See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354370572

An Academic Analysis of the Notion of Biopower, Biopolitics and

Governmentality According to Michel Foucault

Article · August 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 334

1 author:

Abraham Agoni
University of Ghana
6 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Politics and Religion- A Recipe for disaster View project

Does the US dominate IMF and World Bank? Should it? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abraham Agoni on 05 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An Academic Analysis of the Notion of
Biopower, Biopolitics and Governmentality
According to Michel Foucault.
By Abraham Agoni

University of Ghana

Department of Political science

August 2021

Born in the land of Poitiers, France in 1926, the French Scholar, Mitchel Foucault has
become the basis of most social political theorizations that have been encountered in the
world of social sciences. He grew up in a Marxist class society; finding himself within the
bourgeoise class. Foucault’s interests were largely influenced by the happenings of the era
with the emergence of Marxist and Hegelian theories, all of which tried to understand the
dynamics of rule, society and the use of power. The era was also particularly significant
because it was the aftermath of the First World War and events were climaxing for the
inception of the second world War which started in 1939. The bourgeoisie class of citizens
were therefore protective of their own and always exercised sovereign power on the
proletariats so that in the outbreak of another war, they (proletariats) would be incited to fight
and defend their own lives and that of the ruling class. There was therefore the upsurge of
theories that emphasized on the individual’s need to be responsible for his own actions. It was
in this same era that the American philosopher, John Rawls was born with his ideologies
rooted in the individual’s ability to be a ‘reasonable citizen’; entirely responsible for their
actions. However, fast forward, Foucault ventured his studies into the humanity disciplines of
philosophy and psychology; an embodiment of knowledge that later manifests itself in his
writings and lectures. Foucault’s literary work principally attempt to explain the technologies
of power from the micro individual level to the macro level. He sought to have explored into
the dynamics of terms he refers to as Subjectivity, Biopower, Biopolitics and
Governmentality. These concepts have stood the test of time and as a matter of fact have
become the premise of the theories of scholars such as Georgio Agamben who discuses an
opposite dimension of power (Thanatopolitics), Antonio Negri and Roberto Esposito. The list
of scholars who have drawn the premises of their arguments on various theories is not
exhaustive as the core of the Foucault’s work affected the essence of life in itself. The
aforementioned concepts of Foucault are still relevant for contemporary politics because they
help to give a clearer understanding of the distinction of sovereign power and the discipline
power; a balance of which is needed to effectively achieve development in a society. Besides,
Foucault’s entire arguments is inspired by power and its use. Power according to Dahl refers
to the ability of one to induce obedience. Steven Lukes advances the arguments on Power by
propounding three dimensions of power; the first being the ability to get someone to do
something he/she would not otherwise do, the second is the ability to prevent someone from
doing something and the third dimension is the ability to shape an individual or a group’s
demand by influencing their thoughts. These dimensions will be relevant in understanding the
intricacies power relations as well as serve as a premise for establishing the meaning of
Biopower, Biopolitics and Governmentality. Foucault later in the 1960s became an
instrumental scholar in the French universities and the United States of America where he
occasionally delivered lectures.

Nonetheless, the multi-billion-dollar questions to be asked about this French philosopher who
has grown to be critiqued by many is this; to what extent is the notion of biopolitics and
governmentality as prescribed by Foucault valid? Is the thought encompassing of all the
dynamics of power? What is the relevance of these notions to contemporary politics? What is
the linkage between biopower and biopolitics? This essay seeks to answer these questions in
the most rational and reasonable ways as possible. It will first discuss the tenets of both
notions under question and then proceed to critique the assertions made under the latter. This
essay shall also draw on relevant examples from various places and periods to buttress the
points of criticism and finally, it will attempt to link how these notions are nonetheless
relevant in the study of social and political theories.

