Foucault and the Critique of the Liberal Theory of Sovereignty

In this paper I attempt to analyze Foucault’s critique of Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty as articulated in his lectures at the College de France. In these lectures Foucault aims to show that the liberal theories of sovereignty are “economical,” in that they discuss the problem of the establishment of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bilba Corneliu
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Axis Academic Foundation 2017-06-01
Series:Hermeneia: Journal of Hermeneutics, Art Theory and Art Criticism
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hermeneia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/balba-nr.-5_0.pdf
id doaj-716a77475b8f499b94eb0b45116c8197
record_format Article
spelling doaj-716a77475b8f499b94eb0b45116c81972020-11-25T01:22:48ZdeuAxis Academic Foundation Hermeneia: Journal of Hermeneutics, Art Theory and Art Criticism1453-90472017-06-01No. 5108118Foucault and the Critique of the Liberal Theory of SovereigntyBilba Corneliu0Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of IasiIn this paper I attempt to analyze Foucault’s critique of Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty as articulated in his lectures at the College de France. In these lectures Foucault aims to show that the liberal theories of sovereignty are “economical,” in that they discuss the problem of the establishment of political power on the model of “free exchanges.” According to Foucault, this would presuppose the existence of a substance, or essence of power, which clearly contradicts the notion that the origin of the “strategic” and the “relational” interpretation of power must be sought in Hobbes. In order to deny Hobbes’ the paternity of the idea that “politics means continuing war by other means,” Foucault shows that it is compatible with neither Boulainvilliers’ interpretation of history as a “war of the races” nor Nietzsche’s belief in the agnostic nature of knowledge. As a matter of fact, Hobbes’ interest was to pacify history, which requires freezing over all relations based on force. Foucault’s evidence is that Hobbes reduces the notion of sovereignty by acquisition to the notion of sovereignty by contract. I try to show that the opposite interpretation is equally valid, namely that, given that the sovereign would still be left in the “state of nature,” contractual sovereignty can be regarded as the sovereign’s “acquisition” of his subjects. The exercise of sovereignty in its traditional sense would thus assume the shape of a constant struggle against human nature, which can be disciplined but never improved upon. Paradoxically, this interpretation is even more “Foucauldian” than Foucault’s, but the problems it uncovers are of Foucault’s own making. http://hermeneia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/balba-nr.-5_0.pdfFoucaultHobbessovereigntypowersocial contract theoryacquisition
collection DOAJ
language deu
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Bilba Corneliu
spellingShingle Bilba Corneliu
Foucault and the Critique of the Liberal Theory of Sovereignty
Hermeneia: Journal of Hermeneutics, Art Theory and Art Criticism
Foucault
Hobbes
sovereignty
power
social contract theory
acquisition
author_facet Bilba Corneliu
author_sort Bilba Corneliu
title Foucault and the Critique of the Liberal Theory of Sovereignty
title_short Foucault and the Critique of the Liberal Theory of Sovereignty
title_full Foucault and the Critique of the Liberal Theory of Sovereignty
title_fullStr Foucault and the Critique of the Liberal Theory of Sovereignty
title_full_unstemmed Foucault and the Critique of the Liberal Theory of Sovereignty
title_sort foucault and the critique of the liberal theory of sovereignty
publisher Axis Academic Foundation
series Hermeneia: Journal of Hermeneutics, Art Theory and Art Criticism
issn 1453-9047
publishDate 2017-06-01
description In this paper I attempt to analyze Foucault’s critique of Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty as articulated in his lectures at the College de France. In these lectures Foucault aims to show that the liberal theories of sovereignty are “economical,” in that they discuss the problem of the establishment of political power on the model of “free exchanges.” According to Foucault, this would presuppose the existence of a substance, or essence of power, which clearly contradicts the notion that the origin of the “strategic” and the “relational” interpretation of power must be sought in Hobbes. In order to deny Hobbes’ the paternity of the idea that “politics means continuing war by other means,” Foucault shows that it is compatible with neither Boulainvilliers’ interpretation of history as a “war of the races” nor Nietzsche’s belief in the agnostic nature of knowledge. As a matter of fact, Hobbes’ interest was to pacify history, which requires freezing over all relations based on force. Foucault’s evidence is that Hobbes reduces the notion of sovereignty by acquisition to the notion of sovereignty by contract. I try to show that the opposite interpretation is equally valid, namely that, given that the sovereign would still be left in the “state of nature,” contractual sovereignty can be regarded as the sovereign’s “acquisition” of his subjects. The exercise of sovereignty in its traditional sense would thus assume the shape of a constant struggle against human nature, which can be disciplined but never improved upon. Paradoxically, this interpretation is even more “Foucauldian” than Foucault’s, but the problems it uncovers are of Foucault’s own making.
topic Foucault
Hobbes
sovereignty
power
social contract theory
acquisition
url http://hermeneia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/balba-nr.-5_0.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT bilbacorneliu foucaultandthecritiqueoftheliberaltheoryofsovereignty
_version_ 1725125393450532864