INGLES Governamentalidade Como Epistemologia

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/236869663
Governmentality as Epistemology
Article in Annals of the American Association of Geographers · April 2011

DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2010.544962
CITATIONS READS
105 3,127
1 author:
Nancy Ettlinger
The Ohio State University
58 PUBLICATIONS 1,519 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Nancy Ettlinger on 17 March 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Governmentality as Epistemology
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 13:53 2 May 2011
Nancy Ettlinger
Department of Geography, The Ohio State University
This article presents Foucault’s governmentality as an analytical framework that is useful for interpreting and
using empirics toward critical theory. Although Foucault viewed the discipline of geography narrowly regarding
spatial patterns, his geographic sensibilities connect with contemporary critical human geography, which exam-
ines processes relationally from a topological, non-Euclidean view of space. Further, Foucault’s novel approach to
multiscalar analysis offers critical insight into one debate: whether scale as an analytical concept unproductively
reifies hierarchy and obscures the mobilization of power. Foucault’s ascending analysis clarifies how scale-sensitive
analysis can illuminate the mobilization of power regarding its targets (as per techniques of biopower and disci-
plinary power) and its diffuse sources, and how actors’ practices can become unchained from normalizing societal
pressures. Foucault’s early scholarship on governmentality represents actors as unconscious of the regulatory
framework with which they implicitly are complicit, but his later work on resistance emphasizes reflexivity and
the proactive constitution and transformation of the self. The earlier framework on the governance of populations
suggests that mentalities and related discourses produce practices, whereas the later framework on the governance
of the self suggests the reverse, therein holding important clues for critical theory and the proactive construction
of transformation based on a critique of the past and present. The article “assembles” Foucault’s scholarship on
governance and ethics over the course of his career to present an overall framework that is useful for analyses
concerning a variety of questions. Analytical points are exemplified with reference to urban, race-related issues,
drawing in part from my own research. Key Words: critical theory, epistemology, governmentality, relational, scale.
Este artı́culo presenta la gobermentalidad de Foucault como un marco analı́tico útil para interpretar y utilizar
lo empı́rico en teorı́a crı́tica. Aunque Foucault tuvo una mirada muy estrecha de la disciplina de la geografı́a
en lo concerniente a patrones espaciales, sus sensibilidades geográficas lo conectan con la geografı́a humana
crı́tica contemporánea, que examina relacionalmente los procesos desde una visión topológica no-euclidiana del
espacio. Más todavı́a, el novedoso enfoque de Foucault por el análisis multiescalar ofrece una perspicacia crı́tica
en lo que concierne a un debate: si la escala como concepto analı́tico reifica improductivamente la jerarquı́a y
oscurece la movilización del poder. El ascendente análisis de Foucault clarifica cómo el análisis que es sensible
a la escala puede iluminar la movilización del poder en relación con sus miras (según las técnicas de biopoder
y de poder disciplinario) y sus fuentes difusas, y cómo las prácticas de los actores pueden llegar a encadenarse a
partir de presiones sociales normalizantes. La concepción inicial de gobernabilidad de Foucault representa los
actores como no conscientes del marco regulador con el que ellos implı́citamente tienen complicidad, pero su
trabajo posterior sobre resistencia enfatiza la reflexibilidad y la constitución proactiva y transformación del yo. El
marco más temprano sobre el gobierno de poblaciones sugiere que las mentalidades y discursos afines producen
prácticas, mientras que el marco posterior sobre el gobierno del yo sugiere lo contrario, guardando en eso
pistas muy importantes para la teorı́a crı́tica y la construcción proactiva de la transformación basada en una crı́tica
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(3) 2011, pp. 537–560 C 2011 by Association of American Geographers
Initial submission, June 2008; revised submissions, February 2009 and March 2010; final acceptance, March 2010
Published by Taylor & Francis, LLC.
538 Ettlinger
del pasado y el presente. El artı́culo “ensambla” la sabidurı́a de Foucault sobre gobierno y ética en el curso de su
carrera para presentar un marco total que es útil para hacer los análisis concernientes a una variedad de cuestiones.
Puntos analı́ticos son puestos como ejemplo en referencia a asuntos relacionados con lo urbano y raza, con base
en parte en mis propias investigaciones. Palabras clave: teorı́a crı́tica, epistemologı́a, gobernabilidad, relacional, escala.
A
s a contribution to the Methods section graphic inquiry. Specifically, Foucault’s view of space
of this journal, this article emphasizes the (as I will elaborate, quite distinct from his understand-
epistemological1 significance of Michel Fou- ing of geography as a discipline) is topological and non-
cault’s conceptualization of governmentality, which he Euclidean. This view of space, consistent with some
developed in the latter part of his life, in the late views of relational thinking,4 has received increasing
1970s and early 1980s. Foucault introduced the term attention among critical human geographers, especially
governmentality in 1978 in his lecture series at the since the late 1990s (e.g., Massey 1993, 2005; Massey,
Collège de France, Security, Territory, Population (Fou- Allen, and Sarre 1999; Amin 2002, 2004; Allen 2003;
cault 2007a),2 although his earlier scholarship contains Routledge 2003; Smith 2003; Ettlinger 2004; Feather-
important building blocks of the overall conceptualiza- stone 2004, 2008; Bosco 2006; Allen and Cochrane
tion. He continued to develop his thoughts about gov- 2007; Buttle 2007; Routledge, Cumbers, and Nativel
ernance in subsequent lecture series, interviews, essays, 2007). Space from a topological or non-Euclidean per-
and in the last two volumes of The History of Sexuality spective is understood not as a container of activity but
(Foucault 1988a, 1990a, 1990b).3 rather in relational terms with reference to the con-
Governmentality offers an analytical framework that nection of actors in any one place to dynamics across
is especially useful towards connecting abstract societal space—a “progressive sense of place” (Massey 1993).
discourses with everyday material practices. It privileges Contrary to the Euclidean understanding that any two
neither the discursive nor the material but rather the points are connected by a straight line, space is un-
relation between the two. Disassembling the term into derstood as folded and relational. This view of space
govern and mentality, governmentality refers to the gov- is integral to governmentality, which refers to “gover-
ernance of a mentality (a collectively held view that is nance at a distance” (Foucault 2000h); that is, how
communicated through a variety of discourses) by way everyday activity is sensible in terms of techniques of
of “techniques of power”—calculated tactics that guide power or governance by which the conduct of citi-
everyday citizen-subjects to act in accordance with zens is conducted—“the conduct of conduct” (Foucault
societal norms (Dean 2010). Analytically, governmen- 2000h, 341; 2007b, 193)—so as to materialize societal
tality connects with relational thinking in geography norms in daily practices, a process of normalization. It
(e.g., Dicken et al. 2001; Boggs and Rantisi 2003; is this indirectness that makes governance an art that
Yeung 2005), which shifts focus from actors as isolated requires calculated courses of action designed to guide
nodes of analysis to connections among actors (Latour people’s decision making unconsciously.5 Governance,
2005), but it also offers another dimension of rela- then, is not about individuals in positions of power who
tionality, notably in its focus on the relation between exert direct, sovereign, and coercive control over a ter-
abstractions and empirics. Foucault was fundamentally ritory but rather how it is that norms of a population
concerned with how to interpret empirics, as reflected are unconsciously produced and reproduced by citizen-
in his comment in an interview in 1981: “Every time I subjects, thereby making governance at a distance pos-
have tried to do a piece of theoretical work it has been sible (Rose 1996). As Foucault (1988b) reflected at the
on the basis of elements of my own experience: always outset of a lecture at the University of Vermont in 1982,
in connection with processes I saw unfolding around his previous work focused on issues of power and dom-
me” (Foucault 2000g, 458). Foucault’s attention to how ination; that is, how actors are objectified so that they
everyday, mundane activity figures in societal-scale will reproduce and elaborate prevailing norms. People
discourses and vice versa offers guidance for multiscalar in this framework are produced by an external gaze. As I
analysis. elaborate, countering Marxism, which was the prevail-
I suggest that governmentality is geographic at its ing Left perspective, Foucault advanced a novel under-
core and can inform and offer insights into geographic standing of power not as destructive or prohibitive but as
issues, although the view of space in a governmen- productive, and not as located in particular positions of
tality approach is not amenable to all kinds of geo- a hierarchy but as diffuse, ubiquitous—precisely because
Governmentality as Epistemology 539
discourses are constituted, even if unconsciously, by ev- tant clues toward possibilities of transformational (gov-
eryday citizens in mundane activity or practices. ern)mentalities. Even when such upscaling does not oc-
The bulk of Foucault’s (1988b) lecture at the Uni- cur, self-transformation is conceptualized as an impor-
versity of Vermont, however, focused on Foucault’s tant act; it “counts” (Foucault 2000g, 2004). Crucially,
new line of inquiry,6 which focused on individuals’ transformation of community or societal scale mental-
choice, agency. This new direction followed logically ities or of the self connects with critical theory, which
from his work on the art of governance because indi- focuses on how to make this world a better place, based
rect governance rests on the presumption that actors on a critique of the existing system and its history.8
have choices; that is, they can conform to, reproduce, By the time Foucault began to work through the issue
and elaborate discourses and prescribed norms or they of choice, he conceptualized governmentality as encom-
can challenge them. Through the 1970s Foucault men- passing both governance of a population and of the self
tioned choice and its implications for challenging and and, specifically, he cast the two modes of governance
resisting prevailing norms (e.g., Foucault 1980c, 1980e, in an agonistic relation of continual negotiation (Fou-
1980f, 1990b, 2000d, 2007b, 2008), but his comments cault 2000h, 2007c), as indicated in Figure 1. Secondary
on these issues were relatively cursory. In the last part literature on Foucault’s work on subjectivity and ethics
of his life, in the early 1980s, Foucault began to focus (e.g., Faubion 2001; McLaren 2002; Hoy 2004; Luxon
specifically on how the choice to resist comes about; 2004, 2008; Taylor and Vintges 2004; Milchman and
these thoughts are elaborated in a lecture series at the Rosenberg 2005; O’Leary 2006; Paras 2006; McGushin
Collège de France in 1981–1982, The Hermeneutics of 2007; McNay 2009; Moss 2009; Rabinow 1997, 2009;
the Subject (Foucault 2004; see also Foucault 1997a, Taylor 2009; see also biographical scholarship such as
1997b, 1988b, 2000h, 2001, 2007c). He argued that Eribon 1991; Miller 1993) has to date mostly been out-
resistance depends on a holistic, critical understand- side geography (although see Cameron 1998), which
ing (savoir as opposed to connaissance)7 of the system has focused on the left side of Figure 1, the governance
of governance that objectifies, dominates, and produces of populations. That Foucault has been accused of be-
behavior. Proactive choice, then, must be critically in- ing apolitical or not normative (e.g., N. Fraser 1989;
formed. Critique, in turn, depends on ongoing arduous Pickett 1996) is sensible in terms of analytical emphases
intellectual practices that discipline the mind while also on governance of a population; it was in the context
permitting the possibility of developing autonomy from of his concern with governance of the self that Fou-
the system so as to be able to critique and challenge cault (1988a, 1990a, 1997a, 1997b, 2001, 2004) elabo-
it (O’Grady 2004). Countering the notion in psycho- rated the “political spirituality” (Foucault 2000f, 233) of
analysis that there exists an essential self that requires his scholarship, its critical normative content. Feminist
discovery, Foucault argued for a subjectivity that entails scholarship in particular (e.g., Cameron 1998; McLaren
a progressive constitution of the self, a matter of telling 2002; Taylor and Vintges 2004) has tapped Foucault’s
one’s own story through an inner gaze. Challenging the governance of the self for its political agenda and atten-
system counters subjugation, domination; it allows one tion to agency that offer hopeful possibilities for Others
to understand how he or she has been constructed by toward reconstituting themselves.9 What appears at the
the system, and opens a space in which to reject such in- current time to be a relative lack of attention to a cru-
terpellated identity. Whereas the governance of a popu- cial component of Foucault’s work—the governance of
lation entails governance at a distance, the governance the self—might pertain in part to the English-language
of the self permits an individual to create distance be- publication history of Foucault’s work; his lecture se-
tween herself or himself and a system of governance by ries on the governance of the self, The Hermeneutics of
recognizing and critically situating oneself in that sys- the Self delivered at the Collège de France in 1981 and
tem. Such resistance to a system via critique and proac- 1982, was not published in English until 2005.10 In part,
tive self-enlightenment entails a perpetual process that the relative lack of emphasis on the governance of the
requires ascetic practices of self-discipline to maintain self might also pertain to the orientation of the major-
proactive reflexivity. Little wonder, then, that norms ity of research on the political, but not necessarily of
are questioned relatively infrequently, by relatively few the political (i.e., embracing and advancing a political
people. Consequently, norms persist, although minor- agenda).11
ity actions and voices can possibly connect and be- ***
come scaled up (Cooper 2006), and therein offer impor-
540 Ettlinger
Figure 1. Schematic representation of governmentality in terms of two forms of governance (of the population and of the self).
In the interests of space, I focus in this article mostly in which a form of punitive system is physically dis-
on analysis of the governance of a population (the left persed yet at the same time covers the entirety of a
side of Figure 1), which has been the chief concern in ge- society” (Foucault 1980d, 68). For Foucault, terms such
ography; toward the end I discuss the governance of the as territory and so forth are misnomers as geographic
self and its connection to governance of a population to concepts because they pertain in the first instances to
clarify the relevance of governmentality to critical the- the processes that construct them:
ory. My overall aim is to clarify how governmentality is
useful for empirically based research and, further, how Territory is no doubt a geographical notion, but it’s first
it connects with issues in critical human geography and of all a juridico-political one . . . field is an economico-
juridical notion. Displacement: what displaces itself is an
critical theory. I begin by reviewing and critically situ-
army, a squadron, a population. Domain is a juridco-
ating Foucault’s view of geography as a discipline. The
political notion. Soil is a historico-geological notion. Re-
ensuing sections elaborate Foucault’s geographic sensi- gion is a fiscal, administrative, military notion. Horizon is a
bilities and the relevance of governmentality notably pictorial, but also a strategic notion. (Foucault 1980d, 69)
to issues of context, sense of space, and scale.
At the time of this interview, Foucault’s central inter-
Foucault on the Discipline of Geography est pertained to the processes underscoring the rela-
In the interview “Questions on Geography,” tion between knowledge and power. When pressed by
Foucault (1980d) revealed an understanding of the dis- the interviewers about region, territory, and the like as
cipline as focusing principally on spatial patterns. When geographic, he replied, “Once knowledge can be anal-
asked about “geographical metaphors” such as territory, ysed in terms of region, domain, implantation, displace-
field, displacement, domain, region, and horizon, Foucault ment, transposition, one is able to capture the process
responded that none of these terms referred to geogra- by which knowledge functions as a form of power and
phy, and that “There is only one notion here that is disseminates effects of power” (Foucault 1980d, 69).
truly geographical, that of the ‘archipelago.’ I used it It is not that geography held no significance for Fou-
only once, and that was to designate, via the title of cault but rather that he considered its significance lim-
Solzhenitsyn’s work, the carceral archipelago: the way ited, principally regarding the effects of power that are
manifest on the ground in spatial patterns. Yet in a crit- an analytical concept. Throughout the remainder of
icism of scholars who devalued this understanding of this article I exemplify analytical points with reference
space, Foucault commented: “They didn’t understand to urban issues of uneven development pertaining to
that to trace the forms of implantation, delimitation, segregation, planning, and racialized education, in part
and demarcation of objects, the modes of tabulation, drawing from some of my own research.
the organization of domains meant the throwing into
***
relief of processes—historical ones, needless to say—of
power. The spatialising description of discursive reali- Throughout the ensuing text I inject in italics what
ties gives on to the analysis of related effects of power” I call analytical anchor points, which specify different
(Foucault 1980d, 70–71). This quote suggests Foucault’s dimensions of governmentality as an analytical frame-
respect for thinking through the spatial effects of power, work. One important point must be made at the outset:
even though his concerns had been more in line with what can be understood as a governmentality analysis
what critical human geographers now refer to as spa- need not encompass all the anchor points delineated
tiality, with reference to the mutual embeddedness of here, which are culled from a wide variety of Foucault’s
space and society (i.e., social processes do not cause spa- scholarship over time and thus reflect different concerns
tial patterns as in a → b, but rather, social processes and he had over the course of his career. There are rigorous
spatial organization are bound up in one another, as in analyses of the governance of populations that do not
a ↔ b).12 Foucault’s declaration of respect for what he engage, for example, resistance or the development of
considered to be geographical reasoning appears to be a transformational mentality (e.g., Hannah 2000; Raco
a matter of thinking aloud in a stream-of-consciousness 2003; Watts 2003; O’Grady 2004; Dodge and Kitchin
mode to the interviewers, because by the end of the in- 2005; Rose-Redwood 2006), whereas others do (e.g.,
terview he confessed that he had not previously thought Cameron 1998; Cooper 2006; Mitchell 2006; Crowley
through the role of geographic issues in his work. The in- and Kitchin 2008); some analyses focus on clarifying
terview is valuable for clarifying Foucault’s perspective the genealogy of a mentality (e.g., Cruikshank 1999)
on geography as a discipline and also for illuminating and others emphasize pertinent mentalities that un-
how Foucault might have proceeded, specifically toward derscore on-the-ground practices (Rojas 2004) or the
analyzing spatial patterns. specification of techniques of power that ground men-
More an observation than a criticism, Foucault’s Eu- talities (e.g., Hughes 2001; Larner and LeHeron 2004;
clidean view of geography as a discipline evidently over- Huxley 2006; Catungal and Leslie 2009). Other stud-
looked process-oriented research that connects with a ies call attention to regimes of practices as a clearer
non-Euclidean sense of space in geographic inquiry. avenue of analysis in comparison to those that focus
This is unsurprising because although such alternatives on ideology (Barry 2004). I am unaware of a single
existed in the latter part of Foucault’s life, they did not, analysis of governmentality that comprehensively in-
however, become prominent in the discipline in criti- cludes all the dimensions to which I refer in this article
cal human geography until after his death in 1984 (e.g., (but see Cooper 200615 ).16 My purpose is to highlight
Massey, Allen, and Sarre 1999; Allen 2003; Massey the multidimensional nature of governmentality as a
2005).13 mode of analysis. As such, what I offer is not an es-
Yet despite Foucault’s narrow understanding of geog- sential Foucault but rather a critical synthesis of his
raphy as a discipline, he nonetheless developed impor- thoughts about governance (of a population and of the
tant geographic sensibilities that connect with critical self) toward both the interpretation of empirics and
human geography. His general geographic sensibilities the operationalization of critical theory. In an inter-
regarding the panopticon (Elden 2001), multiscalar view at the University of Vermont in 1982 Foucault
dynamics (Philo 2000; Legg 2005) and the spatial (1988c, 9) remarked, “I don’t feel that it is necessary
constitution of power relations are well known in crit- to know exactly what I am. The main interest in life
ical human geography and reflect his interest in issues and work is to become someone else that you were
of spatiality (Philo 1992, 2000, 2007; Hannah 2000; not in the beginning.” In the spirit of Latour’s (2005)
Elden 2001).14 My purpose here is to specify analytical actor network theory (in which “the social” should
issues that connect with and inform contemporary be understood not as given, but as something that is
critical human geography, specifically regarding con- continually being constituted—analytically, a matter
text and a non-Euclidean sense of space, and also of “assembling the social”), my project in a sense has
issues of scale relative to a debate in critical human been to assemble Foucault’s scholarship on governance
geography as to usefulness (or lack thereof) of scale as and ethics to present an overall framework that is useful
542 Ettlinger
for analyses emanating from a variety of questions and Foucault (2000c, 2000f) was interested in “local-
concerns. izing” problems, meaning that analysis should locate
problems in specific contexts or regimes of practices.19

