The Essensiat Woaas oF Foucaver 1954-1984 Pavt Rastnuw, Sentes Eperon Ethics Eéited by Paul Rabinow Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology Edited by James D. Faubion Power Edited by James D. Faubion THE ESSENTIAL FOUCAULT Selections from The Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984 EDITED BY PAUL RABINOW AND NIKOLAS ROSE“OMNES ET SINGULATIM”: TOWARD A CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL REASON IT ‘Thetiesoundspretenions, kno Bus the reason for hat ipl sown coe. Sincetheinetcent cena, Westen oughrharsese sony bo ingsttetskotericbingtheroleo reson vortheackaf anse eh ia seuss I'sthefore perf unftingowderale sucha venture will be just about as successful as the former ones—and in any case, probly js foams Under such baer, mine the embarassment of one who has only -schsanininplbiedniswo propose Phloply ow vying eth. edifice, fe 7 : One ofthe Enlghenmene’s tsa was omulply season's pola powers ‘aging oo poveril in or scies. They geno weny shee sonshipshey confuse suspected boween random prnesooay and cera hres to hein ed ler to thespete and aosoe nother words sine Kant the eof pilosopy has en peesane ren from ging beyond he iit of whats given in epee bution thecane Ioment—tha is fom the developmen of madera sates nd pleas ‘yee of socey—she rl of pilesophy bos also een to hevp ales sh exesve powers of pail onal, whith neers pect ae Ist Everybody is aware of such banal facts. But that hey are banal does not ean they don'rexise. What we have ro do with banal facts sto discover to tty vw discover, which specific and pechaps original problems are connected with TThe relationship between rationalization and the excesses of politial power ‘evident, And we should not need t© wait for bureaucracy or concentration ‘amps to recognize che existence of such relations, But te problem is what todo wih such an evident face, Shall we “try* reason? To my mind, nothing would be more sterile. Fest, be- suse the field has nothing ro do with guilt oF innocence. Second, because it's ‘enseless to refer wo “reason” asthe contrary entity w nonreason, Last, because rary and boring putt of either the sch tial would tap us into playing the a «ationalist or the rationalist, Shall we investigate this kind of rationalism thas svems tobe specific @ our ‘modern culture and originates in Enlightenment? ¥ think that that was the way «if some ofthe members of the Frankfurt School. My purpose is not to begin a cliscussion of their works~they are most important and valuable. I would sug- sestanother way of investigating the links between rationalization and powers 1. lemay be wise not w tke asa whole he rationalization of society oof ule ture, buco analyze this process several fields, exch of them grounded ina fundamental experience: madness illness, death, rime, sexuality, andl son, 2 Lihink hac the word *cationalization” isa dangetous one, “The main problem ‘when people try to rationalize something isnot to investigate whether oF not they conform to principles of eationalty but 10 discover which kind uf ra tionality they areusing, 5. Even ifthe Enlightenrment has been a very important phase in our history. and in the development of potiealrechnolegy [think we have to refer 10 rnuch moze remote processes if we wan to understand how we have been trapped in our own istry. This was my modus operand in my previous work—to analyze the relations between experiences like madness, death, crime, senuslity, and several tech- nologies of power. What | am working on now is the problem of individual- ity—or. should say, sellidentiy in elation to che problem of “individualicing power.” Everyone knows that in European societies politcal power as evolved t= ward more and more centralized Forms. Historians have been studying this or- ganization of the state, wih its administration and bureaucracy, for doxens of years Vike w suggest in dese rwo lectures the possibilty af analyzing anotherkindof wansormationn sch pomer lan This iansfrmatnis pe taps lessee. But ik hai sao mona nal ene ee sities, Appr shisevalaton sens unagoncw ihe cvsoson ads cei ae. What mein in ste developmentl pone ees oviemed ovat indivdalsand tended tule them a scostmame alse rant say. se seis th ple firm os emand anlocmeong Power, rsa prorsiphevidaing power, My