Just a Thought on Foucault

So I've been avidly working on my conclusion and I realized two things about it:

1) The conclusion doesn't have to be all that complex. I was lucky enough to read two great examples from two of my friends and they were short, simple, and to the point. It was more than restating the argument, but about contextualizing the work in other ways and setting aside room for a future research agenda. However ...
2) Even when I don't need it to be complex, I keep coming across stuff that does complicate things a lot more than what I actually need.

Here's one example ...

I was rereading Foucault's lectures on race and racism in "Society Must Be Defended," and in the section on biopolitics in History of Sexuality. As a follow up, I read an interview from Foucault in Power/Knowledge. His interviews often provide some of the best details into his works. I was looking for additional tidbits of information when I came across this:

Grosrichdard: To come now to the last part of your book .... [ref. HOS]
Foucault: Yes, no one wants to talk about that last part. Even though the book is a short one, but I suspect people never got as far as this last chapter. All the same, it's the fundamental part of the book.

By the way, the last part of History of Sexuality is "Part Five: Right of Death and Power Over Life." This is the section discussing biopolitics / biopower of race deployed as a technology of power in the specific practice of preserving and disqualifying life. Obviously, our use of "race" is not used in the same way that Foucault does to denote multicultural relations, for instance. Instead, it is how "race" is deployed as a method of discerning, categorizing, and mobilizing differences in population as a question and problem of "species." This is where Foucault makes the provocative claim that "massacres are vital," leading political theorist Mitchell Dean to call this section, Foucault's "dark side." At any rate, that section about biopolitics was hugely critical in my research about hate violence. Anyways ...

I was struck by Foucault's observation about the reception of his book, especially when he considers it to be the "fundamental part of the book." So why did people did not want to talk about the last section? And who exactly are "they?"

I remember my graduate seminar in cultural studies and my first introduction to HOS. I distinctly remember that our coverage, though mainly for a lack of time, only covered the major insights around discourse, sexuality, and power. But not the last section. As a matter of fact, I don't think I touched the last section until I came across the governmentality lectures and subsequent scholarship that referenced biopolitics / biopower at the start of my dissertation. I wonder if we could measure the distribution of HOS according to discipline? I haven't really come across a work in the humanities that uses/discusses Foucault's biopolitics / biopower section except for the social sciences. And while quite a few social scientists use HOS in general, a lot more seem to be rooted in the humanities in general. So I'm wondering if there's a disciplinary boundary that governs Foucault's chapters in HOS?

*shrugs*