![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This article takes as its starting point the important contribution that governmentality studies make to our understanding of the social and political conditions that shape contemporary world politics. However, it suggests that the critical potential of a governmentality approach can be more fully realised by dealing in a more substantive fashion with recent developments in capitalism and the latter's relationship with political subjectivity. The article introduces some elements of Italian autonomist Marxist thought and suggests that this intellectual tradition, together with Foucault's theorisation of neoliberal subjectivity in his recently translated 1979 lectures, can offer important insights that could strengthen governmentality accounts of contemporary social and political reality.
Notes
1. Michael Merlingen, “Foucault and World Politics: Promises and Challenges of Extending Governmentality Theory to the European and Beyond”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (2006), p. 104; Michael Merlingen, “Monster Studies”, International Political Sociology, Vol. 2, No. 3 (2008).
2. David Chandler, “Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism? The Limits of the Biopolitical Approach”, International Political Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009); Jonathan Joseph, “The Limits of Governmentality: Social Theory and the International”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 16, No. 2 (2010); Jan Selby, “Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and the Limits of Foucauldian IR”, International Relations, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2007).
3. The key references for this analytical framework remain the two edited volumes on governmentality: Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne and Nikolas S. Rose (eds.), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism, and Rationalities of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: With Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
4. Michel Foucault, “Governmentality”, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: With Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
5. Colleen Bell, “Surveillance Strategies and Populations at Risk: Biopolitical Governance in Canada's National Security Policy”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2006); Rosalyn Diprose et al., “Governing the Future: The Paradigm of Prudence in Political Technologies of Risk Management”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 39, Nos. 2–3 (2008); Tore Fougner, “Neoliberal Governance of States: The Role of Competitiveness Indexing and Country Benchmarking”, Millennium—Journal of International Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2008); Hans Krause Hansen and Dorte Salskov-Iversen, “Remodeling the Transnational Political Realm: Partnerships, Best-practice Schemes, and the Digitalization of Governance”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 30, No. 2 (2005); Suzan Ilcan and Lynne Phillips, “Governing through Global Networks: Knowledge Mobilities and Participatory Development”, Current Sociology, Vol. 56, No. 5 (2008); Hans-Martin Jaeger, “‘World Opinion’ and the Founding of the UN: Governmentalizing International Politics”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 14, No. 4 (2008); Anna Leander and Rens van Munster, “Private Security Contractors in the Debate about Darfur: Reflecting and Reinforcing Neo-liberal Governmentality”, International Relations, Vol. 21, No. 2 (2007).
6. Didier Bigo, “Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2002); Brendan Donegan, “Governmental Regionalism: Power/Knowledge and Neoliberal Regional Integration in Asia and Latin America”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 35 (2006); Stefan Elbe, “Risking Lives: Aids, Security and Three Concepts of Risk”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 39, Nos. 2–3 (2008); Julia Elyachar, Markets of Dispossession: NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in Cairo (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005); John Heathershaw, “Unpacking the Liberal Peace: The Dividing and Merging of Peacebuilding Discourses”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 36 (2008); Wendy Larner and William Walters, “Globalization as Governmentality”, Alternatives, Vol. 29 (2004); Tania Murray Li, The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007); Ronnie D. Lipschutz, “Power, Politics and Global Civil Society”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2005); Timothy W. Luke and Gearóid Ó Tuathail, “On Videocameralistics: The Geopolitics of Failed States, the CNN International and (UN) Governmentality”, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1997); Michael Merlingen and Rasa Ostrauskaite, European Union Peacebuilding and Policing (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2006); William Walters and Jens Henrik Haahr, Governing Europe: Discourse, Governmentality and European Integration (New York: Routledge, 2005); Laura Zanotti, “Imagining Democracy, Building Unsustainable Institutions: The UN Peacekeeping Operation in Haiti”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 39, No. 5 (2008).
7. James N. Rosenau, “Governance in the Twenty-first Century”, Global Governance, Vol. 1 (1995).
8. Stephen Gill, “Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3 (1995).
9. William Walters and Jens Henrik Haahr, “Governmentality and Political Studies”, European Political Science, Vol. 4, No. 3 (2005), p. 290.
