January 2014

The Latter Works of Michel Foucault ! and their Implications for the History of Christianity!

SN: 1388816

Both during his lifetime and in the decades since, Michel Foucault (1926-1984) has had a towering inuence over a wide array of scholarly disciplines while tting neatly into none.1 Although
"

ostensibly a philosopher, the majority of his key works took the form of historical enquiries and several of his critical theories have helped shape the study of history at large. Though not a dominant focus of his earlier writings, in the nal decade of his life, a theme which began to surface as of key importance was the study of Christianity and its legacy in modernity. Despite ecclesiastical decline, Foucault saw Christianity as continuing to be at the heart of the modern system primarily because of its institution of a pastoral model of power, the ultimate effect of which was the subjectication of human beings. In the years since his untimely death, scholars have directed substantial energy to grappling with the implications of Foucaults views on religion. In outlining key Foucaultian theories, this essay will examine both the vision that his own application of these theories produced, and ways in which they have been employed by other historians. What emerges in this picture is that Foucault suggests a radical reinterpretation of modern history, seeking not only to destabilise current power structures, but to suggest a direction towards building new ones. Finally, the essay will consider the bases for these views and provide an overall critical viewpoint of the implications of Foucault for the history of Christianity.!

!
The Difculty of Systematising Foucault! Foucaults work is notorious for its stubborn resistance to systematisation. Not only was the author himself careful to distance himself from almost any label, but his work rarely lends itself to building a concrete denition of his theories. This, in part, is an outworking of his general philosophy of difference and resistance to received norms, a fact perfectly illustrated by his words in The Archeology of Knowledge (1969:17):!

!
1 #

In 2007, Foucault was listed as the most cited author in humanities. <http:// www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/405956.article> accessed 12/01/2014.

#1

January 2014

SN: 1388816

I am not where you are lying in wait for me, but over here, laughing at you?Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order.2 !
"

Is it then an exercise in futility to approach Foucault with any question that begins, What was Foucaults theory of? As scholars have pointed out, although it may seem contrary to the spirit of his work, a certain amount of systematisation of Foucaults thinking must be necessary if we are to understand him and apply his theories to the problems he most deeply cared about. And yet, with regards to Foucault on religion, the problem is apparently exacerbated as his views often remained implicit.3 Jeremy Carrette, one of the leading scholars in this eld, admits that before
"

1976, when Foucault rst began to explicitly examine Christianity, his views in this area are but a sub-text in his writings.4 However, whether one sees Foucaults turn to religion as an abrupt
"

about-face, or, as Carrette argues, the outworking of an important thread present from the beginning, the signicance which Foucault accords to religion in the latter part of his work is more than sufcient to warrant sustained discussion. !

!
Christianity in Foucaults Later Work! As already stated, Foucault took on a specic interest in religion, by which he referred almost exclusively to Christianity, from 1976 onwards. The main, book-length text in which he explores implications for the topic is The History of Sexuality (Volume 1, 1976; Volumes 2 and 3, 1984). Apart from this, also key to our understanding are his 1979 Tanner Lecture, Omnes et Singulatim: Towards a Criticism of Political Reason, as well as his afterword The Subject and Power to Huber Dreyfus and Paul Rabinows Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (1982). For the purposes of this essay, because of their uncharacteristically systematic style, we will focus on the content of these latter two texts. Together, they outline Foucaults, perhaps, main

# 2

Foucault, Michel, The Archeology of Knowledge, (Paris, 1969), tr. Alan Smith (London, 1991), p. 17.
# 3

For a discussion of this criticism see Fitzgerald, Timothy, Problematising discourses on religion, Cultures and Religion, Vol. 2, No. 1 (May 2008), pp. 103-111.
4 #

Carrette, Jeremy, Foucault and Religion: Spiritual Corporality and Political Spirituality, (London, 2000), p.1.

