Biocentrism as one of the main categories of everyday biopolitical discourse


  • А. Y. Kravets Oles Honchar Dnipro National University
Keywords: biopolitics, «Political man», biopower, biodiversity, bios, bio-system, bio-diplomacy

Abstract

The main aim of the article is the conceptualization of the categorical apparatus of biopolitics. The focus is on biocentrism as one of the main categories of modern biopolitical discourse. It is stated that biopolitics today offers a variety of research directions and a specific categorical apparatus, while fluctuations in the interpretations of the main terms and categories should be noted. The main terms are considered: «biopolitics», «political man», biopower and biocentrism. The definition of the above terms in the biopolitics is systematized and proposed author’s definitions. «Homo Politicus» as a phenomenon was a complicated and problematic subject of scientific conceptualization. Proposed particulars of the biopolitical view on «Homo Politicus»: «Homo Politicus» is genetically related with another biological species and this definitely has influence to his behaviour in social and political sphere. For instance, any human being as any social primates has genetic inclination to adaptation, domination, subjugation. In case with «Homo Sapiens» this has a form of genetic and social adaptation, political domination and subjugation. The inclination to the domination from one side to the subjugation to another side is genetically «imprinted» in to the nature of the «Homo Politicus». However it is important to be mentioned that nevertheless the «Homo Sapiens» shares inclination of social primates for hierarchical social organization, at the same time he developed capabilities which are unique in animal world, such as: language, culture and morale. Thus, ideas and values created by the human being commenced changing of his behavior in social and political sphere. Author’s definitions: «Political man» as an individual with innate properties of the brain and the psyche that affects his social and political behavior can be adjusted in the process of socialization and education and change in accordance with the challenges of the twenty-first century. Biopolitics as a new evolutionary paradigm of contemporary political science that explores the «political man» as a biological species with an emphasis on psycho-physiological mechanisms of political behavior and their influence on the political process. Biopower as a new model of power relations, enshrined at the legislative level, designed to protect life in all its forms and manifestations. Biocentrism is aimed at protecting life in all spheres, understanding that a person is only part of the overall biodiversity, and therefore has no right to destroy the biosphere guided by economic benefits.

References

1. Knjazeva, E. (2015). Ponjatye «Umwelt» Jakoba fon Ykskjulja y egho znachymostj dlja sovremennoj эpystemologhyy [The concept of «Umwelt» by Jacob von Ikskyul and its significance for modern epistemology]. Voprosy filosofii [in Russian].
2. Kravecj, A. (2016). Problematyka politychnoji povedinky u suchasnomu biopolitychnomu dyskursi [The Problem of Political Conduct in Modern Biopolitical Discourse]. Scientific and theoretical almanac «Grani», 12, 52-56 [in Ukrainian].
3. Kravecj, A. (2016). Vytoky biopolityky jak novogho naprjamku naukovykh doslidzhenj u mezhakh vitchyznjanoji politychnoji nauky [Origins of biopolitics as a new direction of scientific research within the limits of national political science]. Scientific and theoretical almanac «Grani», 3, 68-72 [in Ukrainian].
4. Oleskyn, A. (2002). Socyokuljturnaja rolj sovremennoj byologhyy y ee otrazhenye v byopolytyke: ystoryko-nauchnыj analyz [Sociocultural role of modern biology and its reflection in biopolitics: historical and scientific analysis]. Doctor’s thesis. Moscow: MGU [in Russian].
5. Potapenko, Ja.(2013). Somatychne buttja indyvidu jak ob’jekt doslidzhenj u ghaluzi biopolityky [Somatic being of the individual as an object of research in the field of biopolitics]. Ghileja, 74, 397-399 [in Ukrainian].
6. Pjatyghorskyj, A., & Alekseev, O. (2010). Razmyshljaja o polytyke. Prylozhenye 3. Byopolytyka [Thinking about politics. Annex 3. Biopolitics]. Retrieved from http://gtmarket.ru/laboratory/basis/3182/3192 [in Russian].
7. Fuko, M. (2005). Nuzhno zashhyshhatj obshhestvo [It is necessary to protect the society]. SPb: Nauka [in Russian].
8 Blank, R. (2014). Biology and politics: an introduction. Politics and the life science: the state of discipline. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
9. Negri, А. (2007). The Labor of the Multitude and the Fabric of Biopolitics. Mediations. Retrieved from: http://www.mediationsjournal.org/articles/the-labor-of-the-multitude-and-the-fabric-of-biopolitics. ISSN: 2333-9721
10. Peterson, S., & Somit, A. (2011). Biology and politics: The cutting edge. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
11.Vlavianos-Arvanitis, A. (1985). Biopolitics – dimensions of biology. Retrieved from: http://biopolitics.gr/publications/textbooks/dimensions-of-biology-en/
12. Vlavianos Arvanitis, A. (2011). Biopolicy – Building a green society. Cadmus. Retrieved from: http://www.cadmusjournal.org/node/73
13. Vlavianos Arvanitis, A. (1985). Biopolitics – methods for implementation an ecumenical. Retrieved from: http://biopolitics.gr/biowp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BIOPOLITICS-METHODS-FOR-IMPLEMENTATION1.pdf
Published
2018-08-14
How to Cite
KravetsА. (2018). Biocentrism as one of the main categories of everyday biopolitical discourse. Grani, 21(7), 5-10. https://doi.org/10.15421/171887
Section
Статті