Foucault: Biopower, Governmentality, and the Subject
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2019
- I look at Michel Foucault's ideas about social and political power through a number of concepts - biopower, governmentality, and the subject.
Foucault developed his understanding of power throughout a number of texts, including 'Why Study Power?', the lectures collected in 'Security, Territory, and Population', and the selected interviews in 'Power/Knowledge'.
importantly for Foucault, biopower shapes individuals as well as constraining them. Modern power is very different to the juridical power that social contract thinkers like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau theorized - the power of the sovereign to make laws.
Modern power aims to know the efficiency of a population and manage it. It creates norms and standards. It disciplines and encourages.
In the final section, I quickly address a few criticisms of Foucault's work.
Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:
amzn.to/2ykJe6L
Follow me on:
Facebook: thethenandnow
Instagram: / thethenandnow
Twitter: / lewlewwaller
Credits:
Stock footage provided by Videvo, downloaded from www.videvo.net
I Should Have Been More Human by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons License: creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/05/20/foucault-biopower-governmentality-and-the-subject/
► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/
► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018
People like Foucault had a gift and an unique way of seeing everyday "mundane" things. First time when you encounter his ideas, first reaction is to say "ok so what?" but only after you spend some time thinking about it, it becomes clear that he saw something many people missed.
I'm still at the 'so what?' stage. I don't understand what's profound about any of this. Care to give me a hint?
also he wrote the famous piece called "The Death of the Writer". He was also a pedophile, so that explains a lot
@@annika9930 yeah, I heard that as well, there was definitely something dark about him
@@verapamil07 Pedophilia.
@@stevem815foucaults point is that our modern society (what we consider as the cutoff of modernism from earlier epoch of 'medieval', 'backwards', time periods) utilizes a particular form of power called 'biopower' that coerces and controls the behaviour of the population via a framework that sees humans as a collective species rather than a collection of individuals with unique whims and drives. This is why our modern society views on punishment justifies the usage of the prison system as, first of all, it is a form of punishment that is universal and equally applied (not subjected to the whims of the sovereign as in the case durimg medieval times) and that it assumes a 'scientific' understanding of human behaviour that deviant behaviour in criminals can be removed by putting them in a setting that rewards strict adherence to prison rules as a benefit and removing the criminals liberty (via imprisoning) as allowing them time to reflect on the damages of their crimes and affecting remorse within them through robbing them of their liberty for a specified amount of them as well as the idea of prison time being a way for society to embed within a criminal, the idea of a universal cost for a particular crime. If you look up the early proponent of the prison system, they were of the belief that through mandated stringent labour via prison duties and by locking up a person in order to give them time to reflect, they believe that this was a 'rational' way to rehabilitate criminals. A 'humane' way. One backed by 'reason' as our society is still under the dogma of the 'age of enlightenment'. The reason why foucault probably created the term 'biopower' to describe how the state attempts to control the populace and rendering them as dutible subject of the society is because the logic of such a phenomenon of use of power seems to look at controlling the populace in reference to their biological factors and their future acts. As if the societal institutions seem to fundamentally understand humans on a biological scale (the discipline of psychiatry is a perfect example of this. Previously bad spirits were blamed for ones mental illness and such provisions to treat such a condition involves recourse to 'spiritual' and 'mystical' knowledge whereas now, society understanding of people is predicated solely on their biology). It's hard to explain but foucault insights is really riveting to say the least.
The quality if your content is seriously something else.
👌🏻This video isn’t going viral, but you already know that. But this is the type of stuff that deserves four million views in four minutes of being uploaded.
Excellent video essay. Informative, accurate, engaging and makes the material simple(r) to grasp.
Really good aesthetic too.
You realize the reason it isn't getting four million views is precisely because of the kind of biopower being exerted on the construction of subjects into docile bodies being described in the video?
You presentation of Foucault is clear, concise, and very well constructed. The only thing I would add is to mention his major books. His interest in power was a theme throughout his career.
UA-cam excersises a new form of bio-power through it's algorithms
Without having read Foucault and listen to the video I think that the interpretation of his biopower would that algorithms enable YT to exercise their biopower in a specific way. I think from my cultural studies is that if you want to understand the specifics of the power of the algorithm you would need to develop a different type of framework or methodology other than biopower. One that has not been developed to any level of maturity but has a little bit of my work in it is cybernetic hierarchies. Wiener is the pioneer in this study but there seems to be a problem with the work cybernetics as it seems to break peoples brain and start acting irrationally and military men start breaking stuff. As a result it is significantly been underdeveloped.
