Upon receiving the chair History of Systems of Thought, philosopher Michel Foucault gave annual lectures at the Collège de France from 1970 until his death in 1984. These lectures, in which he further advanced his work, were summarised from audio recordings and edited by Michel Senellart as Lectures at the Collège de France ().
They were subsequently translated into English and further edited by Graham Burchell and published posthumously by St Martin's Press. The lectures have provided insight into various concepts like biopolitics, critique, and governmentality, which has contributed to the Foucault–Habermas debate.
Overview of the lectures +TitleYear of lectureYear of publication (in English)SourceLectures on the Will to Know1970-19712013Penal Theories and Institutions 1971-19722019The Punitive Society 1972-19732018Psychiatric Power1973-19742008Abnormal1974-19752004Society Must be Defended1975-19762003No lecture1976-1977No lectureSecurity, Territory, Population1977-19782007The Birth of Biopolitics1978-19792008On the Government of the Living1979-19802014Subjectivity and Truth1980-19812019The Hermeneutics of the Subject1981-19822005The Government of Self and Others1982-19832011Courage of Truth: The Government of Self and Others II1983-19842012
Contents
Lectures on the Will to Know (1970–1971)
This period marks Foucault's methodological switch from 'archaeology' to 'genealogy' (though according to Foucault he never abandoned the former), as well as transition in his career and broader thought: the Dutch TV-televised Chomsky–Foucault debate of November 1971 occurred only a few months after his inaugural lecture at the was published under the name (later translated into English and published as the appendix to The Archaeology of Knowledge, under the name "The Discourse On Language"). A week after that lecture originally took place (in December 1970), his first full lecture course was delivered at the under the name "Lectures on the Will to Know"; Foucault promised to explore, "fragment by fragment," the "morphology of the will to knowledge" through alternating historical periods, inquiries and theoretical questioning.
The first phase of Foucault's thought is characterized by knowledge construction of various types and how each thread of knowledge systems combine to produce a series of networks (Foucault uses the term 'Grille') to produce a successful fully functional 'subject' and a workable fully functional human society. Foucault uses the terms epistemological indicators and epistemological breaks to show, contrary to popular opinion, that these "indicators" and "breaks" require skilled trained technical group of 'specialists' in the various knowledge fields and a trained rigorous professionalized regulatory body of which know-how on behalf of those who use the terms (discourse formations or "speech/discourse") with a professional body that can make the terms used stand up to further rational scrutiny. Scientific knowledge for Foucault isn't an advancement for human progress as is so often portrayed by the human sciences (such as the humanities and the social sciences) but is much more of a subtle method of organizing and producing firstly an individual subject, and secondly, a fully functional society functioning as a self-replicated control apparatus not as a group of 'free' atomized individuals but as a collective societal, organised (or drilled) unit both in terms of industrial production, labour power and a militarily organized unit (in the guise of armies) which is beneficial for the production of "epistemological indicators" or "breaks" enabling society to "control itself" rather than have external factors (such as the state for example) to do the job.
