London School of Economics

Political Thought and the Limits of Orthodoxy: A Response to Curtis

Author(s): Peter Miller and Nikolas Rose
Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), pp. 590-597
Published by: Wiley on behalf of London School of Economics and Political Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/591573
Accessed: 31-10-2015 09:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley, London School of Economics and Political Science and London School of Economics are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Peter Miller and Nikolas Rose

Politicalthoughtand the limitsof

orthodoxy:a responseto Curtis

It is curiousthatone articleshouldproducesucha defensivereaction,

while an entire field of related literaturecan be ignored without
discomfort(Curtis 1995). Once again, polemic substitutesfor argu-
ment in sociologicaldiscourse.Those for whom'thestate'appearsan
unproblematicterm in the analysisof power,who seek the intelligibi-
lityof our presentthroughthe dialecticof the forcesand relationsof
production,or who find it productiveto evaluatepowerrelationsvia
the one-dimensionaloppositionof dominationand emancipation,will
inevitablybe disappointedby the currentliteratureon government
and governmentality.One of the principal aims of our paper,
originallywrittensomesix yearsago, wasto drawattentionto a variety
of studies which had shown the value of posing the question of
politicalpower differently.' It was timely,we felt, for sociologiststo
learn the central lesson of such studies: the constitutiverole of an
arrayof authorities,formsof knowledge,and technologiesof conduct
that are fundamentalto the activityof politics,but whichlie 'beyond
the state'.
Our choiceof startingpointwasa responseto the limitsof so much
sociologicaland quasi-Marxistwriting on political forms, and, in
particular,to the limits of the language of 'the state' and 'state
formation'for analysingthe diversemechanismsand configurations
of political rule.2 We regret that the rejoinder published here
reinforcesour originalview. We had hoped to stimulatedebateand
productivedisagreement,but this responsemerelyre-cyclesfamiliar
nostrumsof 'marxist'sociology,now posing as solutionsto the very
analyticalproblemsthat they themselvesgenerated.We are happyto
leaveit to readersto considerthe allegationsof ambiguity,deception
and sharppractice,and to evaluatefor themselvesthe extent to which
our article conforms to this 'representation'.It may be useful,
however, to draw out a few points that may further constructive
debate in the various areas where our argument has made some
impact.3
It was not our aim to write an essay on Foucault. No doubt
commentaryhas its place,and we have examinedFoucault'sthought
13JS Volumeno.46 Issueno.4 I)ecernberS995 ISSN0007-Z3Z5 g)IondonSchoolof pco7z0mics ]995

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Politicalthoughtandthelimitsof orthodoxy 591

elsewhere(Miller1987).4Rather,we wantedto drawattentionto the

empiricalscopeof recentstudiesof governmentand governmentality,
their capacityto escape from commentaryto address directly the
practicesand presuppositionsthathavemadeup our present.It seems
necessaryto re-iteratewhatthese studiesare about.Curtisassertsthat
government is a 'foundationalcategory' for our analysis,calls re-
peatedlyfor a 'definition'of government,and accusesus of failingto
choose between different options which he kindly offers to us. But
'government',as deployedin thisliterature,is lessa conceptdefinedin
advancethan a field of investigation,within which a multiplicityof
questions can be posed concerning the ways in which the lives of
individualsare acted upon under different regimes of authority.
Analyticsof government and governmentalitydo not offer a new
theory of the state, politicsor modernity,nor even a new 'theoryof
power'.Rather,they addressthe operationof power,and of political
power,from a particularperspective.Mostgenerally,this perspective
concerns the dimension of our historycomposed by the invention,
contestation,operationalizationand transformationof more or less
rationalizedschemes, programmes, techniques and devices which
seek to shape conduct so as to achieve certain ends. This neither
extends government to the whole of 'human interaction'as Curtis
suggests, nor seeks to draw everything back to a single locus or
institution,but multipliesthe sites of emergence of technologiesof
rule and the forms they assume. One can thus speak of the
governmentof a school, a factory,a family, and indeed of oneself.
'Governmentality', as the term was used by Foucault,suggestedthat,
from at leastthe eighteenthcentury,rulers,statesmenand politicians
came to see their tasks in terms of government,and to ask who can
govern, whatis thejustificationfor government,whator who should
be governed and how. This does not treat 'the exercise of political
power exclusivelyas a rational politicalscience',as Curtis suggests.
Rather,it pointsto the fact that,sinceaboutthis time, those seekingto
exercise power have sought to rationalizetheir authority,and these
rationalitieshave a systematicity,a historyand an effectivity:enabling
both the exercise of government and its critique.5Unfortunately,
Curtisfails to comprehendthe objectof these investigations,and we
would point readerstowardsthe extensivediscussionsof government
and governmentalityreadilyavailablein the existing literature(Bur-
chell, Gordon and Miller 1991; Dean 1994; see also Barry,Osborne
and Rose 1996).
One aimof our articlewasto argue thata weaknessof conventional
accounts of state and politics was their focus upon the internal
organizationof the politicalapparatusand the legitimatingdiscourses
of philosophy and jurisprudence,and their marginalizationof the
activepart playedby expertisefrom accountancyto psychiatryin the
waysin which programmesand strategiesof governmenthave been

