Foucault, Foucauldians and Sociology

Author(s): Nick J. Fox

Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 415-433
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/591391 .
Accessed: 14/02/2011 03:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

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

http://www.jstor.org
NickJ. Fox

Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociology

ABSTRACT

This paper considers the applicationof Foucauldianperspectiveswithin soci-

ology. While Foucault'sepistemologyhas generated novel historicaland philo-
sophicalinterpretations,when transposedto sociology,problemsarise.The first
of these concerns the associationof knowledgeand power,and the concept of
'discourse'.Foucault suggested that there are 'rules' of discursiveformaiion
which are extraneousto the 'non-discursive'realmof 'reality'.This formulation
is consequentlyboth deterministicand incapableof supplyingexplanationsof
why some praciicesbecome discursivewhich others do not. This determinismis
reflected in some sociologicalanalysesof embodiment,offering a model of the
'body'which is passive,and incapableof resistingpower/knowledge.Secondly,
Foucault'snotion of the sself'movesto the other extreme,inadequatelyaddress-
ing the constraintswhich affect the fabrication of subjectivity.Sociological
accountsdo not alwaysrecognizethe ambiguitieswhichconsequentlyresultfrom
effortsto use Foucauldianpositions.It is arguedthatpost-structuralists
other than
Foucaultmayoffer more to sociology.

KEYWORDS
Foucault;socialtheory;ontology;epistemology

INTRODUCTION: FOUCAULT AND THE FOUCAULDIANS

Within sociology, the work of Michel Foucault has supplied a different

understanding of power from analyses deriving from Weberian and Marxist
theory (Nettleton 1995: 8-13 passim). His 'empirical' analyses of historical
and archival materials have been taken up with enthusiasm within sub-disci-
plinary groupings in sociology, notably health and illness, sociologies of
gender and the body, social welfare and organizational sociology. In these
fields, Foucauldian approaches have been applied to offer a critique of
many features of modernity and the modern subject. Indeed, it has been
claimed (Silverman 1985, Eckermann 1997: 155) that Foucault's perspec-
tive successfully bridges the agency/structure dichotomy which has been
such an issue within sociology.
However, closer examination of the 'sociological Foucault' which
emerges in Foucauldian studies (Goldstein 1984) suggests the complexities
of the de-centering of self and the 'deep structure' conception of the rules

Brit.Jnl. of SociolonVolume no. 49 Issue no. 3 September 1998 ISSN 0007-1315 (C)London School of Economics 1998
 416 NickJ. Fox
of discursive formation
may not have been fully
my argument will be that addressed. In this paper,
Foucault's ontology is itself
tradictory, and this ambiguity ambiguous and con-
may be carried over into
ology. While I am Foucauldian soci-
suggesting neither that such
fatal flaw (perhaps indeed ambiguity is necessarily a
it is an antidote to
nor that we must modernist meta-narrative),
somehow be 'faithful' to
I shall suggest that Foucault (Armstrong 1997:
sociologists who would apply the 15),
cally appraise the approach might criti-
implications of Foucault's
extremely cautious when ontology, and remain
extrapolating (and perhaps subtly
position to sociological tasks. adapting) the
Foucault was critical of
theories which consider
unitaryand centralized power as 'sovereign': a
construct (Foucault 1980b:
169)and hence primarily 115, Wickham, 1986:
repressive in character. A
power,Foucault argued principal technology of
withthe gathering of (1976,1979, 1980a), is the gaze,which is concerned
information, to inform and create
subject-matter.Discourses create a discourse on its
neithertrue nor false effectsof truthwhich are of
(Foucault 1980b: 116-19). themselves
ofa productive power Because of this association
with the fabrication of
speaks of power/knowledge- effects of truth, Foucault
a phenomenon which
to
either component. cannot be reduced simply
Armstrong (1983) succinctly
sums up this association
Power assumes a
relationship based on some
and sustains it; conversely, knowledge which creates
in which certain power establishes a
particular regime of truth
knowledges become admissible
or possible. (1983: 10)
Arange of studies in
sociology have used a
mentthese knowledges or Foucauldian model to docu-
(Sawicki 1991, Weedon 1987), 'knowledgeabilities'. For example,
patriarchy
architecture masculinity (Hearn and Morgan
(Prior 1988), criminology 1990),
munitymedicine and public nealth (Pfohl and Gordon 1988),
com-
Petersen 1997), dentistry (Nettleton(Armstrong 1983, 1994, Lupton 1995,
(Rose
1989, Tyler 1997), religion 1992), developmental
(Moore psychology
(Kaite
1988), education 1994, Paden 1988),
(Goodson and Dowbiggin pornography
beauty
and fitness (Probyn 1988, 1990, Grant 1997),
In
many of these studies, the Glassner 1989), and death
gaze of power, operating (Prior 1987).
techniquesof surveillance, supplies through modernist
turns the raw material for a
people into subjects of discourse which
authority professions (or disciplines). The
of such disciplines are power and
between played out in the everyday
professionals (or privileged encounters
they others) and their
children, patients or clients, subject-matter, be
other
words, power/knowledge is workers, family members or lovers.
In
ity. implicated in the formation of
subjectiv-
This
relation between power and
theorists,
and the attraction of subjectivityis clearly of interest to
Foucault's social
apparent formulation may be related to its
transcendence of both structuralism
Rabinow
1982, Smart 1985: 16). It and humanism (Dreyfus
breaks with and
that
poweris something which is structuralism in that it denies
merely coercive in a
traditional Marxist or
Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociology 417

Weberian perspective (Pizzorno 1992). It marks a break with humanism

inasmuch as it de-centres the individual as the prior agent in creating the
social world, rejecting subjectivityas something essential, prior to discourse,
which power acts against. Power is a productive process, creating human
subjects and their capacity to act (Butler 1990: 139). Even what are appar-
ently self-empowering practices (such as liberation from sexual prohibi-
tions, or 'self-actualization') are the workings of new reflexive technologies
of power (Foucault 1981, 1985).
But how useful is this model for sociology (and in particular those arenas
of sociology concerned with identity and embodiment)? Foucault was
himself able to develop philosophical and quasi-historical analyses, but his
position rendered him relatively politically impotent (Ostrander 1988:
180) . The reasons for such impotence and the kinds of manipulation/gloss-
ing/silencing of Foucault's positions which are made by sociologists to meet
the objectives of an engaged (and embodied) sociology, will be explored
more fully in the next three sections, which consider the ontological status
of discourse, body and self in his work.

