atbiopowerk-pauljohnson

8/14/2019 ATBiopowerK-PaulJohnson

1/30

WFU 05 DistrictsPJ K Hatin

Biopower Answers- We Needed SomeTechnological modernity is not all bad- it pro ides the tools that can lead to either the !a"i Holoca#st or a $reedemocratic society- it is more li%ely that o#r #se o$ biopo&er is not coer ice' b#t rather prod#cti e in a $reedom as#$$ering alle iating sense

(iopo&er )ns&ers- We !eeded *ome++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(iopo&er )gency T#rn++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Po&er .riti/#e Fails++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++12ardstic%3 T#rn++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Po&er .riti/#e imited++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 2o#r responses78nlightenment Tho#ght++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++(iopolitics:(are i$e Wrong++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 (iopo&er termination++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 (iopolitics ())))D' J#hdge+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 (iopolitics 1?ight to Kill3+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 (iopo&er 8>termination+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 (iopolitics -@ Fascism:Toto+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 (iopolitics !a"ism++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 (iopo&er Holoca#st:Aiolence+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) 6 (iopo&er


2/30


Biopower Agency TurnA) The theory of socially and politically located biopower destroys human agency

D?C: P+ *te en *angren' anthropology pro$ .ornell' 1Po&er )gainst


3/30


Power Critique FailsCritique of power obscures other foundations of oppression

D?C: P+ *te en *angren' anthropology pro$ .ornell' 1Po&er )gainst


4/30


Yardstic ! TurnBiopower theorizations make it impossible to differentiate between resistance and

disciplinary power- the suffering the one may belie e comes from modernity couldalso come from a post structural site

D?C: !eal (renner' Pro$essor o$ Philosophy at Uni ersity o$ .hicago' 1Fo#ca#lts !e& F#nctionalism3' Theoryand *ociety +5' ,==4 p+ online


5/30


Power Critique "imitedThe critique of power is limited by its epistemological scopeD?C: P+ *te en *angren' anthropology pro$ .ornell' 1Po&er )gainst


6/30


A#$ Your responses%&nlig'tenment T'oug'tThe idea of biopower also includes enlightenment thoughtD?C: P+ *te en *angren' anthropology pro$ .ornell' 1Po&er )gainst


7/30


Biopolitics(Bare "i)e WrongThe idea of bare life and biopolitics relies on an o erdetermined social totality thesis!itzpatrick ' Pro$+ o$ a& U- ondon'"##$ p+EPeter' 1(are *o ereignty3 inTheory and Event 56G Finally' and mo ing yet $#rther beyond the immanent' < &ill o$$er'as a counter to %an unconditional power ofdeath% in Agamben%s so ereign scenarios Ep+ =0 ' a socio-logic o$ so ereignty &hich &o#ld combine the themes ola& s insistence and li$e s e>cess+


8/30


2et in their distinct partic#larity' these social entities cannot relate simply or solely to a set totality' to somecomprehensi ely determined commonality beyond* That would be to lose the particularity and thedistinctness in the comprehensi e determination + The scene beyond m#st be one o$ possibility+ Ho&e er' and as&e ha e #st obser ed' it m#st also be a scene o$ some determinant being-in-common+ For the contin#al constit#to$ partic#lar social being' there has to be some determinant po&er to deal &ith in$inite possibility+ )ltho#gh this

imperati e has pro ided impet#s $or claims to a set yet s#rpassing so ereignty' any dealing &ith in$inite possibilitcannot be $i>ed or totali"ed+ 2et some $i>ity is imperati e+ The price o$ distinctness and partic#larity is the e>iste beyond o$ some set limits b#t these cannot be end#ringly set+


