CanWeCriticizeFoucault?

byDanielZamora

Lateinlife,MichelFoucaultdevelopedacurioussympathyfor
neoliberalism.

JeanPaulSartreandMichelFoucaultatGIP(Groupedinformationsurlesprisons)pressconference,
January17,1972.PhotobyElieKagan.

Sincehisdeathin1984,MichelFoucaultsworkhasbecomeatouchstonefortheacademicleft
worldwide.ButinaprovocativenewbookpublishedinBelgiumlastmonth,ateamofscholarsledby
sociologistDanielZamoraraisesprobingquestionsaboutFoucaultsrelationshipwiththeneoliberal
revolutionthatwasjustgettingstartedinhislastyears.
InaninterviewthismonthwiththenewFrenchjournalBallast,Zamoradiscussesthebooks
fascinatingfindingsandwhattheymeanforradicalthoughttoday.Belowisthetextoftheinterview,
translatedfromFrenchbySethAckerman.

InhisbookFoucault,SaPense,SaPersonne,FoucaultsfriendPaulVeyne
writesthathewasunclassifiable,politicallyandphilosophically:Hebelievedin
neitherMarxnorFreud,norintheRevolutionnorinMao,inprivatehe
snickeredatfineprogressivesentiments,andIknewofnoprincipledpositionof
hisonthevastproblemsoftheThirdWorld,consumerism,capitalism,American
imperialism.
Youwritethathewasalwaysastepaheadofhiscontemporaries.Whatdoyou
meanbythat?
ItshouldbesaidthatFoucaultundeniablyputthespotlightonthemesthatwereveryclearlyignored,
evenmarginalized,bythedominantintellectualsofhisera.Whetheritwasonpsychiatry,theprison,or
sexuality,hisworksclearlymarkedoutavastintellectualterrain.Ofcoursehewaspartofanera,a
muchwidersocialcontext,andhewasntthefirsttoworkonthesequestions.Thesethemeswere
poppingupeverywhereandbecametheobjectsofsignificantsocialandpoliticalmovements.
InItaly,forexample,theantipsychiatrymovementinitiatedbyFrancoBasagliadidnthavetowaitfor
Foucaulttochallengethementalasylumtoformulatestimulatingpoliticalproposalsofitsownfor
replacingthatinstitution.SoobviouslyFoucaultdidnotoriginateallthesemovementshenever
claimedtobutheclearlyopenedthewayforaverylargenumberofhistoriansandscholarsworking
onnewthemes,newterritoriesthathadbeenlittleexplored.
Hetaughtustoalwayspoliticallyquestionthingswhichatthetimeseemedbeyondallsuspicion.I
stillrememberhisfamousdiscussionwithChomsky,wherehedeclaredthattherealpoliticaltaskin
hiseyeswastocriticizeinstitutionsthatwereapparentlyneutralandindependentandtoattackthem
insuchawaythattheobscuredpoliticalviolencewithinthemwouldbeunmasked.
ImighthavesomedoubtsaboutthenatureofhiscritiqueswellcomebacktothatImsurebutit
wasneverthelessanextremelynovelandstimulatingproject.

BymakingFoucaultcompatiblewithneoliberalism,yourbookcouldrufflealot
offeathers.
Ihopeso.Thatssortofthepointofthebook.Iwantedtoclearlybreakwiththefartooconsensual
imageofFoucaultasbeingintotaloppositiontoneoliberalismattheendofhislife.Fromthatpointof
view,Ithinkthetraditionalinterpretationsofhislateworksareerroneous,oratleastevadepartofthe
issue.Hesbecomesortofanuntouchablefigurewithinpartoftheradicalleft.Critiquesofhimare
timid,tosaytheleast.

