Biopower

Biopower was a term coined by French philosopher Michel Foucault to refer to the practice of modern states and their regulation of their subjects through "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations." Foucault first used it in his courses at the Collège de France but the term first appeared in The Will To Knowledge, Foucault's first volume of The History of Sexuality. In both Foucault's work and the work of later theorists it has been used to refer to practices of public health, regulation of heredity, and risk regulation (François Ewald), among many other things often linked less directly with literal physical health. It is closely related to a term he uses much less frequently, but which subsequent thinkers have taken up independently, biopolitics.

Foucault and The Concept of Biopower

For Foucault, biopower, is a technology of power, which is a way of managing people as a group. The distinctive quality of this political technology is that it allows for the control of entire populations. It is thus essential to the emergence of the modern nation state, modern capitalism, etc. Biopower is literally having power over other bodies, "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations". Foucault then goes on to further elaborate in his now famous lectures at the College de France between January and April 1978

..."By this I mean a number of phenomena that seem to me to be quite significant,namely, the set of mechanisms through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of a political strategy,of a general strategy of power, or, in other words, how, starting from the 18th century,modern Western societies took on board the fundamental biological fact that human beings are a species.This is what I have called biopower"....

It relates to the government's concern with fostering the life of the population, and centers on the poles of discipline ("an anatomo-politics of the human body") and regulatory controls ("a biopolitics of the population").

Biopower for Foucault contrasts with traditional modes of power based on the threat of death from a sovereign. In an era where power must be justified rationally, biopower is utilized by an emphasis on the protection of life rather than the threat of death, on the regulation of the body, and the production of other technologies of power, such as the notion of sexuality. Regulation of customs, habits, health, reproductive practices, family, "blood", and "well-being" would be straightforward examples of biopower, as would any conception of the state as a "body" and the use of state power as essential to its "life". Hence the conceived relationship between biopower, eugenics and state racism.

With the concept of "biopower", which first appears in courses concerning the discourse of "race struggle", Foucault develops a holistic account of power, in opposition to the classic understanding of power as basically negative, and akin to censorship. Sexuality, he argues, far from having been reduced to silence during the Victorian Era, was in fact subjected to a "sexuality dispositif" (or "mechanism"), which incites and even forced the subject to speak about their sex. Thus, "sexuality does not exist", it is a discursive creation, which makes us believe that sexuality contains our personal truth (in the same way that the discourse of "race struggle" sees the truth of politics and history in the everlasting subterranean war which takes place beneath the so-called peace).

Furthermore, the exercise of power in the service of maximizing life carries a dark underside. When the state is invested in protecting the life of the population, when the stakes are life itself, anything can be justified. Groups identified as the threat to the existence of the life of the nation or of humanity can be eradicated with impunity. "If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power, this is not because of the recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of the population."

Pre Foucault Usage Of Biopolitics

Although Michel Foucault is the name primarily associated with the concept of biopower and bio-politics, the term was in fact used tentatively in 1911 when the magazine The New Age published the article "Biopolitics" by G.W.Harris and then reused in 1938 by Morley Roberts (1857–1942) in his book Bipolitics . (originally used in the 19th century it had already been used by various thinkers from Europe the German school of Geopolitics ;Swedish political scientist Rudolf Kjellén mentions it in a two-volume book from 1905. and from British sources Walter Bagehot who wrote Physics and politics in the late 19th Century and gives an explanatory and tentative introduction to the term. And the brilliant but relatively unknown Biologist, Jakob von Uexküll who's unknown pioneering work is most worthy of a mention)Whether Foucault already knew about the term,or whether he thought it was brand new to him or his audience is unknown. But it seems that the concept pre-dates his use of the term by at least 70 years or more when he started to introduce the concept to his audience from his lectures. A further look at Foucault’s lectures at the College de France it appears,with further scrutiny, that Foucault is bluffing or can lead to charges(from his critics) of fraudulent claims and exaggerations regarding history. However, this is inaccurate, misleading and a misreading of Foucault previous works. There is a distinct difference and division amongst his earlier works which were produced while he was still giving lectures at the College de France. Foucault was giving lecture courses their for over 14 years until his untimely death in 1984. It is almost as if there was two Foucault’s,one giving intricate lectures at the College de France and one the published writer trying to give tentative insights towards a better understanding of our times. Claims of this nature in itself are an exaggeration,especially as those who make the claim haven’t read nor have they ever been too any of his lectures.The whole point of his lectures was further areas of investigative research,not final absolute timeless textual conclusions.From the lectures themselves,with closer scurinty,they appear slow, ponderous and at times disjointed;lacking any clarity and textual continuity however,a closer look proves this to be incorrect,what rescues the lectures is the excellent translations provided by Graham Burchill (Foucault’s translator during the whole series of his lectures).The Synergy between biopolitics and biopower appears here with much more clarity and shows itself as a migratory,transitory (Mutation) Stochastic system as opposed to a passive all persuasive and culpable genetically determined biology within the 'body'which is often presented,in both these lectures although it is highly technical,however,it isn’t overwhelming,Foucault originally wanted to entitle his work on biopower, Governmentality, which was first introduced by Foucault’s courses in his fourth lecture at the College de France on 1 February 1978, meaning several different approach research areas;such as, Political power,and its uses and relationship within modern society, Political Philosophy,the uses of Ancient Greek text and their pursuit of political communication and political persuasion of an audience, Political sovereignty where the point of departure from the singular ruler through monarchical rule and Political economy through the organisation of modern production which would prove to be paradoxical because the ‘subjects’ of ‘right’ appear within political sovereignty of whom it is directly aimed at,the population;which the government must manage. Political Science the point of justification for governmentality and a new kind of governmental reason the fundamental organizational framework for biopolitics according to Foucault studying this type of liberalism reveals the technology of how this is accomplished.A further look at the concept at the same time that Foucault gave his lectures at the College de France there was other investigations which verify Foucault's investigations.