Prologue

The French philosopher in his entire literary work sought to have critiqued the critique of
Marx on the Subject as a political agent. Hitherto, the Cartesian philosophy propounded by
Rene Descartes was hinged on the fact that the subject is a product of his own thoughts. He
referred to it as ‘Cogito erg sum’ which translates as ‘I think, therefore I am’. In this
philosophy, Descartes argues that the subject which is the individual determines his own
reality and nothing by any means can usurp that ability of the subject. This philosophy having
reigned in the era was extended by Karl Marx. He also added that the subject is as a result of
a social construct. The core of Marx’s work is to posit the subject as one that is free to do
what he pleases without any form of restriction. This critique of Marx on the freedom of the
subject is what Foucault sought to have displaced. In fact, Foucault’s critique of the critique
of Marx was what branded him as an anti-humanist because his theorization was underpinned
by the fact the Subject is not free as stated by Marx. According to Foucault, the subject is so
bound that he cannot recover the its freedom; in essence, the Cogito is now under a constant
domination. This meant that the thoughts of the individual (subject) are not always what
determines reality. The instruments of power have become condescending of the freedom of
the subject. It is for this reason that the Foucauldian philosophy is riddled with arguments on
Power, its use, relations and dimensions as far as the Subject’s freedom is concerned.
According to Foucault, unlike Dahl and Steven Lukes, Power is domination and subjection
however it can also be productive. In more basic terms, the French philosopher has already
laid the foundation that the freedom of the individual is lost because of the domination and
subjugation of power yet he is claiming that that same power can be a good thing for the
subject. On the level of Subjectivation, Foucault propounds that an individual can become a
subject through control and dependence or through an attachment to one’s own identity by a
conscience of self-knowledge. Regarding the latter, he is stressing on the fact the freedom of
the Subject is compromised because of the control from an external force; a exertion of a
strain of power that limits the Subject’s level of freedom. The same also brings to bear how a
Subject’s freedom is compromised as a result of dependence; a situation where the subject’s
preference is tied to a dominating power. The other part of how individuals are made subjects
include the extent of knowledge that they have come to terms with. This is in line with the
Scientific classifications of the strand of subjectivation. Foucault makes it clear that
knowledge and power for what is known as an indivisible amalgam. It stands to reason that
one’s knowledge of himself can influence his own freedoms. In Foucauldian theory,
therefore, the subject loses his autonomy and becomes an object of analysis.

The Birth of Biopower and Biopolitics

As stated earlier, the entirety of Foucault’s philosophy is hinged on the use of power and how
it undermines the freedom of the subject. According to the philosopher, there are two variants
of Power; Negative power and Positive power. Negative power also known as Juridical
power or sovereign power is the kink that is exerted by a legal instrument and its prohibitive
in nature. They are designed to punish. Georgio Agamben in his theorization of
Thanatopolitics (Politics of Death) throws more light on this kind of power when he states
that it is the kind that reduces an individual from a Bios politicos’ life to a Zoe life. This kind
of power does not ensure any legal protection or political representation of the subject; it is
repressive in nature. Positive power also known as productive power or Biopower is the kind
that is exercises over the human body. This is the kind of power the state employs to control
the processes of life. The state does this by using the instrument of Biopolitics. Biopolitics is
only referring to the political structure that allows for the exercise of biopower. This is the
distinction between the two; biopolitics exists as a channel or medium through which
biopower can be exercised. As a matter of fact, it is this power that Foucault bases most of his
works on.

