Foucault and the Telos of Power

In this paper, I argue that the unique contributions of Foucault’s late work to critical social theory can be identified in the ways in which power relations are refined as the material condition of “politics” as distinguished from that of law, where “politics”: (a) includes both competitive and goal-oriented strategic actions and interactions, (b) excludes the coercive technologies of law embodied in State institutions, (c) presupposes “incomplete” reciprocity between actors engaged in directing others, (d) always entails modes of revealing truth and acting upon the self. By contextualising the break between pastoral power and direction in the 1979–1980 lectures, I show how for the late Foucault, power relations constitute the material condition of “politics” precisely because, unlike relations of control or coercion, their aims and objectives remain open to the possibility of building new relationships and potentially more “political” forms of social action. I conclude by situating this major distinction within Foucault’s unfulfilled project to study the “military dimension” of society, and the relevance and urgency of this project for contemporary struggles against new forms of militarism and austerity.     

Birth Order,Preferences, and Norms on the U.S. Supreme Court

The members of the U.S. Supreme Court have different ideas about what constitutes good judicial policy as well as how best to achieve that policy. From where do these ideas originate? Evolutionary psychology suggests that an answer may lie in early life experiences in which siblings assume roles that affect an adult's likely acceptance of changes in the established order. According to this view, older siblings take on responsibilities that make them more conservative and rule‐bound, while younger ones adopt roles that promote liberalism and greater rebelliousness. Applying this theory to the Court, I show that these childhood roles manifest themselves in later life in the decisions of the justices. Birth order explains not only the justices’ policy preferences but also their acceptance of one important norm of judicial decisionmaking, specifically their willingness to exercise judicial review.     

GOTJ: Get Out the Juror

Serving on a jury is both a right and a legal obligation for democratic citizens; however, the response rate to jury summonses is low in most jurisdictions. In collaboration with the Riverside (CA) County Superior Court, we conducted a randomized control trial in which we mailed various postcard reminders to citizens who had recently received a summons. While we find that all postcard reminders were effective in improving yield compared to a no postcard condition, we find that “enforcement” postcards reminding citizens that they face fines or jail time for not appearing were more effective than plain reminders or reminders that serving on a jury is a civic duty. Enforcement postcard reminders had a substantially larger causal effect than what is typically found in get out the vote randomized studies. We find little evidence that norms regarding jury service response varies across distinct regions in our sample, defined by zipcode boundaries, nor are response rates conditioned on the demographic composition of these regions.     

Can the U.S. government legally monitor private communications? If so,given the U.S.'s significant protection of privacy rights,what government cannot?

Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA/CSS is the most important case ever regarding whether a government can monitor private communications. This case's discussion could not be any more timely for public affairs purposes. Given continuing terrorist attacks and concomitant calls for private industries, such as Wikimedia Foundation, to do more to stop the spread of violence and rhetoric on the Internet, there has never been a more important time to consider what limits should be placed on government's access to personal data in the quest to prevent terrorism. Here, the district court referred to the plaintiffs' injuries from NSA upstream surveillance as speculative, denying them Article III standing. The Fourth Circuit reinstated Wikimedia Foundation as a plaintiff, finding sufficient allegations for it to survive a facial challenge to Article III standing based on the Wikimedia Allegation. However, the other plaintiffs, relying on the Dragnet Allegation, were properly dismissed based on lacking standing. Until more details of upstream surveillance become public, suing under a dragnet theory should prove difficult. In fact, lobbying the legislative and executive branches to enact changes could be more effective and efficient than relying on the courts.