What does Bio-power mean for Foucault? How might observations on this subject be relevant for the study of contemporary societies?
As one of the leading social theorists of the 20th century, much of Michel Foucault’s work is focused on power. Specifically, Foucault was concerned with power over life: bio-power. Subtle and effective, it is bio-power that stands apart from his work on other concepts such as discipline and governmentality. More subconscious and internal, bio-power is an intensification of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, in which power is ‘imposed from the outside, controlled from the inside’ (Foucault, 1995: 152). Whereas the major effect of the Panopticon is ‘to induce in the inmate a state of consciousness and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power’ (Foucault, 1995: 201), bio-power is the notion that ‘the exercise of power is so subtly present’ (Foucault, 1995: 201). It is this element of bio-power that is relevant to contemporary sociology - it discretely corrects and moulds the individual, arguably on an increasing scale in modern society. To understand the relevance of bio-power, we can look firstly on a domestic level at sex, women’s health and the body, secondly on a broader, more international level at suicide and terrorism, nationalism and governmentality, and thirdly, at Marx and Foucault’s understanding of the relationship between bio-power and capitalism. Many would attempt to claim that we have greater personal autonomy in the modern world, yet, in examining contemporary society, we see the extent to which almost every aspect of life is, in fact, influenced by bio-power.
It is impossible to assess the relevance of bio-power to contemporary sociology, without also looking at bio-politics. Though Foucault struggles at times to provide a history of the transition from disciplinary power to bio-power to governmentality, in 21st century society, all three undoubtedly exist, and while it is important to recognise that disciplinary power is the first pole of bio-power, the second pole is the bio-politics of the population. From regulatory controls such as administration, bio-politics target the social body, rather than just the individual body, and its power is bolstered by normalizing features, especially the promotion of the norm of life – a fundamental element of bio-power. In such, it develops the right to protect and control life, even if, controversially, that means taking away life of people in other states. Indeed, interestingly, while previously sovereign power was more focused on regulation, the right to take away life, as a result of capitalism, a transition within bio-power, with ‘the calculated management of life’ (Foucault, 1990: 141) as it’s focus, has occurred. Foucault argues that ‘bio-power is an indispensible element in the development of capitalism.’ (Foucault, 1990: 141), and it is the corrective and transformative power, involving specific strategies linked to the bio-politics of nationalism and statehood, that promotes the importance of being alive in a certain way – that is arguably the fundamental feature and guiding principle of society today.
Exactly how does this ‘norm of life’ arise? Throughout much of his work, Foucault analyses the concept of bio-power – from how the body is taught to act in certain ways to the disciplining of the population as a whole. Though he describes a bio-political society as one ‘in which political power has assigned itself the task of administering life’ (Foucault, 1990, 139), Foucault doesn’t account for the fact that the state only gives itself a duty of care in certain situations. This is particularly evident in the inconsistency of care in government operations across the world, with the Israeli government giving birth-control shots to female Jewish immigrants from Ethiopia (The Independent, 2013) without their knowledge as a particularly shocking example of how public health campaigns can have a dark side. Indeed, it is interesting how the welfare of the population serves as the ultimate stated goal of government, can be used to justify all kinds of measures, good or bad. Yet, perhaps even more interestingly, ‘a normalizing society [which] is the historical outcome of a technology of power centred on life’ (Foucault, 1990: 144) only works if people cooperate. This cooperation essentially results from a shared agreement to be alive in a certain way, following a culture of rules and regulations, ‘a power whose task is to take charge of life, [and] needs continuous regulatory and corrective mechanisms.’ (Foucault, 1990: 144). The two key mechanisms: discipline and regulation are intrinsically interlinked – while regulation is primarily state controls such as norms created by laws, disciplines are arguably more individualised, an internalisation of norms by individuals and populations. In contemporary society, individuals continuously internalise norms, maintaining the importance of bio-power in society.
