· blog

The 'Race' Race: Applying Foucault's Concepts of Biopolitics and State Racism

In 'Society Must Be Defended', the English translations of Michel Foucault's 1976 Collège de France lectures, can be found perhaps the most enlightening discourse on, one with the most precient original insights into, our upcoming Presidential Election- though astonishingly appearing over thirty years ago. Foucault's method is revealed in the way he often employs and elaborates on (throughout the writings of his that I have actually read thus far) several distinct and insightful lines of thought. Foucault's concepts of biopolitics and state racism, as briefly discussed in this lecture, are singular, radical and revolutionary. The lecture itself consists of the best, most theoretically original type of thinking- those lines of thought that arise, are so original and apparently true that it seems all too obvious to actually state it and claim it for oneself. The cold water slap in the face is akin to a haunting melody you truly felt you might have heard before, but in fact hadn't (as Paul McCartney had described the writing/appearance of the melody for 'Yesterday'). The moment itself, a 'satori' of Truth-Experience, is so familiar that it elicits a strong feeling of deja vu, as if it must have been inscribed into the matrix of reality already, though it turns out not to have been.

Next week's unprecedented Presidential race is one where race and gender, for some of us, absurdly dominate over all other factors including political ideology (i.e. the racist position of those who might appreciate some of his qualities and stances on policy but still 'can't vote for the black guy'; or the sexist but perhaps more to the point ignorant viewpoint that, regardless of her quite openly apparent lack of qualifications and substance, 'i am voting for her because we should be proud of her since she's a woman'.). In light of the issues of race and gender enmeshed in the event, reading that final lecture in the 1976 series is an unbelievably horrific experience at certain points, whether one entirely agrees with him or not. Without getting into it or actually quoting and elaborating on this lecture, suffice to say that Foucault's concepts of biopolitics and state-racism in the form displayed in 1976 has been fully vindicated as to its theoretical worth no matter how the election turns out, or if Obama is elected, how he and his administration performs on behalf of America and amidst the shrinking global village.

Like Foucault's points on race and gender in world power and knowledge operations, when it is widely known and agreed upon by a vast majority of consenus not to have been originally developed elsewhere, or if so not as masterfully done, it's that much more admirable when it turns out once and for all- 'man, he's really the only one who was saying these points so clearly, and taking them so far, and over thirty years ago!'. If these qualities are not a testament to the man and his work, then it seems to me that any attempt whatsoever to understand man, history, society, power relations, politics and so forth must simply be scattershot and presumption. Michel Foucault, in my opinion, has to be seen unquestionably as one of the top modern thinkers. He has earned respect for a singular mastery of such a broad scope of subjects, and for uncompromising and thoroughly rigorous understanding. Even the aesthetic qualities and style of his language allows us to appreciate our existence in ways normally beyond our reach, just as the best music and art always seems to do.


The beginnings of an attempt to unmask rationality, both within the scope of theory itself and as 'highlight of man's accomplishments'.

Generally, most thinkers' lines of reasoning resemble typical 'rationalist' theory, whereby two concurrent events are understood. First, some kind of theoretical conclusion, anywhere from the most basic, safe type of argument to the most radical, challenging one, is drawn first through the theorist's own use of 'rationality' or reason; then, the reader is, with some degree of skill or another, persuaded to accept or agree with the writing in support of the theory being presented. This persuasion is undertaken by virtue of the assumption that the reader, like the theorist, also possesses at least the minimally adequate faculties of reasoning and discernment as to the nature, and merits, and originality, etc. of the propositional structure itself, from which hangs the essence of the theory. This process of scrutiny further involves such awarenesses on the reader's part: a reserve of knowledge in the subject matter and those closely related and either implied or directly referred to; the understanding of other theories constructed in a manner methodically similar though essentially of a different subject; and perhaps other ones that might have a different approach from a different conceptual orientation, or methodically divergent, or both, though essentially implying the same ultimate conclusions. These theoretical and analytical nuances are not always irrelevant; though often more or less 'hidden' from the external viewpoint, it is my general theoretical assertion here, though sounding rather brash it seems to be supported anecdotally, that this 'unconscious field' plays a major, unsung role in what might be distinguished, quite hierarchically, as higher level discourse, analysis, and theory.

It is within this framework, of apparently conventional yet quite radical rational theoretical discourse, that Foucault seems to exploit the glaring oversights and outright failures of collective man and his self-appointed so-called animal-surpassing activity of rationalist thought and linguistic formulation.