Foucault Studies 2020-02-07T07:44:53+00:00 Asker Bryld Staunæs & Sille Høker Neumann Open Journal Systems <p><span id="E112" class="qowt-font4-PalatinoLinotype">Foucault Studies</span><span id="E113" class="qowt-font4-PalatinoLinotype"> is the only international journal in the English language devoted to the work and influence of the&nbsp;</span><span id="E115" class="qowt-font4-PalatinoLinotype">thinker Michel Foucault, often listed as the most cited contemporary author within the human and social sciences.</span></p> Editorial 2020-01-17T11:20:06+00:00 Sverre Raffnsøe et al. 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The authors What’s In a Norm? Foucault’s Conceptualisation and Genealogy of the Norm 2020-01-17T11:20:04+00:00 Mark Kelly <p>In this article I survey Foucault’s remarks on norms and normalisation from across his oeuvre, with a view to reconstructing his genealogy of norms, leaning at points – following Foucault himself – on Georges Canguilhem’s seminal work on the topic. I also survey in tandem the existing secondary scholarship on this question, maintaining – pace other schol-ars – that Foucault’s position has not been adequately explicated despite sophisticated attempts. I argue that Foucault’s idiosyncratic conception of the norm, overlooked or mis-understood by other readers, is consistently of an ideal model guiding human action in any particular sphere. This concept is a relatively modern one that may be contrasted to the older form of restricting human behaviour according to binary discriminations that may be called ‘laws’ or ‘rules’. Foucault traces the form of the norm specifically to medieval pro-cesses for dealing with the plague, which later become highly generalised and diffused to produce a normalising society. I conclude with a more speculative discussion of how this society of the norm continues to utilise binarising rules, arguing that norms are typically used in order to ground binarising condemnations of abnormal cases, but that the nebu-lousness of norms ultimately allows any particular case to be condemned by such stand-ards.</p> 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 Author Foucault, Normativity, and Freedom: A Reappraisal 2020-01-17T11:20:02+00:00 Giovanni Mascaretti <p>The aim of this article is to contribute to the recently revived debate over the normativity of Foucault’s genealogical method. More specifically, I shall respond to Fraser’s charge that Foucault’s rejection of humanism is unjustified because he cannot state why a totally panopticized, autonomous society would be objectionable. After dismissing a non-normative defence strategy of Foucault’s work, I shall proceed as follows: firstly, I shall clarify Fou-cault’s model of critique as a practice of problematization geared to free his addressees from their captivation to the system of truths sustaining the power mechanisms of modern biopolitics. Secondly, I shall argue that Fraser’s society should be resisted because it would reproduce this regime of captivity, thereby obstructing the exercise of freedom as self-transformation. Thirdly, I shall contend that Foucault’s normative orientation to a post-humanist conception of freedom as self-transformation finds a contextual, explanatory account in his attempt to revitalize the emancipatory project of Enlightenment modernity through a transformative problematization of our normative commitments. Moreover, I shall show that the standard of validity of this effort is represented by Foucault’s exemplary embodiment of the critical ethos of the Enlightenment in both his style of existence and theoretical activity. Finally, the article terminates by illustrating three shortcomings of Foucault’s normative approach.</p> 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The author Re-thinking Thought: Foucault, Deleuze, and the Possibility of Thinking 2020-01-17T11:20:00+00:00 Wendyl Luna <p>This paper examines how Foucault and Deleuze understand each other’s work, arguing that they are united in their common endeavour to make it possible to think again. Focusing on Foucault’s ‘Theatrum Philosophicum’ and Deleuze’s <em>Foucault</em>, it shows how each of Foucault and Deleuze considers the other as someone who opens anew the possibility of thinking. The first section examines Deleuze’s interpretation of Foucault’s work. It demonstrates that, despite sounding as if he is elucidating his own philosophy, Deleuze is correct in saying that Foucault re-thinks thought by positing the disjunction between the articulable and the visible, among other things. Turning to Foucault’s review of Deleuze’s works, the second section explains why Foucault deems Deleuze’s notion of thought as a disjunctive affirmation. By underscoring the disjunctive role ‘and’ plays in the disjunctive affirmation of ‘the event <em>and</em> the phantasm’ and/or of thought itself and its object, Foucault considers Deleuze as someone who re-thinks thought not by conceptualising it but by thinking difference. The paper concludes that, while each endeavours to consider thought in a new light, both Foucault and Deleuze believe that the other makes it possible to think again.</p> 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The author Foucault as an Ethical Philosopher: The Genealogical Discussion of Antiquity and the Present 2020-02-07T07:44:53+00:00 Dimitrios Lais <p>The paper further realises Foucault’s genealogy of ethics to grasp genealogy as the totality of three axes – power, truth, and ethics – driven by the ethical axis. The paper demonstrates that Foucault’s discussion of antiquity is genealogical. The main focus is Foucault’s late work and, in particular, his final lectures on <em>The Courage of Truth</em>. The paper highlights the genealogical function of the distinction between ‘Laches’ and ‘Alcibiades’. ‘Laches’ provides a heuristic source for self-care in the present in the form of practices of living tied to the ‘Laches’ parrhesia. But, it is also a critique of the present applied to democratic theories that have used the neo-platonic line of the ‘Alcibiades’ parrhesia – of which Foucault disapproves – as their source in creating traceable technologies of the self tied to structures of domination. Such technologies freeze games of power and governmentalise the problematisation of how to govern the self. Hence, the genealogical discussion of antiquity in connection with an understanding of genealogy as problematisation should be perceived as a heuristic source of self-creation with critical implications for evaluating power regimes in the present. The paper introduces the link between the ancient past and the present with respect to Foucault vis-à-vis certain democratic theories. The central aim is to consider on what grounds placing the problematisation of the self at the centre of a new politics can be also linked to governmentality. In this context, the paper also clarifies the wider implication of its core premise for Foucauldian studies and the emerging discussion of parrhesia.</p> 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The author Ethical Invention in Sartre and Foucault: Courage, Freedom, Transformation 2020-01-17T11:19:57+00:00 Kimberly Engels <p>This article explores the concept of ethical invention in both Jean-Paul Sartre’s and Michel Foucault’s later lectures and interviews, showing that a courageous disposition to invent or transform plays a key role in both thinkers’ visions of ethics. Three of Sartre’s post-<em>Critique of Dialectical Reason </em>lectures on ethics are examined: <em>Morality and History, The Rome Lecture, </em>and <em>A Plea for Intellectuals. </em>It is shown that ethical invention for Sartre requires the use of our freedom to transcend our current circumstances, a willingness to break away from harmful ideologies, and directing our free praxis towards the goal of universal humanism.&nbsp; Examining several of Foucault’s interviews alongside his lecture series <em>The Government of Self and Others </em>and <em>The Courage of Truth,</em> it is shown that ethical invention for Foucault requires a rejection of necessities or inevitabilities in our current landscape, a willingness to reshape our current beliefs, and a philosophical way of life that results in an alteration of the relationship to self and others. For both thinkers, ethical invention should be preceded by a critical reflection on ourselves in our historical moment. Both argue that ethical invention requires a rejection of the inherent value of our world and realization that the conditions of possibility for being subjects are malleable. Last, it is shown that both philosophers specifically call philosophers or intellectuals to invent.</p> 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The author Sirens in the Panopticon: Intersections Between Ainslean Picoeconomics and Foucault`s Discipline Theory 2020-01-17T11:19:55+00:00 Yevhenii Osiievskyi Maksym Yakovlyev <p>In this article, we attempt to synthesize the findings of the branch of behavioral economics known as “<em>picoeconomics</em>” (developed by George Ainslie) with insights from Foucauldian thought in order to demonstrate that a richer and more nuanced understanding of strategies for self-managing human irrationality can be achieved when both approaches are mobilized. Picoeconomic games can be modeled as an intrapsychic exercise of the disciplinary power thereby suggesting an important contributing factor to the formation of effective Ainslean will. On the other hand, picoenomic descriptions of the functioning of mind do not only align with Foucault’s concept of the “<em>techniques of the self</em>” but also point to the possibility of the transformation of disciplinary practices into modes of subjectivation once the former are fully internalized. On the basis of these findings, we propose an empirically testable hypothesis about the biographical correlates of strong Ainslean will and a prospective area of subjectivity research in the vein of Foucauldian studies.</p> 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The authors The Paradoxes in the Use of the Panopticon as a Theoretical Reference in Urban Video-surveillance Studies: A Case Study of a CCTV System of a Brazilian city 2020-01-17T11:19:53+00:00 Iafet Leonardi Bricalli <p>This article aims at introducing the relation between the use of CCTV systems in urban spaces and social control. More specifically, its purpose is to problematize and reaffirm the use of the theoretical background of the panopticon in order to interpret such a relation. In CCTV studies, as a consequence of literal interpretations, as well as the existence of a hegemony in ethnographic studies carried out in control rooms, the theoretical use of the panopticon is then questioned. In this article, based on an ethnographic study conducted in the public spaces surveilled by a CCTV system in a Brazilian city, it can be concluded that the effects of social control through surveillance are paradoxical. The indifferent way in which citizens deal with surveillance, or even the lack of awareness of it, imposes limits to the interpretation of the system as a tool of social control. Thus, the use of the panopticon becomes problematic. However, this research has shown how the presence of cameras in public spaces makes it conducive for a state of control in the form of a network whose project would be a mythical and homogeneous ordering of the spaces. The importance of the interpretation of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon by Michel Foucault is then reaffirmed, that is, panopticism as a trend of normalization and moralization of the public spaces.</p> 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The author Colin Koopman: "How We Became Our Data: A Genealogy of the Informational Person" 2020-01-17T11:19:51+00:00 Leonard D’Cruz 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The author Tom Boland: "The Spectacle of Critique: from Philosophy to Cacophony" 2020-01-17T11:19:49+00:00 Stephanie Martens 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The author Rosi Braidotti and Maria Hlavajova: "Posthuman Glossary" 2020-01-17T11:19:47+00:00 Asker Bryld Staunæs Mads Rosendahl Thomsen 2019-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2019 The authors