Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Foundational Violence
The hackneyed expression ‘violence of language’ usually refers to the idea that
into manageable units through categories and common nouns, and artificially
objectifies the referent by cutting it loose from its context. As I argued in the previous
chapter, any interpretation of reality is always a form of violence in the sense that
Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida have emphasised and explicated this
physical violence.
While the ontological violence of language does, in significant ways, sustain, enable
language – the way language always imposes a partial and contingent order – to
understood to be ineliminable in the first sense, and this leads to its being treated as a
for example, concludes that we cannot “wholly repudiate violence when struggle and
aggression are part of life” (Žižek 2008, 54). Chantal Mouffe makes a similar point
when she argues that violence is the inevitable precondition of any consensus. By
of grasping “the nature of the political in its dimension of hostility and antagonism”
(Mouffe 2000, 132). While consensus is always a form of violence in the sense of
being exclusive of some interpretations, its hegemonic nature does not imply the
beings. Sometimes, but not always, consensus is also the result of physical acts of
violence: what are supposed to be free elections, for example, turn into a practice of
organised violence and intimidation. I will give a more detailed analysis of Mouffe’s
While the ontological violence of language and physical violence thus cannot be
conflated, neither is there a necessary causal link between them. The linguistic
stereotyping of Jews and blacks, for example, has undoubtedly justified and sustained
anti-Semitic pogroms and lynching, but it does not, by necessity, cause them. While
these historically specific practices of physical violence have, for the most part,
while the ‘violence of language’ is precisely ontological and thereby a necessary and
and context-dependent.
This does not mean that ontology – understood as the framework of competing
background beliefs about reality – is completely separate and free from physical
violence. On the contrary, my aim in this chapter is to show the extent to which it is
war. The legacies of violence have thus sedimented into the structures and the
meaning of our world. Reality as we know it reflects the outcome of past wars and is
central claim is, however, that the investigation of the constitutive role of physical
violence must be thoroughly historical and must not rely on any notion of originary
violence as such.
Political theorists such as Hannah Arendt (1970) have argued against the idea of
only be the means of politics and is devoid of any intrinsic meaning of its own. James
Dodd (2009,11) calls this ‘the stupidity of violence principle’: in its barest form it
states that violence is and can only be a mere means. It remains trapped within the
Violence as such is senseless; when taken for itself it is ultimately without direction.
The practices of violence, however traumatic and extreme, fade into indefinite
superficiality unless supported by a meaningful cause or end. Dodd argues that such
I will examine Schmitt’s position in more detail in the next chapter. My aim here is to
argue that while violence is constitutive of meaning, its constitutive function must
pure or originary violence as such. I will turn to Foucault again in my attempt to show
how, alongside the political tradition that links the persistence and constancy of
political violence to the hostile and aggressive nature of man, runs another strand that
also insists on a strong connection between politics and violence. This connection is
historical rather than natural, however, and is crucially tied to the birth of the state.1
to this tradition of thought. The lectures represent a major break with the Hobbesian
legacy in political thought, whilst forming Foucault’s most explicit engagement with
the question of political violence. They expose the violent origins of states, which are
covered over by theories of timeless war and legitimate contract. I argue that his
engagement with Hobbes in these lectures has strong implications for the efforts to
1
Max Weber gives a famous formulation of this idea in his lecture ‘Politics as
Vocation’, in which he defines the state as a human community that holds a monopoly
over the legitimate use of violence. See Weber 2004.
Foucault introduced his lecture course by noting that he would like to begin a series of
investigations into whether war could provide a principle for the analysis of power
relations. He summed up his previous efforts to rethink power by noting that “until
now, or for roughly the last five years, it has been disciplines”, but for the next five
years, it would be “war, struggle, the army” (SMD, 23). As we now know, this large-
scale project never materialised. The lectures ultimately represent a failed attempt to
rethink political power according to the model of war, and Foucault himself explicitly
criticised the model in his late definitive essay “Subject and Power”. Pasquino
Pasquale (1993, 86), who worked closely with Foucault at the time the lectures were
delivered, claims that he would never have wished them to be published, for he
regarded his courses as working hypotheses. From a concern with war Foucault
It is my contention that while the war model was ultimately abandoned, what
power as the governing of conduct – a set of actions upon actions – and the practice-
developed in the lecture series following Society Must be Defended meant that
political power was still understood as essentially agonistic and strategic.3 Moreover,
2
Beatrice Hanssen argues (2000, 148) that the change of plan revealed Foucault’s
disenchantment with the unwieldy dimensions of what threatened to become an all-
enveloping power/war matrix. Alessandro Fontana and Mauro Bertani (2003) argue
that the lectures represent a transition between Discipline and Punish and The History
of Sexuality, vol. I. From a concern with disciplinary power and sovereign power
Foucault gradually moved to a more pronounced interest in biopower.
