Regulating Social Life

Discourses on the Youth and the Dispositif of Age

Helena Ostrowicka

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9783030168872
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030168889
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book presents the original concept of the 'dispositif of age', combining post-Foucauldian analytics of the dispositif, discourse and governmentality with the historical semantics of Reinhart Koselleck to explore the functions of the notion of youth in the regulation of social life. Making use of examples from sources including scientific and media statements, youth policy programmes, and strategies at international (European) and local (Polish) levels, the author shows how this concept of youth supports processes of social regulation and contributes to the implementation of political goals as specific responses to issues such as radicalization and violence, unemployment, and economic crisis. This book will be of interest not only to scholars of discourse and youth studies, but also to all post-Foucauldian researchers with an interest in going beyond simple 'applicationism'.

© The Author(s) 2019

Helena OstrowickaRegulating Social LifePostdisciplinary Studies in Discoursehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16888-9_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Helena Ostrowicka¹

(1)

Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, Kazimierz Wielki University, Bydgoszcz, Poland

Helena Ostrowicka

Email: [email protected]

Keywords

IntegrationFoucaultKoselleck

End Abstract

The term youth is not a neutral word, but a concept that conveys evaluative meanings ​​ and related power relationships. As a category of an everyday, common-sense understanding of the world, it is an element of knowledge that assumes the obvious and natural character of categorization based on age difference. The problematization of this knowledge by showing its relationship with power, that is, showing youth as a being that is given to be thought of (Foucault 1978) and, at the same time, predestined to be controlled, was the goal of the empirical studies described here. The aim of the theoretical considerations presented in the book was to develop the concept of the “dispositif of age” (Ostrowicka 2015). In this study, I reach for the theoretical inspirations for Michel Foucault’s (i.a. 2008, 2009, 2014) and Reinhart Koselleck’s (i.a. 1997, 2002, 2006) ideas and describe the mechanisms of power of youth discourses, showing their functions in regulating social life.

I have expanded the findings so far by the categories of historical semantics and their connection with the analytics of the dispositif derived from Foucault’s writings. From the perspective of the processes of temporalization of the modern dictionary described by Koselleck, youth appears as a “concept of movement” and its strategic function becomes even more pronounced in the context of discourses describing contemporary social phenomena in the categories of prevention and prophylaxis, investment, and mobilization. An adequate theoretical context, which makes it possible to cover as broadly as possible the multidirectional relationships of knowledge and power in the discursive construction of identity is, in my opinion, the Foucauldian concept of governmentality . And it was this that provides the basic epistemological framework for this study. What is worth emphasizing is that I understand the idea of governmentality broadly as the development of the idea of ​​knowledge–power, the “art” of governing and controlling, which is based not on only one rationality, i.e. on neoliberal rationality. The knowledge–power–subject relationships underlying this concept are a lens through which I incorporate other theoretical approaches to the issues of language, knowledge, and politics into the analyses. Additional theoretical inspirations are thus provided by works on contemporary issues of the production and distribution of knowledge, risk society, and critical youth studies. Theoretical considerations permeate the entire book since they provide a context for the analytical capture of certain aspects and examples of governing using the concept of youth. Therefore, in the introduction, I explain the key concepts for further consideration: governmentality, discourse, dispositif, and the research perspective which I have used.

1.1 To Go Beyond Applicationism—The Post-Foucauldian Research Perspective

I link the methodological involvement in research on governing to the search for the possibility of integrating research perspectives on two levels. Firstly, within the framework of the cognitive tools derived from Foucault’s work, and secondly by integrating Foucault’s ideas with the proposals of other authors. Consequently, the conducted research can be placed in the wide range of post-Foucauldian studies (cf. e.g. Bührmann et al. 2007; Ostrowicka 2016; Nowicka-Franczak 2017), since they always, to some extent, transform the concepts of the French philosopher.

In this study, the epistemological framework is delineated by the concepts of governmentality, discourse, and dispositif. Particular attention is paid to one of the main values ​​of the category of governmentality in social studies which is its potential to integrate theoretical and methodological currents, and thus to exit the routine of what William Walters describes as “applicationism”—the monotonous application of Foucault’s “toolbox” (Walters 2011).

