Quest-Ce Que La Biopolitique

8/13/2019 Quest-Ce Que La Biopolitique

1/7

det \4arktes FoudesNeoliberalismus'

Warhol Diaries, New York

2oo7' P r5'Be Defended" Lectures at

Trans.David MaceY' New

Disasters.Trace and ReferenceWarhol, October liles' ed'

Mass 200l' PP 49-bb'Sacer.Sovereign Power and

Stanford' Calif'"AnniversarY Notes for AndYShadows+ Other Signs of Life'Crousel' Paris zoo8

Saint Andrew, Newweek'7Pratt,The Critical Response to

1997, . Io 'Popism, oc cit' ' p 2r9'

was one of the preoccupationsncluding StevePaxton' Judith

n: StevenWatson' Fac-

oc ci t ,p r t l 'Celebrity' London and

ofthe Spectacle, ew York I995'

alue of the concept of specowarda prob lemat ic

seealsoJuliane Rebentisch'6, June zoo7, PP rzzf'

uchsteiner (eds ), Social Disease993-94o l ie n the Amertcan

Woman in ful1 "JulY zooS

of the Multitude, Ioc cit ' pp

Theodor W Adorno' DialectlcohnCumming, New York r99tdraw the lucky ticket' only one

and lf, mathematically' all have thenfinitesimal for each one that he

it off and rejoice in the other'saswell have been his or hers'

36 SeePat Hackett, "Introduction", in: Hackett (ed.), TheAndy Warhol Diaries, New York 1989, . 16.

37 StevenWatson, lactory Made, oc. cit., p. r3r.38 Pat Hackett (ed.), The Andy Warhol Diaries, oc. cit, p. z7z.39 Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, San Diego

and New York ry79, p. 86.4o Ib id . ,p. r78.

OU'EST-CE UELA BIOPOLITIQUE?A conversotion n Theories f Biopotit ics etweenThomosLemkeond MorioMuhle.moderotedby Andr6Bottmonn

Whot s biopotitics? As otten os this term qppeorstotety inctuding n this iournqt - it remoins uncleorwhot exqctty t entoits, white some see t in the contextof biotechnotogicoIprogress,AIDSpreventionor eco-logicol ogriculture, or others t stdnds for eugenics,comps ond rights deprivotions.There s cleorly o needfor cloriticotion,

The presentconversotion hus took it upon tsetf ogiveo diotogic nt roduction nto the geneologyof thisterm ond to discuss ts criticol potentiol. n the following,philosopherMorio Muhleqnd politicol scientistThomosLemke both ot whom hove recenllypubtished elevontond nstructivebooks on the topic - debqte he signiti-conce, he influenceond the dnolyticol productivity ofthis neologismcoined by Michel Foucoult n the 1970s.

ANDRE oTTMANN:he concept of "biopolitics" hasin recent years come to be used almost ubiqui-tously in a wide spectrum of thematic areasranging from theories of racism, the field of

prenatal diagnostics, and questions of ecologi-cal sustainability across contemporary forms ofneoliberalism and post-Fordist or immaterialIabor relations to aesthetic theory and artisticproduction. The term's indeterminacy seems torise in direct proportion to its prominence. At th esame time, however, it seems to promise a sortof diagnostic access o present-day realities. Onwhich theoretical promises is its use based, andwhat are the critical implications of these debatesover biopolitics, beyond the basic definition ofthe term as a politics concerned with life? Againstthe backdrop of your recent publications on thegenesis of modern biopolitics and its potentialfor an analysis of contemporary society,I we havecome together today to make an attempt to clarifythis concept. I would therefore like to begin byasking you: what is the fundamental definition of

"biopolitics" on which your books are based?

