Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:58:51.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Universal but not truly ‘global’: governmentality, economic liberalism, and the international

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2011

WANDA VRASTI
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article responds to issues raised about global governmentality studies by Jan Selby, Jonathan Joseph, and David Chandler, especially regarding the implications of ‘scaling up’ a concept originally designed to describe the politics of advanced liberal societies to the international realm. In response to these charges, I argue that critics have failed to take full stock of Foucault's contribution to the study of global liberalism, which owes more to economic than political liberalism. Taking Foucault's economic liberalism seriously, that is, shifting the focus from questions of natural rights, legitimate rule, and territorial security to matters of government, population management, and human betterment reveals how liberalism operates as a universal, albeit not yet global, measure of truth, best illustrated by the workings of global capital. While a lot more translation work (both empirical and conceptual) is needed before governmentality can be convincingly extended to global politics, Foucauldian approaches promise to add a historically rich and empirically grounded dimension to IR scholarship that should not be hampered by disciplinary admonitions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 49 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Selby, Jan, ‘Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and the Limits of Foucauldian IR’, International Relations, 21:3 (2007), p. 326CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Foucault, Michel, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France 1975–1976 (New York: Picador, 2003)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977–1978 (New York: Palgrave, 2007)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979 (Hampshire: Macmillan, 2008)Google Scholar.

3 Neal, Andrew, ‘Goodbye War on Terror? Foucault and Butler on Discourses of Law, War and Exceptionalism’, in Dillon, M. and Neal, A. (eds), Foucault on Politics, Security and War (London: Palgrave, 2008), p. 540Google Scholar.

4 Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, dust jacket.

5 Collier, Stephen, ‘Topologies of Power: Foucault's Analysis of Political Government beyond “Governmentality”’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), pp. 78–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Merlingen, Michael, ‘Monster Studies’, International Political Sociology, 3:2 (2008), p. 273Google Scholar; Kiersey, Nicholas J. and Weidner, Jason, ‘Editorial Introduction’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), p. 354CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’; Chandler, David, ‘Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism? The Limits of the Biopolitical Approach’, International Political Sociology, 3:1 (2009), pp. 53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chandler, David, ‘Globalising Foucault: Turning Critique into Apologia – A Response to Kiersey and Rosenow’, Global Society, 24:2 (2010), pp. 135–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘Governmentality of What? Populations, States and International Organizations’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), pp. 413–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘The Limits of Governmentality: Social Theory and the International’, in European Journal of International Relations, 16:2 (2010a), pp. 223–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘What Can Governmentality Do for IR?’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2010b), pp. 202–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

9 Nelson, Scott G., Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination (New York: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar.

10 Pasha, Mustapha Kamal, ‘In the Shadows of Globalization: Civilizational Crisis, the “Global Modern” and “Islamic Nihilism”’, Globalizations, 7:1–2 (2010b), p. 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Foucault, Michel, ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C., and Miller, P. (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 87–104Google Scholar.

12 This is not to say that governmentality is separate from or subsequent to sovereign power and its reliance on law, consensus and force, but rather a reconfiguration of sovereign power: they exist side by side, circulating in and out of each other. As John Protevi explains in ‘What Does Foucault Think is New About Neo-Liberalism?’, John Protevi's website {http://www.protevi.com/john/Foucault_28June2009.pdf} (accessed 28 June 2009) the present moment consists of a succession of various rationalities of government: the medieval ‘cosmo-theological framework’, where the responsibility of the sovereign is to guarantee the salvation of the people by acting in accordance to natural, cosmic and divine law; seventeenth-eighteenth century raison d'état, where the prince has to secure the growth and survival of the state through various means of discipline, such as police, mercantilist regulation and inter-state stability; nineteenth century physiocracy and classic liberalism, which introduce political economy as a science to both limit the power of government and ensure the growth and prosperity of the population; and, finally, twentieth century neoliberalism, where the state intervenes in the social fabric to secure the smooth functioning of an artificial and fragile market. This progression must not be understood in the strict, linear sense. The present rationality of government is in many ways a principle for developing, perfecting, and strengthening moments past, in Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics, p. 29.

