Page 40 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

26 Changing Definitions of Politics and Power

government. According to Hindess ’ s reading, Foucault used more precise
terms in order to distinguish between power as a feature of all human
interactions and domination as a particular structure of power in which
antagonisms are consolidated in hierarchical and stable relations. Power,
then, is not denounced as such, the implication of the critical perspective
of Foucault ’ s earlier work. On the contrary, it now represents the poten-
tial fl uidity of social relations. Since power only acts on those who may
resist, and who may in turn act on others, there is always the possibility
of reversals of power. In domination, however, those who are dominated
have such little room for maneuver that reversals of power become
impracticable, though they are never, strictly speaking, impossible
(Foucault, 1982 ; Hindess, 1996 ). Again, the activities of social movements
may be used methodologically to understand how far a particular set of
social relationships should be seen as domination or as relations of power,
according to the degree of freedom they enable or allow for the politics
of identity and solidarity.

Governmentality

In Foucault ’ s later work, although he remained critical of the “ juridico -
discursive ” model of power as possessed by the state, and also of
general theories of power and the state, he nevertheless began to build
up something like an “ analytics of power ” concerning state formation
and reproduction in the West. These studies concern what he called
“ governmentality. ”
Foucault defi nes “ government ” as “ the conduct of conduct, ” the

attempt to influence the actions of free subjects. It concerns how we
govern ourselves as free subjects, how we govern “ things, ” and how we
are governed. In this way, Foucault ’ s ideas on governmentality encompass
his previous work on discipline and the production of docile bodies, and
on the production of subjects who rely on authorities for confi rmation of
their “ normality. ” What is new in this work, however, is how these dis-
ciplinary practices are now related to the historical formation of the
modern state and to the way power is exercised through practices that
maintain it as such.
Foucault sees governmentality as a modern form of power, which fi rst
arose in opposition to its competitor, the Machiavellian idea of sover-
eignty, in the sixteenth century. Machiavellianism was a doctrine devel-
oped to guide the sovereign leaders of the early modern state, advising
them how to maintain peace and security. According to the advice set out
in The Prince , the principal object of government is the maintenance of