3
In his introduction to the English translation Arnold Davidson argues (2003, xvii-
whilst forming Foucault’s most explicit engagement with the question of political
violence these lectures also make a definitive break with the Hobbesian legacy in our
The essential distinction that structures and organises the disparate body of texts that
the lectures cover is the opposition Foucault sets between the favoured “historico-
by Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan. His central claim against Hobbes is that political
power should not be analysed in terms of contract, laws and the establishment of
some dominant over others. In other words, he wanted to replace theories of contract
In the first lecture he famously inverted Clausewitz’s dictum that war was the
continuation of politics by other means, and chose as his working hypothesis the
claim that politics was the continuation of war. 5 He distinguished this model from the
claiming that the essential opposition was not between the legitimate and the
illegitimate, but between domination and submission – or winners and losers – in the
concrete struggle that would establish the legitimate (SMD, 17). The central concept
of war thus does not refer to the abstract, Hobbesian war of every man against every
xviii) that in studying the discourse of war in this course Foucault formulated a
strategic model of power. Although it is widely recognised that its articulation was
one of his major achievements during this time, the full scope and significance of the
model has not been fully appreciated.
4
Cf. Pasquino 1993, 86.
5
See Clausewitz 1984, 87.
man, it refers to a concrete, historical struggle in which groups fight groups. As
Foucault polemically formulated the aim, it was to show how the birth of states, their
organisation and juridical structures are not the result of a contract, but arise from and
The law is born of real battles, victories, massacres, and conquests, which can
be dated and which have their horrific heroes; the law was born in burning
towns and ravaged fields... This does not mean that society, the law, and the
State are like armistices that put an end to wars, or that they are the products
of definitive victories. Law is not pacification, for beneath the law, war
continues to rage in all the mechanisms of power, even the most regular...
(SMD, 50)6
The task of unmasking the violent foundations of the state and the law attaches
Foucault to a long lineage of thinkers, including figures such as Max Weber and
Walter Benjamin. The way he accomplished this hackneyed task was strikingly
was not presenting a philosophical theory of power or a political history of states, but
was offering a series of investigations into a specific discourse on the political history
6
“La loi naît dés batailles réelles, des victories, des massacres, des conquetes qui ont
leur date et leur héros d’horreur; la loi naît des villes incendiées, des terres ravages…
Mais cela ne veut pas dire que la société, la loi et l’État soient comme l’armistice dans
ces guerres, ou la sanction définitive des victoires. La loi n’est pas pacification, car
sous la loi, la guerre continue à faire rage à l’intérieur de tous les méchanismes de
pouvoir, même les plus réguliers. “ (IFDS, 43)
of England and France. He was charting the genealogy of historiography with the aim
of revealing its connections with power: how it had been used as a weapon in political
To briefly sum up the argument, Foucault claimed that up until the sixteenth century
history was written by power to justify power: it was a record of the glory of power.
At the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century there
discourse” and argued that it was based on a new model for thinking about power and
the origin of states: the present political order was the result of a past war and those
holding power held it for no other reason than that they won the war. Its central thesis
was thus the idea that war, rather than a contract or a natural right, formed the
ineradicable basis of all relations and institutions of power. The historically specific
facts of war found the political order of the state and power relations as they
by the principle of heterogeneity: the history of some people was not the history of
others. It revealed that history was in fact “a divisive light that illuminates one side of
the social body but leaves the other side in shadows or casts it into the darkness”
(SMD, 70).
