Collective democratic decision-making through debate is a more effective route to actualizing Foucault’s alternative than pure rejection

This argument is clearly in tension with some of Foucault's own proposals. Indeed, the notion of a transparent society marked by a Rousseauian general will is a Foucaultian nightmare. Democracy itself is based upon the diffusion of disciplines. Yet a carefully formulated "communitarianism" need not lead to postmodern anguish.3 There are several immediate reasons for this. First, the proposals suggested by Foucault, Connolly, Hooke, and others, such as a new form of rights or an aesthetic approach to ethics, cannot be implemented without a large measure of collective, democratic support. This is because of the nature of 'capillary' power as described by Foucault. In his view, power is so ubiquitous, insidious, and flexible that it is implausible to suggest that individuals acting alone could successfully combat it. Furthermore, this collective support cannot be gained without moral argumentation and appeals to shared values. An exclusive use of genealogical investigations and deconstructions of others' moral views is not sufficient. The conception of democracy and collective action endorsed here does not emphasize a postmodernist agonism or contestation, though such heated debate often proves salutary. Instead, moral debate which seeks consensus and which in turn motivates group action is seen as a better ideal. Still, collective action and democratic institutions can and should embody practices and goals that Foucault himself would support.