Books by Paul Patton
Political Philosophy by Paul Patton

The Government of Life: Foucault, Biopolitics, and Neoliberalism ed Vanessa Lemm and Miguel Vatter, 2014
Foucault and Rawls represent very different approaches to political philosophy. Whereas the forme... more Foucault and Rawls represent very different approaches to political philosophy. Whereas the former pursues a resolutely descriptive approach to the techniques, strategies and forms of rationality of power, the latter is explicitly normative in setting out and arguing for principles of justice that should inform the government of society conceived as a fair system of cooperation. I propose to show that the distance between them is less extreme than might be supposed and that differences between them are instructive. They converge on the analysis of particular conceptions of the proper business of government and the institutions and policies it should embrace. While Rawls is explicitly concerned with ideal theory rather than actual societies, he recognizes that a theory of justice will have implications for the way that society should be governed and that these should be spelt out and examined in order to test the theory. By contrast, Foucault is explicitly concerned with actual historical conceptions of government rather than normative considerations about the most reasonable form of government. The comparison with Rawls serves to highlight the fact that normative questions are an inescapable dimension of any genealogy of liberal or neoliberal government that aspires to be critical. Conversely, Foucault's analysis of neoliberal "governmentality" shows up the influence of neoliberal thought on Rawls's conception of the nature and functions of government and his preferred economic regime of "property owning democracy." This unlikely combination of egalitarian and genealogical approaches adds historical depth to our understanding of the public political culture of liberal capitalist democracies. Descriptive and prescriptive approaches to power in Foucault Vanessa Lemm and Miguel Vatter eds The Government of Life: Foucault, Biopolitics,
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2015
These comments take issue with two aspects of the treatment of Rawls in On The People's Terms. Fi... more These comments take issue with two aspects of the treatment of Rawls in On The People's Terms. First, I criticize the characterization of Rawls as downplaying political liberties and focusing instead on social justice. Second, I take issue with the claim that Pettit provides a more robust conception of legitimacy than Rawls. The basis for this claim is that Rawls, along with others in the Kantian tradition, downplays the question of legitimacy by 'going hypothetical.' Yet in common with Rawls, Pettit's Republican conception of legitimacy imposes a stringent test of legitimacy that many democratic regimes would not pass. This leads him to propose a weaker standard of 'legitimizability' that appears to involve the same kind of counterfactual judgment for which Rawls is criticized.

Sociological Problems (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), Special Issue edited by Antoinette Koleva, Kolyo Koev, Michel Foucault: New Problematizations, 2016
Foucault’s lectures in 1976 open with the statement of an intellectual crisis. They proceed to a ... more Foucault’s lectures in 1976 open with the statement of an intellectual crisis. They proceed to a series of questions about the nature of power and the ways that he has conceived of it up to this point: what is power? How is it exercised? Is it ultimately a relation of force? Only some of these questions are answered in the course of these lectures. His answer to the conceptual questions about the nature of power and the appropriate means to analyze it is not forthcoming until after the discovery of ‘governmentality’ in 1978 and his lectures on liberal and neoliberal governmentality in 1979. This talk aims to retrace his answers to these questions in the light of the published lectures and to examine the consequences of these answers for his overall approach to the analysis power, and for his analysis of liberal and neoliberal governmental power.
Conversations: The Journal of Cavellian Studies, 2, 2014
A primary concern of Stanley Cavell’s Carus Lectures is to respond to the question posed in the f... more A primary concern of Stanley Cavell’s Carus Lectures is to respond to the question posed in the first sentence of the Introduction: “Is Moral Perfectionism inherently elitist?” By elitist, he means undemocratic. While there are senses in which he would not want to deny that Moral Perfectionism is elitist, and while he admits that there are perfectionisms that do not require democracy, neither of these are Cavell’s concern. Rather, he wants to showcase his preferred version of perfectionism, variously named Moral, Emersonian and Nietzschean perfectionism.

Critical Horizons, 15 (1), 14-27., 2014
Amy Allen criticizes Foucault for having a “narrow and impoverished conception of social interact... more Amy Allen criticizes Foucault for having a “narrow and impoverished conception of social interaction, according to which all such interaction is strategic.” I challenge this claim, partly on the basis of comments by Foucault which explicitly acknowledge and in some cases endorse forms of non-strategic interaction, but more importantly on the basis of the significant changes in Foucault’s concept of power that he elaborated in lectures from 1978 onwards and in “The Subject and Power.” His 1975–1976 lectures embarked upon a critical re-examination of the “strategic” concept of power that he had relied upon up to this point. However, it was not until 1978 and after that he outlined an alternative concept of power as government, or more broadly as “action upon the actions of others.” After retracing this shift in Foucault’s understanding of power, I argue that the concept of power as action upon the actions of others does not commit him to a narrow conception of social interaction as always strategic. At the same time, Foucault’s concept does not answer normative questions about acceptable versus unacceptable ways of governing the actions of others.

