Foucault's Genealogy of Racism

Theory,http://tcs.sagepub.com/ Culture & Society Foucault's Genealogy of Racism Kim Su Rasmussen Theory Culture Society 2011 28: 34 DOI: 10.1177/0263276411410448 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/28/5/34 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: The TCS Centre, Nottingham Trent University Additional services and information for Theory, Culture & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tcs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/28/5/34.refs.html >> Version of Record - Sep 21, 2011 What is This? Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism Kim Su Rasmussen Abstract This paper argues that Foucault’s genealogy of racism deserves appreciation due to the highly original concept of racism as biopolitical government. Modern racism, according to Foucault, is not merely an irrational prejudice, a form of socio-political discrimination, or an ideological motive in a political doctrine; rather, it is a form of government that is designed to manage a population. The paper seeks to advance this argument by reconstructing Foucault’s unfinished project of a genealogy of racism. Initially, the paper situates the genealogy of racism within the context of Foucault’s work. It belongs to a period of transition between the mature and the late part of Foucault’s work, more specifically a period of transition from discipline to governmentality. The paper proceeds by reading closely key passages from the 1976 lectures at Collège de France in which Foucault proposes to rethink racism as a form of biopolitical government. While Foucault’s genealogy of racism remains an incomplete project, lacking for example any substantial treatment of European colonialism, the paper proposes to expand the Foucauldian analysis by linking it to the pan-German discourse between 1890 and 1914. Finally, the paper reflects on some of the implications of the Foucauldian analysis, in particular attempts to understand and counter contemporary forms of racism. Foucault’s genealogy of racism, in short, shows us the constructedness of our racialized world and challenges us to develop new and more effective strategies to change it. Key words biopolitics j Foucault B j governmentality j pan-Germanism j racism 1975 and 1976, Foucault outlined a genealogy of European racism that he for unknown reasons never finished. His genealogical approach, or in other words his historical nominalism, provides an understanding of the historicity of the concepts we employ and, as such, it rules out any attempt at a transhistorical view of racism. Modern racism, according to Foucault, was first articulated as a discourse of social war in the 18th century; it was developed during the second half of the 19th century, absorbing important impulses from psychiatry as a means to protect j ETWEEN Theory, Culture & Society 2011 (SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore), Vol. 28(5): 34^51 DOI: 10.1177/0263276411410448 Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 35 society against the abnormal; finally, in the 1930s it was integrated by modern state apparatuses as a technology of power. Foucault’s account is rather incomplete, lacking for example any substantial discussion of European colonialism or the history of the idea of race. Nevertheless, this paper argues that Foucault’s genealogy of racism deserves appreciation due to the highly original suggestion that modern racism is a form of biopolitical government. Instead of the common idea that racism, fundamentally, is a form of irrational prejudice, social discrimination, or political ideology, Foucault proposes to rethink racism as a form of biopolitical government that impinges on individuals in their most basic relationship to themselves and others. While ‘governmentality studies’ took off with Burchell, Gordon, and Miller’s The Foucault Effect (1991), it is probably equally correct to speak of Deleuze’s Foucault (1986) as the beginning of ‘biopolitics studies’. The central axis in Foucault’s work, according to his long-time friend and colleague, is a unique form of ‘vitalism’. This interpretation, itself rather controversial, has strongly in£uenced the contemporary Italian reception of Foucault where it resurfaces in the form of biopolitics. Agamben’s Homo Sacer (1998) and Hardt and Negri’s Empire (2000) both employ the notion of biopolitics to describe the contemporary social order, the ‘biopolitical structure of modernity’ (Agamben, 1998: 137) and society as ‘the realm of biopower’ (Hardt and Negri, 2000: 24). Subsequently, much of the research on biopolitics has focused on the ethico-political implications of modern biotechnology (see, among others, Rose, 2001; Lemke, 2007a; Cooper, 2008; Esposito, 2008). Only recently have we seen attempts to link or combine the two ¢elds by emphasizing contemporary intersections of biopolitics and governmentality (Lemke, 2007b; Venn, 2009). This paper seeks to contribute to such e¡orts by arguing that Foucault’s genealogy of racism, in fact, is situated precisely at the intersection of biopolitics and governmentality. From Discipline to Governmentality Foucault’s genealogy of racism belongs to a period of transition between his mature and his late works, and it is generally associated with the concept of biopolitics. During the 1970s, Foucault’s thought underwent several changes that have puzzled many of his readers. In particular, there is a significant shift from the themes of disciplinary power and biopower to the broader issue of governmentality. In the lectures at Colle'ge de France between 1975 and 1979, Foucault gradually expands and reworks the notion of disciplinary power. Initially, he places the concept of biopower at the centre of these efforts, but he subsequently replaces it with the notion of governmentality. One of the dramatic plots in the three lecture series ‘Il faut de¤fendre la socie¤te¤’ (1976), Se¤curite¤, Territoire, Population (1978), and Naissance de la biopolitique (1979), insofar as they form a more or less coherent cycle, is the story of the appearance and disappearance of biopower Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 36 Theory, Culture & Society 28(5) in Foucault’s work. The projected genealogy of racism belongs to this period of transition from discipline over biopolitics to governmentality. In Le pouvoir psychiatrique (1974) and later in Surveiller et punir (1975), Foucault describes the emergence of a ‘disciplinary society’ in which a particular form of disciplinary power regulates the human body (Foucault, 2003b: 68; 1975: 217). Disciplinary power, according to Foucault, is not an attribute of a given subject or a given state apparatus; rather, it is a strategic set of correlations that produce social functions as well as individual and collective subjects (Foucault, 1975: 31^3). The analysis of disciplinary power and its manifestations in the school, the military, and the prison implies a far-reaching reconsideration of traditional concepts of power (see, among others, Taylor, 1995a, 1995b; Patton, 1995). If the subject is an e¡ect of power and no longer the site of repression, if e¡ective power is diffused and no longer concentrated in the state, then we need to rethink the basic co-ordinates of individual and collective emancipation. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Foucault attempts to work out a theoretical distinction between disciplinary power and biopower. The theoretical distinction between discipline and biopower can be said to emerge from a number of particular biographical events. In early 1971, shortly after his appointment to the Colle'ge de France, Foucault became heavily involved in the Groupe d’Information sur les Prisons (GIP). Later that same year Foucault initiated the so-called Djellali Committee, which organized a number of demonstrations against racial violence and advocated for improved conditions for Algerian and other immigrant groups (Mauriac, 1976; Macey, 1993). These ‘experiments in thought’, to use Deleuze’s formulation, would later resurface in Foucault’s work in terms of disciplinary power and biopower. Foucault first employs the term ‘biopolitics’ in October 1974 during a conference paper delivered in Rio de Janeiro on ‘The Birth of Social Medicine’ (Marchetti, 1997; Bertani, 2003). In this paper, the notion of biopolitics establishes a link between a speci¢c institution such as medicine and a broader socio-political framework such as capitalism. ‘For capitalist society, it was biopolitics, the biological, the somatic, the corporeal, that mattered more than anything. The body is a biopolitical reality; medicine is a biopolitical strategy’ (Foucault, 2001: 210; 2000: 137). The concept of biopolitics, as he would later remark, allows him to move ‘outside’ an institution-centred perspective and establish a link between medical institutions and the broader socio-political framework (Foucault, 2007: 120). Foucault recycles the notion of biopolitics in ‘Il faut de¤fendre la socie¤te¤’, more specifically the last lecture on 17 March 1976, in order to account for specific aspects of western racism (Balibar, 1989). Furthermore, biopolitics is one of the key concepts in the last chapter of La volonte¤ de savoir in which he emphasizes a ‘normalizing society’ (Foucault, 1990: 144) that involves ‘an anatomo-politics of the human body’ and ‘a biopolitics of the population’ (Foucault, 1990: 139). Racism, according to Foucault, emerges Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 37 at the intersection of disciplinary technologies that target the body and biopolitical technologies that target the population. Instead of pursuing the project of a history of sexuality in six volumes, as outlined on the back cover of La volonte¤ de savoir, Foucault started to rework his entire theoretical framework (Macey, 1993: 353^5). After 1976, as several commentators have noted, Foucault went through a crisis of sorts, and it was not until 1984 that he published his next books (Deleuze, 1990: 142^3; Eribon, 1991: 273^8; Miller, 1993: 287^99). The second and the third volume of Histoire de la sexualite¤ diverge substantially from the ‘primitive project’ announced in 1976 (Foucault, 1984: 13), and the substantial reworking of the initial project leads ^ for reasons that remain unclear ^ to the disappearance of biopolitics and racism. The lectures from 1978 and 1979, despite Foucault’s explicit intentions to deal with biopolitics, are essentially detours from which he never returns (Burchell, 1993; Senellart, 2007; Gane, 2008). The introduction of ‘governmentality’on 1 February 1978 (Foucault, 2007: 108) is the beginning of a theoretical ‘displacement’ (Foucault, 1984: 12) that entails a reorganization of the basic co-ordinates of Foucault’s history of the present; from various technologies of power ^ sovereignty, discipline, biopower ^ Foucault ends with di¡erent con¢gurations of parrhesia in the government of self and others. In the summary of the 1979 lectures, Foucault describes the study of governmentality as a necessary framework for analysing biopolitics: The theme was to have been ‘biopolitics,’ by which I mean the attempt, starting from the eighteenth century, to rationalize the problems posed to governmental practice by phenomena characteristic of a set of living beings forming a population: health, hygiene, birthrate, life expectancy, race . . . .It seemed to me that these problems were inseparable from the framework of political rationality within which they appeared and took on their intensity. (Foucault, 2008: 317) The genealogy of biopolitics, then, is reframed by a ‘history of governmentality’ (Foucault, 2007: 108^9) and the study of the ‘general apparatus (dispositif) of governmentality’ (Foucault, 2008: 70). This shift of emphasis from biopolitics to governmentality, as we shall see, is crucial for an understanding of Foucault’s genealogy of racism. It could be argued, perhaps, that biopolitics does not completely disappear from Foucault’s research agenda. Some of the biopolitical motives ^ population, race, life ^ briefly reappear in the later lectures. In L’Herme¤neutique du sujet, biopolitics makes a short-lived comeback in the guise of bios (Foucault, 2005: 447, 486). Similarly, in Le Gouvernement de soi et des autres, we hear a distant echo of previous motives when Foucault comments at length on Euripides’ Ion (Foucault, 2010: 72, 76, 103, and 151). In 1983, when receiving a question about a genealogy of biopower, Foucault responds: ‘I have no time for that now, but it could be done. In fact, I have to do it’ (Foucault, 1983: 232). Such cameo appearances, however, Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 38 Theory, Culture & Society 28(5) do not alter the general impression that biopolitics is one of the main concepts that has been reworked or even discarded between La volonte¤ de savoir and the subsequent volumes of Histoire de la sexualite¤. Foucault, to put it schematically, employs the notion of biopolitics in three distinct configurations. First, biopolitics establishes a conceptual and analytical link between social medicine as a specific knowledge formation and the emergence of capitalist society in late 18th- and early 19th-century Europe. Second, Foucault employs the notion of biopolitics to describe the politicization of the life of a population. The notion of biopolitics is evoked in conjunction with racism and sexuality as a technology of power distinct from both sovereignty and discipline. Finally, the study of governmentality, in particular neo-liberal