Biopolitics and Biopolitical Economy: Essence of the Concepts
Philosophy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2019-3-320-330Keywords:
biopolitics, biopower, biopolitical economics, bioeconomics, biocapitalism, soft power, medicine, medicalization, management, planningAbstract
The article is devoted to the phenomenon of biopolitics. It attempts to clarify the production and economic foundations of biopolitics (in particular, it introduces and explores the concept of "biopolitical economy"). On the other hand, a distinction is made between biopolitics and biopower. Biopower is a relatively new kind of power, which extends to the vital foundations of human life and society. Biopower is a bright variety of "soft power," which does not involve direct control and exploitation, but acts indirectly: for example, through the artificial construction and imposition of new needs, the promotion of new types of goods and services. One of the indirect agents of bipower is medicine, which as a result of the process of the intensive medicalization of society has begun to include a growing number of life situations and problems within its jurisdiction. Despite its "softness," bipower does not cease to be power, as the asymmetry between its subjects and objects persists. The political economy approach is promising in the analysis of bipower, as the latter has economic roots and, in fact, emerges as an extension of capital's power, a consequence of its expansion into new areas in order to find sources of profit. Thus, some theorists write about "biocaptiality" as a new form of the latter. At the same time, there is a new global trend in modern society, which is associated with an increasing resort to horizontal modes of social interaction. Many of them are based on the network principle and assume wide autonomy, communicative and cooperative equality of its subjects. As a consequence of this transformation, the power asymmetry is gradually "smoothed out". In this context, it is promising to consider biopolitics not as a mere expression of bipower, but as a potentially qualitatively new way of interaction between people, social groups and institutions regarding the biological aspects of their existence, up to the possibility of their intelligent management. The latter should not be understood as direct control, but as prediction and planning for the optimal functioning and development of human biology.References
Агамбен Дж. Открытое. Человек и животное. М.: РГГУ, 2012. 112 c.
Агамбен Дж. Что такое повелевать? М.: Грюндриссе, 2013. 72 с.
Аласания К.Ю.. Философская концепция биовласти: истоки и перспективы // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 7. Философия. 2018. № 4. С. 70–77.
Барбарук Ю.В., Барбарук А.В. Биополитика как форма власти в современном обществе риска // Социология и право. 2018. № 3(41). С. 35–44.
Винер Н. Индивидуальный и общественный гомеостазис // Общественные науки и современность. 1994. № 6. С. 127–130.
Дубровский Д.И. Биологические корни антропологического кризиса. Что дальше? // Человек. 2012. № 6. С. 51–54.
Ледяев В.Г. Власть: концептуальный анализ // Полис. Политические исследования. 2000. № 1. С. 97–107.
Лем С. Сумма технологии. М.: АСТ, 2002. 668 c.
Луман Н. Власть. М.: Праксис, 2001. 256 c.
Маркузе Г. Эрос и цивилизация. Одномерный человек. М.: АСТ, 2003. 526 c.
Олескин А.В. Сетевые структуры как биополитический проект // Вестник Российской академии наук. 2007. Т. 77, № 12. С. 1084–1088.
Рыбин В.А. Биомарксизм: опыт новейшей реконструкции учения Маркса // Вестник Пермского университета. Философия. Психология. Социология. 2018. Вып. 2. С. 179–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2018-2-179-190
Самовольнова О.В. Социально-философский анализ основных концепций биополитики: М. Фуко, Дж. Агамбен, А. Негри // Вестник РГГУ. Серия: Философия. Социология. Искусствоведение. 2017. № 4–2(10). С. 261–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2017-4-261-271
Хабермас Ю. Будущее человеческой природы. На пути к либеральной евгенике? М.: Весь мир, 2002. 144 с.
Хаксли О. Возвращение в дивный новый мир. М.: АСТ, 2018. 192 с.
Хардт М., Негри А. Империя. М.: Праксис, 2004. 440 c.
Чешко В.Ф., Глазко В.И. High Hume (биовласть и биополитика в обществе риска). М.: РГАУ–МСХА им. К.А. Тимирязева, 2009. 320 с.
Яблоков А.В., Левченко В.Ф., Керженцев А.С. О концепции «управляемой эволюции» как альтернативе концепции «устойчивого развития» // Теоретическая и прикладная экология. 2017. № 2. С. 4–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25750/1995-4301-2017-2-004-008
Birch K., Tyfield D. Theorizing the Bioeconomy: Biovalue, Biocapital, Bioeconomics or... What? // Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2013. Vol. 38, no. 3. P. 299–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912442398
Building a new biocultural synthesis: Political-economic perspectives on human biology / ed. by A.H. Goodman, T.L. Leatherman. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2010. 512 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.10398
Castels M. Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 574 p.
Cocco G., Cava B. New Neoliberalism and the Other: Biopower, Anthropophagy, and Living Money. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018. 254 p.
Conrad P. The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press, 2007. 224 p.
Foucault M. The crisis of medicine or the crisis of antimedicine? // Foucault Studies. 2004. No. 1. P. 5–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i1.562
Harari Y.N. Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. N.Y.: Random House, 2016. 528 p.
Horne R. et al. A new social contract for medical innovation // The Lancet. 2015. Vol. 385, no. 9974. P. 1153–1154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60607-9
Human enhancement / ed. by J. Savulescu, N. Bostrom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 432 p.
Lemke T., Casper M.J., Moore L.J. Biopolitics: An advanced introduction. N.Y.: NYU Press, 2011. 158 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i14.3906
Mingers J. Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. N.Y.: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. 246 p.
Nadesan M.H. Governmentality, biopower, and everyday life. N.Y.: Routledge, 2008. 248 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894620
Nye J.S. Jr. Soft power: The means to success in world politics. N.Y.: Public affairs, 2004. 191 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20033985
Peters M.A., Venkatesan P. Biocapitalism and the politics of life // Geopolitics, History, and International Relations. 2010. Vol. 2, no. 2. P. 100–123.
Rabinow P. Biopower today // BioSocieties. 2006. Vol. 1, no. 2. P. 195–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855206040014
Rose N. Molecular biopolitics, somatic ethics and the spirit of biocapital // Social Theory & Health. 2007. Vol. 5, no. 1. P. 3–29.
Schaltegger S., Burritt R., Petersen H. An introduction to corporate environmental management: Striving for sustainability. N.Y.: Routledge, 2017. 384 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351281447
References
Agamben, G. (2012). Otkrytoe. Chelovek i zhivotnoe [The open: Man and animal]. Moscow: RSUH Publ., 112 p.
Agamben, G. (2013). Chto takoe povelevat’? [What is a commandment?]. Moscow: Grundrisse Publ., 72 p.
Alasaniya, K.Yu. (2018). Filosofskaya kontseptsiya biovlasti: istoki i perspektivy [Philosophical conception of biopower: sources and prospects]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 7. Filosofiya [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7. Philosophy]. No. 4, pp. 70–77.
Barbaruk, Yu.V. and Barbaruk, A.V. (2018). Biopolitika kak forma vlasti v sovremennom obschestve riska [Biopolitics as form of power in modern risk society]. Sotsiologiya i pravo [Sociology and Law]. No. 3(41), pp. 35–44.
Birch K., Tyfield D. (2013). Theorizing the bioeconomy: biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or... What? Science, Technology, & Human Values. Vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 299–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912442398
Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 574 p.
Cheshko, V.F. and Glazko, V.I. (2009). High Hume (biovlast’ i biopolitika v obschestve riska) [High Hume (biopower and biopolitics in a risk society]. Moscow: RSAU-MTAA Publ., 320 p.
Cocco, G. and Cava, B. (2018). New neoliberalism and the other: biopower, anthropophagy, and living money. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books Publ., 254 p.
Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press, 224 p.
Goodman, A.H. and Leatherman, T.L. (eds.) (2010). Building a new biocultural synthesis: Political-economic perspectives on human biology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 512 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.10398
Dubrovskiy, D.I. (2012). Biologicheskie korni antropologicheskogo krizisa. Chto dal’she? [Biological roots of anthropological crisis. What’s next?]. Chelovek [Human]. No. 6, pp. 51–54.