According to Albert Somit (the current editor of Research In Biopolitics series and leading theorist and scholar on Biopolitics), by 1972 the literature of biopolitics contained at least some 40 different items. And by the time that Foucault used the phrase in his famous lectures at the College de France between January and April 1979, according to Somit, there were several different approaches to the concept of biopolitics.: 1. The case for a biologically oriented political science. 2. The ethological aspects of political behavior. 3. Physiological and psychopharmaceutical aspects of political behaviour. 4. Issues of public policy raised by recent advances in biology. Foucault then offers from his lectures his conclusions from both the schools of thought of the twentieth century from this time; neo-liberalism, German ordoliberalism (the Freiburg School) and the Chicago school (sociology)

..."It is-as both condition and final end-that makes it possible to no longer ask: How can one govern as much as possible at the least possible cost? Instead,the question becomes:Why must one govern? That is to say: What makes government necessary, and what ends must it pursue with regard to society in order to justify its own existence? It is the idea of society which permits the development of a technology of government based on the principle that it is already in itself "too much","excessive"-or at least that it is added as a supplement whose necessity and usefulness can and must always be question...".

Foucault then takes on the concept into a different direction by positioning it between biological processes,the control of human populations through political means government,management and organization(through work and the labor force) of whole human populations (bio) and politics(polis),essentially this is Foucault's meaning of biopolitics; human biology and its amalgamation with politics. Foucault then situates liberalism's take on society where liberalism sees the state and society as a societal organism(neoliberalism never mentions it in any of their narratives nor is it ever mention by name as it is automatically assumed by liberalism that state organization was automatically,ingrained in the human psyche in the guise of an invisible organic whole called the Body politic,where all humans are involved regardless of their class position) capable of producing,multiplying,reproducing and if necessary,having a destructive capability.Foucault's disciples(Giorgio Agamben),etc. offer a chilling account and new meaning to this biopower and its destructive capability;the so called Thanatopolitics,the politics of death an intersection between biopolitics a conception of that individualizing power which constructs the subjectivity of subjects,which has the power to make live and let die from the indivduals perspective,which contrasts differently from the sovereign power(the executive power),which has the power to right to live and make die.Where the sword of Damocles is quite literally held over society's head where:"an absolutization of the biopower to make live intersected with the absolute generalization of the Sovereign power to make die." Consequently even the deaths of those in Auschwitz, Belson where the concentration camps were in affect,quite literally death camps of organized slaughter including the other concentration camps around the world during World War II these brutal deaths signified a stark,brutish and cruel reality;"The power in Thanatopolitics rests in the degradation of death,where in Auschwitz people did not die,rather corpses were produced,corpses without death,non-humans whose decease is debased into a matter of serial production." This kind of senseless butchery and murder can be justified both politically and morally(rather paradoxically)through the justice system(the so called Nuremberg Trials) without any recourse to 'justice',made to be internalized as collective consciousness encoded as memory through shared common experience Remembrance Day, Armistice Day for example,where it is frowned upon if you don't wear a Poppy particularly if you are a high profile famous Statesman (a politician),or a celebrity in public appearances on television this is then effectively passed on to future generations in the guise of ceremony’s,monuments and memorials.The purpose of this intersection and cross amalgamation is twofold;first it serves as a warning to future generations "watch it you could be next" fear is its ultimate purpose through the aegis of the victor.Secondly,it serves as a deterrent to future events,but can also be resurrected and act as a rallying cry for the next conflict into the future.A crime or a singular event of horrendous proportions serves as a template (such as the holocaust for example) this crime or event had to have a label something to attach itself to,or more importantly something to apportion blame.The term Genocide,coined by lawyer Raphael Lemkin serves as good example which forms memory,memory meaning here of no origin you are required to remember the word and learn its meaning,not its origin. However, beneath all of this amidst all the carnage and slaughter Foucault gives us a reminder of those who took part in the blood shed by the users of those who control and are ultimately responsible for the productive resources operations,through no fault of their own,in order to replicate themselves as consumers through being in the unfortunate position of belonging to the unprecedented production and reproduction system in human history;the work force.The industrial working population which comprises the overwhelming majority of human populations anywhere in the world,in a wider context unwittingly there must be at least seen, essentially a systematic position however clandestinely operated,without disruption taking place of economic productivity and activity which still has to take place in a smooth,transitory and unfussy way this then takes on a new meaning which Foucault offers us a chilling reminder of those who take part,through no fault of their own,in this involuntary naive complicity Foucault introduces to us the concept of Homo economicus (economic man)