In understanding the relevance of bio-power in contemporary society, it is worth assessing the role of sex in the control of life. Sex, the source of life, is integral to many norms in society, and it is important to understand the extent to which bio-power shapes the norms of sex. Foucault argued that ‘sex was a means of access both to the life of the body and the life of the species’ (Foucault, 1990: 146), as it combined the objective of disciplining the body and that of regulating populations. In such, sex became a crucial target of a power organised around the management of life rather than the menace of death: in protecting it’s citizens, the state became concerned with sex, and the role that medical knowledge plays in bio-power. From anti-natal classes caring for the baby pre-birth, to breast milk promotion, the issuance of sexual health advice to the provision of condoms in NHS clinics, the state is transfixed with ensuring the health of its citizens, the promotion and creation of a fit, population, able to function ‘properly’ in society. The importance of sex in bio-power is perhaps most obvious in a heterosexual pro-creating couple, who fit the norm of sex relations in society, supporting the idea that the ‘normally sexed make sexuality’ (Jackson, Scott, 2002: 16). Indeed, as stated by D.H.Lawrence, today, the full conscious realisation of sex is even more important than the act itself. (Foucault, 1990: 157). The bio-power within sexuality is that in the ‘normally sexed’ creation of sexuality, individuals become aware of the norm, and aware that, to be other is to be deviant, to be subverting the power construction expressed and adhered to by society. In the context of a world that promotes life, the norm of heterosexuality – sex relations through which life can be created, is a telling example of the subtleties of bio-power, seeping into even the most intimate aspects of life.
Bio-politics is increasingly evident in relation to women’s health and bodies. Bartky argues that ‘the disciplinary power that is increasingly charged with the production of a properly embodied femininity is dispersed and anonymous; there are no individuals formally empowered to wield it; it is, as we have seen, invested in everyone and in no one in particular’ (Bartky, 1988: 80). From the way that they sit on public transport, to the way they view themselves, or live their lives, women are continuously subject to the subtle forces of bio-power, a ‘machinery of power that explores, breaks [the female body] down and rearranges it’. From an early age, girls become aware of the role they are expected to play in society – that bossiness is unattractive, certain sports unfeminine, not simply a whole alternative, but an extra set of unspoken rules, not expected of men. Such rules and attitudes are built into the female experience, with ‘disciplinary techniques through which the ‘docile bodies’ of women are constructed aim at a regulation that is perpetual and exhaustive – a regulation of the body’s size and contours, its appetite, posture, gestures and general comportment in space, and the appearance of each of its visible parts’ (Bartky, 1988: 80). Bartky describes this disciplinary power as ‘peculiarly modern’, yet it’s peculiarity can be contested in the context of biopower – it is arguably a true representation of the concept - ‘it does not rely upon violent or public sanctions’ (Bartky, 1988: 80), and yet the disciplinary nature is undeniable. Similar to sex, it is this innate power over the lives of women that remains in contemporary society that illustrates the continuing relevance of bio-power.
Though it could be argued that the government’s care to mould women in a certain way is a purely paternalistic exercise in the subordination of women, if analysed in relation to sex as a life source, it could be argued that the creation of norms such as breast-feeding, or the irresponsibility of smoking whilst pregnant are for the benefit of women and their unborn children. Given that women are the bearers of children, the carriers of the future population, for a nation’s people to remain, the importance of the health of women is crucially important. In this sense, as Foucault stated, ‘the mechanisms of power are addressed to the body, to life’ (Foucault, 1990:147), yet it is important to also consider darker side of such care, as seen earlier in the example of the Ethiopian Jewish women given birth control shots. For Rose, medicine is ‘the oldest site where one can observe the play of truth, power and ethics in relation to the subject’ (Rose, Rainbow, 2003: 8), and there are undoubtedly instances where the power claiming to stake care does so in a negative, or violent way, for example force feeding women who are on hunger strike. Bio-power is not necessarily a negative, but its benevolence must not be assumed, it’s motives always questioned.
