Biopower is a normative force employed on populations. Its main concern is the controlling of abnormalities and accounting or eliminating of random cases in order to maintain a normal population. The term biopower is highly associated with the French philosopher Michael Foucault. Foucault believed the government introduced a technology known as biopower to manage populations in the 18th century. The foundations of biopower lie in disciplinary power. Where disciplinary power trains the action of bodies, biopower manages the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population. An example of biopower today would be China’s one child policy. I will refer back to this example in my essay but briefly this is the policy that offers financial, educational and many other incentives to families who only have one child. Resistance co-exists with power because where there is power there is a possibility of resistance. The mission of resistance is to avoid keeping things as they stand. Methods are put in place to retain a more acceptable state of affairs. But couldn't resistance, therefore, when taken to the extreme, be seen as a type of biopower? We can’t use a biopower to eliminate a biopower. For Foucault, biopower should be resisted because he deemed it responsible for the rise of capitalism. Biopower governs over human life leaving it in the hands of politics. This was for Foucault unacceptable and ‘Society Must be Defended.’ However, we are going through vital developments in our politics and an analytical approach such as biopower, if revolutionised properly and used correctly would provide a sufficient and useful tool. Thus, biopower should not be resisted. This is the argument I aim to defend. I shall argue in favour of biopow...
... middle of paper ...
...nly tool we have capable of providing such foundations is biopower. Biopower has changed from the ancient monarchical model centralised to the king’s interest to a modern model that operates by invading human bodies and lives in order to preserve human lives at humans best interest. The problem is this, who gets to decide what is best for everyone and what constitutes what is best? The questions have been asked for decades and still no answers have been found. It is better to have some rules and laws of what is moral than to have none at all. A society with no order would not function properly. The increase in advances in science will allow generations in future to hopefully understand a system free of biopower. I believe with more deduction, as we perfect the edges and learn more biopower would form a perfect tool. And so, for now, biopower should not be resisted.
Biopower, a phrase created by a French scholar, historian and social theorist. Michel Foucault 's History of Sexuality, discusses the term as the practice of states and their regulation of subjects through "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations" (Foucault 140). The idea of biopower is that the state assumes control over one’s body. There are many cases where biopower has been used, however, the Tuskegee Syphilis study brings to light how biopower and gender were closely related.
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
Introduction:The idea of biofuels is a old concept, reaching as far as the ending of the 19th century. Solid in its idea but flawed in its presentation. Biofuels are a alternative energy to fossil fuels that are made from natural methods such as plants and crops and are key in solving the apparent flaws of fossil fuels. While fossil fuels have been in use for over a century, Biofuels have now risen to the popularity and been exposed to the press. At one point of time biofuel were being considered by some of the most brilliant minds ever in human history such as Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel who believed that biofuels had the potential to be the new evolution s on only to reappear a century later. Now the world faces the struggles of global warming and the depletion of fossil fuels slowly dimming by day. Throughout the last century biofuels have proven to have a place in our society as a new alternative fuel source. Specializing in Being Natural and healthier than fossil fuels, biofuels have had a rough beginning against its competitor due to key situations such as pricing, Side effects, to fuel power. However the idea was passed on a to the later generations, and continued to pasand prolong usage. However through the last decade they have been highly advertised by politicians and Government officials claiming it to be the future of a powerful working society, and to help in making a new energy free world. Through belief Some even claiming that “By 2050, a new generation of sustainable biofuels could provide over a quarter of the world’s total transport fuel, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency” (last name). With such improvement biofuels should be the obvious answer to providing a better future to th...
Theory: Michel Foucault argues a number of points in relation to power and offers definitions that are directly opposed to more traditional liberal and Marxist theories of power. Foucault believed that power is never in any one person's hands, it does not show itself in any obvious manner but rather as something that works its way into our imaginations and serves to constrain how we act.... ... middle of paper ... ... Giddons, A. (2007). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'.