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
592 PeterMillerandNikolusRose
invented, operationalizedand territorializedin diverse spaces and
locales.6We sought to emphasizethe conditionsand implicationsof
the waysin which,fromthe eighteenthcenturyonwards,government
has become dependent upon the truths provided by the positive
knowledgesof the human,social,and economicworld,and thosewho
profess them. Recent studies of governmentalityhave producedan
arrayof rigorous and innovativestudies of specificstrategies,tech-
niques and practicesfor the conduct of conduct,and elucidatedthe
constitutive role of expertise in problematizing,inventing, and
regulatingparticulardomainsof individualand collectivebehaviour.
We would particularlynote investigationsof the following: the
emergence of social insurance(Defert 1991; Donzelot 1991; Ewald
1986);education(Hunter1988;Hunter 1994);accounting(Hopwood
and Miller 1994 and Power 1994); crime control (O'Malley1992;
Stenson 1993); the regulation of unemployment (Walters 1994);
povertyand insecurity(Dean 1991;Procacci1991; 1993):strategiesof
development;7medicine, psychiatry,and the regulation of health
(Castel1988; Castel,Casteland Lovell 1982; Millerand Rose 1986;
Osborne 1993; Greco 1993); child abuse and sexual offences (Bell
1993); and new social strategiesof empowerment(Baistow 1995;
Barron 1995;Cruikshank1994).This literaturedoes not constitutea
homogeneous'school',and differentauthorshave followeddifferent
paths and addressed different questions. None the less, such ap-
proaches have proved attractive- though not unproblematic- to
researchersin a range of disciplines,includingpoliticalphilosophy
(Tully 1989; Hindess 1996) and socialhistory(Joyce 1994). In turn,
these studies relate to a wider literature that, whilst not drawing
explicitlt on notions of governmentality,has discernibleaffiliations
withit (Hacking1990,1991; Porter1986,1992,1995; Meyer1986).It
would not be too much to suggest that this constitutesa progressive
'researchprogramme'(Lakatos1970).
Our own detailed genealogical analyses of the regulation of
economiclife, of accounting,of the enterpriseand economiccitizen-
ship, of new managerialtechnologies,of psy expertisein the military,
education,familiesand therapies,of consumptionand much more
shouldbe locatedwithinthisfieldof enquiry.8This workis citedin the
paperCurtisis discussing,and it is thus ratherpuzzlingto be charged
with failing to address the specificity of authorities, of lacking
historicalspecificity,andof ignoringthe questionof agency.However,
one rapidlyrealizesthat this narrativehas a familiarplot: the usual
suspectsare being roundedup on suspicionof 'idealism'.We hope we
will be excused for declining to enter into the nineteenth-century
philosophicaldispute between materialismand idealismwhich has
done much to constrainan understandingof the materialityof ideas,
of the linksbetweenrationalitiesand technologiesas we put it in our
article, and of the embeddednessof thought in the most prosaic