New Formations, 80-81, Dec 2013
Foucault devotes seven out of the twelve lectures he delivered at the Collège de France in 1979 t... more Foucault devotes seven out of the twelve lectures he delivered at the Collège de France in 1979 to German and American neo-liberalism. Contrary to the widespread view that the purpose of these lectures was to 'critique' neoliberalism, I sketch another reading of those lectures that connects them with a different kind of critique of liberal political reason that we find in the work of John Rawls. I begin by showing that Foucault is more normative than is often realised: at one point he raises the question 'what form of governmentality would be appropriate to socialism?' I then show that Rawls is not simply normative but also descriptive of the institutions and policies of liberal government: his argument for property owning democracy as an alternative to welfare state capitalism is one element of a conception of governmentality associated with his conception of justice as fairness. Finally, I point to some of the ways in which Rawls's conception of the kind of government and economy compatible with his principles of justice was influenced by elements of postwar neoliberalism. I conclude by suggesting that Foucault's sketch of a genealogy of neoliberal economic and political thought points to a historical conception of Rawls's idea of public reason, and that the egalitarian tradition of neoliberal thought on which Rawls draws points toward possible answers to Foucault's question about a governmentality appropriate to socialism.
A Companion to Foucault, Oxford: Blackwell, 172-188., Jan 1, 2013

Deleuze and Law ed Laurent de Sutter and Kyle McGee, 2012
This paper outlines a historical and open-ended conception of rights, including human rights, as... more This paper outlines a historical and open-ended conception of rights, including human rights, as a project capable of transforming present regimes of government. Following Foucault and Deleuze, it explore the idea that legal and political rights are entirely immanent to existing regimes of power, knowledge and desire, but also inseparable from the potential for the creation of new rights. As such, the creation of new rights should be counted among the forms of resistance to the present. However, this raises further questions about how we should understand the nature of rights, including human rights, as a process rather than a form of human relations. I argue for a concept of ‘right-becoming’ in the sense that Deleuze and Guattari talk about woman-becoming, animal-becoming or democratic-becoming as an on-going and open-ended process carried in relation to existing figures of woman, animal or democracy.
Daniel W. Smith and Henry Somers-Hall eds The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze, 2012
Constellations, 18:1, Dec 2011
Uploads
Books by Paul Patton
Political Philosophy by Paul Patton
But if we ask how this control operates, it is difficult to ignore the institutional mechanisms that sustain and reproduce certain ways of thinking in philosophy: the history of philosophy was able to function as a school of intimidation in France in part through the system of competitive examinations and prescribed curricula. Other countries and other times have their own institutional mechanisms for the control of philosophical thought, as shown by examples from the history of anglophone philosophy.
Reference to the external, institutional conditions of philosophical thought raises further questions about the consequences for philosophy of changes in the wider social and institutional environment. What happens to philosophy in societies of control, when the old rules of philosophical apprenticeship no longer apply? This chapter will explore Deleuze’s conception of control in philosophy, as well as the larger issue of the fate of philosophy in the rapidly changing institutional context of control societies.
Programme
9:00 – 9:15 Accueil, Paul Patton
9:15 – 10:15 Oliver Feltham (American University of Paris, University of New South Wales), “A comparative ontology of models of political action: liberalism and utililitarianism”
10:15 – 11:15 Jessica Whyte (Western Sydney University), “Political Action and 'Economic Man': From Mill to Mises”
11:15 – 12:15 Geoff Boucher (Deakin University), “Towards a Neo-functionalist Ontology of the Political—After Althusser, but not Post-Marxism”
Lunch break
13:30 – 14:30 Mark G.E. Kelly (Western Sydney University), “Action and normativity in nineteenth century political thought: the cases of Marx and utilitarianism”
14:30 – 15:15 Charles Barbour (Western Sydney University), “The Uses of Marx: Law, Economics, Action”
15:15 – 16:00 Miguel Vatter (University of New South Wales), Response to Mark Kelly and Charles Barbour and Discussion
Coffee break
16:30- 17:30 Paul Patton (University of New South Wales), “Utilitarianism and Liberal Governmentality in Foucault”
TheoryLab
School of Politics and International Relations
Queen Mary University of London
24-25 April 2019
Workshop
TheoryLab
School of Politics and International Relations
Queen Mary University of London
24-25 April 2019
School of Humanities and Languages, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of New South Wales
27-28 July 2018
Programme
Friday 27 July (Room MB209)
10 – 10.15 am
Welcome and opening remarks by the organisers (Clayton Chin, Paul Patton
and Lasse Thomassen)
10.15 – 12.15 am
Nicholas Smith, ‘Analytic and Continental Philosophies of Work’
Jean-Philippe Deranty, ‘Norms of work: external evaluation or internal
reconstruction?’
12.15 – 1 pm
Lunch
1 – 3 pm
Paul Muldoon, ‘The Therapy of Reconciliation’ (Discussant: Paul Patton)
Miguel Vatter, ‘The Debate on Dignity: Normative and Genealogical
Perspectives’ (Discussant: Lasse Thomassen)
3 – 3.30 pm
Coffee/tea and refreshments
3.30 – 5.30 pm
Alex Lefebvre, ‘Liberalism as a Way of Life: On the Spiritual Exercises of John
Rawls’
Paul Patton, ‘Social Insurance and the Historicity of Rights’
Saturday 28 July (Room MB310)
10 am – 12 pm
Heikki Ikäheimo, ‘Critical Social Philosophy in the No-Man’s Land’
Hamza Bin Jehangir, ‘Beyond Text and Difference: First Order Inquiry and
Methodology of Comparative Political Theory’
12-12.45 pm
Lunch
12.45 – 2.45 pm
Marguerite La Caze, ‘Violence and the Political: Analytic/Continental
Encounters’
Miriam Bankovsky, ‘Dissolving the Analytic-Continental Divide without Deflating
Differences: Deconstructive Justice and Constructionist Political Philosophy’ (Discussant: Thomas Besch)
2.45 – 3.30
Concluding discussion
Those interested in participating should contact Lasse Thomassen.
The workshop is funded by a grant from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust.