Foucault And Biopower
Lock up the unemployed, single mothers, defrocked priests, prostitutes and those living on welfare. This would be a new edict if Foucault’s concept of biopower were to be put into practice. Biopower is defined by the French scholar, historian, and social theorist, Michel Foucault, as institutional control over life and death of the human species particularly those who were deemed to be “socially unproductive or disruptive”. He has argued that it is a long-term result of the 17th century Cartesian mechanization of nature and can be considered dangerous. Or is it? If one has the power of manipulation over life, and death, is that truly dangerous? Should someone have the power to be able to give, extend, or end a life? Is it overall helping or
…show more content…
harming humanity?
The subject of bio power, or the idea of someone having the power to control another, has been around since the Stone Age. The stronger and wiser caveman ruled over the younger and weaker caveman. The ability to “control” or manipulate someone is still seen in present day. Bosses, coaches, and professors have the ability to “control” through rewards and punishments. Do well and get a raise; perform well in sports and be put into play more often; and, in class, participate, turn in good work and get passing grades. Conversely, the consequences are: work poorly and get fired; perform badly and get traded; and ignore assignments and fail, get put on probation, or get kicked out of school. It all seems to relate back to social anarchy, and who is on top of the “popularity ladder”. The word or expression “Bio power”, however, was coined by Michel Foucault. Foucault was interested in the regime of power he saw rising, which he termed “bio-power” or the power that governments and institutions exercised over man. Foucault took interest in the objectification of a human subject, and how knowledge became power specifically, the idea of how it could be used for the wrong reasons.
Foucault was also interested in how the human body can be manipulated, formed, and exploited by institutions such as schools, military, hospitals, prisons or asylums.
Specifically, he studied the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in France, which was little more than a warehouse. It was merely an institution or a dumping ground that gathered the imperfect people: the poor, the sick and the insane. It served as a prison for prostitutes and a holding place for the mentally disabled, criminally insane, epileptics, and the poor. Today, this would have been considered demoralizing to even exist. However, what is so different about this “hospital” than today’s prison? Society is still corrupt to this day; however, things are dealt with in a slightly different way. It used to be acceptable to lock up anyone who was different in a building and make them stay there to rot away. Today, the sick are put in medical hospitals and the criminally insane are imprisoned, or roaming the streets, since there are no longer long term institutions such as the Pitié-Salpêtrière. The poor are put on the streets or in …show more content…
shelters.
Dualism, specifically “Cartesian dualism”, can be defined as the view that the world consists of two fundamental entities such as mind and matter. AllAbout Philosophy.org explains Cartisian dualism as:
“Almost 2,000 years after Plato and Aristotle reasoned that the human mind or soul could not be identified with the physical body, Rene Descartes reinforced this concept and gave it a name, dualism. The word “Cartesius” is simply the Latin form of the name Descartes. Consequently, Cartesian dualism is simply Descartes concept of dualism”.
René Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, is infamous for “Cogito ergo sum” , which translates, “I think, therefore I am”, or “I am thinking, therefore I exist”. He believed that the only certain knowledge the mind can have is through contemplating the truth of its own existence. The result was a mind/body dualism that led to a mechanistic worldview. In essence, we are as machines, driven by forces outside of our own control. The worldview is blamed for the industrial age and the current exploitation of nature by man. Descartes believed that the mind and body must exist separately, rather than coexisting as one. Due to Descartes distinction between mind and body, the concept of a dualism between the immaterial mind and the material body was conceived. This left us with the question, “How do the body and the mind interact?” It then led to two distinct branches of thought in philosophy: Materialism and Determinism, and Rationalism. The first branch of philosophy, Materialism and Determinism, consists of the idea that only matter is real and all else is an illusion or arises from material causes. The other branch of philosophy, Rationalism, consisted of the idea that only the mind exists.
Today, scientists and doctors have the power of life and death in the palm of their hands. They can be provided with the power to decide whether to fertilize, or sterilize a human being. Doctors have the power to create life through artificial means of invitro-fertilization. The hospitals gain fame and money from parents who would desire that same favorable outcome perhaps with little regard to the health of the baby. Some may say if a woman cannot produce a child through natural means that it was not meant to be. In addition there exists technology for gene manipulation in embryos where disease, specified traits and even the desired sex can be selected or rejected. While this can provide a positive situation in that a child free from a potentially lethal disease can be born, some parents may choose to take any baby that could be born regardless of the health. The doctor can objectify the baby in order to show that he can “create” a baby free from disease with whatever traits he wants to create without consulting the parents, thus supporting Foucault’s belief that there could be a manipulation of scientific knowledge for the sake of power over humanity.
