Abstract
In his lectures of 1976 at the Collège de France, “Society must be defended“, Foucault reversed the famous Clausewitz's aphorism1 and stated that “politics is the continuation of war by other means”. By doing so, he addressed a strong critique to the traditional theory of the State1, which consisted in the refutation of the ontological distinction between modern government and war. Following on Foucault's remarks, this article aims to understand the form of power that rises through modern Islamophobia in France, and specifically via the struggle against what is called “radicalization”. Thus, the definition of “radicalization” is used by the State to re-establish its symbolic borders and to define the internal enemy, allowing the continuation of “the war by other means”. Therefore, the struggle against “radicalization” consists in at least two specific forms of power: the punishment, highlighted by the contemporary upheavals in antiterrorist justice, and the disciplinary apparatus designed to prevent “radicalization” through a psychopathological approach. Hence, a variety of institutions are mobilized for the surveillance and neutralization of Muslim populations, such as school, prison and social welfare. The article combines a short genealogy of the notion (within both academic and political fields) and the results of a long-term fieldwork conducted in France with relatives of those who went to jihad, as well as observations of antiterrorist trials and interviews with social workers. In both cases, the article aims to demonstrate that “radicalization” is the key notion that allows the State to re-impose its sovereignty on its subjects and territory.
Highlights
In his lectures of 1976 at the Collège de France, “Society must be defended”, Foucault reversed the famous Clausewitz’s aphorism1 and stated that “politics is the continuation of war by other means”
Following on Benjamin’s remarks, this article aims to understand the form of power and violence that rises through modern Islamophobia in France, and via the fight against the so-called “radicalization.” we argue that the definition of “radicalization” is used by the state to re-establish its symbolic borders and to define the internal enemy, allowing the continuation of “war by other means” (Foucault, 2003)
The fight against “radicalization” consists of at least two specific forms of power: the punishing form, highlighted by the contemporary upheavals in antiterrorist justice, and the disciplinary apparatus with the psychopathological approach to the prevention of the “radicalization.” a variety of institutions are mobilized for the surveillance and neutralization of Muslims populations, such as school, prison and social welfare
Summary
They are not the expression of the editorial or advisory board and staff. Either expressed or implied, is made of the accuracy of the material in this journal, and ISJ cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. The reader must make his or her own evaluation of the accuracy and appropriateness of those materials
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