9/30


A#$ Biopower *mpactBiopower means a life force- this checks its most iolent instantiations- since it is a power of

life it must create life' not destroy it' in order to perpetuate its own e+istenceD?C: Mi%e L a%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ 005 p+http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no :o a%angas,+pd$ accessed : 0:09Moreo er' li$e as the ob ect and the s#b ect o$ biopo&er N gi en that li$e is e ery&here' it becomes e ery&heren no &ay bare' b#t is as the synthetic notion o$ li$e implies' the m#ltiplicity o$ the $orms o$ li$e' $rom the n#triti ee to the intellect#al li$e' $rom the biological le els o$ li$e to the political e>istence o$ man+4 istence o$ a man is red#ced to a bare li$e and e>posed to an #nditional threat o$ death+ i$e is #ndo#btedly sacred $or the so ereign po&er in the sense that )gamben de$ines it+can be ta%en a&ay &itho#t a homicide being committed+


10/30


+emocratic Society C'ec s Biopolitical &,terminationemocratic modernity and modern fascism are different- both can be said to be biopolitical

but only the fascist society allows e+termination- democratic societies ha e checksthat pre ent e+termination

ickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ ; no+ , t and the slo& pace o$ disc#rsi e change' < thin% thisis the #nmista%able message o$ the really ery impressi e &a es o$ legislati e and &el$are re$orms in the ,= 0sthe ,=;0s in Cermany+=0 L$ co#rse it is not yet clear &hether this is an irre ersible dynamic o$ s#chsystems+ !e ertheless' s#ch regimes are characteri"ed by s#$$icient degrees o$ a#tonomy Eand o$ the potential $ore>pansion $or s#$$icient n#mbers o$ people that < thin% it becomes #se$#l to concei e o$ them as prod#cti e ostrategic con$ig#ration o$ po&er relations that might $r#it$#lly be analy"ed as a condition o$ 1liberty'3 #st as m#as they are prod#cti e o$ constraint' oppression' or manip#lation+ )t the ery least' totalitarianism cannot be thesole orientation point for our understanding of biopolitics' the only end point of the logic of socialengineering + This notion is not at all at odds &ith the core o$ Fo#ca#ldian Eand Pe#%ertian theory+ Democratic&el$are states are regimes o$ po&er:%no&ledge no less than early t&entieth-cent#ry totalitarian states these systeare not 1opposites'3 in the sense that they are t&o alternati e &ays o$ organi"ing the same thing+ (#t they are t&o

ery di$$erent &ays o$ organi"ing it* The concept 0power1 should not be read as a uni ersal stifling night ofoppression manipulation' and entrapment' in which all political and social orders are grey' are essentially oreffecti ely 0the same*1 4ower is a set of social relations ' in &hich indi id#als and gro#ps ha e arying degrees o$a#tonomy and e$$ecti e s#b ecti ity+ )nd disco#rse is' as Fo#ca#lt arg#ed' 1tactically poly alent+3iscursi eelements /like the arious elements of biopolitics) can be combined in different ways to form parts of quitedifferent strategies /like totalitarianism or the democratic welfare state)5 they cannot be assigned to one placein a structure' but rather circulate + The arying possible constellations o$ po&er in modern societies create1m#ltiple modernities'3 modern societies &ith /#ite radically di$$ering potentials+=,


11/30


A#$ Biopolitics BAAAA+ .u'dgeThe path of biopolitics is not a one way street- it has many potentialities- the current idea

that biopolitics puts us on a negati e path towards destruction is an unfounded bias-ickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online

8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ ; no+ , i%e Frit"sches essay' 8leys acc#rately re$lected the tone o$ most o$ those it introd#ced+ treme $orm o$ technocratic reason3 and 1earlyt&entieth-cent#ry modernitys dar% side+3 The implication seems to be that 1progressi e3 &el$are policy &as$#ndamentally 1dar%3 b#t it seems more acc#rate to concl#de thatbiopolitics had a ariety of potentials* Again'the point here is not that any of the interpretations offered in these pieces are wrong5 instead' it is that we are'collecti ely' so focused on unmasking the negati e potentials and realities of modernity that we ha econstructed a true' but ery one-sided picture* The pathos of this picture is undeniable' particularly for ageneration of historians raised on the


