Biopolitics of Security
In: The Routledge Handbook of New Security Studies
In: The Routledge Handbook of New Security Studies
In: Politics and the life sciences: PLS ; a journal of political behavior, ethics, and policy, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 125-131
ISSN: 1471-5457
In: Women & politics: a quarterly journal of research and policy studies, Band 3, Heft 2-3, S. 1-27
ISSN: 1540-9473
In: Comparative political studies: CPS, Band 2, Heft 3, S. 361-387
ISSN: 1552-3829
In: Central European political science review: quarterly of Central European Political Science Association ; CEPSR, Band 2, Heft 5
ISSN: 1586-4197
In: Politics and the life sciences: PLS ; a journal of political behavior, ethics, and policy, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 132-136
ISSN: 1471-5457
There are several noteworthy aspects to 1985. First, the triennial congress of the International Political Science Association was held (in Paris). Second, full panels on biology and politics were featured at four regularly scheduled political science meetings—the American Political Science Association, the International Political Science Association, the Western Political Science Association, and the New York State Political Science Association—an increase from just two the year before. Third, three dissertations are either completed or in progress: a decided improvement after such little activity in that area in 1984. Fourth, over 10 percent of the works appearing were by non-United States political scientists, reflecting a continuation of their greater visibility over the past few years. Fifth, several works were produced by two different teams of researchers that have received substantial support from federal research grants (Masters and colleagues; J. Schubert, Wiegele, and Hines). Finally, there is a continuing influx of new entrants into the ranks of biopolitical scholars (we tally 25 for the year).
In: Politics and the life sciences: PLS, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 67
ISSN: 0730-9384
In: Politics and the life sciences: PLS ; a journal of political behavior, ethics, and policy, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 67-71
ISSN: 1471-5457
This essay represents our latest annual update of the biopolitical literature and of related developments (see also Somit et al., 1980; Peterson, Somit, and Slagter, 1982; Peterson, Somit, and Brown, 1983; Peterson and Somit, 1984). Our count for 1984 is 78 items: 3 monographs or books (Axelrod, 1984; Blank 1984f; Vanhanen, 1984a), 13 articles, 2 chapters in a book, 44 conference papers, 16 review essays, commentaries, etc., and 0 master's theses or Ph.D. dissertations.
In: Politics and the life sciences: PLS, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 76
ISSN: 0730-9384
Giorgio Agamben examines biopolitics from a historical perspective dating back to Ancient Greece and, unlike Foucoult, considers the violence and oppression of the sovereign power as a policy that develops strategies that legitimize it. It is also possible to see how the authoritative includes the biological existence of man in his own politics and the dilemmas created by this, in the tragedies that frequently express the conflict between legal-political life and natural life. Among the three great tragedian writers, Euripides provides an opportunity to read through contemporary political relations in that he writes realistic and extraordinary works in terms of both content and form, and uses an unsettling and critical style instead of suggesting moderation. This study investigates the reflections of biopolitics in Ancient Greek tragedies in order to expand the field of political thought in tragedies and to make anachronistic aspects of biopolitics visible, and tries to find the equivalent of Agamben's determinations on biopolitics in Euripides's Bacchas. Bacchas, like Sophocles' Antigone, place the unjust domination of state law over bare life and the violence mechanism of the sovereign power in the tense conflict between the natural order and the social order. With such a reading, Pentheus and Dionysus assume the semantic counterpart of the dominant power and homo sacer figure and 'Bios' and 'Zoe'.
BASE
The article addresses the puzzling silence of the Foucaldian studies of biopolitics about Soviet socialism by revisiting Foucault's own account of socialism in his 1970s work, particularly his 1975–6 course 'Society Must Be Defended'. Foucault repeatedly denied the existence of an autonomous governmentality in socialism, demonstrating its dependence on the techniques of government developed in 19th-century western Europe. For Foucault Soviet socialism was fundamentally identical to its ideological antagonist in its biopolitical rationality, which he defined in terms of racism. This article challenges Foucault's reading, demonstrating that his notion of racism is ill-suited to describe the governmental rationalities of Soviet socialism during both the formation and the consolidation of the Stalinist regime. While the Soviet project was paradigmatically biopolitical in its ambition to transform the forms of life of the population in line with the communist ideology, its biopolitics was fundamentally different from the security-oriented logic of racism, focusing instead on the exposure of the population to the violent transformation of their forms of life. Revisiting Foucault's genealogy of racism, we argue that the point of descent of this biopolitics lies in the 19th-century split of the 'counter-historical' discourse of the struggle of the races into the discourses of state racism and class struggle. While Foucault's genealogy focuses on the development of the former into liberal and totalitarian biopolitics as we know them, it leaves class struggle out of the history of biopolitics and is therefore unable to account for the biopolitical specificity of the Soviet project. ; Peer reviewed
BASE
In: Cultural studies - critical methodologies, Band 14, Heft 5, S. 419-424
ISSN: 1552-356X
In this article, the authors engage with three emerging debates germane to contemporary biopolitics: (a) How do we advance the critical interrogation of the biopolitics of human movement? (b) How and in what ways might we "move" about (and ideally against) regimes and systems of biopolitical subjectivity? and (c) How might "moving" methods of writing, representation, and performance bring light to contemporary biopolitical struggles, contestations, and power relations?
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 19, Heft 2, S. 427-428
ISSN: 0162-895X