13 Foucault, ‘Governmentality’, p. 97.

14 Burchell, Graham, ‘Liberal Government and Techniques of the Self’, in Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 20Google Scholar.

15 John Protevi, ‘What Does Foucault Think is New About Neo-Liberalism?’

16 Foucault, , ‘The Subject and Power’, in Faubion, J. D. (ed.), Michel Foucault: Power. Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984 (New York: The New Press, 2001), p. 341Google Scholar.

17 Albert, Mathias and Lenco, Peter, ‘Introduction to the Forum – Foucault and International Political Sociology’, International Political Sociology, 2:3 (2008), p. 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, pp. 325, 332; Joseph, ‘Governmentality of What’, p. 414.

19 Foucault, ‘The Subject and Power’, p. 327.

20 Walker, R. B. J., After the Globe, Before the World (New York: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar; Pasha, Mustapaha Kamal, ‘Disciplining Foucault’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2010a), pp. 213–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Foucault, ‘The Subject and Power’, p. 344.

22 Foucault, Michel, ‘The Confession of the Flesh’, in Gordon, C. (ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), p. 198Google Scholar.

23 Kiersey, Nicholas J., Weidner, Jason R., and Rosenow, Doerthe, ‘Response to Chandler’, Global Society, 24:2 (2010), p. 146, emphasis in originalCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Walker, R. B. J., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Beier, J. Marshall, International Relations in Uncommon Places: Indigeneity, Cosmology and the Limits of International Theory (New York: Palgrave, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Sassen, Saskia, ‘Territory and Territoriality in the Global Economy’, International Sociology, 15:2 (2000), pp. 372–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; We find this duality both in International Relations, where a split between domestic politics (as open to democracy, liberty, and prosperity) and international affairs (as inherently belligerent and uncertain) sustains the fiction of sovereign power, as shown by R. B. J. Walker in Inside/Outside, and in Globalisation Studies, where the state is viewed as a precarious entity constantly threatened by accelerating global processes.

26 Collier, Stephen, ‘Topologies of Power: Foucault's Analysis of Political Government beyond “Governmentality”’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), p. 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’; Chandler, ‘Globalising Foucault’.

27 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

28 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, p. 339; Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

29 Joseph, ‘Governmentality of What?’, p. 427.

30 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, pp. 237–8; Joseph, ‘What Can Governmentality Do for IR?’, p. 203.

31 Joseph, ‘Governmentality of What’, p. 427; Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

32 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 236.

33 Ibid., p. 236.

34 Ibid., p. 242.

35 Ibid., p. 239.

36 Chandler, ‘Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism?’, p. 97; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘What Can Governmentality Do for IR?’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2010b), p. 203Google Scholar; Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 241.

37 Larner, and Williams, , ‘Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces’, in Larner, W. and Walters, W. (eds), Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 5Google Scholar.

38 Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, p. 336.

39 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 241.

40 Collier, ‘Topologies of Power’, p. 96; see Gordon, Colin, ‘Governmental Rationality: An Introduction’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C., and Miller, P. (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), pp. 1–52Google Scholar; Rose, Nikolas, ‘Governing “Advanced” Liberal Democracies’, in Barry, A., Osborne, T., and Rose, N. (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 37–64Google Scholar; Lemke, Thomas, ‘“The Birth of Bio-Politics”: Michel Foucault's Lecture at the College de France on Neo-liberal Governmentality’, Economy and Society, 3:2 (2001), pp. 190–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Merlingen, ‘Monster Studies’, p. 190f.

42 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 235.

43 Joseph, ‘What Can Governmentality Do for IR?’, p. 203.

44 Ong, Aihwa, Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality (Durham: Duke University Press, 1999), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; Collier, ‘Topologies of Power’, pp. 98–100.

45 Nikolas Rose, ‘Power in Therapy: Techne and Ethos’, Academy for the Study of the Psychoanalytic Arts, available at: {http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/rose2.htm}.