10. Stephen Gill, “Constitutionalizing Inequality and the Clash of Globalizations”, International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2002), p. 48.
11. Some scholars distinguish between “1) ‘subjectification’ (assujettissement) or the ways that others are governed and objectified into subjects through processes of power/knowledge (including but not limited to subjugation and subjection since a subject can have autonomy and power relations can be resisted and reversed), and 2) ‘subjectivation’ (subjectivation) or the ways that individuals govern and fashion themselves into subjects on the basis of what they take to be the truth”. Trent H. Hamann, “Neoliberalism, Governmentality, and Ethics”, Foucault Studies, No. 6 (2009) pp. 38–39, footnote 4. In this paper I use the second term, subjectivation, to refer to the process of subject formation, whether by the self or by others.
12. Elyachar, op. cit.; Banu Gökarıksel and Katharyne Mitchell, “Veiling, Secularism and the Neoliberal Subject: National Narratives and Supranational Desires in Turkey and France”, Global Networks, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2005); Banu Gökarıksel and Anna Secor, “New Transnational Geographies of Islamism, Capitalism and Subjectivity: The Veiling-fashion Industry in Turkey”, Area, Vol. 41, No. 1 (2008); Wendy Larner, “Globalization, Governmentality and Expertise: Creating a Call Centre Labour Force”, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 9, No. 4 (2002); Li, op. cit.; Katharyne Mitchell, “Educating the National Citizen in Neoliberal Times: From the Multicultural Self to the Strategic Cosmopolitan”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 28, No. 4 (2003); idem, “Neoliberal Governmentality in the European Union: Education, Training, and Technologies of Citizenship”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2006); Mark Olssen, “Understanding the Mechanisms of Neoliberal Control: Lifelong Learning, Flexibility and Knowledge Capitalism”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 25, No. 3 (2006); Julia Paley, Marketing Democracy: Power and Social Movements in Post-dictatorship Chile (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); Katharine N. Rankin, “Governing Development: Neoliberalism, Microcredit, and Rational Economic Woman”, Economy and Society, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2001); Daromir Rudnyckyj, “Spiritual Economies: Islam and Neoliberalism in Contemporary Indonesia”, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 1 (2009).
13. Walter A. Davis, Inwardness and Existence: Subjectivity in/and Hegel, Heidegger, Marx, and Freud (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), p. 20.
14. Karen Barad, “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter”, Signs, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2003); Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993); idem, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (New York: Routledge, 1997); idem, The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997); John Cromby, “Theorizing Embodied Subjectivity”, International Journal of Critical Psychology, Vol. 15 (2005).
15. Mark Coté, “The Italian Foucault: Subjectivity, Valorization, Autonomia”, Politics and Culture, No. 3 (2003). There is in fact a massive literature on Italian social and political thought that engages with Foucault. Unfortunately, most of it remains untranslated.
16. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); idem, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (New York: Penguin, 2004).
17. See, for example, the discussion in the journal Millennium: Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, “Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations”, Millennium—Journal of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2002); Alex Callinicos, “The Actuality of Imperialism”, Millennium—Journal of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2002); Martin Shaw, “Post-imperial and Quasi-imperial: State and Empire in the Global Era”, Millennium—Journal of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2002); R.B.J. Walker, “On the Immanence/Imminence of Empire”, Millennium—Journal of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2002). See also the helpful critical discussion of Empire in Paul A. Passavant and Jodi Dean (eds.), Empire's New Clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri (New York: Routledge, 2004).
18. Many of the issues related to workerist and autonomist thought are discussed in the special issue “Italian Post-workerist Thought”, in SubStance, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2007). For a history of this political and intellectual movement, see Steve Wright, Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism (London: Pluto Press, 2002). Many of the political and theoretical debates that surrounded this movement are discussed in Sylvère Lotringer and Christian Marazzi (eds.), Autonomia: Post-political Politics (Cambridge, MA and London: Semiotext(e), 2007). See also Michael Hardt, “Introduction: Laboratory Italy”, in Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt (eds.), Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996).
20. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
19. Nick Dyer-Witheford, Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High-technology Capitalism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999), p. 65.
21. Giuseppina Mecchia and Max Henninger, “Introduction: Italian Post-workerist Thought”, SubStance, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2007), p. 3.
23. Ibid., p. 4.
24. Alberto Toscano, “Factory, Territory, Metropolis, Empire”, Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2004), pp. 200–201.
25. Alberto Toscano, “Vital Strategies: Maurizio Lazzarato and the Metaphysics of Contemporary Capitalism”, Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 24, No. 6 (2007), p. 73, citing Maurizio Lazzarato, “Immaterial Labor”, in Virno and Hardt (eds.), op. cit., p. 133.
26. See Lazzarato, op. cit.
27. Sheldon H. Lu, Chinese Modernity and Global Biopolitics: Studies in Literature and Visual Culture (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2007), p. 4. See also Michael Hardt, “Affective Labor”, Boundary 2, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1999); Kathi Weeks, “Life within and against Work: Affective Labor, Feminist Critique, and Post-Fordist Politics”, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2007).
33. Terranova, op. cit., 29.
28. The term is taken from the “Fragment on Machines” in Notebook VII of Marx's Grundrisse: “Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it”. Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft) (trans. Martin Nicolaus) (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 706.
29. Paolo Virno, “Notes on the General Intellect”, in Saree Makdisi, Cesare Casarino and Rebecca E. Karl (eds.), Marxism beyond Marxism (New York: Routledge, 1996).
30. Tiziana Terranova, “Of Sense and Sensibility: Immaterial Labour in Open Systems”, in Joasia Krysa (ed.), Data Browser 03—Curating Immateriality: The Work of the Curator in the Age of Network Systems (New York: Autonomedia, 2006), p. 29.
31. Marx contrasts the real subsumption of labour by capital with the merely formal subsumption in the first volume of Capital. He fleshed out in more detail the concepts of formal and real subsumption in the appendix to Capital titled “Results of the Immediate Process of Production”. See Karl Marx, Capital Volume 1 (trans. Ben Fowkes) (London: Penguin, 1990), pp. 1019–1038.
32. Jason Read, The Micro-politics of Capital: Marx and the Prehistory of the Present (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003), p. 127.
34. Toscano, “Vital Strategies”, p. 82; emphasis added.
35. Melinda Cooper, Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008); Lu, op. cit.; Majia Holmer Nadesan, Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life (New York: Routledge, 2008); Read, op. cit.
36. Note that whilst for thinkers such as Negri and Lazzarato, conditions of real subsumption mark a biopolitical phase of capital, for Virno capitalism was biopolitical from the very beginning. See Paolo Virno, A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life (Cambridge, MA and London: Semiotext (e), 2003), pp. 81–84. Note also that Negri distinguishes between the biopower of capital and the potential biopolitics of the multitude—a distinction that parallels the difference between potenza (potentiality) and potere (power). See Brett Neilson, “Potenza Nuda? Sovereignty, Biopolitics, Capitalism”, Contretemps, Vol. 5 (2004).
37. Maurizio Lazzarato, “From Capital-labour to Capital-life”, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, Vol. 4, No. 3 (2004); Virno, A Grammar of the Multitude, op. cit., pp. 82–83. For a discussion of the “affective turn” in social theory in general, see the essays collected in Patricia Ticineto Clough and Jean O'Malley Halley (eds.), The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007).
38. Paolo Virno, “Post-Fordist Semblance”, SubStance, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2007), p. 45. See also Virno, A Grammar of the Multitude, op. cit., pp. 84–93.