SOCIOLOGYAND THE FOUCAULDIAN ONTOLOGY OF DISCOURSE

The centrality of the concept of discourse in Foucault's work, and its associ-
ation with knowledge and power, suggests a continuity between his project
and the sociology of knowledge; in particular the kinds of approaches in
sociology which have looked at the social construction of scientific and
other knowledges (Nettleton 1992: 133). But is there a continuity here? For
Foucault, the term 'discourse' referred both to the historically contingent
sets of practices (for instance, the practices which constitute clinical medi-
cine) which limit human actions and what may be thought, andto the theor-
etical concept which accounts for the fact that humans actually do act and
think in line with these 'regimes of truth' (for instance, that people do - by
and large - co-operate with a clinical gaze which turns them into patients).
Foucault's archaeological and genealogical accounts address the first of
these conceptions of discourse, and it is understandable how these seem
attractive to sociologists as explanations of the impact of the social upon
how people behave - a central concern of sociology since Durkheim. What
seems to follow from this, is a willingness to accept Foucault's theorization
of how discourse 'in and of itself' works, as reflected in the sometimes
unthinking use of the term in sociology and cognate disciplines.l An explor-
ation of this theory of discourse may suggest a more cautious response from
sociology.
Foucault sought to develop a basis for understanding what makes know-
ledge possible, to attempt an 'archaeology' of knowledge, underpinned by
'rules' which operate independently of subjectivity (Foucault 1974: 15-16).
As such it has some aspects in common with linguistics, in which a set of
grammatical rules authorizes an infinite set of language statements. Thus
418 NickJ. Fox
there is a 'deep' level of rules, and a surface level
of discursive statements.
Discursive practices, he says
. . . are characterised by a delimitation of a
field of objects, the definition
of a legitimate perspective for the agent of
knowledge, and the fixing of
norms for the elaboration of concepts and
theories. (Foucault 1977b:
199)

Three aspects of Foucault's ontology of discourse

can be identified.
1. While subjects may be capable of
interpreting the surface meanings of
discursive practices, and thus developing a
contingent 'knowledge', the
'deeper' knowledge is not directly accessible, mainly
because it is not know-
ledge at all in the everyday sense of the word.
The system of rules which
govern the production, operation and regulation
of discursive statements
(the surface level) mediates power or more
precisely a 'will to power': not
the will of one particular person or group but
a generalized will to create
the possibilities to be able to 'speak the truth'
(Hacking 1986: 34-5). The
willto power is productive, of 'new ways of
saying plausible things about
other human beings and ourselves. Subjectivity
(that is, the ability to know
oneself) is itself achieved through discourse (as
the child of a deeper
'power/knowledge'), clarifying why a prior, privileged or
essential subject
mustbe unacceptable within a Foucauldian
framework (Nettleton 1992:
132).
2.Foucault recognizes discursive practices as
human activity, 'embodied in
technicalprocesses, in institutions, in patterns for
general behaviour, in
formsfor transmission and diffusion, and in
pedagogical forms which, at
once,impose and maintain them' (Foucault
1977b: 200). However, not all
humanactivity or other events are discursive. Most
'real' historical events
orpieces of human behaviour are what
Foucault calls 'non-discursive prac-
tices',and the relationship between discourse and
the non-discursive is not
simplya mirroring, in which discourse is the
surface manifestation of
'reality'(Brown and Cousins 1986: 36). Rather,
discourse is the surface
manifestationof the underlying will to power (which
Foucault calls
'power/knowledge'in his later work) which cannot be reduced
to human
intentionality(ibid.: 37-8). Indeed, power/knowledge is
that which links
discourse to the non-discursive, that creates the
connections which makes
itpossibleto speak about some aspect of the
world in a particular regime
of
truth. That which is non-discursive plays no part
in such regimes, and
whether or not it becomes discursive cannot be
determined from essential
featuresof the event itself.
3.
If power/knowledge is unknowable in a
traditional sense, then it follows
that
no-one or no group such as the sovereign, the
bourgeoisie or the state
can(intentionally) be its author or possess it absolutely
98)
. Neither is discourse something which (Foucault 1980c:
coincides necessarily with single
worksor groups of works or even specific disciplines.
Discourse in this sense
Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociology 419

has a life of its own independent of human agency (Foucault 1977b: 200-1),
and cannot be reduced to particular texts or practices. It is also clear that,
given the unknowability of power/knowledge, discerning its 'hidden
meaning' could not be the objective of analysis, Foucauldian or otherwise.
This ontology of discourse is quite different from humanist sociological
notions of the structuring of agency (Smart 1985: 71, Hacking 1986: 35).
To summarize, discourse cannot be reduced to texts or other 'authored'
practices, does not directly mirror the 'reality' of historical events (the non-
discursive), and is the surface manifestation of a deeper power/knowledge,
which is anonymous, disseminated and cannot be known in a traditional
sense. Nor is discourse simply a new way of thinking about social structure,
which in traditional social theory- however deterministic - can always be
'explained' (as roles, the economic base or whatever): Foucault's concep-
tion of discourse is radically divorced, both from 'reality' and from tra-
ditional notions of human subjectivity. It follows that strategies appropriate
to a humanistic framework, for instance recourse to authorial intention, his-
torical events or contexts, cannot be adopted when utilizing this model.
The unfamiliarity of such a notion of an ahistorical, non-authored dis-
course governed by a free-floating, anonymous, disseminated power/know-
ledge requires most cautious methodological rigour when applied to
sociological analysis. Two opposing attractors await the unwary, and
examples of both are discernible in the work of Foucauldian sociologists.
The first of these is a tendency for essentialism concerning power/know-
ledge, such that power is seen as unitary and unifying, working through
disciplinary discourses to achieve its ends. This can be seen most clearly in
neo-Marxist or structuralist analyses, in which power is 'functional', closely
associated with the interests of some group or institution (Wickham 1986:
153, 170-4). The second tendency leads in the opposite direction, to a posi-
tion in which power/knowledge is acknowledged as unknowable and thus
either vacuous (Rorty 1992: 330) or simply to be quietly forgotten about
altogether, in favour of a focus on the surface phenomenon of discursive
practice.
Foucault was aware of how easy it would be to essentialize power
(Freundlieb 1986: 158-162), but argued this would be to undermine his per-
spective on it as strategic, rather than something to be possessed, such that
. . . its effects of domination are attributed not to 'appropriation', but to
dispositions, manoeuvers, tactics, techniques, functionings; that one
should decipher in it a network of relations constantly in tension, in
activity . .. that one should take as its model a perpetual battle rather
than a contract regulating a transaction or the conquest of a territory.
(Foucault 1979: 26)
At the level of the rules governing discourse, power/knowledge was a
principle of 'dispersion' rather than a unity (Freundlieb 1986: 162), and
was located between rather than within institutions (Foucault 1979: 26).
 Fox
J.
Nick