#2

January 2014

SN: 1388816

theory on the topic: Christianity led to the modern subjectication of the individual through the structure of pastoral power. !

!
However, before looking at Foucaults specic theories on Christianity, it is important to review his general historical approaches and expressed intentions. By the time of these latter works, Foucaults main methodological principles were well established. His method of archeology, which had been explicitly expounded upon in The Archeology of Knowledge (1969), sought to show that systems of thought are governed by specic rules that operate beneath the consciousness of human beings. Forming what he termed an episteme, the connes of these rules establish a realm of conceptual possibilities that determine what a person in that period will be able to think.5
"

Archeology challenged the idea, in line with the Annales school of history before him, that the conscious thoughts of humans beings were essential in driving history. Essentially, Foucault developed this methodological tool to show the absolute contingency of modern ways of thinking by showing that people in previous times inhabited completely different intellectual spaces.6!
"

!
Building upon the archeological method, Foucault then sought to describe the actual process of historical change itself through the elaboration of what he called genealogy. This idea, though never clearly explained as with archeology, was rst put into use by Foucault in Discipline and Punish (1975). Genealogy further reinforced his notion of the contingency of the present system by showing that a multiplicity of wholly material causes are responsible for historical change. The force of these causes are wrought upon the human body and as a result produce unconscious, deep-seated change in people as subjects.7 !
"

!
# 5

Gutting, Gary, "Michel Foucault", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed., <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/foucault/>, accessed 10/01/14.
6 # 7 #

Ibid, Michel Foucault: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford, 2005), pp. 33-34. Ibid, 2013

#3

January 2014

SN: 1388816

In using this term, Foucault had intended to align himself with Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), specically referencing his Genealogy of Morals: An Attack (1887). Like Nietzsche, Foucault envisioned the genealogical method to uncover the fact that the present was the result of nothing more than the contingent turns of history.8 For both, the important conclusion of this theory was
"

that everything that makes up the present system, from modes of thinking, to power structures, to morals, is completely contingent and not, as Christianity for example may have it, universal. !

!
Foucault was not so much interested in applying the archeological and genealogical methods to the origins of Christianity itself, but was driven primarily by an interest in unsettling the modern system. His contention was that, although having experienced surface institutional decline, the structures of thought and government produced by Christianity still operated in function at the deepest levels of modern society. Therefore, only through understanding its Christian genealogy could human subjectication be refused.9 !
"

!
With these preliminary points in view, we are now in a position to briey examine the contours of Foucaults central theses regarding Christianity. The starting point of his analysis was the realisation that political power in European societies has evolved towards increasingly centralised forms. But alongside this development there has been the evolution of techniques to control the individual in a "continuous and permanent" way. These techniques, analogous to the carceral society explored in Discipline and Punish, he called pastorship.10 !
"

!
In the rst part of his Omnes et Singulatim lecture, Foucault argued that the pastoral mode of power was largely unknown to the Greeks and Romans, and instead originated in Oriental

# 8 # 9

Gutting, 2013

Chrulew, Matthew, The Pauline Ellipsis in Foucaults Genealogy of Christianity, Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2010), p.11.
10 #

Foucault, Michel, Omnes et Singulatim: Towards a Criticism of Political Reason, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, (Berkeley, 1979), p.227

#4

January 2014
"

SN: 1388816

societiesespecially the Hebrews.11 Contrasting pastoral power with Greek thought, he identied four essential characteristics of the shepherd leader: (1) his power is over a ock rather than land; (2) his action and presence holds the ock together; (3) he is responsible for the ocks eternal salvation; (4) because his power is less a duty than a devotedness, he keeps careful watch over his ock.12 This keeping watch is important, Foucault argues, because it necessitates the shepherd
"

know the ock corporately and individually, paying attention to all and constantly being aware of each ones needs. Having originated in the Hebrew view of God, attached to this was the requirement that the sheep submit to the shepherd and obey his will, making obedience a virtue in itself.13 This relationship was based on the shepherds intimate inner knowledge of the sheep
"