Beginning with the hypothesis of Biopower and Biopolitics, it is safe to say that this is one of
the subjects of Foucault’s work that has gone through a pluralism of perspectives i.e., the
sense of meaning changes overtime from a more individual-centered approach to a more
population-based approach. The word Biopower takes inference from the explanations of
disciplinary power spoken about in his book, The Birth of Biopolitics. The concept involves
explanations into the inner complexities of the individual. The ‘Bio’ means life, therefore
Biopower would imply the power over life; the ability of individual to take decisions that are
rationally and reasonably beneficial to them. Discipline power also posits the individual’s
ability to bring his body under subjection for the purpose of maximizing capacities. This kind
of power is directed to the body and it is designed to transform the individual into a malleable
and obedient subject. Foucault highlights some of the techniques that are employed in
achieving this objective of docility. First, he talks about the use of detailed schedules. Here he
makes reference to the fact that the subject’s freedom to do what he or she wills is curtailed
by dint of a detailed schedule that has been issued by a dominating power. For instance, with
the case of students in a school, an entire academic year is scheduled with dates and timelines
out of which a student or staff cannot freely operate. However, as much as this is denigrating
of the subject’s freedom, it is also productive because the students and staff achieve their
teaching and learning goals. The second technology is the use of time tables. This is an
extension of the first technique except that this is more narrowed in terms of place, period,
roles etc. The third technique discussed is exercises and training. People have varied health
reasons for keeping fit. An individual who has set out to lose weight will feel uncomfortable
if he or she misses a day of training even though there is no sovereign coercion. The freedom
to be able to feel at home even when a training session is missed is taken away making the
individual obedient to the event of training and exercise. One other main illustration of how
humans become subject is the use of the Panopticon example. These illustrations revealed
that people still remain docile because they still think that some sovereign power is
controlling them. The Panopticon as proposed by Jeremy Bentham was a tower that was
situated in the middle of prison cells. A guard who stood in the tower could have a clear
vision of all inmates and their activities but the inmates couldn’t. It was such that the even
when the guards were not around, the inmates still felt as though they were been watched and
this caused them to be docile and malleable. In exemplification of the exercise of Biopower
through Biopolitics is the case of nationwide lockdowns in countries during the upsurge of
the Corona virus. The Virus which broke out in the Wuhan province of China witnessed a
skyrocketing increase in the number of cases of infections and deaths worldwide. Countries
like Italy literally lost control on how to contain and treat the virus; an incident which led to
the loss of many lives. Other countries which were as yet to record high numbers of cases and
deaths adopted the national strategy of a lockdown where all economic, political and social
activities were brought to a halt or moved online. This particular state action which is within
the confines of biopolitics was used to exercise the principles of biopower which is
controlling of the subject’s freedom. People who were basking in the joy of socializing at
work and working with people could no longer engage in such activities because of the
lockdown. Even recreational centers such as cinemas, pubs and beaches were also closed
down and the subject had to find alternative ways of dealing with anxiety and stress. All of
these happenstances confirm the state of biopower being exercised through the political
structure of biopolitics. Even more, policies of abortion control in some states are also
illustrations of the exercise of Biopower. In the United States for instance, the Obama
government allowed for abortions to be carried out regardless of the individual beliefs against
it and people were compliant of that regulation. The Trump administration however abolished
it on the basis of his comprehensive doctrines and this took away the freedom of people to
have abortions at will; an exercise of a controlling power over the subject using a political
structure.
Nevertheless, the teachings of Foucault on Biopower and Biopolitics is not truth in entirety.
In fact, it is a Foucauldian fact that absolute truth is unattainable. In light of this, a few issues
emerge in his philosophy that should be subjected to scrutiny.

First is the fact that Foucault is not the father of the concept of Biopower and Biopolitics. It
only seems apparent that he coined the phrases ‘Biopower/Biopolitics’ to give meaning to
what he had observed; a phenomenon which was already existent. The status quo before the
proposition of Foucauldian philosophy witnessed individuals acting as rationales; they
assessed their preferences and acted in ways that only sought to have maximized their
interests – a feature of biopower. I therefore think that the focus of recognition should be for
his contribution in naming the concept but not introducing the concept into society.

Second, Foucault argues that the Cogito has lost his autonomy; his freedom and is forever
going to be a prisoner of his own thoughts and the power exerted over him. This assertion is
flawed because it doesn’t take into consideration the possibility of having a euphoric of
aporia where all the unresolved inconsistencies would be given solutions for the society or
subject to gain is freedom again. This rebuttal is what the Italian philosopher, Georgio
Agamben postulates in his explanation of the Coming Politics. I agree with Agamben because
in spite of his writings on how power is used to deprive the subject of more freedom, he
remarks with a sense of optimism, a future that will witness the restoration recovery of Rene
Descartes’ Cogito. Foucault therefore is not optimistic of the recovery of the subject’s
freedom and can be conclusively labeled as anti-humanist.