420 152-7) does discern

Wickham (1986: and prior in
this pronouncement,
Despite comes over as unitary time a notion
in which power/knowledge
occasions that from time to
own writing, and it is unsurprising emerges in
Foucault' is wilful and can 'use' discourse
as something which
power
of Armstrong writes
that
So, for example,
studies
Foucauldian the objects of an
bodies by making them
power had fabricated over the whole
Panoptic
new regime exercised surveillance was in a better
observing eye. The the mind of everyone,
because it observed power: both an
population and,
a point of articulation for
positionto make the individual which power was exercised. (Armstrong
from
of power and a point
effect
1983:70) asking
notions of power,
Sawicki reflects on Foucauldian
Similarly, objectification
through violence,
operated primarily to it willingly? On
patriarchalpower
If women subject themselves
repression, why
would attaching individuals
and operates by inciting desire, under-
other hand,
the if it also
real needs, then it is easier to
and addressing 1991:
tospecificidentities, at getting a grip on us. (Sawicki
effective
stand how it has been so
85) with 'the state'
becomes synonymous which
Atthe extreme, power/knowledge grouping, reflecting
a functionalism
29,
particular 1986:
'society'or some
or in Discipline and Punish (Donnelly model'
sometimes be discerned Maseide (1991) describes a 'control
can
Hoy1986: 7-8). For example, practice is achieved
by doctors.
clinical
describehow 'adequate'
to to the clinical encounter,
and
of as always necessary situationally
act as
.. . power is thought benign. It enables the doctor to
often is often demanded by
inthat respect Such competence is made
competent. prescribed.... Power
and institutionally and professionally As
legally domination....
patients and it is of control and methods of his or her
forms do
effective through doctor's ability to
are essential resources for the is effective to the
such, they The impact of power
clinical work adequately.... knowledge and assump-
and patient share a system of and effective
extent that doctor conflict-free interaction
relatively
tions that facilitates
(Maseide 1991: 552-3) with the
patient compliance.
are brought into such close allegiance profession)
of power is, the medical
Herethe relations power works (that
whose interest 1986: 171-2).
groupingin (essential) power (Wickham door,
thatwe are back
with sovereign through the back
brings back human agency and thus poten-
If this first tendency as unitary, sovereign
power/knowledge the second re-introduces
by essentializing of a person or persons, which con-
the texts
tially the possession through the authorial voice of archaeology of
with the
humanism elsewhere: less concerned
Foucault became of power/know-
tribute to discourse. formation, as with the genealogw over
non-discursive
the 'rules' of discursive relationship of discourse to the
ledge: the changing
Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociology 421

time (Smart 1985: 42), in other words to the objects of history - in par-
ticular, bodies, selves and subjectivity in general.
Foucault's genealogies draw more heavily on the surface manifestations
of discursive practices, the human productions of texts or non-textual prac-
tices, and there is thus the potential for any text or practice to be labeled
'discursive', eliding the distinction between written texts and 'discourse',
between which Foucault quite clearly differentiates (Foucault 1977a: 123,
138; 1977b: 200). Genealogy supplies apparently convincing analyses of his-
torical changes in discursive practices, filled with examples drawn from the
surface manifestations. The existence of a discourse is discerned induc-
tively, and with enough ingenuity any text can be linked to a 'discourse'.
To give two examples: firstly, Paden's exploration of Puritan writings since
the fifth century discerns the development of a reflexive identity, such that
he concludes
. . . Puritan writing, in spite of its God-centred theology, not only pre-
supposed the importance of the self, the 'seeing I', but also pre-figured
the modern division of the self into opposing parts.... Puritan suspicion
of self represented a practice with implications which go well beyond the
mythological agenda that invented it. By the logic of reflexive self-
examination, every religious assertion . . . could become subject of its
own possible self-deception. (Paden 1988: 78)
Similarly, having documented various Victorian texts which reported
studies of the association of sugar with dental decay, Nettleton suggests
that
Each of these studies with their various and often conflicting conclusions
was an attempt to find the 'truth' about the relationship between sugar
and caries. But there was a more fundamental truth which each of these
studies has already presumed, namely the existence of mouths, teeth,
sugar and disease.... In effect, arguments for and against (sugar's) value
were all part of the same discourse. (Nettleton 1992: 81)
Such studies are based in the Foucauldian premise that the rules of dis-
cursive formation provide the 'conditions of existence' of particular state-
ments, which make it possible to say certain things and not others: the
'discourse' is inductively derived from the texts under study. But what pre-
cisely is happening here? In Foucault's position, discourse is anonymous,
dependent neither on human intent or historical context, and cannot be
reduced to the texts of specific 'authors' (Foucault 1977a: 121), yet geneal-
ogy concerns itself principally with texts, from which we 'uncover' the dis-
course. Freundlieb suggests (1986: 176) that behind such analysis is a
'hidden model of historical sociology' which links discursive practices to his-
torical events (non-discursive practices) in precisely the way which Foucault
rejected. Capitalism, industrial development, the physicality of the body,
particular historical events or whatever form an unacknowledged backcloth
which structure the analytical work of discerning the 'rules' of discursive
422 NickJ. Fox

formation. Reflecting on Foucault's own strategy for linking the non-

discursive to the discursive, Freundlieb rather cynically comments that
... all the examples Foucault provides of changes in discursive for-
mations simply name singular historical events. In other word, each so-
called rule he postulates only applies once, thus emptying the notion of
a rule of all content. (ibid.: 171)
Transposed to sociology, it has been argued that Foucault's approach can
'rehabilitate' structuralist and functionalist kinds of analysis which de-
emphasize agency, by rejecting the concept of 'sovereign' power and thus
overcoming the determinism of such analyses (Silverman 1985). In this
section I have suggested that while Foucault's theorizing of discourse
enabled him to construct quasi-historical accounts of regimes of truth, it
does not work so well within a sociological application. On one hand, his
version of discourse can result in a highly deterministic and essentialist
reading of power (Lupton 1997: 102), while on the other, genealogies may
turn out to depend far more upon authorial intent than is admitted. These
tendencies towards determinism and humanism will be re-visited in the
next two sections.

