Abstract. This paper develops an exchange between two important strands of research within contemporary human geography. One concerns the matter of socionatures; the other concerns the operation and establishment of power within liberal, capitalist social formations. Through mobilizing some of the recent writings on the political ecology of water, we seek to show how an engagement with Gramscian and Foucauldian work on power could be mutually beneficial for both areas of research. In so doing, we seek to mobilise some of the tensions, as well as the points of engagement, between Gramscian and Foucauldian approaches. Through opening up the ways in which water contributes to the survival of liberal capitalist formations and also to the production of distinctive subjectivities, this dialogue provides new inroads into the politics and praxis of everyday life.
1-Introduction:
For numerous scholars, an empirical focus on water has served to revitalize the historical and geographical materialism, providing new insights into produced environments, uneven development, and the politics of urban metabolisms. However, no one to date has deployed a Gramscian framework to understand urban water provision, and, with several exceptions (Gandy, 2006a; 2006b; Joyce, 2003; Osborne, 1996), little consideration has been given to the purchase that a Foucauldian approach would bring to our understanding of water politics. Accordingly, this paper examines whether our understanding of the politics of urban water provision can be pushed forward through a direct engagement with the work of Gramsci and Foucault. More explicitly, can we understand everyday relations to water as being imbricated in the operation of hegemony and in the maintenance of subtle forms of rule? When competing groups struggle over the merits of various means of water provision, they might also be understood to be struggling over the shape of a future society one in which the exchange relation is dominant, or one in which use and need are privileged over profit. However, when people routinely turn on a tap, are they also positioned within a myriad of relations and techniques of power that bind them to the survival of capitalism? This paper seeks to develop a theoretical framework through which future research can approach these questions. In short, we want to lay some modest foundations for a future research agenda. In order to do this, we enter into a second fount of theoretical debate, the reconcilability or irreconcilability of the work of Gramsci and Foucault. In recent years, this second debate has been taken up within the geographical literature through work on Neoliberalism. Here, Gramscian approaches have been brought into conversation with Foucauldian approaches in ways that, whilst productive for some (Larner, 2000; 2003; Peet, 2001; Sparke, 2006;Watts, 2003) others have argued to be naive, theoretically clumsy, and politically confused (Barnett, 2005). Whilst this debate is vital as a launch pad for some of the arguments taken forward in this paper, nowhere in the debate do we find a detailed discussion of the actual tensions and resonances within the work of these two important theorists. Instead, we see either the adoption of a rarely questioned pluralism or an entrenchment of positions around an antipathy to either historical materialism or post-structuralism. By shifting the empirical discussion from one around Neoliberalism to one around the politics and the practicalities of water provision, we argue that debates might discover a more productive terrain. This necessarily depends on much closer scrutiny of the work of both theorists. Hence, this paper serves two purposes: on the one hand, it seeks to push forward debates on urban water provision, and, on the other, it seeks to add a degree of theoretical robustness to the ongoing debates concerning Gramsci and Foucault. By bringing these discourses together, we hope to bolster our understanding of capitalist urbanization. After a brief review of some of the more recent work by geographers on water and social power, we turn to a more detailed exploration of the potential contributions of Gramsci and Foucault. Here, we focus on where we see resonances between the two: around hegemony and governmentality as dispersed forms of rule, and in the importance placed on interactions between everyday practices, the materiality of ideology, and power. We then go on to look at where we see significant tensions: in the quite different understandings of power, conceptions of the ‘social’ and the nature of struggle. In spite of these tensions, and in spite of what was often a fiercely anti-Marxist stance on Foucault’s part, we refuse to consign the two theorists to opposing camps. Indeed, along with several others (Driver, 1985; Jessop, 2007; Marsden, 1999) we argue that differences do not necessarily prevent dialogue. Foucault’s later work, although treading an utterly distinctive path, seemed to move in many of the directions that several historical materialist writers, including Gramsci, had also claimed. As Mouffe (1979) has argued, Gramsci approached many of the theoretical concerns that were to become central to Foucault’s oeuvre. For both Jessop (2007) and Driver (1985), this leads to what, on the surface, appears an erroneous claim: the theoretician we associate most with a certain microphysics of power was also a provocative genealogist of the state. Taking this forward in the final part of the paper, we show how research on water might be enlivened by such debates. We do this by revisiting the existing literature on water in light of our discussion of Gramsci and Foucault. In doing so, we delineate the contours of a new research agenda concerning the politics of water. Here, we suggest that the existing work could be advanced through explicating the connection between urban water provisions and both hegemonic projects and dispersed forms of rule. In addition, we suggest that attention needs to be paid to the practices and techniques through which social transformations are enacted.
2 Water and social power
For at least a century, geographers have been interested in the ways in which water, power, and politics are woven together. In the accounts of early environmental determinists, water plays a vital role in shaping the history of specific societies (Semple,1911).(1) Later, in somewhat more nuanced accounts, the interactions between social and natural processes are seen to shape political fortunes. Here, one might think of the possibilist critique of environmental determinism (Febvre, 1925) or, later, in geographers’ (Peet, 1985) engagements with Wittfogel’s (1957) Oriental Despotism or Worster’s (1986). Rivers of Empire. In more recent years, these relationships have been explored through a reinvigorated historical geographical materialism(2) and through attempts to ground political ecology much more firmly in a nuanced political economy. With regard to the latter, Bakker’s (2000; 2002; 2003, 2004; 2005) work has forced a questioning of many of the simplistic assumptions in a political economy of the environment. The crude equation of water privatisation with deregulation is unsettled through her argument that, within England and Wales, deregulation of the water sector was accompanied by reregulation. Continually, Bakker’s work urges us to rethink the political economy within a nuanced left political ecology. At times, Bakker’s (2007) work charts a separate course, as seen in her stress that attention be paid to how the reregulation of water is tied up with the reconfiguration of the citizen-consumer nexus. Even if the conceptual resources she deploys to question the latter lack the sophistication with which she approaches political ecology, Bakker’s work brings us to the cusp of explicitly considering how changes in urban water provision are tied to the reconfiguration of social formations. Others have found similarly productive insights in historicising the provision of clean drinking water, showing how this, in turn, comes to play a constitutive role in the rise of modernity. Gandy’s wide-ranging work (1999; 2002; 2004a; 2004b, 2006a; 2006b; 2006c) situates the provision of water within discourses of the organic and the sanitary city: water provision plays a key role in the rise of the Keynesian welfare state and the `splintered urbanism’ of Graham and Marvin’s (2001) contemporary city. In Concrete and Clay, Gandy (2002) develops rich insights into the politics of the city, through looking at New York’s expanding ecological frontier and the complexities of the city’s metabolic processes. Swyngedouw (1997a; 1999; 2004a; 2007), in turn, develops sweeping historical geographies of both the Spanish and the Ecuadorean waterscapes. In the Spanish case, the waterscape is shown to be both a crucial actor in the development of a late-19th-century and early-20th-century regenerationist dis course as well as a key actor in the scalar politics of Franco’s fascist dictatorship. In Kaika and Swyngedouw’s (2000) work, water infrastructure is shown to embody and express the modernist triumph over nature, before, in more recent years, it becomes a fetishised form of the Fordist social compromise. Kaika’s (2003; 2004; 2005) writings then go on to suggest ways in which this fetish might be transformed in periods of crisis that puncture the intimacies of the modern home. Both Gandy’s and Swyngedouw’s more recent work has sought to delve into some of the tropes through which socionatural relationships might be productively explored. For Gandy (2005; 2006a; 2006b), this has involved projects on cyborg urbanisation and, more recently, exploring the purchase in bringing Foucauldian ideas together with Agamben’s writing. For Swyngedouw (1996; 2006), this has involved a more overtly historical materialist exploration of urban metabolisms and hybridity. Implicit in much of this literature are several understandings of both power and the exercise of power. In the rich empirical studies there is a clear appreciation of how power circulates through sociohydraulic landscapes in decentralised and taken-for-granted manners. In this respect, power is an effect of a myriad of relations, not something that can be held. Thus, in Swyngedouw’s (2007) work, the coercive arm of the fascist state works in concert with a consensual power, evident in the material and symbolic flows of power in the waterscape. For Gandy the corporal extension of the body to the physical and symbolic infrastructure of the city decentres the human subject and rearranges the micropolitical realms of power in private spaces (2005; 2006a).