governmentality, circumscribes and reframes the analysis of biopolitics. Racism as Biopolitical Government Foucault briefly comments on the notion of racism at the end of Les anormaux, the 1975 lectures at the Colle'ge de France. These comments emerge from a lengthy analysis of psychiatry as a conglomerate of knowledge and power. One of Foucault’s main points is that psychiatry, at a given historical junction, stopped primarily having a therapeutic function and, instead, served to maintain and protect society from contact with the abnormal (Foucault, 1999: 298^9). Towards the end of the 19th century, Foucault continues, psychiatry as a generalized protection of society against the abnormal becomes the model of a particular form of ‘internal racism’ (Foucault, 1999: 299). The notion of internal racism refers to eugenics as well as a more general pattern of imagination according to which the population must be defended against various forms of degeneration (Foucault, 1999: 300). In order to clarify Foucault’s claim about internal racism and its origin, it might be useful to distinguish between hetero-referential and auto-referential forms of racism (Taguieff, 1987). While hetero-referential forms of racism target the other (them), for example in the form of xenophobia or negative stereotypes, auto-referential forms of racism target the self (us), for example in the form of ethnocentrism. Hetero-referential racism typically negates the value of the other and follows a logic of domination, whereas auto-referential racism a⁄rms the superior value of the self and follows a logic of exclusion. The result, in both cases, is the establishment of a strati¢ed social order based on ‘processes of racialization’ (Small, 1994). Internal racism, as Foucault describes it, is an auto-referential form of racism that is concerned with the composition, the reproduction, and the development of the population by isolating and excluding the abnormal. The brief remarks at the end of Les anormaux are carried over to the lectures of the following year, where the notion of ‘internal racism’ is expanded into ‘an internal war that defends society against threats born of and in its own body’ (Foucault, 2003a: 216). This discourse of an internal Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 39 social war is characterized by the notion that there is always an ongoing war beneath a situation of peace. According to Foucault, it has three important historical manifestations. The first manifestation of the war discourse appears in the 18th century. It is articulated as a discourse of race war (guerre des races), which is particularly centred on the notion of the Franks invading the territory of the Gauls. This discourse finds an important articulation with Henri de Boulainvillier (1658^1722), where the Franco-Gallic conflict is interpreted as a historical backdrop to the contemporary conflict between the French aristocracy descended from the Franks and le Tiers e¤tat descended from the Gauls (Girardin, 1998; Marks, 2000; Elden, 2002; Macey, 2009). These comments on Boulainvillier, in which he appears to be a forerunner of Arthur de Gobineau (1816^1882), is in line with Hannah Arendt’s interpretation of Boulainvillier as an example of race-thinking before racism (Arendt, 1968: 162^4; Foucault, 1997: 112^16). The discourse of war finds another manifestation towards the end of the 19th century. It is particularly associated with three phenomena: biological race thinking in a strict sense, colonial racism at the end of the 19th century, and various forms of ethnic nationalism. All of the three, according to Foucault, postulate a fundamental conflict between society and its outside (le dehors). The outside, however, is not outside the border of the state, but rather posed or constructed as an outside within society. In short, the second manifestation of the war discourse is an elaboration of the notion of internal racism from the lectures Les anormaux. The third manifestation of the war discourse appears in the 20th century and particularly in the form of Nazism and Stalinism (Foucault, 1997: 71^3). The de¢ning feature of the third manifestation is a state racism operating at a macro-level and combining a notion of war with the sovereign power over life and death (Burleigh and Wippermann, 1999; Kelly, 2004). We might read and discuss these comments, of course, as straightforward referential statements about a historical reality; however, I suggest we take into account the intertextuality of these passages. Foucault does not explicitly mention Arendt in these lectures, but he implicitly alludes to her treatment of totalitarianism. Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism, in fact, constitutes an important subtext throughout Foucault’s 1976 lectures (see also Braun, 2007). In the final lecture from 17 March 1976, Foucault introduces the notion of biopolitics in conjunction with racism. The conceptual and analytical framework, which he previously described as a discourse of social war, is now reworked in terms of biopolitics and biopower. Foucault, we might add, does not distinguish systematically between biopolitics and biopower. Distinct from both sovereign power and disciplinary power, biopower targets the life of a population (Foucault, 1997: 215^16). But how exactly is racism linked to biopower? How is racism linked to a form of power that targets the life of an entire population? What are the historical forms that have determined the articulation of biopower through racism and vice Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 40 Theory, Culture & Society 28(5) versa? A close reading of this lecture shows that Foucault links racism and biopower in two quite di¡erent ways: [R]acism justifies the death-function in the economy of biopower by appealing to the principle that the death of others makes one biologically stronger insofar as one is a member of a race or a population, insofar as one is an element in a unitary living plurality. (Foucault, 1997: 230; 2003a: 258) In general, biopower seeks to affirm the life of the population, whereas racism ^ or more specifically what Foucault previously termed internal racism ^ operates a ‘biological caesura within a population’ between worthy and unworthy life (Foucault, 2003a: 255). Racism, in this sense, is stipulated by the antagonisms of war and operates within the limits of biopower. This form of racism, we might say, is strictly biopolitical and operates within the boundaries of biopower. However, this is not the only determination of racism and biopolitics. The specificity of modern racism, or what gives it its specificity, is not bound up with mentalities, ideologies, or the lies of power. It is bound up with the technique of power, with the technology of power. ...The juxtaposition of ^ or