SOCIOI,OGYAND THE FOUCAUI.DIAN ONTOLOGY OF BODY

In his effort to avoid the 'liberal conception of individuals as unconstrained,

creative essences' (Wickham 1986: 15), Foucault chose in works such as
Birth of the Clinic and Discipline and Punish to de-privilege rationality and
focus on the body as the site and target of power. This was indeed an effec-
tive rhetorical device for de-stabilizing some of the assumptions of philo-
sophical discourse, opening up new ways of thinking 'subject', 'power' and
'knowledge'. Furthermore, it was central to the generation of genealogies
of institutional power. Genealogy, Foucault suggested (1986), is a strategy
which seeks to account for the constitution of knowledge from within the
flow of history, rather than by reference to some supposedly objective stand-
point such as 'madness' or 'criminality' (Foucault 1986: 59) .
The genealogical approach, primarily a strategy to critique issues in phil-
osophy and history, has gained the attention of sociologists concerned with
issues of embodiment, notably in the sociologies of health, gender and
sexuality. However, the emergence of a 'sociology of the body' (Turner
1992; Nettleton 1995) raises problems for this ontology. Firstly, by making
the 'body' the new privileged object of a sociology, a new essentialism
beckons, in which the body becomes the pre-existing focus of power's
action, in place of a 'self', an 'individual' or an 'agent'. There is the poten-
tial for this Foucauldian body to become a romantic subject-substitute, con-
tinually buffeted by discourse, never able to self-actualize, doomed always
to be the plaything of power/knowledge (Hacking 1986: 28). On the other,
one has to question whether the ontological (or non-ontological) status
Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociology 423

attributed to the body by Foucault is really adequate for a 'sociology of the

body': one is led to ask: whichbody?
1. The body is the physical body. For the strict Foucauldian, such a posi-
tion is not acceptable. While from the early pages of Disciplineand Punish
(Foucault 1979), it might be concluded that the physical body is the focus
of disciplinary power, throughout that work, and in his Birth of the Clinic
(1976), Foucault argues that power does not act directly on some biological
entity (op. cit.: x). Indeed, the concept of the biological body, the 'organ-
ism' or 'body-with-organs' (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 158) is itself dis-
cursively constructed - by theology, by philosophy, by biomedicine and
other discourses.
2. It is some kind of 'natural body' underpinning the 'organism'. Those
who shy away from 'radical constructionism' (Nettleton 1995: 29), and
acknowledge a natural body which is overlaid with cultural values, adopt an
essentialist position, albeit one in which the essence's existence is deter-
mined phenomenologically, through 'experience', faith or 'common-
sense' (see, for example Collins 1994). This position has been adopted in
some post-structuralist feminisms, which while taking on board the per-
spective of the body as discursively constructed, wish at the same time to
recognize the specific experience of sexual difference (McNay 1992: 36).
3. There is some kind of 'natural' body, but it is beyond discourse and thus
unknowable. This avoids the tag of essentialism, but leaves us with a mean-
ingless and pointless construct. As such, the 'sociology of the body' becomes
the 'sociology oR'
4. It is always already some kind of socially constructed body and it is
'impossible to know the materiality of the body outside its cultural signifi-
cations' (McNay 1992: 30). While there are certain actions and gestures in
physical space, certain states of mind within the brain, anything which can
be called a unified 'body' is the creation of power/knowledge. This Fou-
cauldian body- a 'body-without-organs' (Deleuze and Guattari 1984, 1988)
is a social body throughout.
While there may be a willingness on the part of some sociologists of the
body to indulge in 'epistemological pragmatism' (Turner 1992: 61), choos-
ing from the alternatives above as the task in hand requires, for the Fou-
cauldian protagonist of the 'sociology of the body', the phrase must surely
be ironic, referring to the disappearance (or appearance?) of 'the body' as
it is discursively written. Foucault himself seemed entirely unconcerned
about whatever kind of material entity the body might be, and the way he
wrote of the body implied that he often did not have in mind a conventional
notion of the body at all. For example, using the Deleuzian term 'phan-
tasms' to describe the writing of the body by discourse, he wrote that
. . . Phantasms must be allowed to function at the limit of bodies; against
bodies, because they stick to bodies and protrude from them, but also
424 NickJ. Fox

because they touch them, cut them, break them into sections, regional-
ize them, and multiply their surfaces, and equally outside of bodies,
because they function between bodies.... (Foucault 1977c: 169-70)
For Foucault, the important thing was not the body itself, but that it was
both realized in the play of power and also the site of possible transgres-
sions or refusals of power (Game 1991: 45). Civilization as the project of
history relentlessly writes this body, seeking its total destruction by its trans-
figuration into a cultural object (Butler 1990: 129-30). This formulation
reveals another aspect of the determinism of Foucault's ontology.
Foucault's version of the body, despite his obvious political and personal
inclinations to be on the side of those who are resistant (Haber 1994), turns
out to be 'totally imprinted by discourse' (Butler 1990), and 'passive and
largely deprived of causal powers' (Lash 1991: 261-70). While Foucault's
analysis worked well in circumstances where discursive regimes of truth
were successful in constructing relatively unresisting subjectivities (for
example, the sick, the mentally ill), such a model cannot analyse the con-
ditions under which resistance to power becomes possible, why some
people resist and others do not, and how resistance may be successful, all
issues of great interest to sociologists from Marx through Goffman to
Bauman. Furthermore, although the model may be a useful tool for analy-
sis, it cannot be a catalyst for resistance (Haber 1994: 111):while resistance
is alwaysan aspect of power (Foucault 1980a: 142), to codify resistance is to
destroy it.
The passiveness of such a non-embodied body comes across in some
sociological writing. Lupton (1997) chides Armstrong for his determinism,
and we can find many examples of similar reification. Thus, Harding's dis-
cussion of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and the construction of
the female body concludes that
HRT can be viewed as a technology of power directed at bodies which
establishes, at the level of the body, unequal distributions of power and
thereby contributes to the manufacture of sexed subjects and the defi-
nition of conditions of being a sex. Sex can be seen as an effect of the
investments in the body made possible by discourses, in this case on HRT,
producing its natural and normal precondition and subsequent second-
ary characterisations. (Harding 1997: 147)
By denying any essential self, such analyses leaves the non-discursive physi-
cal body entirely divorced from the discursive body written by power/know-
ledge. Such a position has seemed unsatisfactory to many sociologists; to
post-structuralistfeminists - whose agenda is both analytical and political -
in particular. Sawicki sees the subjectification of women by discourses on
reproduction as creating possibilities for resistance to patriarchy, for
example, through demands for infertility treatment by lesbians and single
women (Sawicki 1991: 84) . Butler warns that Foucault seems to be adhering
to a long and suspect tradition in which the body is the passive recipient of
Foucault,Foucauldiansand socioloe 425

culture,proposinginstead a body whose performativegender identitycan

resist and subvert (Butler 1990: 129, 141). Annandale and Clark more
bluntlyargue that
. . . the body, as a hinge term constitutedthroughsocial relations,is both
culture and nature.... In both creating and being transformedby
culture,the body as cultureand natureis by the same token both sex and
gender. (Annandaleand Clark1996)
The inadequacyof this Foucauldianontology of the body for some socio-
logical tasks:to be an interfacebetween differentdomains:biological and
social, collective and individual, constrained and free (Bertholet 1991:
398), hasled some sociologiststo turnto otherworksbyFoucaultfor a more
congenial model.

