In Governmentality and Counter-Hegemony in Bangladesh, S.M. Shamsul Alam seeks to conjoin Michel Foucault’s theorisations of governmentality with Antonio Gramsci’s notion of counter-hegemony in order to account for changes in forms of governance in the case of Bangladesh. Although the book’s structure is occasionally repetitive and disjointed, Alex Johnson argues that Alam offers a valuable reappraisal of the concept of governmentality that will be of use to students and academics working in the field of political theory

Johnson, Alex

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.ukhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/01/14/book-review-governmentality-and-counter-hegemony-in-bangladesh-by-s-m-shamsul-alam/Book Review: Governmentality and Counter-Hegemony inBangladesh by S.M. Shamsul AlamIn Governmentality and Counter-Hegemony in Bangladesh, S.M. Shamsul Alam seeks to conjoin MichelFoucault’s theorisations of governmentality with Antonio Gramsci’s notion of counter-hegemony in order to accountfor changes in forms of governance in the case of Bangladesh. Although the book’s structure is occasionallyrepetitive and disjointed, Alex Johnson argues that Alam offers a valuable reappraisal of the concept ofgovernmentality that will be of use to students and academics working in the field of political theory.Governmentality and Counter-Hegemony in Bangladesh. S.M. Shamsul Alam. Palgrave Macmillan. 2015.Theoretical eclecticism is rare in most mainstream academic circles. S.M.Shamsul Alam takes on this task by providing an interesting and much-neededsynthesis of Michel Foucault’s idea of governmentality and Antonio Gramsci’snotion of counter-hegemony.  Throughout Governmentality and Counter-Hegemony in Bangladesh, Alam argues that counter-hegemonic movements canchallenge and thus reformulate dominant forms of power. Alam applies thistheoretical framework to Bangladesh, linking instances of resistance in the colonialand post-colonial periods to changes in forms of governance. From the Pakistaniadministration to Hussain Muhammad Ershad’s authoritarian government andliberal democracy, Alam’s work underscores the importance of understanding howchanges in forms of governance arise.In setting out his theoretical discussion, Alam draws from Foucault’s Collège deFrance lectures, describing governmentality as ‘the strategies a government‘‘deploys’’ to control the ‘‘population’’ in an effort to achieve desirable outcomesand consequences’ (1). Governmentality is thus not a singular operation, but onethat is deployed in multiple ways through various facets of government. However,Alam seeks to address the weaknesses in Foucault’s theorisation ofgovernmentality, which he identifies as the inability to explain changes in modes of governance.  He therefore drawson Gramsci’s constructs of hegemony and counter-hegemony to provide the necessary link in explaining thesechanges in governmentality. Alam’s theoretical synthesis thus addresses the flaws in Foucault’s theorisation, whilealso applying the concept of governmentality in an innovative way. In developing his argument, Alam illustratesdifferent categories of governmentality and their relationship to grassroots resistance movements throughout thebook.In his examination of the colonial period of Bangladesh, in which the state was under Pakistani control, Alam focuseson the role of Urdu language in the maintenance of Pakistan’s administration of Bangladesh. Springing from partitionideology and the ‘two nation’ theory, the Pakistani ruling elite linked the formation of Pakistan with an Islamic religiousidentity. The Pakistani elite attempted to impose Urdu as the lingua franca in both West and East Pakistan. Urdu inWest Pakistan had a historic link to Muslim religious authorities and became tied to the formation of Pakistan’sreligious state identity.Alam argues that Bengali resistance to Urdu during the Language Movement must be understood as a counter-hegemonic movement. The Language Movement sought to establish Bangla as the national language in EastPakistan through various attempts at government policy reform. The author’s analysis of the Language Movementconnects well to Gramscian conceptions of language, which emphasise the relationship between power andlanguage. As was the case with Urdu, language is connected to the dominant class’s propagation of power andcertain cultural expressions (22). In this way, the opposition movement to Urdu language in Bangladesh was morethan just opposition to national language policies, but was also a direct challenge to Pakistani political authority. Alamargues that by rejecting Pakistani authority, the Language Movement in Bangladesh created space for theemergence of new political possibilities as new identities arose from having a national Bangla language. Thissupports Alam’s main argument by demonstrating how the Language Movement was integral to altering Pakistanicolonial governmentality.Image Credit: Shaheed Minar in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The monument in Dhaka established tocommemorate those killed during the Language Movement demonstrations of 1952 (MostaqueAhammed)In a second period, Alam examines the post-colonial context of Bangladesh, focusing on the use of religion in thecreation of an Islamic governmentality (99).  After providing a historical analysis of Islam in Bangladesh, the authorargues that Islamic governmentality used fatwa as a form of biopolitical control over women. Here Alam shows howreligious laws attempted to regulate female bodies and sexuality. In response to this form of Islamic governmentality,Alam posits that women’s testimonials, in the form of poems and autobiographies, challenged the biopoliticisation offemale sexuality. The author argues that writings about female sexuality in these works constitute a subversive act(123). While the author provides a clear analysis of the links between fatwa and biopolitics, Alam stops short ofidentifying how women’s testimonials led to a shift in Islamic governmentality.  This problematises his argument, as itis unclear whether women’s writings actually played an active role in transforming the position of women in society.This brings into question a larger theoretical hole in Alam’s work as the author never addresses why these particularcounter-hegemonic movements have been successful over others at altering governmentality.At the end of this book, Alam asserts that a new global form of governmentality has arisen in the form ofneoliberalism. This goes a step further than his previous analysis of the changing forms of governmentality in thecontext of Bangladesh by offering a unique perspective on governmentality beyond the state. It remains unclear as towhy Alam makes the leap to a globalised form of governmentality, but it is his most notable contribution in the work. In this chapter he examines how poverty eradication programmes orchestrated through NGOs and internationalorganisations offer new ways to monitor and control poor populations in Bangladesh. This adds another dimension tohis application of governmentality as Alam provides a valuable analysis of how relationships of power also existbeyond the state level and operate increasingly on an international scale.Overall, Governmentality and Counter-Hegemony in Bangladesh provides an engaging, theoretical read ofBangladesh. At times the work becomes repetitive and disjointed as Alam charts different forms of governmentalityand instances of resistance through every chapter, often without providing clear links as to how the chaptersinterrelate. A more in-depth examination of Bangladesh’s history would help the reader make these connections aswell as create a stronger correlation between instances of resistance and resultant changes in governmentality.Despite this weakness, the author makes a strong argument for the re-examination of existing theorisations ofgovernmentality and provides a unique and intellectually rich theoretical rendition of the concept. Alam’s strengthsshine through in the application of Foucauldian and Gramscian theory, which remains easily accessible throughoutthe work. Students and academics interested in political theory would greatly benefit from his analysis.Alex Johnson holds a Bachelor’s degree from DePaul University in International Studies and Spanish with aconcentration in religion and political conflict in South Asia.  He recently completed a Master’s degree in InternationalRelations at the London School of Economics.  His interests include religions in South Asia and post-structural andpost-colonial theory.  Currently, Alex works in Washington, D.C. as an Academic Assistant in support of a researchcentre at the National Defense University.Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of theLondon School of Economics. Copyright 2013 LSE Review of Books

Book review: governmentality and counter-hegemony in Bangladesh by S.M. Shamsul Alam

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online