KU Leuven

Faculty of Arts
Master of Cultural Studies

Preparation 2: Bipolitics

1
In the given text/lecture Michel Foucalt is analysing the new technology of power which has

occcured during the second half of XIX century. Firstly, it ought to be mentioned, that

Foucalt in this text is continuing his archeological project and seeks to grasp the development

of power, and how the power relationships in society/politics have been transformed from the

beginning of modern era. In the classical theory of sovereigny, the right of life and death was

one’s basic attributes, in other words, sovereign had a right to put people to death or let them

live, the legetimacy to kill was representing soveign’s power. Foucalt states in the XIX

cenutry political right has shown to us one of the biggest shifts, he says that the sovereignty’s

old right was complemented by a new righ, which was “making” live and “letting” die. “It

means new right was established: the right to make live and to let die.” The main point of

author is that the change wasn’t reflected only on the level of philosophy or theory, but the

technology of power itself was transfromed. From the mentioned period society has faced the

new mechanism of power. Before introducing the new term and type of power, Foucalt

reminds us about well known term disciplinary technology. In XVII-XVIII centuries we saw

the emergence of technique of power that was orientied on the body, its aim was to discpline

and “train” the individual body, through the dispositives (divices) it was taking control over

bodies. “system of surveillance, hierarchies, inspectios and report” all these can be

reffered to what Foucalt is calling disciplinary power.

Another remarkable date is the second half XVIII century, when the biopolitcs/biopower was

emerged. But author warns us, the latter hasn’t replaced or removed the disciplinary power,

biopower has modified the disciplinary technology and embedded itself in it. I will repeat that

it doesn’t exclude disciplinary technology, because it exists on a different scale and its object

is different and also there are different instruments used.

Main difference is that unlike discipline, which is adressed to individual bodies, biopolitics is

applied to to man-as-species, in other words the object is population, mass. Biopower is

2
oriented on the processes like the ratio of births to death, the reproduction and so on. To give

rough definition bipower is taking control of the life. Of course, this type of technology has

consequesed the appeaance of new elements, if the theory of right was only concerened with

the individual and society, biopolitics deals with the population, mass as a political problem.

In addition biopower intorudces new mechanisms like statistical estimated, forecasts and etc.

But pherpahs Foucalt’s the most interesting and subtle insight is that in the course of time we

have faced the disqualification of death. Suddenly, the phenomenon of death has disappeared

from the publicity. There are no more ceremonies in which people are taking part, in contrast,

death is something that should be hidden. Foucalt explains, the reason lies in the fact that of

power was changed. Here we have to remember the formula from the beginning, the aim of

power (biopower) is to make live, to control it, therefore, death is beyond power and it cannot

be grasped. If in the right of sovereignty the moment of death was manifesting and

representing the absolute power of latrer, now death becomes, the only moment when the

individuals runaways from power.

To sum up, we have two two technologies of power. One is disciplinary power, its center is

the body, discipline controls, “trains” the body. And we have a regulatory technology which

ceneters on the life. “ Both technologies are obviously technologies of the body, but one

is a technology in which the body is individualized as an organism endowed with

capacities, while the other is a technlogy in which bodies are replaced by general

biological processes.”

3
4