ThisblindnessissurprisingbecauseevenIwasastonishedbytheindulgenceFoucaultshowedtoward
neoliberalismwhenIdelvedintothetexts.ItsnotonlyhisCollgedeFrancelectures,butalso
numerousarticlesandinterviews,allofwhichareaccessible.
Foucaultwashighlyattractedtoeconomicliberalism:hesawinitthepossibilityofaformof
governmentalitythatwasmuchlessnormativeandauthoritarianthanthesocialistandcommunistleft,
whichhesawastotallyobsolete.Heespeciallysawinneoliberalismamuchlessbureaucraticand
muchlessdisciplinarianformofpoliticsthanthatofferedbythepostwarwelfarestate.Heseemedto
imagineaneoliberalismthatwouldntprojectitsanthropologicalmodelsontheindividual,thatwould
offerindividualsgreaterautonomyvisvisthestate.
Foucaultseems,then,inthelateseventies,tobemovingtowardsthesecondleft,thatminoritarian
butintellectuallyinfluentialtendencyofFrenchsocialism,alongwithfigureslikePierreRosanvallon,
whosewritingsFoucaultappreciated.Hefoundseductivethisantistatismandthisdesiretodestatify
Frenchsociety.
EvenColinGordon,oneofFoucaultsprincipaltranslatorsandcommentatorsintheAngloSaxon
world,hasnotroublesayingthatheseesinFoucaultasortofprecursortotheBlairiteThirdWay,
incorporatingneoliberalstrategywithinthesocialdemocraticcorpus.

Atthesametime,yourbookisnotadenunciationoraprosecutorialinquiry.As
yousaidearlier,yourecognizethequalityofhiswork.
Ofcourse!Imfascinatedbythepersonalityandhiswork.Tomyminditsprecious.Ialsoenormously
appreciatedtheworkrecentlypublishedbyGeoffroydeLagasnerie,LadernireleondeMichel
Foucault.Ultimatelyhisbookissortoftheflipsideofours,sinceheseesinFoucaultadesiretouse
neoliberalismtoreinventtheleft.Ourperspectiveisthatheusesitasmorethanjustatool:headopts
theneoliberalviewtocritiquetheLeft.
Still,Lagasnerieunderlinesapointthattomymindisessentialandgoestotheheartofnumerous
problemsonthecriticalleft:hearguesthatFoucaultwasoneofthefirsttoreallytaketheneoliberal
textsseriouslyandtoreadthemrigorously.Beforehim,thoseintellectualproductsweregenerally
dismissed,perceivedassimplepropaganda.ForLagasnerie,Foucaultexplodedthesymbolicbarrier
thathadbeenbuiltupbytheintellectualleftagainsttheneoliberaltradition.
Sequesteredintheusualsectarianismoftheacademicworld,nostimulatingreadinghadexistedthat
tookintoconsiderationtheargumentsofFriedrichHayek,GaryBecker,orMiltonFriedman.Onthis
point,onecanonlyagreewithLagasnerie:Foucaultallowedustoreadandunderstandtheseauthors,to
discoverinthemacomplexandstimulatingbodyofthought.OnthatpointItotallyagreewithhim.Its
undeniablethatFoucaultalwaystookpainstoinquireintotheoreticalcorpusesofwidelydiffering
horizonsandtoconstantlyquestionhisownideas.
Theintellectualleftunfortunatelyhasnotalwaysmanagedtodolikewise.Ithasoftenremained
trappedinaschoolattitude,refusingaprioritoconsiderordebateideasandtraditionsthatstartfrom
differentpremisesthanitsown.Itsaverydamagingattitude.Onefindsoneselfdealingwithpeople
whovepracticallyneverreadtheintellectualfoundingfathersofthepoliticalideologytheyre
supposedlyattacking!Theirknowledgeisoftenlimitedtoafewreductivecommonplaces.

Inyourbook,youcontesthisvisionofsocialsecurity1andwealthredistribution.
Couldyoutalkaboutthat?
ItspracticallyanunexploredissuewithintheimmensecorpusoftheFoucauldians.Totellthetruth,
IdidntthinkIdbeworkingonthiswhenIwasthinkinguptheplanofthebook.Myinterestinsocial
securitywasntoriginallyconnectedtoFoucaultdirectly,butmyresearchonthisissueledmetothink
abouthowoverthepastfortyyearswevegonefromapoliticsaimedatcombattinginequality,

