Space, Governmentality, and the Geographies of French Urban Policy ★

Abstract

This article seeks to make a contribution to debates around governmentality and urban policy. The main argument is that although there is a governmental dimension to the constitution of spaces through urban policy, there is no inherent politics to such constitutions. Different ways of imagining space have different implications for the constitution of problems and formulation of solutions.This argument is substantiated by an account of French urban policy (la politique de la Ville) between 1981 and 2005, organized around three periods. The first part of the article relates this policy to the contemporary transformations of the French state, and points to the relationship between urban policy and the penal state.The second part presents an account of this policy with a focus on the changing conceptualizations of space, and their varying policy and political implications. KEY WORDS ★ banlieues ★ French urban policy ★ governmentality ★ penal state Space in its Hegelian form comes back into its own. This modern state promotes and imposes itself as the stable center-definitively-of (national) societies and spaces. .. In this same space there are, however, other forces on the boil, because the rationality of the state, of its techniques, plans and programs, provokes opposition.

Governing difference in the city: urban imaginaries and the policy practice of migrant incorporation

“…Such an approach examines the arguments derived from policy discourses and their translation into policy practices (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). As such, it aligns with studies that employ Foucault's governmentality concept to examine the formation of policy problems and 'appropriate' solutions in urban policies (see e.g., Atkinson, 2000;Dikeç, 2007;Raco & Imrie, 2000;Uitermark, 2014). However, these studies focus on analysing urban policy discourses from the perspective of management and control strategies employed by the state (Uitermark, 2014).…”

Future as an object of governance – commentary to Jones

“…Seeing the future as a social and political construction, which is regulated by present structures and processes, resonates with Foucauldian policy studies which do not take policies as responses to selfevident problems but pay attention to the construction of policy objects and problems as an inherent feature of public policy processes (e.g. Rose 1999;Dikeç 2007). Broadly speaking these studies stem from the idea that government is "a problematizing activity… intrinsically linked to the problems around which it circulates" (Rose & Miller 1992, 181).…”

On resistance in the post-political city: conduct and counter-conduct in Vancouver

“…There is still a limited but growing body of empirical studies drawing on the notion of governmentality in various sub-fields of geography, focusing generally on the territoriality and spatiality of governmental rationalities and technologies (see for a comprehensive review Huxley, 2008;Rose-Redwood, 2006). Urban scholars have specifically addressed topics such as: inner-city regeneration and urban renaissance (Füller & Marquardt, 2010;Imrie & Raco, 2003;Raco & Imrie, 2000); the reconfiguration of the welfare state and community involvement in public service provision and municipal policies (Blakeley, 2010;Rutland & Aylett, 2008;Rutherford, 2006;Swyngedouw, 2005;Tooke, 2003); the governing of urban space through regulatory practices and mapping (Blomley & Sommers, 1999;Ruppert, 2006); sexual citizenship (Cooper, 2006); housing and homelessness (Flint, 2003;McKee, 2008;Murdoch, 2000;Willse, 2010); local (economic) governance and policy (Dikeç, 2007;MacKinnon, 2000;Schipper, 2013;Uitermark, 2005); feminist critiques of planning (Huxley, 2002); and a critique of the communicative planning ideal (e.g., Flyvbjerg & Richardson, 2002;Hobson, 2009;Huxley, 2000;Huxley & Yiftachel, 2000;Pløger, 2001).…”