The idea if you're not familiar is that informational content of the object and subject are compared with the result being an outcome that is inherently bias by which ever has the more informational content. In Argentina there was a desire for the government to create a cybernetic system of governance the would respond the societal inputs of information and respond accordingly with the citizens ultimately being the controlling mechanism of the government. This was over thrown by a US backed coup which instead implemented the Chicago Boy method of economic that as history showed to be shit and broken, requiring the disappearing of people to be sustained.
Boy howdy!
”through it is algorithms?”
@@nelsonphillips Wrong. Biopower is always of a particular sort. You don't "need" another framework to understand. Sure, you could understand it through another framework, but biopower is certainly a compatible concept for its examination. I don't know what you're getting at, but OP is simply correct. Could the specifics of how that particular biopower works, and what its potential aims are be better sorted out? Sure.
@@dustinwatkins7843 Biopower isn't a framework outside one built to critique societal influence. No part of biopower is the a method implementing social change through material or economic benefit. Understanding a problem is super helpful, building a better society,,,, is, better.
Foucault was such a daddy
Mendl's Patisserie god bless mendl
@@THEVL0GPOD A Day without Mendl's is a day without happiness.
He was a raging communist homosexual daddy
@@YorickX well, not strictly communist was he? he sundered with the left of his time over his perceived unorthodoxy and his (very post-structuralist) refusal to reduce everything to the strictly material
not at all debating the gay part or the daddy part, mind
Well, this comment aged poorly.. The man is a kiddie diddler.
Im absolutely stunned by the concise presentation - non the less the editing of this video. Amazing, thanks alot!
Thank you. I am coming out a long period of writer's block and lethargy. Your videos are starting to bring the thinking blood back into my brain veins!
You're my go-to source when I begin learning about a new philosopher. Appreciate everything you do, comrade
comrade? lol. Is Then & Now a communist channel, did I miss something? Should I stop endorsing his content with my view? Foucault was an anarchist, by the way, once he matured.
Amazing production. Thank you very much!
‘The soul is the prison of the body.’ Great vid, comment for the algorithm
Very refreshing read of Foucault, I had not heard about biopower before this. nicely done
The 50's were truly dark times... that's when most of the black & white footage is taken I believe. When you hear that voice-off, you almost have the feeling that you're hearing the words from Capital and the Government themselves, with that authoritative and confident voice. It makes you conform just by hearing it, and that's pure political power.
Nameless ! As restrictive as that time period was it led to the development of the struggles present in the 60s (cilvil rights, anti war, etc.).
Yes how horrible that people had such a high standard of living and unions were so strong that the 1 person working household became a concept, giving women more leisure time and freedom. How terrible that children were being educated and that those children turned into the baby boomers who rebelled. Yes what an evil evil time
🙄
@@aboxintheblack9530 the only reason it was perceived of as restrictive was because the standard of living was so high that the children (baby boomers) became bored without wars and with money and college educations, and with machines to do much more of the work, and airplanes and cars to allow people to travel, the world opened up and people began to rebel against the very thing that gave them all of these things, the nuclear family and “the patriarchy”
@@dorkusamericanus You're misconstruing the meaning of my comment, and probably the cause of the facts you state too. The high standard of living is unrelated to the repression in the social sphere and the strict control of people's behavior. The economic flourishment is related to the 2nd world war, that obliterated Europe, but not America. Quite the contrary actually, the weapon and war industry having pretty much saved the US from the depression of the 30s. The USA were therefore in a strong leadership position, and thanks to the Marshall Plan, were able to export huge quantities of products and equipment, therefore boosting the economy. It's not directly related to policies applied within its frontier on the social field.
@@PappyMandarine High standard of living in the US in the 50s has to do with strong unions, and regulation laws against monopoly and very good employee benefits for unskilled laborers in certain industries like the auto manufacturers in the mid-century that came about due to many strikes in the 1930s and the fear of “BOLSHEVISM” that lead people like FDR to compromise and bring about many labor laws that we had until the NeoLiberals like Clinton and Reagan dismantled them in the 80s and 90s, leaving us with a liberal America that cares only about the shallow externalities of liberalism, such as identity politics, but not about taking care of the working class, and in fact despises the working class as the division between the elite academics and the working class grows. It is you who is entirely unable to grasp any of these concepts and is woefully ignorant
God willing, I will definitely try to contribute to your wonderful efforts. Till then I pray for your success
This really is an excellent video. The style reminds me alot of Adam Curtis with the old archival footage. Great narration too. I would upvote this twice if I could. =)
The way you plan your videos is suberb!
Great content as ever, thanks
Great videofootage and explanations like always. The only thing i missed in this video was the subtle ways of how power work on us. For example the design of a theatrechair, fixed in a certain position towards the stage, that forces spectators to sit in a specific position if they want to be comfortable.
