Mitchell Dean – författare

First Published in 2004. This work places Foucault's methodologies against social theory and philosophy in order to provide a guide to social sciences, particularly historical sociology. Written to clarify Foucault's contribution for professional and non-professional readers, the text demonstrates the originality and usefulness of Foucault's work and embodies a conviction that Foucault's approaches could transform sociology into an effective, multi-focused, relevant discipline. Finally, the book illustrates that his methods provide the necessary condition for any state-of-the-art social research today, addressing his methodological position and establishing its relationship to Nietzsche, Kant, Weber, Elias, Habermas, Giddens, and the Annales and Frankfurt Schools.

First published in 1991, This book looks at how capitalism has affected the organization of the poor. It also explores what the links are between notions of poverty and notions personal responsibility, philanthropy, morality and state forms. An intruiging work for anyone interested in the foundations and long-term progression of the welfare state.

Firts published in 1991, this book looks at how capitalism has affected the organization of the poor. It also explores what the links are between notions of poverty and notions personal responsibility, philanthropy, morality and state forms. An intruiging work for anyone interested in the foundations and long-term progression of the welfare state.

Inspired by Foucault's discussion of governmentality, this book makes a major contribution to our understanding of government. The book is interdisciplinary in approach, and combines theoretical discussion with empirical focus. It includes a substantial introduction by the editors, and contains work critiquing the central notion of governmentality. A range of topics are discussed, including regulation of the unemployed and people with HIV/AIDS, sexual harassment in the military, the corporatisation of education, new contractualism and governing personality. While their topics are varied, the contributors explore a range of shared concerns, including notions of problematisation, expert knowledge, rationality, freedom and autonomy, giving the volume focus and rigour. This book will be essential reading in political science, sociology, law, philosophy, education and economics.

State Phobia and Civil Society draws extensively upon the work of Michel Foucault to argue for the necessity of the concept of the state in political and social analysis. In so doing, it takes on not only the dominant view in the human sciences that the concept of the state is outmoded, but also the large interpretative literature on Foucault, which claims that he displaces the state for a de-centered analytics of power. Understanding Foucault means understanding all his interlocutors—whether Marxists, Maoists, neoliberals, or social democrats. It requires turning to Foucault's colleagues, including Deleuze and Guattari, François Ewald, and Blandine Kreigel, in relation to whom he carved out a position. And it entails an examination of his legacy in Hardt and Negri, the theorists of Empire, or in Nikolas Rose, the influential English sociologist. Foucault's own view is highly ambiguous: he claims to be concerned with the exercise of political sovereignty, yet his work cannot make visible the concept of the state. Moving beyond Foucault, the authors outline new ways of conceiving the state's role in establishing social order and in mediating between an inequality-producing capitalist economy and the juridical equality and political rights of individuals. Arguing that states and their cooperation remain of vital importance to resolving contemporary crises, they demonstrate the interdependence of state and civil society and the necessity of social forms of governance.

State Phobia and Civil Society draws extensively upon the work of Michel Foucault to argue for the necessity of the concept of the state in political and social analysis. In so doing, it takes on not only the dominant view in the human sciences that the concept of the state is outmoded, but also the large interpretative literature on Foucault, which claims that he displaces the state for a de-centered analytics of power. Understanding Foucault means understanding all his interlocutors—whether Marxists, Maoists, neoliberals, or social democrats. It requires turning to Foucault's colleagues, including Deleuze and Guattari, François Ewald, and Blandine Kreigel, in relation to whom he carved out a position. And it entails an examination of his legacy in Hardt and Negri, the theorists of Empire, or in Nikolas Rose, the influential English sociologist. Foucault's own view is highly ambiguous: he claims to be concerned with the exercise of political sovereignty, yet his work cannot make visible the concept of the state. Moving beyond Foucault, the authors outline new ways of conceiving the state's role in establishing social order and in mediating between an inequality-producing capitalist economy and the juridical equality and political rights of individuals. Arguing that states and their cooperation remain of vital importance to resolving contemporary crises, they demonstrate the interdependence of state and civil society and the necessity of social forms of governance.

First Published in 2004. This work places Foucault's methodologies against social theory and philosophy in order to provide a guide to social sciences, particularly historical sociology. Written to clarify Foucault's contribution for professional and non-professional readers, the text demonstrates the originality and usefulness of Foucault's work and embodies a conviction that Foucault's approaches could transform sociology into an effective, multi-focused, relevant discipline. Finally, the book illustrates that his methods provide the necessary condition for any state-of-the-art social research today, addressing his methodological position and establishing its relationship to Nietzsche, Kant, Weber, Elias, Habermas, Giddens, and the Annales and Frankfurt Schools.

Almost 100 years have passed since Carl Schmitt gave his controversial definition of the sovereign as the one who decides on the exception in his by now classic Political Theology (1922). Written at a time of crisis, the book sought to establish the institution of sovereignty, not from within a well-functioning governing machine of the state in a situation of normality, but rather as the minimal condition of state order in the moment of governmental breakdown. The book appeared anachronistic already at its publication. Schmitt went against Max Weber’s popular thesis defining secularization as a disenchantment of the world characterizing modern societies, and instead suggested that the concepts of modern politics mirrored a metaphysics originating in Christianity and the church. Nevertheless, the concept of political theology has in recent years seen a revival as a field of research in philosophy as well as political theory, as studies in the theological sub-currents of politics, economics and sociality proliferate.

Almost 100 years have passed since Carl Schmitt gave his controversial definition of the sovereign as the one who decides on the exception in his by now classic Political Theology (1922). Written at a time of crisis, the book sought to establish the institution of sovereignty, not from within a well-functioning governing machine of the state in a situation of normality, but rather as the minimal condition of state order in the moment of governmental breakdown. The book appeared anachronistic already at its publication. Schmitt went against Max Weber’s popular thesis defining secularization as a disenchantment of the world characterizing modern societies, and instead suggested that the concepts of modern politics mirrored a metaphysics originating in Christianity and the church. Nevertheless, the concept of political theology has in recent years seen a revival as a field of research in philosophy as well as political theory, as studies in the theological sub-currents of politics, economics and sociality proliferate.

How Michel Foucault, drugs, California and the rise of neoliberal politics in 1970s France are all connectedIn May 1975, Michel Foucault took LSD in the desert in southern California. He described it as the most important event of his life, one which would lead him to completely rework his History of Sexuality. His focus now would not be on power relations but on the experiments of subjectivity and the care of the self. Through this lens, he would reinterpret the social movements of May '68 and position himself politically in France in relation to the emergent anti- totalitarian and anti-welfare state currents. He would also come to appreciate the possibilities of autonomy offered by a new force on the French political scene that was neither of the Left nor the Right: neoliberalism.For this paperback edition, the authors have written an afterword responding to the debate occasioned by the book's first publication.