groundedinsocialsecurity,toapoliticsaimingtocombatpoverty,increasinglyorganizedaround
specificbudgetallocationsandtargetedpopulations.
Butgoingfromoneobjectivetotheothercompletelytransformstheconceptionofsocialjustice.
Combattinginequalities(andseekingtoreduceabsolutedisparities)isverydifferentfromcombatting
poverty(andseekingtoofferaminimumtothemostdisadvantaged).Carryingoutthislittlerevolution
requiredyearsofworkdelegitimizingsocialsecurityandtheinstitutionsoftheworkingclass.
ItwaswhilereadingcloselythroughthetextsofthelateFoucault(fromthelateseventiesandearly
eighties)thatitbecamecleartomethathehimselffullytookpartinthisoperation.So,henotonly
challengedsocialsecurity,hewasalsoseducedbythealternativeofthenegativeincometaxproposed
byMiltonFriedmaninthatperiod.Tohismind,themechanismsofsocialassistanceandsocial
insurance,whichheputonthesameplaneastheprison,thebarracks,ortheschool,wereindispensable
institutionsfortheexerciseofpowerinmodernsocieties.
ItsalsointerestingtonotethatinFranoisEwaldscentralwork,hedoesnthesitatetowritethatthe
welfarestatefulfillsthedreamofbiopower.Noless![EwaldwasFoucaultsdiscipleandassistant,
nowaleadingintellectualalignedwithFrancesinsuranceindustryandtheMedef,themainFrench
businessfederation.]
Giventhemanydefectsoftheclassicalsocialsecuritysystem,Foucaultwasinterestedinreplacingit
withanegativeincometax.Theideaisrelativelysimple:thestatepaysabenefittoanyonewhofinds
themselvesbelowacertainlevelofincome.Thegoalistoarrangethingssothatwithoutneedingmuch
administration,noonewillfindthemselvesbelowtheminimumlevel.
InFrancethisdebatebeginstoappearin1974,throughLionelStolrusbookVaincrelapauvretdans
lespaysriches(ConqueringPovertyIntheRichCountries).ItsalsointerestingtonotethatFoucault
himselfmetwithStolruseveraltimeswhenStolruwasatechnicaladvisoronthestaffof[rightwing
Frenchpresident]ValryGiscardDEstaing.Animportantargumentrunsthroughhisworkand
directlyattractedFoucaultsattention:inthespiritofFriedman,itdrawsadistinctionbetweenapolicy
thatseeksequality(socialism)andapolicythatsimplyaimstoeliminatepovertywithoutchallenging
disparities(liberalism).
ForStolru,Imquoting,doctrinescanleaduseithertoapolicyaimingtoeliminatepoverty,ortoa
policyseekingtolimitthegapbetweenrichandpoor.Thatswhathecallsthefrontierbetween
absolutepovertyandrelativepoverty.Thefirstreferssimplytoanarbitrarilydeterminedlevel(which
thenegativeincometaxaddresses)andtheothertooveralldisparitiesbetweenindividuals(which
socialsecurityandthewelfarestateaddress).
InStolruseyes,themarketeconomyiscapableofassimilatingactionstocombatabsolutepoverty
butitisincapableofdigestingoverlystrongremediesagainstrelativepoverty.Thatswhy,he
argues,Ibelievethedistinctionbetweenabsolutepovertyandrelativepovertyisinfactthedistinction
betweencapitalismandsocialism.So,whatsatstakeinmovingfromonetotheotherisapolitical
issue:acceptanceofcapitalismasthedominanteconomicform,ornot.
Fromthatpointofview,FoucaultsbarelymaskedenthusiasmforStolrusproposalwaspartofa
largermovementthatwentalongwiththedeclineoftheegalitarianphilosophyofsocialsecurityin
favorofaveryfreemarketorientedfightagainstpoverty.Inotherwords,andassurprisingasitmay
seem,thefightagainstpoverty,farfromlimitingtheeffectsofneoliberalpolicies,hasinreality
militatedforitspoliticalhegemony.
Soitsnotsurprisingtoseetheworldslargestfortunes,likethoseofBillGatesorGeorgeSoros,
engaginginthisfightagainstpovertyevenwhilesupporting,withoutanyapparentcontradiction,the
liberalizationofpublicservices,thedestructionofallthesemechanismsofwealthredistribution,and
thevirtuesofneoliberalism.