39. “Economy cannot be conceived within the time or place of the ‘factory-office’. It has rather become spatially boundless and temporally endless: it is impossible to make the distinction between working time and free time, it is difficult to say where or when the actual act of production is being carried out, what is work and what is not, what creates value and what does not.” Akseli Virtanen, “General Economy: The Entrance of Multitude into Production”, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, Vol. 4, No. 3 (2004), p. 209.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
40. Maurizio Lazzarato, “Strategies of the Political Entrepreneur”, SubStance, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2007), p. 91.
43. In this regard, Deleuze's comment that “Marketing has become the center or ‘soul’ of the corporation” seems prescient. Gilles Deleuze, “Postscript on the Societies of Control”, October, No. 59 (1992), p. 6; Mark Coté and Jennifer Pybus, “Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: Myspace and Social Networks”, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2007), p. 92.
44. Paul du Gay, “Markets and Meanings: Re-imagining Organizational Life”, in Majken Schultz, Mary Jo Hatch and Mogens Holten Larsen (eds), The Expressive Organization Linking Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). See also Miriam Salzer-Mörling and Lars Strannegård, “Silence of the Brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, Nos. 1–2 (2004).
45. Maurizio Lazzarato, Struggle, Event, Media (2003), available: <http://www.republicart.net/disc/representations/lazzarato01_en.htm> (accessed 5 July 2009).
46. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State-form (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), p. 9.
47. Michel Foucault, “Technologies of the Self”, in Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman and Patrick H. Hutton (eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988).
48. Lazzarato, “Immaterial Labor”, op. cit., p. 135.
49. Enda Brophy, “System Error: Labour Precarity and Collective Organizing at Microsoft”, Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 31, No. 3 (2006), p. 622.
50. Enda Brophy and Greig de Peuter, “Immaterial Labor, Precarity, and Recomposition”, in Catherine McKercher and Vincent Mosco (eds.), Knowledge Workers in the Information Society (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007); Rosalind Gill and Andy Pratt, “In the Social Factory? Immaterial Labour, Precariousness and Cultural Work”, Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 25, Nos. 7–8 (2008).
52. Ibid.
51. Terranova, op. cit., p. 33.
53. Deleuze, op. cit.
54. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987).
55. Hardt and Negri, Empire, op. cit., pp. 27–32; Maurizio Lazzarato, “The Concepts of Life and the Living in the Societies of Control”, in Martin Fuglsang and Bent Meier S⊘rensen (eds.), Deleuze and the Social (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006).
56. For a critical discussion, see Nicholas Thoburn, Deleuze, Marx and Politics, Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought; 38 (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), pp. 69–102.
59. Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, op. cit., p. 270.
57. Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79 (ed. Arnold I. Davidson; trans. Graham Burchell) (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
58. Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (ed. Arnold I. Davidson; trans. Graham Burchell) (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).
60. See, for example, Gary S. Becker, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976); idem, Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, 2nd edn (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975).
61. Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, op. cit., p. 226; emphasis added.
62. Ibid., p. 269.
65. Ibid., pp. 259–260.
66. Ibid., p. 260.
68. Ibid.
70. Ibid., p. 294.
63. Ibid., p. 270.
64. Ibid., pp. 270–271.
67. Ibid., emphasis added.
69. Robert Castel, “From Dangerousness to Risk”, in Burchell et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 281.
71. Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, op. cit., p. 261.
72. Colin Gordon, “Governmental Rationality: An Introduction”, in Burchell et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 43. This argument is made most forcefully in Becker, op. cit., p. 8: “[t]he economic approach is a comprehensive one that is applicable to all human behavior, be it behavior involving money prices, or imputed shadow prices, repeated or infrequent decisions, large or minor decisions, emotional or mechanical ends, rich or poor persons, men or women, adults or children, brilliant or stupid persons, patients or therapists, businessmen or politicians, teachers or students”.
73. Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, op. cit., p. 269.
74. Gary S. Becker, “Irrational Action and Economic Theory”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 70, No. 4 (1962), p. 167, quoted in Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, op. cit., p. 287.
75. Gary S. Becker, The Erosion of Individual Responsibility (2008), available: <http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/03/the_erosion_of.html> (accessed 16 June 2009). I would like to thank Nicholas Kiersey for calling this article to my attention.
