No abstract

The relationship between pleasure and asceticism has been at the core of debates on western subjectivity at least since Nietzsche. Addressing this theme, this article explores the emergence of ‘non-authoritarian’ health campaigns, which do not propagate abstention from harmful substances but intend to foster a ‘well-balanced subject’ straddling pleasure and asceticism. The article seeks to develop the Foucauldian analytical framework by foregrounding a strategy of subjectivation that integrates desire, pleasure and enjoyment into health promotion. The point of departure is the overwhelming emphasis in the governmentality literature on ‘prudence’, ‘self-responsibility’ or ‘risk calculation’, such that pleasure and desire remain largely absent from the framework. Some insights from Žižek’s work are introduced to help us obtain a firmer grasp on the problematic of ‘the well-balanced subject’. The article argues that, in order to analyse the transformation of interpellation in recent health promotion, we must recognize the mechanism of self-distance or dis-identification as an integral part of the procedure of subjectification.

Foucault's inspiration from Nietzsche in terms of writing critical histories is difficult to overestimate. However, this article advances an interpretation of Foucault's approach to history which focuses on another, less readily evident, dialogue partner, namely the Marxist tradition and, more precisely, French Maoism. The first part of the article details Foucault's involvement in the Maoist-inspired activist group, Groupe d'information sur les prisons (GIP). It is argued that Foucault's practical experience from GIP left crucial marks on his contemporaneous statements on the genealogical method and his critique of "totalizing institutions," "uniform discourse" and "juridical universality." The second part of the article offers a close reading of Foucault's reflections on genealogy in his 1976 lecture series which demonstrates how the Maoist activist principles noticeably resonate in these statements. The aim of the article is threefold. First, to bring attention to largely neglected sources of inspiration for Foucault's genealogical approach, which complement those represented by Nietzsche. Second, it seeks to obtain a better understanding of Foucault's relationship to Marxism, a relationship often portrayed as unambiguously negative. And third, the goal is to demonstrate how principles developed in Maoist political activism are not only realized in Foucault's activities within the GIP, but also in his lecture-hall formulations of genealogy, power, and critique.

Artiklen tager afsaet i den udbredelse af dialog som ledelsesinstrument, som har kunnet iagttages de senere år inden for mange forskellige velfaerdsområder. Den fremlaegger den påstand, at der er ved at ske en forskydning i ledelsesrelationerne, som indebaerer, at den før talende ekspert -laegen, sundhedsrådgiveren, socialarbejderen, lederen -nu skal tale mindre, mens den førhen tavse -patienten, den udstødte, medarbejderen -nu skal tale mere. Hermed ser vi altså en forandring i, hvem der har mulighed for at fremsige noget gyldigt om det, der skal ledes. Udgangspunktet for denne omvending er en moderne vestlig forestilling om, at den tavse nødvendigvis må vaere undertrykt eller berøvet for ansvar, mens talen udgør vejen til frisaettelse. Artiklen viser imidlertid, hvordan dialogen ordner den talendes tale, således at bestemte former for selv-ledelse bliver mulig. Karlsen & Villadsen viser, hvordan såvel sundhedsfremme, socialt arbejde og lederudvikling udøves med reference til en saerlig subjekt-konstruktion, nemlig "det spaltede subjekt", som både rummer god vilje og modvilje. Artiklens diagnose søger altså at udlaese en generel tendens; imidlertid viser analyserne også, hvordan dialogteknologien antager forskellig udformning inden for de specifikke faglige og institutionelle felter, som den indgår i.

This article suggests that certain intertwinements can be discerned between contemporary public policies and post-structural thinking, emblematically represented by Foucault and scholars drawing upon his work. The article demonstrates that the post-structural perspective on power, while recognising its strengths and efficacy, confines observers to a particular form of analytical critique, which sets specific limits for what can be observed and debated. The position of Nikolas Rose is discussed with a specific attention to his diagnosis of the adoption of 'community' as a governmental category and his understanding of the relationship between power and critique. A significant challenge for this form of critique is the recent embracing of concepts of 'diversity' and 'pluralism', both in welfare reforms and service arrangements. Another difficulty is posed by how to engage with the material conditions of critical practice which implies analytical critique and resistance through creative self-formation. The article suggests some dislocations of the generalized Foucaultian position on public policy that seem increasingly necessary in the present situation.