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Politicalthoughtandthelimitsof orthodoxy 593

aspectsof social and economic life. These outdated antinomiescan

playno constructiverole in criticalenquirytoday.
The perspectivewe advocaterequiresone difficult,yet crucialshift
in thinking:one mustabandonthe comfortingcalculusof domination
and emancipationfor the analysisand evaluationof strategiesand
relationsof power. It wasalwaysratherunedifyingto see sociologists
so easilyadjudicatingin these terms upon who mrerethe heroes and
who the villains,who the fools and who the knaves.But the issuesof
ethicaland politicalevaluationthatconfrontus todaycertainlycannot
be resolvedby sucha one-dimensionalyardstick.Two complementary
shifts of philosophicalperspectiveare required (cf. Gordon 1980).
One must discard the ethical polarizationof the subject-objectre-
lationshipwhich privilegessubjectivityas the form of moral auton-
omy, and recognizethatpowercan takethe form of subjectification as
well as objectification.Further, one must abandon the belief that
regimes of power rest upon a falsificationof human subjectivity,in
favour of a recognitionthat regimes of power promote and utilize
those knowledgesand technologiesthat constituteour selvesand our
truths(cf. Miller 1987). The calculusof dominationand liberationis
unhelpful, not becausewe live in some consensualuniverse,but be-
cause poweractsas much throughpracticesthat'makeup subjects'as
free persons,as it does throughprocessesof exclusionand denial.9Of
course, different relationsof power configure the play of freedoms
and determinationsdifferently.Yet todaymore than ever, it is crucial
to address the intrinsiclinks between capacitiesof persons and the
ethicalregimes,ideals,and formsof knowledgethatconstitutewhatit
is to be autonomous,free, self-possessed.The taskfor criticalthought,
we suggest,is to addressthe waysin whichpoliticalreason,regulatory
regimes, health, welfare and educationalservices,as well as major
privatecorporations(Millerand O'Leary1994b)have embeddedand
instrumentalizedthe languageof freedom and choice in novel forms
of administration,and have done so in large partby appealingto and
seeking to promote particularregimes of subjectivity.Curtisfails to
appreciatethatthe practiceof freedomis neverthe absenceof govern-
ment.'°
Curtis'sfixationwith'thestate'leadshim into furtherconfusion.He
views the language of governmentas positing some singularitythat
threatensto 'replace'(p. 580) his cherishedidea of the state:his sol-
ution is to declarethe statethe source,origin or point of referenceof
activitiesof government.But analyticsof governmentneitheroccupy
the same conceptualspace as the socio-philosophicalconcept of the
state nor fulfil the same explanatoryrole. DespiteCurtis'sattemptto
demonstratethe contrary,we do not deny the existence of'states'
understoodas politicalapparatusesand their associateddevicesand
techniquesof rule.ll Our point was, rather, that one is under no
obligationto account for such assemblagesin the philosophicaland

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 594 PeterMillerand NikolasRose

constitutional language of the nineteenth century,l2 still less to

underpin this misleadingaccount with a theoreticalinfrastructure
derived from nineteenth century social and politicaltheory which
accords'the state' a quite illusorynecessity,functionalityand terri-
torialization.The distinctionbetween politicalrationalitiesand tech-
nologies of governmentproposed in our articleis only one starting
point for an alternativeanalytic.But the aim of this distinctionwasto
direct attention to the heterogeneous intellectual and technical
conditionsfor the historicallyspecificassemblagesthatlinkaspirations
of rulerswith the conductof the ruled throughauthoritiesas diverse
as bureaucrats,lawyers,parents,accountants,managers,and teach-
ers. The unificationand divisionof the politicaland the non-political,
in thought and in practice, is thus a problemfor analyses of the
contemporaryterritorialization of powerand striationof the spaceof
rule, not itspremise.
There was a further motivating force for our article and the
conceptualtools we proposed. This was our sense that, despite the
voluminousliteratureon the New Right,sociologistshad often failed
to appreciatefully the shifts in mechanismsof rule, technologiesfor
the conduct of conduct within the political developmentsusually
termed 'neo-liberalism'.l3 It is for our readersto judge whetherour
workhas contributedto makingthese phenomenamoreintelligible.14
We find it instructivethatCurtis,havinggrudginglycommendedour
accountof neo-liberalismas 'cogent'(p. 586), then assertsthatwhatis
at stakein the one examplehe discussesis 'thecentralizationof power
. . . by a statesystem. . . by virtueof its controlover finance'(p. 587).
On the contrary,we suggest, this assertiondemonstratesstarklythe
limitsof this politicalimagination.Our articlearosefrom the need to
understand far better than we do at present the recent profound
changes in politicaland administrativesystemsin the Westand their
connection with technical,intellectual,and ethical transformations
'beyondthe state'.
(Dateaccepted:May1995) PeterMiller
Departmentof Accountingand Finance
LondonSchoolof Economics
and
NikolasRose
Departmentof Sociology
Goldsmiths College

