Buddhist biopower? – Variegated governmentality in Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness agenda
Introduction
Bhutan, a small kingdom dominated by Buddhist ideals in the south-eastern Himalayas, has drawn substantial popular attention due to its attractive cultural and natural heritage, resulting into mythologized portraits of ‘the Last Shangri-La’ (Schroeder, 2011). International attention increased recently due to a growing disillusionment with ideals of democracy and development within the context of a neoliberal capitalist economy, with Bhutan creating hopeful space for constructing an alternative known as Gross National Happiness (GNH). Interest in Bhutan spans numerous fields of research, but predominantly Buddhist and GNH studies. Much of the work consists of historical analyses to explore unique specificities held intact through a history of isolation spurred on by both geo-physical barriers, due to the Himalayan landscape, and purposeful policy implementation in order to preserve culture and retain autonomy. While many small nations/kingdoms in the Himalayan region dissolved due to various geo-political circumstances1, Bhutan remains, making it an attractive focus of inquiry.
Since its self-initiated transition from absolute to constitutional monarchy in 2008, Bhutan, now a young democracy, continues to pursue its homegrown GNH model of governance, which has confounded many as it integrates multiple ideologies and yet retains a particular Bhutanese flavor. In terms of governance, GNH can be understood as a specific ‘governmentality’, having its own form and substance. While limited research draws a connection between governmentality and GNH (see Teoh, 2015a, Teoh, 2015b), the present study employs a variegated governmentality framework (Fletcher, 2010, Fletcher, 2017) to explore this connection more extensively. As opposed to Teoh’s characterization of GNH, which he frames as an expression of a monolithic governmentality, we argue that GNH can more productively be understood as embodying multiple governmentalities that overlap and are locally understood as complementary. Whereas Teoh contrasts GNH with an oppressive neoliberal agenda, thus promoting a dichotomy between ‘neoliberal’ and ‘not-neoliberal’ forms that many scholars have questioned (see Brenner et al., 2010), this research pursues a more empirically-nuanced understanding. To do so, the analysis builds on recent scholarship (see e.g., Youdelis, 2014; Boelens, 2014) that draws on Foucault’s (2008) more recently translated work complicating governmentality studies by understanding it as a variegated phenomenon encompassing multiple forms. In this way, the analysis builds on research exploring variegated neoliberalization as well (Peck and Tickell, 2002, Peck et al., 2009, Springer, 2012, Springer, 2014). As such, neoliberalism in this research is conceptualized, not as a monolithic entity, but rather a “perplexingly diverse and shifting” (Castree, 2009, p. 1792) concept “that is marked by unevenness and variety as much as it is by similarity-that is to say, it is a set of interconnected local, regional, and national neoliberalizations” (Castree, 2010, p. 13). From this perspective, we frame GNH as a variegated governmentality inclusive of neoliberal tendencies that nonetheless maintains a disposition towards particularistic historical circumstances and cultural values. We explore how select residents who have engaged in projects or policies promoted by the GNH framework experience governance. Historical cultural values in Bhutanese society provide breeding ground for a host of governance rationalities that do not so much mimic global trends as undergo “modification in the face of some newly identified problem or solution, while retaining certain styles of thought and technological preferences” (Rose et al., 2006, p. 98).
With multiple governmentalities at play, multiple forms of biopower manifest and overlap as well. Biopower in Bhutan, or what we will call ‘Buddhist Biopower’, exhibits strong connections to cultural traditions and religious beliefs, and works towards establishing Buddhist principles within circulating governmental discourses. While Foucault’s own discussion of biopower focused on modern western2 states arising in the 17th and 18th centuries, and hence described biopower as grounded in scientific rationalities and analysis, limited research extends this to explore how biopower manifests within non-western societies. Additionally, Foucault developed a governmentality/biopower framework that was primarily based on western conceptualizations in which subjects were largely viewed as individual rational agents, a notion foreign to many Asian contexts with communitarian leanings. Previous work on the Asian continent (see Samaddar, 2013, Jha et al., 2013) employed concepts of governmentality and biopower to interpret governance but failed to conceptualize novel configurations that have emerged. Such configurations are based outside the scope of the Enlightenment, a philosophy that serves as a base for the western governance models that Foucault critiqued. Thus, non-western governance configurations demand attention. To address this gap in the literature, and to contrast tendencies towards monolithic understandings of governmentalities, the pages that follow offer an analysis of Bhutanese policies (the GNH Index and the Eleventh Five Year Plan) to illustrate the variegated nature of a novel governance constellation in the country and how this manifests in a situated form of biopower embodying non-western (Buddhist) spiritualties.
We begin by providing contextual background to the Bhutanese state, including a specific emphasis on the state’s development and governance model embodied in GNH. We then outline a variegated governmentality framework by drawing on recent advances in governmentality literature. Using this framework we situate GNH as a ‘variegated governmentality’ and explore the specific mode of biopower it promotes. This is followed by an analysis of specific Bhutanese policies that reflect a variegated governmentality and Buddhist biopower, revealing potential avenues for application into future Bhutanese and GNH studies. We conclude by discussing a process of neoliberalization within the GNH agenda, framing it, not as a transition to a more ‘pure’ neoliberal state, but as a component of the larger variegated governance model.