77. Maurizio Lazzarato, Biopolitics/Bioeconomics: A Politics of Multiplicity (n.d.), available: <http://www.generation-online.org/p/fplazzarato2.htm> (accessed 10 June 2008).
76. Ibid.
78. Although formulating the subject as a self-entrepreneur who must maximise her own value by taking into account the way the game in which she operates is structured is already quite deep.
79. Lazzarato, Biopolitics/Bioeconomics, op. cit. See also U. Kalpagam, “Colonial Governmentality and the ‘Economy’”, Economy and Society, Vol. 29, No. 3 (2000).
81. Lazzarato, Biopolitics/Bioeconomics, op. cit.
80. Foucault, “Technologies of the Self”, op. cit.
83. Michel Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms”, in James D. Faubion (ed.), Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Vol. 3: Power (New York: New Press, 2000), p. 86. See also Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), p. 141.
82. However, see Merlingen, “Foucault and World Politics”, op. cit., for an argument in favour of describing governmentality in terms of a theory.
84. Barry Smart, “The Politics of Truth and the Problem of Hegemony”, in Barry Smart (ed.), Michel Foucault: Critical Assessments (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 208.
85. See, for example, Michel Foucault, “Critical Theory/Intellectual History”, in Lawrence D. Kritzman (ed.), Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings, 1977–1984 (New York: Routledge, 1988); idem, Remarks on Marx: Conversations with Duccio Trombadori (trans. R.J. Goldstein and J. Cascaito) (New York: Semiotext(e), 1991). See also Foucault's discussions with his Marxist interlocutors in Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977 (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980).
86. See, for example, Gavin Kendall, “Global Networks, International Networks, Actor Networks”, in Wendy Larner and William Walters (eds.), Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces (London and New York: Routledge, 2004).
87. Selby, op. cit.
88. Ibid., p. 339.
91. Ibid., p. 186. While Foucault here speaks of scale, his methodological argument resonates with the proposal by some human geographers to abandon the notion of scale in favour of a “flat ontology”. See Sallie A. Marston, John Paul Jones III and Keith Woodward, “Human Geography without Scale”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 30, No. 4 (2005); idem, “Situating Flatness”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 32, No. 2 (2007).
89. Ibid., pp. 339–340.
90. Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, op. cit., pp. 2–3. In a later lecture Foucault claims: “the state does not have an essence. The state is not a universal nor in itself an autonomous source of power. The state is nothing else but the effect, the profile, the mobile shape of a perpetual statification (étatisation)”. Ibid., p. 77.
92. Lazzarato, Biopolitics/Bioeconomics, op. cit.
93. Larner and Walters, “Globalization as Governmentality”, op. cit., p. 16.
94. Ibid. The idea that space is not a natural, but rather a socially constructed, phenomenon is not unique to a Foucauldian perspective. See, for example, Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1991); Edward W. Soja, Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory (London and New York: Verso, 1989). For a critical genealogy of the global, see Denis E. Cosgrove, Apollo's Eye: A Cartographic Genealogy of the Earth in the Western Imagination (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).
95. Nigel Thrift, Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect (New York: Routledge, 2007), p. 48.
96. Cooper, op. cit.; Nadesan, op. cit.; Jeffrey T. Nealon, Foucault beyond Foucault: Power and its Intensifications since 1984 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008); Jason Read, “A Genealogy of Homo-Economicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity”, Foucault Studies, No. 6 (2009); idem, Micro-politics of Capital.
97. Ash Amin and Nigel J. Thrift, The Blackwell Cultural Economy Reader (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003); Jean-François Bayart, Global Subjects: A Political Critique of Globalization (trans. Andrew Brown) (Cambridge: Polity, 2008); Richard Harvey Brown (ed.), The Politics of Selfhood: Bodies and Identities in Global Capitalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003); Jean Comaroff and John L. Comaroff, Millennial Capitalism and the Culture of Neoliberalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001); J.K. Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006); Nigel Thrift, Knowing Capitalism (London: Sage, 2005).