Combattingpovertythuspermitstheinclusionofsocialquestionsonthepoliticalagendawithout
havingtofightagainstinequalityandthestructuralmechanismsthatproduceit.Sothisevolutionhas
beenpartandparcelofneoliberalism,andtheobjectiveofmytextistoshowthatFoucaulthadhis
shareofresponsibilityinthisdevelopment.

Thequestionofthestateisomnipresentinyourbook.Whoevercritiquesits
raisondtreisallegedlyaliberal.Butisntthatforgettingthetraditionsof
anarchismandMarxism,fromBakunintoLenin?Arentyouoverlookingthat
dimension?
Idontthinkso.IthinkthecritiquefromtheMarxistoranarchisttraditionisverydifferentfromthe
oneFoucaultwasformulating,andnotonlyhimbutalsoasignificantswathoftheMarxismofthe
1970s.
First,forthesimplereasonthatallthoseoldanarchistandMarxistwritersknewnothingofsocial
securityortheformthestatewouldtakeafter1945.ThestateLeninwasaddressingwaseffectivelythe
stateofthedominantclass,inwhichworkersplayednorealrole.Therighttovote,forexample,wasnt
reallygeneralizedformenuntiltheinterwarera.Soitshardtoknowwhattheywouldhave
thoughtoftheseinstitutionsandtheirsocalledbourgeoischaracter.
Ivealwaysbeenveryirritatedbythisidea,whichisrelativelypopularwithintheradicalleft,that
socialsecurityisultimatelynothingmorethanatoolofsocialcontrolbybigcapital.Thisidea
demonstratesacompletemisunderstandingofthehistoryandoriginsofoursystemsofsocial
protection.Thesesystemswerenotestablishedbythebourgeoisietocontrolthemasses.Onthe
contrary,itwastotallyhostiletothem!
Theseinstitutionsweretheresultofthestrongpositionheldbytheworkersmovementafterthe
Liberation.Theywereinventedbytheworkersmovementitself.Fromthenineteenthcenturyonward,
workersandunionshadestablishedmutualsocieties,forexample,topaybenefitstothoseunableto
work.Itwastheverylogicofthemarketandtheenormousrisksitimposedonthelivesofworkersthat
pushedthemtodevelopmechanismsforthepartialsocializationofincome.
Intheearlyphaseoftheindustrialrevolution,onlypropertyownerswerefullcitizens,andasthe
sociologistRobertCastelemphasizes,itwasonlywithsocialsecuritythatthesocialrehabilitationof
nonpropertyownersreallytookplace.Itwassocialsecuritythatestablished,alongsideprivate
property,asocialproperty,intendedtousherthepopularclassesintocitizenship.ThisistheideaKarl
PolanyiadvancesinTheGreatTransformation,whichseesintheprincipleofsocialprotectiontheaim
ofwithdrawingtheindividualoutofthelawsofthemarketandthusreconfiguringrelationsofpower
betweencapitalandlabor.
Onecan,ofcourse,lamentthestatistforminwhichsocialsecurityismanaged,orsay,forexample,
thatitoughttoberunbycollectivesthoughIdontreallybuythatbutcriticizingthetoolandits
ideologicalbasisassuch,thatsverydifferent.WhenFoucaultgoessofarastosayitsclearthatthere
ishardlyanysenseinspeakingofarighttohealth,andasks,shouldasocietyseektosatisfy
individualsneedforhealth?Andcanthoseindividualslegitimatelydemandthesatisfactionofthose
needs?wearenolongerreallywithintheanarchistregister.
Forme,andcontrarytoFoucault,whatweshoulddoisdeepenthesocialrightsthatwehavealready,
weshouldbuildonwhatalreadyexists,asBernardFriotsays.Andsocialsecurityisanexcellenttool
thatweshouldbothdefendanddeepen.
Alongthesamelines,whenIreadthephilosopherBeatrizPreciado,whowritesinLibrationthat
werenotgoingtocryovertheendofthewelfarestate,becausethewelfarestateisalsothe
psychiatrichospital,thedisabilityoffice,theprison,thepatriarchalcolonialheteronormativeschool,

itmakesmethinkthatneoliberalismhasdonemuchmorethantransformoureconomy;ithas
profoundlyreconfiguredthesocialimaginationofacertainlibertarianleft.