In the inaugural lecture course "The Will to Know", Foucault goes into detail on how the 'natural order of things' from the 16th century transpired into a fully organised human society which includes a "governmentality" apparatus and a complex machine (by "governmentality", Foucault means a state apparatus which is conceived as a scientific machine) as a rational organizing principle. This was the first time (contrary to popular opinion that this was a rather late invention in Foucault's thought) that Foucault started to go into the Greek dimensions of his thought of which he would return to in later lectures towards the end of his life. First of all a few pointers should be made explicit on certain points. Foucault mentions the western notions of money, production and trade (Greek society) starting about 800 BCE to 700 BCE. However, other 'non-western' societies also had these very same problems and is automatically assumed by some historians that these were entirely western inventions. This isn't entirely true; China and India for example had the most sophisticated trading and monetary institutions by the 6th century B.C.E., indeed the concept of a corporation existed in IndiaChanakya Arthashastra Translated by R Shamasastry pp. 541–547 from at least 800 BCE and lasted until at least 1000 C.E."The examination reveals that business people on the Indian subcontinent utilized the corporate form from a very early period. The corporate form (e.g., the shreni) was being used in India from at least 800 B.C., and perhaps even earlier, and was in more or less continuous use since then until the advent of the Islamic invasions around 1000 A.D. This provides evidence for the use of the corporate form centuries before the earliest Roman proto-corporations. In fact, the use of the sreni [= shreni] in Ancient India was widespread including virtually every kind of business, political and municipal activity. Moreover, when we examine how these entities were structured, governed and regulated we find that they bear many similarities to corporations and, indeed, to modern US corporations. The familiar concerns of agency costs and incentive effects are both present and addressed in quite similar ways as are many other aspects of the law regulating business entities. Further, examining the historical development of the sreni indicates that the factors leading to the growth of this corporate form are consistent with those put forward for the growth of organizational entities in Europe. These factors include increasing trade, methods to contain agency costs, and methods to patrol the boundaries between the assets of the sreni and those of its members (i.e., to facilitate asset partitioning and reduce creditor information costs)." Vikramaditya S. Khanna The Economic History Of The Corporate Form In Ancient India 2005 Most importantly there was a social security system in India at this time. Foucault begins his notions from these lectures on the very notion of truth and the 'Will to knowledge' and the challenge is on when Foucault asks the very question of the entire western philosophical and political tradition: Namely knowledge (at least scientific knowledge) and its close association with truth is entirely desirable and is politically and philosophically natural and neutral. First of all Foucault puts these notions (at least its political notions) to a thorough test, firstly, Foucault asks the politically 'neutral' question on the very first appearance of money which became not only an important economic symbol but above all else became a measure of value and a unit of account.
Money once established as a social process and social reality had (if one could say the word) an extremely rocky and precarious history. First of all while it had a social reality but the actual social authority to use money didn't develop a standard practice or knowledge on how to use it; it was rather undisciplined. Kings and emperors could squander large taxation revenues with impunity regardless of the consequences. They could default on repayments on loans as witnessed during the Hundred Years' War and During the Anglo-French War (1627–1629).Richard W. Kaeuper Bankers to the Crown: The Riccardi of Lucca and Edward I 1973 Above all else kings and monarchs could take out forced loans and get others(their subjects) to pay for these forced loans and to add insult to injury get them to pay interest on the loans at extortionate rates of interest charged on the loans because they and their advisers regarded it as their own 'income'. However, whole societies were dependent on money particularly when the whole of society had to use and be ready for its function.Calendar Of Patent Rolls February 1255 pp. 400–401Calendar Of Patent Rolls July 1255 pp. 439–440 Money took at least 3,000 years of history to get a more disciplined approach and became the sole prerogative of the fiscal responsibility of the state after the medieval 'order of things' was entirely dismantled 'to get it right' namely; the ruthlessness and rigorous efficiency needed for its proper function and it wasn't until the 16th century with the advent of modern political economy with its analysis of production, labour and trade you then get a sense of why money, particularly its relationship with capital and its complex relationship with the rest of society conversion, from labour power into money via the essential route of surplus value became a much maligned and misunderstood category and hot potato. Foucault now is asking how is it that modern western political economy, together with political philosophy and political science came to ask the question concerning money but was utterly perplexed by it (this is a question that particularly irritated and irked Karl Marx throughout his life)? That money and its various association with production, labour, government and trade was beyond doubt but its exact relationship with the rest of society was entirely missed by economists but yet still its version of events was entirely accepted as true? Foucault begins to try to go into the whole production of truth (both philosophical and political) its whole "breaks" "discontinuity" 'epistemological unconscious' and theoretical splitting "Episteme". From this Greek period starting from 800 BCE Foucault pursues the path of scientific and political knowledge the emergence and conditions of possibility for philosophical knowledge and ends up with "the problem of political knowledge (i.e. Aristotelian notions of the political animal) of what is necessary in order to govern the city and put it right." He then divided his work on the history of systems of thought into three interrelated parts, the "re-examination of knowledge, the conditions of knowledge, and the knowing subject."
Penal Theories and Institutions (1971–1972) In these lectures, to be published in English in 2020, Foucault used the first precursor of Discipline and Punish to study the foundations of what he calls "disciplinary institutions" (punitive power) and the productive dimensions of penalty.
The Punitive Society (1972–1973)