Foucault shows how this discourse was used in different ways to further the political
mostly forgotten and controversial figure because of his claim that aristocracy
constituted a distinct and superior race – was in fact a highly significant historian
of the war between the Franks and the Gauls he argued for the original right of the
Franks – and the aristocracy as their descendants – to power. In his hands history
became knowledge that was deployed and functioned within the field of political
struggle. Boulainvillier’s importance lay in his realisation that historiography not only
analysed and interpreted political events but also deployed and modified them.
Foucault’s lectures thus operate and attempt reversals on various levels. On the level
perspectival, the discourse of a combat position rather than a supposedly neutral view
and traces its developments in the truth games of historiography and its uses for
political life. He does this with the help of controversial figures such as
theoretical insights. Although he did not invent the model of war as a tool for
to the juridical model of sovereign power. Firstly, it was able to provide a concrete
analysis of the multiplicity of power relations that manufacture subjects, rather than
presupposing subjects and rights that existed already. The juridical model of
sovereignty presupposes that the individual is a subject with natural rights and
primitive powers. Foucault, on the other hand, argues that we should not attempt to
study power on the basis of the primitive terms of the relationship, but should focus
on the relationship itself. The power relation determines the elements on which it
bears. Rather than asking ideal subjects what part of themselves or their powers they
multiplicity, their differences, their specificity, and in their reversibility rather than
identifying a sovereign as the single form or central point from which they spring.
Foucault suggests that these relations should be studied as relations of force that
intersect, refer to one another, converge or, conversely, come into conflict and strive
to negate each other. Thirdly, rather than taking the law as the fundamental
manifestation of power, this model could identify the technical instruments and
While the contract theories following Hobbes thus represent attempts to explain the
genesis of sovereignty in terms of three basic elements – subject, unitary power and
law – Foucault wanted to offer an alternative way of thinking about political power
that did not assume any of these elements as given (SMD, 44-46). He was continuing
his critique of sovereign power in these lectures, but he was no longer content with
the idea of disciplinary power as a complement to it: it was not enough to show that
there were modern forms of power that escaped the sovereign-juridical model or
functioned at the interstices of it.7 He now wanted to overturn this model completely
state, its institutions and power mechanisms. He summed up his lectures by writing
that in order to make a concrete analysis of power relations, one must completely
abandon the juridical model of sovereignty (SMD, 265). The hypothesis was that the
sovereignty: instead, he ultimately abandoned the war model. His lasting contribution
to political philosophy lies in his critique and rethinking of sovereignty, not in any
supposed move beyond it. His war lectures showed that sovereignty was not the result
of contract and rights, but was an ongoing battle, both physically and discursively.
7
Foucault began his critique of the model of sovereign power in Discipline and
Punish, but it was still his central target in these lectures. He claimed that the juridical
model of sovereignty that located power in the centralised state apparatus was a
problematic legacy of monarchical notions of sovereignty. We must ‘cut off the
king’s head’ in political theory and analyse the phenomenon of power without the use
of this model. See e.g., SMD, 59.
While Foucault clearly aimed to unmask irreducible violence through the model of
war – violence that is foundational and indispensable for the functioning and
existence of the state – it should be noted that this violence is not naturalised in his
power, Foucault can be read to be challenging the idea that violence is a universal
constant, an inevitable feature of the state of nature. Instead, he moves the discourse
on war and violence to a thoroughly historical level: the origin of states lies in a
Foucault concedes that, at first glance, Hobbes appears to be the man who said that
war was both the basis of power relations and the principle that explained them. More
fundamentally, however, his thought announced the beginning of the modern master
discourse on law and sovereignty, which covered over the empirical realities of war
and the violent facts of history. What Hobbes calls the war of everyman against every
man is not a real historical war – a direct confrontation of forces marked by blood,
battles and corpses – but a play of representations, which were played off against each
other. Instead of real war there was an unending diplomacy between rivals who used
pronounced will to wage war. The establishment of sovereignty was ultimately the
There are no battles in Hobbes’s primitive war, there is no blood and there are
seems that there must have been a real battle: winners and losers of an actual war.
However, Foucault argues that in this case the establishment of sovereignty takes
place after the war and, in a sense, independently of it. The foundation of sovereignty
lies in fear and the will to prefer life to death, and this leads to a contract.