the way biopower functions through ^ the old sovereign power of life and death implies the workings, the introduction and activation, of racism. And it is, I think, here that we find the actual roots of racism. (Foucault, 1997: 230; 2003a: 258) In this passage, Foucault describes racism as a juxtaposition of sovereign power and biopower. Racism, in this sense, operates between different kinds of power. In this perspective, racism is seen as a technology in a modern state that wishes to maintain its sovereign power within a general context of biopower. This form of racism, in fact, is a form of governmentality avant la lettre. Racism, according to Foucault, is not primarily prejudice, discrimination, or ideology (Foucault, 2003a: 258). Racism, on the one hand, operates within the boundaries of biopower insofar as it articulates a caesura between worthy and unworthy life; on the other hand, racism operates between di¡erent forms of power as a form of governmentality. In other words, Foucault theorizes racism as biopolitical government, as a £exible technology of power that entails a new and novel form of government. Foucault, it seems, introduces the notion of biopolitics as part of a critical exchange with Arendt’s account of racism in The Origins of Totalitarianism. Although Foucault does not mention her by name, possibly due to his well-known wish to avoid polemics, his reflections on racism, in particular the comments on Boulainvillier and modern totalitarianism, clearly show his indebtedness to and dialogue with Arendt. Racism, according to Arendt, is primarily an ideology: ‘Racism is the belief that there is a motion inherent in the very idea of race, just as deism is the belief that a Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 41 motion is inherent in the very notion of God’ (Arendt, 1968: 469). W|th the introduction of biopolitics, Foucault ^ in a very precise manner ^ sidesteps such a de¢nition, without rendering it invalid, by emphasizing instead the £exibility of racism as a biopolitical mechanism that aims at the ‘puri¢cation’ of the population and as a governmental technology that juxtaposes and combines various regimes of power. One of the main differences between Arendt and Foucault is their focus. For Arendt, the main focus is a historico-political analysis of Nazism. She meticulously analyses Nazism by tracing its prehistory and its similarities with contemporary ideologies such as Stalinism. For Foucault, in contrast, the main focus is the emergence at the end of the 19th century of the ‘population’ as an object of political intervention. His interest in Boulainvillier and modern totalitarianism, in contrast, is relatively peripheral. As it is, Foucault borrows select components from Arendt’s analysis in order to pursue his own, quite different project. In order to better appreciate this, we need to understand a peculiar feature of Foucault’s genealogical analysis. He does not explain a historical event in terms of a diachronic chain of causes and effects, nor does he describe it in terms of a synchronic ‘thick description’. Foucault attempts to grasp a phenomenon in its state of becoming. Foucault, as it is, analyses a phenomenon by reconstructing it as the middle of a transformative process that has a previous and a subsequent manifestation. Deleuze understands this aspect of Foucault better than anybody when he distinguishes between ‘history’ and ‘becoming’. Foucault’s genealogy attempts to grasp a phenomenon in its state of becoming. In order to analyse ‘internal racism’ as the middle of a transformation, as a phenomenon in a state of becoming, Foucault situates it within a broader historical and conceptual framework, which he initially describes as a discourse of social war. The elements he borrows from Arendt merely serve to illustrate the ‘before’ (race war) and ‘after’ (state racism). In the last lecture, however, Foucault redefines the analytical framework in terms of biopolitics. The 1976 lectures, as well as the last chapter of La volonte¤ de savoir, shows us that Foucault employed the notion of biopolitics in order to analyse a particular set of changes at the end of the 19th century. Missing Links: The Pan-German League The focal point of Foucault’s genealogy of racism is the emergence at the end of the 19th century of a particular form of biopolitical government. The project, however, remains incomplete and raises more questions than it answers (Stingelin, 2003). Foucault’s analysis of racism, for example, fails to adequately take into account the role of European colonialism (Stoler, 1995; Venn, 2009). While the critical dialogue with Arendt, which forms an important subtext throughout the 1976 lectures, might explain ^ at least to some extent ^ the incompleteness of his trajectory, it remains a mystery how Foucault would link the di¡erent manifestations of the war discourse Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 42 Theory, Culture & Society 28(5) to each other. For example, he never provides a convincing account of the links between ‘internal racism’ in the late 19th century and ‘state racism’ in the mid-20th century. Arendt, in contrast, identi¢es the Pan-German League as a possible link (Arendt, 1968: 222^66). Foucault’s notion of racism, as it is, allows us to reinterpret select components of the panGerman discourse, while the detailed texture of the pan-German discourse enables us to ¢ll in some of the missing links in Foucault’s genealogy of racism. Most commentators agree that the Pan-German League is one of the immediate forerunners of Nazism (Kruck, 1954; Arendt, 1968; Chickering, 1984). Between Bismarck’s retirement in 1890 and Hitler’s ascendency in 1933, the Pan-German League established one of the loudest and most virulent discourses on the extreme right. The ambition of the Pan-German League was to support all members of the German Volk by establishing a pan-German state. The uni¢cation of Germany in 1871, according to the o⁄cial historian of the Pan-German League, was seen as a preliminary step towards a v˛lkisch state that would include all the German people of Europe (Bonhard, 1920: 128). The population, or the Volk, was the central concern for members of the Pan-German League (Hartung, 1996; Harvey, 2004). The German population was spread over large parts of Central and Eastern Europe and did not correspond with the existing German state. The pan-Germans, therefore, needed an alternative de¢nition of the Volk. Religion, rather than unifying the German people, divided the Protestant north from the Catholic south. Language, with all its dialects and complicated genealogies, threatened to splinter into multiple Germanic languages and, as a consequence, was far too vague and fuzzy. Race, seemingly rooted in biological fact, became the predominant de¢nition of the population of the future pan-German state. In this sense, the Pan-German League provides a perfect example of Foucault’s analytical distinction between territorial sovereignty and various forms of power that target a dispersed population. Between 1890 and 1914, the racist discourse in the Pan-German League follows two distinct trajectories. A discourse on ‘cultural history’ attempts to link cultural production with race. Several ranking members of the Pan-German League were ideologically close to figures such as Arthur Gobineau (1816^82) and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855^1927). Heinrich Class (1868^1953), who took over the leadership of the PanGerman League in 1908, was a self-proclaimed anti-Semite, admirer of Ludwig Woltmann’s social Darwinism, and functioned as the private attorney of Houston Stewart Chamberlain (Mosse, 1994: xviii; Field, 1981: 380^ 95). Furthermore, the Pan-German League were collective members of the Gobineau Society, established by Ludwig Schemann, member of the Wagnerian circle and translator of Arthur Gobineau’s Essai sur l’ine¤galite¤ des races humaines (Bonhard, 1920: 184^5). All cultural production, according to this discourse, is due to the presence of ‘German blood’. Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 43 Another discourse on ‘social politics’ interprets social and political phenomena through the lens of race. Several members of the Pan-German League participated actively in the promotion of social hygiene and eugenics in the vicinity of Ludwig Woltmann (1871^1907) and his social Darwinian journal Politisch-Anthropologische Revue (Bonhard, 1920: 185; Misch, 1975: 233^63; Hammer, 1979: 55^102). Furthermore, there is a web of ideological links to ¢gures such as Francis Galton (1822^1911) and Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1854^1936) (see Hecht, 2000). A straightforward reading of these trajectories will notice the common theme of biological determinism. However, it is probably more accurate, as Foucault has suggested, to read the two trajectories in the pan-German discourse as ways to introduce ^ by means of cultural history or social politics ^ a caesura between worthy and unworthy life. Another way to dissect the pan-German discourse is to distinguish between the different objects of racialized discourse. First, we find a discourse targeting non-European people ^ in particular Africans and Asians ^ associated with the ambition to defend and expand German imperialism overseas. The pan-German colonial policy, according to one of its leading ideologues, is not motivated by simple profit; rather, the colonial empire is a means to strengthen the v˛lkische nation (Samassa, 1909: 414). Paul Samassa (1868^1941), editor of Alldeutsche Bltter, read Schemann’s German translation of Gobineau’s Essai sur l’ine¤galite¤ des races humaines in 1902, and subsequently he argued for the application of Gobineau’s ideas to colonial policy (Chickering, 1984: 241). Second, instead of pursuing an overseas empire like England and France, the pan-Germans argued for the establishment of a continental empire by expanding into Eastern Europe. Associated with this ambition to expand the Lebensraum of the German people, we ¢nd an anti-Slavic discourse that describes the situation in Eastern Europe as a bitter Rassenkampf or ‘racial struggle’ (Anonymous, 1909: 58; see also Sch˛dl, 1978; Wippermann, 1996; Szele¤nyi, 2007). While the previous discourses target non-Germans outside the state, the anti-Semitic discourse in the Pan-German League targets the ‘racially foreign’ people within the borders of the existing state in order to cleanse the population. F|nally, we ¢nd a discourse of extreme ethnocentrism according to which the Germans, as opposed to everybody else, are portrayed as superhuman and the source of all values. For example Chamberlain, a devout disciple of Wagner and a cult ¢gure for the Nazis, maintains that German blood is the ultimate source of all culture. If we restrict the analysis to any of these four discourses, it might lead to a simple dichotomy; however, if analysed together, the racial discourse in the Pan-German League evokes a racially strati¢ed social order with several intermediate layers between the top and bottom. There is a rather clear development in the pan-German discourse. From 1893 until 1908, under the leadership of Ernst Hasse (1846^1908), there was a strong emphasis on overseas colonialism and continental expansion. In contrast, anti-Semitism was rather subdued, not because it was Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 44 Theory, Culture & Society 28(5) absent, but because the question of whether anti-Semitism should be an official part of the political programme divided the leading members (Chickering, 1984: 233). Hasse, it seems, suppressed the issue for the sake of unity. After 1908, when Heinrich Class (1868^1953) became the new leader, anti-Semitism gradually moved to the centre of the pan-German preoccupations. In 1912, related to discussions of Class’ Wenn Ich der Kaiser wr’ (1912), there was an eruption of anti-Semitism in the pan-German discourse (Bergmann, 1996). After the F|rst World War, when the discourse becomes even more radical, anti-Semitism overshadows all other aspects and becomes the primary obsession of the pan-German writers. The development culminates in the so-called ‘Bamberger Declaration’ (31 August 1919), which includes eugenics and anti-Semitism in the o⁄cial political programme of the organization (Class, 1919: 309). These developments in the pan-German discourse partly re£ect the changes of political climate from German projection of power to the bitter resentment of German defeat. One of the recurring arguments for an expansion of German colonialism was the neo-Malthusian claim that ‘the German people need to acquire new lands for its surplus population’ (Class, 1904: 252). Such a politicization of the population was fused with eugenicist and social Darwinist arguments. The combined e¡ect of neo-Malthusianism and social Darwinism, according to Weikart, was to undermine ‘the prevailing view of the sanctity of life in favor of a view in which some humans are more valuable and have a greater right to life than others’ (Weikart, 2002: 328). In addition to the distinction between hetero-referential and autoreferential forms of racism, we might distinguish between ‘genetic’ and ‘utopian’ forms of auto-referential racism in the Pan-German League. The genetic discourse is focused on the origins of the Aryan race and includes debates on monogenesis and polygenesis. These terms can be traced to a tradition of religious skepticism that questions the religious dogma of divine origins (Popkin, 1978). At the end of the 18th century, exactly parallel with the broad epistemological transformations described in Les mots et les choses, these religious debates are reworked in secular terms. This is when the idea of ‘race’ is ¢rst introduced. These debates resurface a century later in the Pan-German League, for example in an article entitled ‘Oceania as the Origin of the White Race’, published in both Alldeutsche Bltter and Politisch-Anthropologische Revue. The author, a well-known anti-Semite and Aryan nationalist (Weindling, 1989: 252^3), speculates that the ‘white race’ originated somewhere in the Paci¢c; after wandering for centuries, nay millennia, and having crossed gigantic oceans in ‘dragon boats’, the ‘white race’ ¢nally settled in northern Europe (Hentschel, 1909). The article seeks to combine monogenesis with the view that nature, in fact, operates a sort of ‘natural eugenics’ by eliminating weaker races. This example, we might add en passant, partly challenges Arendt’s position insofar as she identi¢es racism exclusively with polygenesis (Arendt, 1968: 234). Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 45 The utopian tendency seeks to promote racial hygiene as a means to protect and revitalize the German population: What is racial hygiene? Hereby we understand the theory of healthy organic conditions for the expression and development of the race ... in short, the organic conditions for the expression of the race are the natural foundations for all social and spiritual actions. (Anonymous, 1902: 66^7) A straightforward reading might emphasize the biological determination of social practice and, as a counter-strategy, defend a variation of social constructivism. A Foucauldian reading would emphasize instead that biology ^ or, to be more precise, life ^ becomes a contested object of political intervention: Our people’s position of power in both Europe and the world is closely related to the fact that the fertility rate is falling, especially seen in the light of the rapid reproduction of the Slavs and the colored races. ...The falling fertility rate appears in this light ... as a crime against our people and our country. (Fellmeth, 1913: 220^1) The author argues for an implementation of eugenic measures in order to counter the ‘quantitative’ aspects of the falling birthrate with a ‘qualitative’ improvement of the population and its racial characteristics. The interests of the collective do not merely take precedence over individual interests, but ^ in a more radical sense ^ the individual only has value in relation to the racialized collective. The ‘genetic’ and the ‘utopian’ forms of auto-referential racism can be seen as continuations, respectively, of Gobineau and Chamberlain. While Gobineau emphasizes an original race that inevitably degenerates due to miscegenation, Chamberlain emphasizes instead the ambition to establish a racial utopia. ‘Even if it was proven that there has never existed an Aryan race in the past, it is our will that one shall exist in the future’ (Chamberlain, 1907: 317). Chamberlain’s idea of a racial utopia, which underpins much of the racist discourse in the Pan-German League, logically implies positive and negative eugenics, prohibition of interracial marriages, and ^ ultimately ^ ethnic cleansing. While the goal is to establish a panGerman state in order to protect and revitalize the population, the all-pervasive racist element legitimizes the death-function in such a biopolitical regime. However, this does not imply any assumptions about a simple cause-and-effect relationship that leads from intention to action. Whereas standard interpretations of the Pan-German League have focused on the nationalist ideology or the class composition of the membership, Foucault’s notion of biopolitical governmentality emphasizes the political rationality that mobilizes and connects such terms as population, normality, and race. On the other hand, the detailed texture of the panGerman discourse allows us to reconstruct some of the missing empirical Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 46 Theory, Culture & Society 28(5) links in Foucault’s genealogy of racism and develop his analysis by introducing specific conceptual distinctions. Resistance to Biopolitical Governmentality A broad consensus was established after the Second World War that discredited discourses associated with Nazi racism. Eugenics, for example, and biological determinism in general were among the discredited discourses. It was perhaps Jean-Paul Sartre, more than anyone, who came to embody the popular anti-racist stance of post-war Europe. His diagnosis of racism as a ‘snobism of the poor’ still holds some validity. While the broad consensus was permanently unstable and in many respects inconsistent, in particular when it came to questions of decolonization, the final blow to the old anti-racist consensus was dealt in the 1980s when a new adversary appeared in the form of neo-racism (Barker, 1981; Taguieff, 1987; Gilroy, 1987; Balibar, 1991; Hardt and Negri, 2000). The neo-racist discourse has learned and incorporated many lessons from the anti-Nazi consensus. Most importantly, the neo-racist discourse replaces the notion of ‘race’ with that of ‘culture’, thereby evading the brunt of anti-racist critique. This means, for example, that the run-of-themill social constructivist argument against biological determinism has become utterly pointless vis-a' -vis the neo-racist discourse. In many parts of Western Europe, this neo-racist discourse has become a new ‘mass ideology’ since the end of the Cold War (Hobsbawm, 1992: 8). Contemporary discourses of anti-immigration and Islamophobia, perfectly illustrated by the infamous ‘cartoon war’ (Klausen, 2009), indicate a return of previous forms of racism (Fassin, 2001; Amin, 2010). However, it is not simply a return of biological determinism and anti-Semitism, nor is it a historical displacement of the dichotomy between colonizers and colonized. Both Nazism and apartheid have become discredited, and the neoracist discourse is careful to avoid any association with these paradigms of racism. Rather, contemporary neo-racist discourses bear remarkable semblance to the anti-Slavic and auto-referential elements in the pan-German discourse. If fascism and colonialism have produced the dominant paradigms of modern racism, contemporary neo-racism and its forerunners in the Pan-German League might be said to constitute a third and minor form. Foucault’s genealogy of racism provides a new understanding of racism as biopolitical governmentality, which might help us analyse and conceptualize the contemporary forms of neo-racism. In particular, the notion of biopolitical governmentality establishes a theoretical framework that invites us to link neo-racism with the rise of neo-liberalism (Venn and Terranova, 2009). Neo-racism is a set of governmental strategies that perform an essential ‘supplementary’ function within a neo-liberal order. If neo-liberalism governs indirectly by in£uencing the economic environment of the population (Harvey, 2005; Brown, 2006), neo-racism provides a means by which a Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 47 neo-liberal government can target directly speci¢c sections of the population. In this sense, neo-racism enables a neo-liberal government to intervene directly in a number of issues where the market is deemed to be insu⁄cient. Foucault’s genealogy of racism inevitably begs the question of resistance. In fact, one of the most important implications of Foucault’s analysis of racism is to problematize the effectiveness of existing anti-racist strategies such as popular education, economic redistribution, or the granting of particular rights to ethnic minorities. These anti-racist strategies are designed to counter such phenomena as prejudice, discrimination, and structural biases. However, if racism is a form of government designed to manage a population, then it is highly unlikely that such anti-racist strategies will be effective. By recasting the problem of racism in terms of biopolitics and government, Foucault challenges us to develop new and more effective anti-racist strategies. In the lecture series Le gouvernement de soi et des autres (1983) and Le courage de la ve¤rite¤ (1984), Foucault revisits ancient Greece in search for models of resistance that do not rely on the generic model of emancipation. Instead of various forms of emancipation from prejudice, discrimination, or ideology, he proposes parrhesia or truth speaking as a form of resistance. Pericles, Socrates, and Diogenes, each representing a particular form of parrhesia, provide us with different models of resistance to contemporary forms of biopolitical governmentality (Hardt, 2010). Speaking truth to power, in particular forms of power that interpellate the individual as subject in order to govern, is central to any form of critical thinking. However, the idea that a particular form of speech might constitute an e¡ective form of resistance to contemporary modes of biopolitical governmentality is perhaps optimistic at best. References Agamben, G. (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Amin, A. (2010) ‘The Remainders of Race’, Theory, Culture & Society 27(1): 1^23. Anonymous (1902) ‘Was ist Rassen-Hygiene?’, Politisch-Anthropologische Revue: Monatsschrift fˇr das soziale und geistige Leben der V˛lker 1(1): 66^7. Anonymous (1909) ‘Aus den Ortsgruppen’, Alldeutsche Bltter 19(7): 58. Arendt, H. (1968) The Origins of Totalitarianism, new edn. New York: Harvest. Balibar, E. (1989) ‘Foucault et Marx: L’en jeu du nominalisme’, pp. 54^75 in Michel Foucault Philosophe: Rencontre internationale Paris, 9, 10, 11 Janvier 1988. Paris: Seuil. Balibar, E. (1991) ‘Is There a ‘‘Neo-Racism’’?’, pp. 17^28 in E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. London: Verso. Barker, M. (1981) The New Racism: Conservatives and the Ideology of the Tribe. London: Junction. Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 48 Theory, Culture & Society 28(5) Bergmann, W. (1996) ‘V˛lkischer Antisemitismus im Kaiserreich’, pp. 449^63 in U. Puschner et al. (eds), Handbuch zur ‘V˛lkischen Bewegung’ 1871^1918. Mˇnchen: Saur. Bertani, M. (2003) ‘Zur Genealogie der Biomacht’, pp. 228^59 in M. Stingelin (ed.) Biopolitik und Rassismus. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Bonhard, O. (1920) Geschichte des Alldeutschen Verbandes. Leipzig: Theodor Weicher. Braun, K. (2007) ‘Biopolitics and Temporality in Arendt and Foucault’, Time & Society 16(1): 5^23. Brown, W. (2006) ‘American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization’, Political Theory 34(6): 690^714. Burchell, G. (1993) ‘Liberal Government and Techniques of the Self’, Economy and Society 22(3): 267^82. Burchell, G., C. Gordon and P. Miller (1991) The Foucault Effect. New York: Prentice Hall. Burleigh, M. and W. Wippermann (1999) ‘The Racial State’, pp. 277^288 in M. Bulmer and J. Solomos (eds), Racism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chamberlain, H. (1907[1899]) Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts, Volksausgabe. Mˇnchen: Bruckmann. Chickering, R. (1984) We Men Who Feel Most German: A Cultural Study of the Pan-German League, 1886^1914. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Class, H. (1904) ‘Zur marokkanischen Frage’, pp. 251^3 in Hauptleitung des Alldeutschen Verbandes (ed.), Zwanzig Jahre alldeutscher Arbeit und Kmpfe. Leipzig: Theodor Weicher. Class, H. (1919) ‘Verkˇndigung von Satzungsnderungen’, Alldeutsche Bltter 29(37): 309. Cooper, M. (2008) Life as Surplus: Biotechnology & Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Deleuze, G. (1986) Foucault. Paris: Minuit. Deleuze, G. (1990) Pourparlers. Paris: Minuit. Elden, S. (2002) ‘The War of Races and the Constitution of the State: Foucault’s ‘‘Il faut de¤fendre la socie¤te¤’’ and the Politics of Calculation’, boundary 2 29(1): 125^51. Eribon, D. (1991) Foucault. Paris: Flammarion. Esposito, R. (2008) B|¤ os: Biopolitics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Fassin, D. (2001) ‘The Biopolitics of Otherness: Undocumented Foreigners and Racial Discrimination in French Public Debate’, Anthropology Today 17(1): 3^7. Fellmeth (1913) ‘Geburtenrˇckgang und Rasseveredelung’, Alldeutsche Bltter 23(27): 220^1. Field, G. (1981) Evangelist of Race: The Germanic Vision of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. New York: Columbia University Press. Foucault, M. (1975) Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard. Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 49 Foucault, M. (1983) ‘On the Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Work in Progress’, pp. 229^52 in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1984) L’usage des plaisirs: Histoire de la sexualite¤ 2. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1990) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction, trans. R. Hurley. New York: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1997) ‘Il faut de¤fendre la socie¤te¤’: Cours au Colle'ge de France 1976. Paris: Seuil/Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1999) Les anormaux: Cours au Colle'ge de France 1974^1975. Paris: Seuil/Gallimard. Foucault, M. (2000) Power: Essential Works of Foucault, Vol. 3. New York: The New Press. Foucault, M. (2001) Dits et e¤crits II, edition quarto. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (2003a) ‘Society Must Be Defended’: Lectures at the Colle¤ge de France 1975^1976, trans. D. Macey. New York: Picador. Foucault, M. (2003b) Le pouvoir psychiatrique: Cours au Colle¤ge de France 1973^ 1974. Paris: Gallimard/Seuil. Foucault, M. (2005) The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Colle¤ge de France 1981^82, trans. A. Davidson. New York: Picador. Foucault, M. (2007) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Colle'ge de France 1977^78, ed. G. Burchell. New York: Picador. Foucault, M. (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Colle¤ge de France 1978^79, trans. G. Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, M. (2010) The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the Colle¤ge de France 1982^83, trans. G. Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gane, M. (2008) ‘Foucault on Governmentality and Liberalism’, Theory, Culture & Society 25(7^8): 353^63. Gilroy, P. (1987) There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation. London: Routledge. Girardin, J.-C. (1998) ‘Avec Michel Foucault, histoire, the¤orie politique et racisme’, Les Temps Modernes 601: 178^96. Hammer, W. (1979) Leben und Werk des Arztes und Sozialanthropologen Ludwig Woltmann. Dissertation. Mainz: Medizinhistorischen Institut der Johannes Gutenberg-Universitt Mainz. Hardt, M. (2010) ‘Militant Life’, New Left Review 64: 151^60. Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2000) Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hartung, G. (1996) ‘V˛lkische Ideologie’, pp. 22^41 in U. Puschner et al. (eds), Handbuch zur ‘V˛lkischen Bewegung’ 1871^1918. Mˇnchen: Saur. Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 50 Theory, Culture & Society 28(5) Harvey, E. (2004) ‘Visions of the Volk: German Women and the Far Right from Kaiserreich to Third Reich’, Journal of Women’s History 16(3): 152^67. Hecht, J. (2000) ‘Vacher de Lapouge and the Rise of Nazi Science’, Journal of the History of Ideas 61(2): 285^304. Hentschel, W. (1909) ‘Ozeanien, die Urheimat der Weiben Rasse’, PolitischAnthropologische Revue: Monatsschrift fˇr das soziale und geistige Leben der V˛lker 7(11): 595^613. Also published as three separate articles in Alldeutsche Bltter 19(18): 155^6; Alldeutsche Bltter 19(20): 171^3; Alldeutsche Bltter 19(21): 179^80. Hobsbawm, E. (1992) ‘Ethnicity and Nationalism in Europe Today’, Anthropology Today 8(1): 3^8. Kelly, M. (2004) ‘Racism, Nationalism and Biopolitics: Foucault’s Society Must Be Defended, 2003’, Contretemps: An Online Journal of Philosophy 4: 58^70. Klausen, J. (2009) The Cartoons that Shook the World. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Kruck, A. (1954) Geschichte des Alldeutschen Verbandes 1890^1939. Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag. Lemke, T. (2007a) Biopolitik zur Einfˇhrung. Hamburg: Junius. Lemke, T. (2007b) Gouvernementalitt und Biopolitik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fˇr Sozialwissenschaften. Macey, D. (1993) The Lives of Michel Foucault. New York: Vintage Books. Macey, D. (2009) ‘Rethinking Biopolitics, Race and Power in the Wake of Foucault’, Theory, Culture & Society 26(6): 186^205. Marchetti, V. (1997) ‘La naissance de la biopolitique’, pp. 239^48 in D. Franche et al. (eds) Au risque de Foucault. Paris: Centre Pompidou. Marks, J. (2000) ‘Foucault, Franks, Gauls: ‘‘Il faut de¤fendre la socie¤te¤’’, The 1976 Lectures at the Colle'ge de France’, Theory, Culture & Society 17(5): 127^47. Mauriac, C. (1976) Et comme l’espe¤rance est violente: Le temps immobile 3. Paris: Grasset. Miller, J. (1993) The Passion of Michel Foucault. New York: Simon & Schuster. Misch, J. (1975) Die politische Philosophie Ludwig Woltmanns: Im Spannungsfeld von Kantianismus, Historischem Materialismus und Sozialdarwinismus. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag. Mosse, G. (1994) ‘Introduction: Houston Stewart Chamberlain’, pp. v^xix in H. Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, trans. J. Lees. New York: Howard Fertig. Patton, P. (1995) ‘Taylor and Foucault on Power and Freedom’, pp. 352^70 in B. Smart (ed.) Michel Foucault: Critical Assessments, Vol. 5. London: Routledge. Popkin, R. (1978) Isaac La Peyre're (1596^1676): His Life, Work and Influence. Leyden: Brill. Rose, N. (2001) ‘The Politics of Life Itself’, Theory, Culture & Society 18(6): 1^30. Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011 Rasmussen ^ Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism 51 Samassa, P. (1909) ‘Der Gegenwrtige Stand unserer Kolonialpolitik’, pp. 413^14 in Hauptleitung des Alldeutschen Verbandes (ed.), Zwanzig Jahre alldeutscher Arbeit und Kmpfe. Leipzig: Theodor Weicher. Sch˛dl, G. (1978) Alldeutscher Verband und deutsche Minderheitenpolitik in Ungarn 1890^1914. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang. Senellart, M. (2007) ‘Course Context’, pp. 369^401 in M. Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Colle'ge de France 1977^78, trans. G. Burchell. New York: Picador. Small, S. (1994) Racialised Barriers: The Black Experience in the United States and England in the 1980s. London: Routledge. Stingelin, M. (2003) ‘Einleitung: Biopolitik und Rassismus’, pp. 7^26 in M. Stingelin (ed.), Biopolitik und Rassismus. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Stoler, A. (1995) Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham: Duke University Press. Szele¤nyi, B. (2007) ‘From Minority to bermensch: The Social Roots of Ethnic Conflict in the German Diaspora of Hungary, Romania and Slovakia’, Past & Present 196: 215^51. Taguieff, P.-A. (1987) La force du pre¤juge¤: Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles. Paris: Gallimard. Taylor, C. (1995a) ‘Foucault on Freedom and Truth’, pp. 326^51 in B. Smart (ed.) Michel Foucault: Critical Assessments, Vol. 5. London: Routledge. Taylor, C. (1995b) ‘Taylor and Foucault on Power and Freedom: A Reply’, pp. 371^6 in B. Smart (ed.) Michel Foucault: Critical Assessments, Vol. 5. London: Routledge. Venn, C. (2009) ‘Neoliberal Political Economy, Biopolitics and Colonialism: A Transcolonial Genealogy of Inequality’, Theory, Culture & Society 26(6): 206^33. Venn, C. and T. Terranova (2009) ‘Introduction: Thinking after Michel Foucault’, Theory, Culture & Society 26(6): 1^11. Weikart, R. (2002) ‘Darwinism and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany 1859^1920’, Journal of the History of Ideas 63(2): 323^44. Weindling, P. (1989) Health, Race and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism 1870^1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wippermann, W. (1996) ‘Antislavismus’, pp. 512^24 in U. Puschner et al. (eds.), Handbuch zur ‘V˛lkischen Bewegung’ 1871^1918. Mˇnchen: Saur. Kim Su Rasmussen has a PhD in the History of Ideas (2003) from the University of Aarhus, Denmark. He is an Assistant Professor, Department for Self-Designed Interdisciplinary Studies, Chonnam National University, Korea. [email: seokilseung@gmail.com] Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at CHONNAM NATIONAL UNIV LIBRARY on September 21, 2011