Power, Practices, and Mentality/ies: Issues At issue is not context as spatial containment in a
of Context and Sense of Space Cartesian sense but rather material practices in a partic-
ular part or sector of society such as the health system,
Foucault reasoned that power is not a matter of one education, or the army. Localizing racist practices is not,
actor consciously dominating another as in the con- for example, a matter of delineating a neighborhood or
ventional understanding of power over another; rather, specific school or business where racism occurs or might
he expressed the “intention” of power as “invested occur but rather identifying specific experiences and
in its real and effective practices” (Foucault 1980f, practices. The (topological) “location” of racist prac-
97). Examination of practices is central to Foucault’s tices might be in racialized education, jobs, mortgage
mode of analysis. In an interview entitled “Questions of lending, and so on, each of which entails a specific
Method,” Foucault (2000f) clarified with reference to regime of practices (recognizing context-specific varia-
his previous work on prisons that his analytical concern tion) whereby persons of color have different, typically
was “practices—with the aim of grasping the conditions inferior experiences and opportunities in comparison
that make these acceptable at any moment” (225). He with those in the white majority population. Exami-
went on to say that such practices: nation of experiences analytically requires “touching
down,” on the ground, beginning analysis at a particular
are not just governed by institutions, prescribed by ide- site in the Cartesian sense (e.g., a school, a neigh-
ologies, guided by pragmatic circumstances . . . but, up to borhood, or a business) but is open to comparative
a point, possess their own specific regularities, logic, strat- analysis to recognize regularities amid variation in a
egy, self-evidence and “reason.” It is a question of analyzing
regime of practices. As Buttle (2007) pointed out, a
a “regime of practices”—practices being understood here
non-Euclidean sense of space recognizes Euclidean is-
as places where what is said and what is done, rules imposed
and reasons given, the planned and the taken-for-granted sues such as location or spatial proximity but extends
meet and interconnect. analysis beyond those issues.
Consistent with the preceding logic, the formulation
➢ analytical anchor point: specification of practices, regimes of of a research problem from a Foucauldian vantage point
practices begins in principle with an event,20 observation(s) of
specific practices,21 a comment,22 or an experience or
Place in the preceding quote refers not to a locality feeling23 —something “on the ground”—that prompts
but rather to a nonspatially circumscribed context (ex- contextualization and problematization or, from a crit-
emplified by Foucault in terms of a prison system, an ical theory perspective, an examination of problems
education system, the army, and so on) that produces posed by the existing system that can inform strate-
and is produced by an interrelated set of practices that gies to develop a transformational mentality.24 This ap-
has evolved over time and across space. For another ex- proach to initializing a project differs from those that
ample, consider racialized secondary education in the begin with broad theory and then find case studies to
United States,17 which occurs at specific locations but support the theory. From a Foucauldian perspective,
is not limited to those sites; it is widespread and is re- beginning with theory is problematic because this ap-
produced in similar ways at different sites, recognizing proach necessarily overlooks cases that do not fit the
context-specific variation in which segregationist prac- theory, except as outliers. This is not to suggest that
tices unfold. For instance, curricular segregationist prac- we conduct our lives prior to a research project with-
tices in apparently integrated U.S. school space occur out already formed views that filter lived practices. The
similarly in many different schools, commonly materi- induction–deduction relation operates as more of a di-
alizing in disproportionately small numbers of minor- alectic than a rigid division of thinking. If we acknowl-
ity students in honors classes. Recognizing contextual edge “the predicament of culture” (Clifford 1988; see
variation, similar but different curricular segregationist also Clifford and Marcus 1986)—the condition that no
practices might develop, such as segregation of ethnic one can escape bias—we also can acknowledge that
groups in English as a second language classes in local- one’s sensibilities to certain observations can guide
ities witnessing an influx of immigrants from countries analysis. Toward this end, feminist and critical theo-
in different world regions.18 rist Donna Haraway (1997, 64) famously suggested that
the science question “is about objectivity as positioned real estate agents, and investors making decisions about
rationality. Its images are not the products of escape and manufacturing a new neighborhood in lieu of an older
transcendence of limits (the view from above) but the one. Whereas declaration of eminent domain is com-
joining of partial views and halting voices into a collec- mon and without media attention when it targets low-
tive subject position that promises a vision of the means income neighborhoods inhabited by persons of color, it
of ongoing finite embodiment of living within limits is presented as an outrage and makes national headlines
and contradictions.” Pure objectivity is unachievable, when it is targeted toward a white, middle-class neigh-
but awareness of our biases is the condition for con- borhood, as in the case of New London, Connecticut
structively approaching it. (Salzman 2006; McGeehan 2009).
Given a practice or set of practices in Euclidean “Localizing” problems in non-Euclidean space—
space, how, then, can we critically account for its “regu- in practices of gentrification or segregation, for
larity” across space, to which Foucault (2000f) referred example—permits what Foucault (2000f, 2007d) called
in the previous quote from “Questions of Method?” To- “eventualization,”26 which is a mode of research that
wards this end, the analytical imperative is to iden- brings attention to the contingent nature and multiple
tify an underlying mentality, a collectively held view. causes of specific events. Foucault (2000f) explained
The mentality that connects practices across space is eventualization as follows:
➢ analytical anchor point: identifying mentality/ies that connect
a regime of practices making visible a singularity at places where there is a temp-
tation to invoke a historical constant . . . to show that
unlikely to be self-evident. Consider, for example, the things “weren’t as necessary as all that;” it wasn’t as a
well-worn strategy of a local state declaring eminent matter of course that mad people came to be regarded as
domain of a parcel of land in cases of urban renewal or mentally ill; it wasn’t self-evident that the only thing to
gentrification to permit the razing or refurbishing of the be done with a criminal was to lock him up. (226)
built environment in association with the entry of new
occupants or land use. Equally well worn is the comment It is not self-evident, for example, that residential zones
that such areas are blight and thus require cleaning up. of a city should be segregated relative to levels of income
Blight refers to something that causes disease or destruc- or race or ethnicity. How is it that moderate neighbor-
tion and prevents growth. It is a faceless, peopleless hood income and ethnic homogeneity have become
state of devastation that requires eradication, which is interpreted in terms of stability, which in turn is as-
facilitated by the declaration of eminent domain. Sig- sociated with positive connotations (Gotham 2000)?
nificantly, the mentality that defines a neighborhood What is the mentality that connects ethnic homogene-
differs relative to the source of a gaze. Whereas long- ity and middle-class status with a comfortable stability?
standing residents of a community gazing from within How is it that the entry of different groups in a neigh-
might conceptualize the neighborhood relative to lo- borhood commonly is received with fear, tension, and
calized social relations, those gazing on a neighborhood concretely, tactics to repel or avoid such entry? How
from outside (from city government to real estate of- are such practices sustained and held to be emblematic
fices and individuals interested in a site of investment) of truth?
often see not people but rather a built environment or Further, the “singularity” of events refers to their
data on that neighborhood (e.g., on crime, unemploy- contingent, unpredictable nature, the interpretation
ment, vacancy rates of buildings).25 Recognizing a gaze of which requires historical analysis to uncover mul-
as external helps clarify the often narrow scope of ob- tiple causality. In this sense, eventualization entails
servation (confined to things such as building or data) “rediscovering the connections, encounters, supports,
and how apparently heartless acts of destruction with blockages, play of forces, strategies, and so on that at
serious consequences for those affected occur and, more- a given moment establish what subsequently counts
over, how they are sustained, tolerated, and even cel- a being self-evident, universal, and necessary. In this
ebrated as the aestheticization or sanitization of place. one is . . . effecting a . . . multiplication or pluralization
Further, multiple mentalities might articulate in a gaze, of causes” (Foucault 2000f, 226–27). Accordingly, ex-
helping to explain how “slum clearance” and “blight plaining how an event unfolds is a matter not of find-
removal” are racialized; that is, how feelings of the need ing a single origin or cause but rather of constructing
to aestheticize a neighborhood coincide with racial dif- its genealogy, which entails “numberless beginnings”
ference across space, as in white government officials, and “an unstable assemblage of faults, fissures, and
544 Ettlinger
➢ analytical anchor point: specify a genealogy, processes of even- also articulate. Accordingly, an internal mode of analy-
tualization sis focuses on eventualization relative to localized prob-
lems, whereas an external mode of analysis focuses