IfyoulookatthefewcriticalintellectualswhocontestFoucault(Imthinkingof
Mandosio,Debray,Bricmont,Micha,Monville,orQuiniou),youmightsay,in
broadterms,thattheycriticizehimforpositioninghimselfasmoresocital
thansocial[i.e.,moresocioculturalthansocioeconomic].
Butinfocusingonthemarginal(theexcluded,theprisoners,themad,the
abnormal,thesexualminorities,etc.),didntFoucaultmakeitpossibleto
bringintothelightallthesepeoplewhohaduntilthenbeenignoredbyorthodox
Marxismwhichhadonlybeenabletoseeeconomicrelations?
Youreabsolutelyright.Illsayitagain:hiscontributiononthispointisveryimportant.Heclearly
removedfromtheshadowsawholespectrumofoppressionsthathadbeeninvisiblebefore.Buthis
approachdidnotsolelyaimtoputtheseproblemsforward:hesoughttogivethemapoliticalcentrality
thatcanbequestioned.
Tosayitplainly:inhiseyes,andintheeyesofmanywritersofthatperiod,theworkingclasstodayis
embourgeoise,itisperfectlyintegratedintothesystem.Theprivilegesthatitobtainedafterthe
warmakeitnolongeranagentofsocialchange,but,onthecontrary,abrakeontheRevolution.This
ideawasverywidespreadatthetime,itcanbefoundinauthorsasvariedasHerbertMarcuseorAndr
Gorz.Gorzwouldgosofarastospeakofaprivilegedminority,withrespecttotheworkingclass.
Theendofthiscentralitywhichwasalsoasynonymfortheendofthecentralityofworkwould
finditsoutletinthestrugglesagainstmarginalizationofethnicorsocialminorities.The
lumpenproletariat(orthenewplebeians,touseFoucaultsterm)acquiredanewpopularityandwas
nowseenasagenuinelyrevolutionarysubject.
Fortheseauthors,theproblemisthusnolongersomuchexploitation,butratherpower,andmodern
formsofdomination.AsFoucaultwrote,ifthenineteenthcenturywasconcernedaboveallwith
relationsbetweenlargeeconomicstructuresandthestateapparatus,nowitwastheproblemofpetits
pouvoirs[littlepowers]anddiffusesystemsofdominationwhichhavebecomefundamental
problems.
Theproblemofexploitationandwealthhadbeenreplacedbythatoftoomuchpower,thepowerof
controloverpersonalconduct,andformsofmodernpastoralpower.Atthedawnofthe1980s,itseems
clearthatforFoucaultitwasnolongeraquestionofredistributingwealth.Hehasnotroublewriting:
Onecouldsayweneedaneconomicsthatdealsnotwithproductionanddistributionbutaneconomics
thatdealswithrelationsofpower.Thus,itslessaboutastruggleagainstpoweraseconomic
exploiter,andmoreaboutstrugglesagainstdaytodaypower,embodiedespeciallybyfeminism,
studentmovements,prisonersstruggles,orthoseoftheundocumented.
Letmebeclear,theproblemisobviouslynottohaveplacedontheagendaawholespectrumof
dominationsthathadoncebeenignored,theproblemcomesfromthefactthatthesedominationsare
moreandmoretheorizedandthoughtoutsideofquestionsofexploitation.Farfromoutlininga
theoreticalperspectivethatthinksthroughtherelationsbetweentheseproblems,theyarelittlebylittle
pittedagainsteachother,eventhoughtofascontradictory.

Thatsessentiallywhatsomepeoplecriticizehimfor:praisingthefigureofthe
delinquent,thecriminal,andthelumpenwhileridiculingtheconservative
laborerandworker.

