Biopower and Biopolitics

 

Michel Foucault: Biopolitics and Biopower

What is Biopower and Biopolitics? What is the difference between these two terms according to Foucault?

What is systemic or structural racism? How does it differ from individual racism?

youtube video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=l_QNFbNFw60&feature=emb_logo

youtube video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXmsW1yr4pI&feature=emb_logo

Sample Solution

Regardless of their prominence in modern academic writing, concepts of “biopower” and “biopolitics” are today most elusive, yet possibly the most compelling (Foucault, 2017). This is true considering the amount of interest the concepts have received in recent times (Foucault, 2017. While it is apparent that biopolitics and biopower are determinable from wider “conceptualizations and genealogies of power and governmentality biopolitics is defined as a political rationality which takes the administration of life and populations as its subject: “to ensure, sustain, and multiply life, to put this life in order”.  On the other hand, Biopower delineates the manner in which biopolitics applies to society, and involves “ a very profound transformation of the mechanisms of power’ of the Western classic age.

positioned as housewives whose concerns do not extend beyond the narrow frame of their household “I would cautiously and silently get up take the dust off my husband’s feet without waking him.” (Tagore 18). This effectively removes each woman from matters of the outside world and suggests that there is a sense of privacy and security attached to the domestic household. In doing so, a distinct divide is created between the outside and inside spaces in both texts. This can be seen explicitly in Ibsen’s choice of setting for A Doll’s House, “A comfortably and tastefully, though not expensively, furnished room.” (109), which is clear in its exclusive focus on the middle-class, bourgeoise household. This claustrophobic setting is overt in its marked isolation. It is, at first glance, untouched by the influence of the outside world. However, a close reading of the “tastefully, though not expensively, furnished room.” (109) reveals an unmistakeable consciousness surrounding financial matters. In other words, the pressures of capitalism can already be spotted within the household. In this light, the room’s interiors appear to be a calculated facade imitating comfort yet bearing marks of concern towards matters of wealth and appearance. Mark Sanberg expands upon this idea of innate corruption within the bourgeoise household by stating that Ibsen’s text is concerned with “dislodging the home from its privileged association with domestic ideals and the testing of the “house” as a modern alternative.” (85). Indeed, the distinction between the home and the house is an im

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.