12/30


A#$ Biopolitics /ig't to 0ill!Biopolitics actually checks the 0right to kill1-it e+ists for the collecti e life' not collecti e

iolenceD?C: Mi%e L a%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ 005 p+http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no :o a%angas,+pd$ accessed : 0:09owe er' it is not called into question because of enlightened moral sentiments' but rather because of the deployment of biopolitical thinking and practice + For all these reasons' )gambens thesis'according to &hich the concentration camp is the $#ndamental biopolitical paradigm o$ the West' has to be correcte+,, The biopolitical paradigm o$ the West is not the concentration camp' b#t' rather' the presentday &el$are societyand' instead o$ homo sacer' the paradigmatic figure of the biopolitical society can be seen' for e+ample' in themiddle class ,wedish socialdemocrat + Although this figure is an ob?ect @ and a product of the huge biopolitical machinery' it does not mean that he is permitted to kill without committing homicide + )ct#ally' the $act that he e ent#ally dies' seems to be his greatest 1crime3 against the machinery+ Eposed to an #nconional threat o$ death' b#t rather to an #nconditional retreat o$ all dying+


13/30


A#$ Biopower &,terminationNazi 3ermany may only e+ist in a world of totalitarian state domination- it is not

biopolitical domination' but fascismD?C: Mi%e L a%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ 005 p+http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no :o a%angas,+pd$ accessed : 0:09*#ch trans$ormation' ho&e er' changes e erything+ )biopolitical society that wishes to 0e+ercise the old so ereign right to kill1 '= e en in the name o$ race'ceases to be a mere biopolitical society' practicing merely biopolitics* t becomes a 0demonic combination1 of so ereign power and biopower ' e>ercising so ereign means $or biopolitical ends+


14/30


A#$ Biopolitics -1 Fascism(Totoemocratic checks in countries like the , ensure no slippery slope to biopolitical

e+terminationD?C: Mi%e L a%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ 005 p+http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no :o a%angas,+pd$ accessed : 0:09) comparati e $rame&or% can help #s to clari$y this point+&ther states passed compulsory sterilization laws inthe $ ;#s R indeed' indi id#al states in the United *tates had already beg#n doing so in ,=0;+et they did notproceed to the ne+t steps adopted by National ,ocialism R mass sterili"ation' mass 1e#genic3 abortion andm#rder o$ the 1de$ecti e+3


15/30


A#$ Biopolitics Na2ism!oucault7s theories about biopolitics do not e+plain the Nazis- that was totalitarian politics'

not modern politics and rationalityickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online

E8d&ard ?oss'Central European History ol+ ; no+ ,


16/30


A#$ Biopower 3olocaust(4iolenceNope- biopower and bare life were not the root cause- the modern democratic polity is not

equi alent to the Third 8eich- no mechanism for mass iolenceD?C: Mi%e L a%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ 005 p+http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no :o a%angas,+pd$ accessed : 0:09

For Fo#ca#lt' the coe+istence in political structures of large destructi e mechanisms and insti tutions oriented toward the care of indi idual life was something puzzling 6 1


17/30


A#$ Biopower *mpact(/ig'ts Badou o eressentialize- the features in common of Nazi 3ermany and the democratic polity

are similar but do not mean the democratic polity causes iolence- do not re?ect thetools of modern rights

eranty ' Philosophy Pro$+ Mac/#arie Uni ersity'"##. p+ onlineEJean-Phillipe' Borderlands Aol+ G , 1)gambens .hallenge to normati e theoriesV3 .onsistent &ith this $o#ndationalist essentialism' Agamben does not restrict indistinction to the conceptual orstructural le el' but e+tends it to empirical' historical phenomena* The archaic ,tate is not substantiallydifferent from the modern one* There is no essential difference between democracy before Auschwitz' thetotalitarian ,tates themsel es' and democracy after Auschwitz between liberal democracies and dictatorships E)gamben ,==B6,0 + termination camp and the immigrant loc%ed #p by police in a hotel at .harles de Ca#lle )irport E,==B6 ,;4 ' or bet&een the M#selmann and the o ercomatose personE,===a6 ,59 no distinction bet&een the !a"i e>termination camps and the camps established in the $ormer2#gosla ia+ Ln a general' philosophical le el' the essentialist method that leads to general indisting#ishability &o#ld be/#estioned by other traditions o$ tho#ght+ The strongest criti/#e &o#ld probably come $rom the Hegelian tradition'$or &hich the essence is to be found nowhere but in its modes of appearance' identity in differences* Theconceptual imperati e that ensues is the task of thinking precisely what appears as different' and not look fora transcendent Fthing-in-itselfF in which all differences are swallowed +


