Talk:Biopolitics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Genetics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

About See also[edit]

"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and See also, which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. Therefore, 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no (or should not have) See also sections. --Loremaster (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics and the Life Sciences[edit]

I don't understand the section on Politics and the life science - this has nothing at all to do with biopolitics and is in fact advertisement for university courses. It should be deleted. Willarge (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Although this section should be written in such a way that it does not come across as an adverstisement, the fact that there are university courses on biopolitics is noteworthy. --Loremaster (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Courses on Foucaultian biopolitical theory would indeed be noteworthy, but it is implied (at least for me) that the courses are 'biopolitical' only in that they analyse the relationship between politics and biology, which doesn't seem at all to be notable. Or maybe I got it wrong. (If so, then it should probably be reworded....) 216.45.231.50 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is about many topics that are covered by the word “biopolitical” and is not limited to the Foucaultian definition of the term. --Loremaster (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Biopolitics is in fact an emerging and expanding approach to the study of politics that has grown beyond the journal and institution "Politics and the Life Sciences." It is quite notable, and rather than be deleted, this section ought to be updated.
I have no problem with that. --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to submit a major edit here that would minimize, though not exclude, the central role of the Northern Illinois University. Although in the past it has been the only department to offer a full Politics and Life Sciences program, many universities now offer courses and emphases in biopolitics. I would also like to discuss the history of biopolitics in political science, mention some noteworthy works, as well as mention examples of places to study in this field besides, but in addition to, Northern Illinois University. This would be more of an academic history and a "state of the field" rather than merely pointing out one place to study. people ok with that? Raven820 (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I support your suggested revamping of the article so go ahead. I'll tweak your work if and when necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Why was the link to the Evolutionary Politics facebook page deleted? Other wikipedia pages have links to facebook groups for their respective academic sub-disciplines - for example, visit the wikipedia page on "political psychology"Raven820 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Term biopolitic[edit]

Are you sure that it has been coined by Foucault? --87.6.25.102 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It even says so in the Wikipedia article on Michel Foucault in the Terminology section. But are you aware of a source that predates Foucault? --Loremaster (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Morley Roberts wrote a book called _Bio-Politics_ in 1938. Contemporary Italian philosopher Roberto Esposito discusses this book in his brief history of biopolitics in his recent book _Bios_. Thus, it seems incorrect to ascribe the coinage of the term to Foucault, even though Foucault is obviously an important person in the general discussion. By the way, I'm not sure referencing Wikipedia to justify Wikipedia makes for very firm argumentation-- just a thought. Nocoleah (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good info and good point. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Focault originally termed the concept of Biopower, and this was in the History of Sexuality. Biopolitics is just an extension of that. Khawaga (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting Nocoleah. As well as citing Roberts text, OED give the following first usage: 1927 S. Dragomir Ethnical Minorities Transylvania vi. 98 ‘Buletinul Eugenic si Biopolitic’ (‘Bulletin of Eugenics and Biopolitics’), monthly review, 1927 (first year). They define it thus: "The interaction between politics and biology; spec.(a) politically motivated intervention in the growth or development of a population;(b) the use of biological science to explain human social or political behaviour;(c) environmental policy."
"biopolitics, n.". OED Online. March 2011. Oxford University Press. [1] (accessed April 13, 2011).
However Khawaga is quite correct. Again according to the OED bio-pouvoir first appeared in Foucault's Histoire de la sexualité, 1: la volonté de savoir (1976) and in English as "bio-power" in 1978 with the translation of that text. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We should definitely use the OED to update Wikipedia's Biopolitics article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Keith in the paragraph on Kuttner and Mullins[edit]

Regarding this reversion, which changed this:

Both Kuttner and Mullins were inspired by [[Morley Roberts]] and [[Arthur Keith]] and either co-wrote together(or with the Institute of Biopolitics) ''Biopolitics of Organic Materialism'' and reprinted some of Roberts works<ref name="Jackson2005">{{cite book|author=John P. Jackson, Jr.|title=Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case against Brown v. Board of Education|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=cYPSiy7Ns1sC|date=1 August 2005|publisher=NYU Press|isbn=978-0-8147-4382-9|pages=63–64}}</ref>

back to this:

Kuttner and Mullins were inspired by [[Morley Roberts]] and reprinted some of his works.<ref name="Jackson2005">{{cite book|author=John P. Jackson, Jr.|title=Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case against Brown v. Board of Education|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=cYPSiy7Ns1sC|date=1 August 2005|publisher=NYU Press|isbn=978-0-8147-4382-9|pages=63–64}}</ref>

The source says quite clearly that Mullins and Kuttner were inspired by Morley and that Keith and Morley inspired one another. It says absolutely zilch about a connection between Mullins and Kuttner on the one hand and Keith on the other. It seems entirely plausible that inspiration is transitive to some extent, but the source doesn't say it. Probably material on Keith should be added to the paragraph on Morley, where it would be supported by this source, rather than the one on Kuttner and Mullins, at least until a new source is found. Anyway, that's what I'm thinking here.


OK, now here we get this:

Kuttner and Mullins were inspired by [[Morley Roberts]] who was in turn inspired by [[Arthur Keith]] or both were inspired by each other and either co-wrote together(or with the Institute of Biopolitics) ''Biopolitics of Organic Materialism'' dedicated to Roberts and reprinted some of his works.<ref name="Jackson2005">{{cite book|author=John P. Jackson, Jr.|title=Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case against Brown v. Board of Education|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=cYPSiy7Ns1sC|date=1 August 2005|publisher=NYU Press|isbn=978-0-8147-4382-9|pages=63–64}}</ref>

This is supported by the source but it seems to me to contain a lot of material that's tangential to the subject of this particular item. Why start out talking about Kuttner and Mullins only to end up with Keith's relationship with Morley? There's a bullet point right above this one that's trying to talk about Morley and biopolitics. It strikes me that it would be better to explain Morley's relationship with Keith and biopolitics in that section instead of in this one, since there's only a putative connection between Mullins and Kuttner on the one hand and Keith on the other. Keith and Morley are related, Morley, Kuttner, and Mullins are related, but there's no known relationship so far between Mullins, Kuttner, and Keith. Either way, I think the sentence is too long and rambling and ought to be rewritten.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

not an article or a disambig[edit]

This article is a mess. Half is about Foucault and biopolitics and the rest is a rambling disambig about various meanings. Maybe the article should be split in two. Bhny (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just two? You're more ambitious than I am. I have no clue what should be done about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it either has to be expanded or split. To address Foucault at that much length and not address scholarship after him (such as the work of Giorgio Agamben, Roberto Esposito (whom is cited), Rosi Braidotti, and Achille Mbembe seems skewed.--Biopoliticalaccount (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)