purpose hs cenng sto one theo hs poral malty of power ort lisse aspects isan ney And bine ty show how ths paserhip happened w combine wal inept es Theidesof he diy, ot theking ote adr sa shephed lowed ack of seep wasn alate Gres and emaneHhewe newoegie Xeon eae in fnihreatten ceca oes Empire some buck oth Inter, Roughly apeatng, we as ste metaphor ofthe tock didateecuringret Grek ox Ramer polel aon “This is north an ancient Orel soca Paraoh wasn Eaypin sped. indeed, besnaly eeeoed eke crook om bis coronation dy andthe em “shepherd ol we we eine Baylonan monarel’ is. ut God war she shepherd otog nee arstng ground and emg them oe. An Egypte poe ered na Saye“ Ro that hepet wath when all mensch, thes Sheena fod for shy ail" Thessocain beeen Cod and Ung ety ake sneothatunethesame let fck ny nashovertince hea bering ctr th he get die sapere Ma ny invocation othe Kg an le is: “Marion eanpanon crane een hocares forty dana fetes shepherd eneeee ee 3a we kn she Heese develop sn eed he pe tora theme—vith neers highly peaasclonigte a ey ony, ie pope's shepherd. Wi jun one poiee aeons nae a fonder the monarcisthe only net be mle see right og vein cetash of mscnbling Fock Thee are negaive exceptions Wicked Rng are consis compared © bad shepherd: they diapers shock, kites of hs se ene frost. Yhush'stie one and ony chepherd Hepadatisonsen plein person aie onl byhisprophen. asthe Palowsey cts a Thou ed Thy peopl, by Moses and by Aato'vhand Of once can neitheth sore problems penning eee tasecnoene iseoluion shout jevah nash ur wanttoiow lee ener sa of ptr power. theo point on te conan eh Gee ete =BYDY, Assyria, Juda, bynes sever eeeaecea \lloughr, and to show how important these themes became in Christin thought snd insttations later on. |. The shepherd wields power overa lock rather than overa ld, t's probably ‘much more complex than shar, but, boadly speaking, the relation between the deity, the land, and men differs from that of the Greeks. ‘hei gods ‘owned be land, and this primary possession determined the relationship he- ‘ween men and gods, On the contrary, it’s the Shepherd-Ged!s relationship ‘ith his lock shacis primary ane fundamental ere. God gives, or promises, his ck a lad 2 ‘The shepherd gathers zogether, guides and leads his lack. he ides tht the political leader was to quier any hostilities within the ety and make unity reiga over confit is undoubrely present in Greek thought, But what the shepherd yathors together is dispersed individuals. They gather rogether on lacaring his voice: “I'l whistle and will gather them together." Conversely, the shepherd only tis o disappear for dhe Bock to be scattered, In other words, he shepherd's immediate presence und direet action cause he Hock to ‘exist Once the good Greek lawgiver, like Solon, hs resolved any conics, what he lives behing him isa strong city with krws enabling it eo end ‘without him, ‘The shepherds role is ensure she salvation of his lock, The Greeks sad also thatthe deity saved the citys they never stopped declaring that the com petent leer i a Helmsman warding his ship away from the racks. But the ‘way the shepherd saves his tloek is quite differen, I's nor only 4 matter of ‘ving shen al all ogee, when danger comes sigh, W's a mute of ¢on- stunt, individualized, and final kindness, Constant kindness, fr the shepherd «sues his flock's fod; every day ie attends to their thirst and hunger, The Grok ye was asked 10 provide a feuefal and and abundant esops, He wasn't asked to foster a flock day by day. And individualized kindness «0, for theshephird ses chatall he sheep, each andevery ane of them, is fed and saved. Later Hebrew literature, especialy lid the emphasis on such individ ually kindly power: cabbinical commentary on Exodus explains why Val wel chose Moses to shepherd his people: he ad lf his lack to go and search Forone lost sheep. {Last and not leet, i's final kindness. The shepherd has a sarge for his bivck. fe must either be led ro good arazing ground o brought back 0 the fold 4. Yet another dlference lies im the idea that wielding power is “ey.” The sk leer, naturally, had to make decisions inthe intrest of alls he would have been bud leader had le proferced his personal interest, But his duty vas u dlorious one: even if in war le had w give up his lie, such a steriice