Reading this book is a challenge due to its theoretical denseness. If you haven't read or not familiar with Foucault, this is not the book for you.
Stoler is a professor of anthropology and historical studies at the New School. This book is followed by Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power (2002), where she deepens her analysis of the racializaed education European children internalized while living in colonial territories
Stoler's main questions when researching this book include: why colonial bodies were not included in Faucault’s analysis? And where does he place race in his analysis of power? The book focuses and engages with Foucault on three points: 1) The question of the birth of racism and why Foucault places it in the 19th century (11)? 2) Foucault’s outline of a racial grammar that influenced sexual regimes of bourgeois culture (12). 3) She takes Faucault’s tensions out of an intra-European experience into “tensions of empire”—where she explore similarities and differences between the core and its colonies. She is particularly interested in how these “tensions of empire” articulated a vocabulary of sexuality, as well as a discourse and geneaology of race (13). A central question for Stoler is: if Foucault places the birth of state racism in the 19th century, how can colonialism and empire building be left out of the analysis (59, 80)?
Stoler first underscores how in the History of Sexuality, v. 1, Foucault articulates a careful containment in his discussion about race. This containment is simultaneously by its geographical parameters (intra-European) and his careful inclusion of race. However, Stoler's analysis is not limited to the History of Sexuality, but she also explores later theoretical developments by Foucault that he articulates in a series of lectures. In piecing together these various moments in which Foucault discusses race, Stoler interprets his argument as follows: National discourse was used as a tool to pacify the social war in which the centralization of historical knowledge (80) became a normalizing discourse (35) for the biologizing of power (68). In his lectures, where race is placed more centrally, the question of the social war is emphasized further. Foucault's social war does not seem to be very different from Marx's class war, but Stoler does not say much more about this.
Stoler notes that Foucault viewed that “a discourse of class derives from an earlier discourse of race (30).” She contrasts his analysis with Benedict Anderson who interpreted a discourse of race as one that derived from an earlier discourse on class. She discusses the differences between Anderson and Foucault in their placement of race within the nationalist project. She notes that for Anderson the continuity between classism and racism branded the nationalist project (30), while Foucault viewed this discourse as discontinuous and not necessarily a natural progression. At the end of the History of Sexuality, “racism emerges in the dramatic finale as one of several possible domains in which technologies of sexuality are worked out and displayed (59).” However, his lectures instead place racism with the framing of nationalist discourse, into what he interprets as "state racism." Instead of racism becoming a possible effect, it becomes a tactic in what she notes as...”the internal fission of society…” that creates internal enemies (59).
In the History of Sexuality, Foucault analyzes four examples where the bodypolitic plays out: 1) hysterical women; 2) the suppression of children sexuality; 3) the socialization of procreative life; 4) psychiatric analytics. While these are examples of the "internal enemies" developed by the "biological confrontations between 'my life and the death of others,'" when interpreting it in a colonial framework the question of race and power becomes even more multi-faceted. In her analysis, Stoler breaks down the internal enemy by extending it into the colonial context and gives it a specific racialized interpretation. She uses the example of domestic servants and nannies in the Dutch colonial Indies. By exploring how white, middle-class, female colonizers interacted with their black servants, we are able to see how colonial subjects were treated and surveilled as internal enemies. In this section, she also describes her disagreement (or widens the scope) of Foucault’s interpretation on degeneration and anxiety. For example, nannies were viewed by colonizers as possible degenerate influences on their children. Another example are metropole anxieties about their colonies and racial-mixing which challenged their power structure that was already intertwined with a racial hierarchy. Stoler also highlights how Foucualt lacked a gendered analysis around these subjects. For example, she describes how nationalist discourse is framed by exclusions and difference (131)—so, how do women and race inform such a narrative? She also notes the creation of a language of difference and new forms of power that inform the social hierarchies in colonial territories. But since Foucault's work is framed within male European universals, his analyses are stilted.