学科的研究,并认为它们为重建“学科国家”的谱系提供了材料。在重建这一谱系的过程中,我证明了纪律国家标志着自由主义国家的“阴暗面”,而且,这一阴暗面在治理学的讲座中很大程度上被掩盖了。我进一步从方法论的角度解释这种早期的国家谱系与后来的政府研究之间的区别。这种差异的关键在于资本主义和社会冲突的历史地位。福柯的治理学讲座采用了我所说的“理想主义的否定”,因此将资本主义和社会冲突视为与国家历史无关。另一方面,早期的学科研究制定了一种“唯物主义宣言”,通过这种宣言,这些对象被宣称为解释国家如何以及为什么发展的核心。最后,我认为福柯的自由国家的政府谱系在解释和分析上都是不完整的,而纪律国家的谱系在两个方面都有助于它的完成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Ways of Writing the History of the State
Foucault’s governmentality lectures at the Collège de France analyze the history of the state through the lens of governmental reason. However, these lectures largely omit consideration of the relationship between discipline and the state, prioritizing instead raison d’État and liberalism as dominant state technologies. To remedy this omission, I turn to Foucault’s early studies of discipline and argue that they provide materials for the reconstruction of a genealogy of the “disciplinary state.” In reconstructing this genealogy, I demonstrate that the disciplinary state marks the “dark side” of the liberal state, a dark side which is, moreover, largely obscured in the governmentality lectures. I further construe the difference between this early genealogy of the state and the later governmental studies in methodological terms. At stake in this difference is the historiographic status of capitalism and social conflict. Foucault’s governmentality lectures employ what I term an “idealist disavowal,” thereby treating capitalism and social conflict as irrelevant to the history of the state. The early disciplinary studies, on the other hand, enact a “materialist avowal,” by which these objects are avowed as central to the explanation of how and why the state develops. Finally, I argue that Foucault’s governmental genealogy of the liberal state is explanatorily and analytically incomplete, while the genealogy of the disciplinary state contributes to its completion on both fronts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Foucault Studies
Foucault Studies Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Inhuman Hermeneutics of the Self: Biopolitics in the Age of Big Data Special Issue Introduction Mark Coeckelbergh, Self-Improvement: Technologies of the Soul in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. New York: Columbia University Press, 2022. Pp. 144. Ungovernable Counter-Conduct: Ivan Illich’s Critique of Governmentality Sustaining Significance of Confessional Form: Taking Foucault to Attitudinal Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1