18/30


A#$ Biopower(/ig'ts Bad9e can use the tools of biopower to challenge its worst manifestations- re?ecting these tools

leads to horrid iolenceeranty ' Philosophy Pro$+ Mac/#arie Uni ersity'"##. p+ online

EJean-Phillipe' Borderlands Aol+ G , 1)gambens .hallenge to normati e theoriesV34B+ Lne can ac%no&ledge the descripti e appeal o$ the biopo&er hypothesis &itho#t reno#ncing the antagonisticde$inition o$ politics+ )s ?anci re remar%s' Fo#ca#lts late hypothesis is more abo#t po&er than it is abo#t politicsE?anci re 00 + This is /#ite clear in the ,=;9 lect#res E*ociety m#st be de$ended &here the term that is mostly#sed is that o$ Xbiopo&erX+ )s ?anci re s#ggests' &hen the Xbiopo&erX hypothesis is trans$ormed into aXbiopoliticalX thesis' the ery possibility o$ politics becomes problematic+ There is a &ay o$ artic#lating moderndisciplinary po&er and the imperati e o$ politics that is not dis #ncti e+The power that sub?ects and e+cludessocially can also empower politically simply because the e+clusion is already a form of address whichunwittingly pro ides implicit recognition* 4ower includes by e+cluding' but in a way that might be differentfrom a ban + This insight is precisely the one that Fo#ca#lt &as de eloping in his last &ritings' in his de$inition o$$reedom as XagonismX EFo#ca#lt ,=B 6 0B- B 6 XPo&er is e>ercised only o er $ree s#b ects' and only insthey are $reeX E , + The hierarchical' e>cl#sionary essence o$ social str#ct#res demands as a condition o$ its possibility an e/#i alent implicit recognition o$ all' e en in the mode o$ e>cl#sion+t is on the basis of thisrecognition that politics can sometimes arise as the indication of equality and the challenge to e+clusion*4=+ This proposal rests on a logic that challenges )gambens red#ction o$ the o ercoming o$ the classicalconcept#alisation o$ potentiality and act#ality to the single Heideggerian alternati e+ i e' #nity' in the notion o$ contingency+ .ontingency is precisely the potential as e>isting' a potential that e>ists yet does not e>cl#de the possibility o$ its opposite EHegel ,=9=6 54,-554 + Hegel can lead the&ay to&ards an ontology o$ contingency that recognises the place o$ contingency at the core o$ necessity' instead opposing them+ The $act that the impossible became real indicates Hegels claim thatthe impossible should not beopposed to the actual* nstead' the possible and the impossible are only reflected images of each other and' asactual' are both simply the contingent* Auschwitz should not be called absolute necessity E)gamben ,===a6,4B 'but absolute contingency* The absolute historical necessity of Auschwitz is not Fthe radical negationF ofcontingency' which' if true' would indeed necessitate a flight out of history to con?ure up its threat* tsabsolute necessity in fact harbours an indelible core of contingency' the locus where political inter entioncould ha e changed things' where politics can happen* Yygm#nt (a#mans theory o$ modernity and his theoryabo#t the place and rele ance o$ the Holoca#st in modernity ha e gi en sociological and contemporary rele ance

this alternati e historical-political logic o$ contingency E(a#man ,=B= +50+ ist philosophy o$ re ol#tion &as its inability to constr#cti eengage &ith the /#estion o$ rights and the *tate' then it might be the case that thepolitics that define themsel es asthe articulation of demands born in the struggles against in?ustice are better able to bear witness to theFtradition of the oppressedF than their messianic counterparts*


19/30


A#$ Biopolitics AltThey ha e no political strategy- its ?ust mumbo ?umbo and buzzwordsGirno ' grassroots acti ist and 8#ropean philosopher'"##" p+http6::&&&+generation-online+org:p:$p irno +htmEPaolo)gamben is a problem+ )gamben is a thin%er o$ great al#e b#t also' in my opinion' a thin%er &ith no political

ocation+ Then'when Agamben speaks of the biopolitical he has the tendency to transform it into anontological category &ith al#e already since the archaic ?oman right+ )nd' in this' in my opinion' he is erywrong-headed + The problem is' < belie e' that the biopolitical is only an e$$ect deri ed $rom the concept o$ labor- po&er+ When there is a commodity that is called labor-po&er it is already implicitly go ernment o er li$e+ )gambsays' on the other hand' that labor-po&er is only one o$ the aspects o$ the biopolitical < say the contrary6 o er all beca#se labor po&er is a parado>ical commodity' beca#se it is not a real commodity li%e a boo% or a bottle o$ &a b#t rather is simply the potential to prod#ce+ )s soon as this potential is trans$ormed into a commodity' then' it isnecessary to go ern the li ing body that maintains this potential' that contains this potential+ Toni E!egri andMichael EHardt ' on the other hand' #se biopolitics in a historically determined sense' basing it on Fo#ca#lt' b#tFo#ca#lt spo%e in $e& pages o$ the biopolitical - in relation to the birth o$ liberalism - that !oucault is not asufficient base for founding a discourse o er the biopolitical and my apprehension' my fear' is that thebiopolitical can be transformed into a word that hides' co ers problems instead of being an instrument forconfronting them* A fetish word' an Fopen doorsF word' a word with an e+clamation point' a word thatcarries the risk of blocking critical thought instead of helping it* Then' my fear is of fetish words in politics

because it seems like the cries of a child that is afraid of the dark***' the child that says Fmama' mamaHF'Fbiopolitics' biopoliticsH X+ < don t negate that there can be a serio#s content in the term' ho&e er < see that the #seo$ the term biopolitics sometimes is a consolatory #se' li%e the cry o$ a child' &hen &hat ser es #s are' in all casesinstr#ments o$ &or% and not propaganda &ords+
http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpvirno2.htmhttp://www.generation-online.org/p/fpvirno2.htm


20/30


A#$ Biopower(State Bad- State("aw Sol5es 6enocideThe Nazis imposed racial policies onto biopolitics' not ice ersa

ickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ onlineE8d&ard ?oss'Central European History ol+ ; no+ , We may dra& some brie$ concl#sions $rom this story+ First' there clearly &as no especially con incing lin% bet&e#genic ideas and totalitarian politics+ *econd' the !a"is adopted and s#pported one partic#lar ariety o$ e#genictho#ght+ They &ere not dri en by 1the3 logic o$ e#genics rather' they p#rs#ed 1a3 logic o$ e#genics+ Third'theNazis imposed this particular ariety of eugenics on a biopolitical 0establishment1 a comple+ of institutions'disciplines' practices' and policies that was not ery e+cited about eugenics of any ariety' much less the racistnegati e eugenics the Nazis fa ored + Ho& do &e sort o#t the elements o$ contin#ity and discontin#ity in this patternO While debate &ill no do#bt contin#e' there is no& something approaching a pla#sible consens#s on this/#estion+The de elopment o$ e#genic tho#ght since the ,B=0s Ror $or that matter o$ Dar&inian tho#ght since the,B50sR &as' as Ceo$$ 8ley p#t it in ,==9' a 1condition o$ possibility3 $or !a"i e#genic policy+449hat made massmurder a reality' howe er' was not the inheritance o$ e#genic thin%ing' b#t the emergence of a1Massnahmenstaat3 Ra political system that operated by administrati e fiat rather than by law* Themassi ely radicalized sterilization policy adopted by the Nazis R &hich e ent#ally e$$ected some 400'000 personsR could only be implemented by a regime that had effecti ely silenced open discussion among eugenice+perts and among the broader public and the m#rder o$ some ;0'000 in the !a"is e#thanasia program' andsome tens o$ tho#sands in less organi"ed $ashion later' co#ld only be implemented as a conspiracy by a regime that