The information and analysis we provide in this research is based on fieldwork spanning from 2013 to 2018 that explores environmental governance/attitudes in Bhutan and how they relate to the GNH agenda. We combine stakeholder interviews and secondary literature reviews in order to triangulate accounts for how GNH governance is conceived, promulgated, and legitimized. Interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders from government officials (at National and Dzongkhag3 levels), academics, private-entrepreneurs to local community members and were identified through both snowball sampling via social networking and purposive sampling by targeting key informants. However, the research was limited in scope only incorporating informants from western Dzongkhags. This limitation was related to issues of access and workplace proximity. That being said, it is critical to acknowledge that the experience of governance will vary greatly depending on the region of the country explored, as well as the level of practice/implementation (i.e. national, district, and village levels). Therefore, the findings of this research should be understood in terms of GNH governance in the western region of the country. This interview data is complemented by analysis of the corpus of texts within Bhutan that define and promote GHN policy. The literature includes material associated with local research centres (Centre for Bhutan Studies & GNH Commission) and planning documentation produced by the Royal Government of Bhutan. These texts were selected because they act as critical planning documents that drive the development trajectory of the country while serving as indigenous accounts/critiques of governance practice.
Section snippets
Development and governance in Bhutan – a historical perspective
Bhutan’s development trajectory is of specific interest amongst researchers largely due to Bhutan’s historical effort to distance itself from ‘western’ influences and the present-day context in which the nation negotiates a transition to global integration with both apprehension and welcoming curiosity. Before 1961, which saw the inception of Bhutan’s five-year plans, Bhutan was characterized as a ‘traditional society’ in terms of W.W. Rostow’s trajectory for development (Mehta, 2009) awaiting
Analyses of Bhutanese governance
A criticism voiced by GNH research is the difficulty pertaining to the measurement of happiness. As such, the majority of the research concentrates on the development of GNH as a well-being index. Numerous works by the GNH Commission and the Centre for Bhutan Studies have been created to legitimize the index, which is critical to Bhutan’s project as it confronts conventional measures of development (see Ura et al., 2012a, Ura et al., 2012b, CBS, 2015, Moharir, 2016). Ura et al. (2012b) note:
Governmentality and biopower
The term ‘governmentality’ has come to mean “the way in which one conducts the conduct of men,” which Foucault explained “is no more than a proposed analytical grid for these relations of power” (Foucault, 2008, p.186). Foucault’s early perspective characterizes ‘government’ as a distinct category that is related to ‘sovereignty’ and ‘discipline’, all three of which were understood as a triad of related forces (Foucault, 1994). However, in later discussions we see a transition to an integrated
GNH as variegated governmentality
With a variegated framework one can begin to characterize non-western societies, something that Foucault himself aspired to as he looked towards the “East” for inspiration late in his life (Foucault, 1999). Teoh, 2015a, Teoh, 2015b analyzes GNH in Bhutan commenting: the art of government wants to promote happiness and wellbeing as a common goal through the conduct of conduct of the government by creating the necessary enabling conditions. The government uses policy-making, planning and
Emergence of Buddhist biopower
From a variegated perspective, diverse forms of governance can be seen to operate simultaneously in Bhutan. For example, a more sovereign form of governance was pivotal to the creation of the Bhutanese state from Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, who first united the country in 1634, and into the current monarchy, yet we also see elements of truth, disciplinary and neoliberal arts of governance taking root within the current modernization period. In the case of Schroeder, 2014, Schroeder, 2018
Variegated governmentality in practice
To better illustrate this analysis, we now examine specific Bhutanese policies and programs, driven by a GNH philosophy, that reveal a variegated governmentality nature. The following analysis focuses on the GNH Index (with the associated GNH Survey) and the Eleventh Five Year Plan.
Negotiating neoliberalism in GNH governance
While certainly not resembling an archetypal ‘neoliberal’ state, Bhutan has undergone a neoliberalization process in recent years as its economy has become more integrated with neighbouring India, and the larger Asian and global markets. The five-year plans contain a history of discourse, which actively negotiate between a previously held isolationist policy and a more globally-attuned Bhutan. ‘Self Reliance’ and ‘GNH’ are common themes of discussion that work to distinguish the Bhutanese state
Conclusion
In this analysis we advanced a conceptual framing for understanding GNH as a variegated governmentality and unique mode of biopower. In understanding GNH as governmentality, we stress that what has evolved does not, nor should it be expected to, fit Foucault’s preconceived categories, which were shaped by his perspective as a French academic drawing upon notions of state conduct of western civilization from the 17th century onward. Furthermore, Foucault himself recognized that his modes of
References (77)
Cultural politics and the hydrosocial cycle: water, power and identity in the Andean highlands
Geoforum
(2014)Environmentality unbound: Multiple governmentalities in environmental politics
Geoforum
(2017)- et al.
Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica
Geoforum
(2012) Country Partnership Strategy: Bhutan 2014–2018
(2014)Asian Development Bank Member Fact Sheet: Bhutan
(2015)The Monarch’s Gift: Critical notes on the constitutional process in Bhutan
Eur. Bull. Himalayan Res.
(2012)- et al.
Variegated neoliberalization: geographies, modalities, pathways
Global Networks
(2010) - et al.
Introduction: neoliberal conservation, uneven geographical development and the dynamics of contemporary capitalism
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
(2012) - et al.
Accumulation by conservation
New Polit. Econ.
(2015) Researching neoliberal environmental governance: a reply to Karen Bakker
Environ. Planning
(2009)