Summary of the Concepts
2.1.4 Summary of the Concepts
Similar to Migdal ’s (2001) approach of a state which is defined by images and practices, Foucault (1977; 1978) also talks about the relative definition of state. He argues that state is reproduced and redefined by the tactics of the government, which are the counterpart of “practice” in Migdal’s approach. However, his focus is more on the micro-level of power generation. In that point he agrees with Gupta (1995), who also emphasizes the importance to include the regional level of politics for state analyses. The competences and limits of a state are negotiated by tactics of Governmentality on the large scale which generate disciplinary power from the large scale until the smallest scale of detail. Therefore, he argues, the importance of state is often overrated (Foucault, 1991 cited in Migdal, 2001, p.18). With overrating the importance of state, Foucault addresses the too strong focus on the large-scale entities of state and the neglecting of the level of detail, where disciplinary power emerges.
Mitchell’s (1991) second point according to which the abstract state consists of concrete manifestations of state like passports, borders, languages etc. complies with Migdal ’s (2001) theory that practices reinforce the image of state. Gupta (1995) also addresses these manifestations, but emphasize that it is the local level where society and state really meat together and state become visible and therefore concrete. For Migdal (2001), those practices which reproduce the state can be clearly separated into practices of society and the state, while Mitchell (1991; 1999) sees the practices both as actions of individuals and therefore part of society as well as part of state because an apparatus is built out of their individual practices which are based on discipline. Therefore he argues that the unclear distinction between state and society must be part of the definition of state, instead of continuing to try to define the borders of the state. The practices create parts of the state like institutions, so they are part of it, but in the same time they can also stand apart of it as individuals.
Mitchell (1991) criticizes or complements Foucault ’s (1977) concept of “disciplinary power”. He emphasizes that discipline doesn’t always have to be a source of power for the state, as it can also counteract to state. As an example he argues that resistance movements often have their own military which achieves its power also through discipline, or they are using state institutions like schools which are built on disciplinary, but their disciplinary practices are addressed against the power of state (Mitchell, 1991, p.93). This can also be explained by the practices mentioned by Migdal (2001) which can either enforce or weaken the image and therefore the power of the state.
The comparison between the illustrated approaches shows the similarities between them. They all focus on the reproduction and transformation mechanisms between state and society, and they all agree with the conception that the image of state is constituted by the practices of state and of society. Therefore, the approaches of Gupta, Mitchell and Foucault shouldn’t stand in opposite of Migdal ’s approach, but rather complement it.