abhorred legality and silenced criti/#e+ This is a concl#sion that &as common already in the seminal &or%s one#genics in the ,=B0s' and &as stated &ith partic#lar ehemence by Hans-Walter *chm#hl in ,=B; it is no&irt#ally #nchallenged+45 Detle Pe#%ert pointed o#t in ,=B= that the silencing o$ p#blic dissent and the abrogation

of legality were the key steps toward mass murder in the Third 8eich5 the 0 ital factor1 leading to massmurder was 0the character of the Nazi dictatorship* 3 49 Jochen-.hristoph Kaiser' K#rt !o&a%' and Michael*ch&art" stated this ie& &ith partic#lar clarity in ,== ' arg#ing that69ithout the conte+t of the * * * growingerosion of the state of law in $a or o$ the Massnahmenstaat'the National ,ocialist 0euthanasia1 could not ha ebeen implemented* = en then' it stil l required the state of emergency of the war and e+tensi e' if not eryeffecti e secrecy to put it into motion + Whate er the long-term preconditions may ha e been' this speci c1sol#tion3 to the problem' the 1e>termination o$ li$e #n&orthy o$ li$e'3 became possible only #nder the conditionsthe 1Third ?eich+34;


21/30


+A turns 7iopower 4olitical disasters like economic collapse create the scenarios whereby modernity can be

corrupted into biopolitical Nazism instead of enlightening freedomickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online

8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ ; no+ , )gain' Pe#%ert &as ery a&are that he &as &riting the history o$ only one %ind o$ modernity' and that the mostdestr#cti e potentials o$ modern social engineering disco#rse &ere only to be reali"ed in a ery speci c historicalconte>t+The 0!inal ,olution1 was' as he remarked' 0one among other possible outcomes of the crisis ofmodern ci ilization'1 and one possible only in the conte+t of the concatenation of economic' social' andpolitical disasters through which 3ermany passed in the two decades before $ ;;* The fact that Nazism was0one of the pathological de elopmental forms of modernity does not imply that barbarism is the ine itablelogical outcome of modernization'1 which also created 0opportunities for human emancipation +3 )nd yet'again' the history that Pe#%ert act#ally &rote &as the history o$ disasterR a disaster that' $re/#ently' does seem atleast highly li%ely+ The 1$atal racist dynamic in the h#man and social sciences'3 &hich consists in their assignmeno$ greater or lesser al#e to h#man characteristics' does 1ine itably become $i>ated on the #topian dream o$ thegrad#al elimination o$ death'3 &hich is 1#n$ailingly3 $r#strated by li ed reality+


22/30


Biopower 6oodBiopower can be good- for e+ample in 3ermany in the $ "#7s it reduced infant mortality

ratesickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online

8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ ; no+ , L$ co#rse' at the most simple-minded le el' it seems to me that an assessment o$ the potentials o$ modernity thatignores the &ays in &hich biopolitics has made li$e tangibly better is someho& deeply $la&ed+ To gi e #st onee>ample' in$ant mortality in Cermany in ,=00 &as #st o er 0 percent or' in other &ords' one in &hich childrendied be$ore reaching the age o$ one year+ (y ,=, ' it &as ,5 percent and by ,= = E&hen a erage real p#rchasing po&er &as not signi$icantly higher than in ,=, it &as only =+; percent+= The e>pansion o$ in$ant health progr R an enormo#sly ambitio#s' b#rea#cratic'medicali"ing' and sometimes intr#si e' social engineering pro ectR had agreat deal to do &ith that change+ tent' and sometimes &illy-nilly' disco#rse and policy &ere act#ally a response to that broader process o$ rede$inition in short' to 1demand-side3 press#res+


