Foucauldian social theory serves as a second important theoretical framework guiding my study. Michel Foucault coined the concept of governmentality in the process of analyzing the
genealogy of the modern state. The idea of governmentality is a construct that connects
seemingly disconnected social theories of Foucault, such as theory of power/knowledge and his
later theme of ethical subjects5 (Lemke 2002: 50; Dean 2010b: 17). That is, Foucault’s term
governmentality is a site for the convergence of the diverse themes and concepts of his social
theory.6 In this sense, Foucault defines governmentality as an “encounter between the
technologies of domination of others and those of the self” ([1994]1997a).
In other way, Foucault calls governmentality “the art of government” ([1978]1991: 87). His concept of government is not limited to its current meaning of state politics. Paying attention to its diverse usages before the eighteenth century, Foucault uses the notion of government to encompass a variety of micro and macro control techniques applied to diverse objects such as individuals, families, population, and the body (Foucault [2004]2007, [2004]2008; Dean 1994). In short, governmentality refers to a network of methods and social processes through which individuals and groups are rendered governable. Foucault ([1979]2000a) also calls
governmentality a kind of “political rationality” that establishes a set of general principles that
5 There is a widespread misconception concerning the theoretical trajectory of Foucault. Many commentators
(Deleuze 1988b; Miller 1993) demonstrate that Foucault turned to the theme of ethical subjects in his later years in order to escape from a stalemate of his power theory, because his power theory could not provide any possibilities of resistance to power. In this demonstration, the relationship between Foucault’s power theory and the theme of ethical subjects is broken. However, his lectures about the idea of governmentality at Collège de France have been published during last several years, and this demonstration has proven to be a misconception. By the idea of governmentality, Foucault aimed to combine his power theory and the theme of ethical subjects. Foucault’s definition of governmentality “[an] encounter between the technologies of domination of others and those of the self” demonstrates this aim ([1994]1997a: 225).
6
In this sense, Michel Dean demonstrates that Foucault’s term government “is any more or less calculated and rational activity, undertaken by a multiplicity of authorities and agencies, employing a variety of techniques and forms of knowledge, that seeks to shape conduct by working through the desires, aspirations, interests and beliefs of various actors, for definite but shifting ends and with a diverse set of relatively unpredictable consequences, effects and outcomes” (2010b: 17).
rationalize various concrete techniques of government in a historical period. For example, Raison
d’Etat, liberalism, Keynesianism, and neoliberalism are political rationalities that have their own
distinct characteristics within specific historical contexts. To understand these thinking systems as political rationalities implies that they are not simply neutral political philosophies but sets of concrete social practices and strategies that rationalize a deployment of means for specific governmental ends (Foucault [1979]2000a; Simon 1995: 55-56). Particularly, the following four themes are integral for Foucault’s idea of governmentality: (1) relationship between power and knowledge; (2) changes of the relationship between state, market, society and individuals according to each mode of political rationality in history; (3) production of subjects; and (4) the
technology of individuals as a strategy for social integration.7
First, the relationship between power and knowledge is a core theme in Foucauldian thought that matters for governmentality theory. In Foucault’s understanding, power and
knowledge constitute each other. According to Foucault, “there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” ([1975]1995: 27) and “[b]etween techniques of knowledge and strategies of power, there is no exteriority” ([1976]1978: 98). That is, knowledge renders its objects governable. Simultaneously, power renders the domains that it aims to govern as knowable objects. In this sense, Foucault ([1994]1997b: 117) calls his works analyses of “problematizations.” It means that he aims to analyze why, how, and under what specific times
7 A leading Foucauldian scholar Thomas Lemke calls technology of individuals “technology of the social” (2011:
175). While the term technology of the self designates a set of practices employed for the formation of ‘individual’ subjects, according to him, the term technology of individuals designates those employed for the formation of ‘collective’ subjects.
and circumstances certain things became objects for thought “in the form of moral reflection, scientific knowledge, political analysis etc.,” and how certain kinds of technologies of power intervened in these processes ([1984]1988a: 257). In this sense, the analysis of an apparatus of knowledge and power is critical for the analysis of governmentality as a political rationality.
Second, the transformation of the binaries—public/private, state/market, and
society/economy—reflects a substantial shift in how power functions at the intersection of state and society (Foucault [2004]2008; Rose 1996, 2004; Mitchell 1999). Foucault analyzes how the relationships between market, civil society, and state have been transformed in diverse political
rationalities such as Raison d’Etat, liberalism, and neo-liberalism ([2004]2008). The objective of
Raison d’Etat was only an augmentation of wealth and strength of the state for its existence and
permanence ([2004]2008: 5). Thus, market was governed by the state under this objective. Under the political rationality of liberalism, the concept of the civil society, which is understood as a domain based on the “natural” law of market and economic actors’ “spontaneity,” was invented. Thus, market and civil society were regarded as limitations which the state should not exceed ([2004]2008: 291-316). Under the political rationality of neoliberalism, the distinctions between market, social society, and state are denied. Under neoliberalism, even all non-market domains, such as state, social society, and individuals, are regarded as market domains ([2004]2008: 239-
265).The dividing lines of those binaries—public/private, state/market, and society/economy—
distinguish the objects to be governed from the other objects that a government should not exceed. Thus, if those dividing lines change, it means that new governmental objects emerged. Of course, this process accompanies the emergence of new governmental technologies through which previous ungovernable objects are transformed into governable objects. For example, the
human body hardly had been considered as a ‘public’ domain that state power needs to intervene in until the seventeenth century. Since about the eighteenth century when capitalism based on human labor power began to be formed, human bodies became ‘public’ governmental objects of state power. The emergence of this new governmental object shifted the distinction between non- public and public domains. In this process, various new government technologies—the close observation of human bodies or health conditions, the control of birth rates, the spread of
hygienic disciplines and so on—were also invented in order to render human bodies governable; Foucault calls these new technologies of power, which exercise on human bodies of entire populations, bio-power ([1976]1978).
Third, power cannot operate without the production of subjects that it aims to govern.
Thus, Foucauldian governmentality theory pays attention to the subject production mechanisms.8
The uniqueness of Foucauldian governmentality theory concerning the production of subjects is that it focuses on the connection between the axis of power/knowledge defined in the relation to others (power/knowledge exercising on an individual from outside the individual) and the axis of power/knowledge defined in the relation to the self (power/knowledge exercising on the self by
the individual). Particularly, Foucault (1978; 1982) calls the latter technologies of the self. In this
sense, Foucault (1997a) defines government as an “encounter between the technologies of domination of others and those of the self” (225). As Collin Gordon (1987: 296-7) points out, Foucault intends to combine micro-dimensions of power dynamics with its macro ones with the term governmentality. For Foucault, power is first exercised on the body, i.e. on behaviors or
8
In this context, Foucault (1982) says “[m]y objective […] has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human being are made subjects” (208).
conducts, rather than at the level of mind. In this sense, Foucault also defines governmentality as “conduct of conduct” (1982: 220-221; [2004]2007: 193-201). This definition of governmentality implies that the core of the subject production processes is to form certain modes of conducts, i.e.
certain modes of ethos among individuals. Thus, Foucauldian governmentality study on the
subject production mechanisms focuses on these specific modes of conducts and the concrete technologies of power/knowledge and technologies of the self that operate to form these specific modes of conducts. In the context of neoliberalism, Foucault and his successors have drawn attention to how governmentality establishes a process for individuals to constitute themselves
into self-help subjects who are characterized by the ethos of personal responsibility and an
entrepreneurship. For example, Foucault ([2004]2008: 226) analyzes that in neoliberalism individuals are constituted into entrepreneurs who manage themselves as both producers and sources of their capital, particularly in human capital discourses. Exploring self-help literature, Rimke (2000) demonstrates that the self-help practices promoting personal responsibility are fundamentally associated with the governmental management of populations. Dean (2006; 2010b) also points out that neoliberal governmentality transforms individuals into active or enterprising
citizens who are characterized by self-governance and responsibility.9
The fourth concept — the technology of individuals — refers to “the way by which […]
we have been led to recognize ourselves as a society, as a part of a social entity, as a part of a nation or of a state” (Foucault [1988]2000b: 404). That is, the technology of individuals is a political technology of social integration. Foucault demonstrates that the effects of modern governmentality “are both individualization and totalization” ([1979]2000a: 325) and the modern
9 For more examples, see Rose (1999; 2007), Rose & Miller (1992), and Cruikshank (1996).
“state’s power is both an individualizing and a totalizing form of power” (1982: 213). Foucault examines the technology of individual through the exploration of the genealogy of the modern state. Foucault ([1979]2000a) argues that the modern state is a unique set of particular techniques, practices, and rationalities that are deployed to govern individuals and to totalize them into a collective. According to him, the modern state is a convergence of shepherd/flock game (pastoral power) and city/citizen game. Like a shepherd, the modern state cares for everyday lives of individuals; like a politician in a city who focuses on the unity of a city, the modern state simultaneously integrates individuals into society. As a combination of those two forms, the modern state is both an individualizing and a totalizing power. Before the neoliberal regime, particularly state-driven social welfare institutions had functioned as core social integration technologies, by providing various forms of support for those who were in disadvantaged conditions (Donzelot [1982]1991; Rose 1996; Dean 2010a). However, the neoliberal regime is reducing state-driven social welfare programs. Thus, the neoliberal regime reinvents new types of social integration technologies with which the state-driven social welfare programs can be replaced. In this sense, the analyses of governmentality in the context of neoliberalism need to draw attention to the emergence of the new types of social integration technologies.
In conclusion, as stated above, the ideas from Foucauldian governmentality theory
provide a useful framework for my study of the politics of social enterprises in South Korea. Social enterprises are distinctive examples which show the transformation of the relationship between market, state, society and individuals. Foucauldian governmentality theory, which sees a relationship of these domains as effect of government strategies, suggests that social enterprises need to be analyzed in relations to the transformation of government strategies. Power cannot
operate without the production of subjects who it aims to govern. Thus, Foucauldian
governmentality theory pays attention to how certain types of subjectivities are produced by ensemble of discourses, power, and individuals’ self-formation practices. This point
demonstrates that it is important to analyze how the subjectivities of social entrepreneurs, who are particularly characterized by the ethos of social responsibility, are forged in the politics of social enterprises. The theme of social integration technologies (technologies of individuals) in Foucauldian governmentality theory also provides a useful framework for my study. What is noteworthy about the politics of social enterprises is a current tendency in which the activities of social enterprises increasingly replace state-driven social welfare programs. Social entrepreneurs are willing to assume social responsibility for others instead of the state-driven social welfare programs which have traditionally functioned as main social integration technologies. In this sense, social enterprises serve as useful sites for the exploration of an emerging neoliberal social integration technologies. The theme of the power-knowledge relationship of Foucauldian
governmentality theory suggests how knowledge was intertwined with the emergence and development of social enterprises should be explored. Paying particular attention to economic, managerial, and statistical knowledge deployed in these processes in this study, I explore how social, public or moral interests were transformed into both measurable objects of knowledge and governable objects of power, and thus, how those were combined with governmental ends.