46 Kiersey, Nicholas J., ‘World State or Global Governmentality? Constitutive Power and Resistance in a Post-Imperial World’, Global Change, Peace & Society, 20:3 (2008), p. 370Google Scholar.

47 Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark, ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:4 (1999), pp. 421–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Ibid., p. 421.

49 Ong, Flexible Citizenship; Larner and Walters, ‘Global Governmentality’; Walters and Haahr, ‘Governmentality and Political Studies’; Collier, Stephen and Ong, Aihwa (eds), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005)Google Scholar.

50 Joseph, ‘Governmentality of What’, p. 416.

51 Collier, ‘Topologies of Power’, p. 89.

52 Venn, Couze, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy, Biopolitics and Colonialism: A Transcolonial Genealogy of Inequality’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), pp. 206–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Agathangelou, ‘Bodies of Desire’; Pasha, ‘In the Shadows of Globalization’.

53 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 225.

54 See Callinicos, Alex, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991)Google Scholar; McGee, Daniel, ‘Post-Marxism: The Opiate of the Intellectuals’, Modern Language Quarterly, 58:2 (1997), pp. 201–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brennan, Timothy, ‘The Empire's New Clothes’, Critical Inquiry, 29 (2005), pp. 337–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Debrix, Francois, ‘We Other IR Foucauldians’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2010), p. 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 230.

57 Chandler, ‘Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism?’; Chandler, ‘Globalizing Foucault’.

58 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’, p. 242.

59 Chandler, ‘Globalising Foucault’.

60 Chandler, ‘Critiquing Liberal Cosmopolitanism?’

61 Kiersey et al., ‘Response to Chandler’, p. 144.

62 Foucault's own political view of liberalism is more complicated. The next section discusses this in greater detail.

63 Nelson, Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination, p. 102.

64 Kiersey, Nicholas J., ‘Neoliberal Political Economy and the Subjectivity of Crisis: Governmentality is Not Hollow’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), p. 363CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Behrent, Michael C., ‘Liberalism without Humanism: Michel Foucault and the Free-Market Creed, 1976–1979’, Modern Intellectual History, 6:3 (2009), p. 562CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Nelson, Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination, p. 109.

67 Terranova, Tiziana, ‘Another Life. The Nature of Political Economy in Foucault's Genealogy of Biopolitics’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26:6 (2009), p. 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 See Blaney, David L. and Inayatullah, Naeem, Savage Economics: Wealth, Poverty and the Temporal Walls of Capitalism (New York: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar.

69 Nelson, Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination, p. 103.

70 Ibid., p. 104, emphasis in original.

71 Ibid., p. 105, emphasis in original.

72 Foucault, The Birth the Biopolitics, pp. 117–20.

73 I borrow the phrase from Mazzarella, William, ‘Affect: What Is It Good For?’, in Dube, Saurabh (ed.), Enchantments of Modernity: Empire, Nation, Globalization (London: Routledge), p. 299Google Scholar.

74 Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin, and Miller, Peter (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (University of Chicago Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barry, Andrew, Osborne, Thomas, and Rose, Nikolas (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

75 Cruikshank, Barbara, The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Brown, Wendy, Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Read, Jason, ‘A Genealogy of Homo Economicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity’, Foucault Studies, 6 (2009), pp. 25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Binkley, Sam and Capetillo, Jorge (eds), A Foucault for the 21st Century: Governmentality, Biopower and Discipline in the New Millennium (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009)Google Scholar.

77 Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Hardt and Negri, Multitude.

78 In particular, Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, and Weidner, Jason, ‘Governmentality, Capitalism and Subjectivity’, Global Society, 23:4 (2009), pp. 387–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Behrent, ‘Liberalism without Humanism’, p. 554.