which Christianity effected in the institution of confession. Foucault laid great emphasis on this as a form of parrhesia, or the boldness to tell the full truthsomething which Bernauer claims he wanted to recover as a key value in his own life.14 However, the goal of Christian confession and
"

submissive relationship to the pastor was to get individuals to work towards their own moral purity. The resulting picture, as Foucault paints it, was the emergence of a link between total obedience, knowledge of oneself, and confession to someone else, all of which were key in the development of the Christian self-identity as obedient subject.15 Seeing as Foucault dened the essence of
"

power as the ability to inuence the actions of others, this made the pastoral mode both a totalising and individualising form of power.16!
"

In the second part of the lecture, Foucault traces how both the reason of state and theory of police, as developed in France and Germany in the eighteenth century, are built upon the foundation of pastoral power. These theories then, in forming the cornerstone of modern government, perpetuate

# 11 # 12 # 13 # 14

Foucault, 1979: 227. Ibid: 228-230 Ibid: 237

Bernauer, James, Michel Foucaults Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction to the Non-Fascist Life, in Carrette, Jeremy, ed., Michel Foucault and Theology, (Aldershot, 2004), p. 92
15 # 16 #

Ibid: 239 Foucault, 1982: 242

#5

January 2014

SN: 1388816

pastorship in secular forms. Just as the pastor was endowed with the responsibility to not only guard, but provide for his sheep, the police and state were envisioned to have the same role. Similarly, for this system to function, the state is required to constantly monitor individuals and to encourage self knowledge and inner discipline. Modern psychoanalysis even takes the place of confession.17 !
"

!
Once these theories are outlined, it immediately becomes apparent that Foucault suggested a radical reinterpretation both of the origins of the modern world and its functioning in the present. Most importantly, his reading was a radical rejection of the traditional secularisation theory still en vogue at the time of his writing. Drawing from his analysis, Foucault concluded that from the sixteenth century onwards, instead of gradually losing its Christian character, European society had undergone a phase of in-depth Christianisation.18!
"

!
It has already been stated that Foucault's central interest was in addressing present problems in society. His contention therefore was not with Christianity as a belief system, however it was with the forms of oppression he claimed it had helped spawn. With this in mind, Dreyfus and Rabinow concluded their seminal study on Foucaults work with several provocative questions, one of which probed Foucault, Is there a way to make resistance positive, that is, to move toward a 'new economy of bodies and pleasures?'" Though it might seem the logical outcome of his highly contingent view of history, Foucault did not see his theories as leading to mere pessimism, but instead to the positive realisation that the current oppressive systems can be undermined. There is therefore a glimmer of hope to his analysis. But in case one imagined this led to some triumphant teleology, he was quick to point out that he did not think we were headed towards a golden era, but that this effort of resistance continual. Power relationships were inherent in society, but one must work with a hyperactive pessimism to aim that they be less oppressive.19 !
"

# 17 18 # 19 #

Foucault,1979: 243-252 Ibid, Abnormal: Lectures at the Collge de France: 1974-1975, (New York, 2003), p. 177 Dreyfus, 1982: 264

#6

January 2014

SN: 1388816

Interpretations and Applications! Since Foucault rst propounded these theories, a wide variety of scholars have analysed their implications for religion, both philosophically and historically.20 John McSweeney locates the
"

beginning of interest in this aspect of Foucault to James Bernauers analysis in Michel Foucaults Force of Flight (1990).21 But even during his lifetime, Dreyfus and Rabinows Beyond Structuralism
"

and Hermeneutics (1982) interviewed Foucault on his views on Christianity, leading to helpful and concise statements of his theories. Also key, among a series of theological treatments, was John Milbanks seminal study, Theology and Social Theory (1990), which proffered the argument that all scientic social theories are themselves theologies or anti-theologies in disguise.22 This work
"

included a detailed critique of Foucaults ideas on religion which will be considered below.23 !
"

