Friday, June 25, 2010

MAKE-UP RESPONSE: Foucault and Berger WEEK 3 (in response to Jen)

The evidence of biopower can indeed be observed in the modern state(s).  A merger of Foucault’s biopower and Berger’s “enforced marginalization” of animals brings to mind an evolutionist view which justifies using animals in product testing, hormonal altering of livestock, genetically modified foods, and countless other exploitations of the environment to further our human endeavors, for the good of the people.  These practices are fueled by politics and capitalism in that they are viewed and posited as necessities for the good of the people.   When genetic sciences are applied to Homo sapiens however, it gets (even more) scary.  When a state has the authority to decide what is to be cloned or modified, the results - keeping biopower in mind - will be racist. 

Foucault of course is more interested in the control biopower possesses over and between states, cultures and especially races.  Nazism, and the apparent threat that the Jews imposed upon the nationalistic foundations of Hitler’s Reich is an example of how biopower is utilized not only to improve the quality of life of those in power but to protect the state in order to keep that power.  The Jews were a threat to the Nazis because they were community-minded (exclusive) and because the Third Reich needed an enemy in order to maintain control over their own people.  An internal enemy. Here we see the reason why Foucault describes Nazis as “suicidal”.  They needed to fight the inferior race to secure their control over their people, the state.  In doing so, they expose themselves.  Aggression breeds dissent and this places the state in a position of heightened power and added conviction.  The state uses the “aggression” of others as fuel for their own exploits.

Doesn’t this sound familiar? Of course, the Nazi state was especially horrible, brutal and effective at enforcing and motivating a population to concede to principles and ideals the state thought were ultimately essential (and Foucault goes into this concerning Nazis, but to be honest I don’t entirely understand it - something like a trifecta of disciplinary power, biopower and self-destruction).  But isn’t it obvious that the foundation of this practice is still alive and well in the US of A?  The red scare of the mid-20 century gave way to a new enemy, a new fear (a new state, a new race) that now, even in post-Bush years, poses a threat to our security and - if one is sold on the awfully convincing military industrial complex- also serves to boost our economy among other things. These things combined position America at the top and all others are a necessary threat to secure the power. Any aggression from the “inferior” race serves to heighten the power, the conviction, the crusade of the democracy wielding state, simply because it reinforces the threat. This is an external threat (Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, etc) and an internal threat (terrorist cells, islamic radicals, and in the Bush days... anyone who didn’t hop on board the “patriot train”... “you’re either with us, or against us”).  Yikes.     
      

1 comment:

  1. On Tuesday a front page story in The New York Times stated:

    "The [McChrystal] firestorm was fueled by increasing doubts--even in the military--that Afghanistan can be won and by crumbling public support for the nine-year war as American casualties rise."

    I'm never sure how to interpret statements like these. Do Americans only care about American casualties? Does the paper only care to mention American casualties? Newspaper reporting doesn't waste unnecessarily qualifiers--why not just "as casualties rise"?

    It does seem to reflect this underlying belief American life is of greater value ... and the loss of others' lives not even worth mention.

    ReplyDelete