80 Ibid., pp. 564–5.

81 It is important here to make a clear distinction between neoliberalism, which Foucault could not have had any sympathies for given his strong connections to the French Left and the liberal art of government, which Foucault might indeed have been attracted to given the failures of the institutional Left to put forth a credible political vision around 1968. After May 1968 many on the French Left accused the Socialist Party and trade unions of having betrayed the wider aspirations of the Left by entering an unholy alliance with the governing forces led by de Gaulle. From this perspective, liberal governmentality could indeed teach the Left a thing or two about how to effectively govern in the name of human betterment without turning to totalitarianism or violating individual autonomy. It is the method, not the principles of liberal governmentality that Foucault would have wanted the Left to learn from. Further proof for the fact that Foucault could not have been a supporter of neoliberalism (a proposition Behrent is careful to avoid) can be found in various recent publications trying to make sense of Foucault's complicated yet sympathetic relation with Marxism: Poster, Mark, Foucault, Marxism and History (Oxford, MA: Polity Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Marsden, Richard, The Nature of Capital: Marx After Foucault (New York: Routledge, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Macdonald, Bradley J., ‘Marx, Foucault, Genealogy’, Polity, 34:3 (2002), pp. 259–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Olssen, Mark, ‘Foucault and Marxism: Rewriting the Theory of Historical Materialism’, Policy Futures in Education, 2:3–4 (2002), pp. 454–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Read, Jason, ‘A Fugitive Thread: The Production of Subjectivity in Marx’, Pli, 13 (2002), pp. 124–44Google Scholar.

82 Behrent, ‘Liberalism without Humanism’, p. 558.

83 It should be remembered that Foucault never had a chance to fully elaborate his thoughts on biopolitics. While The Birth of Biopolitics was intended to fill that gap, Foucault spent most of the lecture series exploring the ‘condition of intelligibility’ for biopolitics, that is, liberal government. He apologises for this digression but ultimately leaves the conceptualisation of biopolitics up to the generations to come.

84 Nelson, Sovereignty and the Limits of the Liberal Imagination, p. 107.

85 Agamben, Giorgio, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 6Google Scholar.

86 Neal, ‘Goodbye War on Terror’, p. 45.

87 See Dillon, Michael and Reid, Julian, ‘Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security and War’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 20:1 (2001), pp. 41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dillon, Michael and Reid, Julian, The Liberal Way of War: Killing to Make Life Live (New York: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar; Shapiro, Michael, Edkins, Jenny, and Pin-Fat, Veronique (eds), Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics (New York: Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar; Jabri, Vivienne, ‘War, Security and the Liberal State’, Security Dialogue, 37 (2006), pp. 47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reid, Julien, The Biopolitics of the War on Terror: Life Struggles, Liberal Modernity and the Defence of Logistical Societies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dillon, Michael, ‘Governing Terror: The State of Emergency of Biopolitical Emergence’, International Political Sociology, 1 (2007), pp. 7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dauphinee, Elizabeth and Masters, Christina (eds), The Logics of Biopower and the War on Terror: Living, Dying, Surviving (Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Salter, Mark, Rights of Passage: The Passport in International Relations (Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner, 2003)Google Scholar; Salter, Mark (ed.), Politics at the Airport (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Dillon, Michael and Neal, Andrew W. (eds), Foucault on Politics, Security and War (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; De Larrinaga, Miguel and Doucet, Marc, ‘Sovereign Power and the Biopolitics of Security’, Security Dialogue, 39:5 (2008), pp. 517–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Exceptions include, to name but a few, the work of Didier Bigo, William Walters, Peter Nyers, Andrew Lakoff, and Stephen Collier.

88 Dillon and Reid, The Liberal Way of War.

89 Agamben, Homo Sacer, p. 3.

90 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 368.

