The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Liberal Government of Unfreedom
Abstract
Perhaps the most influential aspect of Michel Foucault's work on government has been his treatment of liberalism as distinctive form of political reason. Liberalism is commonly regarded as normative political doctrine or theory that treats the maintenance of individual liberty as an end in itself and therefore views liberty as setting limits of principle both to the legitimate objectives of government and to the manner in which those objectives may be pursued. Foucault's account of liberalism as rationality of government also accords central place to individual liberty, which is seen as giving rise to prudential concern that one might be governing too much. The suggestion is that, rather than pursue its objectives through the detailed regulation of conduct in the manner of police, it might be more effective for the government of state to work through the maintenance and promotion of certain forms of individual liberty. According to this account, underlying the liberal fear of governing too much are two distinct but related perceptions of the population to be governed. It is seen first as containing number of self-regulating domains of social interaction, and secondly as consisting of individuals endowed with capacity for autonomous, self-directing activity. In liberal political thought, Foucault observes, the market epitomizes both perceptions, serving, in effect, as a locus of privileged experience where one can identify the effects of excessive governmentality.1 Liberal political reason, then, sees individual liberty as limit, not simply to the legitimate reach of government, but also to its effectiveness. More recent scholars have adapted this account of liberalism to the analysis of neoliberal attempts to govern through the decisions of autonomous individuals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bhabha, H. K. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203820551 · Cited by 14,203
Hamilton, H., & Marshall, T. H. (1951) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/587460 · Cited by 4,094
Foucault, M. (2005) · doi:10.4324/9780203996645 · Cited by 3,281
Ethics: subjectivity and truth
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-6207 · Cited by 2,525
One-Dimensional Man: A Systematic Critique of Human Domination and Nature-Society Relations
Luke, T. W. (2000) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026600131006 · Cited by 1,879
Considerations on Representative Government
Mill, J. S. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511783128 · Cited by 1,695
An approach to political philosophy Locke in contexts
Tully, J. H. (1993) · Cited by 403
Schmidt, A. J., & Raeff, M. (1985) · American Journal of Legal History · doi:10.2307/845543 · Cited by 133
Lindqvist, S. (2021) · The New Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781620977057 · Cited by 117
Strasser, M. (1988) · Bioethics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.1988.tb00040.x · Cited by 74
Cited by
Henman, P. (2004) · International Sociology · doi:10.1177/0268580904042899 · Cited by 67
Cyber-Nationalism in China: Challenging Western media portrayals of internet censorship in China
Jiang, Y. (2012) · doi:10.1017/9780987171894 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Hindess, B.
- Venue
- Alternatives: Global, Local, Political
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 93-111
- ISSN
- 0304-3754 (ISSN-L)
- 2163-3150
- OpenAlex
- W132496422
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 19.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Liberal Government of Unfreedom. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/030437540102600201
- The paper
- Hindess, B. (2001). The Liberal Government of Unfreedom. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540102600201
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.