However, within Swyngedouw’s (2004a) and Gandy’s (2006c) work there is also a more realist understanding of power at play. Power for both of these authors is also something that can be held and deployed. For instance, the military elite of Lagos or the water vendors in Ecuador have the power to make water flow or not flow through cities. Crucially, both Swyngedouw and Gandy insist that power, in the realist sense, might be investigated through a historical geographical materialist analysis. Whilst a choice between a more relational and a more realist understanding of power does not necessarily need to be made, a more direct theoretical engagement with the notion of power could add another degree of sophistication to what is already cutting-edge scholarship. Taking Swyngedouw and Gandy as representative figures, we suggest there is a developing interest in exploring, on the one hand, how water figures in questions of the subject and power, and, on the other, how water contributes to the stabilization of particular social formations. On the one hand, there is a gesturing towards anti-humanist Foucauldian concerns and, on the other, there is a gesturing towards more humanist Gramscian concerns. While, as we noted in the introduction, the thoughts of these twoöthe humanist and the antihumanist, the imprisoned leader of the Italian communist party and the anticommunist campaigner for reform of the penal systemöare not easily reconciled, they may provide conceptual tools through which the water research agenda can be enlivened. Through exploring some of the tensions and through using one’s thought as a way of prising open questions within the other’s thought, productive insights might be possible.
3 The promise of Gramsci and Foucault?
There has been a profusion of literature in recent years on neoliberalism and governmentality. Whilst much of this has sought inspiration within Foucault’s later works and his lectures at the College de France,(3) this has often been complemented by references to Gramsci. For Watts (2003) some of the work in this field (see Braun, 2000; Dean, 1999) represents a particularly powerful means of bringing together resource struggles with the ragged politics of struggle over particular spaces. In Peet’s work (2001), a Gramscian theorisation of hegemony is complemented by some of Foucault’s writings on the power of discourse. And, for Larner (2000; 2003), some of the untidiness in the establishment of neoliberalisms in different contexts might be explored through a rapprochement of Gramsci and Foucault. Recently, however, Barnett (2005) has argued that the differences between `neo-marxist’ approaches and Foucault are significant enough to warrant extreme caution in developing accounts inspired by both. In reference to recent geographical work on neoliberalism, analysed through a Gramscian-Foucauldian lens, Barnett suggests that this scholarship is at best theoretically clumsy and at worst simply na|ive. He states that marxist and Foucauldian approaches “imply different models of the nature of explanatory concepts; different models of causality and determination; different models of social relations and agency; and different normative understandings of political power”, adding that “we should not finesse these differences away by presuming that the two approaches converge around a common real-world referent, so-called `neo-liberalism’ ” (Barnett, 2005, page 8). Neglected here, Barnett argues, are the debates around Hall’s (1978; 1984; 1988; Hall and Jacques, 1983) analyses of Thatcherism and the cultural up-swell that led to the distinctiveness of “Authoritarian populism”.
There is clearly much of value in Barnett’s argument. It provides a wake-up call to lazy theorising and disturbs what appears to be an unproductive consensus around neoliberalism (see also Castree, 2006; Larner, 2003). Indeed, we would add to Barnett’s inventory of differences between Gramsci and Foucault their distinctive conceptions of the `social’ and the prominence afforded to the role of struggle. However, from this, we do not arrive at the same impasse as Barnett [we do not claim to be alone in this (see Driver, 1985, Jessop, 2007; Marsden, 1999)]. Lingering in Barnett’s account, we suspect, is something of a straw-Gramsci, characterised by economistic hubris, a misguided conception of false consciousness, and a lingering humanist essentialism. Whereas Barnett appears to assign the two theorists to different camps, we, instead, seek to explore what can be gained from an analysis that builds on elements of both Gramsci’s work and Foucault’s work, whilst keeping the generative tensions between the two bodies of work explicit. Interestingly, and in contrast to Barnett’s account, both Gramsci and Foucault were at pains to stress (albeit not explicitly) conceptual themes that became central to the other’s work. For Gramsci, the individual served as an important level of political practice. To take just one example, in his assertion that everyone is a legislator, Gramsci (1971, page 266) states that if an individual accepts directives from others “he makes certain that others are carrying them out too.” He adds that, if an individual “understood their spirit, he propagates them as though making them into rules specially applicable to limited and definite zones of living.” For Foucault, maintaining a vestige of the connection between the subject and broader political economic relations became a major consideration in his later work. This is indicated by numerous comments in Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality, Volume 1 stressing that the rise of industrial capitalism was not possible without the profusion of new power relations that subjectivate people and populations in new and distinct ways (Foucault, 1990, pages 114, 140 ^ 142; 1995, pages 164, 174 ^ 175; see also Fontana and Bertani, 2003; Foucault, 2007, pages 48 ^ 49). Thus, in what follows, we detail the resonances between Gramsci’s conceptualisations of hegemony and ideology, and Foucault’s discussion of governmentality and power. Following this, we concentrate on some of the “productive tensions” between their work, through concentrating on their conception of the “social’” and political struggle.
4 Resonances and tensions:
Gramsci’s conceptualisation of hegemony is widely considered to be his preeminent contribution to political theory. Transforming earlier conceptions, Gramsci’s development of hegemony has two related facets. First, hegemony refers to the maintenance of one social group’s dominance over subordinate groups, accomplished through relations of consent and coercion (Gramsci, 1971; pages 144; 148; 152; 155; 161; 169; 180). Maintaining hegemony over subordinate social groups raises the second dimension of his conceptualisationöthe necessity of reproducing the social relations that are foundational to a given social formation [see Gramci's writings on “Americanism and Fordism” (1971, pages 277 ^ 316); see also Kipfer (2002)]. These two facets of hegemony are achieved through active moral and intellectual leadership throughout the state-civil society nexus. However, this should be thought of in explicitly material terms, and includes both elevating the material basis of `society’ and a material reworking of ideology (Gramsci, 1971, pages 60, 161; for discussion of this aspect of his work (see Cox, 1981; Femia, 1981; Hall, 1988; Hall et al, 1977; Jessop, 1988; 1990; 1997; Mouffe, 1979). As many writers have noted (Jessop, 1982; 1990, Showstack-Sasoon, 1980; Simon, 1991), the state is absolutely crucial to Gramsci’s understanding of hegemony. In a characteristically dialectical move, Gramsci shows the state to be both centralised and diffuse. Transforming the Hegelian distinction between state and civil society, Gramsci draws our attention to the relations through which state and civil society are woven together.