The insignificance of any real war becomes evident when Hobbes adds a third form of
sovereignty – the type that binds a child to his or her mother – and states that this type
is very similar to the institution of sovereignty by acquisition that appears after the
end of a war, or after the defeat. The child has to obey its mother because its life
between the way a child consents to its mother’s sovereignty in order to preserve its
life and the way the defeated give their consent when the battle is over. Whether there
has been a real war or not is not the decisive issue. Sovereignty is established out of
fear of death, the will to live and the consent that follows.
8
“Il n’y a pas de batailles dans la guerre primitive de Hobbes, il n’ya pas de sang, il
n’ya pas de cadavers. Il ya des representations, manifestations, des signes, des
expressions emphatiques, rusees, mensongères…On est sur la theatre des
representations échangées, on est dans un rapport de peur qui est un rapport
temporellement indéfini; on n’est pas réellement dans la guerre.” (IFDS, 79-80)
9
See Hobbes 2004, 129-157.
Foucault thus claims that for Hobbes the only difference between commonwealth by
sovereign due to their fear of one another, people chose him due to their fear of him.
that was established through the mode of institution and mutual agreement. The
historical reality of war and its outcome is completely eliminated from this
This is significant because against this background Hobbes’s theory appears first and
foremost as an attempt to legitimise and defend the sovereignty of the state against the
civil struggles that were tearing it apart in England at the time. Foucault claimed that
historical reality of war that Hobbes was trying to cover over was the Norman
Conquest. His discourse was directed against its adversarial counter-discourse at the
parliamentarians and in the more extreme positions of the Levellers and the Diggers.
These groups contested the absolute power of the monarchy by evoking the historical
knowledge of war, namely the Norman Conquest. They argued that the power of the
monarchy was not the result of a legitimate contract, but an outcome of a violent
conquest and therefore a state of non-right in which all laws and property relations
were invalidated. Rethinking the basis of political power through the reality of war
functioned as a form of resistance for these groups: a way of contesting the legitimacy
of the monarchy and the existing relations of power. It was in the analysis of the
historical discourse on the juridical meaning of the Norman Conquest that Foucault
identified the first implicit formulation of the war model as the analyser of power, and
not an inert substance, but it is nevertheless something that can be used and possessed
the forces of the people and was also a force itself, “the strangest of all those forces
that were fighting one another within the social body” (SMD,168). At times Foucault
restricted himself to the more relational formulation of ‘relations of force’, but used it
10
Historico-political discourse underwent a problematic naturalisation of its own in
the 19th century, however. Foucault argues that the discourse of two races struggling
for political power – such as Normans and Saxons in England or Franks and Gauls in
France – was being reworked in socio-biological terms. The historical dimension of
this discourse was suppressed and replaced with a biologico-medical perspective
resulting in the emergence of State racism. The historical reality of war was again
eliminated and social conflict recoded in biological terms as the need for one race to
defend itself and to protect its purity. This mutation of war discourse into State racism
was cotemporaneous with the development of biopower. What is now the familiar
idea of biopower was first introduced in the last of these lectures, and linked to the
question of state racism: racism emerged as a way of rationalising biopower killing its
own subjects. See SMD, 254-263.
This means that the understanding of the political that Foucault relies on is not very
open, even limitless field of shifting struggles or forces, but the exact ontological
status of these competing forces remains unclear. The substantive formulations could
can play themselves out. The notion of force would thus seem to take Foucault back
to advocating some form of essentialist political ontology, albeit a different one from
the one he detects in Hobbes’ thought – a position that I suggest his political
We could also see the novelty of Foucault’s notion of force as lying exactly in the fact
that it accommodates the materiality of violent coercion, whilst not being reducible to
it. He stated in his lectures that an army of the king could be a force, but so could the
history of the people. With his notions of war and force he could thus be read as
breaking the ontological boundary between the discursive and the non-discursive: the
with the violent inscription of bodies.12 The political order is a crystallisation of power
Foucault’s aim, it was to show how the role of political power was perpentually to use
a silent war to reinscribe the relationship of force established through concrete war in
in war.