..."With regard to Homo oeconomicus,one must laisser-faire;he is the subject or object of laissez-faire.And now,in Becker's (Gary Becker) definition which I have just given,Homo oeconomicus, that is to say, the person who accepts reality or who responds systematically to modifications in the variables of the environment,appears precisely as someone manageable,someone who responds systematically to systematic modifications artificially introduced into the environment. Homo oeconomicus is someone who is eminently governable.From being the intangible partner of laissez-faire, homo oeconomicus now becomes the correlate of a governmentality which will act on the environment and systematically modify its variables..."

This descriptive discovery of Homo oeconomicus allowed the removal of the sovereign from economic affairs and allowed a societal conception of economic process;the so called 'Invisible hand' of the market coined by Adam Smith to be 'rationally' justified politically (it is no secret that from this period of the 18th century political representation for the industrial working population in the form of representative democracy was coming to the fore),this would,while paradoxically,maximise the eventual target of economic liberalism for government permanently intervention to produce,multiply,and guarantee the freedoms required by economic liberalism. Foucault then briefly touches on B F Skinner;(the founder of Radical behaviorism),and Robert Castel but unfortunately it is very brief however,in Foucault defence, he himself does admit 'there is little literature' available in France on these techniques,however,to be critical,Foucault did belong to the most prestigious academic institutions in Europe (Collège de France) with unprecedented access to many journals in France and it would be unlikely that they would be unavailable to him.This is a slight point to make but a valid one when considering that he was effectively the 'master of the archive'and was brilliant at excavating 'obscure material' Foucault concentrates more on neo-liberalisms political justification for state existence,rather than Skinners techniques on controlling human behavior through controlling the mind Manuel Castells while operating in the field of Social Science dares to venture outside the limited field of Social Science which he notice in his brilliant work Communication Power where

..."The brain and the body-proper constitute one organism connected by neural networks activated by chemical signals circulating in the blood stream and electro-chemical signals sent through nerve pathways.So,the mind proceeds by networking patterns in the brain with patterns of our sensorial perception that drive from coming into contact with the networks of Matter,energy and activity that constitute our experience,past,present,and future(by anticipation of consequences of certain signals according to images stored in the brain).We are networks connected to a world of networks..."

It is clear then that any standard neuroscience journal will show you this,it is not the body but the Mind,as is often thought by Foucault and the Postmodernism movement,both thought that the body(not the mind), an often repeated mistake a simple mistake,but a crucial one.To get to the body the mind had to be rendered docile,not the body,this error is due to the standard Social Science model an incorrect view which still persist to this day,that the mind and body,the so called mind–body problem, or in philosophical circles dualism were separate and somehow in conflict with one another which needed to be controlled (within whole populations rendering populations docile) which was what Foucault's original concept of biopower was primarily concerned with. While Foucault's concept of Biopower is both evocative thought-provoking (and in some cases somewhat controversial in some quarters) and powerful it is this slight mistake which shouldn't postpone more research on the subject. The biggest challenge to Foucault's sympathetic disciples and independent researchers is this:Can they penetrate (as it stands now) the in-amenable impenetrable discourse that has been erected around the modern 'rational' nation state(Rational choice theory, Sociobiology, Evolutionary biology, Evolutionary psychology, Evolutionary stable strategy, Political science and Foundationalism). In doing so can they decode(which the above mention 'social sciences' cannot) the modern power structure and show how it is encoded and woven into these various different cultural social practices and techniques that has been used as a discourse which has been presented over several millennium where explanation of the state is placed on a rational sober footing?Exactly like the Natural sciences, as opposed to the Social Sciences where claims can be reduced to fact, rigorous approach is seen as hard work, not polemicist point scoring and guess work.It is certainly not insurmountable where for once there is no room for doubt moving from the shaky and fragile process of descriptive narrative to the sound and solid method of explanation.That is the fundamental challenge that any future theorist should now face.

Foucault's Lectures At The College de France On Biopower and Biopolitics

Foucault lectured extensively from this period and was quite prolific on his general theme 'governmentality' the scope and the brilliance of the lectures cannot be overestimated. Here,when giving an overview it may not do it justice but it is essential to give a truncated version of the most important aspects of his lectures which were first translated and transcribed,from actual recorded audio tapes from the lectures and published into English for the first time by Graham Burchell in 2007 and 2008 respectively.The reader is referred to a fuller and more expansive version of his lectures from this period, to read his published courses for a fuller, more expansive interpretation if they feel more justice is warranted.

Security,Territory,Population 1977-1978

Foucault's lectures at the College de France have just been translated and published,however, there are still 7 volumes to be published to the English speaking audience. The main focus of this section in the article are from the years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 (see below). Foucault tries to trace the 'government of things' (as he refers to it) with its direct collaboration and correlation to modern society as it is today; starting from Niccolo Machiavelli with The Prince in 1513,where Foucault noticed that there wasn't unanimous reception over the prince. The anti Machivellian literature wanted to replace the ability of the prince to hold on to his principality with something entirely new: an art of government. Foucault then notices that this art of government were internal to society itself,not external,this type of self government was practiced right throughout European society; such as Italy, Germany, France, etc. which was seized upon by the modern nation state from which it took up as its central practices.This is from as early as the 16th century which in due course enabled the elimination of the Sovereign prince as a transcendental, singularity figure of Machiavelli's prince. All of society was enmeshed within this process including the prince(ruler) himself, thus a century later government became political (modern Political science) with its collaboration with Political economy. Foucault further notices that political economy had a new tool called statistics (another term for scientific government) and it is with Francois Quesnay that this process can be found the very notion of economic government.So,according to a text quoted by Foucault written by Guillaume de La Perriere "government is the right disposition of things arranged so as to lead a suitable end." To clarify this matter further there was a general shift in this notion of 'political power' and its relationship with territory and Machiavelli's principality and juridicial sovereignty(which we now know as 'legalism') as defined by political philosophers and legal theorists of the day. Statistics was just a tactic to this new kind of political power,for Foucault statistics doesn't mean counting,it means the large population which can be expanded at will within the new territory(the modern idea of this is globalisation). Which simply means more human resources, larger government, bigger revenues for the state and a better 'scientific' approach to ordering of the state. Foucault talks quite a lot on the Christian pastorate,which was unheard of in the ancient world of the Greeks and the Romans, and primarily belongs to Christianity. For Foucault the work on this is unfinished business but however, it is pivotal to Foucault's understanding of how it was possible in the past of ancient society and now modern society how they were able (both ancient and modern)to produce docile populations through the government of souls to the government of men politically,he gives an outline of just what he was able to come with in his research. First of all the shepherd flock relationship was alien to the Greeks as a political model and was an entirely a Christian invention which migrated in a modern sense as shepard, sheep, flock relationship, which means, roughly translated in modern terms as the political eletrolate and the political community.Political community means the institutions that are governing the rest of society; government covered by legal institutions which gives both the political electorate, political executive and political community legitimacy, Foucault traces this practice to the ancient Greek text from the Pythagoreans known as nomas (meaning the law) and according to this text the shepherd is the lawmaker,he directs the flock,indicates the right direction and says how the sheep must mate to have good offspring. Foucault then reads into Robert Castel's work;The Psychiatric Order,an essential read according to Foucault,where the techniques were finally finalised during the 18th century of this absolute global project which was directed towards the whole of society. Which was public hygiene and a whole battery of other techniques were used concerning the education of children,assistance to the poor,and through the psychiatric order, the institution of workers tutledge was coordinated through psychiatric practices. These technologies of power Foucault claims were introduced into the 18th century emerging prison system which migrated into the modern surveillance society through the infamous system that Jeremy Bentham tried to introduce,the Panopticon;the modern internal and external surveillance system that modern society inhabits 'self watch' and 'self government'. Foucault then interprets this self-government as modern society conception of a top down hierarchy,creating the delusion of a sovereign who rules in perpetual in the United Kingdom for example,this system still exsists today through the ancient and legal maxim the king never dies,according to Sir William Blackstone,the king survives in his successor and the right of the crown vests,eo instanti upon his heirs.Thus,according to Blackstone which is still common in British legal theory,the mornarch is regarded as immortal where there is no moment in time in which the throne is vacantwhere the full focal point of a ruler of the system is a self perpetuating and self regularity(among those who inhabit the system),where clearly defined roles are defined and repeated right throughout the system(through norms). The system can readjust itself to whatever is thrown at it(an internal firewall integral to the system where the dangerous individual can be spotted and isolated at will). This was accomplished,according to Foucault,(rather paradoxically)from power relations elsewhere from other institutions in order to analyse them from the point of view of other technologies to free them elsewhere to form new systematic institutions as new knowledge of objects. Foucault traces this original practice to government practices of the Middle Ages, where the term government meant an entirely different definition as modern society knows it. For example 'enough wheat to govern Paris for two years', this covers a wide semantic view, it also refers to control of ones body, soul and behaviour, conduct, diet,the care given to an individual.Which Foucault very often refers to as 'governmentality',self conduct or self government.Foucault traces this tactic back through history to the east(Mediterranean East,Egypt,Assyrian empire,Babylonian etc.)which was specific to those societies.In Foucault own words this very aspect of Foucault's own work is still a work in progress,and is not a finallised research. However,Foucault situates this type of pastoral power squarely onto the new founded Christian Church where an organized religion ruled an entire society politically for 1500 years.And what was produced or outcome of all this turbulence was constant battles of supremacy for this type of pastoral power,government over men and their souls.The church rapidly colonised this