rHoMAsLEMKE: take the concept of biopoliticsfrom Michel Foucault, but I also draw on othertraditions and lines of reception such as the worksof Giorgio Agamben and Michael Hardt/AntonioNegri. My aim is to sketch an "analytics of biopo-litics" - most basically, an attempt to connect twocentral concepts: biopolitics and governmentality.This connection is suggested by Foucault's ownwork, primarily in the lectures he delivered at theCoildge de France In ry78 and ry79, but it remainsa promise he did not fulfill. What I envision asan "analytics ofbiopolitics" is a productive fusionof three dimensions: productions of knowledge,processes of power, and forms of subiectivation.I would like to develop a concept of biopoliticsthat integrates these three dimensions, whichis to say, that analyzes the interplay of scientificconceptions of life, social inequalities, formsof exclusion, strategies of authority, and, finally,techniques of sel -regu at ion.


2/7

MAF|A UHLE:y work likewise setsout from aconcept of biopolitics as defined by Foucault n"The Will to Knowledge" as he power "to makelive and et die." I think that Foucault,over thecourseof his various analyses f biopolitics, hasoffered two different definitions.There s, on theone hand, the very narrowly conceiveddefini-tion, one that relates o the life ofthe populationand no longer to that of the legal subjects f th esovereign egime of power or to the disciplinaryindividual. The aspect hat is to my mind far moreimportant is the questionof the modality of thisrelation, which is preciselya positive and not arepressive eiation to life. So n order to under-standwhat constit utes he specificityof biopoli-tics, we have o understand he conceptionof lifeon which it is based.My claim is that biopoliticsis defined by the fact that rather than merely rela-ting to life, it takeson the way life itself functions;that it functions ike ife in order to be better ableto regulate ife.FoTTMANN:rawing on the analyses fthe Frenchhistorian of scienceGeorgesCanguilhem,youhave emphasized hree dynamismsof the biolo-gical conceptionoflife around r8oo that revolvearound the questionofself-regulation , and youmaintain that a formal analog yobtains betweenthesedynamisms and the conceptionof life inbiopolitics, or more precisely, he biopoliticaltechnologies f power that result rom thisconceptionof life. To my mind, that raises hequestionofthe historicization ofthis relation tolife. According to Foucault, he "appropriationoflife by power" around r8oo represents, ithinthe history of legal conceptions f sovereignty,the "biological threshold of modernity"; else-where he mentions that the biopolitica l conflictsintensify around r 95o.To what extent s themodern conceptionoflife, as t is configured,

thus Canguilhem, around r8oo, still the one wearedealing with in the engagementwith contem-porary forms of biopolitics?What doesbiopoliticsmean today, n distinction from the rgth or theearly zoth century?MUHLE:he discussionof the conceptof life in mybook is motivated by the fact that Foucaulthim-self repeatedly speaksof life without ever offeringa substantial onceptionof the term. Instead, heconceptof life in Foucault s a correlateof practi-cesof power and knowledge.He thus shows hat"life" is a product of constellations f power andknowledge and subiect o ongoing redefinition.His conceptof llfe ls underdetermined,and thisfact must be recognizedas a deliberatestatementthat calls or further analysis.The point is not thatpolitics relates o a specific ife, but that it relatesto something that is aiways already produced bypower and knowledge.That'swhy I think that thelife sciences fter r8oo are an interestingpointofdeparture, because hey permanently rede-fine the conceptoflife. Canguilhem highlightspreciseiy his dynamic principle, the oscillationbetween self-preservation nd self-transcendence.He describes he life oriented toward self-preser-vation as he "normal" Iife, but also as one thatcannot be called "vital" in any demanding sense;whereasself-transcendenceonstitutes he norma-tivity of life. So n that sense would say,comingback o what Thomas said, hat the distinctionbetween biopolitics and governmentalitydis-solvesagainst his backdrop: biopolitics is notsimply the relation of politics to life but indicatesa particular way for power to function, one thatwe can spellout according o the normativity ofthe living being asdescribedby C anguilhem, andone that developsexplosivepower in Foucault'sanalyses f governmentality.