NO I IiS

1. A longer version of the paper was 2. Others sought to address this

widely circulated in 1989 under the title problem in terms of 'governance' (e.g.
'Rethinking the State'. Dunsire 1990; Leftwich 1994; Rhodes

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Politicalthoughtandthelimitsof orthodoxy 595

1994,and especiallythe paperscollected 12. On the notion of assemblage,see

in Kooiman 1993). Rhodes (1995) in-
structivelydelineatesthe ways in which
the ideaof governancehasbeen utilized;
we suggest that our perspectiveover-
comesa numberof difficultiescausedby
the slippage in this literaturebetween
descriptionand evaluation,and between
'rhetoricsandrealities'.SeealsoGrabosky
(1994)on the 'limitsof government'.
3. Criticisms similar to those put
forwardby Curtishavealso appearedin
accounting,for example Moore (1991),
Neimark (1990). See also Miller and
O'Leary(1994c) in particularpp. 111-
113.
4. Weshouldpointout thatwedo not
'claimto rely'upon the workof Latour,as
Curtissuggests,but merelyutilizesome
conceptsdevelopedbyLatourandCallon
in formulatingour argument.
5. To speakof rationalitiesof govern-
ment is neither to suggest that govern-
mentabidesby sometimelessprincipleof
'rationality'
nor to locatethe genealogyof
governmentwithin a linear history of
23(3).
. . .
Miller and O'Leary, 1994b, and Rose,
1996c:Ch.8).
13. Of coursethereare notableexcep-
tions.See for instanceHeelasand Morris
1992;Keatand Abercrombie1991.
14. We have discussed these issues
further in a number of recent articles:
Rose 1996a,1996b.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott,A. 1988 The Systemof Profe.s.sions,
Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Baistow, K. 1995 'Liberationor regu-
lation? Some paradoxes of empower-
ment,CriticalSocialPolicy42: 3}116.
Barron, A. 1995 'The Enactment of
freedom: empowering parents and
governingschools',workingpapergiven
at London,Historyof the PresentSemi-
nar,March1995.
Barry,A., Osborne,T. andRose,N.1993
Liberali.sm,
Neo-Liberalismand Governmen-
tality,specialissue of Economyand Society

ratlona Izatlon.
6. There is a considerablebody of Barry,A., Osborne,T. andRose,N. (eds)
literaturethat discussesexpertisein the 1996 Foucault and Political Reason, Lon-
context of professionalization.See for don: UCLPress.
instance Abbott (1988), Haskell (1984) Bell, V. 1993 'Governingchildhood',
and Perkin(1989). Economyand Society22(3):39s405.
7. We refer here to recent work on Burchell, G., Gordon,C. and Miller, P.
developmentstrategiesbeingundertaken (eds) 1991 The FoucaultEffect: Studiesin
by DavidCraigand Doug Porterin the Governmentality,HemelHempstead:Har-
Divisionof Societyand Environmentat vesterWheatsheaf.
theAustralianNationalUniversity,andin Castel,R.1988 TheRegulationof Madne.ss,
otherongoingresearchat the ANU. Cambridge:Polity.
8. Our previousarticle (see in par- Castel,F., Castel,R. and lnvell, A. 1982
ticular fn 13) lists much of this work. The PsychiatricSociety, New York: Co-
Work published since includes: Miller lumbiaUniversityPress.
and Rose 1995; Miller 1994a and b; Cruikshank,B. 1994 'The will to em-
Hopwood and Miller 1994; Millerand power: technologiesof citizenshipand
O'Leary1993, 1994a and b; Millerand the War on Poverty', Socialist Review
Rose 1994; Rose 1993a, 1993b, 1993c; 23(4):29-55.
Barry, Osborne and Rose 1993; Rose Curtis, B. 1995 'Taking the state back
1994a,1994b,1995, 1996a,b andc. out: Roseand Milleron politicalpower',
9. This pointis missedentirelyin the BritishJournalof Sociology46(4):575-89.
criticismsby Moore(1991) and Neimark Dean,M. 1991 TheC'orLstitution of Poverty,
(1990). London:Routledge.
10. This point is argued in detail in Dean, M. 1994 C'ritical and Effective
Rose 1993aand c. Histories,London:Routledge.
11. See for instancethe excellenthis- Defert, D. 1 l "'Popular Life" and
99

torical discussion of such mechanisms InsuranceTechnology',in Burchell,

(J.

providedin Elias1969,and Elias1982. Gordon and P. Miller (eds) The

(v.