heterogeneous layers” (Foucault 2000f, 374).27 Fou- on the articulation of different regimes of practices
cault’s approach to history in terms of genealogical anal-
ysis counters conventional totalizing approaches that ➢ analytical anchor point: “external analysis” and the articulation
explain all events in terms of “a deep, unitary, pyrami- of regimes of practices
dal and necessary principle” (Foucault 2007d, 64), such
as race (as per one branch of critical race theory28 ), and associated mentalities; that is, on the interre-
class (as per Marxist analysis), or the market (as per lation of multiple problems, contexts, and indeed,
neoclassical theory). From this vantage point, an event governmentalities (Foucault 2000f, 227). External anal-
such as the U.S. housing foreclosure crisis was caused ysis imbricates mentalities to explain different dimen-
not by a particular piece of legislation or a particu- sions of a problem (Ettlinger 2009b). For example, the
lar institution or particular persons, as per the blame racialized dimension of the foreclosure crisis connects
game.29 Rather, as Langley (2008) has pointed out, it with racialized practices in education, in business, and
“eventualized” through a regime of borrowing as well so forth. External analysis is crucial especially from
as lending practices that had been developing for well the standpoint of critical theory. For example, toward
over a decade. Both the Clinton and Bush administra- constructing a transformational mentality, programs,
tions called for a renewal of the spirit of the Community policies, and grassroots efforts to dissolve segregation-
Reinvestment Act of 1977 (calling for banks to exist practices often fail, in part because strategies aimed
tend credit to low-income borrowers, including minori- at a particular regime of practices fail to connect
ties, and also emphasizing sound investment), without, with processes operating in different, interrelated con-
however, directing attention to the soundness of in- texts; the replication of problems across contexts sug-
vestment and mechanisms to ensure such. The crisis of gests that steps toward change in one context (e.g.,
2008 had been ongoing throughout the 1990s from the a residential neighborhood, school, or workplace) can
vantage point of those whose homes were foreclosed,30 be overshadowed by daily activities in other con-
although it was not until 2008 that the debt debacle texts (e.g., home, community, workspace, school space)
hit Wall Street. Crucially, the assemblage of festering that have not been subject to efforts to construct
problems pivoted on the disarticulation of the systems change (Ettlinger 2007a). Or, recognizing internal dif-
of consumption and production. Wages delivered by the ferences within one type of space, such as extracur-
production system lagged (and continue to lag) behind ricular and curricular activity in school space, Ri-
the costs of homeownership, which were imposed on ley and Ettlinger (forthcoming) found that strategies
those unable to pay via predatory lending and a host to develop multicultural sensibilities in after-school,
of practices that tapped and manipulated the mentality once-in-a-while events were ineffective in the ab-
of the American dream (Saegert, Fields, and Libman sence of strategies to routinize muliticultural sensi-
2009). Ironically, what began in the Carter adminis- bilities in everyday practices during regular school
tration as a call to include minorities in the American hours.
dream became transformed into a racialized geography The recognition of interrelated problems across con-
of foreclosures in light of the disproportionate foreclo- texts suggests that it is appropriate to think about
sures among racial and ethnic minority neighborhoods governmentalities32 (in the plural) because different
(Wyly et al. 2006; Kaplan and Sommers 2009; Dymski mentalities and rationalities materialize differently in
2010); indeed, some have likened lending practices to a different contexts. Lecturing on his research epistemol-
new form of redlining, and lawsuits against major banks ogy, Foucault (2000d, 311) commented:
were pursued in 2009.31 What I have been trying to do this evening is not to solve a
Connecting with the view that power is ubiquitous, problem but to suggest a way to approach a problem . . . this
problems, not power, are localized, and there are many problem deals with the relations between experiences
such localized processes (Foucault 1980e, 1990b), un- (like madness, illness, transgression of laws, sexuality, self-
derstanding “local” as “context” in the topological sense identity), knowledge (like psychiatry, medicine, criminol-
of non-Euclidean space. Just as different mentalities can ogy, sexology, psychology), and power (such as the power
articulate in a particular gaze and associated regime wielded in psychiatric and penal institutions, and in all
of practices, different regimes of practices—contexts— other institutions that deal with individual control).
Epistemologically, the goal is to analyze different lo- of power, which are “rational schemas . . . explicit pro-
calized problems relative to intersecting mentalities grams; we are dealing with sets of calculated, reasoned
and regimes of practices—to examine how mentalities prescriptions in terms of which institutions are meant
configure differently in different contexts relative to to be recognized, spaces arranged, behaviors regulated”
contingent conditions. This said, there is a crucial ana- (Foucault 2000f, 231). Consistent with the idea of ge-
lytical component yet to be specified, namely this: How nealogy, these calculated courses of action arise from an
do mentalities get materialized in regimes of practices? assemblage of practices and related mentalities. Specifi-
How does an abstract, collectively held view find con- cally regarding prisons, Foucault (2000f, 251) indicated
crete expression? Is the concrete expression of a men- that “the rationality envisaged in penal imprisonment
tality inevitable? wasn’t the outcome of a straightforward calculation of
immediate interest (internment turning out to be, in the
last analysis, the simplest and cheapest solution), but
Materializing Mentalities via Techniques that it arose out of a whole technology of human train-
of Power; Issues of Scale ing, surveillance of behavior, individualization of the
elements of social body.” What accounts for crowded
Foucault (1980e, 114) indicated that between spe- prisons in the United States, for example, is not straight-
cific, mundane actions and societal discourses and as- forwardly a system of crime and punishment but rather a
sociated mentalities there is “a whole order of levels of set of programs or strategies—mechanisms, tactics, and
different types of events differing in amplitude, chrono- techniques of power—to resolve problems. In so do-
logical breadth, and capacity to produce effects.” Lev- ing, they produce a system and a mode of management.
els, or what geographers commonly refer to as scales, Government officials of struggling local economies, for
are central to Foucault’s epistemology and offer inter- example, vie for the construction of prisons (Gilmore
esting insight into one debate in critical human ge- 2007) or immigrant detention centers (Bernstein 2008)
ography that has centered on scale—whether it is a to generate funds and local employment; from this van-
useful concept or whether it unproductively reifies is- tage point, a prison system is a form of investment, a
sues of hierarchy and should be abandoned to focus production system. Constructing prisons becomes an
more generally on the mobilization of power (Marston, economic asset to a local economy at the same time
Jones, and Woodward 2005; Hoefle 2006; Jonas 2006; that it directs surplus financial capital and also finds
Ettlinger 2007b; Woodward, Jones, and Marston 2007). a “place” to contain the surplus population of unem-
I concur that using scale to reify a top-down view of so- ployed or underemployed (Gilmore 2007).
ciety is problematic, but I suggest that scale need not Foucault specified techniques of power in differ-
adopt the top-down view. Indeed, as I elaborate later, ent ways, namely, in terms of biopower, disciplinary
a Foucauldian approach to scale fosters a mode of anal- power, pastoral power, and the modern, nonecclesi-
ysis that refuses hierarchical determination and offers astical analog to pastoral power (henceforth modern
a novel approach that unchains actors from societal power). He distinguished among these different expres-
prescriptions (as elaborated, as a set of possibilities)33 ; sions of power with reference to different “levels”—
further, from analytical and strategic vantage points, it scales—of power (Foucault 2003, 243), and he indi-
matters at what scale power is targeted and mobilized. cated that his approach to power pertained to “its ob-
ject, its target . . . where it installs itself and produces
Targets of Power real effects” (Foucault 1980f, 97). As I elaborate later,
biopower is targeted to a population in the aggregate34 ;
Although Foucault (2007d) emphasized that power disciplinary power, to individuals; and pastoral power
“has to be considered in relation to a field of interac- and its modern analog, to both. The different expres-
tions” (66), he recognized power as highly varied: “a sions of power are most fruitfully interpreted not as dif-
whole series of mechanisms . . . likely to induce behav- ferent types of power but rather in terms of the different
iors or discourses” (Foucault 2007d, 60). In “Questions scales at which mechanisms or techniques of power
of Method,” Foucault (2000f, 250) clarified that the are targeted.35 Techniques or mechanisms of power
significance of studying practices is the interplay, the vary relative to the scale at which they are
relation between codes of conduct (discourses, mental-
ities) and on-the-ground regimes of practices (Foucault ➢ analytical anchor point: specify techniques of power relative to
2000f, 250). What connects the two are techniques the scale at which power is targeted
546 Ettlinger
targeted. Specifying different techniques of power rela- one use of a population census in the United States has
tive to scale offers analytical rigor toward precise clar- been to identify subpopulations experiencing problems
ification of the ways in which mentalities are mate- such as poverty and unemployment and to marshal the
rialized. For example, in a pedagogical context, Ares requisite evidence for eligibility of particular groups for
(2008), following Gore (1995), specified the following public assistance. On the other hand, the census and its
techniques of power: surveillance, regulation, classifica- classification schemes have contributed to discourses of
tion of groups of actors that establish boundaries, dis- stereotypes that can have insidious consequences for
tribution of bodies in space (relative to hierarchies and discriminatory behavior, the homogenization of groups
in ways that separate individuals relative to groups), (by way of obscuring important differences among con-
standardization, normalization (setting, invoking, re- stituent members), and the interpellation of unilat-
quiring, or conforming to standards), and exclusion eral identity. Further, as Massey (1979) long ago com-
(the negative side of normalization). One could elab- mented, planners often use such descriptive statistics to
orate and clarify how some of these techniques, such explain poverty in terms of poverty, rather than the sys-
as surveillance, refer to disciplinary power acting on tem of production that produces class differences across
individuals, whereas others are more oriented to ac- space. From a Foucauldian perspective, detailed anal-
tors (students) as groups, as a population—a matter ysis of how statistics are used (with positive as well
of biopower. Hannah (1997) also specified a variety as negative consequences) is crucial toward clarifying
of techniques of power that are explicitly spatial: ar- how societal discourses of poverty and its racialization
chitectural (as in the panopticon), compound, urban, are socially constructed and, moreover, sustained. An-
colonial (as in “reserves”), and national; he termed other type of technique of power that acts on pop-
all these techniques disciplinary, although he clarified ulations is various forms of fields of visibility (Han-
that as scale increases, power is targeted to groups nah 1997; Dean 2010), which illuminate or obscure
of people, populations—what we might otherwise call regimes of practices. Invisibility, for example, draws our
biopower. attention to how the daily lives of countless homeless
Biopower36 refers to the mechanisms, the calculated people are out-of-mind and outside the domain of po-
courses of action that are directed to a population in the litical platforms, in part because, quite literally, they
aggregate; this connects with what many researchers of- are out-of-sight as an outcome of locational designs
ten refer to as societal or macroscale phenomena. Spe- that place homeless shelters away from middle-class
cific techniques of (bio)power typically entail data col- communities.
lection and examination (as in statistical analysis) to Whereas biopower targets a population, disciplinary
discern patterns, which can be acted on—regulated, power targets individual actors and clarifies how
manipulated. Examples of critical research that en- biopower is realized on the ground in everyday life;
gage biopower include the use of geographic infor- this connects with a specifically actor-based under-
mation systems (GIS) in political redistricting (Forest standing of the microscale (as opposed to a place-based
2004), geocoding in census-taking and mapping (Rose- understanding as in “the local”).37 Disciplinary power
Redwood 2006), uses of machine-readable identifica- complements biopower: It targets individual actors,
tion codes (Dodge and Kitchin 2005), cartography as guiding them to self-regulate in accordance with soci-
a spatialization of race (Crampton 2007), the use of etal norms, ensuring the operationalization of biopower
maps in urban restructuring under colonialism (e.g., by enrolling everyday citizen-subjects in larger societal-
Legg 2007), the use of statistics in U.S. state forma- scale projects.38 As clarified in wide-ranging studies,
tion in the nineteenth century (Hannah 2000), exam- from Foucault’s discussion of Jeremy Bentham’s panop-
ination of the relevance of Foucault’s (1980b, 2000a) ticon (Foucault 1977, 1980a), to Crowley and Kitchin’s
engagement with the medicalization of society to pop- (2008) analysis of modes of containment of “decent
ulation and medical geography (Philo 2001, 2005; Legg girls” in Ireland’s postindependence era and analysis
2005), and contemporary issues of biomedicine in the of the regulation of consumers’ choices in commercial
global economy (Braun 2007; Rose 2007). Biopower as space such as malls (Voyce 2003), disciplinary power
a technique of power relies on data collection and analy- entails techniques of power such as intense surveil-
sis precisely because the target of power is an aggregated lance so that each individual will engage in conformist
body, a population, that requires efforts to organize and practices and behavior. Disciplinary power can be di-
sustain it. For example, from a positive vantage point, rect or more subtle and less deterministic to allow for
multiple outcomes, as in Allen’s (2006) account of am- Source of Power and Ascending Analysis
bient power in commercial space. Whether direct or
more nuanced, disciplinary power regulates socializa- Whereas biopower, disciplinary power, and pastoral
tion to assure normalization relative to context-specific power and its modern analog refer to targets of power,
systems of thought and values. Whereas, for example, Foucault (1980c, 142) conceptualized the source of
population censuses construct exclusive categories by power as ubiquitous and “co-extensive with the social
race or ethnicity to classify a population, mechanisms body,” consistent with the notion of power as extend-
such as architectural or compound spatial design and ing far beyond the state. Accordingly, Foucault (1980f,
school or work programs that foster curricular or occu- 98) declared that power “is never localized” because
pational segregation cultivate individual choices toward “individuals are the vehicle of power, not its point of
self-segregation to preserve, reproduce, and elaborate application.”
demographic categories and their significance. Speci- Foucault’s starting point of analysis is at the bottom,
fying types of disciplinary power clarifies how citizen- not the top from a hierarchical vantage point of society
subjects are enrolled in societal-scale projects, how they (Foucault 1990b, see especially chapter 2 of part IV).
are unconsciously complicit with the construction of He commented that “This point of view of the plebs,
societal-scale norms and the mentalities that govern the point of view of the underside and limit of power,
them. is . . . indispensible for analysis of its apparatuses . . . this
Pastoral power entails “the tricky combination” is the starting point for understanding its functioning
(Foucault 2000h, 332) of both totalizing and individual- and developments” (Foucault 1980c, 138). Crucially,
izing techniques of power. Foucault posited that pastoral Foucault clarified that this view is not to be confused
power evolved historically by the eighteenth century in with neo-populism, which, consistent with Marxism
the context of the Church. In this Christian sense, pas- or post-Marxism,40 would locate power in an entity.
toral power entails the complex moral relation between Rather, what he meant was that analysis should focus on
a pastor and the members of a pastor’s community: The actions and daily practices of everyday citizens (plebes)
pastor accounts for every member of the community in who produce power relations, consistent with the an-
terms of their lives as well as the details of each com- alytical significance of practices. This understanding of