In one of his clearest statements of the `proper’ relation between state and civil society, he contrasts the situation in the East, in which the Bolsheviks had just succeeded in seizing state power, with the quite different situation in the West: “In the East the State was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between State and civil society, and when the state trembled, a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The State was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks: more or less numerous from one state to the next, it goes without saying öbut this precisely necessitated an accurate reconnaissance of each individual country” (1971, page 238). Rather than relying on coercion as the sole means of consolidating rule, the ruling class, operative throughout the integral state, works to develop acquiescence to its rule through the system of fortresses and earthworks lying behind [and sometimes in front of (Gramsci, 1971, page 244)] the outer ditch of its own institutions. Thus, Gramsci urges us to think through the many ways in which power is consolidated in institutions normally considered outside of the state: in “so called private initiatives” (page 258); through intellectuals (pages 5 ^ 23); and through “the Church, the trade unions, the schools, etc” (footnote 56). We might add to this, and will do so more explicitly later, the provision of water services. If Gramsci invites us to consider the role of the integral state as it reaches into the intimacies of the modern home and `private institutions’, this has clear resonances with Foucault’s concerns with governmentality as a form of dispersed rule. Whilst clearly Gramsci wanted to avoid reifying the state through constantly historicising its existence, Foucault (2003, page 31) stressed that “it is important not to, so to speak, deduce power by beginning at the centre and trying to see how far down it goes, or to what extent it is reproduced or renewed in the most atomistic elements of the society.” Thus, Foucault’s starting point was not the state, but rather the dispersed practices and knowledges that constituted everyday forms of rule. In an ascending analysis, these constitute the state (2003, pages 27 ^ 31). For Foucault, these micropractices are lost if political and social theory begins from the centre, assuming the sovereign power of the state: hence his repeated plea to “cut off the head of the king” (1990, pages 88 ^ 89). Foucault’s intervention is not to deny the existence of the state (although he does not take it as given), but, rather, an attempt to decentre it through beginning with the diverse set of relations that constitutes the basis of modern forms of rule (for a discussion see Jessop, 2007). For Foucault, then, government is understood famously as the `conduct of conduct’. It refers to a field of action between heterogeneous relations of power and states of outright domination (Foucault, 2000a; 2000b; Hindness, 1996; Lemke, 2002). As numerous commentators have pointed out, acts of governing are intimately tied to rationalities of government that provide a dominant logic which is repeatedly enacted and challenged: hence the term `governmentality’ (Dean, 1999; Joyce, 2003; Lemke, 001; 2002; Rose, 1996). However, the relationality of the concept clearly runs deeper than rationalities of government and includes material relations (Barry et al, 1996; Burchell, 1991; 1996; Elden, 2007a; Deleuze, 1988; Gordon, 1991; Lemke, 2001; 2002). In Foucault’s (2000a; page 209) words: “the things which in this sense government is to be concerned with are in fact men [sic], but men in their relations, and their links, their imbrication with those things that are wealth, resources, means of subsistence.” In this respect, government concerns shaping the conduct of individuals in accordance with the pursuit of state strength internally and externally vis-a© -vis other states, which necessarily involves the smooth functioning of economic processes (Burchell, 1991; Elden, 2007b; Foucault, 1981; 1990; 1995; 2000a; 2003).Whilst Foucault was not explicitly concerned with the problematic of hegemony and on the surface much of his writing on governmentality is targeted at the consensus ^ coercion couplet (see Lemke, 2002)(4)ö he did acknowledge that relations of power and truth operated within a broader form of social, cultural, and economic hegemony (Foucault, 2000c, page 133). Thus, Foucault’s attempt to radically reframe how we think of government by pointing out the dispersion of governmental relations throughout the social body might be seen to have antecedents in Gramsci’s work on the integral state. Understanding the form and function of the state has been crucial to much of the recent work in contextualising the relationship between water and power. However, understanding the state through the lens of Gramsci and Foucault necessitates a much closer analysis of the ways in which hegemony is established in the politics of everyday life, or, in Foucault’s words, through the `conduct of conduct’, at specific moments and in specific places. While the tropes of hegemony and governmentality set the context for the arenas in which politics happens and what is at stake in political practice specifically the dominance of one social group, the maintenance of social relations, and individual conductöthey do not reveal how political power is exercised. To answer this question we have to look at Gramsci’s development of ideology and Foucault’s discussion of power. For Gramsci the achievement of hegemony is accomplished through ideological practices that shape individuals’ beliefs and actions. Thus, in trying to understand the support for Mussolini (although Gramsci remains ambivalent as to whether or not this is genuinely hegemonic), Gramsci found it necessary to get to grips with ideology as an active force rather than as a veil of false consciousness. This active ideological force relies on a conscious attachment to certain core elements of a particular society. Rather than being cultivated through `sanctions’ or `compulsory obligations’, hegemony implies a far deeper attachment to a particular way of thinking and acting, what Gramsci (1971, page 242) describes as “a new conformism from below”. Hall’s (1978; 1984; Hall and Jacques, 1983) extended analyses of Thatcherism in the 1980s capture this particularly well, as he explores the paradoxically populist appeal of the authoritarian rule established by Thatcher. Lived practices are crucial to the material view of ideology adopted by Gramsci. Again, the particular `worldview’ being established through the integral state is not a form of false consciousness adopted by an otherwise passive, oppressed people. On this point, we would argue, Barnett’s critique (and his suggestion that the rapprochement of Gramscian and Foucauldian approaches leaves unanswered the question of how power ‘gets at’ particular people), albeit fair on some of his victims, is not fair on Gramsci. Barnett seems to assume that marxist approaches necessarily imply a sense in which people are duped, through ideologies that are always connected to the powerful. However, this overlooks important debates within marxism that stress the material functioning of ideology, extending from Marx’s writing on the fetishism of the commodity (Marx, 1977) through Lukacsian approaches to reification (Lukacs, 1971), to the Frankfurt School (Marcuse, 1991) and more recent writings on the struggle against fetishisation as process (Holloway, 2002). In our final discussion, we argue that the apparently banal act of collecting water is an important example of how material practices and ideas come to be interwoven. In Gramsci’s terms, ideologies are formed ”through everyday experience illuminated by `common sense’ ” (Gramsci, 1971, page 199). Common sense refers to the sedimentedöand at times contradictoryöideologies through which people act in the world. However, as with Marx (1974, pages 421 ^ 423), this is a dialectic process: both reality and thought are shaped by sensuous activityöthe working, the playing, and the making of socionatures. In turn, the ideas shaped in this process have a material force of their own, serving to reshape reality in particular ways. Such a material reading of ideology need fall into neither a crude economism nor a crude discursive determinism. Rather, it is the socionatural relationshipsöwhich contain immanent cultural, symbolic, political, and economic relationsöthat are of the greatest importance for establishing dominant worldviews at particular moments.
Foucault certainly had apprehensions about marxist versions of ideology many of which we would share (whilst noting that marxism is a terrain of debate and not a singular canon(5)). First, he argued that the juxtaposition of ideology to some deeper truth missed how `truth’ always operated within discourses and practices, generating specific effects. This negates the neat categorisation of certain ideas and practices as true or untrue. Second, he was sceptical that ideology should “stand in a secondary position relative to something that functions as its infrastructure, as its material, economic determinant” (Foucault, 2000c, page 119). As can be discerned from our discussion of Gramsci’s development of ideology above, he certainly escapes many of Foucault’s critiques. Nonetheless, we cannot avoid the fact that Foucault built his conceptualisation of power in opposition to `marxist’ understandings of ideology, his principle target being Althusser’s (1971) “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses”.(6) Contrasting his own with such work, Foucault (2000b) explained that one of the central concerns underlying his oeuvre remained the subject and techniques of subjectivation; the development of his understanding of power was a means of approaching these questions. Moreover, through processes of subjectivation, diverse forms of government are actually enacted. Foucault (2000b, page 331) explains that “there are two meanings of the word subject: subject to someone else by control and dependence, and tied to his [sic] own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power which subjugates and makes subject to.” In this respect, power is a relational concept in that there is no autonomous subject; rather, subjects exist only in relation to other people, institutions, the state, the factory, and so on (2000a). Importantly, power “is not something that can be divided between those that have it and hold on to it exclusively” and those who do not (2003, page 29); it is diffuse and circulates through the social body in a myriad of relations that are considered to be productive. By productive, Foucault has in mind the making of subjects/bodies, truths, institutions, etc, all of which are part-and-parcel of his ascending analysis of the state. But how does power operate? Butler (1993, page 9) explains that “there is no power that acts, but only a reiterated acting that is power in its persistence and instability.” In this respect, then, power refers to the continual repetition and challenging of particular regulatory ideals and practices, which are mutually imbricated in each other. As Montag (1995, page 73) argues, for Foucault, “knowledges are in no way exterior to power relations, caused by them only finally to transcend them; rather, they can only be understood as immanent in the materiality of practices and apparatuses.”