!
More recently, there has been a focussed interest in the topic following works such as Carrettes monograph, Foucault and Religion (2000), and Michel Foucault and Theology (2004), jointly edited with James Bernauer. Carrettes contribution to the eld has been especially signicant for its attempt to analyse the religious sub-text which he claims underlies all of Foucaults works.24 In
"

Foucaults writings prior to 1976, Carrette characterises his view on religion as spiritual corporality. By this he refers to Foucaults emphasis in this period, expressed through what he sees as implicit statements, on religion being inseparable from cultural practice and discourse, as well as being inextricably tied to the body. This, in effect, functioned to thoroughly materialise religion and show

# 20

For an excellent review of the literature up to 2005, see McSweeney, John, Foucault and Theology, Foucault Studies, No. 2 (May 2005), pp. 117-144. <http://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/ foucault-studies/article/view/863> accessed 12/01/14.
# 21

McSweeney, John, Foucault and ReligionGuest Editors Introduction, Foucault Studies, No. 15 (Feb. 2013), pp-4-8.
# 22 # 23

Milbank, John, Theology and Social Theory, (Oxford, 1990), p. 3.

Judging from Foucaults own writings, although himself an atheist, it is not altogether improbable that he would have agreed with Milbanks characterisation of his work as in some sense theological, as negative theology was one of the few styles with which he compared his thought. On this, see Bernauer, James, Secular self-sacrice: on Michel Foucaults courses at the Collge de France, in C.H Prado, ed., Foucaults Legacy, (London, 2009), p.158n8.
24 #

Carrette, 2000: 2

#7

January 2014

SN: 1388816

its contingent nature. However, in his works from 1976 onwards, Carrette argues that Foucaults focus shifted instead to the idea of political spirituality, which essentially references his arguments regarding pastorship and the results of religion for power relationships.25 Carrette concludes that
"

the two theories formed a single critique which shows religion to be far more culturally signicant than hitherto recognised by academics.26!
"

!
While Carrettes latter idea of political spirituality seems to be in line with wider scholarly consensus, the former, spiritual corporality, has been met with more criticism precisely because it claims to deal with a sub-text in Foucaults work. As has been discussed, it is contentious enough already to dene Foucaults thoughts in areas where he is vocal. Therefore some scholars feel compelled to reject the even more ambitious idea of trying to derive theories from silent areas in his thinking. In either case, Carrettes work has sparked signicant debate and demonstrated that a case can certainly be made for Foucaults 1963 claim that there may be a religious question underlying his work.!

!
Apart from attempts to dene Foucaults thoughts on religion, various historians have also put his analyses to use in developing new readings of Christian history. Some, notably Peter Brown in The Body and Society (1988), reect Foucault primarily in their choice of topic and in their general mode of enquiry while arriving at more conservative, and less presentist conclusions. Similarly, Michael Gillespies The Theological Origins of Modernity (2008) makes clear use of the archeological and genealogical methods, and is predicated on present concerns, but signicantly departs from Foucault in its focus on the traditional historical object of the text. !

!
More radical, however, have been the Foucaultian genealogical analyses of fascism forwarded by James Bernauers article Sexuality in the Nazi War (1998) and Michael Lackeys chapter in Foucaults Legacy (2009), Foucault, Secularization Theory and the Theological Origins of

25 # 26 #

Carrette, 2000: 143-151 Carrette, 2000: 152

#8

January 2014

SN: 1388816

Totalitarianism. Both authors draw inspiration from Foucaults comment that there is a fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behaviour.27 Thus, coupled with Foucaults theories
"

shown above, these authors sought to show the historical link between Fascism and Christianity. !

