On biopolitical subjectivity: Michel Foucaultʼs perspective on biopolitics and its semiotic aspects
Kuupäev
2018-10-30
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Kuidas suhestuvad omavahel eluprotsessid ja tähendusloome? Biosemiootilisest vaatenurgast lähtudes võib elu määratleda semioosi alusel. Elutus maailmas tähendust ei eksisteeri. Tähenduste maailma ning elusa sfääri kokkulangevus muudab üllatavaks asjaolu, et biopoliitika ja biovõimu mõisteid on semiootikas niivõrd vähe käsitletud. Ometi on Michel Foucault' – nende mõistete kasutuselevõtja – üldisem võimukäsitlus poliitilise semiootika arengu oluliseks mõjutajaks.
Doktoritöö eesmärgiks on uurida biopoliitika ja semiootika võimalikke ühenduspunkte. Sobivaimaks vaatepunktiks selle täitmiseks on Michel Foucault' oma. Tema arusaam biopoliitikast kui normalisatsiooni alusel toimivast valitsemisloogikast annab võimaluse tõlgendada elu haaramist võimu dispositiividesse või -aparaatidesse subjektide konstrueerimisena. See tähendab, biopoliitilises valitsemises konstrueeritakse normaliseeritud ning normaliseeritavat subjektsust. Aktiivne subjektivatsioon – eneseloome – toimub vastusena juba eksisteerivatele ja normaliseeritud subjektipositsioonidele. Normid on aga alati semiootilised vahendused, normide loomine on märgiline protsess.
Normaliseeritud subjektsuse (subjektistamine) ja aktiivse eneseloome (subjektivatsioon) vahelist dialektilist suhet ei tohiks taandada ühele või teisele poolusele. Mõlemad protsessid on olulised, mõistmaks biopoliitikat just nimelt poliitikana, teisisõnu, protsessina, mille käigus konstrueeritakse ühiskondlikke suhteid ning olemisviise ning milles vastupanu on võimalik. Elu haaramine võimu dispositiividesse, või selle töö tõlgenduse alusel, inimeste kui elusolendite omailmade struktureerimine, on poliitiline protsess, mitte lihtne ühepoolne modifitseerimine või vägivallasuhe. Selline arusaam võimaldab meil biopoliitikast semiootilistes terminites kõnelda.
Ometi ei tohiks (bio)semiootikat käsitleda kõikvõimsa kontseptuaalse vahendina, mille alusel oleks võimalik elu ja poliitika omavaheliste suhete täielik äraseletamine. Ehkki (bio)semiootilised mõisted nagu semiootiline lävi ja omailm on nii mõnestki aspektist kasulik ja vajalikud, võivad nad mõnikord ise olla kaasatud elu politiseerimisse. Mistõttu on kasulik igat elust kõnelevat teadust vaadelda ka biopoliitika-analüüsi kriitilisest perspektiivist.
How are processes of life and meaning-making related to each other? According to the biosemiotic perspective, life can be defined on the basis of semiosis – there is no meaning in the inanimate world. This coincidence between life and semiosis makes it striking that the concepts of biopolitics and biopower have been left unexplored by semiotics. This is made even more surprising by the fact that Michel Foucault – pioneer of critical analyses on the politicization of life – and his approach to power as immanent to social relations has been largely influential to the development of political semiotics. The thesis aims to explore the connections between biopolitics and semiotics. It does this by adopting the Foucauldian perspective. His understanding of biopolitics as operating via normalization provides a possibility to interpret the capture of life into dispositives of power not as direct intervention or violence, but on the basis of subjectification – that is, the construction of normalized and normalizable subjectivity. Active subjectivation or self-construction always takes place as a response to already existing subject positions mediated by norms which are fundamentally semiotic phenomena. The dialectic relationship between the construction of normalized subjectivity (subjectification) and the active self-construction of subjects (subjectivation) should not be seen as reducible to one or the other pole. Instead, both processes are fundamental to the understanding of biopolitics as politics, or in other words, as a process of constructing social relations and ways of being in which resistance – and thus, freedom – is possible. Capturing life into dispositives of power, that is, structuring the umwelts of humans as living beings, is a political process and not simply a unilateral relation of violence or modification. This realization enables us to speak of biopolitics in semiotic terms. However, (bio)semiotics are not to be seen as all-powerful conceptual tools explaining the conjunction of life and politics. Although (bio)semiotic concepts, such as the semiotic threshold and umwelt, are helpful, they can themselves sometimes participate in the politicization of life – any life science should be critically analyzed from the perspective of biopolitics.
How are processes of life and meaning-making related to each other? According to the biosemiotic perspective, life can be defined on the basis of semiosis – there is no meaning in the inanimate world. This coincidence between life and semiosis makes it striking that the concepts of biopolitics and biopower have been left unexplored by semiotics. This is made even more surprising by the fact that Michel Foucault – pioneer of critical analyses on the politicization of life – and his approach to power as immanent to social relations has been largely influential to the development of political semiotics. The thesis aims to explore the connections between biopolitics and semiotics. It does this by adopting the Foucauldian perspective. His understanding of biopolitics as operating via normalization provides a possibility to interpret the capture of life into dispositives of power not as direct intervention or violence, but on the basis of subjectification – that is, the construction of normalized and normalizable subjectivity. Active subjectivation or self-construction always takes place as a response to already existing subject positions mediated by norms which are fundamentally semiotic phenomena. The dialectic relationship between the construction of normalized subjectivity (subjectification) and the active self-construction of subjects (subjectivation) should not be seen as reducible to one or the other pole. Instead, both processes are fundamental to the understanding of biopolitics as politics, or in other words, as a process of constructing social relations and ways of being in which resistance – and thus, freedom – is possible. Capturing life into dispositives of power, that is, structuring the umwelts of humans as living beings, is a political process and not simply a unilateral relation of violence or modification. This realization enables us to speak of biopolitics in semiotic terms. However, (bio)semiotics are not to be seen as all-powerful conceptual tools explaining the conjunction of life and politics. Although (bio)semiotic concepts, such as the semiotic threshold and umwelt, are helpful, they can themselves sometimes participate in the politicization of life – any life science should be critically analyzed from the perspective of biopolitics.
Kirjeldus
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone
Märksõnad
biopolitics, criticism, political philosophy, semiotics, biosemiotics, political semiotics