The power of life and death is in the palms of our hands. Scientists, doctors, police, and even we, have the remarkable ability to save or end a life. Although it may seem unthinkable for some to end a life or harm a person, mankind is capable of carrying out gruesome activities. A human being has the ability to bite off their own pinky finger; however, the brain will not allow it. It is only in dire circumstances where is can be possible, as in the case of Aron Ralston, the hiker who forced himself to cut off his own forearm with a dull pocketknife in order to free himself after being trapped alone for days under an 800-pound boulder.
This is where I believe Descartes’s mind/body dualism is incorrect. If your mind consciously thinks, “Do not do this”, your body responds to your mind by not completing the action. The mind and body must in fact exist together. Although Descartes may interpret the mind as something else besides your brain thinking, the brain (mind) and the nervous system (body) work together to prevent possible danger and pain.
In a second modern example that relates to medical ethics, a doctor, once again has power, but in this case in a slightly different arena and with different benefactors. The capability to give, extend, or end a life. Although the Hippocratic Oath historically taken by new doctors pledges one to treat sick patients to the best of their ability, in some states this now may include the need to assist in ending a life, or alternately attempting to extend a life by artificial means (i.e. putting brain-dead patients on life support machines which breathe for the patient). This is why Foucault calls scientists, ‘the “specific intellectuals” upon whom our future depends’. Should all sicknesses be treated equally? Does a doctor’s prognosis that a patient has three months to live justify deciding between providing or withholding treatment? How does a doctor justify that fine line between choosing excessive expensive and often painful treatment versus assisting in ending the pain versus doing nothing in an effort to allow the terminally ill patient go to a natural death? In the case of clinical trials, a doctor may suggest enrolling the patient when the body rejects traditional treatment options. For example, a cancer patient whose body has rejected chemotherapy or radiation may be offered the opportunity to participate in such a trial. However, there is no guarantee that they will even be accepted into a trial, or even given the real drug. Trials have specific criteria that determine whether a patient qualifies or not. If a patient is not sick enough, they will not be accepted. If a patient is too sick, or too close to the end of the given prognosis, they will not be accepted. Who decides between what is not sick enough and what is too sick. To leave it for doctors to decide would be considered bias. How does a professional choose who gets to live and who gets to die? The patient who a doctor has grown close to or children, would be favored upon to be selected. On the other hand, the files of patients who doctors do not like or are considered “bad people” would be thrown away or omitted. Given the methodology of clinical trials in which some patients receive the actual drug full strength, others a lesser amount or even others still are given a placebo/inactive drug, usually a sugar pill or a saline injection, there are no guarantees and patients are given false hopes. The assignment of who gets into which group is supposed to be assigned anonymously to avoid bias. But are they really anonymous? Doctors have historically received kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing certain drugs or treatments. Is it fair that only certain people get the real drug? Do the less sick or too sick not deserve treatment or do those who could be helped most by the new medicine deserve to be in the placebo group?
The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest funder of clinical trials in the U.S., but there is little financial incentive for Big Pharma to be honest about trial results.
Big Pharma funds 60 percent of all clinical trials, and it takes advantage of the power to persuade researchers and influence institutions. The byproducts of industry cover ups are massive numbers of deaths corresponding with millions of dollars in industry profits. Big Pharma is also responsible for killing more people than motor vehicle accidents. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pharmaceutical drugs, specifically prescribed opioids such as Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and Methadone are responsible for more than 165,000 deaths from 1999 to 2014. Each year, the number of overdoses from prescribed opioids increases. So the question that it comes down to is: Should we trust a company that doesn’t tell the truth and is in it for the money, rather than to help sick people? Currently, addiction is at an all-time high. The more drugs the pharmaceutical industry produces and sells, the more money they earn. Whether the drugs are being prescribed or are bought on the street, the money all goes back for Big Pharma to profit. The high increase and rate of addiction is not unfamiliar to Big Pharma. So why do doctors still have the ability to prescribe high-dose opioids like they are candy. The Big Pharma conspiracy suggests that the pharmaceutical industry is purely out for the money, and
does, in fact, not care about the human good. It is similar to the conspiracy against Big Pharma that cancer cures are being suppressed in favor of the multi-billion dollar cancer drug industry. If there was a cure for cancer, would it even be released? However, these conspiracies have been knocked down by the companies themselves (of course), and not all industries are created equal. A non-profit research facility for example, may have different plans on what do with their income and their basis for research (education) versus a for profit facility (money).
All of the above controversial issues support Foucault’s idea that there can be a manipulation of scientific knowledge for the sake of power over humanity. It also provides significant substance to illustrate Foucault’s theory that biopower is dangerous. If big industries are out for each other, and purely focused on money, are buyers and patients getting their money’s worth? If doctors are prescribing unnecessary drugs, ordering excessive scans, blood work, etc. that cost patients hundreds or thousands of dollars out of their pocket, who is benefiting more? The patients who may or may not be cured and owe companies thousands of dollars, or the company who just profited thousands of dollars from one patient? Is the cure worth the cost if the cost does not provide a cure? The power to decide is truly a danger to us all.
harming humanity?
The subject of bio power, or the idea of someone having the power to control another, has been around since the Stone Age. The stronger and wiser caveman ruled over the younger and weaker caveman. The ability to “control” or manipulate someone is still seen in present day. Bosses, coaches, and professors have the ability to “control” through rewards and punishments. Do well and get a raise; perform well in sports and be put into play more often; and, in class, participate, turn in good work and get passing grades. Conversely, the consequences are: work poorly and get fired; perform badly and get traded; and ignore assignments and fail, get put on probation, or get kicked out of school. It all seems to relate back to social anarchy, and who is on top of the “popularity ladder”. The word or expression “Bio power”, however, was coined by Michel Foucault. Foucault was interested in the regime of power he saw rising, which he termed “bio-power” or the power that governments and institutions exercised over man. Foucault took interest in the objectification of a human subject, and how knowledge became power specifically, the idea of how it could be used for the wrong reasons.
Foucault was also interested in how the human body can be manipulated, formed, and exploited by institutions such as schools, military, hospitals, prisons or asylums.
Specifically, he studied the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in France, which was little more than a warehouse. It was merely an institution or a dumping ground that gathered the imperfect people: the poor, the sick and the insane. It served as a prison for prostitutes and a holding place for the mentally disabled, criminally insane, epileptics, and the poor. Today, this would have been considered demoralizing to even exist. However, what is so different about this “hospital” than today’s prison? Society is still corrupt to this day; however, things are dealt with in a slightly different way. It used to be acceptable to lock up anyone who was different in a building and make them stay there to rot away. Today, the sick are put in medical hospitals and the criminally insane are imprisoned, or roaming the streets, since there are no longer long term institutions such as the Pitié-Salpêtrière. The poor are put on the streets or in …show more content…
shelters.
Dualism, specifically “Cartesian dualism”, can be defined as the view that the world consists of two fundamental entities such as mind and matter. AllAbout Philosophy.org explains Cartisian dualism as:
“Almost 2,000 years after Plato and Aristotle reasoned that the human mind or soul could not be identified with the physical body, Rene Descartes reinforced this concept and gave it a name, dualism. The word “Cartesius” is simply the Latin form of the name Descartes. Consequently, Cartesian dualism is simply Descartes concept of dualism”.
René Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, is infamous for “Cogito ergo sum” , which translates, “I think, therefore I am”, or “I am thinking, therefore I exist”. He believed that the only certain knowledge the mind can have is through contemplating the truth of its own existence. The result was a mind/body dualism that led to a mechanistic worldview. In essence, we are as machines, driven by forces outside of our own control. The worldview is blamed for the industrial age and the current exploitation of nature by man. Descartes believed that the mind and body must exist separately, rather than coexisting as one. Due to Descartes distinction between mind and body, the concept of a dualism between the immaterial mind and the material body was conceived. This left us with the question, “How do the body and the mind interact?” It then led to two distinct branches of thought in philosophy: Materialism and Determinism, and Rationalism. The first branch of philosophy, Materialism and Determinism, consists of the idea that only matter is real and all else is an illusion or arises from material causes. The other branch of philosophy, Rationalism, consisted of the idea that only the mind exists.
Today, scientists and doctors have the power of life and death in the palm of their hands. They can be provided with the power to decide whether to fertilize, or sterilize a human being. Doctors have the power to create life through artificial means of invitro-fertilization. The hospitals gain fame and money from parents who would desire that same favorable outcome perhaps with little regard to the health of the baby. Some may say if a woman cannot produce a child through natural means that it was not meant to be. In addition there exists technology for gene manipulation in embryos where disease, specified traits and even the desired sex can be selected or rejected. While this can provide a positive situation in that a child free from a potentially lethal disease can be born, some parents may choose to take any baby that could be born regardless of the health. The doctor can objectify the baby in order to show that he can “create” a baby free from disease with whatever traits he wants to create without consulting the parents, thus supporting Foucault’s belief that there could be a manipulation of scientific knowledge for the sake of power over humanity.
The power of life and death is in the palms of our hands. Scientists, doctors, police, and even we, have the remarkable ability to save or end a life. Although it may seem unthinkable for some to end a life or harm a person, mankind is capable of carrying out gruesome activities. A human being has the ability to bite off their own pinky finger; however, the brain will not allow it. It is only in dire circumstances where is can be possible, as in the case of Aron Ralston, the hiker who forced himself to cut off his own forearm with a dull pocketknife in order to free himself after being trapped alone for days under an 800-pound boulder.
