Governing South Korea: From Authoritarian to Neo-liberal Governmentality?
Il Joon Chung (Assistant Professor, Korea University)

1. South Korean Politics in Transition: From military rule to civilian rule
For more than three decades, South Korea was ruled by three generals who becamepresidents, Chung Hee Park (1961-1979), Doo Hwan Chun (1980-1988), and Tae Woo Roh(1988-1993). All of them seized power through military coups d‘état, and all consolidated
their power with strong military backing. After the Korean War (1950-1953), South Korea‘spresence on the frontlines of the Cold War meant that politics was dominated by national
security concerns (National Security State). Even today, more than one million North Korean
soldiers stand prepared to fight the 600,000 South Korean soldiers (backed up by thirty-seventhousand more from the U.S. military) along the ―demilitarized zone‖ (DMZ). The Korean
peninsula is one of the most fortified regions of the world. Therefore, we might say, reversing
Carl von Clausewitz‘s well known dictum, ―War is merely the continuation of politics byother means,‖ in Korea, ―politics is the continuation of war by other means.‖ (Foucault, 2003:
15) In other words, until the 1990s, politics in South Korea was never democratic. Instead ofpolitical competition and regime change between ruling and opposition parties, South Korea‘spolitics played out according to the logic of warfare and military operations.
On October 26, 1979, President Park was assassinated after 18 years of authoritarian rule.
Most Korean people, as well as most of the military leaders, hoped that event would lead todemocratic reform. However, another coup led by Gens. Chun and Roh soon ended thatdream. Even worse, on their way to seize power, Chun and Roh deployed paratroopers that
resulted in killing of hundreds of innocent citizens in Kwangju. During the 5 th Republic
regime headed by Chun (1981-1988), anti-government social movements escalated, often
harnessing the growing anti-American feelings among citizens. Because the U.S. Commander
150

in South Korea holds operational control over the South Korean army, and because theReagan administration strongly supported Chun regime, many young Koreans began to raisequestions about the U.S. role in propping up dictatorial regimes. Thus by the late 1980s, thegrowing democratic movement in South Korea had come to challenge the very foundation ofSouth Korean national security doctrines, the South Korea-U.S. alliance structure. At thatmoment, citizens, the press and social movements all repudiated the logic of warfare as theanimus of national, elite-level politics.
These protests culminated in what became known as the ―Great June Struggle of 1987.‖ Most
scholars date the initiation of the democratic transition to this period, and indeed, five direct
presidential elections (1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007) and five national assembly elections(1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004) have been held in its aftermath. However, in the firsttransitional election in 1987, another general, Tae Woo Roh was elected as the president. At
the time, his election appeared to be a setback to the democratic transition process. In 1992, acivilian candidate, Young Sam Kim (YS: 文民政府, Civilian Government), was electedpresident, but only because he had merged his party with the ruling party in 1990. Hence, atthe beginning of his presidential term, YS shared the same power base as ex-presidents Chunand Roh, which limited just how far he could push the democratic consolidation process.
Surprisingly, however, in 1995 YS prosecuted and punished Roh and Chun for corruption,mutiny and treason. Two years later, Dae Jung Kim (DJ: 國民의 政府, People‘s
Government)– the opposition party leader who had been outlawed by the generals-turnedPresidents for decades – was elected president. For the first time in South Korean political
history, a ruling party transferred power to an opposition party. In 2002, Moo-hyun Roh got
elected president as the candidate from the ruling party (參與政府, Participatory
Government). However, in the presidential election held last December, the ruling party lost151

election and ended the 10 years of reform oriented liberal regime of DJ and Moo-hyun Rho.
Myung Bak Lee (MB: 李明博政府, Lee Government), neo-liberal candidate from opposition
party, Grand National Party, got elected and regained control of government in 10 years. Leegovernmet‘s Philosophy(國政哲學) is ―Harmonious Liberalism(和合的 自由主義)‖ andConduct Code (行動規範) is ―Creative Pragmatism (創造的 實用主義)‖.
In this article, I will examine the rise of liberal governmentality through the fluctuating
dynamics of regime changes in South Korea. After briefly reviewing the literature on
governmentality, I will describe the rise of neo-liberalism after the IMF crisis in 1997. Then I
will review how the post-authoritarian regime governs South Korea not against but throughthe civil society.