On a broader, more global level, the relevance of bio-power is evident in the sociology of international relations. Analysing the element of ‘protection’ within bio-power, it becomes evident that the state’s protection of the lives of its people can mean taking away the lives of those from other states. More controversially, is the concept of suicide, that of terrorists and civilians, an act so problematic for governments that promote the normality of ‘life’. Baudrillard states that ‘today, it is not normal to be dead, and this is new’ (Baudrillard, 1990, 126), indeed, death marks the limit of power to control your life, and the desire to take your own life juxtaposes the official power’s desire to take care of life. Suicide, argues Foucault, ‘was one way to usurp the power of death’ (Foucault, 1990: 138), not only that, but it is one way to usurp the power of the state. In such, we are saying that in life it is almost impossible to not be under the power of the state – if death marks the end of bio-power, then life must be bio-power. Indeed, we continue to view the preservation of life as of singular importance in society - we are conditioned to be fearful of death. We define life as the opposite of death, yet contemporary society, in giving extreme importance to life, ignores its vital importance in the creation of life.
Returning to the idea that due to the protection of the people in a state, the lives of those with other nationalities may be compromised is integral to Foucault’s understanding of bio-power and governmentality. Though Foucault argues that previously, ‘the sovereign exercised his life only by exercising his right to kill’ (Foucault, 1990: 136), arguably, this remains today, with the fact that ‘entire populations are mobilised for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity’. For Foucault, it is only through racism that political power that is supposed to foster life, takes so much life, illustrated in his argument that ‘it is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to manage so many wars, causing so many man to be killed’ (Foucault, 1990: 137). Racism is at the heart of bio-power, argues Foucault, and arguably, the construction of nations, in which members are conditioned into having a certain identity, affects how individuals carry themselves on a daily basis, but also their attitudes towards others. Indeed, looking at bio-power in such a context, we see it as the desire to preserve your nation, regardless of the efforts needed to do so, and a reminder that the care of the state is not extended any further than the boundaries of the nation. Though with the creation of the multi-national bodies such as the EU and the UN, it could be argued that the role of states is changing in a globalized society and increasingly cosmopolitan world, currently, such changes have not negated the extreme importance of bio-power specific to individual nations.
It is also in the governmentality of the state that we see bio-power. ‘Since the sixteenth century, a new political form of power has been continuously developing. This new political structure…is the state’ (Foucault, 2000, 782). Indeed, the state has undoubtedly developed over the past 500 years, with an increased focus on the duty of care towards the population. Foucault argues that ‘the state’s power is both an individualising and a totalising form of power.’ (Foucault, 2000, 782), and though it is often easy to assume that power is a negative relationship, it is worth acknowledging that power works best in benevolent relationship, and isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, a commonly subtle form of power is the family, with bio-power resulting from accumulating norms through the family model, tactics of compliance and power through the family, rather than an explicitly state based model. It is for this reason that deviant parents are such sources of moral panic – without an extension of the state within the family, the effectiveness of the government’s laws significantly decreases. ‘With government, it is of imposing tactics, rather than laws.’ (Foucault, 1990, 211) Indeed, while laws are more obvious, arguably, tactics are more effective – laws need tactics to be successful. Without the bio-power found in the family model, the ability of the state to govern the population and ensure the ‘normal’ functioning of individuals’ lives in our fast-paced and intricately woven contemporary society would be severely compromised.
This new political form of power is undeniably linked to the development of capitalism - historically, bio-politics emerged as regulation of populations to respond to the needs of economic development and the reproduction of future workers. In this vein, Marx’s assertion that the ‘ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling class’ (Marx, 1845: 64) is remarkably apt – it is true that the ruling class have the power to enforce their ideas. Knowledge is power, and the relationships that can be established between people, create a social and internal conditioning. Not only do we assume that labourers have greater things on their mind than ideology, but also that perhaps in their fear of being ‘watched’, they lack the luxury of being able to think freely of different concepts and ideas to shape society. Often the general norms of society are not questioned, or rather than not being questioned, it is that people are generally not in a position to change them. This lack of change highlights the importance of bio-power in the continuation of and cooperation in the promotion of capitalism. Marx states that ‘the special productive power of the combined working day is, the social productive power of labour. This power is due to cooperation itself.’ (Marx, 1867, 69) Indeed, bio-power is vital for capitalism to function – people have an innate understanding of the ‘right’ thing to do: the normality of going to work, doing a good job, etc. and in contemporary society it is abnormal to doing anything other than this.
