This article is about Michel Foucault’s social theory. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. Initially imposed from outside whose source remains elusive to further investigation both by the social sciences and the humanities, and in fact, you could argue will remain elusive as long as both disciplines use foucault technologies of the self pdf current research methods.

By this I mean a number of phenomena that seem to me to be quite significant, namely, the set of mechanisms through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of a political strategy, of a general strategy of power, or, in other words, how, starting from the 18th century, modern Western societies took on board the fundamental biological fact that human beings are a species. This is what I have called biopower. A transition occurred through forcible removal of various European monarchs into a “scientific” state apparatus and the radical overhaul of judiciary practices coupled with the reinvention and division of those who were to be punished. And I think that one of the greatest transformations political right underwent in the 19th century was precisely that, I wouldn’t say exactly that sovereignty’s old right-to take life or let live-was replaced, but it came to be complemented by a new right which does not erase the old right but which penetrate it, permeate.

To say that power took possession of life in the nineteenth century, or to say that power at least takes life under its care in the nineteenth century, is to say that it has, thanks to the play of technologies of discipline on the one hand and technologies of regulation on the other, succeeded in covering the whole surface that lies between the organic and the biological, between body and population. It is a new body, a multiple body, a body with so many heads that, while they might not be infinite in number, cannot necessarily be counted. Biopolitics deals with the population, with the population as a political problem, as a problem that is at once scientific and political, as a biological problem and as power’s problem I would like in fact like to trace the transformation not at the level of political theory, but rather at the level of the mechanisms, techniques, and technologies of power. We saw the emergence of techniques of power that were essentially centered on the body, on the individual body. They were also techniques that could be used to take control over bodies.

Attempts were made to increase their productive force through exercise, drill, and so on. They were also techniques for rationalizing and strictly economizing on a power that had to be used in the least costly way possible, thanks to whole system of surveillance, hierarchies, inspections, book-keeping, and reports-all the technology of labor. It was established at the end of the seventeenth century, and in the course of the eighteenth century. Foucault argues that nation states, police, government, legal practices, human sciences and medical institutions have their own rationale, cause and effects, strategies, technologies, mechanisms and codes and have managed successfully in the past to obscure their workings by hiding behind observation and scrutiny. Foucault insists social institutions such as governments, laws, religion, politics, social administration, monetary institutions, military institutions cannot have the same rigorous practices and procedure with claims to independent knowledge like those of the human and ‘hard’ sciences, such as mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, physics, genetics, and the biology. Foucault sees these differences in techniques as nothing more than “behaviour control technologies”, and modern biopower as nothing more than a series of webs and networks working its way around the societal body.

However, Foucault argues the exercise of power in the service of maximizing life carries a dark underside. When the state is invested in protecting the life of the population, when the stakes are life itself, anything can be justified. Groups identified as the threat to the existence of the life of the nation or of humanity can be eradicated with impunity. How did the project milieu become interwoven into the political and social relations of men? Foucault, in referring to the term ‘public opinion’, refers to the term ‘regimes of truth’.

Here the modern version of government is presented in the national media, both in the electronic medium-television and radio and especially in the written press, as the modicum of efficiency, fiscal optimization, responsibility, a fiscal rigorousness. Thus, a public discourse of government solidarity emerges and social consensus is emphasized through these four points. What general components were essential and necessary to make this consensus happen? Foucault traces the first dynamics, the first historical dimensions belonging to the early Middle Ages.

Medieval alliance and at times, it appeared fractious. Well, which one is it? Foucault makes special note on the biological “naturalness” of the human species and the new founded scientific interest that was developing around not only with the species interaction with milieu and technology, but most importantly, technology operating as system not as so often portrayed by the political and social sciences which insisted on technology operating as social improvement. Both milieu, natural sciences and technology, allied with the characteristics surrounding social organization and increasingly the categorization of the sciences to help deal with this “naturalness” of milieu and of the inscription of truth onto nature.

1: The Will to Knowledge. Security, Territory, Population’’, see also note 71, p. 1351 “When a man does compass or imagine the death of our lord the king, or of our lady his Queen, or their eldest son and heir. According to Sidney Madge the King wasn’t the major land owner in medieval Christendom, Madge quite clearly and brilliantly shows at least in one instance the king was only third in line and he had to share that right with others. Madge places the barons majority ownership of all land at 50.

1065 before the conquest and dropped to 19. Sidney J Madge, The Domesday Of Crown Lands, pp. Volume 10, Number 9 Biopolitics p. 197 London: The New Age Press, Ltd.