Foucault, M. (2004). The crisis of medicine or the crisis of antimedicine? Foucault Studies. No. 1, pp. 5–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i1.562
Habermas, J. (2002). Buduschee chelovecheskoy prirody. Na puti k liberal’noy evgenike? [Future of human nature. On the way to liberal eugenics?]. Moscow: Ves’ Mir Publ., 144 p.
Harari, Y.N. (2016). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. New York: Random House, 528 p.
Horne, R., Bell, J., Montgomery, J.R., Ravn, M.O. and Tooke, J.E. (2015). A new social contract for medical innovation. The Lancet. Vol. 385, no. 9974, pp. 1153–1154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(15)60607-9
Huxley, A. (2018). Vozvraschenie v divnyy novyy mir [Brave new world revisited]. Moscow: AST Publ., 192 p.
Khardt, M. and Negri, A. (2004). Imperiya [Empire]. Moscow: Praxis Publ., 440 p.
Ledyaev, V.G. (2000). Vlast’: kontseptual’nyy analiz [Power: conceptual analysis]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies]. No. 1, pp. 97–107.
Lem, S. (2002). Summa tekhnologii [Summa of technologies]. Moscow: AST Publ., 668 p.
Lemke, T., Casper, M.J. and Moore, L.J. (2011). Biopolitics: An advanced introduction. New York: NYU Press, 158 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i14.3906
Luman, N. (2001). Vlast’ [Power]. Moscow: Praxis Publ., 256 p.
Marcuse, H. (2003). Eros i tsivilizatsiya. Odnomernyy chelovek [Eros and civilization. Onedimensional man]. Moscow: AST Publ., 526 p.
Mingers, J. (2013). Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 246 p.
Nadesan, M.H. (2008). Governmentality, biopower, and everyday life. New York: Routledge, 248 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894620
Nye, J.S. Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public affairs. 191 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20033985
Oleskin, A.V. (2007). Setevye struktury kak biopoliticheskiy proekt [Net structures as biopolitical project]. Vestnik Rossiyskoy akademii nauk [Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences]. Vol. 77, no. 12, pp. 1084–1088.
Peters, M.A. and Venkatesan, P. (2010). Biocapitalism and the politics of life. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations. Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 100–123.
Rabinow, P. (2006). Biopower today. BioSocieties. Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 195–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855206040014 Rose, N. (2007). Molecular biopolitics, somatic ethics and the spirit of biocapital. Social Theory & Health. Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3–29.
Rybin, V.A. (2018). Biomarksizm: opyt noveyshey rekonstruktsii ucheniya Marksa [Biomarxism as the experience of modern reconstruction of Marx’s theory]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya [Perm University Herald. Series «Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology»]. Iss. 2, pp. 179–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078- 7898/2018-2-179-190
Samovol’nova, O.V. (2017). Sotsial’no-filosofskiy analiz osnovnykh kontseptsiy biopolitiki: M. Fuko, G. Agamben, A. Negri [Socio-philosophical analysis of basic conception of biopolitics: M. Foucault, G. Agamben, A. Negri]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Iskusstvovedenie [RSUH Bulletin. Series: Philosophy. Sociology Studies. Art Studies]. No. 4–2(10), pp. 261–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2017-4-261-271
Savulescu, J. and Bostrom, N. (eds.) (2010). Human enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 432 p.
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R. and Petersen, H. (2017). An introduction to corporate environmental management: Striving for sustainability. Routledge, 384 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351281447
Viner, N. (1994). Individual’nyy i obschestvennyy gomeostazis [Individual and social homeostasis]. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Contemporary World]. No. 6, pp. 127–130.
Yablokov, A.V., Levchenko, V.F. and Kerzhentsev, A.S. (2017). O kontseptsii «upravlyaemoy evolutsii» kak al’ternativnye kontseptsii «ustoychivogo razvitiya» [The conception of «controlled evolution» as an alternative to the conception of «sustainable development»]. Teoreticheskaya i prikladnaya ekologiya [Theoretical and Applied Ecology]. No. 2, pp. 4–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25750/1995-4301-2017-2-004-008
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