SOCIOLOGYAND THE FOUCAULDL N ONTOLOGY OF SELF

Once engaged on his projectconcerninghuman sexuality,Foucault'swork

underwenta re-focusingawayfrom the body, toward'the self'. This move,
Foucaultsuggested,representeda 'shift'of emphasis(Foucault1985:6) to
establishan analysiscomplementaryto his earlierstudiesof knowledgeand
power,although to some it appearedas
. . . a tacit admissionby Foucault that his previouswork, which so sys-
tematicallyattackedand underminedthe notion of the subject,had been
along the wrong lines and had run itself into a theoretical dead end.
(McNay1992:48)
Can this 'returnof the subject'successfullyaddressthe sociological need
for a more subtle ontologywhich can theorize resistance?The ontological
problemconcerningresistancewasone whichFoucaultwasto acknowledge
(often with great poignancy)in manylater interviews(for example Martin
1988), and as he labouredto constructan ethicsof the self, he wroteof indi-
viduals not as docile bodies but as reflexive, living, speaking beings
(Foucault1985:7) . The reflexiveself theorizedin the volumesof the History
of Sexualitycontributesa more activenotion of subjectivity,in place of the
passivebodies of the earliercarceralmodel (McNay1992:49-50). A living,
speaking,reflexivesubjectivityimplies the capacityto resist,and Foucault
(1977c:165) appearedto endorse Deleuze's theorizingof a mechanismby
which such an activesubjectmay activelyinterpretand re-writediscourse
and hence its own subjectivity(Lash 1991:264-6).
In this writing, 'individual', and 'self' supplement the more usual
'subject'and 'body';in his writingon the Historyof Sexuality(Foucault1981,
1985, 1986, 1988) the move from concern with external technologies of
powerto technologiesof the self is clear.NowFoucault'sprojectis withhow
we become 'desiringsubjects',in other words,howwe articulateour bodies
and desireswithin a subjectivitycapableof reflection. 'Practicesof the self'
 Fox
J.
Nick
426
the individual,
discourses of the social and
the engagement between
mark of individual's own
autonomous ordering
that power is integral to the
such not as prior and privi-
identities emerge
(McNay 1992: 67). Personal
lives in which difference and
opposi-
ontologically, but 'in a battlefield', become
leged and the boundaries of others
arethe means by which identity, formulation overcomes the criticism
tion
(Pizzorno 1992: 207). This
discernible and totally
ontology which leaves individuals as passive
Foucault's
of plays a crucial
by discourse, for now it can be seen that reflexivity of
inscribed
of subjectivity. Yet the ontological implications
in
part the process have been
scrutiny, and three issues
Foucault's later position need further the application of the posi-
by critics, which are highly relevant for
raised
ln socla . ana .ysls.
.

In Power/Know-
.
.

tlon
.

body has subtly changed.

First, Foucault's ontology of the which escapes power,
1980a-d), he speaks of something
(Foucault
ledge irreducibilities'. As
energy', a 'discharge', 'energies and
whichis an 'inverse upon this notion
and Guattari (1984), resistance is predicated
inDeleuze apparent
beyond and irreducible to discourse: a position in
something
of concerning the relationship
contradiction to all that has gone before 8, Pizzorno 1992: 207,
discourse and the non-discursive (Hoy 1986: earlier evalu-
between
Such positions would imply, in terms of the
Wickham 1986). from category four (a
the body is to be understoodS a move
ation of how 'natural' in some
body) to category two, in which the body is
totallycultural
values.
way,but overlaid with cultural writings that have
in some of the sociological
We can see this reflected in the postmodern era
this position. The Krokers' analysis of sexuality and alter-
taken own borrowed power; violent
speaks of '. . . bodies living on their . . .' (Kroker and
energy and perfect inertness
nating,scenes of surplus mobilize bodies,
suggests that technologies
Kroker1988: 22), and Sawicki desires, gener-
notby violence but, inter
aliaby '. . . inciting and channeling 1991: 83).
and group energies' (Sawicki
atingand focusing individual within a gov-
the autonomy of the individual, is, a reflexive
Second, by emphasizing (that
to a relativist 'art of existence'
ernmentalitywhich leads self), Foucault's 'tech-
of what it means to be a
andcontextualized sense to differentiate
to 'self stylizations', failing
niques of the self' are reduced individual, and prac-
merely "suggested" to the
between 'practices that are are heavily laden with
'imposed' in so far as they
tices that are more or less 1992: 74). Governmentality
seems to
and taboos' (McNay
culturalsanctions effectively shifts
to the individual that it
offer such a degree of autonomy concerning the 'rules'
earlier determinism
the balance from Foucault's become discursive, to a relatively auton-
which determine which practices end up
In a sociological context, the position might
omous subjectivity. that
account. Thus Weedon argues
looking much like a phenomenological
constructed in dis-
the subject in poststructuralism is socially
(a)lthough feeling subject
the less exists as a thinking,
cursive practices, she none produced out of
of resistance and innovations
and social agent, capable
Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociolon 427

the clash between different contradictory subject positions and practices.

She is also a subject able to reflect upon the discursive relations which
constitute her and the society in which she lives, and able to choose from
the options available. (Weedon 1987: 125)

Similarly, in Eckermann's analysis of self-starvation, those who starve

themselves may move from self-effacement to self-embracing, to 'recreate a
sense of self' through their new body shape (Eckermann 1997: 16S7)
Third, it was noted earlier that genealogy focuses for its raw material on
texts, as in Foucault's final writings on sexuality. Poster (1986) argues that,
whereas in such works as Disciplineand PunishFoucault could interpret
Bentham's texts on the Panopticon in wayswhich turned the author's inten-
tions on their heads (op. cit.: 217), TheCareof theSelf is closer to a tra-
ditional history of ideas, relying heavily upon the intentional level of
meaning and explicit phrases of 'key' textual accounts (for example, the
writings of Plato or Marcus Aurelius). We saw how sociologists such as
Paden and Nettleton have adopted a genealogical approach, and they,
alongside Foucault himself, are open to traditional criticisms concerning
the justification of precisely which texts are 'key'. Both Poster (ibid.: 218)
and McNay (1992: 77-9) have offered alternative explanations to Foucault's
efforts to interpret historical notions of sexuality, such as ancient Greek atti-
tudes to sexual over-indulgence. 'Discourse' has become a moveable feast.
Taken together, these shifts of emphasis undermine most aspects of the
earlier positions concerning discourse and its relation to the non-discursive.
The non-discursive 'residue' enables resistance to power/knowledge, no
doubt providing a resource to the reflexive self as it is inscribed by dis-
course, while such subjects contribute to the generation of discourse
through their texts. From what might be seen as an over-emphasis on deter-
minism, we now find an over-emphasis on agency. Rorty has suggested that
Foucault's dilemma rested on his twin aspirations - to be both a moral
citizen concerned with the possibilities for resistance to power, and his
refusal to be complicit with power by taking on its own vocabulary of essen-
tialized subjects (Rorty 1992: 330-1). While his work on power and truth
met the latter objective at the expense of the former, the re-introduction
of a self privileges the former but makes his previous ontology untenable.
Unfortunately both positions are naive when applied in sociology, and the
much-vaunted rapprochement of agency and structure is illusory.

DISCUSSION

I have tried in these sections to unpack elements of Foucault's theorizing

of discourse, power and subjectivity, and to show how these are frequently
strained in Foucauldian sociology, both because of the multiple threads
running through Foucault's own work, and because of the different con-
cerns of history, philosophy and sociology. Some modernist sociologists
 Fox
J.
Nick

428 use the argu-

Foucauldian approaches may have
to
who are opposed
strongly the position. However, my efforts
and post-
herefurther to challenge
ments commitment to post-structuralist
of a It stands as
within
been a framework
theory (Fox 1993, 1995, 1997).
perspectives in social Weedon (1987),
humanist - along with others including theory deriving
of a to explore
project
part within social
(1991) - approaches
(1990)
Butler and Game on Foucauldian ontology.
which do not depend is whether
post-structuralism be asked in this concluding section
from to phrase. Foucault's
questionwhich has
The to use Baudrillard's which challenge
should 'forget Foucault', in ways
sociology
re-writes human subjects may
of
frame reference and some sociologists the
of self and others, outlined here for
understandings
humanist and contradictions
to live with the ambiguities approach. Others might
choose generated by the
ofthe novelty of
accounts any enterprise
sake contradiction are a feature of
that ambiguity and such, are particularly
argue (Derrida 1978), and that as in both these
seeks to persuade
which I can see some justification coming to my
sociology.
to a postmodern
suited looking at each before
and I will spend a little time to sociology.
positions, Foucault's contribution is both appealing to the
position
own concerning work
case that Foucault's does the attractions
of
it is certainly the
First, as it apparently
imagination, combining andoffering the
sociological
approaches and social constructionism, of health and illness,
structuralist
both Within the sociology
of novel accounts. of archaeology/geneal-
promise
Birth of the Clinicspawned a generation his way through the pantheon
Foucault's Armstrong working Foucault's
such as Civilisation,
with writers
ogy, Like the earlier Madnessand and fanciful
ofmedicalspecialties. was highly criticized
as inaccurate
a problem
medicine less of
of clinical
study 20), but that is
circles (Armstrong 1997: which linked
withinhistorical a way of writing history in which
rather it gave sociology context
sociologists:
for or ideas with the cultural
innovation of technologies
the with the 'strong programme'
position held in common of quite
arose (ibid.),
they
a
(Bloor 1976). This elision ten-
sociologists of scientific knowledge 1993: 151) may have led to the
(Fox proposi-
different theoretical frameworks as a shorthand for any kind of
- the
dency to use the term 'discourse' discussion of 'sociological genealogies' or
in the status
tion,and - as was noted as 'discursive' regardless of their
all texts or nothing in common
inclinationto treat studies have little
with other texts. Such
relationship
methods of analysis. within sociology,
withFoucault's own to the political imagination of Marx or
appeals
Foucault's work also less monolithic than either those Birth
offeringa model
of power key central both
to
panopticon, whose gaze is the analysis
Weber.Indeed the the Weberian
and Discipline andPunish,subtly re-reads scene for the era of mod-
ofthe Clinic set the
of capitalism which and law,
of the rationalizations for Weber was an iron cage of regulation last dark
ernity (Fox 1991).
What
committed to abolishing the
an open prison is ubiqui-
for Foucault becomes hide, and yet in which resistance within
soul might
corner in which the as much as the gaze itself. Particularly
of power
tous, a function
Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociology 429

feminist sociology, this position has been highly productive, although as has
been shown in this paper, on occasions this scholarship cuts across funda-
mentals of Foucault's positions concerning subjectivityand 'empowerment'
in its challenge to patriarchy. In hands less skilled than Foucault's own,
efforts to use the Foucauldian notion of the self come to look much like
phenomenological sociology.
The second justification for the use of Foucauldian or quasi-Foucauldian
approaches might consist in an argument for a post-modern, fragmentary
social theory, accepting of paradox and contradiction, and committed to
opening up new readings rather than seeking truth in a definitive account
(Owen 1997). From such a perspective, the kinds of problems with using
Foucault in sociology which this paper has illustrated are not problems at
all, but features of the end of a modernist meta-narrativefor sociology. The
structure/agency dichotomy is not resolved by Foucault, rather it is seen as
incapable of resolution: and ceases to be a problem. Foucauldian genealo-
gies can proliferate, and even those which are contradictory in their analy-
ses can co-exist: Foucault's role now becomes that of an unsettler,
reminding us that social science is itself part of the history of ideas. Yet
Foucault is actually a bad candidate for this kind of sociology, given the
extent to which his work itself constitutes a kind of meta-narrative (Nettle-
ton 1995), typified - according to Mouzelis (1995) by vagueness, grandios-
ity and over-generalization.
While I have sympathy with a political project to destabilize sociology's
modernist project (as perhaps would Foucault given his analysis of the
human sciences in The Orderof Things),my own appraisal of the Fou-
cauldian corpus is different. While Foucault has contributed to the post-
structuralist movements of the late second millennium which have
radicalized the agendas of philosophy, literary theory and emancipatory
politics, I believe the translation of Foucault into sociology is largely vapid,
except to the extent that philosophy, literary theory and emancipatory poli-
tics impinge on the discipline. In this paper I have sought to show its limi-
tations: firstly that the kinds of questions the discipline asks are much wider
than those within Foucault's project, secondly that the 'tools' he created
won't work beyond these limits, and thirdly that when adapted by Fou-
cauldians so they do appear to work, the methods are indistinguishable
from more traditional approaches.
In place of an emphasis on Foucault's work as the source of key concepts
for a sociology which rethinks structuralist approaches, which addresses the
problem of subjectivity, and engages ethically and politically, theorists
needs to look elsewhere within the body of work known as 'post-structural-
ist' or 'postmodern' which is now influencing many branches of the social
sciences including psychology (Smith 1991), politics (White 1991), organiz-
ation studies (Kilduff 1993), geography (Bondi 1990), gender studies
(Ashenden 1997) and cultural studies (Landow 1992, Moi 1985). At the
most basic level, post-structuralistconcerns with textuality render them con-
gruent with the kinds of ethnographic and interview-based studies which
430 NickJ. Fox

comprise much sociological research,whereas Foucauldiangenealogy is

limited to documentaryand historicalanalysis.In termsof theory,the work
of Derrida,Lyotard,Deleuze and Guattariaddressissuesabout power,lan-
guage and identity while avoiding some of the pitfalls identified in the
earlieranalysisof Foucault'sproject (for example, Derrida's(1978) analy-
sis of language, difference and authority,Lyotard's(1988) theorizing of
power and resistanceand Deleuze and Guattari's(1986, 1988) writingon
the body and freedom). At the level of practice,the use of these writers'
work to inform what has been called a 'politicsof difference' offers possi-
bilities for engagement which Foucault'sown project could not (Haber
1994).
In conclusion, I do not wish (nor have I the skills ) to question the
achievementsof Foucault in the arena of philosophy. But I do want to
sound a note of caution concerning a 'Foucauldiansociology' which is
often underpinned by dubious or unacknowledgedtheoreticalpositions.
Paradigmshifts,Kuhnargued (1970), often occurfor non-rationalreasons,
without carefulevaluationof the advantagesand disadvantagesof the old
and the new position. Whetherwe wish to champion modernistsociology
or embrace a post-modern alternative,on close inspection Foucault's
contributionto the disciplineseems verylimited.

(Date accepted: February 1998) NickJ. Fox

Schoolof Health and RelatedResearch
Universityof Sheffield

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier draft

of this paper.

NOTE

1. For example, in psychology, 'dis-
course analysis' has challenged the tra-
ditional essentialist understanding of the
human subject.Foucault is invoked to suS
stantiate the position, yet 'discourse' is
under-theorised in this corpus, and bears
little or no relation to Foucault's own
notion of discourse.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annandale, E. and Clark,J. 1996 'What is
gender? Feminist Theory and the Soci-
olog,vof Reproduction', Sociologyof Health
and Illness18(1): 17-44.
Armstrong,D. 1983 ThePoliticalAnatomyof
theBody,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
1994 'Bodies of knowledge/know-
ledge of bodies', in C.Jones and R. Porter
(eds) ReassessingFo?lca?llt,
London; Rout-
ledge.
1997 'Foucault and the sociology of
health and illness: a prismaticreading', in
A. Petersen and R. Bunton (eds) Fo?lca?llt,
Healthand Medicine,London: Routledge.
Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociology 431

Ashenden, S. 1997 'Feminism, post- 1977c 'TheatrumPhilosophicum', in

modernism and the sociology of gender', D. F. Bouchard (ed.) Language, Counter-
in D. Owen (ed.) Sociology AfterPostmodern- memory, Practice,Oxford:Blackwell.
ism,London: Sage. 1979DisciplineandPunish,Harmonds-
Bertholet, J. M. 1991 'Sociological dis- worth:Peregrine.
course and the body', in M. Featherstone, 1980a 'The eye of power', in C.
M. Hepworth and B. Turner (eds) The Gordon (ed.) Power/Knowledge, Brighton:
Body,London: Sage. Harvester.
Bloor, D. 1976 Knowledge andSocialImagery, 1980b 'Truth and power', in C.
London: Routledge. Gordon (ed.) Power/Knowledge, Brighton:
Bondi, L. 1990 'Feminism,postmodernism Harvester.
and geography: space for women?', 1980c 'Two lectures', in C. Gordon
Antipode22: 156-67. (ed.) Power/Knowledge, Brighton:Harvester
Brown, B. and Cousins, M. 1986 'The lin- 1980d 'The confession of the flesh',
guistic fault: the case of Foucault'sarchae- in C. Gordon (ed.) Power/Knowledge,
ology', in M. Gane (ed.) Towardsa Critique Brighton:Harvester.
ofFoucault,London: Routledge and Kegan 1981 TheHistoryof SexualityVol.1: An
Paul. Introduction,Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Butler, J. 1990 GenderTrouble,London: 1985 The Useof Pleasure(Vol.2 of the
Routledge. Historyof Sexuality),New York:Pantheon.
Collins, H. 1994 'Dissectingsurgery:forms 1986 The Careof theSelf (Vol.3 of the
of life depersonalized', Social Studies of Historyof Sexuality),New York:Pantheon.
Science24: 311-33. 1988 'Technologies of the self', in L.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. 1984 Anti- H. Martin, H. Gutman and P. H. Hutton
Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, (eds) Technologies of theSelf;London: Tavis-
London: Athlone. tock.
1986 Nomadology, New York: Semio- Fox, N.J. 1993 Postmodernism, Sociology
and
texte. Health, Buckingham: Open University
1988 A ThousandPlateaus,London: Press.
Athlone. 1995 'Postmodern perspectives on
Derrida, J. 1978 Writing and Difference, care: the vigil and the gift', CriticalSocial
London: Routledge. Policy15: 107-25.
Donnelly,M. 1986 'Foucault'sgenealogy of 1997 'Is there life after Foucault?
the human sciences', in M. Gane (ed.) Texts, frames and differends', in A.
Towardsa Critiqueof Foucault, London: Petersen and R. Bunton (eds) Foucault,
Routledge and Kegan Paul. Healthand Medicine,London: Routledge.
Dreyfus, H.L. and Rabinow,P. 1982 Michel Freundlieb, D. 1994 'The archaeology of
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Foucault', in C.Jones and R. Porter (eds)
Hermeneutics, Chicago: University of ReassessingFoucault, London; Routledge.
Chicago Press. Game A. 1991 UndoingtheSocial,Bucking-
Eckermann, L. 1997 'Foucault, embodi- ham: Open UniversityPress.
ment and gendered subjectivities:the case Glassner, B. 1989 'Fitness and the post-
of voluntaryself-starvation',in A. Petersen modern self', Journal of Health and Social
and R. Bunton (eds) Foucault,Healthand Behaviour30: 180-91.
Medicine,London: Routledge. Goldstein, J. 1984 'Foucault among the
Foucault, M. 1974 TheArchaeology of Know- sociologists', Historyand Theory15: 170-92.
ledge,London: Tavistock. Goodson, I and Dowbiggin,I. 1990 'Docile
1976 Birthof theClinic,London: Tavi- bodies: commonalitiesin the historyof psy-
stock. chiatry and schooling', in J. Ball (ed.)
1977a 'What is an author?', in D. F. Foucault and Education, London: Rout-
Bouchard (ed.) Language,Counter-memory,ledge.
Practice,Oxford:Blackwell. Grant, B. 1997 'Discipling students: the
1977b 'Historyof systemsof thought', construction of student subjectivities',
in D. F. Bouchard (ed.) Language,Counter- BritishJournalofSociology ofEducation18(1):
memory, Practice,Oxford: Blackwell. 101-14.
432
Haber, H. 1994 BeyondPostmodern Politics,
London: Routledge.
Hacking, I. 1986 'The archaeology of
Foucault', in D. C. Hoy (ed.) Foucault:a
CriticalReader,Oxford:Blackwell.
Harding, J. 1997 'Bodies at risk: sex, sur-
veillance and hormone replacement
therapy', in A. Petersen and R. Bunton
(eds) Foucault, Health and Medicine,
London: Routledge.
Hearn, J. and Morgan, D. 1990 Men, Mas-
culinitiesand SocialTheory,London: Unwin
Hyman.
Hoy, D. C. 1986 'Introduction', in D. C.
Hoy (ed. ) Foucault: A Critical Reader,
Oxford:Blackwell.
Kaite, B. 1988 'The pornographer's body
double: transgression is the law', in A.
Krokerand M. Kroker (eds) BodyInvaders,
Basingstoke:Macmillan.
Kilduff, M. 1993 'Deconstructing organiz-
ations', Academy of ManagementReview
18(1): 13-31.
Kllhn, T. 1970 'Logic of discovery or psy-
chology of research?',in I. Lakatosand A.
Musgrave (eds) Criticismand the Growthof
Knowledge,Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versityPress.
Kroker,A. and Kroker,M. 1988 'Panic sex
in America', in A. Kroker and M. Kroker
(eds) Body Invaders, Basingstoke: Mac-
millan.
Landow, G. P. 1992 Hypertext,Baltimore:
John Hopkins UniversityPress.
Lash, S. 1991 'Genealogy and the body:
Foucault/Deleuze/Nietzsche', in M.
Featherstone, M. Hepworth and B. S.
Turner (eds) TheBody,London: Sage.
Lupton, D. 1995 TheImperativeof Health:
Public Health and the Regulated Body,
London; Sage.
1997 'Foucault and the medicalisa-
tion critique', in A. Petersen and R.
Bunton (eds) Foucault,HealthandMedicine,
London: Routledge.
Lyotard, J. 1988 The Differend:Phrasesin
Dispute, Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press.
McNay, L. 1992 Foucault and Feminism,
Oxford:Polity.
Martin, R. 1988 'Truth, power, self: an
interview with Michel Foucault', in L. H.
Martin,H. Gutmanand P. H. Hutton (eds)
Technologiesof theSelJ;London: Tavistock.
Maseide, P. 1991 'Possibly abusive, often
NickJ. Fox
benign, and always necessary. On power
and domination in medical practice', Soci-
ologyofHealthand Illness13: 545-61.
Moi, T. ( 1985) Sexual Textual Politics,
London: Methuen.
Moore, S. D. 1994 Poststructuralism and the
New Testament: Foucaultand Derridaat the
footof theCross,Minneapolis:FortressPress.
Mouzelis, N. 1995 Sociological Theory:What
WentWrong,London: Routledge.
Nettleton, S. 1992 Power,Pain andDentistry,
Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
1995 TheSociologyofHealthand Illness,
Oxford: Polity.
Ostrander,G. 1988 'Foucault'sdisappear-
ing body', in A. Kroker and M. Kroker
(eds) Body Invaders, Basingstoke: Mac-
millan.
Owen, D. 1997 'The postmodern chal-
lenge to sociology', in D. Owen (ed.) Soci-
ologyAfterPostmodernism, London: Sage.
Paden, W. E. 1988 'Theaters of humility
and suspicion: desert saints and New
England puritans', in L. H. Martin, H.
Gutman and P. H. Hutton (eds) Technolo
giesof theSelJ;London: Tavistock.
Petersen, A. 1997 'Risk, governance and
the new public health', in A. Petersen and
R. Bunton (eds) Foucault,Healthand Medi-
cine,London: Routledge.
Pfohl, F. and Gordon, A. 1988 'Crimino-
logical displacements',. in A. Kroker and
M. Kroker (eds) Body Invaders, Basing-
stoke: Macmillan.
Pizzorno, A. 1992 'Foucaultand the liberal
view of the individual', in T. J. Armstrong
(ed.) MichelFoucault,Philosopher,NewYork:
HarvesterWheatsheaf.
Poster, M. 1986 'Foucaultand the tyranny
of Greece', in D. C. Hoy (ed.) Foucault:A
CriticalReader,Oxford:Blackwell.
Prior, L. 1987 'Policing the dead: a soci-
ology of the mortuary', Sociology 21:
355-76.
1988 'The architecture of the hospi-
tal', BritishJournalofSociology39(1):
8S113.
Probyn,E. 1988 'The anorexic body', in A.
Krokerand M. Kroker (eds) BodyInvaders,
Basingstoke:Macmillan.
Rorty, R. 1992 'Moralidentity and private
autonomy', in T.J. Armstrong (ed.) Michel
Foucault,Philosopher, New York:Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Rose, N. 1989 GoverningtheSoul,London:
Routledge.
Foucault,Foucauldiansand sociology 433

1991
Sawicki,J. DiscipliningFoucault: Femin- Tyler, D. 1997 'At risk of maladjustment:
ism, Power and the Body, New York: Rout- the problem of child mental health', in A.
ledge. Petersen and R. Bunton (eds) Foucault,
Silverman,D. 1985 Qualitative Methodology Healthand Medicine,London: Routledge.
and Sociology,Aldershot:Gower. Weedon, C. 1987 FeministPracticeand Post-
Smart, B. 1985 Michel Foucault, London: structuralist Theory,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.
Tavistock. White, S. 1991 Political Theoryand Post-
Smith, J. 1991 'Conceiving selves; a case modernism,Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
study of changing identities during the versityPress.
transition to motherhood', Journal of Lan- Wickham,G. 1986 'Powerand power analy-
guage and Social Psychology10: 225-43. sis: beyond Foucault?', in M. Gane (ed.)
Turner, B. 1984 The Body and Society, Towardsa Critiqueof Foucault, London:
Oxford:Blackwell Routledge.
1992 Re.gulatingBodzes,London: Rout-
ledge.