“Radical Liberal Democracy” as Foucault’s Alternative for Political Modernity

The goal of this article is an evaluation of concrete effect of Foucault’s fundamental and genealogical criticism of modernity, and examining Foucault’s ideas that signify the political system and agency. Foucault believes in the de-transcendentalization of power and knowledge in modern era. The problem is the effect of acceptance of de-transcendentalization of power on political agency, state and governmentality. Foucault’s de-transcendental view does not consider the political as something that is related to sovereignty, and by placing it in an undeterministic framework that is simultaneously cultural and political, he calls it governmentality. Sovereignty doesn't exist in a de-transcendental framework as it may make a person inferior to do something that he wants himself. In contrast, governmentality effects on the practice of ruled, as this is context of self-changing and self-regulating in their everyday behaviors. However, they are not made to do a work that they do not like, but power exercises freely and through the objectification of the subject over them. In response to this problem, Morris Barbie's theory of political modernity, applied as heuristic device for definition of the political and method of application is Arthur Lovejoy's history of ideas. The theory of political modernity prompts dichotomy of freedom-subjugation in two dimensions of state and civil society, in so that correspond with liberal democracy system through priority of subjugation. Hypothesis of this article is that Foucault’s belif that political modernity and liberal democracy system prompts the priority of subjugation and it leads to radical liberal democracy.