Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Biopower Supplement - Scholars

Biopower Supplement - Scholars

Ratings: (0)|Views: 106|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Dec 21, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
1
Scholars Lab
Biopower
Biopower Supplement
Biopower Supplement.....................................................................................................................................................1BIOPOWER ≠ IMPACT (1/3)........................................................................................................................................3BIOPOWER ≠ IMPACT (2/3)........................................................................................................................................4BIOPOWER ≠ IMPACT (3/3)........................................................................................................................................5BIOPOLITICS = EMPOWERING/HEALTH (1/2).......................................................................................................6BIOPOLITICS = EMPOWERING/HEALTH (2/2).......................................................................................................7A2: No Meaning to Life..................................................................................................................................................8Turn Alt Denies Autonomy..........................................................................................................................................9Turn – Alt Denies Agency.............................................................................................................................................10Turn - Alt = Totalizing Discourse..................................................................................................................................11
 
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
2
Scholars Lab
Biopower
BIOPOWER GOOD (1/1)The endpoint of biopower is not the creation of bare-life but the fostering and productionof forms-of-life. Biopower seeks to optimize the individual and produce “extra-life.”Ojakangas 05
(Mika, Impossible Dialogue on Biopower, Foucault Studies, Doctorate in Social Science)Moreover,
life as the object and the subject of biopower given that life is everywhere
, it becomeseverywhere is in no way bare, but is as the synthetic notion of life implies, the multiplicity of the forms of life,from the nutritive life to the intellectual life, from the biological levels of life to the political existence of man.43
Instead of bare life, the life of biopower is a plenitude of life
, as Foucault puts it.44 Agamben iscertainly right in saying that the production of bare life is, and has been since Aristotle, a main strategy of thesovereign power to establish itself to the same degree that sovereignty has been the main fiction of juridico
institutional thinking from Jean Bodin to Carl Schmitt.
The sovereign power is, indeed, based on bare lifebecause it is capable of confronting life merely when stripped off and isolated from all forms of life,
whenthe entire existence of a man is reduced to a bare life and exposed to an unconditional threat of death
. Life isundoubtedly sacred for the sovereign power in the sense that Agamben defines it. It can be taken awaywithout a homicide being committed. In the case of biopower, however, this does not hold true. In order
 to function properly, biopower cannot reduce life to the level of bare life,
because bare life is life that canonly be taken away or allowed to persist which also makes understandable the vast critique of sovereignty in theera of biopower.
Biopower needs a notion of life that corresponds to its aims
. What then is the aim of bio
 power 
? Its aim is not to produce bare life but
, as Foucault emphasizes,
to “multiply life”,45 to produce“extralife.”46 Biopower needs
, in other words,
a notion of life which enables it to accomplish this task.
The modern synthetic notion of life endows it with such a notion
. It enables biopower to “invest life through
 and through”, to “optimize forces, aptitudes, and life in general without at the same time making themmore difficult to govern.”
It could be argued, of course, that instead of bare life (zoe) the form of life (bios) functions as the foundation of  biopower. However,
there is no room either for a bios in the modern biopolitical
order because every bioshas always been, as Agamben emphasizes, the result of the exclusion of zoe from the political realm. Themodern biopolitical order does not exclude anything – not even in the form of “inclusive exclusion”. As a
 matter of fact, in the era of biopolitics, life is already a bios that is only its own zoe.
It has already moved intothe site
that Agamben suggests as the remedy of the political pathologies of modernity, that is to say, into thesite
where politics is freed from every ban and “a form of life is wholly exhausted in bare life.”
48 At theend of Homo Sacer, Agamben gives this life the name “formoflife”, signifying “always and above all
  possibilities of life, always and above all power”, understood as potentiality (potenza).49 According toAgamben, there would be no power that could have any hold over men’s existence if life were understood as a“formoflife”. However,
it is precisely this life, life as untamed power and potentiality, that biopower
 invests and optimizes. If biopower multiplies and optimizes life, it does so, above all, by multiplying and
 optimizing potentialities of life, by fostering and generating “formsoflife”.50
 
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
3
Scholars Lab
Biopower
BIOPOWER ≠ IMPACT (1/3)
Totalitarianism and Ethnic Racism caused the Holocaust, NOT biopolitics.Dickinson 04
(Edward, Biopolitics, Facism, Democracy, Central European History v37 n1, Ass. Prof. Hist. atUniversity of Cincinnati)In an important programmatic statement of 1996 Geoff Eley celebrated the fact that
Foucault’s ideas have“fundamentally directed attention away from institutionally centered conceptions of government andthe state . . . and toward a dispersed and decentered notion of power and its ‘microphysics.’
”48 The“broader, deeper, and less visible ideological consensus” on “technocratic reason and the ethicalunboundedness of science” was the focus of his interest.49
But the “power-producing effects in
Foucault’s
‘microphysical’ sense
” (Eley)
of the construction of social bureaucracies and social knowledge, of “anentire institutional apparatus and system of practice”
( Jean Quataert),
simply do not explain Nazipolicy
.50
The destructive dynamic of Nazism was a product not so much of a particular modern set of ideas as of a particular modern political structure
, one that could realize the disastrous potential of thoseideas. What was critical was not the expansion of the instruments and disciplines of biopolitics, whichoccurred everywhere in Europe. Instead,
it was the principles that guided how those instruments anddisciplines were organized and used, and the external constraints on them.
In National Socialism,
biopolitics was shaped by a totalitarian conception of social management focused on the
 
power
andubiquity of the völkisch state. In democratic societies,
biopolitics has historically been constrained by arights-based strategy of social management.
This is a point to which I will return shortly. For now, the point is that
what was decisive was actually politics at the level of the state.
A comparative framework canhelp us to clarify this point
. Other states passed compulsory sterilization laws
in the 1930s — indeed,individual states in the United States had already begun doing so in 1907.
Yet they did not proceed to thenext steps adopted by National Socialism
— mass sterilization, mass “eugenic” abortion and murder of the“defective.” Individual . gures in, for example, the U.S. did make such suggestions. But
neither the politicalstructures of democratic states nor their legal and political principles permitted such policies actuallybeing enacted. Nor did the scale of forcible sterilization in other countries match that of the Naziprogram.
 
I do not mean to suggest that such programs were not horrible; but in a democratic politicalcontext they did not develop the dynamic of constant radicalization and escalation that characterizedNazi policies.
The radicalizing dynamic of the Nazi regime was determined, however, not only by itsstructure but also by its ideology. The attentive reader will have noticed a degree of conceptual slippage inmany of the quotations used in the foregoing pages between ethnic racialism and eugenics, between“eugenic” murder and the Final Solution.
This slippage between “racialism” and “racism” is not entirely justified.
After the rigors of the Goldhagen debate, it takes some sangfroid to address the topic of anti-Semitism in Germany at all.But it appears from the current literature that there was no direct connection between anti- Semitism and eugenic ideas.
Some German eugenicists were explicitly racist; some of thoseracist eugenicists were anti-Semites; but anti-Semitism was not an essential part of eugenic thought.
AsPeter Fritzsche — among many others — has pointed out,
racism really is at the heart of the Nazi“discourse of segregation,” and the “fantastic vision” of all-out racial war that motivated the Nazis isnot explained merely by the logic of enlightened rationalism, technocracy, and scientism
.51
Eugenicsdid not “pave the way” for the murder of millions of Jews. Ethnic racism
— and particularly anti-Semitism— 
did.
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->