Again, the claim that power and knowledge are an indivisible amalgam is not entirely true as
far as contemporary African political leadership is concerned. It is not untrue that knowledge
implies power. In fact, one’s level of knowledge is a determinant of how much power he or
she wields. For instance, a citizen’s knowledge about their rights gives them power to act
when those rights have been abused. Countries like the United States have members of the
executive, legislature and Judiciary assuming power with the needed knowledge to function
effectively. The United States’ Secretary of State must of necessity be vested with the
adequate knowledge about the administrative system of the country. It is beyond this needed
knowledge that partisanship may be considered. However, in the African setting, there is a
paradox of Foucault’s claim of the indivisible nature of Power and Knowledge. In Africa, we
have people in political power without knowledge and at the same time people with
knowledge who are not in power. Take Ghana for instance, there have been cases where
ministers of state who do not have a specific knowledge on a subject are appointed to certain
ministries to function. The former Minister of Education, Mathew Opoku Prempeh is a
trained medical doctor who was put in charge of making educational policies. The Same
person is currently now at the ministry of Energy and Natural resources. The point is that the
assertion that power and knowledge is indivisible is not truth in its entirety.

The next concept under the Foucauldian philosophy is Governmentality. Unlike the
contemporary understanding of the word, Foucault describes it as an amalgamation of two
words, ‘government’ and ‘rationality’. On any normal day, the discussion of government is
always limited to the exercise of sovereign power over subjects within a given territory.
However, this idea of governmentality transcends into the techniques and technologies by
which a polity or a group of people are governed. In essence, the various practices,
institutions and ideas that are employed by the government to manage the day-to-day affairs
of the state make up the idea of governmentality. What should be noted in this concept is that
Foucault says it involves how the conducts of men are conducted by the government.
Foucault believes that the individual has the wherewithal to govern himself because he is a
rational being. In his lecture on the Security, Territory and Population, he indicates that
governmentality is the kind of power that has the population as its focus point. He adds that
its form of knowledge is derived from the interaction between politics and economics within
a state and concluded that the apparatus of security remains its significant operational
instrument. In the concept of governmentality, the government is not seen as the only actor,
rather it encompasses a variety of elements and technologies to making the individual life a
better one. Another very crucial part of this regime of power, governmentality is the fact that
it believes this type of governance contains the willing participation of citizens in their self-
government. He adds that the success of any sovereign power to rule is incomplete without
the impact of the ruled or citizens. The thought of governmentality fuses the comprehension
of government as the utilization of organized political force by a country or state and expands
it to include the dynamic authorization and preparation of people to participate in the
organization of their social orders. It proposes that administration by the state is just one kind
of administration, that the terms state and government are not tradable, and that acts made by
the state alone won't accomplish the objectives that it looks for. Therefore, Foucault in this
notion of governmentality only tries to convey the relevance of the citizen in the art of
governing; democracy in contemporary times.
Nonetheless, there are some snippets of critiqued that can be levelled against the French
Philosopher on this notion.

