We are all governed …
Below, the text of Foucault’s speech, posthumously published by Libération under the title of “Face aux gouvernements, les droits l’Homme” – the subject of much speculation - little of it interesting - on Foucault’s ‘humanism’. A commentary, on the occasion of the speech and its significances, in a subsequent post. Suffice to say, for the moment, that much of the recent commentary on this has been rather more obviously concerned with academic industry than with much else, as also noted here.
We are only here as private individuals, who have no other claim to speak, and to speak together, than a certain shared difficulty in accepting what is happening:
I know full well, and we have to face facts, that there is not much we can do about the reasons which lead men and women to prefer leaving their countries over living in them. That fact is simply beyond our reach.
Who, then, has commissioned us? No one. And that is precisely what establishes our right. It seems to me that we must bear in mind three principles which, I believe, guide this initiative, likethe many others which have preceded it (the Il de Lumiere, the Cap Anamour, the Avion pour le Salvador, but also the Terre des Hommes, Amnesty International).
1. There exists an international citizenry, which has its rights, has its duties, and promises to rise up against every abuse of power, no matter who the author or the victims. After all, we are all governed and, to that extent, in solidarity.
2. Because they claim to concern themselves with the welfare [bonheur] of societies, governments have arrogated to themselves the right to draw up a balance sheet, to calculate the profit and losses, of the human misfortune [malheur] provoked by their decisions or permitted by their negligence. It is a duty of this international citizenry always to make an issue of people’s misfortune, to keep it in the eyes and ears of governments – it is not true that they are not responsible. People’s misfortune must never be a silent remainder of politics. It founds an absolute right to rise up and address those who hold power.
3. We must reject the division of tasks which is all too often offered to us: it is up to individuals to become indignant and speak out, while it is up to governments to reflect and to act. It is true that good governments like the hallowed indignation of the governed, provided it remains lyrical. I believe that we must realise how often, though, it is the rulers who speak, who can only and want only tospeak. Experience shows that we can and must reject the theatrical role of pure and simple indignation which we are offered. Amnesty International, Terre des Hommes, Medecins du Monde are initiatives which have created this new right: that of private individuals actually to intervene in the order of international politics and strategies. The will of individuals has to inscribe itself in a reality over which governments have wanted to reserve a monopoly for themselves – a monopoly which we uproot little by little every day.