This is where I believe Descartes’s mind/body dualism is incorrect. If your mind consciously thinks, “Do not do this”, your body responds to your mind by not completing the action. The mind and body must in fact exist together. Although Descartes may interpret the mind as something else besides your brain thinking, the brain (mind) and the nervous system (body) work together to prevent possible danger and pain.
In a second modern example that relates to medical ethics, a doctor, once again has power, but in this case in a slightly different arena and with different benefactors. The capability to give, extend, or end a life. Although the Hippocratic Oath historically taken by new doctors pledges one to treat sick patients to the best of their ability, in some states this now may include the need to assist in ending a life, or alternately attempting to extend a life by artificial means (i.e. putting brain-dead patients on life support machines which breathe for the patient). This is why Foucault calls scientists, ‘the “specific intellectuals” upon whom our future depends’. Should all sicknesses be treated equally? Does a doctor’s prognosis that a patient has three months to live justify deciding between providing or withholding treatment? How does a doctor justify that fine line between choosing excessive expensive and often painful treatment versus assisting in ending the pain versus doing nothing in an effort to allow the terminally ill patient go to a natural death? In the case of clinical trials, a doctor may suggest enrolling the patient when the body rejects traditional treatment options. For example, a cancer patient whose body has rejected chemotherapy or radiation may be offered the opportunity to participate in such a trial. However, there is no guarantee that they will even be accepted into a trial, or even given the real drug. Trials have specific criteria that determine whether a patient qualifies or not. If a patient is not sick enough, they will not be accepted. If a patient is too sick, or too close to the end of the given prognosis, they will not be accepted. Who decides between what is not sick enough and what is too sick. To leave it for doctors to decide would be considered bias. How does a professional choose who gets to live and who gets to die? The patient who a doctor has grown close to or children, would be favored upon to be selected. On the other hand, the files of patients who doctors do not like or are considered “bad people” would be thrown away or omitted. Given the methodology of clinical trials in which some patients receive the actual drug full strength, others a lesser amount or even others still are given a placebo/inactive drug, usually a sugar pill or a saline injection, there are no guarantees and patients are given false hopes. The assignment of who gets into which group is supposed to be assigned anonymously to avoid bias. But are they really anonymous? Doctors have historically received kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing certain drugs or treatments. Is it fair that only certain people get the real drug? Do the less sick or too sick not deserve treatment or do those who could be helped most by the new medicine deserve to be in the placebo group?
The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest funder of clinical trials in the U.S., but there is little financial incentive for Big Pharma to be honest about trial results.
Big Pharma funds 60 percent of all clinical trials, and it takes advantage of the power to persuade researchers and influence institutions. The byproducts of industry cover ups are massive numbers of deaths corresponding with millions of dollars in industry profits. Big Pharma is also responsible for killing more people than motor vehicle accidents. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pharmaceutical drugs, specifically prescribed opioids such as Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and Methadone are responsible for more than 165,000 deaths from 1999 to 2014. Each year, the number of overdoses from prescribed opioids increases. So the question that it comes down to is: Should we trust a company that doesn’t tell the truth and is in it for the money, rather than to help sick people? Currently, addiction is at an all-time high. The more drugs the pharmaceutical industry produces and sells, the more money they earn. Whether the drugs are being prescribed or are bought on the street, the money all goes back for Big Pharma to profit. The high increase and rate of addiction is not unfamiliar to Big Pharma. So why do doctors still have the ability to prescribe high-dose opioids like they are candy. The Big Pharma conspiracy suggests that the pharmaceutical industry is purely out for the money, and
does, in fact, not care about the human good. It is similar to the conspiracy against Big Pharma that cancer cures are being suppressed in favor of the multi-billion dollar cancer drug industry. If there was a cure for cancer, would it even be released? However, these conspiracies have been knocked down by the companies themselves (of course), and not all industries are created equal. A non-profit research facility for example, may have different plans on what do with their income and their basis for research (education) versus a for profit facility (money).
All of the above controversial issues support Foucault’s idea that there can be a manipulation of scientific knowledge for the sake of power over humanity. It also provides significant substance to illustrate Foucault’s theory that biopower is dangerous. If big industries are out for each other, and purely focused on money, are buyers and patients getting their money’s worth? If doctors are prescribing unnecessary drugs, ordering excessive scans, blood work, etc. that cost patients hundreds or thousands of dollars out of their pocket, who is benefiting more? The patients who may or may not be cured and owe companies thousands of dollars, or the company who just profited thousands of dollars from one patient? Is the cure worth the cost if the cost does not provide a cure? The power to decide is truly a danger to us all.