23/30


Biopolitics 6ood(*mpact Ta eoutBiopolitics can be good and empirically ser es the side of quality- I reasons

ickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ ; no+ , 9hy was =urope7s twentieth century' in addition to being the age of biopolitics and totalitarianism' also theage of biopolitics and democracy O Ho& sho#ld &e theori"e this relationshipO < &o#ld li%e to o$$er $i e propositions as $ood $or tho#ght+ First' again' the concept o$ the essential legitimacy and social al#e o$ indi id#needs' and hence the imperati e o$ indi id#al rights as the political mechanism $or getting them met' has historical been a cornerstone o$ some strategies o$ social management+ To borro& a phrase $rom Detle Pe#%ert'this does notmean that democracy was the 0absolutely ine itable1 outcome of the de elopment of biopolitics b#t it doesmean that it &as 1one among other possible o#tcomes o$ the crisis o$ modern ci ili"ation+3,, *econd' < &o#ldarg#e thatthere is also a causal fit between cultures of e+pertise' or 0scientism'1 and democracy + L$ co#rse'1scientism3 s#b erted the real' historical ideological #nderpinnings o$ a#thoritarian polities in 8#rope in thenineteenth cent#ry+ pertise its s#bstit#te $or a#thority+ The age o$ democracy is the age o$ pro$essionali"ation' o$ technocracy there is a deeper connection bet&een the t&o' this is not merely a matter o$historical coincidence+ Third' the #lnerability o$ e>plicitly moral al#es in democratic societies creates a problem

o$ legitimation+ L$ co#rse there are moral al#es that all democratic societies m#st in some degree #pholdEindi id#al a#tonomy and $reedom' h#man dignity' $airness' the r#le o$ la& ' and those al#es are part o$ theirstrength+ (#t as peoples states' democratic social and political orders are also implicitly and o$ten e>plicitlye>pected to do something positi e and tangible to enhance the &ell-being o$ their citi"ens+ Lne o$ those things' o$co#rse' is simply to pro ide a rising standard o$ li ing and the isible and astonishing s#ccess o$ that pro ect has been cr#cial to all Western democracies since ,=45+Another is the pro ision of a rising standard of health5 andhere again' the democratic welfare state has 0deli ered the goods1 in concrete' measurable' ande+traordinary ways* n this sense' it may not be so simpleminded' after all' to insist on considering the factthat modern biopolitics has 0worked1 phenomenally well* Fo#rth' it &as precisely the democrati"ing dynamic o$modern societies that made the /#estion o$ the 1/#ality3 o$ the mass o$ the pop#lation seemR and not only in theeyes o$ the dominant classes increasingly important+ )gain' in the co#rse o$ the nineteenth and early t&entiethcent#ries the e>pected le el o$ the a erage citi"ens acti e participation in 8#ropean political' social' c#lt#ral' andeconomic li$e rose steadily' as did the e>pected le el o$ her e$$ecti e in$l#ence in all these spheres+ This made it

