Georgina Kilborn - Entry 2 (Foucault)

One of the most penetrating philosophers of the post-colonial era, Foucault, in his series of lectures, “Society must be defended”, reveals the power relations that constitute the basis of our institutions. These texts offer a complex genealogical evaluation of modern sovereignty as a discourse and system of power. While “Society must be defended” is indispensible for revealing the complexity of the problem of sovereignty, it’s analysis of the matter is also provocative and contestable.

Foucault contends that out of the seventeenth century, emerged a new interpretation of war- a permanent basis of all institutions of power, a covert presence within society. Following this development, Foucault outlines the genealogy of power. According to Foucault, to understand how “power functions” (p.29), we must not look to formal juridical models, rather to its local and multiple points of material manifestation (p. 27-28). Foucault therefore forcefully critiques the Hobbesian juridical model of sovereignty, a system with a single power-wielding centre. He asserts that war is not to be understood in terms of the rights of a sovereign (juridically), but is rather a cached power that ultimately divides societies. Much like Tolstoy’s dismissal of the agency of “great men” in historical events (War and Peace, 1869), Foucault’s focus is “the manufacture of subjects rather than the genesis of the sovereign…” (p. 46). Nevertheless, there interpretations of power differ significantly. Tolstoy’s conceives power as “the relation of the commander to those he commands” (p. 1288). Conversely, Foucault focuses on power at the level where it is invested in real intentions and practices. He believes power functions through networks in which individuals are able to both exercise and exert this power.

The text subsequently explores of the notion that "politics is…war by other means" (p. 48) in relation to race, power and class struggle. He describes how war deceivingly continues beneath an apparent peace in society and, as such, war lies at the core of power relations. This represents an intriguing paradox for Foucault, as when states have previously entered an apparent realm of peace following wars, a countermovement emerged in the discursive realm. This discourse on perpetual war is what Foucault calls "historico-political” discourse, where war is never averted; conversely it is evident in all the instruments of power.

As such, “Society Must Be Defended” offers a historical, complex and robust assessment of sovereignty, as it can be understood in the historico-political discourse. Nonetheless, Foucault’s analysis of sovereignty is also culpable to critique. In rejecting what constitutes the key modern sovereign move, this being the subordination of war to politics, Foucault is potentially undermining the principles and achievements that rest upon these foundations, they being, namely; democracy, civil peace and liberties and the rule of law. Further, his assertion that below politics, lies a wealth of force relations and significantly, war, is at risk of being interpreted as a valorisation of partisan conflict.

Nevertheless, Lectures II and III of “Society Must Be Defended”, establish a productive critique to contemporary theories and understanding regarding the issue of sovereignty. If war is an ever-present undercurrent in our ‘peaceful’ society, and if it is indeed infiltrating the fabric of modern politics, institutions and its discourses, then Foucault’s text offer a sophisticated means of thinking about the challenges and dangers of present day. Thus, such theories of power relations remain a pertinent reminder that “Society must be defended” against its internal enemies, even today.