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
596 PeterMiller and NikolasRose

FoucaultEffect, Hemel Hempstead:Har- Kooiman,J. (ed.) 1993 ModernGovern-

vesterWheatsheaf. ance, London:Sage.
Donzelot,J. 1991 'The Mobilisationof Lakatos, I. 1970 Falsificationand the
society',in G. Burchell,C. Gordonand P. methodologyof scientificresearchpro-
Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect, Hemel grammes,in I. Lakatosand A. Musgrave,
Hempstead:HarvesterWheatsheaf. (eds)Criticismand theGrowthof Knowledge,
Dunsire, A. 1990 'Holisticgovernance', Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
PublicPolicyand Administration5(1):4-19. Leftwich,A. 1994'Governance,the state
Elias, N. 1969 The CourtSociety,Oxford: and the politicsof development',Develop-
BasilBlackwell. mentand Change,25(2):363-86.
Elias,N. 1982 TheCivilizingProcess:State Meyer,J.W.1986 'Mythsof Socialization
Formationand Civilization,Oxford: Basil and of Personality',in T. C. Heller, M.
Blackwell. Sosna and D. E. Wellbery(eds) Recon-
Ewald, F. 1986 L'Etat Providence,Paris: Stanford:Stanford
structingIndividualism,
Grasset. UniversityPress.
Gordon, C. 1980 'Afterword',in C. Miller, P. 1987 Dominationand Power,
Gordon (ed.) Michel Foucault: Powerl London:Routledge.
Knowledge,Brighton:HarvesterPress. Miller,P. 1994a'Accountingand Objec-
Grabosky,P. N. 1994 'Organisational tivity:The Inventionof CalculatingSel-
leverageand the technologiesof regula- ves and CalculableSpaces'in A. Megill
torycompliance',WorkingPaperNo. 24, (ed.) RethinkingObjectivzty,Durham,US:
Administration, Compliance and DukeUniversityPress.
GovernabilityProgram,Schoolof Social Miller, P. 1994b 'Accountingas Social
Sciences,AustralianNationalUniversity. and InstitutionalPractice', in A. G.
Greco, M. 1993 'Psychosomatic subjects Hopwoodand P. Miller(eds)Accounting
and "theduty to be well"',Economyand as Social and InstitutionalPractice, Cam-
Society22(3):357-72. bridge: Cambridge University Press,
Hacking,I. 1990 The Tamingof Chance, 1944.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Miller, P. and O'Leary, T. 1993 'Ac-
Hacking,I. 1991 'Howshouldwe do the countingExpertiseand the Politicsof the
historyof statistics?',in G. Burchell,C. Product: Economic Citizenship and
Gordonand P. Miller(eds) The Foucault Modes of CorporateGovernance',Ac-
Effect, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester counting,OrganizatiorLs
andSociety17: 187-
Wheatsheaf. 206.
Haskell,T. L. (ed.) 1984 TheAuthorityof Miller, P. and O'Leaq, T. 1994a 'Ac-
Experts,Bloomington:IndianaUniversity counting, "EconomicCitizenship",and
Press. the SpatialReorderingof Manufacture',
Heelas, P. and Morris,P. 1992(eds)The Accounting, Organizations and Society
Valuesof the EnterpriseCulture:the moral 19:1543.
debate,London:Routledge. Miller, P. and O'Leaq, T. 1994b 'The
Hindess,B.1996 Discoursesof Power:From Factoryas Laboratory', Sciencein Context
Hobbesto Foucault,Oxford:Blackwell. 7(3): 46>96.
Hopwood,A. G.andMiller,P. (eds)1994 Miller, P. and O'Ixary, T. 1994c
Prac- 'Governingthe CalculablePerson'in A.
Accountingas Socuxland IrLstitutional
tice, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity G. Hopwoodand P. Miller(eds)Account-
Press. ing as Social and Institutional Practice,
Hunter,I. 1988 Cultureand Government: Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
theemergenceof literaryeducation,London: Miller, P. and Rose, N. (eds) 1986 The
Macmillan. Powerof Psychiatry,Cambridge:Polity.
Hunter, I. 1994 Rethinkingthe School,St Miller, P. and Rose, N. 1994 'On
Leonards,Australia:Allenand Unwin. Therapeutic Authority',History of the
Joyce, P. 1994The end of socialhistory, BuwzanSciences7: 2944.
SocialHi.story20(1):73-91. Miller,P. andRose,N.1995 'Production,
Keat,R. and Abercrombie,N. (eds) 1991 Identityand Democracy',forthcoming,
EnterpriseC'ulture,London:Routledge. Theoryand Society(USA)24.