matter o$ increasing importance &hether the a erage person &as more or less ed#cated and in$ormed' more or lessmoral and sel$-disciplined'more or less healthy and physically capable'more or less socially competent+ Andmodern social reform 0biopolitics1 defined ery broadly2seemed to offer the possibili ty of creating thehuman foundation for a society ordered by autonomous participation' rather than by obedience + This too &as part o$ the Machbar%eits&ahn o$ modernity b#t this &as potentially a democratic 1Wahn'3 not only an a#thoritarone+ Fi$th' historically there has been a clear connection bet&een the concept o$ political citi"enship and the idea omoral a#tonomy+ The political 1s#b ect3 Eor citi"en R as opposed to the political s#b ect'&ho is an ob ect o$ staaction is also a moral s#b ect+ The citi"ens capacity $or moral reasoning is the legitimating post#late o$ alldemocratic politics+ The reg#lation o$ se>#al and reprod#cti e li$e has long been #nderstood in 8#ropean societie be among the most $#ndamental iss#es o$ morality+There is' therefore' a connection between political citizenshipon the one hand' and the se+ual and reproducti e autonomy implied in the indi idual control that is a centralelement of the modern biopolitical comple+ ' on the other+ The association in the minds o$ conser ati es in the lateimperial period bet&een democracy and declining $ertility &as not a panic%y del#sion panic%y it certainly &as' it &as also a gen#ine insight into a deeper ideological connection+,, Perhaps it sho#ld not be s#rprising' there$orethat the $irst great homeland o$ e#genic legislation &as the United *tates R the $irst great homeland o$ moderndemocracy+


24/30


alongside the more $amiliar history o$ modern totalitarian biopolitics+ The dream o$ per$ectibility RMachbar%eits&ahn R is central to modernity+ (#t social engineering' the management of society' can beorganized in different ways* >istorically' totalitarian biopolitics was a self-destructi e failure* emocraticbiopolitics has' in contrast' been2 not in any moral sense' but politically 2a howling success* !or thehistorian interested in modernity' that story is no less interesting or important than the story of the implosionof the Nazi racial state*


25/30


Biopolitics 6oodThere are two sides to biopolitics- sure management can be oppression' but it can also stop

iolence like rapeickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online

8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ ; no+ ,


26/30


A#$ BiopoliticsThe belief that rational technologisation carries the seeds of oppression is ridiculous-it

protects rights and may use biopower but only in ways that reduce sufferingickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online

8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ ; no+ , )ll o$ these /#estions' ho&e er' still address primarily the acti ities o$ technocrats and social managers+We are stillas%ing ho& bad social engineering is+ ample' asserted that' 1Pro$essionalism' rein$orced by o$$icial po&ers meant that &el$aredenied ne& spheres $or the e>ercising o$ coercion + + + The ne& technocracy o$ pro$essions and &el$areadministrators might be seen as erecting antidemocratic and coerci e social str#ct#res by e>tending the &el$arestate+3 Michael *ch&art"' similarly' obser ed in ,== that 1e en in the democratic ariant o$ science there &as atendency to technocratic elitism3 and the 1scientistic ob ecti$ication o$ h#manity+3== )nd Detle Pe#%ert remind#s that 1rationali"ation as a strategy o$ e>perts inherently contained Ibarg systematisch the danger o$ thetechnocratic arrogance o$ e>perts' the o er&helming o$ those a$$ected by the catalog o$ norms $or rational li ingderi ed $rom the e>pert %no&ledge o$ the pro$essions' b#t not $rom the e>perience o$ those a$$ected+3,00 8 ensinister' again' is the tendency o$ these same e>perts to e>cl#de' stigmati"e' and pathologi"e those they are not ableto 1normali"e+3 Yygm#ntBauman has presented the same case with a particular clarity' concluding that sincemodernity is 0about1 order' and order always implies its opposite' chaos ' 1intolerance is + + + the nat#ralinclination o$ modern practice+ .onstr#ction o$ order sets the limits to incorporation and admission+


27/30


A#$ Calculationour calculation of a theory of indi idual resistance also uses calculati e logicickinson ' History Pro$+ U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely'"##. p+ online

8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ ; no+ , This is o$ co#rse a point that Fo#ca#lt ma%es &ith partic#lar clarity+The power of discourse is not the power ofmanipulati e elites' which control it and impose it from abo e*


28/30


Foucault Answers!oucault7s claims create a system of totalizing biopower from which there is no escape- this

renders us incapable of relati e e aluation of claims of ethics4hilp ' philosophy pro$+ Jes#s Uni ersity'$ J; p+ J*tor EMar%' Political Theory ALl+ ,, !o+ , 1Fo#ca#lt on Po&er3


29/30



30/30


atbiopowerk-pauljohnson

Documents