Biocracy II: a short and sweet theory post
“How are we to comprehend a political government of life? In what sense does life govern politics or in what sense does politics govern life? Does it concern a governing of or over life?” (2008, p. 15)
I am reading Esposito’s Bios from San Francisco and wondering how this changes my interpretation and frames of reference. While I have been here numerous serious events and issues have taken centre stage in the political and media scapes. Most recently the Haiti earthquake, the health reform bills, America’s relationship with China, and the ongoing economic crisis are notable for the ways in which the US has been positioned, and for the response of the government. These example each warrant long analyses in relation to this intersection of life and politics: for example, in the case of the Haiti earthquake how has the US ensured military control over the region? How has it regulated the possible migratory flows? How has it fostered and disabled attempts to provide medical assistance on the ground? How has the international community and the UN responded? In this state of emergency what role does nation-state sovereignty play? Is the response a governing of or over life? These are questions I hope to return to once I have conducted further research. But here is a link to a Washington Post article to begin this thinking: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/17/AR2010011701893.html .
Returning to Esposito. Chapter One of Bios traces the development of ‘biopolitics’, arguing that is emerges at three noteworthy times in the 20th century. The first is around the 1920s, extending into World War Two. Witnessed here is the development of thinking of the nation-state as a natural organism comparable with the human body. (This is biopolitics specifically – the metaphor of the body has been part of political philosophy for a long time, at least dating back to Thomas Hobbes). “Organic risks” (2008, p. 18) threaten the health of the body-politic, thus making it necessary to have a protective apparatus, committed to health and purity. The protective apparatus is where the notion of the immunity paradigm comes into play. But this immunization has an explicitly racialised agenda. This, Esposito points out, is a racialised agenda and supports the development of Nazism.
The second revival of biopolitics occurs in France in the 1960s, taking on a “neohumanistic declension” (2008, p. 19). Biopolitics is forgiven for its historical pairing with eugenics and exclusion, and coupled instead with a positive goal to promote life and the health of the citizenry. It is redeemed and redeployed as part of a healthy governing system. Within this schema, we have learnt from the horrors of history, thus biopolitics increasing life.
What characterises the development of American biopolitics in the 1970s, the third wave of thinking around biopolitics, according to Esposito, is “the sphere of nature as a privileged parameter of political determination” (2008, p. 22). I will quote at length before discussing any possible implications and applications:
“While political philosophy presupposes nature as the problem to resolve (or the obstacle to overcome), through the constitution of the political order [for example, Hobbes' political theory is predicated on excluding the dreaded 'state of nature'], American biopolitics sees in nature its same condition of existence: not only the genetic origin and the first material, but also the sole controlling reference. Politics is anything but able to dominate nature or “conform” to its ends and so itself emerges “informed” in such a way that it leaves no space for other constructive possibilities” (p. 22).
Thus, politics is the extension of nature, a logic that excludes the examination of events in terms of historical context, in favour of “dynamics that are tied to evolutive demands of a species such as ours” (p. 23). Consequently, “politics remains in the grip of biology” without being able to reply” (p. 24) How then is biology defined? Is it recognised as culturally and historically informed – “biocultural” (see Leonard Davis’ Biocultural Manifesto)? Or is it reduced to the Social Darwinism mantra ‘survival of the fittest’?
In some ways I am critical of Esposito’s all-encompassing evaluation of “American biopolitics”. I think this is because he doesn’t offer detailed reference points to American political structures and institutions, events and examples. But, if we shift our attention to the biopolitical condition in the US, perhaps we can more easily adapt Esposito’s discussion regarding life and politics. Two particular issues strike me as fruitful for discussion here: the consolidation of America and the US-Mexico Wars 160 years ago, and the comparatively recent alignment of neo-liberalism/economic rationalism and politics, beginning in the US context with the Chicago School in the 1960 onward. While historically disparate examples, they both point to the notion of manifest destiny and US geo-political and economic power.
For the next two posts I am going to think through American biopolitics in relation to these two examples.