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Politicalthoughtand thelimitsof orthodory 597

Moore, D. C. 1991 'Accountingon Trial: lationof 'Disadvantage and power"after

The CriticalLegalStudiesMovementand the WelfareState"'),Janus (}ournalof the
its Lessonsfor RadicalAccounting',Ac- Finnish Society for Social Policy)
counting, Organizations and Society, 1:44-68.
16:763-91. Rose, N. 1993cTowardsa critzcalsociology
Neimark, M. 1990 'The King is Dead. of freedom, InauguralLecturedelivered
Long Live the King',CritzcalPerspectives on 5.5.92at Goldsmiths'College,Univer-
on Accounting1: 103-14. sity of London, C^oldsmiths'College
Osborne,T.1993 'Liberalism, neo-libera- OccasionalPaper, 1993 (excerptedin P.
lism and the liberalprofessionof medi- Joyce (ed.) Closs: A Reader, Oxford,
cine'Economyand Society22(3):345-56. OxfordUniversityPress,1995.
O'Malley,P.1992 'Risk,powerandcrime Rose, N. 1994a 'Expertise and the
prevention', Economy and Society governmentof conduct',Studiesin Law,
21(3):252-75. Politicsand Society14:359-97.
Perkin, H. 1989 The Rise of ProfeMional Rose, N. 1994b 'Medicine,historyand
Society,London:Routledge. the present',in R. Porterand C. Jones
Porter, T. 1986 The Rzse of Statistical (eds)ReassessingFoucault,London:Rout-
Thinking,1820-1900, Princeton:Prince- ledge.
ton UniversityPress. Rose, N. 1995'Authorityand the genea-
Porter, T. 1992 'Quantificationand the logy of subjectivity',in P. Heelas, P.
Accounting Ideal in Science',in Socuxl Morrisand S. Lash(eds) De-Traditionali-
Studiesof Science22: 633-52. zation: Authorityand Self in an Age of
Porter,T. 1995 Trustin Numbers,Prince- CulturalUncertainty,Oxford:Blackwell.
ton, NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. Rose, N. 1996a "'The death of the
Power, M. 1994 The Audit Explosion, social?": refiguring the territory of
London:Demos. government',Economyand Society(Special
Procacci, G. 1991 'SocialEconomyand Issue on Conflictsand Contradictionsin
the Governmentof Poverty,in G. Bur- Governance, ed. F. Pearce and M.
chell, C. Gordonand P. Miller(eds) The Valverde).
FoucaultEffect, Hemel Hempstead:Har- Rose, N. 1996b 'Governing"advanced"
vesterWheatsheaf. liberal democracies',in A. Barry, T.
Procacci,G. 1993 Gouvernerla misere:la Osborneand N. Rose (eds) Foucaultand
questionsocialeenFrance1789-1848, Paris: PoliticalReason,London:UCLPress.
Editionsdu Seuil. Rose, N. 1996c Inventing Our Selves:
Rhodes, R. A. W. 1994 'The hollowing Psychology,Power and Personhood,New
out of the state', Political Quurterly York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
65: 138-51. Stenson,K.1993 'Communitypolicingas
Rhodes, R. A. W. 1995 The New Govern- a governmentaltechnology',Economyand
ance: GoverningWithoutGovernment,State Society22(3):373-89.
of Britain Seminar Series, London: Tully, J. 1989GoverningConduct,in E.
ESRC. Leites (ed.) Conscienceand Casuistryin
Rose, N. 1993a'Government,Authority Early ModernEurope, Cambridge:Cam-
and Expertisein AdvancedLiberalism, bridgeUniversityPress.
Economyand Society22(3):283-99. Walters, W. 1994 'The discovery of
Rose, N. 1993b Eriarvoisuusja valta "unemployment"',Economy and Society
hyvinvointivaltion jalkeen(Finnishtrans- 23(3):265-90.

This content downloaded from 134.117.10.200 on Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions