On p. 93, Foucault writes that La Perriè re’s account of government is “multifarious”—that it points to the co-existence of “many governments in relation to which the princegoverning his state is only one particular mode. On the other hand, all thesegovernments are internal to society itself, or to the state. It is within the state that thefather governs his family, the superior governs the convent, and so on. There is thenboth a plurality of forms of government and the immanence of practices ofgovernment to the state, a multiplicity and immanence of this activity that radicallydistinguishes it from the transcendent singularity of Machiavelli’s prince.” What doesit mean to say that practices of government are “immanent to the state?” And whatabout La Perriè re’s account of government makes it so revolutionary in relation to thatof Machiavelli? In what sense was it “anti- Machiavellian?” In what sense might anaccount like that of La Perriè re provide a framework for the articulation of a liberalaccount of government? And why do you think that Machiavelli might have made acomeback as part of a broader critique of the liberal tradition that began to take shapein the early 19th century?

This is a complex question that requires a deep understanding of the works of both La Perrière and Machiavelli, as well as the broader context of political theory.

1. When Foucault says that practices of government are "immanent to the state," he means that they are inherent and intrinsic to the state. They are not external forces that are imposed on the state, but rather they are part of the very fabric of the state itself. This includes all forms of government, from the prince governing his state to the father governing his family.

2. La Perrière's account of government is revolutionary in relation to that of Machiavelli because it rejects the idea of a single, transcendent form of government (i.e., the prince) and instead embraces a multiplicity of forms of government. This is "anti-Machiavellian" in the sense that it challenges Machiavelli's emphasis on the prince as the central figure of government.

3. La Perrière's account could provide a framework for a liberal account of government because it emphasizes the diversity and plurality of forms of government. This aligns with liberal values of individual freedom and diversity.

4. Machiavelli might have made a comeback as part of a broader critique of the liberal tradition because his emphasis on the central role of the prince could be seen as a critique of the liberal emphasis on individual freedom and diversity. In the early 19th century, there was a growing concern about the potential dangers of individualism and the lack of a strong central authority, which could have led to a renewed interest in Machiavelli's ideas.