First, in the notion of governmentality, Foucault says there is a general sense of freedom of
the citizens to participate in the process of governance. In essence, the principles of a liberal
society are evident. According to John Rawls, a liberal society contains citizens who have the
liberty to freely consent to how they are being governed. Amartya Sen also highlights that
Freedom entails the capacity of the individual to be and to do. All of these explanations
expatiate on the extent of freedom that is described in Foucault’s philosophy. In fact, it is this
concept that gives the chance for constituents of the society to determine how their behaviors
are conducted; which areas are prior to them and which are not. Even in contemporary times,
there have been upsurges of groups advocating for the freedom to be and do what is pleasing
to them. For instance, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender groups have hit the streets
in protests a dozen times in Western countries advocating for rights of recognition. The
Blacks and Hispanics in the United States have led huge crowds of protests against various
levels of impediments to their freedoms. The recent inhumane killing of George Floyd by the
white police officer magnified the extent of freedom abuse that existed. The crux of all these
claims is to establish how much a liberal society is desired by many. However, on the flip
side, freedom that is left unguarded can be more destructive than what one could imagine.
This is level of freedom that is described in Foucault’s philosophy has been responsible for a
plethora of conflicts and more discriminatory actions in the world. It should be noted that
what may be deemed as a space of freedom for one person could be seen as an intrusion of
another’s freedom. In essence, unregulated freedom is a recipe for disaster. For example,
Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany saw the Jews existence as a threat to the Aaryan race’s freedom
of being the only chosen race to reign on earth. The result of that friction is what led to the
unforgettable incidence of the Holocaust. More so, taking Foucault’s assertion of the
presence of freedom in his theory at its best, are the citizens actually free? Are their freedoms
respected by the sovereign power or it is just another level of objectifying the subject? The
reality of the matter is that absolute freedom is not achievable; we would only be plunged
right back into the state of nature which is riddled with chaos, violence and a short life as
insinuated by Thomas Hobbes. Therefore, this particular assertion of Foucault is one that is
specific on what extent freedom the citizen has. It doesn’t indicate the extent of freedom that
the sovereign power can legitimately take and these concerns question the validity of
Foucault’s argument.
Second, Foucault also indicates that there is a willingness to participate in the art governance
and it is when this happens that there is a progressive development. It can be implied that
democracy, which uses the same principle, is the antidote to underdevelopment. Yet, I think
that claim is far-fetched. Since the birth of democracy in Solon’s administration in the
Athens, many countries have been very quick to adopt the ideology to solve their problems of
underdevelopment. The various waves of democracy as described by Samuel P. Huntington
and Lipton have yielded some level of political development. Besides, the birth of the
political and civil rights has been nurtured well in democratic settings. Regardless, countries
in the African continent that have practiced the art of governing where there is an active
citizen participation have remained the home of underdevelopment. Since the 1950s when
democratic principles became effective on the African continent to the 21st century, the
continent is riddled with abject poverty, agrarian methods of production, low scientific
knowledge, balance of payment problems and even in a globalized world some countries in
Africa are still tagged as Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). None of the factors
mentioned are indicators for development yet they are occurring within democratic settings or
better still settings that have the individuals willingly participating in governing themselves.
The transitions from military to civilian governments and the vice versa stalled the entire
process of development and these were the avenues through which the individual could
conduct their own conduct. Besides, taking Foucault at his best on this level of participation,
it is still the case that not everyone is enthused about participating in his own governance or
how he or she is governed. In the first founding elections in Africa between 1989 and 1994,
the voter turnout was only 63.3% and this figure works against Foucault because he
insinuates that there is a general willingness of the entire population to participate in their
own governance. Even in recent times, elections all over the world still experience apathy of
citizens to participate in their governance for various reasons ranging from cultural to
religious to psychological. In the even that some citizens participate, they mostly do so not
necessarily to contribute to the conditions under which they would be ruled but to just give
more power to the sovereign to rule. For instance, the psychosocial model of voting behavior
indicates that some people just participate in governance (voting) because that is what they
have been culturally brought up with or because that what the society has socialized into
them. For such persons, their interests are not in the policies of government for them, they are
just partisan dogs that wiggle their tails at the call of their masters. In Ghana, every election
year is characterized by pockets of violence by these party dogs who would go the extra mile
of killing just to support the party and not necessarily contribute to drawing up policies. Other
times, citizens do not participate in the art of governing on their own volition rather they are
induced to do so either by threats, promises or bribery. It is not uncommon to hear terms such
as Vote buying in African elections where political parties distribute food items and monies
to people living in deprived areas just to persuade them (rural dwellers) to vote for them
(political parties). Therefore, the whole idea of the citizen always willing to participate in his
self-governance is just a half-baked pie.

Nevertheless, the role of civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations in

determining how the behavior of people should be conducted cannot be undermined. These
organizations in the past have been the fulcrum of advocacies that have evolved into juridical
instruments. Their collective voice in suggesting to government what they want is
indispensable. Ghana in the 1970s under the military rule of Acheampong saw the impact of
these organized groups of people participating in the art of governing. Acheampong had
proposed the Union Government which would be made of soldiers and civilians ruling the
country and even decided to subject that offer to the test of a referendum. Despite all his
manipulations to win that referendum, the people, through the organized bodies of Civil
Society organizations, Movements etc. demonstrated their level of rejection for such a
government; calling for a return to democratic rule which eventually happened. This example
would best explain the notion of governmentality as preached by the French philosopher; an
active consent and willing participation of the citizens in how they are governed. It is for no
reason that subsequently, governments have employed the usage of these groups to
effectively manage the people. Bearing in mind that governmentality is a productive power, it
is imperative to expect that every technique the government decides to use to rule the people
should inure to the benefit of the citizens.

