One of the most accessible way to understand Foucault’s theory of governmentality is by grasping his concept of power. In History of Sexuality Vol I (1978:135-152), Foucault argues that power should be understood as the exercise of rule, discipline and control that produces certain subject and subjectivity. In contrast to repressive notion of power, it produces subject and offers space for agency as emanating from transgressive possibility within such ruling. In doing so, institutions of power remain in place with its illusion of authority and an agency of individual with the illusion of self-autonomy.
The most visible illustration of how governmentality works is to look at power operation in prison and other disciplinary institutions. In Discipline and Punish ( 1995:195-228), Foucault takes Bentham’s concept of panopticon to the next level of analysis (see Bentham, 1995). The art of distribution, control, organization and composition of subjects in the prison is producing not only docile body with obedience and dependence, but also enables them to conduct themselves without the presence of manifest surveillance. At this point, power becomes productive, upon which subject performs and perceives his/her action from within instead of external pressure and dictate.
In relation to analysis of power in societal level, operation of power depends on both the functioning of disciplinary society or institution and the obedience of the subject who conducts a kind of self-hermeneutics. Both functioning institution and embodying subject reproduce in circular ways the primacy of certain ideological praxis, or what he terms as discourse.
It is precisely this power-relation that is defined as governmentality, that is, a set of rationality, objectives, mechanism and tactics to produce certain type of society and individuality (Foucault,1991:87-103). Modern art of governing, or modern governmentality, differs from medieval art of government. In medieval government, power operates from a center with distinct apparatuses and institutions, particularly the Church with its technology of self-examination, confession, guidance and obedience. Its focus is solely on perpetuating the authority of the Church, targetting individuals as flocks guided by the shepherds or priests (Foucault, 1979:135-152).
In quite contrast, modern governmentality works with power that operates in variety of institutions and through hermeneutics of the self . Or in other words, modern governmentality goes more deeply into constructing human subjectivity and naturalizing modern discourse as regime of truth that defines and regulates Life and Death within its biopolitics. Modern governmentality seeks to define and reproduce life in order to sustain economic productivity, political stability and social order.
To the question of does religion act as panopticon to observe and regulate people?, we need to locate this question within current hegemony of neoliberalism.
We are witnessing today the revival of religion but its revival relates in intricate ways to both the crisis of religion as indicated by the ever-growing religious radicalism-fundamentalism and exclusiveness, and the urgent call for religion as permanent critique of neoliberalism as indicated by Islamic and Christian Liberation theology. Our first stance toward this problematics is to distinguish religion as instrument or institution of neoliberal governmentality and religion as project of emancipation againts neoliberal politics of human life and death. With this distinction, we prefer to apply panopticon as Foucaultian technology of power into the first characteristics of religion.
Complicity of religion with neoliberal biopolitics has been evident in its accomodation of neoliberal project of multiculturalism, state’s securitization of individual freedom, and banalistic consumption of religion within contemporary culture of spectacles and advertisement. In variety of issues, we can easily find how religion performs the tasks of integrating people into neoliberal regulation and control of human productivity, health, and sanity as to comply with neoliberal imperatives and prescription.
In reference to Ahok case, we argue that religious aspect of the case is confluential with neoliberal rule of law. This case reflects deadlock of multiculturalism project that seeks to resolve multicultural tension by the means of laws. Putting aside the question of whether Ahok does or does not commit defamation of Islam (Surat Al Maidah 51), both parties to the conflict, Ahok’s supporters and anti-Ahok groups, arise from within neoliberal governance of religion in post-Reform period.
Ahok’s supporters, let’s call them liberal-progressive, play out constitutional card stating that all Indonesians should enjoy equal treatment and opportunity to assume public leadership, while lurking behind anti-Ahok rhetorics is the ‘islamic’ assertion that non-moslem must not assume such leadership. This tension has dramatic impact for national question of “Bhineka Tunggal Ika”, regardless of whatever legal decision in months to come.
In our view, this problematics should not be solely resolved by legal framework, but need to be addressed as new challenge for rethinking our constitution and nation-state’s philosophical foundation. Current public discourse regarding this case has incited public sentiments that might pave the way for national disintegration at worst and nation-wide conversation at best. Refering to Timothy O’Leary (2002:1-17), enganging with multicultural tension we need Foucaultian ethics that replacing ‘truth-claim’ of both religion and secularism with productive conversation for finding commonality in discourse of justice and equality.
Reference
Bentham, Jeremy. The Panopticon Writings, (Miran Bozovic, editor). London: Verso, 1995
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. See, Chapter 3 “Panopticism”, pp 195-228. New York: Vintage Books, 1995
———–“Pastoral Power and Political Reason (1979”, pp 135-152, in Jeremy Carrette, Religion and Culture. New York: Routledge, 1999
————“Right of Death and Power over Life”, pp135-159, in History of Sexuality Vol I: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
————“Governmentality”, pp 87-103, in Graham Burchell (editor), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991
O’Leary, Timothy. Foucault and the Art of Ethics. See, “Introduction”, pp 1-17. London: Continuum, 2002