3/7


4/7

in atcorc lanct ' ' r ,th ce t.r in c l t '1 ined argots: hcd e te r r r i n a t i o r ro f t h r a s i s s t a t r ' \ ( ' r \ c \ \ a p r ( )g ra n r t o \ \ i a rd l r 0 r a n s c tn d e D(e l t h i s s ta te .

M U H L E :u s t . r s , o n r t r s c l l , h i s r a r s c t ' n c l r n c ei n r r. 1 l r d g a in a l s O c rv e s l r e e p ro r l r r c t i ( ) 1 r) 1 ta t c sth a t l r l r r a c r r t a i n p e i l n a l l e n ( ( ' .

LEMKE: es, r ' . r scencl t ' t e alr( l r rorrrr . l )' ar ci n t t ' r r t ' l a t e d . o r - r t s t a n c t ' ,h e i t l t a o f l n o rn r . r ls e r t r a l i t ys c r v ( ' s s a y . r r c l s t i c kl r a t a l k ru s o n e 1 os e e r r e th e r )n e o \ \ n s e ru a l i t l d e r a t c s r o n r i to r i s i r r a c c o rc l a n c e i t h th i s n o rn ra l i t ; . Wh . r t i sd e c i s i v e n t l r i s c r>n t t ' r t s t i r c t r a n s la t i o r r i t h i se rP t ' r ' t n o \ l t ' r l g e n to t h e c r e ; d a 1 i r ' s a i r c li n t c r r c l a t i o n so 1 b e s i r b j r c t s , v h o t l r c n d ra r v o r r tl i r r or i rntat ion .urc1rc l jLrstct :orc1ingl1R o T T M A N N :l r t ' r c s , 0 n t h e O n t ' h a n d , l r t r e l a l i o no f b i o p o l i t i c s o th e p o p u la t i o n a s a n ra s s r tl r r r t h s t a t i s t i c s , o r t a l i t l r a t r s , t c . , a n c lo n t l r t 'o t h t r l r ; L n c l- a n d t l r t ' s e c d so 1 h i s a r t ' a l r e a d l i nFo r r c a L r l t ' sr o c le lo f c l i s c i p l i n . r r - yo n t ' r - t h c r t l at i o n lo th e i r c l i v i d rL a l o d y , t l r t ' s i n g t r l a rs u b je r t ,n h i c l r , r a th c r L h a nb t ' i n g o p p r r s s e d , s r r r g e c lotu rn i t s e l f r t t o a p ro r i r r c t i v c t r b j e c t . o r ' v ' l r i L r l c l1 o u


5/7

a disciPlined and indivi-

ou haveboth closelYof governmentalitY.In how you would describe

modern forms ofof biopolitical self-

s always his gameover thedifferentiate he various

Foucault. n mY view, Fou-asa new name for

say hat Foucaulthimselfof bioPolitics to the

hich did not allow forinto economicswe iustesPondedPreciselY

constraint y introducing the

he question rises,drops the concept of

works with governmenta-think the concept of

t comprisesonly a subsetofnterestedn, since n Foucaultto biologicai or physical life.he conceptof governmenta-attemPt o examine he nexus

f the politics of the body andmodesofexistence.The que-

his nquiry was how certainbodycanbecomea political or

do processes f disciPlineto forms of self-government,

body o personalwishesandis it that health is of such

What does hat mean for the

conceptofillness? The connectionbetween thesetwo dimensions s something hat developsout ofthe conceptof governmentality.