!
Bernauers genealogy of the Nazi repression of Jews and homosexuals argued that the necessary conditions for the rise of fascism were originated in a Christian legacy which demonised both the Jew and the esh.28 Lackey, on the other hand, uses Foucault to reach even more disturbing
"

conclusions regarding Nazi fascism. He begins with the premise that what makes an idea Christian or not depends not on what Christianity says about it, but on the conditions of knowledge within which it developed.29 On this basis, he argues Hitler believed that divine truth legitimated and took
"

precedent over political truth, an idea inherited from Christianity, and that by this he justied his diabolical schemes in the name of God. Thus, Lackey claims, to say that Hitler merely appropriated a form of political religiosityas even Bernauer allowedwould be an anachronism. Indeed, if we understand Hitlers episteme, this would have rendered the religious element false and therefore the political dimension illegitimate. Therefore, in effect, Lackeys shocking conclusion is that according to a Foucaultian reading, Hitlers fascism not only derived from a Christian origin, but should in fact be called authentically Christian.30!
"

!
The works reviewed, and Lackeys in particular, show the radical effect that a Foucaultian reading can have on the study of history as well the philosophy of religion. Indeed, whether adopting the full ramications of Foucaults worldview, or merely appropriating his methods, he has provided critical methodological tools that have been of great inuence in many disciplines. !

!
# 27

Foucault, Michel, Preface to Deleuze, Gilles, and Guattari, Flix, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, (London, 2004), p. xiv.
# 28

Bernauer, James, Sexuality in the Nazi War Against Jewish and Gay People: A Foucaultian Perspective, Budhi, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1998), pp. 149-168.
29 #

Lackey, Michael, Foucault, Secularization Theory, and the Theological Origins of Totalitarianism, in C. G. Prado, ed., Foucaults Legacy, (London, 2009), p. 130.
30 #

Lackey, 2009: 138

#9

January 2014

SN: 1388816

As circumstances change in each successive period, it is in the spirit of Foucault to continually consider what forces should be resisted and undermined today. In thinking about present areas where future Foucaultian studies might be particularly apt to achieve these ends, one might take a cue from the epilogue of Gillespies Theological Origins of Modernity and develop a critical genealogy of extremist Islam. Even though Foucault would certainly be concerned with defending the dignity of Muslim extremists themselves, insomuch as he might have seen them as modernitys discontents, it seems he would equally wish to undermine their own ideological basis as well in the interests of resisting oppression, especially where extremism is linked to Muslim states. !

!
Foucaulting Foucault: Criticisms! Although Foucault has been hugely inuential in this area, it is clear that many of his ideas and approaches have received an array of criticism. We will briey consider a selection of these criticisms with regards to the validity of Foucaults method of history, his reading of Christianity, and the internal coherence of his philosophy. !

!
Firstly, the claim can be made that to begin a historical enquiry with the explicit aim of solving current issues, such as undermining oppressive discourses, will inevitably lead to self-serving interpretations. If one has in mind the intent to destabilise a particular institution or discourse of truth, the tendency in historical research will not be to study the thing to understand it on its own terms, but instead to search for elements and form structures that prove a preexisting bias. Perhaps, and truthfully, this can be defended by saying that while none can be truly objective, perhaps it is best to be open-handed with ones intentions and aim to ght injustice. This would indeed be admirable. But in such a case, even if the practice can be justied, wouldnt the thrust of Foucaults own attempts to undermine oppressive discourses still end up being nothing more than alternative oppressive discourses in themselves? As King has suggested, just as they shake the foundations of current forces which silence and oppress some, wouldnt they inevitably silence and

#10

January 2014
"

SN: 1388816

oppress other voices?31 In the end, it seems that in subverting one discourse of truth, Foucaults methods simply establish another one implicitly in its place. !