I cant give you money since i dont owe a bank account but if you ever need help with research or gathering images ( like assistent work ) I would gladly do so.
thanks for sharing this great explanation
Great writing and fascinating while disturbing aesthetics. Beautiful work in my opinion
That’s very precisely explained, I have read this book, but here you have explained it very simple. Keep it up buddy.
im subscribing you because your work needs to be seen! respect to you
Cannot not show how much I appreciate your work. I have to leave a comment!
chunjui hsu - Hmmm . . . . Your irony here is deliberate?
Such an amazing explanation!
Very clear presentation!
This could be implemented to a pandemic situation that is ongoing now. Especially on a politic behavior.
Forced face masks, lockdown, house arrest, DNA test, transfer of wealth over a 99.98% recovery rate flu
@@casacionada Do you have any other resources related to this? thanks
I'm actually writing a dissertation about this x)
And reactions to it.
@@nouhaaouine You could write the best dissertation in history, and still you will get a bad score. As sad as it is to conclude this, universities are not a place where freedom of speech exists anymore.
Excellent video mate, I would enjoy a video with a greater focus on the critiques. Nonetheless this was excellent and gripping. Thank you!
Amazing work✨👍🏻
Perfect visuals!
Your work is consistently very well planned out (I can't imagine the time and energy such content demands) do you have any research, learning, or information gathering methods that you could recommend? I have a talent for synthesizing information into a clean concept, although my general study skills could use a fair amount of help. Thanks for the great content and anything regarding your methods that you might share with us!
Have you tried reading first thing in the morning with a clear head, should help you be less distracted thus resulting in retaining more information.
Absolutely brilliant
Thank you for making this
Great vídeo, as always.
Christina Perez
Maybe there is a bit of Foucault in Jennifer Rush's power ballad from the 80's 'The Power of Love'? Where she describes the feeling that she can't go on in terms of the dimension of it being lightyears away - it not being clear whether this offers solace or not from such a technical description. Ending with feeling frightened about times yet to come, but being reassured in the 'power of love' that everything will be alright (as though love was some algorithmic destiny). The music video featuring her man-child partner. Crooks at every corner. Her alone listening to her walkman - unable to form a functioning relationship with her lover. The song and video is a whole morass of double meanings exposing the futility of trying to determine what is good or bad, but always seemingly the inevitable sadness in the arms of a souless modern life. No ironic joy. Or manic vitality. Just the power of love.
Excelent material!
Particularly relevant in these Covid times. Thank you!
Hey, shush! I'm a leftist and while I agree with Foucault's understanding of biopower and how it aims to create docile bodies I also throw that all away and completely agree with literal public health tyranny the second it arises because I'm a dipshit!
Excellent narration! Do more videos on the French philosophers.
YES! More Foucault
Your writing is getting so good - felicitations man love to follow your growth
Best channel on UA-cam.
I usually only listen to your content and it's a shame because the editing is so good.
I do rewatch sometimes just to see though :)
Awesome video and explanation! Do you have the references of the quotes that are presented at the video?
thank you sm for this video i feel smarter
I have a master's degree in philosophy, so maybe that"s why i'm choosing you to be the first youtuber i will patron. Good job!
so you're basically a social parasite
Julian II so you’re basically a little bitch
EX INDIGO I Hope I Dont sound too offensive, but what job do philosophers actually do? As in, a part from teaching and writing books, how else do they earn money? That’s something I’m quite interested in. Don’t mean to offend you lol
This is great.
Incredible video, as always. Does anyone know what is the cartoon at 3:00 called? I think it also appeared in previous videos of this channel
Foucault's view of the world is very essentialist. This is the irony of postmodernism. Power to foucault was itself a meta-narrative, a single lens in which we should view the world.
Thanks for this! I cannot be a patreon at the moment but I will happily like, share and watch ads without skipping.
As I watch this for the second time, there is an ad banner for the Siemens corporation beneath the video. (Ha!) I suppose this is because the youtube advertisement selection algorithms detect my interest in 'medical research'. But this is precisely the point. What does this say about the maintenance and flow of power in the society in which we live? What does it say about how the exercise of thought and the applications of intellect get regulated?
Love the vid. What's the name of that old american film you spliced?
thankyou
Sometimes the pictures are distracting, as their narrative conflicts with the speaker's. Aside from that, well done.
What is this song in the start?
I'd appreciate a video on Negative Capability, a concept that started out in the poetic realm (connects with your video on PB Shelly) and its subsequent filtration into social and political thought.
