Foucault’s geography: Spatial turn and genealogy of a wedding in Sarajevo

,


Introduction
Michel Foucault (1926-84) was one of the founders of French theory 11The title of F. Cusset's book, in which he describes the influence of contemporary French thinkers and social theorists (Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, Bachelard, Deleuze, Guattari, Latour, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Irigaray, Serre, Virilio), on cultural life in the United States, and thus globally, in the 1970s and 1980s.Which left an indelible mark on the American academic community and decisively influenced modern trends in social development.Foucault was just one of those most striking thinkers and theorists of science whose works encompass a diverse and wide range of creativity.22Themost famous bibliographies of his works in 1954-1984 were edited by: J. Lagrange (1994) in French and M. Karskens (2019) in English.Not only in the social sciences.He had a broad education.33Hegraduated in philosophy in 1948 and a year later in psychology to defend his doctorate (1961) in social sciences.After that, he built a university career worldwide (France, Brazil, Tunisia, Japan, and the USA).Since 1968, he has lived and worked in Paris (Collège de France).His most outstanding merits concern discovering material practices and power relations, which have been applied in philosophy, medicine, and history.That is why he is still widely quoted in papers from various scientific fields.The interest is reflected in the fact that he is essential for developing urban planning and theoretical issues of geography.However, he spoke directly about geography in only one interview for Herodotus magazine.44Questionsto Michel Foucault about geography , 2012b.At the same time, the significant opuses of contemporary geographers speak best of Foucault's relevance and popularity in geography.The first to recognize it was: P. Claval (1981;1998), who pointed out the importance of his work on the growing popularity of epistemology and scientific evangelism in his geography, but also emphasized how the imperatives of control are opposed to others, i.e., "when the population is to be brought under control, space must be separated."D. Gregory (1983;1994) wrote about the significance of Foucault's work for the geography of power, knowledge, and space, while E. Soja (1984;2013) emphasized Foucault's warning about the emergence of the space age and shaping a distinctly postmodern and critical human geography that boldly reaffirms the interpretive significance of space in the historically privileged prohibitions of contemporary critical thought.During the 1990s, C. Philo (1991) presented his geography as more open to theoretical representations of space, territoriality, and social reproduction, while R. Peet (1998) incorporated poststructuralist studies of his geography into the recognizable book Modern geographical thought .During the 2000s, S. Elden (2001) presented Foucault's archeology and genealogy in an excellent mapping of the present.Then, with J. Crampton (2007), he edited the complete collection of geographical works on Foucault.Meusburger, Gregory, and Suarsana edited a book on the geography of knowledge and power (2015), and recognizable encyclopedic reviews of his work were written by M. Huxley (2009) and K. Woodward et al. (2009).The specificity of this is the South Slavic languages because the literature on Foucault, in these languages, was predominantly created by sociologists and other scientists, which speaks of the interdisciplinarity of his subject of study, but also of the lack of interest among geographers.
2. Foucault and the boundaries of modernity in geography 55See G. Mutabdžija, Boundaries of Modernity: Geographical Aspect , 2021.
The question of modernity should be viewed as a social process that moved in a wide arc, within which the historical frameworks in philosophy and geography did not coincide.Pete (1998) emphasizes the historicist elements of the duration of modernity.66Inphilosophy, it is the year of Hegel's death (1831), and in geography, the death of von Humboldt and von Ritter (1859), while the emergence of neoliberalism in the late 1970s marked the end of modernity.He sees the fundamental reasons for its emergence in Hegel's teaching (philosophy) and the establishment of the scientific method (geography).Hegel is relevant to modernity as a world-historical process because, after it, there is no longer a single philosophical system, more philosophical directions appear, and philosophy turns to the problems of man and his existential issues.However, of the modern social theorists, the most relevant for us is Habermas77Habermas explained Hegel's notion of modernity in the eponymous (2/12) chapter of thePhilosophical Discourse of Modernity . (1998: 27-46), based on whose study of modernity this diagram was created, a kind of imaginative interpretation of modernity, within which two parallel currents developed.