First, the global history of the eugenics movement is contextually relevant to this study since eugenics policies provided the backbone which legitimized the prisoner medical experimentation program in Nazi Germany. In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of the Species, in which he elucidated his Theory of Evolution through natural selection. Darwin suggested that species arise and thrive through inherited variations that increase the species’ ability to compete, survive and reproduce in order to pass on favorable traits to offspring. Sociologist Herbert Spencer took Darwin’s Theory of Evolution one step further, by proposing that societies behave like organisms and also evolve through natural selection. Spencer believed that strong cultures containing individuals with genetically advantageous characteristics would eventually overpower weak cultures containing individuals with genetically disadvantageous characteristics. Spencer’s theory, later named Social Darwinism, expanded globally in the 1870’s providing the basis for a subsequent eugenics movement. As Richard Weikart of Johns Hopkins University, wrote “The eugenics movement emerged…forthrightly based on Darwinian presuppositions”2 [SHOULDN’T THIS FOOTNOTE ‘2’ BE AT END OF SENTENCE?]because it allowed for a scientific explanation to justify why the population should be controlled. Thus, scientists and nations sought to implement Spencer’s theory, and embraced eugenics as a means to create a better world. Eugenicists believed that in order to have a successful society with the more desired traits, individuals with “negative” characteristics should not be permitted to reproduce. One of the world’s first eugenics movements, the
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
Biopower is actually rather interesting. It is literally about having control over bodies. And no, it is not about necromancy he was not talking about bring any dead bodies to life. It is actually about controlling the bodies of people. Biopower was used to make people “[operate] in the sphere of economic processes, their development,” (Foucault, pg.263).
“Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse compartments may be realized.” (Foucault)
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu, in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
What I’m interested in exploring with the series of work Apparatus of Sovereign Power as Mechanisms of Control, are the functions of biopower (a term devised by French philosopher Michel Foucault which applies to the concept of controlling populations and managing people1), the political mechanisms through which biopower operates, and the effects on identity and the physical self. In this small body of work, I have created four drawings in charcoal that make an attempt to mock scenarios in which sovereign states utilize mechanisms (in the form of regulations and physical forces) to control and regulate large bodies of people and their territory.
Reading up information and searching for clues (which were not extremely easy), turns out to have broadened my knowledge on Nature and Biomimicry itself and that there are so many people already using wind turbines to harvest the winds energy and know how the world can be saved. Therefore I have come to the conclusion and have seen that my hypothesis has been proven right.
The word eugenics, meaning good birth in Greek, was created in 1883 by Francis Galton, cousin to Charles Darwin who was responsible for the theory of evolution in particular, survival of the fittest. Eugenics is the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. This philosophy of improving the human race through eugenic practices is believed by many around the world and has been considered a serious problem throughout history due to its negative consequences. It first began as encouragement towards the “superior” human beings, the healthiest and ablest humans to have more children, therefore passing on the “superior” genes. Although this soon encouraged negative obsessive behavior from people who believed eugenics to be far more important than just encouraging healthier babies to be born. Negative Eugenics is a critical problem as it doesn’t just encourage the prosperous continuation of healthy humans; it is the genocide of humans under prejudice judgment. It involves the killing of the “inferior” humans from the breeding population to prevent unwanted traits and preserve humanities fitness.
Burley, Justine, ed. The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 24 September 2001 <http://emedia.netlibrary.com/ reader/reader.asp?product_id=27508>.
Societies began to establish thousands of years ago, and this was due to the fact that we as humans are inclined to live in societies. “State comes into existence because no individual is self-sufficient” (Cohen). Humans are in need to live in societies but the question, that all of humanity has had since the beginning of the establishment of society is what type of government should be applied. Philosophers from all time have argued for or against various theories, and many have come up with their own theories. An answer may be found by looking at which theories are more plausible and with less problems. A good theory must be measured by a scale, and the scale that has been chosen is based off of three important characteristics. The characteristics that promote the common good of the people and state, stability and justice. An ideal political system has to have these three essential characteristics,
Over the past decades, geologists and scientists alike have determined that the Earth is running out of non-renewable resources, particularly those resources that provide us with energy that fuels our world’s economies, jobs, and most importantly our daily lives. Without this energy, whole countries can collapse, and the human race would struggle to survive. Therefore, it is safe to assume that we as a nation are entirely dependent on energy, or the ability to do work (Gale Science in Context). Consequently, we are now actively searching for more cost efficient and useful forms of energy to replace those we currently use. By doing this we will be helping the earth by reducing carbon emissions and cutting down on air and water pollutants. This may ultimately prolong the life of our planet, and save money and resources while doing so.