An unacceptable notion of "strategic"

In the previous posts I talked about the strategic side of Foucault's work but there is a use of the term "strategic" which Foucault obviously rejects. Here is the relevant quote where Foucault explains this rejection.


"If someone ask me what it is I think I am doing, I would answer: if the strategist is a man who says "what importance does a particular death, a particular cry, a particular uprising have in relation to the great necessity of the whole, and of what importance to me is such-and-such a general principle in the specific situation in which we find ourselves?" then it is indifferent to me whether the strategist is a politician, a historian, a revolutionary, someone who supports the Shah or the ayatollah. My theoretical morality is the opposite. It is "antistratgic": be respectful when singularity rises up, and intransigent when power infringes on the universal." ("Is it useless to revolt" (Inutile de se soulever?). I have quoted here from Eribon, Michel Foucault, pp. 290-91).