The model of war, as well as the notion of force, would thus articulate the
intertwinement of the physical combat over life with the interpretative combat over
truth and objectivity. Our political history, as well as the present political order,
reveals how the imposition of hegemonic meanings, identities and interpretations has
been inseparable from physical violence – the historical facts of wars. Violence is
fundamentally consitutive of the very fabric of our world in the sense that reality as
we know it reflects the outcome of past wars and is not an objective or politically
I argue that Foucault must have come to see the dangers that the complete merging of
these two meanings of force – physical and symbolic – would lead to, however, and
he later abandoned the war model. If his intial question was: “To what extent can a
of force” (SMD, 46), he later answered it unequivocally by denying that power could
ever be reduced to force or violence. The violent inscription of bodies fuses with the
In his seminal essay “Subject and Power” from 1982 Foucault poses the classic
question of political philosophy – the same one as Hannah Arendt did in On Violence,
for example – namely whether violence is simply the ultimate form of power: “That
which in the final analysis appears as its real nature when it is forced to throw aside
its mask and to show itself as it really is” (SP, 220). He also follows Arendt in his
negative reply, and puts forward an oppositional view of the relationship between
power and violence. 13 They are opposites in the sense that where one rules absolutely
the other is absent: “Where the determining factors saturate the whole there is no
relationship of power; slavery is not a power relationship when man is in chains” (SP,
221).
mode of action that does not act directly and immediately on others, but rather acts
upon their actions: it is a set of actions upon other actions. This means, firstly, that the
who acts. Secondly, he or she must be free, meaning here that when faced with a
possible inventions – may open up and be realised. Violence, on the other hand, acts
directly and immediately on the body. It is not an action upon an action of a subject,
13
Arendt attempted to diagnose the political situation of her time marked by riots and
insurrections by distinguishing violence sharply from power. She vehemently argued
against what she claimed was the consensus among political theorists from Left to
Right at the time that violence was nothing more than the ultimate kind of power. To
understand the nature of power and violence and their relationship, she urged us to see
them not only as distinct and different, but also as opposites. See Arendt 1970. On the
similarities between Arendt’s and Foucault’s views, see Hanssen 2000.
but an action upon a body or things. Foucault now also criticises the war model
explicitly by writing that the relationship proper to power should not be sought “on
the side of violence or of struggle, nor on that of voluntary linking (all of which can,
at best, only be the instruments of power), but rather in the area of the singular mode
The war model was thus ultimately abandoned, but not in favour of an understanding
of political power based on consensus or contract. The idea of power as the governing
of conduct – a set of actions upon actions – and the practice-based account of political
series following Society Must be Defended meant that political power was still
understood as essentially agonistic and strategic. I will show in Chapter five how the
It is also important to emphise that the agonism that Foucault advocates, even in his
Society Must be Defended lectures, is not rooted in any kind of essentialist claims
concerning violence. The fact that the social space is agonistic does not derive from a
primal state of war or the aggressive nature of human beings: it rather derives from
the ontological view that all political realities are contingent and contestable because
they are constituted by historical practices of power and violence. The historical
reality of war means that what aquires the status of reality rather than fiction is
determined by victory, not truth in any absolute or simple sense, and bodies are used,
killed and injured, to create and confirm truths. However, while some practices and
strategies prove to be hegemonic and thus reify momentarily into relatively stable
political structures, this incites counter-struggles ensuring that the power game moves
violence and the political it is also crucial to make a distinction between political
power and the state. While it seems clear that we are not in a situation in which we
can anticipate the immanent dissolution of the state, it is still important to keep in
mind that it is a historically contingent form of political power and not its eternal or
essential form. A continuous strand in Foucault’s thought is his attempt to find ways
of thinking about political power, which do not equate it with state institutions. The
example, imply that the modern territorial nation-state is only one historical form of
government, that might prove to be passing. His criticism of the modern state is
perhaps most explicit in “Subject and Power”, however, and the forms of resistance
that he sets as his model are “anarchistic struggles” (SP, 211). He characterises the
relationship between power and the state by overturning their order of primacy.
It is certain that in contemporary societies the state is not simply one of the
important – but that in a certain way all other forms of power relation must
refer to it. But this is not because they are derived from it; it is because power
relations have come more and more under state control. (SP, 224)
analysing the state, but this is not because they are derived from it. Rather, the state is
a historically contingent organisation of power that has spread its reach over an
In terms of the question whether political violence is ineradicable this means that
while Foucault’s thought clearly affirms the truism of political philosophy that there
are no states without monopolised violence and histories of actual and potential wars,
this platitude does not yet imply that violence is an irreducible feature of the political.
