EUI - Governmentality and Governance: Analysing the link between the assertation of power and its rationale

The project 'EUI - Governmentality and Governance: Analysing the link between the assertation of power and its rationale' is currently in an advanced stage. With regards to the project, the following updates can be noted: I analyse how the Swedish and Norwegian states handle the pandemic, as well as the reasonings behind the state’s choices to act as they did. I’ll focus on the different forms of power these states have utilized (ideological power, coercive power, infrastructural power), as well as the consequences this have at the local level where individuals act and are affected. The two states use the same forms of power, but to different degrees. The Norwegian state utilizes more coercive power, as for instance seen through the lockdown. In general, the Swedish and Norwegian state use the same resources when it comes to the governance of the population in general. This includes a communication campaign to convince citizens to submit to the infection control regime as well as to voluntarily participate beyond the formal proscriptions and prescriptions. In this regard, the Norwegian state has some advantages, as its lockdown and other severe measures have symbolic effects which support the communication campaign. Moreover, both states mobilize society at large to an infection control struggle. This is a infrastructural and ideological resource, where the state plays upon a combination of its legitimacy and its bureaucracy to use individuals as infection control agents. Individuals are meant to act in a manner reducing the chance that they spread infection. Coercive power is the main difference between the two states. The Swedish state seeks to be more liberal, and it does not merely act more softly. It also respect parts of society as private. The Norwegian state seeks to reduce its use of coercion when this is seen as possible, but does not acknowledge any sphere as private. All is part of the state’s domain. To the Swedish state, the private home is a sphere of life beyond formal state control, and therefore, the state limits itself. This is grounded in the states and their representatives’ understanding of the situation. The Norwegian state defines the situation as exceptional, thereby justifying severe measures. The situation is so abnormal that the state must suspend democratic and juridical practices characterizing a state of normality, to safe society. The Swedish state has a different understanding. Even though the Swedish state and its representatives perceive the situation as grave, they see it as less grave than the Norwegian state. They also find coercive power to be problematic, both because it can harm vulnerable groups, as well as because of fears of the consequences coercion may have upon democracy and individual rights. These differences are the foundations of two different approaches, which are quite similar in practice, as both states seek to limit social interaction and protect lives.

Tekstens virkninger er primært teoretiske, og handler om vår forståelse av statsmakt. Prosjektet illustrerer at staten, som en sosial aktør, har mangfoldige måter å kontrollere befolkningen på, samt hvor potente disse metodene er. Prosjektet legger grunnlaget for et teoretisk ekteskap mellom Max Weber og Michel Foucault sine teoretiske skoler, i det vi kan kalle en Weberiansk-Foucauldiansk statsteori. Det er ikke prosjektets formål å gå utover det strengt vitenskapelige og teoretiske, og f.eks tilby evalueringer av de normative sidene ved statsmakta eller statens virke. Snarere inviterer analysene til debatt rundt slike spørsmål, men avhandlingen i seg selv er ikke skrevet for å gi svar i slike politiske og da normative spørsmål.

This text handles the relationship between discourses on governance, or governmentality, and governance in practice. Combining Faircloughian critical discourse analysis with Foucauldian governmentality studies, this paper aims to investigate this link in the context of private companies. I plan to interview managers about their particular modes of governance, and thereafter investigate to which degree the rationales expressed by these managers correspond or break with their techniques and technologies of power, such as surveillance technologies, (self)evaluations, sanctions, the architecture of the workplace, and so on.