Towards the end of the 1970s Foucault’s project begins to change, and the concept of biopower enters into his conceptual repertoire. Up until this period, Foucault was concerned with the application of disciplinary technologies at the level of the individual and the body (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982; Foucault, 1995). Both biopower and governmentality arise in Foucault’s theorisations as a complement to individualizing techniques, in order to address relations of power which take the population as the principle target of regulation (Foucault, 1990; 2003). Lazzarato (2004) suggests that biopower holds a special place in Foucault’s conceptual repertoire, insofar as the distinction between the polis and bios is deliberately dismantled thus giving rise to a new ontology. In this new political ecological ontology, making life in certain forms becomes the operating principle. This involves the investment, administration, and control of both life and the population more generally. What is at stake is an attempt to bring regularity and equilibrium to both lives in themselves and to the general social order (Elden, 2007a; Foucault, 1980; 2003; Hardt and Negri, 2000; Lazzarato, 2004). It is important to stress that, in The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, Foucault (1990, page 171) was at pains to maintain that “biopower was without question an indispensable element in the development of capitalism”. He added that not only did capitalism need the proliferation and controlled insertion of docile bodies, but also “it had to have methods of power capable of optimizing forces, aptitudes, and life in general without at the same time making them more difficult to govern. ”Importantly, capitalism is not seen to be determining here; rather the practice of biopower becomes an important element in the development of capitalism; in Foucault’s (1994, page 379, as quoted by Fontana and Bertani, 2003, page 277) words: “all these power relations do not …emanate from a single source; it is the overall effect of a tangle of power relations that allows one class or group to dominate another.” Thus, biopower is far from reducible to capitalist political economy, but it is intimately related to its development. In a characteristic move, Foucault shifts our attention to the practices. Here we encounter once again what is, potentially, one of the principal points of connection between Foucault and Gramsci. Both have a deep appreciation for how ideas and types of knowledge are immanent within the materiality of practices and apparatuses. Thus, Gramsci and Foucault can provide us with an appreciation of how specific rationalities of government and ideologies are internalised within hospitals, cities, and, for our own purposes, produced waterscapes. Moreover, from a Foucauldian perspective, this entails managing the conduct of people and their relations with the material world, customs, beliefs, and ways of acting and thinking. From a Gramscian perspective, water infrastructure can be considered part of the hegemonic apparatus through which forms of `common sense’, in support of a specific group’s interests, come to be constituted. Overall, whilst Foucault and Gramsci deploy different conceptualisations of power in their work, in both cases power circulates throughout the socionatural fabric. For Foucault, this is clearly an explicit part of his work, which cannot be said to be true for Gramsci. A circulatory understanding of power is, however, implicit within Gramsci’s oeuvre. As Eagleton (1991, page 116) notes, Gramsci tries to understand how “power is to remain conveniently invisible, disseminated throughout the texture of social life and thus `naturalized’ as custom, habit, spontaneous practice.” Even if Eagleton highlights the circulatory nature of power, his comment also indicates that there is something ostensibly real about power that can be wilfully deployed and achieved. It is on this point that Foucault’s assertions to the contrary come to mind and we glean a difference in the two theorists’ conceptualisations. The point of convergence is that both theorists insist on the historical specificity of the operation of power, as can be seen in Foucault’s detailed genealogical studies and Gramsci’s close examinations of historical conjunctures.
As the above review begins to open up, while certain parts of Gramsci’s and Foucault’s work resonate with one another, there are significant tensions that should not be overlooked. On the surface there are manyöFoucault’s vehement anticommunism differs so markedly from many of Gramsci’s theorisations of the new role of the party, for example. However, beyond these somewhat superficial differences, we discover more significant tensions. Nevertheless, rather than seeing these tensions as debilitating, perhaps they can be used productively, as points of departure for new areas of research. Rather than a closed analytical model, such tensions might prise open new terrains for engaged praxis. One of the principle differences between the approaches lies in how one conceives of the `social’ (see Hennessy, 1993; Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). Gramsci’s dialectical approach suggests an understanding of the social that is internally related and determining, which means various economic, political, and cultural relations come to affect one another whilst congealing as a differentiated whole (1971, page 400; see also Hall, 1980). In contrast, the advocates of poststructuralism such as Deleuze (1988) celebrate Foucault’s conception of the social as discontinuous and fragmented, meaning that specific relations and knowledges are highly independent of one another and therefore not mutually constitutive. Moreover, Foucauldian approaches stress the manner in which notions such as `the social’ or `society’ can be dangerous abstractions: they elide the specificities of subjugated practices (Burchell, 1991; Foucault, 2003). Nonetheless, as we began to see above, lurking in the background of Foucault’s insistence on the discontinuous nature of the social and his genealogical methodology (Foucault, 1998a; 1998b) is an acknowledgment of the way in which dispersed techniques of power are connected to such things as the rise of industrial capitalism (Foucault, 1990; 1995) and state strength (Foucault, 1981; 2003). As Foucault (2003, page 24) reflected in Society Must Be Defended: “in a society such as oursöor in any society, come to that multiple relations of power traverse, characterize, and constitute the social body.” Additionally, as Jessop (2007) writes, Foucault “showed how the economy and the state were increasingly organised in conformity with key features of capitalist political economy without ever being reducible thereto and without these features in turn being fully pre-given.” This hanging on to a relational understanding of the social is indicative of Balibar’s (1992, page 42) claim that “the whole of Foucault’s work can be viewed in terms of a genuine struggle with Marx”, and his assertion that Foucault is the most marxist when he is not talking about Marx. In a slightly different vein, whilst some see this vestige of a relational ontology as a blight in Foucault’s otherwise brilliant genealogical approach (see, for example, Donnelly, 1992), we see this as an important bridging point between Foucault and Gramsci. If the relational dimension of Foucault’s work is developed, we can gain an appreciation for the connections between techniques of subjection and broader hegemonic projects. In many ways, this seems to be the direction in which Foucault was moving in his later lectures and writings. In relation to produced waterscapes and everyday interactions with water, Foucault provides us with the resources and vocabulary for understanding how specific subjectivities are enacted and the “how’”of government. Future research on the politics of water might be considerably invigorated through greater attention to the enactment of liberal government in the daily processes through which water is accessed. At the same time, it might provide a concrete example of the contradictions of liberal government in a period of ongoing primary accumulation.
How the social fabric is conceptualised has important consequences for how politics is conceived. If the social fabric is seen as fragmented and discontinuous, it becomes difficult to conceptualise political struggles that are not trapped in the local. [At the same time, although focusing on the specificities of resistances, Foucault is also prone to some fairly sweeping generalisations about the nature of struggles as evidenced in his threefold categorisation of centuries of struggle (see 2000b)]. In contrast, if various parts of the socionatural world are considered internally related, it becomes possible to envision political practice that brings together coalitions cutting across different spatialities and positionalities. For Gramsci, politics revolves around struggle, something he considers to be socially constitutive. Generally, this has been taken to mean the class struggle, even though Gramsci’s work was a move against economistic understandings of the social and within his work there is ample scope for exploring nationalist and religious contestations. Foucault, in contrast, is often considered to derogate the role of struggle (Driver, 1985). As Said (1986; see also Fraser, 1981) complained, Foucault’s “imagination of power is largely within rather than against it”. For Driver (1985, page 443), however, the assumed derogation of struggle within Foucault’s work is more generally “designed to undermine grand assertions of the primacy and inevitability of the `struggle’ of the proletariat, and to illuminate the whole panoply of local and concrete struggles which surround our everyday lives.” Once
again, we might be able to use one body of thought to gain a different take on the other. Taking this dialogue forward through concrete, historical examples is the task we would like to propose. As part of this agenda we hope to provide some suggestive starting points in section 5.
