andráš raz prišiel s pripomienkou, že pozorujme zmeny v spoločnosti na rodine, lebo bola vždy základom

podľa F. sa tento vzťah obracia od 18. stor. s tzv. art of government, keď realitou nebola už len dobrá vláda panovníka, a ako ju dosiahnuť, realitou sa stali dnešné civilizačné problémy ako také, a musela sa tomu prispôsobiť aj teória suverenity; to, čo vtedy vzniklo, bola populácia; už model rodiny, nebol ďalej modelom spoločnosti, alebo modelom dobrej vlády, ale rodina sa stala prostriedkom, cez ktorý sa riešili problémy týkajúce sa populácie- napr. ak chceme znížiť úmrtnosť, zavedieme pravidlá, ktoré sa prejavia v rodinnom živote(povinnosť očkovať, dohliadať na symptómy), ale cieľom je zdravá populácia; z organizácie rodiny už z tohto hľadiska pre spoločnosť nič nevyplýva


How in fact did the problem of population make possible the release of the art
of government?

The perspective of population, the reality of phenomena specific to
population, makes it possible to eliminate the model of the family and to re-focus the notion of economy on something else. In fact, statistics, which had hitherto functioned within administrative frameworks, and so in terms of the functioning of sovereignty, now discovers and gradually reveals that the population possesses its own regularities: its death rate, its incidence of disease, its regularities of accidents.
Statistics also shows that the population also involves specific, aggregate effects and that these phenomena are irreducible to those of the family: major epidemics, endemic expansions, the spiral of labor and wealth. Statistics [further] shows that, through its movements, its customs, and its activity, population has specific economic effects. Statistics enables the specific phenomena of population to be quantified and thereby reveals that this specificity is irreducible [to the] small framework of the family. Apart from some residual themes, such as moral or religious themes, the
family disappears as the model of government.

On the other hand, the family now appears as an element within the population
and as a fundamental relay in its government. In other words, prior to the emergence of the problematic of population, the art of government could only be conceived on the basis of the model of the family, in terms of economy understood as management of the family. When, however, the population appears as absolutely irreducible to the family, the result is that the latter falls to a lower level than the population; it appears as an element within the population. It is therefore no longer a model; it is a segment
whose privilege is simply that when one wants to obtain something from the
population concerning sexual behavior, demography, the birth rate, or consumption, then one has to utilize the family. The family will change from being a model to being an instrument; it will become a privileged instrument for the government of the population rather than a chimerical model for good government. The shift from the level of model to that of instrument in relation to the population is absolutely fundamental. And in actual fact, from the middle of the eighteenth century, the family really does appear in this instrumental relation to the population, in the campaigns on mortality, campaigns concerning marriage, vaccinations, and inoculations, and so on.

What enables population to unblock the art of government is that it eliminates the model of the family.