91 Chandler, ‘Globalising Foucault’, p. 139.

92 Neal, ‘Goodbye War on Terror?’, p. 46.

93 Foucault cited in Kiersey and Weidner, ‘Editorial Introduction’, p. 345. See also Wendy Larner and Walter Williams, ‘Global Governmentality’; Walters, William and Haahr, Henrik, ‘Governmentality and Political Studies’, European Political Science, 4 (2005), pp. 288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicholas J. Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’; Jason Weidner, ‘Governmentality, Capitalism and Subjectivity’; De Goede, Marieke (ed.), International Political Economy and Poststructural Politics (New York: Palgrave, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Langley, Paul, The Everyday Life of Global Finance: Saving and Borrowing in Anglo-America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lisle, Debbie, ‘Joyless Cosmopolitans: The Moral Economy of Ethical Tourism’, in Best, J. and Peterson, M. (eds), Cultural Political Economy (New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 139–58Google Scholar; Moore, Phoebe, The International Political Economy of Work and Employability (New York: Palgrave, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Dean cited in Selby, ‘Engaging Foucault’, p. 333.

95 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 385.

96 Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004).Google Scholar

97 Agathangelou, Anna M., Bassichis, Daniel M., and Spira, Tamara L., ‘Intimate Investments: Homonormativity, Global Lockdown, and the Seductions of Empire’, Radical History Review, 100 (2008), p. 137Google Scholar.

98 Foucault, ‘The Subject and Power’, p. 341.

99 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 367, emphasis added.

100 Lemke, Thomas, ‘Foucault's Hypothesis: From the Critique of the Juridico-Discursive Concept of Power to an Analytics of Government’, Parrhesia, 9 (2010), pp. 33–4Google Scholar.

101 Madra, M. Yahya and Őzselcuk, Ceren, ‘Juissance and Antagonism in the Forms of the Commune: A Critique of Biopolitical Subjectivity’, Rethinking Marxism, 22:3 (2010), p. 482CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Merlingen, ‘Foucault and World Politics’, p. 188.

103 Connolly, William E., The Ethos of Pluralization (Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

104 Jabri, Vivienne, ‘Restyling the Subject of Responsibility in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27:3 (1998), p. 594CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Davies, Matt and Niemann, Michael, ‘The Everyday Spaces of Global Politics: Work, Leisure, Family’, New Political Science, 24:4 (2002), p. 561CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Nair, Sheila and Chowdhry, Geeta. Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations (New York, Routledge: 2002)Google Scholar; Edkins, Jenny, Pin-Fat, Veronique, and Shapiro, Michael J. (eds), Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics (New York: Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar; Agathangelou, Anna M. and Ling, L. H. M., Transforming World Politics: From Empire to Multiple Worlds (New York: Routledge., 2009)Google Scholar.

107 Larner and Williams, ‘Global Governmentality’, p. 4.

108 Davies and Niemann, ‘The Everyday Spaces of Global Politics’, p. 567.

109 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 376.

110 Ibid., p. 386.

111 Joseph, ‘The Limits of Governmentality’.

112 Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik, ‘Neoliberalism and the Urban Condition’, City, 9:1 (2005), p. 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik, ‘Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”’, Antipode, 33:3 (2002a), pp. 349–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Jackson, Pattrick Thaddeus, ‘Three Stories: A Way of Being in the World’, in Inayatullah, Naeem (ed.), Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011), p. 161Google Scholar.

114 Venn, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 206; Agathangelou, ‘Bodies of Desire’, p. 5.

115 Agathangelou, ‘Bodies of Desire’.

116 See Kiersey and Weidner, ‘Editorial Introduction’.

117 Venn, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 206; Agathangelou, ‘Bodies of Desire’, p. 15.

118 Venn, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’, p. 211.

119 Kiersey, ‘Neoliberal Political Economy’; Weidner, ‘Governmentality, Capitalism and Subjectivity’.

120 Gill, Stephen, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 Wallerstein, Immanuel, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

122 I borrow the phrase from Sylvère Lotringer, ‘In Theory’, Frieze Art Fair. London (14–16 October 2009), available at: {http://www.friezeartfair.com/podcasts/details/in_theory_sylvere_lotringer/} accessed 27 December 2009.

123 Neal, ‘Rethinking Foucault’, p. 541.

124 Foucault cited in Lemke, ‘“The Birth of Bio-Politics”’, p. 43.