[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.As a result, the claim tohave provided deeper empirical explanations and the promiseof a more comprehensive theoretical and conceptual approachremain largely unfounded and unrealized (Saretzki 1990, 91 92).In starting from the idea that nature is an autonomous systemand a closed sphere, with the conviction that this closed spheredecisively shapes political action, biopoliticians put forward andprolong the very dualism of nature and society whose continuingexistence they also bemoan.A further problem with the biopolitical approach is that repre-sentatives of this type of research pay too li le a ention to symbolicstructures and cultural pa erns of meaning for the investigation ofpolitical processes.Thus, by only treating social phenomena from theperspective of their alignment with natural conditions, they graspli le of what they claim to study.They are not sensitive to the ques-tion of how far sociopolitical evolution affects and changes biologi-cal factors. Biopoliticians therefore see the human being as a prod-uct of biocultural processes of development only, not as a producerof these processes.This one-sided perspective conceals a crucial di-mension in the present discussion of the relationship between natureand society, biology and politics: Life as the Basis of Politics 21At a moment when, with the development of new genetic and re-productive technologies, the capacity has also increased to selec-tively or even constructively shape one s own biological evolutionin totally new dimensions, the point is no longer to become awareof putatively neglected biological conditions. By now, these havebecome contingent in a completely new way.When a society candiscuss the fabrication of nature and human beings made tomeasure, first and foremost the question of the goals of and re-sponsibility for the shaping of nature more and more strongly bysociety becomes important as does an institutional design inwhose framework these new contingencies can be adequately dealtwith.(Saretzki 1990, 110 111; cf.also Esposito 2008, 23 24)This very question, the question of institutional and political formsand the social answers to the question of nature, provides the pointof departure for the second line of inquiry addressing biopolitics. This page intentionally left blank 2Life as an Object of PoliticsEcological BiopoliticsIn the 1960s and early 1970s, the meaning of biopolitics assumedanother form.It was not so much focused on the biological founda-tions of politics but rather disclosed life processes as a new object ofpolitical reflection and action.In light of the ecological crisis that wasincreasingly being addressed by political activists and social move-ments, biopolitics now came to signify policies and regulatory effortsaimed at finding solutions to the global environmental crisis.Theseefforts received an important stimulus from the Report to the Clubof Rome (Meadows et al.1972), which demonstrated through scien-tific modeling and computer simulations the demographic and eco-logical limits of economic growth.The report demanded political in-tervention to halt the destruction of the natural environment.Alongwith growing awareness of the limits of natural resources and anxietyabout the consequences of a population explosion, apocalyptic sce-narios also multiplied.It was postulated that nothing less than life onthe planet and the survival of the human species were at stake.In this context, the concept of biopolitics acquired a new mean-ing.It came to stand for the development of a new field of politicsand political action directed at the preservation of the natural envi-ronment of humanity.This was clear, for example, in the six-volumeseries Politik zwischen Macht und Recht (Politics between Powerand Law) by the German political scientist Dietrich Gunst, who,in addition to writing about the German constitution and foreignpolicy, also dedicated a volume to biopolitics.According to Gunst,23 24 Life as an Object of Politicsbiopolitics embraces anything to do with health policy and the reg-ulation of the population, together with environmental protectionand questions concerning the future of humanity.This political arenain its comprehensive form is comparatively new and takes into con-sideration the fact that questions about life and survival are increas-ingly relevant (1978, 9) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl odbijak.htw.pl
.As a result, the claim tohave provided deeper empirical explanations and the promiseof a more comprehensive theoretical and conceptual approachremain largely unfounded and unrealized (Saretzki 1990, 91 92).In starting from the idea that nature is an autonomous systemand a closed sphere, with the conviction that this closed spheredecisively shapes political action, biopoliticians put forward andprolong the very dualism of nature and society whose continuingexistence they also bemoan.A further problem with the biopolitical approach is that repre-sentatives of this type of research pay too li le a ention to symbolicstructures and cultural pa erns of meaning for the investigation ofpolitical processes.Thus, by only treating social phenomena from theperspective of their alignment with natural conditions, they graspli le of what they claim to study.They are not sensitive to the ques-tion of how far sociopolitical evolution affects and changes biologi-cal factors. Biopoliticians therefore see the human being as a prod-uct of biocultural processes of development only, not as a producerof these processes.This one-sided perspective conceals a crucial di-mension in the present discussion of the relationship between natureand society, biology and politics: Life as the Basis of Politics 21At a moment when, with the development of new genetic and re-productive technologies, the capacity has also increased to selec-tively or even constructively shape one s own biological evolutionin totally new dimensions, the point is no longer to become awareof putatively neglected biological conditions. By now, these havebecome contingent in a completely new way.When a society candiscuss the fabrication of nature and human beings made tomeasure, first and foremost the question of the goals of and re-sponsibility for the shaping of nature more and more strongly bysociety becomes important as does an institutional design inwhose framework these new contingencies can be adequately dealtwith.(Saretzki 1990, 110 111; cf.also Esposito 2008, 23 24)This very question, the question of institutional and political formsand the social answers to the question of nature, provides the pointof departure for the second line of inquiry addressing biopolitics. This page intentionally left blank 2Life as an Object of PoliticsEcological BiopoliticsIn the 1960s and early 1970s, the meaning of biopolitics assumedanother form.It was not so much focused on the biological founda-tions of politics but rather disclosed life processes as a new object ofpolitical reflection and action.In light of the ecological crisis that wasincreasingly being addressed by political activists and social move-ments, biopolitics now came to signify policies and regulatory effortsaimed at finding solutions to the global environmental crisis.Theseefforts received an important stimulus from the Report to the Clubof Rome (Meadows et al.1972), which demonstrated through scien-tific modeling and computer simulations the demographic and eco-logical limits of economic growth.The report demanded political in-tervention to halt the destruction of the natural environment.Alongwith growing awareness of the limits of natural resources and anxietyabout the consequences of a population explosion, apocalyptic sce-narios also multiplied.It was postulated that nothing less than life onthe planet and the survival of the human species were at stake.In this context, the concept of biopolitics acquired a new mean-ing.It came to stand for the development of a new field of politicsand political action directed at the preservation of the natural envi-ronment of humanity.This was clear, for example, in the six-volumeseries Politik zwischen Macht und Recht (Politics between Powerand Law) by the German political scientist Dietrich Gunst, who,in addition to writing about the German constitution and foreignpolicy, also dedicated a volume to biopolitics.According to Gunst,23 24 Life as an Object of Politicsbiopolitics embraces anything to do with health policy and the reg-ulation of the population, together with environmental protectionand questions concerning the future of humanity.This political arenain its comprehensive form is comparatively new and takes into con-sideration the fact that questions about life and survival are increas-ingly relevant (1978, 9) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]