Elsevier

Geoforum

Volume 96, November 2018, Pages 207-216
Geoforum

Buddhist biopower? – Variegated governmentality in Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness agenda

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.08.008Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Variegated perspectives are required for conceptualizing governmentality.

  • Applying governmentality to Asian contexts extends Foucault’s western analyses.

  • Governmentality framework delivers insightful analysis to Gross National Happiness.

  • Biopower embodying non-western spiritualities emerges in the Bhutan context.

  • Gross National Happiness is a governance model inclusive of neoliberal tendencies.

Abstract

This paper employs a “variegated governmentality” framework to analyse Bhutan’s well-known Gross National Happiness (GNH) agenda. GNH is both a philosophy and form of governance that the Royal Government uses to guide national policymaking. While previous research frames GNH in terms of Foucault’s early discussion of governmentality, it does so by establishing monolithic characterizations of governance rationalities and positioning them against one another. By contrast, we suggest that GNH can be more productively understood in terms of Foucault’s more recently translated work as embodying multiple governance rationalities situated alongside each other and locally understood as complementary. From this perspective, recent promotion of neoliberalism within the country can be understood not as an intrusion of “western rationality” upon a distinct GNH but rather as a component of the complex bricolage that GNH has become. We suggest that this produces an indigenous form of biopower, which we term ‘Buddhist Biopower’, appealing to a combination of Bhutanese tradition and religious belief to legitimize the state’s claim to govern in the interest of the population. A policy review of Bhutan’s GNH Index and Eleventh Five Year Plan is conducted to illustrate this analysis. In this way, the paper brings together research concerning multiple governmentalities and variegated neoliberalization to illuminate the complex ways that biopower can be exercised in the contemporary world.

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)

  • N. Castree

    Neoliberalism and the biophysical environment: a synthesis and evaluation of research

    Environ. Soc.: Adv. Res.

    (2010)
  • Centre for Bhutan Studies (CBS), Institute of Development Economies, and Japan External Trade Organization, 2004....
  • Centre for Bhutan Studies (CBS), 2015. Provisional Findings of 2015 GNH Survey. Thimphu,...
  • Cheong, I., Bark, T., Jeong, H.Y., 2015. A framework of trade policy for bhutan compatible with the gross national...
  • S. Chophel

    Culture, public policy and happiness

    J. Bhutan Stud.

    (2012)
  • M. Dillon

    Politics of truth and pious economies, Chapter 9

  • R. Duffy

    A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation

    (2002)
  • M. Erb

    The dissonance of conservation: environmentalities and the environmentalisms of the poor in Eastern Indonesia

    Raffles Bull. Zool.

    (2012)
  • R. Fletcher

    Neoliberal environmentality: towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate

    Conserv. Soc.

    (2010)
  • Fletcher, R., Dressler, W., Anderson, Z.R., Büscher, B. (forthcoming). Natural capital must be defended: green growth...
  • Foucault, M., 1990. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, R. Hurley (trans.). New York: Vintage....
  • M. Foucault

    Governmentality

  • M. Foucault

    Michel Foucault and Zen: a Stay in a Zen Temple

  • M. Foucault

    Society must be defended

    (2003)
  • M. Foucault

    The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79, G. Burchel (trans.)

    (2008)
  • M. Givel et al.

    Early happiness policy as a government mission of Bhutan: a survey of the Bhutanese unwritten constitution from 1619 to 1729

    J. Bhutan Stud.

    (2014)
  • A. Gupta

    Red Tape: Bureaucracy, Structural Violence and Poverty in India

    (2012)
  • A. Gupta et al.

    Globalization and postcolonial states

    Curr. Anthropol.

    (2006)
  • S. Hall

    Chapter 6: The west and the rest: discourse and power

  • Hartwich, O.M., 2009. Neoliberalism: the genesis of a political swearword. CIS Occasional Paper, 114. The Centre for...
  • A. Hayden

    Bhutan: blazing a trail to a postgrowth future? or stepping on the treadmill of production?

    J. Environ. Dev.

    (2015)
  • D.L. Jayasuriya

    Buddhism, politics and statecraft

    Int. J. Buddhist Thought Culture

    (2008)
  • M.K. Jha et al.
  • T. Lamsang

    Government says no to WTO for now

    The Bhutanese

    (2017)
  • T. Lloro-Bidart

    Neoliberal and disciplinary environmentality and ‘sustainable seafood’ consumption: storying environmentally responsible action

    Environ. Educ. Res.

    (2015)
  • V. Mallet

    Bhutan: is free trade compatible with national happiness?

    Opinion Beyondbrics

    (2013)
  • M. Mancall

    Gross national happiness and development

  • S. Marglin

    Toward the decolonization of the mind

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text