THE FOUCAULT EFFECT 1991-2011
A Conference at Birkbeck College, University of London Reflecting on 20 years of
The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality
Peter Miller – The Calculating Self
Over thirty years ago, it was said that we go in search of our selves through the genitals. Today, in contrast, we find who we are through the incessant calculations that we perform on our selves and others. This is no doubt to overstate things somewhat, but recent events in financial markets and their consequent impact on public services, combined with ongoing attempts to “modernise” public services, have given even greater prominence to the calculating self in all its manifestations.
If I can claim to have learned anything from the writings of Michel Foucault, it is the importance of exploring how ways of calculating go hand in hand with the shaping of subjectivity or forms of personhood. For some years now, along with others, I have been trying to explore how one particular set of governmental practices – which goes very roughly under the heading of accounting – has enabled the “calculated management of life” (Kurunmäki and Miller, 2006; Miller, 1994, 1998; Miller and O’Leary, 1987) . This adjustment or alignment between the accumulation and distribution of persons and their capacities on the one hand, and the accumulation and distribution of capital on the other, was at the heart of what Foucault called “bio‐power”. But, perhaps due to the long shadow cast by Marxism, this is something that has been relatively neglected by those working within and through “governmentality” (Miller and Rose, 2008; Rose and Miller, 1992).
I offer here four propositions that I have found helpful as a way of framing the sorts of questions that can be asked about this specific, albeit increasingly generalised modality of being and acting. Many (if not all) of these will be familiar to those who have been working in and around governmentality, but I want to suggest that they have a particular meaning when viewed in terms of the calculating self.
First, and in common with many other technologies of the self, to attend to the calculating self means attending to the possibilities for acting on oneself and on the actions of others. But, by abstracting from the substance of things, and by distilling substantively different kinds or classes of things into a single financial figure, a particular type of action is made possible here. It is one that allows the actions of “free” individuals to be linked, directly or indirectly, to the requirements of markets and the commensuration that they engender. The term “mediating instruments” (Miller, Kurunmäki and O’Leary, 2010; Miller and O’Leary, 2007) captures well this ability of the calculating self to carry within it at least a dual set of ideas, whether these pertain to science and the economy, or medicine and finance.
Second, a concern with the calculating self means paying attention to the particular ideas of personhood that are brought into play in all these attempts to act on the actions of others. It concerns what Nietzsche called the possibility of breeding an animal with the right to make promises, but again in a specific sense. This is not a matter of conducting investigations at the level of political theory, but within and across the lowly domain of administrative discourse and administrative science, where notions of “responsibility accounting”, “decision‐making” and much else besides have sought to impose a sort of moral constraint or template on the actions carried out under their aegis. It is here, I suggest, that we see one of the clearest forms of a type of power that presupposes rather than annuls the capacities of agents.
Third, I suggest we need to attend to the assemblages within which the calculating self operates, and the territorialisations they seek to impose. For the calculative instruments of accountancy not only transform the possibilities for personhood. They also construct the calculable spaces that individuals inhabit within firms and other organizations. Whether it is an actual physical space such as a factory floor or a hospital ward, or an abstract space such as a “division”, a “cost centre” or a “profit centre”, or even an idea such as “failure”, the calculative instruments of accountancy territorialise, and in the process reframe the objects and objectives of governing. And they do so in such a way as to link highly specific domains such as healthcare or social care with larger political categories.
Fourth, a concern with the calculating self means that we need to understand better its ability to travel. While some ideas and practices travel “light”, others appear too heavy to travel easily. Put differently, the interdependence between the instruments for the governing of conduct, and the rationalities that articulate the aims and objectives of governing, seems at times to encounter limits regarding what can be done and where (Mennicken, 2008). Standard costing, for instance, was equally at home in the very different assemblages of the Soviet Union and the United States in the early decades of the twentieth century. Audit, likewise, seems today to travel effortlessly across a vast range of territories (Power, 1997). But other devices (for instance, something called accruals accounting) seem to travel less easily. This suggests that we still have much to find out about how the calculating self travels, and how this peculiarly modern form of personhood is fashioned and refashioned in historically specific assemblages.
Kurunmäki, L. and P. Miller (2006) “Modernising Government: The Calculating, Self, Hybridisation and Performance Measurement”, Financial Accountability and Management 22, pp. 87‐106.
Mennicken, A. (2008) “Connecting Worlds: The Translation of International Auditing Standards into Post‐Soviet Audit Practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society 33, pp. 384‐414.
Miller, P. (1994) “Accounting and Objectivity: The Invention of Calculating Selves and Calculable Spaces”, in A. Megill (ed.), Rethinking Objectivity (Durham: Duke University Press).
Miller, P. (1998) “The Margins of Accounting”, in M. Callon (ed.), The Laws of the Markets (Basil Blackwell, 1998) pp. 174‐193.
Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (1987) “Accounting and the Construction of the Governable Person”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1987) pp.235‐265.
Miller, P., L. Kurunmäki and T. O’Leary (2010) “Calculating Hybrids”, in V. Higgins and W. Larner (eds.), Calculating the Social: Standards and the Reconfiguration of Governing (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Miller, P. and T. O’Leary (2007) “Mediating Instruments and Making Markets: Capital Budgeting, Science and the Economy”, Accounting, Organizations and Society 32, pp. 701‐734.
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (2008) Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, N. and P. Miller (1992) “Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government”, British Journal of Sociology 43, pp. 173‐205.
Peter Miller is Professor of Management Accounting at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Head of the Department of Accounting, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation. Prior to joining LSE, he was a Lecturer in Accounting at the University of Sheffield. He has been an Associate Editor of Accounting, Organizations and Society since 1988. He has published more than 50 articles in accounting and management journals such as Accounting, Organizations and Society, the European Accounting Review, the Journal of Accounting Research, Management Accounting Research, and the Academy of Management Review, as well as in a range of other social science journals such as Economy and Society, the British Journal of Sociology, Theory, Culture and Society, Theory and Society, Sociology, Cultural Values, and Social Research. He has also published four books, including Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice (co-edited with Anthony Hopwood, Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Accounting, Organizations and Institutions, with C.S.Chapman and D.J.Cooper (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life, P. Miller and N. Rose (Polity Press, 2008)
Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice, with A. Hopwood, 1994 (Cambridge University Press).
The Foucault Effect: Studies In Governmentality, G. Burchill, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.) (University of Chicago Press, 1991; Simon & Schuster, 1991).
Domination and Power (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987).
The Power of Psychiatry, P. Miller and N. Rose (eds.) (Basil Blackwell/Polity Press, 1986).