type of new power between 11th and 18th century,and according to Foucault, the church laid claim to the daily government of men in their real lives on the grounds of their salvation and no example of this exist anywhere in history of societies. Furthermore,Foucault research goes on to show that all the religious struggles from this period were fundamentally struggles over who would actually have the right to govern men,and to govern men in their daily lives they were practically struggles over who had the right to this power. Foucault then derives from this that from the 11th to the 18th century all the struggles of religion(wars of religion) were fundamentally struggles over who would actually have the right to govern men, and to govern men in their daily lives and in details and materiality of their existence; they were struggles over who has this power,from whom it derives,how it is exercised,the margin of autonomy for each, the qualification of those who exercise it, the limits of their jurisdiction, what recourse is possible against them,and what control is exercised over each. The Protestant reformation transversed this relationship of pastorate power and what resulted from the reformation,although an historical event, was a formidable reinforcement of the pastorate system of religious power(political power in modern societies).This type of religious power(pastoral power)was simply a reorganization of pastoral power from within,but,however,this type of reorganization of pastoral power encroached on the sovereigns(ruler) political power at the same time,it wasn't a smooth transition as is often portrayed.This led to a succession of tumultuous upheavals and revolts over this period,11th-18th century;Norman conquest, Hundred year war, Crusades, Peasants Revolt, Crisis of the Late Middle Ages, Popular revolt in late medieval Europe.All of which are well attested too, Foucault refers to these revolts as revolts against conduct,the most radical of which were the Protestant reformation. Foucault then concludes that this political process can be traced to the general context of resistances,revolts,and great insurrections of conduct (Peasants Revolt of 1524-1526 for example).Foucault concludes that these insurrections of conduct push started the transition of the pastoral of souls to the political government of men and the revolts,insurrections of conduct and resistances should be seen in this context.The new economic and consequently the political relations which the old feudal structures were unable and lacked any effective framework,were unable to cope.Foucault notices that the pastorate community were swamped with everyday life of individuals where it took charge of a whole series of questions and problem concerning material life,property,education of children. This led to an re-emergence of philosophy as the answer to the fundamental question of everyday life,in relation to others,in relation to those in authority,to the sovereign,or the feudal lord,and in order to direct ones mind as well,and to direct it in the right direction,to its salvation,certainly,but also to the truth. Philosophy took over from this period; on the religious function of how to conduct oneself as a result of taking a form that wasn't specially religious or ecclesiastical. With the advent of the 16th century western society enter the age of forms of conducting,directing,and government.Foucault then considers these great upheavals of Medieval Europe as nothing else but the translation of the continuum from god to men,political institutions and the political order. Which was broken by all the upheaval that Europe had suffered.This produced a series of conflicts among those who tried to define sovereignty(not political sovereignty as we know it)but the art of government,principia naturae(reason of government) which brought in the political philosophy of doctrine of Raison d'Etat (reason of state). By the end of the 16th century western society begins to define itself as territorial and expansitory with means of security as its primary focus.Foucault reads into this that the philosophy of raison d'Etat found its way into Europe through the Peace of Westphalia(known as the balance of power);this can be found in the works of Italian political philosopher Giovanni Botero where Botero concluded that the state is a firm domination over peoples and to keep hold of its preservation one was expected to have knowledge of the appropriate means for founding preserving,and expanding such a domination. This political philosophy of raison d'Etat was made as the chief political philosophy (with its accompanied rationality) in mainland Europe. Foucault's analysis of raison d'Etat (here Bogislaw Philipp von Chemnitz son of Martin von Chemnitz) writing under the pseudonym Hippolithus a Lapide firsts starts to query the first uses of the doctrine of raison d'Etat at the treaty of Westphalia,where among the diplomatic community the doctrine starts to become popular for discussion) offers interesting conclusions of this new type of power the transition of the government of souls to the government of men.This first takes place between 13th century and the 18th century,from the 16th century the subject starts to appear of an idea of perpetual peace taken from the Middle Ages idea.Which primarily belonged to the church,from the 16th century therefore, exists the idea of a 'balance of power',with few exceptions,this idea became problematic,it started or rather had to included the populace.The solution to this problematic situation was the inclusion,within the philosophy of raison d'Etate, the incorporation of the populace which the machinery of the state had to govern.The government of men as Foucault refers to it,directly from the pastorate community to the transfer to the political community.Foucault then further shows that raison d'etat wasn't much concerned with legality(as we know the term)but with political necessity;politics is concerned with necessity and if necessary politics must become violent lending to Coup d'Etat;this means that it is obliged to sacrifice, to sever,cause harm,and it is led to be unjust and murderous.This produced a whole series of problematic solutions to this problem,of which the population became of primary concern,coup d'Etat politics isn't the practice as we know it today.Under the auspices of the Renaissance wasn't primarily concerned with legitimacy,but survival of the state.Foucault then tries to show only when the problem of population and security starts taking effect amongst the different practices that the consideration of population becomes a worry.Foucault then notices a point of departure pointing out the idea of sedition and revolt starts to enter texts,but 'the people' proved elusive to define all around Europe, and never entered popular discussion, at first point of juncture was the nobles and their rivals began to become known as 'the people'. Which was the fundamental departure between Machiavelli and Francis Bacon, the former was concerned with governing the prince's principality, the later concerned with 'the people' as a populace.