Inyourbook,JeanLoupAmselledrawsalinkbetweenthisabandonmentof
thepeopleandthecolobobopositionofthegovernmentalleft,alongthe
linesofTerraNova[aneoliberalFrenchthinktankclosetotheSocialistParty].
Whatdoyouthinkofthat?
Theproblemisthatthisdismissaloftheworkingclasshadratherastonishingeffects.Itputatthe
forefrontofpublicdebatethesocialexclusionoftheunemployed,immigrants,andtheyouthofthe
banlieuesastheprincipalpoliticalproblem.Thisevolutionendedupbeingthepointofdepartureon
boththerightandtheleftforthecentralitytheexcludedweretoassume,theideathatnowpost
industrialsocietywoulddividebetweenthosewhohaveaccesstothelabormarketandthosewho,to
onedegreeoranother,areexcludedfromitthusdisplacingthefocusfromtheworldofworkto
exclusion,poverty,orunemployment.
AsthesociologistsStphaneBeaudandMichelPialouxhavenoted,thisdisplacementwouldindirectly
placeworkersonthesideoftheins,thosewhohaveajobonthesideoftheprivilegedand
unearnedadvantages.
Thislogic,whichredefinedthesocialquestiononbothsidesonboththerightandontheleftasa
conflictbetweentwofactionsoftheproletariat,ratherthanbetweencapitalandlabor,issomethingthat
needstobeexamined.Ontheright,theaimwastolimitthesocialrightsofthesurpluspopulation
(surnumraires)bymobilizingtheworkers(actifs)againstthem,andontheleftitwasabout
mobilizingthesurpluspopulationagainsttheembourgeoisementoftheworkers.Bothsides,then,
acceptthecentralityofthefactionsexcludedfromthestableworkforce,attheexpenseofthe
workers.
Wecanthusaskourselveswhether,whenMargaretThatchercontrastedtheprotectedandcoddled
underclasswiththosewhowork,wasshenotexpressingininverseformthethesisofFoucaultor
AndrGorz?Thisnewdoxaoftheconservativeneoliberalrightseeksessentially,asSergeHalimi
notes,theredefinitionofthesocialquestioninsuchawaythatthelineofcleavagenolongerdivides
richfrompoor,capitalfromlabor,butrathertwofractionsoftheproletariatfromeachother:that
whichissufferingfromcompassionfatiguefromthatwhichrepresentsthewelfarenation.
Obviouslythepoliticalcontentoftheserightwingstatementsdiffersradicallyfromthoseoftheselate
1970sauthors,buttheybothpresupposethattodayitistheexcludedwhoposetheproblem,orthe
solution;itisthesurpluspopulationthathasbecomethecentralpoliticalsubjectandnolongerthe
workingclass.
Indeed,howcanwenotseeastrangeparadoxbetweenGorzsnonclassandtheunderclassthatis
sodeartotheultraconservativeideologueCharlesMurray?BothforGorzandfortheneoliberal
movement,itisnolongerthefactofbeingexploitedthatposestheproblem,somuchasones
relationshiptowork.Gorzseesthewayoflifeofthesurpluspopulationasadeliverancefromwork,
andThatcherseesaviceoflazinessthatmustbecombated.Oneelevatesarighttobelazytothe
statusofvirtue,whereastheothermakesitoutasaninjusticethatmustbedestroyed.
Butunderneath,thesetwoversionsfunctioninthesamelogic.Thus,boththeLeftandtheRightwant
thesurpluspopulationtobetheproblem,therebysupplantingthoseold,outofdate,dogmaticideas
thatplacedexploitationattheheartofthesocialcritique.
Boththeleftandtherightwanttopitagainsteachothertwofactionsoftheproletariatwhich,withthe
neoliberaleconomicevolution,haveenteredintoadestructivecompetitionwitheachother.Asthe
MarxistphilosopherIsabelleGarodescribeditsowell,thisshiftwouldhelptoreplaceexploitation
andthecritiqueofitwithacenteringofthevictimwhoisdeniedjustice,theprisoner,dissident,
homosexual,refugee,etc.