2. What is “governmentality”?: Foucault and his successor

Governmentality is a concept first developed by Foucault from middle of 1970s till his death in 1984,
mainly through his lectures at the Collège de France. The concept has been elaborated by many
Anglo-Foucauldians like Cruikshank (1993, 1996), Dean(1999, 2007), Hindess (1993, 1997),
O‘Malley (1992), Osborne (1993), Rose (1996, 1999, 2007 ), etc. It can be understood as being theway governments try to produce the citizen best suited to fulfill those governments‘ policies or thepractices (mentalities, rationalities, and techniques) through which subjects are governed.
In his lectures Foucault often defines governmentality as the ‗art of government‘ in a wide
sense, i.e. with an idea of ‗government‘ that is not limited to state politics alone, that includes
a wide range of control techniques, and that applies to a wide variety of objects, from one‘s
control of the self to the ‗biopolitical‘ control of populations. It is often used in reference to‗neo-liberal governmentality‘, that characterizes advanced liberal democracies (Barry, A.,152

Osborne, T. and Rose, N. eds., 1996). In this case, the notion of governmentality refers tosocieties where power is de-centered and its members play an active role in their own selfgovernment. Because of its active role, individuals need to be regulated from ‗inside‘. A
particular form of governmentality is characterized by a certain form of knowledge. In thecase of neo-liberal governmentality--a kind of governmentality based on the predominance ofmarket mechanisms and of the restriction of the action of the state-- the knowledge produced
allows the construction of auto-regulated or auto-correcting selves.
Foucault‘s most widely known formulation of this notion is his lecture on ―Governmentality‖(Foucault, 1978; 1991). A complete definition of the term governmentality must include not
only government in terms of the state, but government in terms of any ―conduct of conduct‖(Dean, 1999). The semantic linking of ‗governing‘ and ‗mentalities‘ in governmentality
indicates that it is not possible to study technologies of power without an analysis of thementality of rule underpinning them. One of the consequences of Foucault‘s approach to
government has been to undermine the opposition between power and domination, on the one
hand, and individual freedom and subjectivity on the other hand (Foucault, 1978, 1979). The
art of government can use freedom as a technical means for achieving its ends. The liberaltask of governing society is as much a governing through society as a governing of society(Dean, 2007).
Foucault describes the transition which takes place in 18 th century, from a form of power
targeted on the territory to a form of power bearing on a population. The mechanisms of
power change completely, according to Foucault, when the sovereign no longer has toconcern himself with the safety of his territory but with the security of the population. In
place of the necessity to compel obedience in order to ensure the safety of his territory, thesovereign opts for the proper use of freedom in order to maximize the security of the153population. With the emergence of population there is not only a change in the technologies
of power but also in the model of government.

3. Toward a critique of Neo-liberalism: Political rationality not political ideology
Today, many South Korean scholars, politicians and businessmen question the idea of being
able to govern Korean society. It is said that the role of nation-state, highly centralized
government, is displaced by globalization and individualization. Liberalism in South Korea isseen as a suspect doctrine, alien to our way of thinking. Dictators, civilian and military,impose authoritarian social orders from above in the name of ―Liberalism.‖ Thus, the imageof liberalism in Korea is coupled with illiberal, despotic political, economic, and social
practices. Koreans in general and Korean scholars in particular think against it rather with itor on the basis of it. In our habit of thinking against liberalism without thinking it through andconsidering what we can learn from it, we fail to grasp the reasons for its strength andunlimited expansion, and we adopt an increasingly rigid and sterile position in the neoliberalizing world.
Foucault applied himself precisely to grasp the importance of liberalism as a way of thinking
about government. His reflections occupy two courses of lectures at the College de France, in
1978 and 1979. Here he showed wonderfully well how the power of the economy rests on an
economy of power, both at the time of the emergence of liberalism at the end of 18 th century
as well as at that of neo-liberalism between 1930 and 1950 (Donzelot, 2008).
―I tried to analyze ‗liberalism‘ not as a theory or an ideology but, rather, as a practice, whichis to say, as a ‗way of doing things‘ oriented toward objectives and regulating itself by meansof a sustained reflection. Liberalism is to be analyzed, then, as a principle and a method of154

rationalizing the exercise of government, a rationalization that obeys—and this is its
specificity—the internal rule of maximum economy … Liberal thought starts not from theexistence of the state, seeing in the government the means for attaining that end it would be
for itself, but rather from society, which is in complex relation of exteriority and interiority
with respect to the state … Instead of making distinction between state and civil society into
historical universal that allows us to examine all the concrete systems, we can try to see it asa form of schematization characteristic of a particular technology of government. … Rather
than a relatively coherent doctrine, rather than a politics pursuing a certain number of more orless clearly defined goals, I would be tempted to see in liberalism a form of critical reflection
on governmental practice. … What would need to be studied now, therefore, is the way inwhich the specific problems of life and population were raised within a technology ofgovernment which, without always having been liberal—far from it—was always haunted
since the end of the 18th century by liberalism‘s question.‖ (Foucault, 1997)
Foucault‘s concept of governmentality has two advantages in theoretical terms for the
analysis of neo-liberalism. First, the dividing line the liberals draw between the public andprivate spheres, that is the distinction between the domain of the state and that of society,itself becomes an object of study. Second, the liberal polarity of subjectivity and powerceases to be plausible. From the perspective of governmentality, government refers to acontinuum, which extends from political government right through the forms of selfregulation, ‗technologies of the self‘ as Foucault calls them (Foucault, 1988).

3. Neo-liberal transformation in South Korea: Neo-liberalism in Korean style?
“Too much neo-liberalism and too small liberalism”
155Neo-liberalism is not only a set of ideas and policies producing institutional transformations,but also a social ethos or governmentality producing, shaping and disciplining subjects in agiven society. Neo-liberal strategies of rule, found in diverse realms including workplaces,
educational institutions and health and welfare agencies, encourage people to see themselves
as individualized and active subjects responsible for enhancing their own well being.
The discourse of freedom has had strong power in the workings of neo-liberal
governmentality, constituting subjects as rational and self responsible-individuals free of nonmarket

institutional

environments

andtraditional

normative

restraints.

In

such

governmentality, those subjects become competitive and flexible workers, self-calculating
consumers, efficient investors, self-managing entrepreneurs, or self-blaming ‗losers‘ insociety. On the other hand, neo-liberal governmentality creates subjects who are wellaccustomed to or can better endure environmental instability and risks resulting from theimplementation of neo-liberal ideas and policies. Thus neo-liberal short-termism andincreasing institutional instability tend to bring about the rule of luck or irrational
opportunism over the lives of subjects (Jang, 2006).
Since 1993, overseas borrowing by merchant banks had been encouraged by the YS regime‘sglobalization policy, which sought to attain OECD membership in 1996, and accelerated
financial liberalization under OECD advices. This steep rise of overseas short-termborrowing resulted in the financial crisis in late 1997. The institutional framework of
economic development in South Korea was ―the state-banks-chaebols nexus‖ into the mid1990s (Shin & Chang, 2003). In this framework, ―Korea Inc.‖ the three key actors are
institutionally interlinked with one another for economic growth. With all encompassing
structural reforms following the 1997 crisis, the developmental state in South Korea has beenswiftly transformed.
156

In 1998, new president DJ implemented far reaching domestic structural reforms under the
IMF‘s guidance in exchange for a monetary bailout coordinated by the international financial
institution. DJ regime named the direction of the structural reforms ―the democratic market
economy‖. But such structural reforms have rapidly exacerbated the concentration of wealthin the upper classes by profiting those who own large assets like land, stocks or bank deposits,
which is an intrinsic attribute of neo-liberal policies. The democratic causes in South Korea
was hijacked or captured by neo-liberalism which presented itself as anti-authoritarian andanti-chaebol democracy based on market principles. In spite of such claims, neo-liberal
reform under DJ regime in reality has had authoritarian and exclusive effects because it
structurally increases inequality and poverty. The concentration of wealth and the mass
production of the ‗working poor‘ have been accelerated in the name of ‗reform‘ or‗democracy‘. The increasing number of emigrants and the rapid fall of birth rates in South
Korea seem to be related to tremendous social stress and loss of social hope in the future
resulting from neo-liberal restructuring after the financial crisis in 1997. At the same time,
neo-liberal reform has encouraged individualized responses to social issues.
If neo-liberal government is to fully realize its goals, individuals must come to recognize andact upon themselves as both free and responsible (Rose, 1999). Thus Neo-liberalism must
work to create the social reality that it proposes already exists. Neo-liberalism constitutes anattempt to link a reduction in state welfare services and security systems to the increasing callfor subjects to become free, enterprising, autonomous individuals. It can then begin to govern
its subjects, not through intrusive state bureaucracies backed with legal powers, theimposition of moral standards under a religious mandate, but through structuring the possible
field of action in which they govern themselves, to govern them through their freedom(Lemke, 2001). Through the transformation of subjects with duties and obligations, into157

individuals, with rights and freedoms, modern individuals are not merely ‗free to choose‘ but
obliged to be free, ―to understand and enact their lives in terms of choice‖ (Rose, 1999). This
freedom is a different freedom to that offered in the past. It is a freedom to realize ourpotential and our dreams through reshaping the way in which we conduct our lives.
The neo-liberal forms of government feature direct intervention by means of empowered andspecialized state apparatuses, but also characteristically develop indirect techniques forleading and controlling individuals without being at the same time being responsible for them.
The strategy of rendering individual subjects ‗responsible‘ (and also collectives, such as
families, associations, etc.) entails shifting the responsibility for social risks such as illness,
unemployment, poverty, etc., and for life in society into the domain for which the individual
is responsible and moral individual and transforming it into a problem of ‗self-care‘. The key
feature of the neo-liberal rationality is the congruence it endeavors to achieve between a
responsible and moral individual and an economic-rational actor (Lemke, 2001). This
strategy can be deployed in all sorts of areas and leads to areas of social responsibility
becoming a matter of personal provisions (Rose, 1996; O‘Malley, 1996).
Neo-liberalism encourages individuals to give their lives a specific entrepreneurial form. The
theoretical strength of the concept of governmentality consists of the fact that it construes
neo-liberalism not just as ideological rhetoric or as a political-economic reality, but above all
as a political project that endeavors to create a social reality that it suggests already exists.
If we could see that crisis as an epoch-making crisis, it is because it caused the crisis ofrepresentation of economic reality. The IMF crisis had been regarded as a crisis of all themembers of society not limited to crisis of certain economic agents like Chaebols or the
failure of policies, laws and institutions of the government. In terms of it, that crisis involved
158

the crisis of representation not capable of delineating the economic reality in a consistent andcoherent way. As a result, it began to propel the changes in all directions, that is to say, amodification or replacement of political rationality to bring together the discourses torepresent the reality with the technologies to implement the ideals, rationales, and norms
raised by the imaginary. In other words, it produced the discourses to determine the truths ofdomains such as administration, education, welfare, health as well as economy in a novel way.
And it should be linked to the formation of subjects adaptable to the discourses and theirtechnologies. The financial crisis made Korean society re-problematize its whole features.
What is more, they contributed to shift the discursive field of previous self-help practices
known as ―the science of success(成功學)‖, "the living of art(處世術)" into valuable andrespectable normal discourse sought for by ―everyone‖.
Neo-liberalism is a species of the political rationalities which are historically contested andmetamorphosed. This process was not restricted to the domains of economic life and politicalsovereignty. In addition to them, we should include the constructing process of making up
people who conforms to those changes. Put bluntly, we might say that the ―re-structuring of
capital‖ was on a par with the ―restructuring of laboring subject‖ and the ―re-engineering of
economic life‖ was identical to the ―re-engineering of personhood‖ (Seo, 2005).
Neo-liberalism could be defined as a political rationality which may be analyzed as thechanging discursive fields within which the exercise of power is conceptualized, the moral
justifications for particular ways of exercising power by diverse authorities, notions of theappropriate forms, objects and limits of politics, and conceptions of the proper distribution ofsuch tasks among secular, spiritual, military and familial sectors. On the other hand, it should
also be analyzed in terms of their practical technologies, the complex of mundane159

programmes, calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents and procedures through whichauthorities seek to embody and give effect to ambitions (Fouault, 1991: Rose & Miller, 1992).
Neo-liberalism as political rationality forges a kind of alignment between a certain politicalreason and the technologies for the regulation of the self. During the last 10 years neo-liberalprogrammes had evolved out of a variety of ‗reformations‘ such as ‗innovation‘ in thegovernment, ‗flexbilization‘ or ‗restructuring‘ in the business practices, ‗making selfmanaging subject‘ in everyday existence and so on.
The self-management comprises a large number of discursive and material practices, which
could not be limited to consciousness, attitude or ideas. Firstly, it produces and carries out
knowledge about ―who I am, what is my success and well-being, and what I can do toachieve them‖. In terms of it, the self-empowerment discourses are creating and proliferating
the knowledge of the self. In order to do that, the self should become the object or the surface
knowable to analyze, diagnose, and read. In other words, the self should be incessantly
translated into fixed entity which the self-empowerment could provide the feasible ways toanswer the concerned questions. Thus, the self-empowerment should not be separated from abody of knowledge with which people make it possible to transform them into the object toknow and act on. It might be called ‗the problematisation of the self‘. Secondly, the selfmanagement should be integrated into various and detailed ‗the technologies of the self‘. The
self is not a given substance, which could be developed, improved and reformed by certain
ways. In fact, the self consists of a number of targets to be act on. They could be
psychological targets such as affections, aptitudes, capacities as well as personality. Or, they
could be the physical body and components. What is more, they could be the habits or theway of time usages. Therefore, the knowledge of self-management has to be combined withthe technologies to lead to well-being, change, success, improvement, growth, and so on.
160Lastly, the self-empowerment should always be related to the delimited political goal.
Whether to construe laboring subject, efficient economic life in the economic terrain or to
make up the citizens integrated with the security, education, health, well-being in the politicalterrain, they are always forced to subjectify the self that falls within each field of practices.
After all, we could divide the self-management into three components: problematisation andits accompanying a set of knowledge, which define and elaborate the self as the objects to bechanged, modulated and improved.: it entails the technologies to judge, measure, correct, andameliorate the life of the self,: it is integrated with telos or goal as we think that the self
should reach, whether to be successful life or well-being (Seo, 2008)―Self-esteem means about as much as ‗positive thinking‘ meant in the 1970s and‗empowerment‘ meant in the 1980s, and ‗enterprise‘ will mean in the 1990s. (Cruikshank,1993)‖ In this remark, when Cruikshank depicts the passages of the self-esteem practices, it
seems to be not far distant from the historical vicissitudes of self-empowering discourses inSouth Korea.
Foucault says that ―(the problematization) defines the elements that will constitute what thedifferent solutions attempt to respond to. This development of a given into a question, thistransformation of a group of obstacles and difficulties into problems to which the diverse
solutions will attempt to a produce a response, that is what constitutes the point ofproblematization and the specific work of thought‖ (Foucault, 1997; Osborne, 2003). As hesays, the problematization is not to ask what intrinsic truth a given entity ‗expresses‘ and‗manifests‘. It is an effort to articulate a series of practices produced at a time when a given
entity is constructed as a knowable object imbued with specific representations.

161Given that the democratization during the 1980s-1990s was driven by the will to freedom, italso went hand in hand with a variety of efforts to construct forms of governing throughrearrangement of the economy. The reverse side of democratization is a neo-liberalization
which we could employ it as a generic term to embrace all the changes to transform South
Korean capitalism in crisis. The neo-liberalism as political rationality mediates both, the willto freedom and the will to change. Therefore, we could not separate the democratization fromthe neo-liberalization in principle. In order to confront the neo-liberal governmentality which
subordinate individual through the will to freedom, what should we do? (Nietzsche‘s view ofliberalism) The freedom of self-managing subject is nothing but an effect of self-deceptive
confusion or perverted illusion. In liberalist democratic society, freedom has been endlessly
invented, reformulated and modified throughout centuries. One of the radical or criticaltraditions to have existed running through modernity, have thought the freedom is anequivalent to the thinking or reason (Foucault, 1997, 2000, 2003; Rose, 1999). For it, thereason was identical to the freedom, if we could presume that the reason is a procedure thatone presents its own practices to the object to be thought and raise the questions of conditions,meanings and purposes of them. In order to think, we always should appeal to the freedom.
So then, we ought not to withdraw from the freedom.
What is important is not whether to approve or reject the freedom. It is no doubt that we haveto elaborate the question about what freedom is and together preserve the freedom throughthe politics of freedom. The politics of freedom might be such logic of power that governs
and regulates the social life through mobilizing freedom and further determine how we
subjectify our own selves. On the contrary, the politics of freedom might be a logic ofcritique that reproplematize the mobilization of freedom through returning to the reason suchpractices formed by the power.
162

Over the decades in South Korea, one sought to be liberated from dictatorial regime,
disciplinary factory and school, repressive familial life, in short a range of obstacles
restricting freedom. After the neo-liberal transformation of South Korea, we seem to be
trapped in the irony of practicing freedom to undermine the very foundation of freedom. As aconsequence, the will to freedom could be reversed into the contempt or hatred of it. We areon trial in the court of freedom.

5. Imposing neo-liberal governmentality?: MB regime in prospect―The Presidential Transition Committee‖‗87 regime‘ and/or ‗97 regime‘: Democratization and/or neo-liberalization?
Social Index(Suicide rate) and social trend(소득양극화, 중산층 가처분 소득감소)Tourism abroad(해외여행), Education Exodus (조기유학)How to govern South Korea?
정동영 ‗가족행복시대‘(가족행복시대, Happiness for the Family) communitarianvalue(engaging)이명박‗국민성공시대‘(국민성공시대,Successfortheethic(ambivalent)이회창 ‗반듯한 대한민국‘(법치주의, fair ROK) liberal(confronting)163

People)neoliberalFigure 1. Ideal Types of Different States in South Korea
A. Developmental State (1960s-1980s)
Government

Financial Policy

Industrial Policy

Financial
Institutions

Corporations
Industrial Financing

B. Transitional State (1980s-late 1990s)
Government
Financial

Fair Arbiter

Restructuring
Financial

Corporations

Institutions

Corporate
Restructuring

C. Neo-liberal State (1998-present)
Government

Transnational
Demands
Demands

Financial Policy

Fair Arbiter& Regulations
Financial
Institutions

Investors
Demands

Corporations
Supervision

164

Figure 2. Governmentalization of Civil Society

165

Table 1. Liberal government of society

Civil Society (National or Transnational)
Processes

Enfolding

Styles of governingⅰ) economyⅰ) economic liberalismⅱ) societyⅱ) welfare state:ⅲ) populationsocial governingⅳ) globalizationⅲ) biopoliticsⅴ) transnationalⅳ) ‘micro-economic

civil society

ValuesReform’

Styles of governingⅰ) self-responsibilityⅴ) governanceⅰ) ‘police of families’ⅱ) hard workⅱ) public/privateⅲ) support own
children

partnershipsTheⅲ) transnationalⅳ) community

agreementsⅴ) competitionand cooperation

State
Styles of governing

Processⅰ) ‘frugal government’(limited sphere ofⅱ) social solidarity

government)ⅲ) pastoralism: careⅳ) protocols of good
governanceⅴ) cosmopolitan

Styles of governingⅰ) poor lawⅱ) workfareⅰ) economyⅱ) societyⅲ) population

Agenciesⅳ) globalizationi) philanthropy,ⅴ) transnational

healthcare,

civil societyschoolingⅱ) community,ⅲ) welfare reform andbusinesschild supportⅲ) internationalⅳ) charity

Government andⅴ) enterprise culture

Unfolding

Civil society (national or transnational)

Dean (2007), p. 117.

166

non-government
agenciesTable 2. Sovereignty, security and governing societies
Styles of project

Security

Right to death.

Threat to life.

Monopoly of final

Managing potential

decision.

disorders, threats,

Establishing order.

uncertainty.

Early modern

Sovereignty as

Techniques of the

Civil war to be

Precondition forestablishment ofsupreme power and as‘holding out’ of the state

overcome

governing societies.

the territorial

an end of government

against external andof government

state

Key Exceptions

Relations to project ofSovereignty

governing societies

internal enemies, e.g.
reason of state.
Techniques of
production of goodorder, e.g. police.

Classical

Condition of liberalism

Mechanisms of security

Temporary state ofGoverning society as aliberalism

but to be limited.

within civil society.

emergency to becontainer.

Establishes territorial

Relation to liberty.

overcome to return toDomestic andenclosure of civil

International vsconstitutional orderinternational security.

societydomestic security
issues.

Advanced

Belief in supercession

Multilateral cooperation

Violations of humanWorld risk society.

liberalismof national sovereignty.

in face of global risks.

rights.

Cosmopolitan

Annihilation ofManagement of

Genocide.

democracy.

sovereign decision in

individual risk in life-

choice.

planning.

Authoritarian

Strengthening states

Hyper-securitization.

Mass of exceptions andHierarchies andliberalism

and international bodies

Pre-emptive

practices defining

hegemons.

to implement

intervention.

normal frame of life.

Language of exception,

Creeping emergency.

necessity andglobalization policies.
Exercising andGovernance.

emergency.

delegating sovereignty.

Dean (2007), p. 192.

167

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

25.
26.
27.

Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (eds.) (1996). Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Rationalities of Government. London: UCL Press.
Beaulieu, Alain and Gabbard, David (eds.) (2006), Michel Foucault and Power Today: International
Multidisciplinary Studies in the History of the Present, Lexington Books.
Bratich, Jack Z.(ed.) (2003). Foucault, Cultural Studies, and Governmentality. State University of New
York Press.
Cruikshank, B. (1993). ―Revolutions within: self Government and self-esteem,‖ Economy and Society,Vol.22, Issue 3, August 1993, pp.327-344.
____________ (1996). The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. Cornell University
Press.
Davis, D. E. (2004). Discipline and Development: Middle Classes and Prosperity in East Asia and Latin
America. Cambridge University Press.
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.
_______ (2007). Governing Societies: Political Perspectives on Domestic and International Rule. New
York: McGrewhill.
Dillon, M. (1995). ―Sovereignty and Governmentality: From the Problematics of the ‗New World Order‘ to
the Ethical Problematic of the World Order,‖ Alternatives, 20:3, pp.323-368.
Ewald, F. (1990). ―Norms, Discipline, and the Law,‖ Representations, No.30, Spring 1990, pp.138-161.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). ―Habermas and Foucault: Thinking for Civil Society?,‖ The British Journal of
Sociology, Vol.49, No.2, June 1998, pp.210-233.
Foucault, M. (1982). ―Technologies of the Self,‖ in Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman and Patrick H. Hutton(eds), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, Amherst: The University of
Massachusetts Press, 1988, pp. 16-49..
__________ (1984). The History of Sexuality Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure, trans. Robert Hurley. New
York: Random House, 1985.
__________ (1984). The History of Sexuality Vol. 3: The Care of the Self, trans. Robert Hurley. New York:
Vintage Books, 1988.
__________ (1991). ―Governmentality,‖ trans. Rosi Braidotti and revised by Colin Gordon, in Graham
Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, pp. 87-104.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
__________ (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, edited by Paul Rabinow, New York: New Press.
__________ (2001). Power: Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Volume III, edited by James D.
Faubion. New York: The New Press.
__________ (2003). “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976. New
York: Picador.
__________ (2005). The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the College de France, 1981-1982. New
York: Picador.
__________ (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College De France, 1977-1978. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gordon, C. (1986). ―Question, ethos, event: Foucault on Kant and Enlightenment,‖ Economy and Society,Vol. 15, Issue 1, February 1986, pp.71-87.
Hindess, B. (1993). ―Liberalism, socialism and democracy: variations on a governmental theme,‖ Economy
and Society, Vol. 22, Issue 3, August 1993, pp.300–313.
_________ (1997). ―Politics and governmentality,‖ Economy and Society, Vol. 26, Issue 2, May 1997,
pp.257–272.
Jang, Jin-Ho (2006), ―The Neoliberal Transformation of the Developmental State in South Korea: The
Financial Sector, Reform Politics, and Global Capital,‖ Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of
Sociology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Larner, W. & Walters W. (2004). Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces. Routledge.
Lemke, T. (2001). ―The birth of bio-politics: Michael Foucault‘s lectures at the College de France on neoliberal governmentality‖ in Economy and Society Vol.30, Issue2, pp.190-207.
________ (2004). ―Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique" in Rethinking Marxism, Volume 14, Issue 3
September 2002, pages 49 - 64.
16828. McKinlay, A. & Starkey, K. P. (2000). Foucault, Management and Organization Theory: From Panopticon
to Technologies of Self . Sage Publications.
29. O‘Malley, P. (1992). ―Risk, power and crime prevention,‖ Economy and Society, Vol.21, Issue 3 August
1992, pp.252-275.
30. O‘Malley, P. & Weir, L. & Shearing, C. (1997). ―Governmentality, criticism, politics,‖ Economy andSociety, Vol. 26, Issue 4 November 1997, pp.501-217.
31. Osborne, T. (1993). ―On liberalism, neo-liberalism and the ‗liberal profession‘ of medicine,‖ Economy andSociety, Vol. 22, Issue 3, August 1993, pp.345-356.
32. Owen, D. (1995). ―Geneology as exemplary critique: reflections on Foucault and the imagination of thepolitical,‖ Economy and Society, Vol.24, Issue 4, November 1995, pp.489-506.
33. Pasquino, P. (1993). ―Political theory of war and peace: Foucault and the history of modern politicaltheory,‖ Economy and Society, Vol.22, Issue 1, February 1993, pp.77-88.
34. Plehwe, D. (ed.) (2007). Neoliberal Hegemony: A Global Critique. Routledge.
35. Rose, N. (1996). Inventing Our Selves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. _______ (1996). ―The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government,‖ Economy and Society,Vol.25, Issue 3, August 1996, pp.327-356.
37. _______ (1999). Powers of Freedom: reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. _______ (1999). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self (Second edition). London: Free
Association Books.
39. _______ (2007). The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First
Century. NJ: Princeton University Press.
40. Seo, Dongjin (2005), ―The Will to Self-Empowerment, the Will to Freedom,‖ Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, Department of Sociology, Yonsei University.
41. Shin, Jang-Sup and Ha-Joon Chang (2003) Restructuring Korea Inc.. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
42. Singley, G. (1996) ―Governing Chinese bodies: the significance of studies on the concept ofgovernmentality for the analysis of government in China,‖ Economy and Society, Vol.25, Issue 4,
November 1996, pp.457-482.
43. Stoler, A. L. (2006) Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial
Order of Things (Seventh Printing). Duke University Press.
44. Volverde, M. (1996) ― ‗Despotism‘ and ethical liberal governance,‖ Economy and Society, Vol.25, Issue 3,
August 1996, pp.357-372.
45. Walter, R. (2008). ―Governmentality accounts of the economy: a liberal bias?,‖ Economy and Society, Vol.
37, Issue 1, February, pp.94-114.
46. Wier, L. (1996) ―Recent developments in the government of pregnancy,‖ Economy and Society, Vol. 25,
Issue 3, August 1996, pp.373-392.
47. Winiecki, D. (2006) Discipline and Governmentality at Work: Making the Subject and Subjectivity inModern Tertiary Labour. Free Association Books.

169