5 Taking the dialogue forward
At the outset, we asked whether everyday relations to water contribute to the maintenance of hegemony and the continuance of subtle forms of rule. Gramsci and Foucault, we suggested, are particularly apt theorists for addressing this question. In order to illustrate this possibility, and outline the contours of a new research agenda, we now revisit themes discussed in section 1 of the paper. In so doing, we recast and reevaluate the literature on water and social power in light of our discussion of Gramsci and Foucault.We will argue that an engagement with these theorists simultaneously broadens and specifies the analytic framework through which the relationship between water and power is interpreted. In this regard, we focus on: How struggles for legitimacy conducted through water infrastructure might be more clearly specified through an engagement with a reworked conception of hegemony. How this might be linked to a more explicit theorisation of the state in work on water and social power. Here, we argue that state theory is a spectre (an elephant in the room?) that haunts much of the literature on water and social power. And yet it is never stated with the precision that we might expect. Necessarily, the above points require far greater specificity as to how power is enacted. Here we focus on everyday hydraulic practices and their links to broader questions of power. Whilst much of the literature reviewed in section 2 has been strong on power it has been less clear on how this “works.” Finally, we return to the tensions between Gramscian and Foucauldian perspectives over the question of struggle and look at what additional light this sheds on the literature on water struggles. We conclude this section, first, with a set of methodological questions and, second, by emphasising the tremendous conceptual resources available here for theorising the urbanisation of capitalist hegemony. One of the great contributions of recent scholarship on water and urbanity has been to shift debates over water provision from a narrow technocratic ground to rich political and ecological terrains. As reviewed in section 2 of the paper, much of this scholarship has demonstrated how water engineering is turned to as a means of developing the moral, cultural, and political legitimacy of certain forms of rule. In the focus on legitimacy, the literature develops concerns closely related to those of Gramsci and Foucault. There is an implicit understanding of hegemony at work, insofar as the literature demonstrates how superiority over subordinate groups is established and legitimised (see Gandy, 2002; Kaika, 2005; Swyngedouw, 2007). How ever, this understanding remains implicit. For quite understandable reasons the primary aim of this work is to open up discussion of the socionatural in a nuanced, politicised manner hegemony is not discussed in precise terms. Whilst developing valuable new terrains of debate, this leaves key questions unanswered: without some understanding of the operation of hegemony, it is surprisingly difficult to move from the grand displays of power represented in large-scale engineering works to the more subtle ways in which power works through everyday hydraulic practices. In contrast, through transforming Gramsci’s understanding of hegemony from a social to a socionatural concept, as recent contributions to Gramscian political ecologies have done (Ekers et al, 2008), we are able to develop an understanding of how the aforementioned struggles for legitimacy are hegemonic struggles that might be waged within and through the waterscape. Alliances between and within specific groups are forged through the provision of water to certain areas, through billing procedures, and through subtle consensus-building practices operating through the water network. In order to bring to light the shift in the analytic perspective we are advancing, it is worthwhile revisiting Swyngedouw’s (1997a; 1999; 2004a; 2007) pathbreaking work. Swyngedouw’s (2007) insistence on the scalar dimensions of the Spanish waterscape, and the ‘networks of interest’ that have regional, national, and international dimensions, indicates how flows of power operate in a multiscalar fashion. Legitimacy, however, remains anchored in governmental institutions. Power is largely a “thing” that certain groups have and others do not (Swyngedouw, 2004a), even if the possession of power by certain groups is exercised in a circulatory way through a variety of conduits. In this latter respect, power works to consolidate hegemony for particular groups. This understanding of power approaches that of Gramsci. For Gramsci, the achievement of power, or, in other words, the taking of power, is the political task of subaltern groups (for examples, see notes on The Modern Prince, 1971, pages 125 ^ 205). Achieving hegemony through a long-term war of position is crucial in countering the subversive operation of power through the integral state. If we shift our lens from power as a thing that is held to power as productive, in the sense of materialising a reiterated norm, then we must instead enquire into the production of specific subjects and customs and beliefs. This generates questions around how the reengineering of the waterscape affects the ways in which an individual enters into collective life. What are the other ideologies that are displaced and merged in the process? And what are the contradictions of this process? To draw on Foucault, and yet bring him into conversation with Swyngedouw’s (2007) work, what are the specific techniques of power that Franco colonises in order to produce acquiescent subjects? For instance, is there a reconfiguration of disciplinary techniques of power that individuate people and of biopolitical techniques that “optimize forces, aptitudes and life in general” (Foucault, 1994, page 379, as quoted by Fontana and Bertani, 2003, page 277)? Answering these questions is difficult, but in order to do so we need to consider power as an effect of dispersed socionatural relations in addition to power, normatively understood, as something that someone has. Doing so would arguably elucidate the specific techniques of power through which Franco’s hegemony is enacted or not. The key research issue thereby becomes establishing the connections between the specificities of power and broader questions around hegemony. In doing this, we argue that questions of the state may also be developed further. In a strange paradox, although the legitimacy achieved through hydrosocial engineering is a central focus of the literature on water and social power, the state is rarely discussed. This is in spite of nuanced and theoretically sophisticated discussions of state theory in other aspects of several of the protagonists’ work.(7) Engaging with the work of Gramsci and Foucault permits a considered discussion of the form and function of the state that fits surprisingly well with the work already conducted on water politics. Gramsci’s two-headed conception of the integral state seen to be both centralized and dispersedösynergises well with the discussion of power developed above. His insistence on analytics that begin from `below’ permits an understanding of the state that emanates from the taps, the pipes, and the plumbing, whilst documenting the links between the subtle operation of state power and the workings of everyday life. The attention to Foucault’s paradoxically antistatist genealogies of the state (Driver, 1985; Jessop, 2007) might also serve as a fecund ground for developing an understanding of state practices, as opposed to centralised state poweröexactly the kind of analysis that work on water and social power demands. At times, the literature on water treats the state as if it is a real entity that facilitates and imposes changes in the water sector (see, for example, Bakker, 2002; Bond, 2002; McDonald and Pape, 2002). Gramsci and Foucault turn this conception on its head through detailing how the state is constantly reproduced out of changing water practices. Indeed, if a theorisation of the state is implicit in much of the literature, it is almost certainly a Poulantzean conception. As Jessop (2007) notes in a recent discussion, and as Driver (1985) noted earlier, Poulantzas provides a vital connection between a Foucauldian genealogy of the state and the sort of nuanced historical materialist position possible from Gramsci’s work. Once again, the waterscape provides a surprisingly rich terrain over which such a theorisation might be explored. If Foucault’s genealogies of the state begin from the sets of practices that are stabilised in specific moments, Gramsci similarly urges us to specify the material ways in which hegemony comes to be established. It is vital, therefore, to specify the way in which power is enacted. Barnett’s (2005) rhetorical trapöas he states that recent work on neoliberalisms fails to specify how power `gets at’ people needs to be answered through looking at the way in which this power is enacted at particular moments through material practices. Our starting point in this might be Kaika’s (2003; 2004; 2005) highly suggestive work in which she is able to move between overt expressions of state power, in the form of large-scale dam projects, and the politics of domestic practices. It becomes clear that both water and the practices that are associated with water provision serve to distribute power through the capillaries of the water network. By bringing Gramsci’s theorisation of everyday practices together with a Foucauldian emphasis on knowledge, practices, and power, further nuanced understandings of the day-to-day acts of provisioning a household with water or paying a bill to a newly privatised water company might be made possible. Importantly, this implies a movement between the infrastructural sites that have captured the attention of many of the theorists of the contemporary waterscapeöfrom the iconographies of large dams to the vast interbasin transfers achieved under demagogic forms of rule and some of the more intimate practices within the home, within the government office, and so on. Just as Kipfer (2008) and others have sought to reassert the importance of the everyday in Gramsci’s work, we would seek a dialogue with Foucault over the materialities and the practices of everyday waterscapes.We see indications of this type of research in Kaika’s reflections on how the (re)engineering of water associated with the rise of modernity transformed gendered practices in the home.(8) The connections that Kaika makes are more empirical and historical rather than theoretical. Thus, Gramsci and Foucault might provide the theoretical tools through which more direct connections might be made between the twin ‘scales’ of research in Kaika’s work. It should be clear that, far from arguing that recent debates over water and social power exclude many of these concerns, the concerns which the literature already opens up might be reanimated by an explicit engagement with the Foucault-Gramsci problematic. Gandy’s (2005; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c) work is another interesting case in point. In the first instance, Gandy uses the cyborg metaphor to understand the material interface between the body and the city: the cyborg permits us to consider the “abstract and inter-subjective realm through which political and cultural ideas become constituted or `fleshed out’ in parallel with the concrete development of the city” (2005, page 38). In making this argument, Gandy illustrates how discourses become articulated in the infrastructure of the city and cyborg bodies. In this respect, we begin to see how power as a set of relations that subjectivates people is immanent to urban infrastructure. In the second instance, Gandy’s (2006a; 2006b; 2006c) more recent work looks at how a Foucauldian understanding of power allows us to understand the constitution of the modern subject and everyday life in relation to the physical infrastructure of cities and discourses of hygiene and sanitation. This would seem to go to the core of several of the substantive arguments we have sought to make in this paper. It is worth considering what the political and analytical stakes in adopting this more explicitly poststructural position might be. Gandy (2006b; 2006c) is well aware of the difficult political commitments that follow from some of the key premises of French poststructualist thought, noting