!
On the basis of this criticism, it can be argued that Foucaults intent of discrediting modernitys Christian origins leads him to ignore key aspects of Christian history which do not t comfortably with his thesis. One such claim has been made forcefully by Matthew Chrulew, who argues this in relation to Foucaults complete silence on the gure of the Apostle Paul. His contention is that although Paul is undoubtedly the most inuential gure in the founding of Christianity after Jesus, he pays him no attention because he is inconvenient to his thesis of pastoral power. Foucaults view was that Christianity in its real pastoral organisation is not an ascetic religion, it is not a religion of the community, it is not a mystical religion, it is not a religion of Scripture, and, of course, it is not an eschatological religion.32 In light of this, Chrulew points out, then the ascetic,
"

apocalyptic, communitarian Paul, quoter and author of Scriptureas well as receiver of mystical experiencescan hardly be said to be Christian at all.33 Similarly, authors such as Christina
"

Petterson have shown that Foucaults picture of Christianity is made almost entirely in reference to Roman Catholicism, and his model of pastoral power applies only very weakly in a Protestant setting.34 This is especially signicant in light of the claim that the focus of modernitys
"

development shifted after the Reformation to the largely Protestant North. Furthermore, it is worth considering that Foucaults analysis is completely Eurocentric in its vision of Christianity, not taking into account the exponential growth of the global church in the twentieth century. !

!
Theologically, one important aspect which Foucault seems ignorant of, is that his implicit attack on Christianity is based upon the resources of the Christian faith itself. Theologian Timothy Keller,
# 31

King, Richard, Foucault and the study of religion in a post-colonial age, Culture and Religion, Vol. 2, No. 1 (May 2008), p. 117.
# 32

Foucault, Michel, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collge De France, 1977-78, tr. Graham Burchell, eds. Michel Senellart et al. (New York, 2007).
33 # 34 #

Chrulew, 2010: 12

Petterson, Christina, Colonial Subjectication: Foucault, Christianity and Governmentality, Cultural Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (2012), pp. 89-108.

#11

January 2014

SN: 1388816

supported by scholars such as C. John Sommerville, has argued that the Bible gives us the tools for analysis and uninching critique of religiously supported injustice from within the faith.35 While
"

Foucault decries the systems, and the people within them who would exert their power over others, this was already the clear and passionate message of the Hebrew prophets against their own society. Also, tellingly for Christianity, it was Jesus who radically rst told his disciples, !

! !
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.36 !
"

In this way, it is possible to see that Foucault not only creates a skewed picture of the nature of Christianity, and therefore also its effects, but that he simultaneously relies on Christianity for the moral foundation of his critique. This leads us to consider some of the philosophical problems that Foucault encounters in general.!

!
Foucaults philosophy of history, like Nietzsches before him, is essentially built on suspicion and the negative intent to subvert. But as we can see, one of the problems it runs into is trying not to undermine itself in the process. Foucaults claim was, !

! !
My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism.37!
"

But if his archeological and genealogical methods essentially combine to argue that history is made up of nothing but contingent turns of history, with human beings constantly constrained by unconscious forces, what room is there for activism? Not only does it suggest that human beings, in whatever case, are not free to act otherwise, it also undermines its own moral imperative. This question was posed by Dreyfus and Rabinow in the conclusion to Beyond Structuralism, realising
# 35

Keller, Timothy, The Reason for God, (London, 2008), p. 60. Also see, Sommerville, C. John, The Decline of the Secular University, (New York, 2006), p. 63
36 # 37 #

Matthew 20:25-27 Foucault, 1982: 231

#12

January 2014

SN: 1388816
"

that genealogy undermines any resistance which is based on subjective preferences.38 It is clear that part of Foucaults central aim was to undermine the idea that universal values, which could be used to control, silence and subjectify, were nothing but socio-historical constructs. Thus, how can he sustain the values he espouses, such as freedom and justice, without the return to a metaphysics he denies? This question leads Milbank to claim that despite his rejection of the Enlightenment myth, Foucaults historical and ethical vision is but another theologically underpinned, optimistic positivist story in disguise.39!
"