munity member’s actions and his or her needs and even the starting point has important implications for research,
the souls of these members. In turn, each member of the namely that primary data collection in field research should
flock depends on and submits to the pastor as a func- at the outset target not elected or appointed political represen-
tion of will, not law, and, moreover, works at her or tatives of citizens but, rather, everyday citizens themselves;
his own identity via self-renunciating Christian prac- secondary research should begin not with societal structure
tices (Foucault 2000d). Foucault went on to consider a but with mundane activity.
modern, nonecclesiastical form of pastoral power that Analysis of institutions and data collected from lead-
translates the relation of pastor-flock to citizen-state, al- ers (elected or otherwise) certainly is important; at issue
though he recognized that modern governance extends is their place in analysis and the understanding of how
beyond the state to myriad organizations and individu- institutions and leaders figure in power relations. For
als (Foucault 2000d, 2000e).39 The translation of this Foucault (2000h, 343), dynamics at the scale or level of
“tricky combination” from the Christian to its modern institutions represent the crystallization, not the root,
rendition retains the link between totalization and in- of power relations. Accordingly, he said, “One must
dividualization but conceptualizes salvation mundanely analyze institutions from the standpoint of power rela-
into well-being of a population (e.g., in terms of health, tions, rather than vice versa, and that the fundamental
security) to permit the governance and regulation of a point of anchorage of the relationships, even if they
population at a distance. The overall significance of the are embodied and crystallized in an institution, is to be
“tricky combination” of modern power is that biopower found outside the institution. . . . That is, power rela-
and disciplinary power always are operative and comple- tions are rooted deep in the social nexus.” Segregation,
ment one another. Thus a research project that focuses for example, is in part intelligible in terms of plan-
in depth on biopower or disciplinary power is a matter ning mentalities, which until the recent mixed hous-
of the scope of the particular research enterprise, not ing paradigm, contributed to normalizing the location
an indication of a singular scale at which techniques of of different classes (and implicitly or explicitly races
power are targeted. or ethnicities) in different localities of a city region
548 Ettlinger
(J. Powell 2002). Yet, although the planning discipline outside those that are dominant, but analysis centers
along with other institutions such as the real estate on the dominant. Foucault recognized the hierarchi-
industry (Gotham 2000) crystallizes and formalizes seg- cal character of society, but his nonstructuralist view
regation, the root of segregation lies in the everyday was that “the summit and the lower elements stand in
practices of people who choose to self-segregate and to a relationship of mutual support and conditioning, a
exclude others, whether in lunchrooms at schools or mutual ‘hold’ (power as mutual and indefinite ‘black-
sections of housing complexes within so-called mixed mail’)” (Foucault 1980a, 159). This “mutual hold” refers
neighborhoods. Such self-segregation is a regular feature to the “tricky combination” of totalizing and individ-
of everyday life across time and space (Ettlinger 2009b). ualizing power, which are not hierarchically ordered
Self-segregation entails practices that implicitly enroll but mutually embedded. Problems of domination, as
actors in the macroscale societal project of segregation. in structuralist frameworks, exist; however, Foucault’s
In this way, discourses are produced and reproduced questions about governance pertain less to repression
by everyday citizen-subjects, not imposed from the top. and more to how actors are guided into actions that can
This understanding of the source of power “deep in the result in a wide variety of outcomes, including repres-
social nexus” helps explain how disciplinary power and sion. At issue is how intolerable truths are produced and
biopower are mutually embedded: Calculated courses sustained (Foucault 1980e, 2007c). Whereas Marxists
of action that target the population connect with men- might focus on why class differences exist and persist, an
talities that are produced by the citizenry. The under- analysis inspired by Foucault’s later thoughts about gov-
standing of power as diffuse also helps clarify Foucault’s ernmentality and modern, diffuse power would ask how
conceptualization of power as productive; that is, pro- citizen-subjects in their everyday practices contribute
ducing a system of power relations, in contrast to the to the maintenance of inequality along a variety of axes
idea of power as negative, prohibitive (e.g., Foucault of difference (i.e., not confined to class). In the former
1980c, 1980e, 1980f, 1990b). case, individual actions are preordained by the struc-
Specifying the root of power relations “deep in the ture of capitalist relations; in the latter case, societal
social nexus” has important implications for analy- discourses and possible transformations are constituted
sis that seeks to connect the scales at which power by daily practices enacted by individuals. Whereas be-
relations are targeted. Foucault (1980f) engaged in ginning with generalities avoids analysis of specific cases
what he called “ascending analysis,” whereby the re- that do not fit the general picture, beginning with spe-
searcher begins analysis at the microscale (understood cific practices means that so-called outliers count.
as actor, not place based) and then connects to the From a Foucauldian perspective, it is quite possible
meso- and macroscales. Although multiscalar analysis that practices can diverge from prescribed norms. The
is hardly novel among geographers, as per Foucault, it extensiveness of a mentality, as it iterates through so-
matters at what scale analysis begins and, as per as- cietal institutions, organizations, and daily practices,
cending analysis, analysis should necessarily begin at unfolds under contingent conditions. Moreover, the ar-
the microscale to account for the choices and actions ticulation of a mentality with other mentalities and
of everyday actors (Foucault 1980e). This scale of ac- regimes of practices points to the complexity as well as
counting is crucial because tactics are “invented and the imperfectness of the system, specifically the possi-
organized from the starting points of local conditions ble ineffectiveness of techniques of power. For example,
and particular needs” (Foucault 1980a, 159). Toward
➢ analytical anchor point: examine the (positive and negative,
connection, ascending analysis clarifies that mundane,
intended and unintended) effects of techniques of power
everyday practices are part of a macroscale societal pic-
ture, precisely because power is diffuse, signifying that as previously indicated, multiculturalism as a set of
everyday practices produce, reproduce, and elaborate programmatic strategies often fails. From a Foucauldian
societal norms. perspective there is no presumption of effectiveness
Foucault distinguished ascending analysis from the of a technique of power. Rather, the relation between
Marxist descending mode of analysis, which begins mentalities and practices is interrogated. To the
at the macroscale (capitalist structures), predicts ac- extent that discursive and material realities diverge,
tions at other scales, and renders exceptional actions governmentality as an analytical framework directs
as outside the dominant structure and relatively incon- research toward problematizing that divergence.
sequential. For example, Harvey’s (1989) “structured In contrast to structural analysis, which preordains
coherence” can acknowledge patterns and processes material practices relative to structural constraints and
casts divergence between societal norms and material rated” (Foucault 2000h, 342). As per Foucault, how-
practices as exceptional and relatively inconsequential, ever, although the field of possibilities for resistance
such spaces of rupture in Foucauldian analysis repre- is ubiquitous—consistent with the notion of power as
sent a “field of possibilities” (2000h). An ascending diffuse—actual resistance is not inevitable and might
mode of analysis that connects with power-as-diffuse be relatively scarce.
opens analysis to identifying as well as counting From the vantage point of actors engaged in
individual actions, which can reproduce as well as critiquing a mentality, its discourses, and associated
challenge societal norms. For Foucault, resistance is a techniques of power, the task of resistance is to “find
matter of challenging norms, discourses, mentalities— out what are the links, the connections that can be
not entities or persons in particular positions in a identified between mechanisms of coercion and ele-
hierarchy. ments of knowledge” (Foucault 2007d, 59). Such links
or connections are crucial because, as Foucault (2007d,
67) went on to say, refusal to accept prescribed norms
Spaces of Resistance requires traveling down the same road but in the oppo-
site direction. At issue is the identification of potential
Governmentality as an indirect means of regulat- cracks or ruptures in techniques of power that might
ing behavior and practices presumes that actors have provide a space for resistance. For example, as indi-
choices. Choice, in turn, signifies that governmental- cated, demarcations of so-called blighted communities
ity pertains both to the “conduct of conduct” as well to
the possibility of rejecting norms and everyday practices ➢ analytical anchor point: identify weak links in the system—
spaces of rupture
associated with normalization (Foucault 1997a, 2007c,
2007d). As Foucault (2000d, 324; see also 1980c, 142) derive from an external gaze, which is devoid of knowl-
declared, “there is no power without potential refusal edge of local life and the value of local social relations.
or revolt.” Thus, although some individuals have power This point helps explain actions such as clearance and
over others (the basis of Marxist analysis), for Foucault, redevelopment, also pointing to a crack in the system
such power is not absolute because actors have choices that potentially can be filled in proactively and con-
in an imperfect system. Choices can materialize in ac- structively. As documented by Lee (2007), the mem-
tions or they can be a matter of developing thoughts bers of one such neighborhood slated for clearance in
that “desubjugate the subject” (Foucault 2007d, 47) and Vancouver recognized the nature of the external gaze
“promote new forms of subjectivity” (Foucault 2000h, and, rather than formally protesting gentrification, they
336) by challenging and dissolving apparent interpella- placed faces and sociality into that gaze by inviting gov-
tion of identity. ernment officials into their neighborhood and engaging
Foucault’s conceptualization of power as diffuse rec- them in local festivities and walking tours, all the while
ognizes that entities such as institutions and individu- calculating and orchestrating every detail of the events
als in positions of authority are part of what is being such as what foods were served, who sat next to whom,
resisted, but the main point is that institutions and so- and so forth. The crack in the system that ordains dec-
called power brokers, the foundation of conventional laration of eminent domain, slum clearance, and the
descending analysis, are part of a larger system that also like is that the social content of so-called urban blight
includes everyday citizens. Indeed, such everyday citi- is unseen. From a Foucauldian vantage point, resistance
zens constitute institutions. All these actors in different requires prescience at the outset regarding the mentality
ways produce and reproduce norms. Thus targets of re- (or mentalities) and associated techniques of power that
sistance from a Foucauldian perspective are not entities govern a situation from which actors wish to extricate
or persons but rather mentalities and associated dis- themselves. The illumination of local social content by
courses and norms, which are produced and reproduced members of the Vancouver community worked; they
daily by actors. Resistance to normalization and other countered the techniques of biopower and saved their
techniques of power is effected through power relations: neighborhood. Indeed their tactics are consistent with
“There is not a face-to-face confrontation of power and Foucault’s (2000h, 329) vision of resistance, which he
freedom as mutually exclusive facts (freedom disappear- clarified as follows:
ing everywhere power is exercised) but a much more
complicated interplay. . . . The power relationship and I would like to suggest another way to go further toward
freedom’s refusal to submit cannot therefore be sepa- a new economy of power relations, a way that is more
550 Ettlinger
empirical, more directly related to our present situation, of representations and the opinions that accompany
and one that implies more relations between theory and them” (Foucault 2004, 459). As Foucault commented,
practice. It consists in taking the forms of resistance against “What is at stake in the practice of the self is precisely
different forms of power as a starting point. . . . Rather being able to master what one is, in the face of what
than analyzing power from the point of view of its internal exists or is taking place” (465). An “analytics of re-
rationality, it consists of analyzing power relations through
flexivity” (Foucault 2004, chapter 24) requires that an
the antagonism of strategies.
individual situates herself or himself and understands
The ultimate target of resistance for the community in the external gaze and techniques of power that govern
Vancouver was neither the government nor local gov- his or her practices so as to be able to critically eval-
ernment officials but rather the mentality because tech- uate this objectification of the self and come to a rea-
niques of resistance or “counter-conducts” (Foucault soned conclusion about whether to pursue practices that
2007b, 201) represent counters to regulatory techniques reproduce and elaborate societal mentalities and norms
of power, which connect mentalities (e.g., moderniza- or to challenge them. Enlightenment as holistic knowl-
tion) with practices (e.g., gentrification). edge of the system (savoir) permits critique, which is
“the art of voluntary insubordination, that of reflected
➢ analytical anchor point: specify techniques of resistance in
intractability” to “insure the desubjugation of the sub-
relation to techniques of power and related mentality/ies
ject in the context of what we would call, in a word, the
Effective resistance that employs techniques of resis- politics of truth” (Foucault 2007d, 47). Indeed, such
tance in relation to techniques of power is relatively critical awareness entails work—ascetic practices (in,
uncommon, in part because activists often operate with for example, reading, writing, listening, speaking); it
a mentality of confrontational politics that derives from is with regard to these concerns that Foucault (1988a,
a top-down understanding of power relations in a sys- 1997a, 2001, 2004) immersed himself in Stoic philoso-
tem in which power is located in particular positions in phy as a guide to the “cultivation of the self” (Foucault
a hierarchy. The dynamics of effective resistance from 1988a). As Foucault (1990a, 28) clarified in his intro-
the vantage point of power-as-diffuse offers an incisive duction to the second volume of The History of Sexuality,
approach to proactive resistance and, moreover, it of- the aim is
fers an analytical means by which to critically evaluate
the effectiveness of strategies of resistance. not simply “self-awareness” but self-formation as an “eth-
ical subject,” a process in which, the individual delimits
Beyond the ineffectiveness of resistance, also at is-
that part of himself that will form the object of his moral
sue is explaining the absence of resistance in, actually,
practice, defines his position relative to the precept he will
the majority of everyday practices. Indeed, if (effec- follow, and decides on a certain mode of being that will
tive) resistance were common, then there would be no serve his moral goal. And this requires him to act upon
need to problematize socially constructed norms. What, himself, to monitor, test, improve, and transform himself.
then, accounts for the relative infrequency of effec-
tive resistance? Whereas Foucault’s conceptualization Crucially, formation of one’s self that enables cri-
of how people are regulated recognizes actors’ lack of tique permits the choice to resist normalizing pressures,
self-consciousness, his conceptualization of resistance which, if effective, reverses the effects of prevailing
pertains to efforts to challenge existing mentalities, re- techniques of power (Foucault 2007d, 66). Voicing dif-
quiring, in turn, reflexivity. His scholarship on ethics ference amid normalizing pressures risks alienation and
suggests that the surfacing of an oppositional conscious- prompts a decision to either conform or critique. Act-
ness constitutes a reflexive agenda, a proactive matter of ing in compliance with prescribed norms with critical
transforming oneself and producing a new subjectivity awareness of their implications can be as much an en-
(Foucault 2007c, 2007d). lightened decision as resistance, on the condition that
In contrast to the conventional view of reflexivity one continually works at critical awareness (Foucault
in which one finds and locates truth at the essence of 2007d, 46). Self-enlightenment and self-transformation
one’s soul—an exercise of memory of who one is— require diligence, perseverance, and dedication to an ar-