that it is a slippery slope from Foucault and Deleuze to the liberalism of Hayek. He adds that theoretical implications of both Foucault and Deleuze remain vague in relation to the practical dilemmas of urban Realpolitik at the scale of an entire city or metropolitan region. Perhaps there is something to be gained in bringing Gramscian thought to these questions. In the last section, we saw how Gramsci provides a rejoinder to Foucault’s (in spite of himself) totalising theory of power, critiqued by the likes of Said and Fraser. In particular, Gramsci never gave up hope in the possibility of transformative politics, poignantly captured in the oft-quoted phrase advocating for “the pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will”. At times Foucault appears to give up on “the optimism of the will”, and hence Gandy is challenged to find the basis for a broad-based political project within Foucault’s work. As suggested in the previous section, Gramsci’s insistence on the relational understanding of the social and the constitutive role of struggle may provide a means for Gandy to advance his political claims. Grasmci’s writings on `the Southern question’ show a deep concern with how to forge common alliances of interest between the Southern peasantry and the industrial proletariat of the North. This is also evident in Gramsci’s repeated reflections on the city and the country: These examine the processes through which differences come to be articulated and woven into a historic bloc. The need for a workable understanding of the public realm might also be explored through Gramsci’s writings. Indeed, his appreciation of how hegemony is achieved through advancing the material basis of societyöin addition to more recent attempts at understanding how ideologies are embodied and expressed within urban infrastructureöcould provide a firmer basis from which to advance claims about the need to develop a public realm in a city of fragmentation and difference (Gandy, 2006b; 2006c). One final area in which we think research might be further enlivened is around the strategic and tactical possibilities of political struggles. To date, much of the work on water and social power has sought to prise open the panoply of struggles that do exist around water in daily life. Whilst gendered, `racial’, and `ethnic’ struggles have been crucial subjects of empirical investigations, so also have been class struggles. Political economic questions have never lost their salience within historical materialist approachesöstill perhaps dominant within work on water and power. The reasons for this are both obvious and yet important: in the vast majority of capitalist societies, the struggle for access to water remains one revolving around the ability of some to be able to pay and the inability of others. More recently, this struggle has been heightened by the easing of restrictions on the ability of some to be able to profit, in monetary terms, from the difficulties some encounter in accessing water. Water struggles are inevitably defined in class terms. Invariably, they cannot be extricated from capital circulation and a capitalist system of accumulation, so central to class positionality. If, however, to pick up on this insight, there is any tendency towards reductionism in historical geographical materialist approaches, perhaps it might be challenged through Foucault’s questioning of the primacy of “the good old logic of “contradiction”(Foucault, 1980, page 164). Here, a more recent focus on how class, gender, and racial struggles intersect and articulate with previous historical geographies is crucial. At the same time, Foucault’s frequently totalising view of power might be challenged through the concrete examples of revolts against techniques of power provided by work on water politics (see, for example, Bond, 2004; Debbane and Keil, 2004; Desai, 2002; Loftus and Lumsden, 2008). Rather than derogating the role of struggle, therefore, an engagement with Foucault serves to prise struggles open still further. Indeed, we might seek to unpick the many ways in which a water politics serves to universalize through its coverage of more and more peopleöwhilst also individualising, as more and more households are isolated through their inability to pay. In different ways, both Laurie’s (2005) and O’Reilly’s (2006) work offers suggestive insights into these individualizing practices and how such natural resource interventions serve to generate gendered subjectivities. Struggles against and within these practices enliven both sets of research. As this discussion has sought to illustrate, some of the most exciting research around urban water provision contains threads of research closely akin to the concerns that preoccupied Gramsci and Foucault. We can see this in the discussions of the legitimising role of water and the changing practices of everyday access to water. Bringing the new wave of literature on water and social power together with a theoretical engagement with Gramsci and Foucault has the potential to fundamentally deepen our understanding of the urbanisation of hegemony. Thus far, those debates that have sought to urbanise Gramsci in productive ways have been theoretical in orientation. This brings us to a final point concerning the fecundity of the recent literature on water. Deploying Gramsci and Foucault in order to understand the empirical studies of the sociopolitical and economic aspects of water provides a concrete means of exploring the enactment of urban hegemony and governmentalities. Perhaps the greatest obstacle in pursuing this type of research is in navigating the tricky methodological terrain. Paying attention to broad political, economic, cultural, and ecological relations and understanding how these are articulated, expressed, and resisted in the ideologies and techniques of power of everyday life is no easy task. Perhaps this begins to explain the historical orientation to much of the research. It has often been more productive to contemplate the long dure over which such relations have transformed than it has been to look outwards from the present moment. Nonetheless, we think there are many reasons for undertaking this kind of research. There is the possibility that we bring into focus the contradictory ideologies expressed in everyday customs and behaviours. Foucault (1981) urges us to consider the microtechniques of power that must be challenged as part of a broader political project, something he was certainly not always averse to considering. In identifying the fragments of ideologies expressed in everyday practices, and in identifying peoples’ challenges to techniques of power both disciplinary and biopolitical we can see the contradictions of a hegemonic project. It is from within these contradictions and tensions that new societies might be envisioned and fought for. Indeed, such work can build upon the immanent critiques at work in people’s everyday lives and everyday practices. To sum up, what Gramsci and Foucault bring to the table is a set of conceptual and political resources through which we can gather up the provocative threads of research already undertaken and take them forward through a nuanced analytical framework. Gramsci and Foucault ask us to build bridges between wider questions of legitimacy and hegemony and specific, subjectifying practices and techniques of power. Lastly, the two theorists pose difficult questions around what can be concluded from sites of resistance to socially unjust changes in the water sector: we are forced, for example, to question whether struggles against water privatisation might be celebrated as a part of broader hegemonic stuggles or simply as revolts against disciplinary forms of power. This is more than a theoretical question, but Gramsci and Foucault force us to interrogate the political conclusions we draw from these concrete struggles.
6 Conclusions
While this paper is situated at the intersection of two different debates, it is an attempt to push two different discussions forward through reciprocal synergies. A more direct engagement with Gramsci and Foucault can potentially serve to explicate many of the crucial insights that have largely remained implicit in the water literature thus far. Through revelling in both the tensions and the resonances between Gramsci and Foucault, we have tried to develop a research agenda around the quotidian ways in which water and politics are intertwined. We have sought to pose questions about the complicated relations between grand political economic considerations and the seemingly banal, taken-for-granted act of turning on a tap. On the other hand, we have unashamedly used water as a heuristic device to explore and push forward debates concerning the relationship between Gramsci and Foucault. However, it is not enough to state that the differences between Gramsci and Foucault represent productive tensions. Rather, these tensions must be made explicit, andöwe would agree with Barnett (2005)önot finessed away. In doing so, we hope to have steered clear of a naive pluralism while also remaining cognizant of the existing tensions and contradictions that are uncovered through bringing Gramsci and Foucault into conversation with one another. The overall effect is to further our understanding of capitalist urbanisation, through illustrating how hegemony is exercised through techniques of power, imbricated in everyday relations with water.While other scholars have discussed issues of urbanism and hegemony (Jessop, 1997; Kipfer, 2002; 2008), we would insist that more attention needs to be paid to the specific practices through which urban hegemony may or may not be achieved. Thinking politically, Foucault urges us to consider and challenge the micropolitics of things like urban water provision through which people are subjectified in specific ways. However, drawing on a Gramscian sensibility requires us to think about how these specific techniques of power are connected to everyday practices and broader struggles for hegemony. To conclude, working through the Gramsci ^Foucault problematic requires individuals to make epistemological, ontological, and normative commitments where and when conflicts arise. The litmus test in terms of epistemological, ontological, and normative relevance of a Gramscian or Foucauldian approach must surely be more than a theoretical exercise. Rather, it must depend on the ability of the framework to account for the untidiness and political struggles of everyday life. In this regard, much of the work being conducted on water provides both a theoretical environment through which Gramsci and Foucault might be brought into dialogue, and the situated and grounded case studies that have often taken geographic research in such fruitful directions. Through a ceaseless movement between the concrete and the abstract, such work provides hope not only for reinvigorating theoretical debates but also for shaping praxis. It provides a material phenomenon through which the micropolitics of power are connected with broader political ^ economic structures. And it provides specific practices through which these connections might be subverted, challenged, and reversed. Through remaining open to potential conversations, tensions, and differences in the work of Gramsci and Foucault, we feel the academic and political terrain on which we operate might be transformed in positive and progressive ways.
Michael Ekers
Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, England;
Alex Loftusô
Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, England;
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2008, volume 26, pages 698 ^ 718
Acknowledgements. This paper has had a remarkably long gestation. Many have helped it (and us) along the way. In particular, we would like to thanköwhilst not holding them in any way responsible for the content of the paperöKaren Bakker, Michelle Buckley, Zuzana Eperjesi, Olivier Graefe, Andrew Luck, Roger Keil, Stefan Kipfer, Stephanie Rutherford, Erik Swyngedouw, and three anonymous referees at Society and Space.
References:
(1) See chapter 1 entitled “The operation of geographic factors in history”. The book is replete with
references to the role of geography in shaping history and includes a tenth chapter on “Man’s
relation to the water”.
(2) For discussions of the concept of historical geographical materialism see Harvey (1982; 1996;
2003), Smith (1984), and Swyngedouw (2000).