!
Conclusion! All in all, the essay has shown that the contents of Foucaults latter works hold important ramications both for the philosophy and history of Christianity. In an attempt to subvert what he saw as the oppressive system of power at work in modern, disciplinary society, he aimed to show that its origins were contingent upon a Christian heritage. The Christian system of pastoral power, with its emphasis on confession and obedience, was the source of a process by which modern persons have become controlled, obedient subjects. Historians, in turn, have taken these ideas and applied them to specic themes, such as Nazi Fascism, to show the devastating conclusions of a Foucaultian reading of religion. However, in a critical analysis of Foucaults methods and underlying philosophical assumptions, it can be argued that his interpretation is distorted, or at least, according to his own theories, nothing more than another subjective interpretation. There is little doubt that Foucaults intentions were admirable and aimed at creating a less-oppressive world. But the fatal problem that confronts his theories is whether they can stand under the weight of their own subversive pessimism. !

!
Word Count (excl. footnotes): 4000"

38 # 39 #

Dreyfus, 1982: 206 Milbank, 1990: 288

#13

January 2014

SN: 1388816

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Bibliography!
Alles, Gregory, Religious Studies After Foucault: Comments on Carrette, Culture and Religion, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2008), pp. 121-126.! Bernauer, James, Sexuality in the Nazi War Against Jewish and Gay People: A Foucaultian Perspective, Budhi, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1998), pp. 149-168.! _____________, James, Secular self-sacrice: on Michel Foucaults courses at the Collge de France, in C.H Prado, ed., Foucaults Legacy, (London, 2009).! Carrette, Jeremy, Foucault and Religion: Spiritual Corporality and Political Spirituality, (London, 2000).! _____________, and Bernauer, James, eds., Michel Foucault and Theology: The Politics of Religious Experience (Aldershot, 2004). ! Chrulew, Matthew, The Pauline Ellipsis in Foucault0s Genealogy of Christianity, Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2010), pp. 1-15.! Dreyfus, Hubert and Rabinow, Paul, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, (Chicago, 1982).! Fitzgerald, Timothy, Problematising Discourses on Religion, Cultures and Religion, Vol. 2, No. 1 (May 2008), pp. 103-111.! Foucault, Michel, The Archeology of Knowledge, (Paris, 1969), tr. Alan Smith (London, 1991). ! _____________, Abnormal: Lectures at the Collge de France: 1974-1975, (New York, 2003). ! _____________, Preface to Deleuze, Gilles, and Guattari, Flix, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, (London, 2004).! _____________, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collge De France, 1977-78, tr. Graham Burchell, eds. Michel Senellart et al. (New York, 2007).! Gutting, Gary, Michel Foucalt: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford, 2005). ! ___________, "Michel Foucault", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed., <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/foucault/>, accessed 10/01/14.! Hare, John, "Religion and Morality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/religion-morality/>.! Holland, Nancy, Truth as Force: Michel Foucault on Religion, State Power and the Law, Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2002-2003), pp. 79-97. ! Keller, Timothy, The Reason for God, (London, 2008).! King, Richard, Foucault and the study of religion in a post-colonial age, Culture and Religion, Vol. 2, No. 1 (May 2008), pp. 113-120.! Lackey, Michael, Foucault, Secularization theory, and the Theological Origins of Totalitarianism, in C. G. Prado, ed., Foucaults Legacy, (London, 2009).! McCutcheon, Russell, Review symposium on Jeremy Carrette's Foucault and Religion and Religion and Culture, Culture and Religion, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2008), pp. 99-102. ! McSweeney, John, Foucault and ReligionGuest Editors Introduction, Foucault Studies, No. 15 (Feb. 2013), pp-4-8.! Milbank, John, Theology and Social Theory, (Oxford, 1990).! Petterson, Christina, Colonial Subjectication: Foucault, Christianity and Governmentality, Cultural Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (2012), pp. 89-108.

#14