If politics is not equated with the establishment and maintenance of the state, but is
understood to cover all the dense, capillary networks of actions upon action in a
society, then it is not difficult to imagine forms of political practice that are not tied to
the use of violence – legitimate or illegitimate. This does not mean, however, that
deliberation and consensus. It is quite possible that agonism would take dramatically
more violent forms in the absence of the state, as has arguably happened in many
instances. The point is only to deny its inevitability. The disputes could be ongoing
actual politics can ultimately decide this. The affirmation of agonism implies the
14
Foucault argues that the state is a new and problematic form of political power, but
not because it ignores individuals in favour of the interests of a totality. The problem
is that it is totalizing and yet individualizing at the same time. As he famously writes,
the modern state is a highly sophisticated power structure “in which individuals can
be integrated, under one condition: that this individuality would be shaped in anew
form, and submitted to a very specific patterns“ (SP, 214).
ineliminability, not of war and violence, but of power relations. What the mechanisms
for establishing, changing, regulating, limiting and criticising them should be are
The agonistic ontology of practices is also the reason why Foucault repeatedly refused
to offer any overall theory of resistance: resistances are formed of varying strategies
in varying practices. They “cut societies on the diagonal” and aim at specific
moment: there is no Divine violence capable of countering the mythic violence of the
state and bringing about a new form of life.16 While state power inevitably implicates
Foucault does not envisage any radical overthrow of the state, no final or global
liberation. Instead the anarchistic struggles he promotes are specific, immediate and
transversal. They are struggles that question the status of the individual by promoting
new forms of subjectivity and by questioning the ways in which knowledge circulates
Conclusions
The apparent tension between history and philosophy, or historiography and ontology,
comes to the fore in Foucault’s attempt to rethink political power and its relationship
15
See e.g., Foucault PE, 375-76.
16
See Benjamin 1996.
theoretical question guiding the lectures – whether war could provide a principle for
discourse that utilised such a model. He traced the history of such a historiography
from the 16th century onwards, and showed how it became a standard weapon in
political struggles. His account of political power and violence was thus thoroughly
historical, and all abstract political theory was subsumed under this methodological
choice. We are immersed in a history of violence and it is only from this perspective –
in the midst of the mud and blood of battle – that we can attempt to understand
society, political power, and ourselves. The methodological choice to discard abstract
The recognition of the need for clear and cutting conceptual weapons seems to
dominate in his late writings such as “Subject and Power”, however, and culminates
in the question of resistance. It is easy to contend that all neat conceptual distinctions
between different levels of power, force and violence quickly become blurred when
we inquire into the historical reality of politics. The conflictual nature of social reality
has manifested itself in Western political history not as the peaceful co-existence of
hegemony through violent means. However, for resistance against this tendency to be
a viable option for the future, we cannot accept its inevitability. We have to be able to
separate the realm of the actual from the realm of the possible – the realm of political
imagination.
Foucault seemed to recognise the problem acutely when he asks in the opening
paragraphs of his essay whether we need a theory of power. Since a theory assumes
immediately adds, however, that the analytical work cannot proceed without an
ongoing conceptualisation, one that implies critical thought and constant checking. As
I have argued in chapter one, the inevitable ontology that any theory imposes must
thus be checked and critically reflected on, but cannot be completely avoided. The
contingency of the present and every ontological order imposed on it is, after all, our
only guarantee that the violence of our past is not be the inevitable predicament of our
future. I have therefore suggested that it is probable that Foucault acknowledged the
dangers that the ontological blurring of the boundaries between different dimensions
of force and war would cause, and that he was therefore prepared to overstep the
(2000, 19, 27), he constructs a genealogy of modernity saturated with violence, and
his thought announces the end of all transcendental critiques of violence. She is
to show that in opposing Hobbes, Foucault is making a significant break with the
that violence was so universally pervasive that it appeared necessary for human
societies, this very observation, just like the positing of any social objectivity, could
only be made as a historically perspectival and politically charged claim. In the realm
of the political there is always an undefined space for freedom in the radical
contingency of the present. These “lines of fragility in the present” do not, perhaps,
make space for utopias of a world free of violence, but they do open up a space for
political imagination, limited hope and patient labour.17
17
See SPS, 449-450, Flynn 2005, 250.