(3) For an excellent discussion of these courses, further contextualising Foucault’s (2000a) much
celebrated lecture titled “Governmentality”, see Elden (2007a; 2007b) and Jessop (2007).
(4) Lemke (2002, page 52) explains that, for Foucault, “coercion and consensus are reformulated
as means of government among others; they are rather `effects’ or `instruments’ rather than
the `foundation’ or `source’ of power relationships.” It should be noted that Gramsci utilised the
analytics of consent and coercion to describe multiple social relations ranging from the influence of
one individual on another, to relations associated with religion, education, and policing. In addi-
tion, Gramsci’s treatment of consent and coercion did not exclusively revolve around organizing
the legitimacy of the sovereign or the state.
(5) It is almost a cliche¨ , but worth remembering, that, up until his death, Marx himself steadfastly
refused to be labelled a `Marxist’.
(6) For a brilliant discussion of the similarities and differences between Foucault’s Discipline and
Punish and Althusser’s “Ideology and ideological state apparatus”, see Montag (1995).
(7) Swyngedouw’s (1997b; 2004b) work on `glocalisation’ is a classic example here.
(8) Similar connections between broad infrastructure projects, legitimacy, and the microgeographies
of the home are made in Kaika’s writings on Athens. She explains that when the taps ran dry in
Athens in the early 1990s this disrupted the autonomy of the modern home and revealed the
constellation of political, economic, and ecological relations through which tap water was pro-
duced and consumed. The drying up of household water taps was used as a political leverage point
through which consent for tariff increases and dam projects was exacted.
Althusser L, 1971 Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (Monthly Review Press, New York)
Bakker K, 2000, “Privatizing water: producing scarcity: theYorkshire drought of 1995” Economic
Geography 76(1) 4 ^ 27
Bakker K, 2002, “From state to market?:Water mercantilizacio¨ n in Spain” Environment and
Planning A 34 767 ^ 790
Bakker K, 2003, “A political ecology of water privatization” Studies in Political Economy 70
(Spring) 35 ^ 58
Bakker K, 2004 An Uncooperative Commodity: PrivatizingWater in England and Wales (Oxford
University Press, Oxford)
Bakker K, 2005, “Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England
and Wales”Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95 542 ^ 565
Bakker K, 2007, “The `commons’ versus the `commodity’: alter-globalization, anti-privatization
and the human right to water in the global south” Antipode 39 430 ^ 455
Balibar Eè , 1992, “Foucault and Marx: the question of nominalism”, in Michel Foucault Philosopher
Ed. T Armstrong (Routledge, New York) pp 80 ^ 98
Barnett C, 2005, “The consolidations of `neoliberalism”’ Geoforum 36(1) 7 ^ 12
Barry A, Osborne T, Rose N S, 1996 Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism
and Rationalities of Government (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
Bond P, 2002 Unsustainable South Africa (University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg)
Bond P, 2004, “Water commodification and decommodification narratives: pricing and policy
debates from Johannesburg to Kyoto to Cancun and back” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism
15(1) 7 ^ 25
Braun B, 2000, “Producing vertical territory: geology and governmentality in late-Victorian
Canada” Ecumene 7(1) 7 ^ 46
Burchell G, 1991, “Peculiar interests: civil society and governing `the system of natural liberty’ ”,
in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality Eds G Burchell, C Gordon, P Miller
(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 119 ^ 150
Burchell G, 1996, “Liberal government and techniques of the self ”, in Foucault and Political Reason:
Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Rationalities of Government Eds A Barry, T Osborne, N S Rose
(UCL Press, London) pp 19 ^ 36
714 M Ekers, A Loftus
Butler J, 1993 Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of `Sex’ (Routledge, London)
Castree N, 2006, “From neoliberalism to neoliberalisation: consolations, confusions, and necessary
illusions” Environment and Planning A 38 1 ^ 6
Cox R, 1981, “Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: an essay in method”Millennium:
Journal of International Studies 12 163 ^ 175
Dean M, 1999 Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (Sage, London)
Debbane A-M, Keil R, 2004, “Multiple disconnections: environmental justice and urban water
in Canada and South Africa” Space and Polity 8 209 ^ 225
Deleuze G, 1988 Foucault (Athlone Press, London)
Desai A, 2002 We Are the Poors! Community Movements in Post-apartheid South Africa (Monthly
Review Press, New York)
Donnelly M, 1992, “On Foucault’s use of the notion `biopower’ ”, in Michel Foucault Philosopher
Ed. T Armstrong (Routledge, New York) pp 199 ^ 203
DreyfusHL, Rabinow P, 1982Michel Foucault, Beyond StructuralismandHermeneutics (University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
Driver F, 1985, “Power, space, and the body: a critical assessment of Foucault’s Discipline and
Punish” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 3 425 ^ 446
Eagleton T, 1991 Ideology: An Introduction (Verso, London)
Ekers M, Loftus A, Mann, G, 2008, “Gramscian political ecologies” Geoforum forthcoming
Elden S, 2007a, “Rethinking governmentality” Political Geography 26(1) 29 ^ 33
Elden S, 2007b, “Governmentality, calculation, territory” Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 25 562 ^ 580
Febvre L, 1925 A Geographical Introduction to History (Kegan Paul, London)
Femia J, 1981 Gramsci’s Political Thought (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
Fontana A, Bertani M, 2003, “Situating the lectures”, in Society Must be Defended: Lectures at
the Colle© ge de France, 1975 ^ 76 Ed. M Foucault (Picador, New York) pp 273 ^ 293
FoucaultM, 1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and OtherWritings, 1972 ^ 1977 (Harvester
Press, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
Foucault M, 1981, “Omnes et singulatim: towards a critique of political reason”, in The Tanner
Lectures of Human Values Ed. S McMurrin (University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT)
pp 224 ^ 254
Foucault M, 1990 The History of Sexuality (Vintage, New York)
Foucault M, 1994, “El poder, una bestia magnifica (Le pouvoir, une beª te magnifique’)”, in Dits
et Eè crits 1954 ^ 1988,Volume 2 (Gallimard, Paris) pp 368 ^ 382
Foucault M, 1995 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Vintage, New York)
Foucault M, 1998a, “Nietzsche, genealogy, history”, in Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology
Ed. J Faubion (The New Press, New York) pp 269 ^ 278
Foucault M, 1998b, “On the ways of writing history”, in Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology
Ed. J. Faubion (The New Press, New York) pp 279 ^ 296
Foucault M, 2000a, “Governmentality”, in Power Ed. P Rabinow (The New Press, New York)
pp 201 ^ 222
Foucault M, 2000b, “The subject and power”, in Power Ed. P Rabinow (The New Press, NewYork)
pp 326 ^ 348
Foucault M, 2000c, “Truth and power”, in Power Ed. P Rabinow (The New Press, New York)
pp 111 ^ 134
Foucault M, 2003 SocietyMust Be Defended: Lectures at the Colle© ge de France, 1975 ^ 76 (Picador,
New York)
Foucault M, 2007, “Spaces of security: the example of the town. Lecture of 11th January 1978”
Political Geography 26(1) 48 ^ 56
Fraser N, 1981, “Foucault on modern power: empirical insights and normative confusions” Praxis
International 1 272 ^ 287
Gandy M, 1999, “The Paris sewers and the rationalization of urban space” Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, New Series 24(1) 23 ^ 44
Gandy M, 2002 Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in NewYork City (MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA)
Gandy M, 2004a, “Rethinking urban metabolism: water, space and the modern city” City 8
363 ^ 379
Gandy M, 2004b, “Water, modernity and emancipatory urbanism”, in The Emancipatory City?