Foucault’s (2004, see especially chapter 24) view of duous self-reflexive project to produce a new ontology
reflexivity centers on meditation and the exercise of of the self (Foucault 2007e). No wonder such resistance
freedom so that “it won’t be a gaze directed towards the represents a minority of cases.
reality of essences, but one directed towards the truth We might imagine from Lee’s (2007) account of the
of what we think. It is also a matter of testing the truth remarkable community strategies in Vancouver that
some individuals in some way operated reflexively, al- to imagination or to impotence. Now the whole art of
though this is not part of the analysis. Indeed, there oneself, the whole care of the self is constructed against
are few such analyses. The subjective dimension of these two things.” His intention was to use his analytical
Foucault’s framework (the right side of Figure 1) has framework:
been comparatively untouched in case-study analysis,
although O’Grady’s (2004) chapter in Feminism and the How can one analyze the connection between ways of
distinguishing true and false and ways of governing oneself
Final Foucault (Taylor and Vintges 2004) offers an es-
and others? The search for a new foundation for each of
pecially instructive entry point into analysis that taps these practices, in itself and relative to the other, the will
Foucault’s scholarship of the governance of the self. to discover a different way of governing oneself through a
She examined destructive societal mentalities that cast different way of dividing up true and false—this is what I
women as inferior to men and inadequate in a wide would call “political spirituality.” (Foucault 2000f, 233)
variety of ways, and how those mentalities become
grounded in wide-ranging practices of self-deprecation Although Foucault focused in the last phase of his work
among women. Tapping Foucault’s discussion of reflex- on the subject, he gave at least cursory attention to the
ivity and ethical decision making, she emphasized the relation of the self to others, to social relations, and to
need for women to engage in “relational externalizing”: the governance of a population with the aim of realizing
coming to a critical understanding of how (by what democratic processes (e.g., Foucault 2000c, 244–45;
means, by what techniques of power, and in relation to 2001, 108; 2004, 197; see also Rose 1999; Milchman
what mentalities and discourses) one’s negative sense of and Rosenberg 2005).42 As per Foucault, practices of
self has been socially produced; critically evaluating that the self facilitate enlightenment (in the sense of savoir)
process; and engaging in practices of the self that per- and permit one to “know how to fulfill his duties as part
mit a proactive constitution of the self independent41 of the human community. He will know how to fulfill
of the system. As Foucault (1984, 388) commented in the duties of father, son, husband, and citizen, precisely
an interview just before his death: because he will attend to himself” (Foucault 2004,
197). Whereas ascending analysis regarding the art of
Thought is not what inhabits a certain conduct and gives governance (of a population) began with observations
it its meaning; rather, it is what allows one to step back of practices and then connected with other practices
from this way of acting or reacting, to present it to oneself
(a regime of practices) and dynamics occurring at all
as an object of thought and question it as to its meaning, its
“levels” or scales, ascending analysis regarding the art
conditions, and its goals. Thought is freedom in relation to
what one does, the motion by which one detaches oneself of living (governance of the self) begins with practices
from it, establishes it as an object, and reflects on it as a of the self, which then permit care of others and the art
problem. of governance (of a population). Accordingly, Foucault
indicated that “care of the self, in itself and as a con-
O’Grady and other feminists (e.g., Cameron 1998) sug- sequence, must produce or induce behavior through
gested that although gender narratives regulate gender which one will actually be able to take care of others.
relations, such narratives are not absolute. Beyond is- But all is lost if you begin with the care of others” (Fou-
sues specifically of gender, use of Foucault’s late schol- cault 2004, 198). Thus the implication from Foucault’s
arship is sensible to anyone for whom sense of self and scholarship on the processes by which choice can be en-
practices respond and are produced by deleterious dis- gaged suggests the importance of examining how oppo-
courses regarding any of many axes of difference and sitional consciousness emerges in individuals, connects,
related techniques of power. and works toward collective transformational politics.
Although an unfinished project, these concerns set the
stage for linking the governance of the self and the
Critical Theory: Back to Scale governance of a population. As Foucault commented:
Foucault clarified in his latest lectures and interviews I do not believe that the only possible point of resistance
that his concern for constructing a critical ontology of to political power—understood, of course, as a state of
the self was connected to a political agenda, specifi- domination—lies in the relationship of the self to the
cally an engagement with the future informed by a cri- self. I am saying that “governmentality” implies the re-
tique of the past. Critiquing conventional approaches lationship of the self to itself, and I intend this concept
to the future, Foucault (2004, 465) said, “That the fu- of “governmentality” to cover the whole range of prac-
ture is either nothing or predetermined condemns us tices that constitute, define, organize, and instrumentalize
552 Ettlinger
the strategies that individuals in their freedom can use in Consistent with an ascending mode of thought and
dealing with each other . . . I believe that the concept of analysis, mechanisms must be designed to prompt prac-
governmentality makes it possible to bring out the freedom tices that stimulate individuals to think, to meditate as
of the subject and its relationship to others—which con- per Foucault, and permit exercises of freedom (Foucault
stitutes the very stuff of ethics. (Foucault 1997a, 299–300) 2004). Campaigns that enlist people in their cause un-
consciously might achieve a tactical goal (e.g., the pur-
Foucault’s analytical framework not only connects chase of fair trade products that are distributed widely
with critical theory; it informs it. His late scholarship on around a city), but this should not be confused with
issues of subjectivity introduced an interesting twist to long-run strategic change in terms of a transformational
the relation between mentalities and related discourses mentality.43
on the one hand and practices on the other. Whereas Consider the case of planning for mixed neighbor-
Foucault’s earlier scholarship on governmentality sug- hoods (by class as well as race or ethnicity) that often
gested that mentalities and related discourses produce is implemented in the absence of mechanisms to stim-
practices and interpellate identities by way of tech- ulate interaction and communication in everyday life.
niques of power, his ethical turn at the end of his life The underlying locational paradigm that implicitly or
suggests that practices of the self can possibly transform explicitly views physical proximity as inducing or equat-
one’s subjectivity and produce a new mentality of the ing with social proximity belies on-the-ground practices
self, assuming a perpetual, proactively sustained process in so-called integrated workplaces, schools, residential
of critique. The implication from Foucault’s latest work neighborhoods, and so forth that reproduce segregation
is that change is effected not by discourse but by prac- at increasingly finer scales within those contexts. If we
tices. Persuasion by reasoned argument is unlikely to be understand the problem to be social ignorance, which
effective—a hard point for most of us who habitually produces fear, distrust, and a host of negative imagi-
engage in reasoned persuasion as a means to communi- naries that govern everyday practices, then the task is
cate alternatives! Yet, we know that political debates not to locate minority persons near those of the ma-
often serve more as a rallying exercise for the believers jority but rather to design practices that would gen-
of each platform than as deliberative, public process. erate new social knowledges to avoid reproduction of
Most teachers, for example, know that lecturing alone majority–minority power relations and persistent seg-
delivers little; it is strategies—productive techniques of regation (Ettlinger 2007a). Far beyond once-in-a-while
power—to help students connect with and internalize events, such practices must be embedded within the
points from apparently objective material that deliver rhythms of daily life; they must be routinized to ensure
content (if effective) through engaging students in the continual negotiation of knowledges and identi-
practices such as writing (papers, exams, exercises), ties (Ettlinger 2009b; Riley and Ettlinger forthcoming).
interactive discussion (perhaps in small groups), Specific designs—techniques of power—might entail
and observation (perhaps in field activity). Change brokering business networks constituted by a diverse
toward a transformational mentality also requires an membership so that learned knowledge (connaissance)
ascending approach, beginning with practices. Yet related to work through collaboration becomes a means
activist campaigns typically remain informational. to social learning (the counter to social ignorance) as
From the vantage point developed here, activism is well as competitive performance (Ettlinger 2009b). In-
effective when citizen-subjects become enrolled in deed, social learning underscored the strategy of the
practices that cultivate reflexivity and open spaces of Vancouver community in their struggle to change the
resistance. mentality of local government officials. In the context
The analytical imperative for critical theory is to of schools, techniques of power to overcome tensions
clarify how problems have evolved and then specify wrought of difference amid an increasingly diverse stu-
the mechanisms, the techniques of resistance (or coun- dent body might entail pedagogical strategies that place
tertechniques of power) that can produce a new set students in groups using principles similar to those in
of practices, in turn, to produce a new mentality. the business context mentioned earlier; that is, con-
stituted by diverse membership with goals of social
➢ analytical anchor point: specify the mechanisms, the techniques learning in the context of developing knowledges (con-
of resistance to counter regulatory techniques of power to pro- naissance) related to course goals (Riley and Ettlinger
duce new practices, engendering reflexivity and new mentalities forthcoming).
What distinguishes Foucauldian-informed critical have very much benefited from insightful discussion
theory from utopian reasoning is that the former engages and questions from students who have taken a course I
in the design of tactics, mechanisms, and countertech- developed, Geographies of Governmentalities, which I
niques of power to realize new conditions of life; the have been teaching once a year since 2008.
latter envisions unattainable images of life. Speaking
of power relations, Foucault (1997a, 298) commented,
“The problem, then, is not to try to dissolve them in the Notes
utopia of completely transparent communication, but 1. Epistemology refers to how one comes to know things,
to acquire the rules of law, the management techniques, how one interprets the world around us. The definition
and also the morality, the ethos, the practice of the self, of hermeneutics is the same. As D. R. Olson (1986) clar-
that will allow us to play these games of power with as ified, hermeneutics initially referred exclusively to the
interpretation of texts, but its use has broadened, and
little domination as possible.” epistemology initially was referenced in the context of
science, but its use also has broadened. I use epistemol-
ogy rather than hermeneutics only on the hunch that
Conclusion more readers are more familiar with it.
2. Until the English-language publication of Security, Ter-
Governmentality, broadly construed to encompass ritory, Population in 2007, what is now chapter 4 of
Foucault’s scholarship through his ethical turn, offers the book was published in English as “Governmental-
a critical epistemology for interpreting empirics and, ity” (Foucault 2000b) in 1994 in Michel Foucault: Power
moreover, using our acquired knowledge (savoir) to (Faubion 2000), in 1991 in The Foucault Effect (Burchell,
Gordon, and Miller 1991), and in 1979 in the journal Ide-
work toward a better world by avoiding problems of ology and Consciousness (Foucault 1979). This article sug-
the past and present. Although the focus here has been gests that this lone chapter represents Foucault’s opening
on how to interpret and engage empirics, the analytical statements on governmentality and is most fruitfully in-
framework offered by Foucault is inextricably related terpreted in the context of Foucault’s evolving thoughts.
3. The final acceptance of this article occurred before the
to his ontology of power as diffuse, which delivers a English-language publicaitions of Foucault’s latest lec-
decidedly novel understanding of what “counts” and ture series at the Collège de France (Foucault 2010,
the relation of everyday practices and mundane activ- forthcoming); discussion of these last lectures is there-
ity to societal projects. Countering modernist, totalizing fore beyond the scope of this article.
4. There are many different views of relational thinking
frameworks on the left as well as the right, Foucault’s regarding an analytical focus on connections; some are
overall framework guides us to consider hopeful possibil- consistent with a topological view of space (as indicated
ities amid normalizing constraints. His mode of analysis by the references in the text) and others are not, espe-
is multiscalar, and specifically ascending, to count hope- cially those that argue for the importance of face-to-face
ful possibilities as well as to uncover problems by way interaction or agglomeration economies in exchanges
of information and knowledge (e.g., Scott and Storper
of identifying practices that do not conform to societal- 2003; Morgan 2004).
scale mentalities, the discourses through which they 5. When Foucault (2007b) introduced the idea of the art
are communicated, and the techniques of power that of governance, he did so with reference to its emer-
attempt to materialize them. The span of Foucault’s em- gence, historically in Europe between the sixteenth and
eighteenth centuries (and initially focused more on gov-
pirical frame of reference extends across space to frame ernment than governance more broadly; i.e., extending
contexts relationally by problems that are spatially ex- beyond the state); he suggested that a particular form
tensive yet variegated. Whereas in an interview in 1976 of power associated with governmentality, biopower,
Foucault expressed a narrow view of the discipline of emerged by the end of the eighteenth century. Cur-
tis (2002) argued on empirical grounds that Foucault
geography in terms of the study of spatial patterns, he misconstrued historical events, in particular the place-
had a very different view of space, which he expressed as ment of the “discovery” of population in the eighteenth
an historic-politico-economic problem that requires de- century and more generally that Foucault’s historical ar-
tailed examination (Foucault 1980a, 149). In the ensu- gument is empirically weak. Arguments about empirics
aside, what I find especially compelling is Foucault’s own
ing years he developed governmentality, which, broadly statement in a lecture to the French Society of Philoso-
construed, offers an analytical pathway toward this end. phy (outside his lecture series at the Collège de France)
that he was much less interested in what time some-
thing happened or in comparisons between time periods
Acknowledgments but rather “to see under what conditions, at the cost of
which modifications or generalizations we can apply this
I thank Mei-Po Kwan and anonymous reviewers for question of the Aufklärung [Enlightenment] to any mo-
their thoughtful and constructive comments. I also ment in history; that is, the question of the relationships
554 Ettlinger
between power, truth and the subject” (Foucault 2007d, 11. I emphasize majority here. In recent years participatory
57). It is in this spirit that this article is written. action research, which is fundamentally political, has
6. Foucault indicated in this seminar that he planned a gained currency (e.g., Gibson-Graham 1997; Cameron
new book; unfortunately, his death in 1984 cut short and Gibson 2004; Cahill 2007, 2010; Kindon et al.
that goal. 2007), although it nonetheless remains a relatively small
7. In what are known as Foucault’s enlightenment lectures percentage of the literature in human geography.
(Lotringer 2007), which reinterpreted Kant’s (2007) 12. The relation between spatial segregation and discrim-
conceptualization, Foucault distinguished different types inatory actions exemplifies the idea of spatiality: One
of knowledge, connaissance and savoir, both of which might reasonably argue that ignorance and fear of oth-
translate uniformly as knowledge in English but have ers (based on lack of pertinent social knowledge) results
considerably different connotations. Connaissance, con- in discrimination, which results in spatial segregation,
sistent with Kant’s view of the enlightenment, refers which is the cause of ignorance—a chicken-and-egg
to specific knowledge or information and is universally problem.
accessible. Savoir refers to the connections among myr- 13. During Foucault’s life, English- as well as French-
iad ramifications of connaissance and is not universally speaking geographers were aware of his work (Fall 2007),
accessed; access is created, not given, by assiduous in- and new developments in critical human geography were
tellectual activity and critique. The difference between published (e.g., Gregory 1978; Massey 1979). However,
the two is analogous to the distinction in organization human geography during Foucault’s life nonetheless was
science between information and knowledge; the latter largely dominated by neoclassical and structuralist, no-
refers to what one does with information. tably Marxist, analyses on the political right and left,
8. Critical theory is normative insofar as it is oriented to respectively. It was not until after his death that criti-
specifying the means by which a desired outcome might cal human geography intersecting with Foucault’s post-
be obtained; that is, the logic is oriented to things “as structuralism burgeoned. My concern here is with the
they should be.” This approach differs considerably from influence and visibility of a mode of analysis in geogra-
analysis (e.g., in mainstream economics and some subdis- phy as a discipline more than indications of publications
ciplines in geography oriented to formal modeling) that at particular points in time, which might be relevant to
are normative but not based on a critique of the exist- Foucauldian scholarship but nonetheless are relatively
ing system and its history (thus, critical theory). Critical isolated. From the perspective of Foucault’s critique of
theory overlaps with, but is not synonymous with, crit- history, I am pointing to contexts for particular “truths”
ical studies or critical human geography, which broadly in regimes of academic practices, not the specific time
is concerned with critiquing the existing system and its at which a particular concept or theoretical language
history; critical theory entails critical deconstruction but appears (Foucault 2001, 74).
also, and crucially, from a critical normative vantage 14. In addition, Foucault’s conceptualization in the late
point, thinking about how to constitute a more positive 1960s of “heterotopias” (Foucault 1986, 1998a)—
future (Ettlinger 2007a, 2009b; Sayer 2007; E. Olson and specific, internally heterogeneous sites of “otherness,”
Sayer 2009). which are countersites by virtue of their opposition to
9. Prominent feminists who earlier had been outspoken the mainstream—also has received attention regarding
about the problems of Foucauldian analysis (e.g., Butler Foucault’s geographic sensibilities (e.g., Soja 1989, 1996;
1997) changed their view after reading some of Fou- Elden 2001). This said, I concur with Saldanha (2008),
cault’s later work (e.g., Butler 2004). Interestingly, in who commented that the concept of heterotopia pays
part because of relatively late English-language publica- curious homage to structuralism because of the totaliz-
tions, quite a bit of the scholarship on Foucault’s en- ing presumption of society, to which spatial difference
gagement with subjectivity relies on cursory comments is counterposed in a spatialized binary (see also Thrift
or interviews (e.g., Foucault 1997a, 1997b) but does not 2007). That Foucault dropped the concept relatively
cite Foucault’s latest lecture series on The Hermeneutics soon after introducing it is perhaps unsurprising because
of the Self (Foucault 2004) and Fearless Speech (Foucault the concept is inconsistent with Foucault’s work both
2001) or the last two volumes of The History of Sexuality before and after developing it (Saldanha 2008); more
(Foucault 1988a, 1990a). This suggests that a construc- generally, it is inconsistent with Foucault’s explicit at-
tive tapping of the “late Foucault” is, at present, in its tention to working out a nonstructuralist framework.
infancy. Further, heterotopia as a representation of a type of con-
10. Fearless Speech (Foucault 2001) is a lecture series deliv- text is inconsistent with the more topological view of
ered at Berkeley in 1983 and published in 2001; it is cited context that Foucault eventually developed.
relatively rarely among geographers. These lectures per- 15. Cooper’s (2006) article is especially rich in terms of in-
tain to “truth telling” or parrhesia, which Foucault took cluding multiple analytical dimensions—specifically re-
as “a guideline for democracy as well as an ethical and garding the governance of populations (i.e., the left side
personal attitude characteristic of the good citizen” (Fou- of Figure 1).
cault 2001, 22). Also the second and third volumes of 16. This paragraph with a variety of references to differ-
The History of Sexuality (Foucault 1988a, 1990b) were ent types of case study analyses using governmentality
published in English in 1990 and 1988, respectively, is certainly not meant to be exhaustive. For many more
although these volumes (both of which engage the gov- examples and contextualization, see Hannah’s (2007)
ernance of the self) are cited far less frequently than the useful archaeology of Foucault in Anglo-American
first volume (Foucault 1990a). geography.
17. By racialized education I refer to a wide variety of practices 25. Legg (2007) made this case in the context of colonial In-
that pertain both to the generation of a type of educa- dia relative to reports on Delhi from a British officer and
tion system resulting in poor occupational opportunity an indigenous lands officer and a memorandum written
in particular types of localities (e.g., low-income urban by local residents.
areas in the United States where property taxes, which 26. Événementialisation is translated as “eventalization” in
fund public schools, are low) as well as types of practices “Questions of Method” (Foucault 2000f ) and as “even-
within apparently integrated schools that actually rein- tualization” in “What Is Critique” (Foucault 2007d).
force segregation in both curricular and extracurricular 27. These quotes come from Foucault’s essay “Nietzsche, Ge-
activity. nealogy, History,” written in 1971 (Foucault 1998b);
18. In one ethnically diverse high school in a locality rein this essay he critiqued conventional history and de-
cently experiencing an influx of immigrants from Soma- veloped the idea of genealogy advanced by Nietzsche.
lia and different countries in Latin America, English as a See Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Fou-
second language (ESL) classes were separated by ethnic- cault 1998b), The History of Sexuality (Foucault 1988a,
ity: Somalis had Somali ESL instructors, whereas His- 1990a, 1990b), and notable examples of Foucault’s lec-
panics (regardless of nationality) had Spanish-speaking ture series on modern European states (Foucault 2003,
ESL instructors, reinforcing separatist senses of identity, 2007b, 2008) for Foucault’s genealogical scholarship.
namely, nationally specific Somali and generalized His- When Foucault developed governmentality as a con-
panic (Riley and Ettlinger, forthcoming). ceptual framework in the later 1970s, his thoughts about
19. In a lecture delivered in Brazil entitled “The Meshes of genealogy connected with what he then termed even-
Power,” Foucault (2007a, 156–57) talked about “local tualization. A principal point of the essay—to oppose
and regional powers” and the analytical problem of lo- the search for “origins” and to engage in “numberless
calizing power to study them in their “historical and geo- beginnings”—connects with Foucault’s later comments
graphical specificity.” For geographers, this is significant, about eventualization in his interview on “Questions of
but it is also problematic because throughout his other Method” (Foucault 2000f) in 1978.
lectures and interviews Foucault explicitly emphasized 28. Riley and Ettlinger (forthcoming) examined two related
that it is problems, not power, that require localization. but different branches of critical race theory: One em-
It is possible that Foucault’s choice of words in “The phasizes how individuals are racially interpellated (e.g.,
Meshes of Power” was unique and possibly directed to a Omi and Winant 1994), whereas another emphasizes the
particular audience in a lecture that has a considerably mutability and multiplicity of identities (e.g., Gooding-
different feel relative to his other scholarship. For ex- Williams 1998).
ample, “The Meshes of Power” is his only lecture that 29. During the foreclosure crisis in 2008, television net-
presents Marxism in a positive way. Note that localizing work CNN displayed portraits of persons who were re-
power is consistent with Marxist approaches but is fun- sponsible for the crisis (a new portrait was added on
damentally inconsistent with Foucault’s view of power a weekly basis to the gallery of culprits). In Febru-
as diffuse. ary 2010, the Real-World Economics Review listserv
20. For example, Barry (2004) emphasized that approaching (pae news@btinternet.com) reported results of an elec-
a broad issue such as ethical capitalism requires focusing tion among economists for the “dynamite prize” for the
on a regime of practices (as opposed to an ideology). person most responsible for the global economic crisis.
Specifically, he examines a regime of practices in British (Alan Greenspan won; second and third places went to
Petroleum’s (BP’s) mode of operation that evolved fol- Milton Friedman and Larry Summers, respectively.)
lowing a particular event—the Brent Spar incident. 30. Foreclosure rates increased considerably during the
21. For example, Riley and Ettlinger (forthcoming) exam- 1990s (Kaplan and Sommers 2009; Dymski 2010).
ined the failure of a multicultural program in a diverse 31. Cities such as Baltimore have sued banks (Wells Fargo
high school; the analysis was prompted at the outset by in the case of Baltimore) for pushing subprime mort-
Chris Riley’s firsthand observations of tensions (some- gages on blacks in a regime of “ghetto loans” (M. Powell
times physical) among racial and ethnic groups. Et- 2009).
tlinger’s (2004) examination of the spatiality of social 32. Foucault (2000e, 416) implied the idea of multiple gov-
relations began with a hypothetical anecdote, which ernmentalities when he commented that “political ra-
prompted problematization and explanation. tionality is linked with other forms of rationality. Its
22. For example, Gibson (2001) examined the Latrobe Val- development in large part is dependent upon economi-
ley following restructuring. The analysis followed inter- cal, social, cultural, and technical processes.” One might
views in which comments made by interviewees required reasonably extend this comment to recognize rationali-
problematization and contexualization. ties across as well as within spheres (economic, political,
23. For example, Allen’s (2006) examination of ambient social, and cultural) to allow, for example, for multiple
power in a German plaza was prompted by feelings pro- rationalities that are political. In a lecture at Dartmouth
duced by the experience of being there. in 1978 entitled “What Is Critique?” Foucault (2007d,
24. For example, Hurricane Katrina exposed a social disas- 60) commented that “No one should ever think that
ter, in turn prompting questions as to why and how Ka- there exists one knowledge or one power.”
trina’s victims were overwhelmingly poor and African 33. See Ettlinger (2007b) for elaboration of how microscale
American and how the design of post-Katrina New Or- activity (from an actor, not place-based view) be-
leans might avoid historically long-standing segregation- comes “unchained” using an alternative approach to
ist processes (Ettlinger 2007a). scale.
556 Ettlinger
34. Foucault argued that governmentality pertains to pop- the level of consciousness of fair trade among consumers
ulations, not territories, but see Elden’s (2007, 2009, was highly variable. On the other hand, local producers
2010) persuasive argumentation regarding territory as a were brought into an exchange program with local pro-
political technology. ducers in less developed countries. One might suspect
35. Thinking about techniques of power that are targeted to that the strategy regarding producers, which brought
different scales might connect fruitfully with A. Fraser’s people together with their distant others, might have
(2010) “scalecraft.” resulted in productive social learning (or the potential
36. Foucault introduced the term biopower in 1976 in his first for such) and possibly a space for the development of a
volume of The History of Sexuality (Foucault 1990a) and transformational mentality; however, the consumption
in a lecture in 1976 as part of his series on Society Must strategy—making fair trade products widely available for
Be Defended (Foucault 2003). purchase—seems considerably less likely to promote new
37. I do not follow common interpretations of the micro-, subjectivities.
meso-, and macroscales as correlating with spatial units
such as local, national, and global. Rather, following Et-
tlinger (2007a, 2010) I offer the following definitions.
Macroscale refers to societal structures and to formal and References
informal institutions that shape collective and individ-
ual behavior and decision making. Mesoscale refers to Allen, J. 2003. Lost geographies of power. Malden, MA:
specific contexts in which social relations occur and, Blackwell.
crucially, such contexts need not necessarily be spa- ———. 2006. Ambient power: Berlin’s Postdamer Platz
tially circumscribed—that is, they can be spread across and the seductive logic of public spaces. Urban Studies
space—to allow for a topological understanding of con- 43:441–55.
text. Finally, microscale refers to individuals’ actions, Allen, J., and A. Cochrane. 2007. Beyond the territorial
thoughts, and feelings in an actor, not a place-oriented, fix: Regional assemblages, politics and power. Regional
conceptualization. I concur with Lemke (2001, 203), Studies 41:1161–75.
who commented on the elegance of governmentality Amin, A. 2002. Spatialities of globalization. Environment and
with reference to its analytical connection of the mi- Planning A 34:385–99.
cro and the macro political “levels” in addition to its ———. 2004. Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of
connection of discursive and material realities. place. Geografiska Annaler 86B:33–44.
38. Although commenting that Foucault suggested a his- Ares, N. 2008. Appropriating roles and relations of power in
torical chronology of disciplinary power (seventeenth collaborative learning. International Journal of Qualitative
and eighteenth centuries) and biopower (at the end of Studies in Education 21:99–121.
the eighteenth century) Hoy (2004, 75–76) nonethe- Barnett, C. 2005. The consolations of “neoliberalism.” Geo-
less argued that disciplinary power and biopower operate forum 36:7–12.
concurrently and with regard to different “scope” and Barry, A. 2004. Ethical capitalism. In Global governmental-
“direction”—disciplinary power referring to the “micro” ity: Governing international spaces, ed. W. Larner and W.
and biopower referring to the “macro.” Walters, 195–211. London and New York: Routledge.
39. Foucault (1980e, 121) famously said of political theory, Bernstein, N. 2008. City of immigrants fills cells with
“We need to cut off the king’s head,” signifying that gov- its own. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/
ernance extends beyond the state, which “is superstruc- 2008/12/27/us/27detain.html? r=1&th=&e (last ac-
tural in relation to a whole series of power networks that cessed 23 January 2009).
invest the body, sexuality, the family, kinship, knowl- Boggs, J. S., and N. M. Rantisi, eds. 2003. The “relational
edge, technology and so forth . . . this meta-power with turn” in economic geography. Journal of Economic Geog-
its prohibitions can only take hold and secure its footing raphy 3:109–16.
where it is rooted in a whole series of multiple and in- Bosco, F. J. 2006. The Madres de Plaza de Mayo and three
definite power relations that supply the necessary basis decades of human rights activism: Embeddedness, emo-
for the great negative forms of power” (Foucault 1980e, tions, and social movements. Annals of the Association of
122). American Geographers 96:342–65.
40. From a post-Marxist perspective, Hardt and Negri’s Braun, B. 2007. Biopolitics and the molecularization of life.
(2004) Multitude exemplifies the location of power in Cultural Geographies 14:6–28.
an entity, namely, the multitude. Burchell, G., C. Gordon, and P. Miller, eds. 1991. The Fou-
41. One might reasonably argue that complete indepen- cault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: Univer-
dence from the system in which one is situated is im- sity of Chicago Press.
possible. The main point is that one can try to distance Butler, J. 1997. The psychic life of power. Stanford, CA: Stan-
oneself as much as possible from the system to critique it ford University Press.
so as to be able to constructively engage it. ———. 2004. Bodies and power revisited. In Feminism and
42. Barnett (2005) criticized Foucault for leaving social re- the final Foucault, ed. D. Taylor and K. Vintges, 183–94.
lations unattended. I concur, although I would add the Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
qualifier that Foucault did express interest in social rela- Buttle, M. 2007. “I’m not in it for the money”: Construct-
tions and, crucially, the ultimate aim of linking the art ing and mediating ethical reconnections in UK social
of governance and the art of living. banking. Geoforum 38:1076–88.
43. Malpass et al. (2007) examined the ways in which Bristol Cahill, C. 2007. The personal is political: Developing
was made into a fair trade city. Fair trade products were new subjectivities through participatory action research.
sold in a wide variety of stores and other venues, although Gender, Place and Culture 14:267–92.
———. 2010. “Why do they hate us?” Reframing immigra- http://www.giub.uni-bonn.de/grabher/ (last accessed 13
tion research through participatory action research. Area April 2008).
42:152–61. ———. 2009a. Problematizing the presentation of post-

Cameron, J. 1998. The practice of politics: Transforming structural case-study research, or working out the crisis
subjectivities in the domestic domain and the public of representation in the presentation of empirics. Envi-
sphere. Australian Geographer 29:293–307. ronment and Planning A 41:1017–19.
Cameron, J., and K. Gibson. 2004. Participatory action re- ———. 2009b. Surmounting city silences: Knowledge cre-
search in a poststructuralist vein. Geoforum 36:315–31. ation and the design of urban democracy in the everyday
Catungal, J. P., and D. Leslie. 2009. Placing power in the economy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Re-
creative city: Governmentalities and subjectivities in search 33:217–30.
Liberty Village, Toronto. Environment and Planning A ———. 2010. Bringing the everyday into the cul-
41:2576–94. ture/creativity discourse. Human Geography 3:49–59.
Clifford, J. 1988. The predicament of culture twentieth-century Fall, J. J. 2007. Lost geographers: Power games and the circu-
ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard lation of ideas within Francophone political geographies.
University Press. Progress in Human Geography 31:195–216.
Clifford, J., and G. E. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing culture: The Faubion, J. D., ed. 2000. Michel Foucault/power. New York:
poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of The New Press.
California Press. ———. 2001. Toward an anthropology of ethics: Foucault
Cooper, D. 2006. Active citizenship and the governmental- and the pedagogies of autopoiesis. Representations 74:83–
ity of local lesbian and gay politics. Political Geography 104.
25:921–43. Featherstone, D. 2004. Spatial relations and the materiali-
Crampton, J. W. 2007. Maps, race and Foucault: Eugenics ties of political conflict: The construction of entangled
and territorialization following World War I. In Space, political identities in the London and Newcastle port
knowledge and power: Foucault and geography, ed. J. W. strikes of 1768. Geoforum 35:701–11.
Crampton and S. Elden, 223–44. Burlington, VT: Ash- ———. 2008. Resistance, space and political identities: The
gate. making of counter-global networks. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Crowley, U., and R. Kitchin. 2008. Producing “decent girls”: Blackwell.
Governmentality and the moral geographies of sexual Forest, B. 2004. Information sovereignty and GIS: The evo-
conduct in Ireland (1922–1937). Gender, Place, and Cul- lution of “communities of interest” in political redistrict-
ture 15:355–72. ing. Political Geography 23:425–51.
Cruikshank, B. 1999. The will to empower: Democratic citizens Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison.
and other subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. London: Allen Lane.
Curtis, B. 2002. Foucault on governmentality and population: ———. 1979. On governmentality. Ideology and Conscious-
The impossible discovery. Canadian Journal of Sociology ness 6:5–21.
27:505–33. ———. 1980a. The eye of power. In Power/knowledge: Se-
Dean, M. 2010. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern lected interviews and other writings 1972–1977, ed. C.
society. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. Gordon, trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and
Dicken, P., P. F. Kelly, K. Olds, and H. W. C. Yeung. 2001. K. Soper, 146–65. New York: Pantheon.
Chains and networks, territories and scales: Towards a ———. 1980b. The politics of health in the eighteenth cen-
relational framework for analyzing the global economy. tury. In Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other
Global Networks 1:89–112. writings 1972–1977, ed. C. Gordon, trans. C. Gordon,
Dymski, G. A. 2010. From financial exploitation to global L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and K. Soper, 166–82. New
banking stability. In The great credit crash, ed. M. Konings, York: Pantheon.
72–102. New York: Verso. ———. 1980c. Power and strategies. In Power/knowledge:
Dodge, M., and R. Kitchin. 2005. Codes of life: Identification Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977, ed. C.
codes and the machine-readable world. Environment and Gordon, trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and
Planning D: Society and Space 23:851–81. K. Soper, 134–45. New York: Pantheon.
Elden, S. 2001. Mapping the present: Heidegger, Foucault and ———. 1980d. Questions on geography. In Power/knowledge:
the project of a spatial history. New York: Continuum. Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977, ed. C.
———. 2007. Governmentality, calculation, territory. Envi- Gordon, trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and
ronment and Planning D: Society and Space 25:562–80. K. Soper, 63–77. New York: Pantheon.
———. 2009. Terror and territory: The spatial extent of ———. 1980e. Truth and power. In Power/knowledge: Se-
sovereignty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. lected interviews and other writings 1972–1977, ed. C.
———. 2010. Land, terrain, territory. Progress in Human Ge- Gordon, trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and
ography 34:799–817. K. Soper, 109–33. New York: Pantheon.
Eribon, D. 1991. Michel Foucault. Cambridge, MA: Harvard ———1980f. Two lectures. In Power/knowledge: Selected in-
University Press. terviews and other writings 1972–1977, ed. C. Gordon,
Ettlinger, N. 2004. Towards a critical theory of untidy ge- trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and K. Soper,
ographies: The spatiality of emotions in consumption 78–108. New York: Pantheon.
and production. Feminist Economics 10:21–54. ———. 1984. Polemics, politics, and problematizations: An
———. 2007a. Bringing democracy home: Post-Katrina New interview with Michel Foucault, trans. L. Davis. In The
Orleans. Antipode 39:8–16. Foucault reader, ed. P. Rabinow, 383–90. New York: Pan-
———. 2007b. Unchaining the micro. Socio-Economics of theon.
Space Discussion Forum (SECONS), track 3, no. 11. ———. 1986. Of other spaces. Diacritics 16:22–27.
558 Ettlinger
———. 1988a. The history of sexuality: Volume 3. The care of ———. 2004. The hermeneutics of the subject: Lectures at
the self, trans. R. Hurley. New York: Vintage Books. the Collège de France, 1981–82, ed. F. Gros, trans. B.
———. 1988b. Technologies of the self. In Technologies of the Burchell. New York: Picador.
self: A seminar with Michel Foucault, ed. L. H. Hartin, H. ———. 2007a. Meshes of power. In Space, knowledge and
Gutman, and P. H. Hutton, 16–49. Amherst: University power: Foucault and Geography, ed. J. W. Crampton and
of Massachusetts Press. S. Elden, 153–62. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
———. 1988c. Truth, power, self: An interview with Michel ———. 2007b. Security, territory, population: Lectures at the
Foucault, October 25, 1982. In Technologies of the self: Collège de France, 1977–1978, ed. M. Senellart, trans. G.
A seminar with Michel Foucault, ed. L. H. Hartin, H. Burchell. New York: Palgrave.
Gutman, and P. H. Hutton, 9–15. Amherst: University ———. 2007c. Subjectivity and truth. In The politics of truth,
of Massachusetts Press. ed. S. Lotringer, trans. L. Hochroth and C. Porter, 147–
———. 1990a. The history of sexuality: Volume 1. An intro- 67. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
duction, trans. R. Hurley. New York: Vintage Books. ———. 2007d. What is critique? In The politics of truth, ed.
———. 1990b. The history of sexuality: Volume 2. The use of S. Lotringer, trans. L. Hochroth and C. Porter, 41–95.
pleasure, trans. R. Hurley. New York: Vintage Books. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
———. 1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault effect: Stud- ———. 2007e. What is enlightenment? In The politics of
ies in governmentality, with two lectures by and an inter- truth, ed. S. Lotringer, trans. L. Hochroth and C. Porter,
view with Michel Foucault, 87–104. Chicago: University 97–119. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
of Chicago Press. ———. 2008. The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de
———. 1997a. The ethics of the concern for the self as a France, 1978–1979, ed. M. Senellart, trans. G. Burchell.
practice of freedom. In Michel Foucault/ethics: Subjectivity New York: Palgrave.
and truth, ed. P. Rabinow, trans. R. Hurley and others, ———. 2010. The government of self and others: Lectures at
281–301. New York: The New Press. the Collège de France, 1982–1983, ed. F. Gros, trans. G.
———. 1997b. On the genealogy of ethics: An overview Burchell. New York: Palgrave.
of work in progress. In Michel Foucault/ethics: Subjectivity ———. Forthcoming. The courage of the truth: Lectures at
and truth, ed. P. Rabinow, trans. R. Hurley and others, the Collège de France, 1984, ed. G. Burchell. New York:
253–80. New York: The New Press. Palgrave.
———. 1998a. Different spaces. In Michel Foucault/aesthetics, Fraser, A. 2010. The craft of scalar practices. Environment and
method, and epistemology, ed. J. D. Faubion, trans. R. Hur- Planning A 42:332–46.
ley and others, 175–85. New York: The New Press. Fraser, N. 1989. Foucault on modern power: Empirical in-
———. 1998b. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In Michel Fou- sights and normative confusions. In Unruly practices:
cault/aesthetics, method and epistemology, ed. J. D. Faubion, Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social the-
trans. R. Hurley and others, 369–91. New York: The New ory, ed. N. Fraser, 17–34. Minneapolis: University of
Press. Minnesota Press.
———. 2000a. The birth of social medicine. In Michel Fou- Gibson, K. 2001. Regional subjection and becoming. Envi-
cault/power, ed. J. D. Faubion, trans. R. Hurley and oth- ronment and Planning D: Society and Space 19:639–67.
ers, 134–56. New York: The New Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1997. Stuffed if I know: Reflections on
———. 2000b. Governmentality. In Michel Foucault/power, post-modern feminist social research. In Space, gender,
ed. J. D. Faubion, trans. R. Hurley and others, 201–22. knowledge, ed. L. McDowell and J. P. Sharp, 124–46.
New York: The New Press. New York: Arnold.
———. 2000c. Interview with Michel Foucault. In Michel Gilmore, R. W. 2007. Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, and op-
Foucault/power, ed. J. D. Faubion, trans. R. Hurley and position in globalizing California. Berkeley: University of
others, 239–97. New York: The New Press. California Press.
———. 2000d. “Omnes et singulatum”: Toward a critique Gooding-Williams, R. 1998. Race, multiculturalism, and
of political reason. In Michel Foucault/power, ed. J. D. democracy. Constellations 5:18–41.
Faubion, trans. R. Hurley and others, 298–325. New Gore, J. M. 1995. On the continuity of power relations in
York: The New Press. pedagogy. International Studies in Sociology of Education
———. 2000e. The political technology of individuals. In 5:165–88.
Michel Foucault/power, ed. J. D. Faubion, trans. R. Hurley Gotham, K. F. 2000. Urban space, restrictive covenants and
and others, 403–17. New York: The New Press. the origins of racial residential segregation in a U.S.city,
———. 2000f. Questions of method. In Michel Fou- 1900–50. International Journal of Urban and Regional Re-
cault/power, ed. J. D. Faubion, trans. R. Hurley and oth- search 24:616–33.
ers, 223–38. New York: The New Press. Gregory, D. 1978. Ideology, science and human geography. Lon-
———. 2000g. So is it important to think? In Michel Fou- don: Hutchinson.
cault/power, ed. J. D. Faubion, trans. R. Hurley and oth- Hannah, M. G. 1997. Space and the structuring of disci-
ers, 454–58. New York: The New Press. plinary power: An interpretive review. Geografiska An-
———. 2000h. The subject and power. In Michel Fou- naler 79B:171–80.
cault/power, ed. J. D. Faubion, trans. R. Hurley and oth- ———. 2000. Governmentality and the mastery of territory in
ers, 326–48. New York: The New Press. nineteenth-century America. New York: Cambridge Uni-
———. 2001. Fearless speech, ed. J. Pearson. Los Angeles: versity Press.
Semiotext(e). ———. 2007. Formations of “Foucault” in Anglo-American
———. 2003. Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collège geography: An archaeological sketch. In Space, knowl-
de France, 1975–1976, ed. M. Bertani and A. Fonatana, edge and power: Foucault and geography, ed. J. W. Cramp-
trans. D. Macey. New York: Picador. ton and S. Elden, 83–105. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Haraway, D. 1997. Situated knowledges: The science ques- Malpass, A., P. Cloke, C. Barnett, and N. Clarke. 2007.
tion in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fairtrade urbanism? The politics of place beyond place in
In Space, gender, knowledge, ed. L. McDowell and J. P. the Bristol fairtrade city campaign. International Journal
Sharp, 53–72. New York: Arnold. of Urban and Regional Research 30:873–93.
Hardt, M., and A. Negri. 2004. Multitude: War and democracy Marston, S., J. P. Jones III, and K. Woodward. 2005. Human
in the age of empire. New York: Penguin. geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of
Harvey, D. 1989. The urban experience. 2nd ed. Baltimore: British Geographers 30:416–32.
Johns Hopkins University Press. Massey, D. 1979. In what sense a regional problem? Regional
Hoefle, S. 2006. Eliminating scale and killing the goose that Studies 13:233–43.
laid the golden egg? Transactions of the Institute of British ———. 1993. Power-geometry and a progressive sense of
Geographers NS 31:238–43. place. In Mapping the futures: Local cultures, global change,
Hoy, D .C. 2004. Foucault: “Essays in refusal.” In Critical ed. J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, and L. Tickner, 59–69.
resistance: From poststructuralism to post-critique, ed. D. London and New York: Routledge.
C. Hoy, 57–100. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 2005. For space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hughes, A. 2001. Global commodity networks, ethical trade Massey, D., J. Allen, and P. Sarre., eds. 1999. Human geogra-
and governmentality: Organizing business responsibility phy today. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
in the Kenyan cut flower industry. Transactions of the McGeehan, P. 2009. Pfizer to leave city that won land-
Institute of British Geographers NS 26:390–406. use case. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/
Huxley, M. 2006. Spatial rationalities: Order, environment, 2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html?scp=19&sq=new+
evolution and government. Social and Cultural Geography london+eminent+domain&st=nyt (last accessed 14
7:771–87. March 2010).
Jonas, A. E. G. 2006. Pro scale: Further reflections on the McGushin, E. F. 2007. Foucault’s askēsis: An introduction to the
“scale debate” in human geography. Transactions of the philosophical life. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Institute of British Geographers NS 31:399–406. Press.
Kant, I. 2007. Was Ist Aufklärung? In The politics of truth: McLaren, M. A. 2002. Feminism, Foucault, and embodied sub-
Michel Foucault, ed. S. Lotringer, trans. L. Hochroth and jectivity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
C. Porter, 29–37. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e). McNay, L. 2009. Self as enterprise: Dilemmas of control and
Kaplan, D., and G. G. Sommers. 2009. An analysis of resistance in Foucault’s The birth of biopolitics. Theory,
the relationship between housing foreclosures, lending Culture & Society 26 (6): 55–77.
practices, and neighborhood ecology: Evidence from Milchman, A., and A. Rosenberg. 2005. Michel Foucault:
a distressed community. The Professional Geographer Crises and problematizations. Review of Politics 67:335–
61:101–20. 51.
Kindon, S., R. Pain, and M. Kesby, eds. 2007. Participatory Miller, J. 1993. The passion of Michel Foucault. New York:
action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, Simon & Schuster.
participation and place. New York: Routledge. Mitchell, K. 2006. Neoliberal governmentality in the Eu-
Langley, P. 2008. The everyday life of global finance: Saving and ropean Union: Education, training, and technologies
borrowing in Anglo-America. New York: Oxford Univer- of citizenship. Environment and Planning D: Society and
sity Press. Space 24:389–407.
Larner, W., and R. Le Heron. 2004. Global benchmarking. In Morgan, K. 2004. The exaggerated death of geography:
Global governmentality: Governing international spaces, ed. Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems.
W. Larner and W. Walters, 212–32. London and New Journal of Economic Geography 4:3–21.
York: Routledge. Moss, J., ed. 2009. The later Foucault: Politics and philosophy.
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
actor-network theory. New York: Oxford University Press. O’Grady, H. 2004. An ethics of the self. In Feminism and
Lee, J. A. 2007. Gender, ethnicity, and hybrid forms of the final Foucault, ed. D. Taylor and K. Vintges, 91–117.
community-based urban activism in Vancouver, 1957– Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
1978: The Strathcona story revisited. Gender, Place and O’Leary, T. 2006. Foucault and the art of ethics. New York:
Culture 14:381–407. Continuum.
Legg, S. 2005. Foucault’s population geographies: Classifica- Olson, D. R. 1986. Mining the human sciences: Some re-
tions, biopolitics and governmental spaces. Population, lations between hermeneutics and epistemology. Inter-
Space and Place 1:137–56. change 17:159–71.
———. 2007. Spaces of colonialism: Delhi’s urban governmen- Olson, E., and A. Sayer. 2009. Radical geography and its
talities. Malden, MA: Blackwell. critical standpoints: Embracing the normative. Antipode
Lemke, T. 2001. “The birth of bio-politics”: Michel Fou- 41:180–98.
cault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal Omi, M., and H. Winant. 1994. Racial formation in the United
governmentality. Economy and Society 30:190–207. States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. London and New
Lotringer, S., ed. 2007. The politics of truth: Michel Foucault. York: Routledge.
Los Angeles: Semiotext(e). Paras, E. 2006. Foucault 2.0: Beyond power and knowledge.
Luxon, N. 2004. Truthfulness, risk, and trust in the late lec- New York: Other Press.
tures of Michel Foucault. Inquiry 47:464–89. Philo, C. 1992. Foucault’s geography. Environment and Plan-
———. 2008. Ethics and subjectivity: Practices of self- ning D: Society and Space 10:137–61.
governance in the late lectures of Michel Foucault. Po- ———. 2000. The birth of the clinic: An unknown work of
litical Theory 36:377–402. medical geography. Area 32:11–19.
560 Ettlinger
———. 2001. Accumulating populations: Bodies, institu- Routledge, P. 2003. Convergent space: Process geographies
tions and space. International Journal of Population Geog- of grassroots globalization networks. Transactions of the
raphy 7:473–90. Institute of British Geographers 28:333–49.