In toto, Foucault effect on the objectification of the subject, the Cogito cannot be
overemphasized. Even though he is not exhaustive of each of the notions in terms of what its
absolute relations should be, he is able to describe the various ways in which the human
becomes a subject. The notion of Biopower and Biopolitics have been used interchangeable
because they are collocational, one adds relevance to the other. Other scholars like Achille
Mbembe chewed on these concepts to propound theories like Necro politics which talks
about the power of the dead or the politics of the dead. Foucault’s explanation of how the
subject has lost his autonomy in my view is apt and very descriptive of even current
happenstances. We are born free but we continue to live in chains by dint of so many factors
such as the control and dependence and notion of governmentality. The latter, even though it
has been rendered to many interpretations and criticism has established the various
technologies that the government can employ to govern the conduct of the people. The
philosophy of Foucault is very much akin to a pandora’s box; a careful study of each concept
propounded opens up a new realm of complexity of the human life that needs to be studied.
Governmentality has also drawn attention to the need for all forms of governments, whether
democratic or authoritarian to consider using varieties of ideas, practices and institutions to
get the population to participate in their own governance to prevent what Foucault refers to as
‘counter-conduct’ or ‘resistance’. It is only in this knowledge of Foucauldian philosophy that
power can be productive for all.

References
Adams, R. (2017, May 10). Michel Foucault: Biopolitics and Biopower. Retrieved from
Criticallegalthinking: https://criticallegalthinking.com/2017/05/10/michel-foucault-
biopolitics-biopower/
British Library. (2021). Hobbes's Leviathan. Retrieved from British Library:
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/hobbess-leviathan#
Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (1991). The Foucault Effect. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dahl, R. A. (n.d.). THE CONCEPT OF POWER. Frank Baumgatner -UNC Chapel Hill, 1-
15.
El-Khawas, M. (2001, June-September 1). Democracy in Africa: Problems and Solutions.
Mediterranean Quarterly, 12, pp. 85-97. Retrieved from Project Muse:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/20839/pdf
Faubion, J. (2021, June 21). Michel Foucault: French Philosopher and Historian. Retrieved
from Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Michel-Foucault
Gaventa, J. (2003). Foucault: power is everywhere. Retrieved from Powercube:
https://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/
Huff, R. (n.d.). Governmentality. Retrieved from Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/governmentality
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Michel Foucault: Political Thought. Retrieved
from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://iep.utm.edu/fouc-pol/
Liesen, L. T., & Walsh, M. B. (2012). The competing meanings of "biopolitics" in political
science: Biological and Postmodern approaches to politics. Cambridge University
Press, 2-15.
 Louisiana, L. (2017, August 17). Biopolitics and Globalization. Retrieved from Global South
Studies: University of Virginia: https://globalsouthstudies.as.virginia.edu/key-
concepts/biopolitics-and-globalization
Lumenlearning. (n.d.). Boundless Sociology: Politics, Power, and Authority. Retrieved from
Lumenlearning: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-
sociology/chapter/politics-power-and-authority/
Pyykkönen, M. (2015). Liberalism, Governmentality, and Counter-Conduct; An Introduction
to Foucauldian Analytics of Liberal Civil Society Notions. Semantics Scholar, 1-28.
Standford Encyclopedia of Phiosophy. (2003, April 02). Michel Foucault. Retrieved from
Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2018, January 22). Liberalism. Retrieved from
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1986). The Foucault Reader. P. Rabinow (ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity. M. Foucault. 1997. “The
Birth of Biopolitics,” 73-79 in Ethics, Subjectivity, and Truth: P. Rabinow and J.D. Faubion
eds. New Press.
Giddens, A. (1985) The Nation-State and Violence: Volume Two of A Contemporary
Critique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity.
Foucault.M 2003. Lecture 11, 17 March 1976, 239-264 in Society Must Be Defended:
Lectures at the College de France. Picador Press.
Rabinow, P & Rose. N 2006. “Biopower Today,” Biosciences 1(2):195-217.
Lemke.L. 2011. Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction. New York University Press

View publication stats