DebraywritesinModernescatacombesthatFoucault,therebelandsubversive,
hasbecomeanofficialphilosopher.Howdoyouunderstandthisparadox?
AndhowdoyouexplainhowFoucaultcanseducesomanyofthoseinradical
milieuswhoneverthelessaffirmwithforcethattheywishtoputanendtothe
neoliberalera?
Itsaveryinterestingquestion,butoneIdonthaveasatisfyinganswerto.Iwould,nevertheless,
suggestthatitsinlargepartduetothestructureoftheacademicfielditself.Youdhavetogobackto
BourdieuandthepreciousworksofLouisPintotobetterunderstandthisevolution.
Itshouldneverbeforgottenthatjoiningaschool,orassociatingoneselfwithacertaintheoretical
perspective,meansassociatingoneselftoanintellectualfield,wherethereisanimportantstrugglefor
accesstothedominantpositions.Ultimately,callingoneselfaMarxistintheFranceofthe1960s
whentheacademicfieldwasinpartdominatedbyselfidentifiedMarxistsdidnothavethesame
meaningasitdoestobeaMarxisttoday.
Conceptsandcanonicalauthorsareobviouslyintellectualinstruments,buttheyalsocorrespondto
variousstrategiesforbecomingpartofthefieldandthestrugglesoverit.Intellectualdevelopmentsare
thenpartlydeterminedbyrelationsofpowerwithinthefielditself.
Also,itseemstomethatrelationsofpowerwithintheacademicfieldhavechangedconsiderablysince
theendofthe1970s:afterthedeclineofMarxism,Foucaultoccupiedacentralplace.Inreality,he
offersacomfortablepositionthatallowsacertaindegreeofsubversiontobeintroducedwithout
detractingfromthecodesoftheacademy.MobilizingFoucaultisrelativelyvalued,itoftenallowshis
defenderstogetpublishedinprestigiousjournals,tojoinwideintellectualnetworks,topublishbooks,
etc.
VerywideswathsoftheintellectualworldrefertoFoucaultintheirworkandhavehimsaying
everythinganditsopposite.YoucanbeanadvisertotheMEDEFandedithislectures![Areferenceto
FranoisEwald,advisertothemainFrenchbusinessfederation;seeabove.]Iwouldsaythatheopens
doors.AndyoucantreallysaythesameofMarxnowadays.

Thiscritiqueofthemarginsasthecenterofpoliticalcombatcouldendup
delightingallmannerofcounterrevolutionariesinFranceorBelgium.Arent
youafraidofplayingintotheirhands?
IdothinkthereexistsaconservativecritiqueofFoucaultandmorebroadlyofwhatMay68
representsinFrenchsocialhistory.Thiscritiqueisnolongermarginalatall:youcanfinditamongthe
thinkersoftheconservativerightlikeEricZemmourorwithintheNationalFront.Itopenlycritiques
thewholefeminist,antiracistandculturallegacyofMay68whilehavingmuchlesstosayaboutthe
economicravagesofneoliberalism.Itsasiftheproblemwerethepoliticalliberalismthatcamewith
the1980s,andonlybygoingbackonthesesocietalevolutionswillwebeabletofairesocit.
Oneoftenhearsthiskindofthinking,accordingtowhichitwasthedestructionoffamilyvaluesor
communitarianformsofthesocialbondthatallowedtheexpansionofneoliberalism.Theremaybea
grainoftruthintheseanalyses,buttheyaretotallydeludedwhentheyproposeareturntomore
traditionalwaysoflife.Wereheadingtowardsamuchmoreauthoritariankindofliberalism,witha
returntofamilyvalues,areturntoatotalfantasyofnationalculture,andthegoodoldpreglobalized
capitalism....
Asfortheideaofplayingintotheirhands,Idontthinkitsaproblem.Iftheresaproblemwith
certainaspectsofthelegacyofMay68,theroleoftheLeftisnottocloseitseyesbecausethefarright
issayingit,butonthecontrary,torenderitsownjudgment,toformulateitsowncritique,soasnotto

totallylosetheideologicalbattle.Thatisthetaskweneedtogetstartedoninordertoreconstructaleft
thatisbothradicalandpopular.

1.SocialsecurityisusedhereinitsFrenchmeaning,torefertoallsocialinsurance.Forexample,
Francesnationalhealthinsuranceispartofitssocialsecuritysystem.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/