In the following diagram, it can be seen that one current went along the "H" line (Hegel, Horkheimer, Habermas), and the other arose as a deviation, mostly of French thinkers, from Hegel's ideas and flowed from Nietzsche through Weber and Heidegger to Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze.From a geographical point of view, the basis for this is Hegel's (2001) interpretation of space as "dead, fixed, non-dialectical and immovable," found in the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences , part twoPhilosophy of Nature , the chapter on mechanics.88Bonderroneously indicates that these are paragraphs §254-256.Which describes the properties of matter ( §206), characteristics of the body in space and time ( §207), and essential features of space, time, and movement of the body ( §208).From these physical properties of nature (matter, distance, time, motion), Bond (2014: 14) recognizes that time stands in opposition to space as "wealth, fertility, life, dialectic." Diagram 1: An overview of the main philosophical directions during modernity This kind of dichotomy in the philosophical interpretation of modernity is best reflected in the confrontation of the views.11One of their few meetings was on the occasion of Habermas' visit to the Collège de France (1983), about which D. Eribon (1994) writes.Of Foucault and Habermas, where Habermas (Eribon, 2005: 191) described Foucault's work as "postmodernism of the neoconservative" who invokes positions in modernity to "establish ruthless antisemitism."In his work, he recognizes the "spontaneous forces of imagination, subjective experience, sensibility," to which they attribute a distant and archaic basis.In a Manichean way, they oppose reason to a principle that can only be invoked, whether it is ο the will to power, ο the sovereignty of being.or ο Dionysian poetic power."At the same time, Foucault sought to ignore the work of Habermas, and Rabinow, and Dreifus.22It was an invitation to Foucault and Habermas to participate in a seminar on modernism held at the University of Berkeley in the fall of 1984.Still, during the summer of that year, Foucault passed away.Sought to devise a way to overcome this doctrinal conflict.For example, individualization and universalism), while postmodernism represents the restoration of unacceptable irrationalism for Habermas.Foucault briefly explained his position by referring to Kant's answer Was ist Aufklärung ?33TheBerlinische Monatschrift (1784) posed this question and, as particularly important, published the answers of Mendelson and then Kant, who described the Aufklärung as a process by which we abandon "minors."Under this term, he understands a particular state of our will that forces us to accept someone else's authority to use the mind and gives three examples.First, we are in a state of infancy when the book substitutes reason, our spiritual leader covers conscience, and the doctor prescribes diet.
Smaller text, maybe.Nevertheless, it seems that he gradually entered the history of thought into a question to which modern philosophy was not able to answer, nor was it able to resolve it.And here, it has been two centuries since he repeated it, in different forms.From Hegel to Horkheimer or Habermas, through Nietzsche or Max Weber, there is almost no philosophy that, directly or indirectly, has not faced this same question: what, then, is an event called the Aufklärung, which is, to a greater or lesser extent, determined what we are today, what we think and what we do?(Rabinow, 1984: 32-50).
Foucault's interpretation of the boundaries of modernity is not based on the performance of history as a world process (Hegelian approach).Still, he determines them through the theory of power, i.e., social practices that have led to the discipline of the population.Thus, he does not make a theoretical insight into modernity "from the position of trust in civic ideals," but in the book Supervise and Punish , he turns to a new range of thematic occupations (poststructuralism), which in geoepistemological terms best reflects the triad "hospitalmadhouse-prison."Through this metaphor, Foucault strongly articulated a new political and intellectual interest in the history of the state disciplinary system, which established a new methodological framework for defining modernity.Foucault builds this framework through two synchronous processes that lead to a "disciplinary society" and different expressions of power.44Establishment of institutions for treatment (hospital and insane asylum) and control of persons (prison)..One is shaped through a new spatial expression of power, while the other is characterized by the decline of the power of European monarchies.Because of this, Foucault's work can be considered doubly important, for philosophy (power theory) and geography (spatial turn), with the former determining the origin and the latter the end of modernity.Although this is not the subject of this paper, it should be said that from a geographical point of view, its interpretation of the term space is critical, which for Elden & Crampton (2013: 2) is "a vital part of the battle for control and supervision of individuals, but not as a battle for domination.but as a point of contact between the technologies of power and the technologies of the self55See G. Mutabdzija, Foucault's geoepistemology: space, heterotopy and archeology, 2021.." The best example of his view of space (Foucault, 2012a) is given in the short essay Of Other Spaces 66Although the essay Of Other Spaces was presented in Tunisia in 1967, it became publicly available until 1986.According to Frank (2009: 67), which became one of his most frequently quoted and anthological texts and "can rightly be called the founding text of the spatial turn."Soja (2013: 26-31), he was a "postmodern geographer in its entirety," from his first to his last work, who explored the "fateful intersection of time and space" and who was inspired by an emerging "postmodern perspective."historicist and postmodern critical human geography."