Paradoxes and Possibilities Ed. L Lees (Sage, London) pp 178 ^ 191
The power of water: developing dialogues between Foucault and Gramsci 715
Gandy M, 2005, “Cyborg urbanization: complexity and monstrosity in the contemporary city”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(1) 26 ^ 49
Gandy M, 2006a, “The bacteriological city and its discontents” Historical Geography 34 14 ^ 25
Gandy M, 2006b, “Zones of indistinction: some thoughts on the bio-politics of urban space”
Cultural Geographies 13 497 ^ 516
GandyM, 2006c, “Planning, anti-planning and the infrastructure crisis facing metropolitan Lagos”
Urban Studies 43 371 ^ 396
Gordon C, 1991, “Governmental rationality: an introduction”, in The Foucault Effect: Studies in
Governmentality Eds G Burchell, C Gordon, P Miller (University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL) pp 1 ^ 52
Graham S, Marvin, S, 2001 Splintering Urbanism (Routledge, London)
Gramsci A, 1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Lawrence and Wishart,
London)
Hall S, 1978 Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order (Macmillan, London)
Hall S, 1980, “Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance”, in Sociological Theories:
Race and Colonialism (UNESCO, Paris) pp 305 ^ 345
Hall S, 1984, “The great moving right show”, in The Politics of Thatcherism Eds S Hall, M Jaques
(Lawrence and Wishart, London) pp 39 ^ 56
Hall S, 1988, “Authoritarian populism: a reply”, inThatcherism: ATale of Two Nations Eds B Jessop,
K Bonnett, S Bromley, T Ling (Polity Press, Cambridge) pp 99 ^ 108
Hall S, Jacques M, 1983 The Politics of Thatcherism (Lawrence and Wishart in association with
Marxism Today, London)
Hall S, Lumley, B, McLennan, G, 1977, “Politics and ideology: Gramsci” Cultural Studies 10
45 ^ 76
Hardt M, Negri A, 2000 Empire (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
Harvey D, 1982, The Limits to Capital (Blackwell, Oxford)
Harvey D, 1996 Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference (Blackwell, Malden, MA)
Harvey D, 2003 Paris, Capital of Modernity (Routledge, New York)
Hennessy R, 1993 Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse (Routledge, London)
Hindness B, 1996 Discourses of Power: From Hobbes to Foucault (Blackwell, Oxford)
Holloway J, 2002 Change theWorld Without Taking Power (Pluto Press, London)
Jessop B, 1982 The Capitalist State: Marxist Theories and Methods (New York University Press,
New York)
Jessop B, 1988 Thatcherism: A Tale of Two Nations (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Jessop B, 1990 State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in its Place (Penn State University Press,
University Park, PA)
Jessop B, 1997, “A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes: accumulation
strategies, hegemonic projects, and governance”, in Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory:
Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy Ed. M Lauria (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)
pp 51 ^ 74
Jessop B, 2002 The Future of the Capitalist State (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Jessop B, 2007, “From micro-powers to governmentality: Foucault’s work on statehood, state
formation, statecraft and state power” Political Geography 26(1) 34 ^ 40
Joyce P, 2003 The Rule of Freedom (Verso, London)
Kaika M, 2003, “Constructing scarcity and sensationalizing water politics” Antipode 35 919 ^ 954
Kaika M, 2004, “Interrogating the geographies of the familiar: domesticating nature and
constructing the autonomy of the modern home” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 28 265 ^ 286
Kaika M, 2005 City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City (Routledge, New York)
Kaika M, Swyngedouw E, 2000, “Fetishizing the modern city: the phantasmagoria of urban
technological networks” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24 120 ^ 138
Kipfer S, 2002, “Urbanization, everyday life and the survival of capitalism: Lefebvre, Gramsci
and the problematic of hegemony” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 13 117 ^ 149
Kipfer S, 2008, “Hegemony, everyday life, and difference: how Lefebvre urbanized Gramsci”, in
Space, Difference, and Everyday Life:HenriLefebvre andRadicalPolitics EdsKGoonewardena,
S Kipfer, R Milgrom, C Schmid (Routledge, New York)
Laclau E, Mouffe C, 1985 Hegemny and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics
(Verso, London)
LarnerW, 2000, “Neoliberalism: policy, ideology, governmentality” Studies in Political Economy
63 (Fall) 5 ^ 25
716 M Ekers, A Loftus
LarnerW, 2003, “Neoliberalism?” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21 509 ^ 512
Laurie N, 2005, “Establishing development orthodoxy: negotiating masculinities in the water
sector” Development and Change 36 527 ^ 549
Lazzarato M, 2004, “From biopower to biopolitics” Pli: TheWarwick Journal of Philosophy 13
100 ^ 111
Lemke T, 2001, “ `The birth of biopolitics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Colle© ge de France
on neo-liberal governmentality” Economy and Society 30 190 ^ 207
Lemke T, 2002, “Foucault, govermentality, and critique” Rethinking Marxism 14(3) 49 ^ 64
Loftus A, Lumsden F, 2008, “Reworking hegemony in the urban waterscape” Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, New Series 33 109 ^ 126
Lukacs G, 1971History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics (Merlin Press,
London)
McDonald D A, Pape J, 2002 The Crisis of Service Delivery in South Africa (Zed Books, London)
Marcuse H, 1991 One-dimensional Man (Beacon Press, Boston, MA)
Marsden R, 1999 The Nature of Capital: Foucault after Marx (Routledge, London)
Marx K, 1974 EarlyWritings (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
Marx K, 1977 Capital,Volume 1 (Vintage, New York)
MontagW, 1995, “ `The soul is the prison of the body’: Althusser and Foucault, 1970 ^ 1975”
Yale French Studies 88 53 ^ 77
Mouffe C,1979,“Hegemony and ideology inGramsci”, in Gramsci andMarxist Theory Ed.CMouffe
(Routledge, New York) pp 168 ^ 204
O’Reilly K, 2006, “ `Traditional’ women, `modern’ water: linking gender and commodification in
Rajasthan, India” Geoforum 37 958 ^ 972
Osborne T, 1996, “Security and vitality: drains, liberalism and power in the nineteenth century”,
in Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism and Rationalities of Government
Eds A Barry, T Osborne, N Rose (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 99 ^ 122
Peet R, 1985, “An introduction to the life and thought of Karl Wittfogel” Antipode 17 3 ^ 21
Peet R, 2001, “Ideology, discourse and the geography of hegemony: from socialist to neoliberal
development in South Africa” Antipode 34 54 ^ 84
Rose N S, 1996, “Governing `advanced’ liberal democracies”, in Foucault and Political Reason:
Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Rationalities of Government Eds A Barry, P Osborne, N S Rose
(UCL Press, London) pp 37 ^ 64
Said E, 1986, “Foucault and the imagination of power”, in Foucault: ACritical Reader Ed. D C Hoy
(Blackwell, Oxford) pp 150 ^ 155
Semple E C, 1911 Influences of Geographic Environment (Constable, London)
Showstack-Sassoon A, 1980 Gramsci’s Politics (Biddles, London)
Simon R, 1991 Gramsci’s Political Thought: An Introduction (Lawrence and Wishart, London)
Smith N, 1984 Uneven development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space (Blackwell,
Malden, MA)
Sparke M, 2006, “Political geographies of globalization: (2) governance” Progress in Human
Geography 30 357 ^ 372
Swyngedouw E, 1996, “The city as a hybrid: on nature, society and cyborg urbanisation”
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 7(1) 65 ^ 80
Swyngedouw E, 1997a, “Power, nature and the city. The conquest of water and the political
ecology of urbanization in Guayaquil, Ecuador, 1880 ^ 1990” Environment and Planning A
29 311 ^ 332
Swyngedouw E, 1997b, “Neither global nor local: `glocalisation’ and the politics of scale”, in
Spaces of Globalisation: Reasserting the Power of the Local Ed. K R Cox (Guilford Press,
New York) pp 137 ^ 166
Swyngedouw E, 1999, “Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production
of the Spanish waterscape, 1890 ^ 1930”Annals of the Association of American Geographers
89 443 ^ 465
Swyngedouw E, 2000, “The Marxian alternative: historical-geographical materialism and the
political economy of capitalism”, in A Companion to Economic Geography Eds E Sheppard,
T Barnes (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 41 ^ 59
Swyngedouw E, 2004a Social Power and the Urbanization of Water: Flows of Power (Oxford
University Press, Oxford)
Swyngedouw E, 2004b, “Globalisation or `glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling”
Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17(1) 25 ^ 48
The power of water: developing dialogues between Foucault and Gramsci 717
Swyngedouw E, 2006, “Circulation and metabolisms: (hybrid) natures and (cyborg) cities” Science
as Culture 15 105 ^ 121
Swngedouw E, 2007, “Technonatural revolutions: the scalar politics of Franco’s hydro-social
dream for Spain, 1939 ^ 1975” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series
32(1) 9 ^ 28
Watts M, 2003, “Development and governmentality” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography
24(1) 6 ^ 34
Wittfogel K, 1957 Oriental Despotism (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
Worster D, 1986 Rivers of Empire (Pantheon, London)
ß 2008 Pion Ltd and its Licensors
718 M Ekers, A Loftus
Recent Comments