———. 2005. Sex, life, death, geography: Fragmentary re- Routledge, P., A. Cumbers, and C. Nativel. 2007. Grass-
marks inspired by “Foucault’s population geographies.” rooting network imaginaries: Relationality, power and
Population, Space and Place 11:325–33. mutual solidarity in global justice networks. Environment
———. 2007. “Bellicose history” and “local discursivities”: and Planning A 39:2575–92.
An archaeological reading of Michel Foucault’s Society Saegert, S., D. Fields, and K. Libman. 2009. Debating the
must be defended. In Space, knowledge and power: Foucault dream: Radical risk and the neoliberalization of home
and geography, ed. J. W. Crampton and S. Elden, 341–67. ownership. Journal of Urban Affairs 31:297–317.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Saldanha, A. 2008. Heterotopia and structuralism. Environ-
Pickett, B. L. 1996. Foucault and the politics of resistance. ment and Planning A 40:2080–96.
Polity 28:445–66. Salzman, A. 2006. Connecticut city takes first step
Powell, J. 2002. Sprawl, fragmentation, and the persistence to evict in eminent domain case. New York
of racial inequality: Limiting civil rights by fragmenting Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/nyregion/
space. In Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences, and policy 06domain.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt (last accessed 14
responses, 73–117. Washington, DC: The Urban Insti- March 2010).
tute Press. Sayer, A. 2007. Moral economy as critique. New Political
Powell, M. 2009. Bank accused of pushing mortgage deals Economy 12:261–70.
on blacks. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/ Scott, A. J., and M. Storper. 2003. Regions, globalization,
2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html?sq=Baltimore%201aw% development. Regional Studies 4:579–93.
20suit&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=print (last ac- Smith, R. 2003. World city topologies. Progress in Human
cessed 14 March 2010). Geography 27:561–82.
Rabinow, P., ed. 1997. Michel Foucault/ethics: Subjectivity and Soja, E. W. 1989. Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of
truth, trans. R. Hurley and others, 67–71. New York: The space in critical social theory. New York: Verso.
New Press. ———. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other
———. 2009. Foucault’s untimely struggle: Toward a real-and-imagined places. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
form of spirituality. Theory, Culture & Society 26:25– Taylor, D. 2009. Normativity and normalization. Foucault
44. Studies 7:45–63.
Raco, M. 2003. Governmentality, subject-building, and the Taylor, D., and K. Vintges, eds. 2004. Feminism and the final
discourses and practices of devolution in the UK. Trans- Foucault. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
actions of the Institute of British Geographers 28:75– Thrift, N. 2007. Overcome by space: Reworking Foucault. In
95. Space, knowledge and power: Foucault and geography, ed.
Riley, C., and N. Ettlinger. Forthcoming. Interpreting racial J. W. Crampton and S. Elden, 53–58. Burlington, VT:
formation and multiculturalism in a high school: To- Ashgate.
wards a constructive deployment of two approaches to Voyce, M. 2003. The privatization of public property: The
critical race theory. Antipode. development of a shopping mall in Sydney and its impli-
Rojas, C. 2004. Governing through the social: Representa- cations for governance through spatial practices. Urban
tions of poverty and global governmentality. In Global Policy and Research 21:249–62.
governmentality: Governing international spaces, ed. W. Watts, M. 2003. Development and governmentality. Singa-
Larner and W. Walters, 97–115. London and New York: pore Journal of Tropical Geography 24:6–34.
Routledge. Woodward, K., J. P. Jones III, and S. Marston. 2007.
Rose, N. 1996. Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In The eagle and the fly: A fable for the micro. So-
Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and cioeconomics of Space Discussion Forum (SECONS),
rationalities of government, ed. A. Barry, T. Osborne, and track 3, no. 12. http://www.giub.uni-bonn.de/grabher/
N. Rose, 37–64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. downloads/Woodward.pdf (last accessed 13 April 2008).
———. 1999. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Wyly, E., M. Atia, H. Foxcroft, D. J. Hammel, and K.
New York: Cambridge University Press. Phillips-Watts. 2006. American home: Predatory mort-
———. 2007. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, gage capital and neighborhood spaces of race and class
and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: exploitation in the United States. Geografiska Annaler
Princeton University Press. 88B 1:105–32.
Rose-Redwood, R. S. 2006. Governmentality, geography, Yeung, H. W. C. 2005. Rethinking relational economic ge-
and the geo-coded world. Progress in Human Geography ography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
30:469–86. 30:37–51.
Correspondence: Department of Geography, The Ohio State University, 1036 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210,
e-mail: ettlinger.1@osu.edu.
View publication stats

INGLES Governamentalidade Como Epistemologia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

INGLES Governamentalidade Como Epistemologia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

INGLES Governamentalidade Como Epistemologia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Annals of the American Association of Geographers · April 2011

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

problems in specific contexts or regimes of practices.19

lems, whereas an external mode of analysis focuses

42:152–61. ———. 2009a. Problematizing the presentation of post-

raphy 7:473–90. Institute of British Geographers 28:333–49.

View publication stats

You might also like