Genealogy of geography
Foucault borrowed the term genealogy from Friedrich Nietzsche (Genealogy of Morality ), with which he achieved a new methodological step forward, and he marked genealogy as the history of the locality.It is a kind of counterbalance to the Hegelian interpretation of world history, which begins the chapter Geographical Basis of World History with the aspiration to totalize historical consciousness as a world-historical process.
These natural differences must, above all, be regarded as exceptional possibilities from which the spirit springs; in this way, they represent the geographical basis.But, of course, we do not care to get acquainted with the soil as an external place.Still, we care about getting acquainted with the natural type of locality, closely connected to the kind and character of the people who originated on such soil.That character is precisely how nations appear in world history and occupy a position and a place in it.-Nature should neither be overestimated nor underestimated; the mild Ionic sky has undoubtedly contributed much to the grace of Homer's poems, but it alone cannot produce Homer, nor does it always produce them; poets did not appear under Turkish rule (Hegel, 2006: 96).
In an essay entitled Nietzsche, Genealogy, History , Foucault demonstrates the power of what he sees as Nietzsche's genealogical method, a "multidisciplinary technique for discovering contingent historical trends that support contemporary discourse and practices of power."That is why he states that, unlike the Hegelian sun of world history, "genealogy is gray; it is petty and patiently documentary." Foucault (2012b: 90) simply emphasizes the difference between archeology and genealogy: "In two words: perhaps it could be said that archeology would be a method inherent in the analysis of local discursive practices, and genealogy a tactic that, based on the described local discursive practices, into play introduces the liberating knowledge that results from them.And to establish the project as a whole."Therefore, for him, the goal of genealogy is to understand the "history of the present" independently of the known historical narratives and political ideologies that represented the past.Huxley (2009: 255) sees genealogy as "a method for discovering power exercises, which are involved in setting up certain regimes of truth and valorizing subordinate knowledge."Thus Foucault's methodological turn towards genealogy is expressed in the bookSupervise and Punish (1997), which became one of his most famous books.He defines modernity as a disciplinary society shaped by new forms of power.His interest in the genealogical history of the present inspired Foucault to the next series, a trilogy of the history of sexuality, which, despite its differences, "consistently uses Nietzsche's deconstruction of the origins of the Western soul and submissive regimes of truth, ethics, and identity."Dreyfus and Rabinow (1982: 119) emphasize that the genealogy of knowledge consists of two different corpora: first, from other opinions and theories that have not been established or widely recognized, and, second, from local beliefs and understandings.It seeks to discover these two kinds of knowledge and their struggle to pass them on to others while not claiming to be more accurate than institutionalized knowledge.It represents only the missing part of the puzzle, and it works by isolating the main features of some current political mechanisms and then following them to their historical roots.These historical roots are available to us only thanks to these described corpora of knowledge.That is why Foucault (2012b: 90) defines genealogy as a kind of endeavor with the aim of "breaking the yoke of historical knowledge and becoming free" and becoming a cadre for "opposing and fighting against the coercion of unitary, formal and scientific theoretical discourse."That is why local knowledge contrary to the "scientific hierarchy of cognition and the internal effects of power" is essential to him.
Unlike the method of archeology, which is neither formalizing nor interpretive, genealogy is an interpretive, analytical method which, according to Pete (1998), is "opposed to traditional historical methods of research."It does not seek to recognize a fixed essence or internal laws.Still, it seeks "discontinuities, avoiding indepth searches and recording the past to undermine the notion of a modern march of progress."As in the previous case, to better understand it, it is necessary to clarify the essential concepts that arise from discursive practices (power, knowledge, and body) and which essentially determine genealogy as a method.
