Foucault's Concept of Governmentality

Initially formulated in Security, Territory, and Population, Michel Foucault's notion of 'governmentality' was enriched and deepened in Society must be Defended and The Birth of Biopolitics. This concept of governmentality encompasses the goals, techniques and procedures which are designed to govern the conduct of both individuals and populations at every level, and not just at the administrative or political level, and it coincides with the centralisation and increased government power which produces 'rituals of truth' from which emerge 'regimes of truth'.

Governmentality operates in and through 'discursive fields' which are characterised by a shared vocabulary, organisational techniques based on a shared understanding of ethical principles and their explanatory logic. These develop various modalities of speaking the truth (knowledge) - who can speak the truth and how in the discursive systems. 

Within these systems certain people are deemed as 'authorities', and they are designated as authorised 'truth-speakers'. Areas in which certain people can speak, and about what or whom are constructed and clarified. As a result, practices rooted in 'truths' are created, ie. the methods of shaping the behaviour of others. At his most concise, Foucault defines governmentality as 'conduct of conducts'.

Governmentality is enacted by governments. This may seem redundant, however, it must be made clear that by 'government' Foucault does not only mean the political or administrative apparatus of the state. For Foucault, 'government' is what structures the possible field of action of others. So, there is the government of children, the government of families, communities, populations, the sick, etc.

Whereas governmentality is the set of goals and objectives, techniques and procedures, government is the  method  through which  these  aims are to be  achieved. Foucault calls this the  'disposal' of things: an arrangement  of things through which certain ends can be achieved. These things, however, are not  just objects, but rather they  are a complex amalgamation of people and things; that is, people in relation to  objects and events in  the world. 

Government is utilized to make adjustments in the relationships between people and things by enforcing laws but  it could  also  do  so  by  adjusting  taxation,  prescribing standards for education, by building an infrastructure  as well as by directing moral and religious education.

This development of governmentality does not convey a new theory as much as a new perspective and illustrates a change in Foucault's analysis of power. By introducing governmentality, Foucault shows that there is another way to view power: for if there are different ways to govern, then there are different ways in which individuals and populations become governable. This leads to a more subtle understanding of the operations of power in societies. It allows for seemingly distinct nodes of power relations to be coalesced into a constellation forming the power system in a society.

For instance, let us take the post-16th century disintegration of monarchical power. In this case, even though the absolute power of the monarch was gone, one sees that there still is government. This is to a large extent internalised by people, but there is also surveillance and reinforcement for conforming to the rules. Here we have a shift in governmentality that was made possible by the creation of specific (expert or professional) 'knowledges' as well as the construction of experts, institutions and disciplines (e.g., medicine, psychology, psychiatry) so that individuals who we think of as experts can claim the knowledge necessary to command the power of governmentality.

In his analysis of 'governmentality', Foucault stresses again that it would be an error to understand institutions such as the state as being essentially oppressive and power should not only be thought of in terms of hierarchical, top-down power of the state, as stressed in his earlier works, but also to include the forms of social control in disciplinary institutions, such as schools, hospitals, psychiatric institutions, et cetera, as well as the forms of knowledge produced therein. Power, then,  can manifest itself positively by producing knowledge and certain discourses that get internalised by individuals and guide the behaviour of populations.

This leads to more efficient forms of social control, as knowledge enables individuals to govern themselves. This development constructs a tripartite division of power: i) Juridical, ii) Disciplinary and iii) Bio-political power - which will be explored in the near future.