Foucault continues the Marxist analysis, looking at the control that bio-power creates, and the relationship that discipline, and subsequently bio-power has with capitalism. Rather than simply establishing the relationship, Foucault goes further than Marx, illustrating specific ways in which this bio-power is established, arguing for ‘bio-power as [an] indispensible element in the development of capitalism’ (Foucault, 1990: 141). Furthermore, the factors of segregation and social hierarchization, both integral to capitalism and bio-power, the idea of domination in society in explicit, but also subtle forms: from the knowledge that the Prime Minister of a country has a higher status than a bin man, but also a more innate awareness of how you should conduct yourself in relation to others of different statuses. In Docile Bodies, Foucault looks at the history of ‘dociliity’ – the extent to which humans can be subjected, used, transformed and improved.’ Within this history, he focuses on the role played by institutions, such as the army, the school and the workplace, in this process of disciplining, and how ‘time’ is used to discipline humans. Moreover, Foucault discusses the discrete nature of disciplines as a formula for domination, describing it as ‘more subtle than slavery’ (Foucault, 1977: 160), and assesses the element of time involved in power, stating that it ‘is articulated directly onto time, it assures its control and guarantees its use.’ (Foucault, 1995: 160). Foucault links it to capitalism, stating that bio-power is ‘administering time and making it useful’ (Foucault, 1995: 160) and that most notably, ‘this carefully measured combination of forces requires a precise system of command. The order does not need to be explained of formulated, it must trigger off the required behaviour.’ (Foucault, 1995: 166). Bio-power is successful in that in contemporary society it needs no prompting factor, it controls in itself.
Foucault’s bio-power is best understood in relation to Panopticism. For successful Panopticism, a watch- tower is required - in bio-power, however, there is no need for such apparatus – everything is the watch- tower, as power has been internalised to such a degree that the individual instils their own discipline. It is this internalisation that is integral to bio-power, with Foucault stating that ‘power can be assured only if it can be exercised continuously in the very foundations of society in the subtlest possible way’ (Foucault, 1995: 208). Such aspects of power are undoubtedly apparent in contemporary society. This creation of the docile body, ‘a body that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved’ (Foucault, 1995: 136) is exceptionally elusive, viewed as ‘rationalised attempts to intervene on the vital characteristics of human existence’ (Rose, Rainbow, 2003: 3). Efforts to determine these vital characteristics come in many forms – government tactics, laws, family traditions, but is it the underlying creation of societal norms that arguably is the most subtly obvious, and important element of bio-power in contemporary society. Bio-power is successful only when norms are internalised, and with the promotion of the norm of life, and the norms within life, increasingly possible in a world of mass-media and communication, bio-power is more effective than ever before.
Bibliography
1. Bartky (1988) Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power," in Feminism and Foucault: Paths of Resistance. (Northeastern Univ. Press, 1988), pp. 61-86.
2. Baudrillard (1975) The Mirror of Production
3. Foucault, M (1990) The History of Sexuality (France: Editions Gallimard)
4. Foucault, M (1995) Discipline and Punish (France: Gallimard)
5. Foucault, M (2000) Power, Volume III (New York: The New Press)
6. Jackson, S, Scott, S (2002) Gender: a sociological reader (London: Routledge)
7. Marx, K (1845) The German Ideology (London)
8. Marx, K (1867) Capital, Volume I (Synergy International of The Americas, Limited)
9. The Independent 27/01/13 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html
10. Rose, N, Rainbow, P (2003) Thoughts of the Concept of Bio-power Today (London, California)