The genealogist finds hidden meanings, sublime truth, and depth of consciousness, which are equally false: instead, the genealogical truth is that things have no essence.In archeology, Foucault sought a space in which we encounter objects and talk about them based on rules regulated by the system.In genealogy, this field is considered a space where social practices occur when subjects engage in a repetitive domination game.History is not the progress of universal achievement, but humanity is moving from one authority to another.Exploring the order of knowledge, as the order of the new discursive practice of the time, Foucault distances his genealogical approach to learning from the history of science: What distinguishes what we might call the history of science from the genealogy of knowledge is that the history of science is essentially placed on one axis, which is, in general, the axis of knowledge-truth, or, in any case, the axis that goes from the structure of knowledge to demands the truth.In contrast to the history of science, the genealogy of knowledge is placed on another axis, the axis of discourse -power or, if I may say so, the axis of discursive practice -confrontation with power (Foucault, 1998: 217-218) In History of Sexuality I , Foucault argues that modern "bio-power emerged in the seventeenth century as a coherent political technology, when the stimulation of life, and the growth and care of the population, became the main challenges of the state."created modern human sciences, which were still associated with bio-power technologies.Their goal was to produce an obedient but productive body (bodies in advance) and, not as a consequence, capitalism (Dreyfus and Rabinov, 1983).Foucault's (2012b: 83-112) 1976 lectures emphasize particular aspects of genealogy interesting to geography.First, he favors autonomous, decentralized theoretical production whose correctness does not depend on the approval of established regimes of thought.Second, of subdued knowledge, he means blocks of historical knowledge disguised as functionalist and systematization theory, which usually disqualifies knowledge as inadequate, naive, below the required level of science.Third, by reviving the history of struggle and through that subdued knowledge, Foucault thinks critical discourse can reveal a new essential power.In this sense, genealogy deals with the detailed rediscovery of efforts, reconstructions that would not be possible unless the tyranny of globalizing discourse is eliminated.It is a methodological discourse that Foucault believes in and which genealogy of power he should follow.
Based on this, we can try to deconstruct the imposed political-geographical discourse on the civil war in Sarajevo.11Thiscivil war began with the murder of a Serb wedding party in Sarajevo in 1992 and ended with an international conference in Dayton (USA) in 1995., which starts from the "fact" that there were Serbs in Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992-95.carried out an "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims (Dahlman & Toal, 2005: 644)22The authors mention the term ethnic cleansing on eighteen occasions, although many facts were not known at that time (2005), not to mention impartial historical studies and judgments of relevant courts.Which neglects the number and structure of the population (before and after the war) as a basic geographical fact.In doing so, they draw their conclusions based on indicators for two smaller inland cities (Zvornik and Jajce) and neglect the state capital, with the most significant demographic, economic and political significance.This kind of interpretation of geographical data is a typical example of a selective approach to facts, which should deconstruct and recognize all discontinuities in these statements, which means rejecting the imposed "truths" and returning to Foucault's local knowledge.The best basis for beginning the deconstruction of such approaches is to present the geographical facts about the number and national structure of the population of Sarajevo before and after the war.As a supplement to the previous table, it should be said that 13,9% of Bosniaks live in the Republic of Srpska (according to the 2013 census), and only 2,5% of Serbs in the territory of the other entity (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina).Since the aim of this paper is not a detailed political-geographical analysis of the civil war in Sarajevo, nor its consequences, but a "rebellion of conquered knowledge" that leads us to discover the hidden truth, we will dwell on these indications as a guide to the complete application of genealogical analysis in modern political-geographical problems.

Conclusion
Foucault's geography proves to be a powerful methodological instrument that leads us to a more precise determination of the boundaries of modernity in geography, which are determined by understanding and defining the essential disciplinary subject of study -space.Foucault's departure from the Hegelian approach to interpreting space as "dead, fixed, non-dialectical, and immovable" enabled what Lefebvre would call the production of space (relational space), which Harvey and Soja would translate into the world of geography.Also, Foucault's genealogical analysis becomes challenging only today and very demanding.In the time of "fasting truth" and fluid understanding of justice, it leads us to search for that discontinuity and hidden truths.

Table 1 :
Elements of grand theories of social development in modernism and Foucault The previous table was alsoconfirmed by Ritzer (2009)in contemporary sociological theory, whose parallels are on Foucault and modernists.It has already been mentioned that geographical thinking indicates ways of thinking within different philosophical traditions.Foucault is specific because he created on the border of different epochs (modern and postmodern).He is mainly responsible for this discontinuity.However, for

Table 2 :
Ethnic structure of the population of Sarajevo 1991-2013.