MUHLE:he interestingquestion s: where arethe limits of bio-power ? s there a way to stepoutside of this power? think the re sn't, at eastnot if you read Foucault closely. There are noprocesses fsub)ectivation hat could e scape hegrasp of this power, no place beyond a powerthat is distinguished,after all, by its capil lary andubiquitous functioning.RoTTMANN:his brings us to the elaborationofFoucault's onceptionof biopolitics undertakenin the context of post- Operaism,especiallybyHardt/Negri, but also by PaoloVirno. Thesetheoristshave eframed he relation of politics tolife in the much larger paradigm of "biopoliti-cal production" or ofthe "social actory,"underwhose conditions the "spheres f the economic,the political, and the cultural" increasingly nter-sectand encompass ne another.To what extentdo you think theseelaborations fthe conceptsof biopolit ics and governmentalityare consistentwith Foucault's riginal conception?LEMKE:hat is certainly an eiaboration,but it isneither the only possiblenor th e most productiveway of drawing on Foucault. What I believe isproblematic s that, say, he writings of Hardt/Negri postulate he principle of immanence butthen still arrive , time and again,at fundamentaldualisms.On the one hand the "Empire," whichis parasiticaland exploitative,and on the otherhand the crowd or "Multitude," which representsbiopolitical production, that is to say,which iscreativeand nnovative.With this oppositionthey seem o me to fail back behind the insightsof Foucault,who had a more precisegraspof the

contradictions nherent in biopolitical production.RoTTMANN:our criticism concernsprimarily theopposition of Empire and Multitude. But wouldyou in principle agreewith the diagnosisof anexpansionof the biopolitical regime in the courseof which forms of self-regulation have increa-singly become a paradigm of value creation?Orwould you say hat we would need a differentdescriptionof this economizationon the basisofconsiderations egarding biopolitics?leuxe: Well. I should sav irst that I shareanumber of insights hat form the point of depar-ture of Hardt/Negri's considerations, uch as heirobservation hat modern lines of distinction bet-ween nature and culture or between reproductionand production are being torn down. But I thinkit is important to note how, against the backdropof this increasingprecariousness f borders, newborders are continually being created.As I seeit, Hardt/Negri - and not only they - place heaccentprimarily on the processes f removal ofborders and the opportunities they believe hiscreates, nd too little on the dangersand uncer-tainties hat subsequently rise.They do not payenough attention o the dynamism of destabiliza-tion and restabilization.RoTTMANN:ut is not their analysisof contem-porary configurations of the biopolitical correctwith regard o the fact hat, under theeconomicprimacy of self-regulation and self-exploitation,communicative and cognitive capacitiesbecomeproductive orces? speciallywith respect o theart world, as a field of immaterial work where thesubiect must market itself, where the "entrepreneu-rial self" (Ulrich Brockling) must put its entire ifeat the service of production, this diagnosiswouidseem o yield productive categoriesof description.


6/7

MUHLE:Jf coLlrsc t is possi l l le to concei\re h isder.e lopmcnt in ternrs of biopol i t lcs insofar as thcsr-rb jcct , y v ir tue of i ts sel f regr-Llat ion,nscr ibcsitself more and rnorc into p() \\rer even r,r-hilebcl icvrng that i t is f l 'ee,art is t ic , and crcai ivc. Srenin thrs perspect i rc, i t thr .rs i rsters he expansionof the reactr of polr.er. At thc samc tirne, I anr no tcertarn rvhether th is in thc end, rather obviousself l inscr ipt ion into pou.er is the most interest ingaspcct o1'the engagernent vrth b iopol i t rcs.

LEMKE:t rn ight bc uscl i r l in th is context t() g( )back to Folrcaul t 'scc)ncept f the art o{ l iv ing. ItLrnk that the idca ol t rarsfbrnr ing l i fe, t ransfrrrrning onc s o\vll existence into a w()rk (l1 a-rlis prc.rdnct ivensofar as t re jects he not ion o1'detenr in ing natural larvs or au object ive eccrnomic logic. I f th is rcading suggest: j hat \ \ .e ar epcr lDanent l ) rcal led upon tO decodc or- t rsc lves, brinstance as bio logical bcings or as entrepreneur ia lr \ i \ l r r r r r ' . l r r ( ) r r r r | t , 1 l t e r t , , l i r i t r H r r r I l r rs izes nstead the need and frccdorr to developart i f ic ia l concept ions of or .rr e lat ions t() ourselvesand our socral re lat jons. That is , to Dror 'c awayf ionr the not ion of an al l thel t ic sc l l and to lr .arc lthe idea ol an acstbet icr e l f - rvhich shor.r id ot bcrr isunderstood as an arbi t rary cntcrpr ise designedaccording to jndir . idual pref i rences brLt nstcadcc.rnccir .ecls a col lect ive Prolect that prrsLlpposes, , l i , i . . l . , . 1 : , 1 , - , , . f .l ) , r l ( r l d l l C \ , ( t J l I T A l l \ l ( , l l l , l l r l l \ .

RoTTMANN:ou,can th is ic lcaofan "aesthet ics >fthc scl{" in Foucault be thorLght n conj l t rc t ior trv i th the processcs i subjcct i r -at ion,processesrvhose dynanr isrn lv lar ia descr ibcd once againlust nou- r ,r-hen he emphasizcd that tbe sr.rb jectl ) r r i \ r l \ i t t t r n o t i " t t ' l ( r t ' a t i \ i t 1 r l J r - - d , ' r r rrnscr ibes tsc l f 'cr-er i r r ther into the calcul tLs ibio-pou-er? Wtrere does the bordcr lLrn betrveenthis nrodcl o l conf i rnr ing subject i r .at f tn and the

-rcsistant ot ion of the l i fe as a rr 'ork c.r{ 'ar t?

LEMKE: he decis ive c lL lcst ion s the one regardir tgthe cc.rnccpt f f ieedonr. Which restr ic t ior ts arrt i l . t r i l r r J t t l t i s . l r c l1 1 1o i l ( ,| l , ' l r r r a t i r t ) t , , tt rvo havc spoken of? Tci 'vhatextent docs i t abideb). certaur reqLr ircrDcDtso rvhich i t rer-nains bl igcd and by r, i r tue of r ' r 'h ich t is , in thc cnd, st i l l arather \ ,ery l inr i ted idea of creat iv i ty and lreedor l l

M U H L E :O [ t , , | l t \ c . l l l , r c i - J t ] i l | l r d t i \ r J \ l r r r I l othc lbnr of 'creat i r - i t ) u.e spoke o{ car l ier , and th isaspect enders i t opcn to the grasp of porrer. Wernr-rstive freely ancl eal ize oLuseh,cs, tc . St i l l ,the qnest icxr ernai ls intcrcst ing horv processesof subjecLivat ion an be read as resistar) tpract iccs,and r, vhethcr they can be so read at all. BrLt r 'hat$c cannot do is hold on to the not ion that theseresistar lces an bc posi t ioned outs ide of constel lat ions of pou.er. The last tu.o volurncs of Foucault 's

"History of St-xual i t1" 'are of ten read as nply ingthat ForLcault id af ter a l l f rnd his wa) to thcautol lo lnous sublect . bel ieve, hou-er.er, hat \ \ renrust take For.rcaui t 's ic tr-rrn r : r ior .rs lyhat there isno place bt 'yoDd po\\ .er : s trategiesof srLblect iva-t ion can er ist only in a crr t ical cugagernent 'r . i thpolr.er and n()t at a po\\.er free" place.

RoTTMANN:oucarr l tdevclopcd his concept ior ] ofg ( ) \ r r r r t r n r a l i l \n o l c J \ t t r r r t t i t l l r r l g J P r r l r r ' i l 1of theor ies ol l iberal isnr. Has t l re cr .r rrcnt inancialcr is is r 'v l r jch,as gc)vernnre] l ts rLarantec oansand intervelrc irr otLrcr \\ia]rs, can also be interprctccl as a cr is is of market sel i l r r :gr -r latron nd is ina l l \ L a \ c h c i r r , j t t L c r o r c t r , l: a ( r i . i r , , f r t c , , l i h rr lidr :o log1, changed the grasp pol i t ics has on l j fe?Is the f inancial cr is is , seen n t i r is perspect ive,also a cr is is of the bioprol i t ical?

MUHLE: ne n'r ig lr tsay,on thc onc hand, t l rat


7/7

life as a work of art?

is the one regardingWhich restrictions areconcept of creativity you

To what extent does it abideto which it remains obli-

which it is, ln the end, still aof creativity and freedom?

is a normative asPect towe spoke of earlier, and thisto the grasP of Power. We

realize ourselves, etc. Stil l ,interesting how Processesbe read as resistantpract ices,be so read at all. But whaton to the notion that these

outside of constella-last two volumes of Foucault's

are often read as imPlYingall find his way to the

I believe, however, that wedictum seriously that there is

strategiesof subjectiva-in a critical engagement with"power-free" Place.developed his conception of

least n a critical engagementHas the current financial

guarantee loansways, can also be interPre-self-regulation and is in

as a crisis of neoliberalhe grasp politics has on life?seen n th is PersPect ive,

biopolitical?

say,on the one hand, that

the self-regulating system of neoliberalism hascollapsed to the extent that it is dependent on assi-stance rom the state. On the other hand, we wouldhave to say with Foucault that there are alwaysmovements of exchange and different modal itiesof power that intersect and, of course, also supporteach other or play into one another's hands.

LEMKE: he question is whether the financial crisisshould be described as a crisis of self-regulation.There has been a shift for years away from morefar-reaching neoliberal concepts that primarilyemphasize deregulation and denationalizationand toward the idea that siglriflcantly morestate intervention into markets is necessary, forinstance in the Social Democratic idea of an acti-vating wellare state. In this sense, the nationaliza-tion ofindividual banks and new regulatory pro-posals do not mark a clear break. More interestingin this context are concepts such as those presen-ted by the OECD and the EU where the key wordis "knowledge-based bio-economy," conceptsthat combine sustainable economic developmentwith promotion of biotech development andenvironmental policy. These concepts frame anunderstanding of bioeconomics in which theuse, control, and optimizatlon of l ife processesis envisioned as the economically relevant areaof the future. A biopolitically informed socialcritique must analyze such programs, whichcombine challen ges to environmental policy andchanges in capitalist production with processes ofpopulation reguiation and self-government. Thisis where I think there is a critical potential thathas so far remained largely untapped.(Translation: errit ackson)N()ter Thomas Lemke, Biopolitik zur Einfiihrung, Hanrburg zooT

Maria Muhle: Eine Genealogieder Biopolirik. Z rrnr BegrifTdcs Lebensbei Foucault uld Canguilhem, Biclefeld zoo8.

DAVID OSELITPROFILE

It is o long-stonding proctice in economics o developprofiles ond use them to generoteproducts ond creoteodvert is ing qmpoignsusing he doto col lectedon dthe consumer ypes derived rom them. With the boomof "reolity shows" ond the populority of digitot forumssuch os Focebook or Myspoce, he tormot of the profitehos now left the redtm ot clondestin ety-octingcopitolond detinitivetygoined entry into torms of entertoin-mentond communicot ion.

But whot octuolly mokes o protile like those inFocebook, .e. he mediolstogingof one'sown dent i ty ,so ottroctive? Why do thousonds of peoptesubiectthemselves o the selection ond molding processes ofcost ingshows ike Americon dot"? And why do mi l t i -ons of viewers wotch with such greot foscinotion?

We are all profiles patterns of data extractedfrom countless unconscious acts of consumption.This is not the unconscious ofFreud or Lacan, butthat of Claritas PRIZM, a product of Nielsen,' thec o mp a n y ma d e f a mo u s o r r n e a s u r i n g e le v l -sion audiences. Claritas PRIZM has identihed "65demographically and behavioraily distinct typesor segments" among American households. Tliesein c lu d e : "Yo u n g Dig e ra t i , "K id s a n d Cu i -d e -Sa tsand "Heartlanders". According to the company'sp ro mo t i o r ra l i t e ra tu re . Y , )u n gDig c ra L i " , o rinstance, are "the nation's tech savvy singles andcouples living in fashionable neighborhoods on

Documents

Quest-Ce Que La Biopolitique