Biopower: Foucault and Beyond

This is a skillfully edited selection of essays on Foucault's "biopower". The section on "Neoliberalism and Governmentally" pushes Foucault's ideas into the contested present in an effective way. As does Nealon's virtuosic and brilliant interrogation of the the interpretive uses of animal studies and the shifting states of biopower. All in all a fine volume that demonstrates Foucault's continuing critical relevance and power.

In 1976 Foucault coined the word “biopower” meaning, simply, a power over life that was increasingly exercised by state and non-state authorities, the emergence of which marked and characterized the era of modernity. He claimed that power encompassed both disciplines, notably the prison or the school, which targeted the behaviour of individuals, and biopolitics, notably public health schemes, which regulated the conduct of populations. He largely dropped the term three years later after he moved on to analyze “governmentality.” After his death, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, however, the term “biopower” was rejuvenated by the work of the Italian philosophers Giorgio Agamben and Antonio Negri (with the American philosopher Michael Hardt) who used it to describe the contemporary condition. Soon the study of biopower, but especially biopolitics, became a hot topic in academe.The purpose of this compendium of essays is to elaborate the concept as well as to explore the wide variety of its uses. The essays are grouped in five parts: origins, what ‘life’ means, discipline and biopolitics, and biopower nowadays. Some of the essays are reprints of earlier work, most are new. Roughly three-quarters of the authors are philosophers of one kind or another. Still the essays range wildly in character from abstract polemic to concrete empirical study. The effect is to produce modifications, extensions, and adaptations of the concept of biopower to suit what appear to be changes in both the fashions of academe (like the rise of gender and animal studies) as well as the problems and character of governance (such as neoliberalism or globalization).No wonder the quality of the essays also varies widely. Unfortunately the reprinted contributions of Antonio Negri and Roberto Esposito, two of the luminaries in the field, are weak, full of assertion, clotted prose, and muddy argument. So too the essay by the noted Foucault scholar Judith Revel. But these are the exceptions. The introduction by the two editors is an excellent survey of the field that clearly explains the meaning and significance of biopower. One reprint, by Rabinow and Rose, is a classic statement which seeks to stabilize the meaning of biopower and to guide its use in future analyses: it is essential reading for any novice. In a different vein there’s Ian Hacking's charming reprint about statistics (rarely is that dismal pursuit so much fun), a crucial instrument in the work of biopolitical enterprises. Catherine Mills' dissection of Agamben and her elaboration of biopolitics are imaginative and intriguing. Similarly impressive are the essays by Jeffrey Nealon on the privileging of humanity or Ann Laura Stoler on racism or Todd May and Ladelle McWhorter on neoliberalism. Another wise addition is the essay by the philosopher Paul Patton, a naysayer, who argues the concept of biopower lacks the rigour and substance to justify its use or prominence. I disagree, as of course do the contributors, but reading his piece is bracing.You could pick a number of themes running through the essays. One that stands out is the extension of the meaning of the ‘life’ the works of biopower and especially biopolitics are supposed to administer. When Foucault introduced the concepts he clearly put his emphasis on biological life, birth, death, health, sexuality, and so on. Except he too soon fudged things by talking about the social and cultural dimensions of living subjects such as, say, a homosexual, a Frenchman, or a worker. Rabinow & Rose appear as strict constructionists: they claim the focus of biopower must be pre-eminently on the vital characteristics of individuals and populations. (Although there is some waffle in their arguments.) Frederic Gros defines the scope of life so broadly he seems an imperialist for biology. Nealon, rightly I think, emphasizes the management of desire in any explanation of biopower's ‘life.’ Mills adopts a much different approach, arguing the capacity for error defines the ‘life’ the authorities of biopower seek to monitor and reshape. (Perhaps she will be able to demonstrate that interpretation in her newly published book on biopolitics.) In the essays of Negri and Esposito the ‘life’ biopower regulates becomes so broad and so vague the concept looses the rigour necessary for effective interpretation (though elsewhere Esposito is much more precise).No compendium of this sort can be comprehensive. The absence of geographers and historians means the absence of many of the interesting and detailed studies of past examples of biopolitical enterprises. There is little discussion of the technology of surveillance (a technique of discipline) and the biopolitics of security, both of which have been prominent in the literature on biopower since 9/11. Even so, Biopower: Foucault and Beyond is an excellent introduction to the exuberance of the field.