The concept of research adopted here assumes the superior position of the idea of ​​governmentality as an epistemological framework, while the category of the dispositif occupies a position equivalent to the temporalization of the concepts described by Koselleck. Such a perspective implies the adoption of the assumption that changes in the scope of the concept of youth may appear independently of and irrelevantly to the dispositif of age, but they may also be its element. On the other hand, bearing in mind the horizontal dimension of integration, it is worth noting that the combination of the mentioned categories (governmentality and dispositif) creates the ground for the construction of new analytical and heuristic concepts. Its effect in this book is the theoretical and analytical model of the dispositif of age discussed in Chapter 2.

Governmentality understood as a superior epistemological framework is characterized by polysemicity and the possibility of opening and organizing rules for the interpretation of social phenomena. It is worth emphasizing that the research potential of the category of governmentality lies, on the one hand, in its historical and philosophical nature, and on the other, in its attractiveness as a methodological category. These three aspects of governmentality are essential in my book.

The historicity of the category of governmentality refers us to the process of “governmentalization of the state” as described by Foucault, to the contexts of the development of security mechanisms, and to the “discovery” of the concept of population. It points out that population is both the human species and the public which may be analysed in terms of opinions, customs, behaviours, habits, but also fears, superstitions, and expectations, and which has become an object of educational practices, social campaigns, and persuasions (Foucault 2008). The historical perspective of governmentality opens a field of meanings and stimulates their reorganization in the various areas of research constructing the concept of youth.

On the other hand, in the philosophical aspect of the category of governmentality, the aporias inscribed in it, emphasizing above all the coexistence of coercion and freedom in social life, are particularly prolific for theorization and research explorations. Consequently, in the thinking about power relations, the concept of governmentality leads to the abandonment of the popular oppositions between resistance and submission, between freedom and coercion. Although these aporias permeate all of Foucault’s writing, it seems particularly evident in the shift of the philosopher’s interest to the notion of governmentality. In this perspective, concepts such as prevention, education, or participation are considered as processes of “controlling” others and oneself, a specific “art of governing” “free subjects” using “regimes of truth” (cf. the rich literature on governmentality studies, e.g. Rose 1990; Burchell et al. 1991; Peters et al. 2009; Dean 2010; Bröckling et al. 2011; Walters 2011).

An additional argument for recognizing governmentality as a superior epistemological perspective is its methodological potential for capturing power relations. It is about studying relations at different levels between knowledge, power, and a subject, between action and knowledge, especially expertise and scientific language (see Dean 2010; Rose 1990; Simons et al. 2009). In this perspective, governmentality becomes a specific research perspective with integrating potential. It allows the adoption of the perspective of meetings (Walters 2011), that is one where integration of Foucauldian ideas with other theoretical trends becomes possible. Basing my thoughts on governmentality as a research framework, I propose an analysis of the regulating social life in terms of power dispositifs.

The category of the dispositif brings new opportunities to combine reflection on the macro-social relations of power with discourse microanalyses (Van Dyk and Angermüller 2010). In his lectures delivered at the Collège de France, Foucault investigated the interweaving of the dispositif of security with the dispositifs of discipline and law, revealing a wide and complex field of governmentality. Post-Foucauldian research differs in terms of the importance attributed to the dispositif in relation to governmentality . However, regardless of detailed theoretical preferences, what Foucault calls governmentality sets the possible framework for the analysis of power relations (Foucault 2009).

The dispositif analytical strategy adopted in these studies assumes a circular relationship between discourse and dispositif. In the Foucauldian perspective, “discourses are, therefore, about what can be said, and thought, but also about who can speak, when, where, and with what authority. Discourses embody meaning and social relationships, they constitute both subjectivity and power relations… Discourses construct certain possibilities for thought…We do not (just) speak discourse. The discourse speaks us” (Ball 1990, pp. 17–18). The approach used here integrates Foucault’s and Koselleck’s concepts, emphasizing the regulatory significance of discourse. It means adopting the assumption that the governance of a young subject is something more than merely linguistic articulation. And I will attempt to present this “extra” using the concept of the dispositif of age, temporalization, and universalization of the concept of youth.

The above reflections on the meaning of governmentality, dispositif, and discourse head towards the governmentality as an integrating framework for the analysis of relations of power—research into the discursive and extradiscursive mechanisms of regulating social life.

In this perspective, regulating social life is seen as a practice combining diverse discourses, institutions, activities, and other non-discursive ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The Dispositif of Age: Dispositif, the Concept of Youth, and Temporalization
• 3. The 3-C Discourses and Governing by the Notion of Youth
• 4. Regulating Social Life: Between Experience and Expectation
• 5. Conclusion
• Back Matter