The Birth Of Biopolitics 1978-1979

..."What is liberalism?The problem of Neo liberalism is rather how the overall exercise of Political power can be modeled on the principles of a Market economy.So it is not a question of freeing an empty space, but of taking the formal principles of a market economy and referring and relating them to,of projecting them on a general art of government"...

For Foucault biopolitics is not the version so often portrayed by other writers such as Albert Somit,biopolitics for Foucault is political power exercised on whole populations in every aspect of human life.Foucault then offers rather tentative,slow and at times brilliant analysis of the basic definition of the practices of neo-liberalism art of government.Foucault then trys to redefine the boundarys set by liberalism thought on this matter,while it still defines neo-liberalism objectives as fundamentally the same,the fundamental principles still remain the same;namely the doctrine of raison d'Etat now becomes embrolied with limiting the state actors powers where they become hostages to their own fate.Limiting the exercise of government power internally,this can mean several meanings,but Foucault concentrates on the monetary aspect of government as a point of concern,frugal government,the art of maximum and a minimum and between the total opposite minimum and maximum. Foucault looks at the early insitutional practices of this method of frugal government,which starts from the early Middle Ages right down to the early 16th and 17th centuries.The market appears from the early middle age where the function of interest on money lending was stritcly prohibted(one of the reasons being that the church was the main insititution lending money at interest on church property where rental income was charged on church property a primary source of income it would of brought down the price of the church rental income).Justification,according to Foucault,for the market was justice which was why the market existed in the first place.What was mean't by justice?Foucault offers this explanation;it was a site of justice in the sense that the sale price fixed in the market was seen,both by theorist and in practice,as a just price,or at any rate a price that should be the just price,which meant to the theorists of the day a price that was to have a certain relationship with work performed,with the needs of the merchants,and of course,with the consumers needs and possibilities. The next general theme Foucault then introduces to the lectures is the German Ordoliberalism,the Freiburg School which produced general problems among themselves,namely the state apparatus and its reconstruction after the Second World War.This general theme led to neo-liberalism heavy reliances on the law obviously,but it too,had to produce a new kind of consensus and a rearrangement consensus between the general populace;the working population,those engaged in production.This general or collective consensus produced 'economic partners' in this so called 'economic game', such as;investors,employers,government officials,work or labor force,and trade union officials.Foucault then offers some explanation on what was the reasoning behind this consensus between all these economic partners.According to Foucault this produced another kind of consensus,which was political power of the electoral community,not the political power of the right to vote,but the right of the political community to exchange seats,an rearrangement of the very relations of the so called change of 'government' which gives and protects legitimacy.Which becomes political consensus,inasmuch as the 'econmic partners'accept the economc game of freedom.This is very much on neo-liberalism agenda,which according to Foucault was exactly the agenda that neo-liberalism required.A strong Deutschmark,a satisfactory rate of economic growth,increased wages,an expanding purchasing power,and a favorable balance of payments which became a by product of the effects of good government.Foucault then reads into this that in contemporary German which was in reality a founding consensus of the state.Foucault then notices that this formation of a liberal type of governmentality had general shifts within this circle which can be traced back to the 18th century old or classical liberalism programmed by the Physiocrats, Turgot,and the other economists of the 18th century,for whom the problem was the exact opposite.The problem that neo-liberlaism had to resolve was the following:given the existence of a legitimate state,which is fully functional under the police state(see Security,Territory,Population)with all its administration form of police state,how can this be limited within the existing state and,above all, allow for the necessary economic freedom within it.For Foucault this was the exact opposite because after the war,the war machine that was unleashed was due to the fact that the system of economic rationality had completely broken down where the network of world trade(world trade starting period 1870) and its accompanied trade settlement system had completely vanished.Another theme Foucault concentrates on is the neo-liberalism conception of social effects,Gesellschaftspolitik,known in English,from the Germain,as the policy of society, this policy of society addresses the general or whole consensus of society.But this Gesellschaftspolitik had a two sided inconsistency,it had to produce the willing actors who take part in the economic process to accept the reality of their economic position and therefore their fate.The working population or labor force,the ones involved in production,madness,disease,medicine,delinquency,sexuality,but somehow,none of these faults/errors never existed before practices were involved and invented to become part of collective consciousness within practices. Foucault deals with this problem as necessary intrinsic operations of government which inextribably can produce regimes of truth (Foucault means regimes of truth as necessary social practices which become necessary objects of knowledge).The ability to extrapolate a collective of co-ordinate errors becoming co-ordinated practices which become something that did not exist in the first place,but now becomes established systems of knowledge objects. The political regimes of truth(political power upon every aspect of human social life),the battle between legitimacy, submitting to a fabricated division between true and false.Foucault begins to try and trace back through time how this was at all possible, Foucault manages this task by reading into the set of practices interwoven into the policy of society,this was accomplished from the 16th until the 18th century where there was a whole set of practices of tax levies,customs,charges,manufacture regulations,regulations of grain prices,the protection and codification of market practices,etc. This was well conceived by the exercise of sovereign rights,feudal rights,as the maintenance of customs,as effective procedure of enrichment for the Financial administration of the general sovereign or the tax authorities,or as techniques for preventing urban revolt due to the discontent of this or that group of subjects. Foucault takes a look at these general practices through looking at the economic practices involved from the 18th century(where Mercantilism was at its peak)where a coherence strategy established a intellgible mechanism which provided a coherent link,together these different practices and their effects,and consequently allows one to judge all these practices as good or bad,not in terms of a law or moral principle, but in terms of propositions subject to the false dichotomy between true and false.Governments,Foucault noticed,were compelled to enter this compective environment, by doing so entering into new regimes of truth with the fundamental effect of reconfiguring all the questions formally beset by the art of government.Foucault now turns his attention to ordoliberalism view on social policy and how this can be woven into societys political power which differentates from Adam Smith's liberalism two centuries earlier.This problem was faced headon by ordoliberalism;how can the overall excerise of political power be modeled on the principles of a market economy?To accomplish this the old version of classic liberalism had to be subjected to a whole series of modifications.The first set of transformations was the dissociation of the market economy from the political principle of Laisse-faire,this uncoupling of the market and laissez-faire was replaced with,not abandon by a theory of pure competition which produced a formal structure and formal properties which could lay the fundamental principle of the compective structure that assured economic regulation through the price mechanism.This break from traditional liberalism principles,founded by Walter Lippmann and expressed by such others as Jacques Rueff, Wilhelm Röpke, Rustow, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Marjolin, Ludwig von Mises,and their intermediaries and a non economist,but however was highly influential, Raymond Aron.All of these people setup a committee a highly influential think tank called CERL they produced a set of interesting pamhlets which were produced throughout the late 30's and throughout the 1940s which wanted to established the principles of economic liberalism and the price mechanism,by maintaining a contractual regime of production and exchange which did not exclude intervention arising from the duties of the state,and according to them,contrast differently from the so called 'planned economy' of the former Soviet Union.How would neo-liberalism define the new governmental action?Foucault traces three examples which neo-liberalism call a conformable economic action; firstly the question of monoplies which they claimed differed somewhat from classic liberalism.The classic conception of the economy as the monoply seen as somehow semi neutral,semi necesssary consequence of the competition in a Capitalist system.The neo-liberal dream of competition cannot be left to deveolp without monopalistic phenomena appearing at the same time which precisely have the effect of limiting attenuating and given nullifying competition.This would eventually have the effect,of suppressing the operation of mechanism that facilitate,bring with them,and hopefully determine its eventual destiny.However,Foucault notices specific problems began to emerge for neo-liberalism,not only specific to neo-liberalism was how to incorporate civil society,political power;and Homo oeconomicus into a non-substitutable,irreducible atom of interest.Foucault makes the starting point of his investigations into this process from the 18th century where Homo oeconomicus(this problem still persists to this day)has to be integrated into the system of which he is a part,and this is crucial,into the economic domain,not by transfer,subtraction,or dialectic of renunciation,but by a dialectic of spontaneous multiplication. The concept Homo oeconomicus had specific problems being interwoven into the new found economic process of the 18th century.Foucault manages to trace this anomlie through the subject of right(known as Consent of the governed the theory of right of that legal theorists of the 18th century tried to establish during their legal discourse)which did receive a great deal of attention because of what was perceived at the time of problems regarding the sovereigns power. The subject of right had to perform slight modifications because of the implication of him(the subject of right) limiting the sovereigns power.Which certainly differed from classical liberalisms conception of the sovereign power,which from the 16th century was conceived of as impenetrable to any rational discourse. The sovereign was conceived of as absolute,but the discovery of the people,subject of rights,homo oeconomicus,changed all that because of the arrival of market practices(the market) from the 18th century.Even the Physiocrats insisted that the market,the sovereign had to really respect the market. How could this new problematic of liberalism,the sovereign,the market,and the new found political power,homo oeconomicus which economic activity had at least specific patterns of correlation could be moulded into one tight unit?Foucault seeks the answer to this with a new field of reference, Civil society. Foucault answers this question on the process of how to govern through governmental technology,the new neo-liberals,economic liberals sort to have a heterogeneity of the economic and the judicial which must be pegged to an economy understood as process of production and exchange. Foucault then trys to enhanced the general theme and trys to show the mixed conflagration of the legal theorists,economic theorists and those who propergate the theory of right(consent of the governed)and political philosophy which was a battle for a judicial political project.Civil society,according to Foucault's analysis,must place particular attention to its correlation of technology of government,the rational measure of which must be judicially pegged to an economy understood as the process of production and exchange.What made this version of civil society tick?Foucault makes the amalgamation of civil society into society(as we know it)which at the end of the 18th century became known as the nation(now known to us as the Nation state). This became omnipresent,nothing was allowed to escape,which was to conform to the rules of right(consent of the governed),and a government which nevertheless respects the specificity of the economy,will be a government that manages civil society,the nation,society,and the social.Foucault continues the theme on Homo oeconomicus which became part and parcel to this feature,Homo oeconomicus and civil society were two inseparable features and belonged to the same ensemble of the technology of liberal governmentality.For Foucault this was no mere coincidence,since the 19th century,civil society has always been referred to in Political philosophy discourse as a fixed reality,which according to this theory,was outside of government or the state or state apparatuses or institutions. This omnipresent has many characteristics and one its main features are a primary and immediate reality which forms part of modern governmental technology. Foucault views this governmental characteristic as simply the direct correlation of modern society's direct association with madness, disease, sexuality, criminal recidivism and criminal delinquency which he calls transactional realities.Although civil society,along with its associated governmental technologies haven't always existed they are nonetheless real,by real he simply means the power dynamic and their interplay with the rest of society in which all those involved(which is pretty much all of society)everything within it constantly eludes them,at the interface so to speak of those who are governed and those who govern.It is in Foucault's insightful analysis where he makes four important points on this governmental modern technology of biopolitics;an absolute correlative to the form of governmental technology which liberalism associated itself with,and it is pegged,tied to the specificity of economic process.How was all three incorporated into rational liberalism philosophical discourse?Foucault cites the well known texts of Adam Ferguson:Essay On The History Of Civil Society;from the 18th century to show how liberalism approached this problem from different angles and Adam Smith and his own infamous text The Wealth Of Nations which complement one another with regards civil society.First:there is a political and social correlate in terms of civil society.Second,civil society as principle of spontaneous synthesis;third civil society as permanent matrix of political power;and fourth,civil society as the motor element of human history.

See also

• Governmentality
• Human enhancement
• Biopolitics

Further reading

• Research in Biopolitics: Sexual Politics and Political Feminism Volume 1 Editor Albert Somit (1991)
• Research in Biopolitics: Biopolitics and the Mainstream: Contributions of Biology to Political Science Volume 2 Editor Albert Somit (1994)
• Research in Biopolitics:Human Nature and Politics Volume 3 Editors Steven A.Peterson Albert Somit (1995)
• Research in Biopolitics:Research in Biopolitics Volume 4 Editors Albert Somit Steven A.Peterson (1996)
• Research in Biopolitics:Recent Explorations in Biology and Politics Volume 5 Editors Albert Somit Steven A.Peterson (1997)
• Research In Bipolitics:Sociobiology and Politics Volume 6 Editors Albert Somit Steven A.Peterson (1998)
• Research In Bipolitics:Ethnic Conflicts Explained By Ethnic Nepotism Editors Albert Somit Steven A.Peterson Volume 7 (1999)
• Research In Bipolitics:Evolutionary Approaches In The Behavioral Sciences:Toward A Better Understanding Of Human Nature Editors Steven A.Peterson Albert Somit Volume 8 (2001)
• Research In Biopolitics:Biology and Political Behavior: The Brain, Genes and Politics - the Cutting Edge Editor Albert Somit Volume 9 (2011)
• Michel Foucault, The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the Collège de France 1982-1983 (2010)
• Michel Foucault,The Courage Of Truth:Lectures at the Collège de France 1983-1984 (2011)

References

• Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended
• Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population
• Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer
• Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire
• Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude

External links

• Policante, A. "War against Biopower: Timely Reflections on an Historicist Foucault", Theory & Event, 13.1 March 2010. [1]

• Walter Bagehot Physics and Politics (1872) http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/bagehot/physics.pdf Accessed 3 January 2011

• Manuel Castells Communication Power (2009)
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5tEu8q-Aqn8C&lpg=PP1&dq=manuel%20castells&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Accessed 3 March 2011

• Biopolitics encyclopedia entry from Generation-Online Accessed 22 October 2010

• The New Age

Volume 10, Number 9 Biopolitics p. 197 London: The New Age Press, Ltd., 29-12-1911 http://dl.lib.brown.edu/pdfs/1140814088702842.pdf

• "Biopower. Foucault" on Philosophy.com: Gary Sauer-Thompson's Weblog Accessed 13 September 2009
• Rabinow, Paul & Rose, Nikolas (2006) "Biopower Today", BioSocieties 1, 195–217 (London School of Economics and Political Science) Accessed 13 September 2009

• Culture Machine eJournal Volume 7 (2005):Biopolitics Special edition on Biopolitics

Edited by Melinda Cooper, Andrew Goffey and Anna Munster http://culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/issue/view/3

• "What is Biopower" on Utopia Or Bust

• Foucault Studies:Number 10: November 2010: Foucault and Agamben
• http://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/issue/view/400

Accessed 2 March 2011

• Foucault Studies:Number 11: February 2011: Foucault and Pragmatism
• http://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/issue/view/408

Accessed 22 April 2011

• Michel Foucault:Audio Archive
• (Society Must Be Defended) http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/foucault/ds.html

January 7,1976 http://sunsite3.berkeley.edu/videodir/foucault/ds760107.mp3

Accessed 14 July 2011