Paul,
I will try to answer some if not all of your questions.
As a way of governing, Rose (1999) sees "community" being situated in the
"third space" which resonates in both the policies of Blair and Clinton.
First, I think there is an important differentiation between a Foucaultian
and Marxist emphasis on capitalism. For Foucault, capitalism emerged from
liberalism not the other way around. The central question liberalism has to
answer is "how can we govern from a distance". The answer that would follow
in reference to the economy would be capitalism. I prefer to look at the
relationship between capitalism and liberalism relationally rather than a
cause and effect. As Popkewitz argues while Foucault very much diverts from
Marx, one can not truely understand, appreciate him without being familiar
with Marx. It would not be an understatement, especially in the case of
Rose, to see Foucaultians as ex/post-Marxists.
So, I think from a Rose perpective of govermentality "community" is seen as
this "third space" that is in oppossition to the social (state). "Community"
then in dialectical terms is a synthesis between the social (state) and
neo-liberalism - the third way. Rose points out, "this third space
(community) must, thus, become the object and target for the excercise of
political power whilst remaining, somehow, external to politics and a
counterweight to it."
Paul said:
"The census bureau's use of references to local level community benefits to
motivate participation clearly illustrates ways in which "community" can be
rhetorically summoned but this process goes on all the time, everyday with
respect to one or another "community".
And this is sort of the point, I think, that "community" has become the
target and object of political power. This of course implies we look at
govermentality more broadly than the interests of a soverign state. Rose
sees "community" as a form of ethico-politics in which, "if dicipline
individualizes and normalizes, and bio-power collectivizes and socializes,
ethico-politics concerns itself with the self techniques necessary for
responsible self goverment and the relations betweeen one's obligation to
oneself and one's obligation to others".
I think where the Foucaultian emphasis on community is useful is in how
community in all its diversity has become this space where governing,
developing, and identity construction occur. To use your example of
"community of practice", although it differentiates itself somewhat from the
more general "community" it still reproduces, legitimizes, naturalizes this
"third space". Where I would see a Foucaultian approach reflective is in its
critique, questioning of the liberal mode of governing. I think if we see
community, like freedom, as the way liberal societies govern rather than in
oppossition to governing or goverment it opens up different questions. I
think community, again like freedom, has been positioned against the social
or state, rather than looking at how those two modes of governing
interrelate.
At a minimum, it would make this space called community in which we govern
and are governed problematic. I think an emphasis on "community of
practice" or "activity" can be very useful in this regard. It all depends on
what is implied when you say, "communities develop around practices,
divisions of labor, and rules that overlap in that complex totality,
"community"." If this implies that community is a problemmatic, contested
space then I find it very useful. If on the other hand its used to
naturalize, thingize, or objectify the space of community as natural or
authentic I find it problematic.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:20:34 PDT