On another note, I wonder if anyone is aware of the objections to french structuralism/post-structuralism from Anglophone micro-sociology? It poses a challenge orders of magnitude higher than Peterson's confused babbling. Anyway, I'm not reflexively opposed to Foucault; in fact even as a radical ('evil') right winger, I employ his conceptual grammar to grapple with certain exigencies we face.
Fascinating, @WhereTheSkyNeverEnds . Do you believe that there are no universal truths with respect to human behavior? For example, is it not true that child abuse is always and everywhere morally wrong, even though it was (is?) practiced widely in the West? Are power authorities morally wrong to criminalize such behavior?
Do you know the title of the work that's shown @5:52 ? It's so cool.
Hobbes - Leviathan
So how can one summarize about the "analytical" in the Foucauldian conception?
Are all of the quotes from Security, Territory and Population?
I guess Foucault would have a lot of fun, if he could be living right now
Foucault and Deleuze were prophets. Capillary power as forms of social control is everywhere now
Yes too bad he didn’t believe in science and then died of a disease that could have been prevented if only he’d believed in science
@@dorkusamericanus AIDS?
@@EJFerny yes, I agree
nice
I'm a simple man - I see a Then&Now video, I click like.
It seems that Foucault defines power as or at least a definition with which he would agree:
Individual f has power over individual i iff individual f can make individual i do x.
In this definition,the power that f has,is necessarily built by him or her, and not necessarily he or she will have it forever.
Therefore,individual f can make individual i believe some proposition p by epistemic reasons ( for instance,a sound deductive argument ).
Therefore it seems that it's not the case that because we have force relations exercised (power exercised) then there's no truth.
Foucault believes that
1-conceptual perspectivism is necessary if there're individuals is true.
And
2-conceptual perspectivism only if the conceptual framework by which individuals think about the world.
And
3-the power exercised decides which conceptual framework to be used by individuals.
It seems that the skepticism which Foucault is trying to promote,follows from 1.
But he defends 1,i think Foucault assumes it,maybe he tought Nietzsche had defended it or just the power exercised at his time compelled him (Foucault ) to assume it.
So the Foucault's historicity of truth is not justified.
And by the way his concept of power is very interesting and powerful when you use it with game theory.
Thank you for the video.
no sir, power is force per time and thats how we think about it. power as the potential for energy transfer? a simple google search (i thought maybe i missed something in lecture) will reveal precisely 0 "power transfer/potentiality" result. in fact the top result (from Khan Academy) defines it as rate of work done.
If you have the references for the quotes, I would be most grateful if you could share them with us
I am wondering how this man lived his life?
and by the way, this question itself had power in Foucault's opinion, thus Foucault was an extremely discrete person, he valued privacy.
Many of his associates were openly pedophilic.
As I am new to philosophy, I started out learning with this channel as well with other like channels. Now with that in mind, did I start to far from the true beginning such as with the earliest Greeks like Plato.....etc? So, if did start learning at a far to advanced place with the information on this channel, what book would you recommend if I wanted to start from the beginning, one that teaches an in-depth analysis and a detailed history for a new but dedicated student of the greatest discipline on Earth?
James the thing with philosophy is that it is about thinking, so it doesn't really matter where you start. Starting in the middle works because you get to begin to understand how the those whom precede those you are reading can form a context. Even later context start to become the most dominant factor related to your thinking. Having said this there are definitely better sources and contexts you can find yourself in, such as here is a place you can find the answer to all your stupid questions, I use it regularly.... plato.stanford.edu/
here is a interesting site.. ua-cam.com/users/carneadesofcyrenevideos
Happy philosophizing.
nelson phillips First, I "think" I'm thankful for your reply, slight included in referencing "all your stupid questions" remark, and this does take on an interesting light or "lens" to which I'll now view you through. "Slights" by definition means, as defined by powerthesaurus.com; "A deliberate discourteous act, (usually as an expression of anger or disapproval), which, now I can see, being that a person such as yourself that's so well stationed in life, along with the massive amounts of fame and success you've acquired throughout your long as well as illustrious career, a question such as mine would have no choice but to be taken as "stupid" and required you to draw from your very vast resource of patients to even take time and answer, a task, judging from all of the well known and documented accolades in your possession, is way beneath yourself. Now to your priceless recommendations, they, by way of being an "already, overly known and commonplace suggestion", (really, who doesn't know of "SEP", or the "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or Britannica has an excellent site, or even such online magazines like "FourbyThree", or even better yet, "The National Endowment for the Humanities", their site is one of the most well informed and maintained that I know of, comprising articles from some of today's leading academics that are chaired at many of the world's leading Liberal Arts and Humanities Universities.) have earned yourself, hopefully, a moment of "awareness", in that; for anyone to think they know as much as they really do, the contrast will only serve you a painful glimpse into reality about how truly small of an entity one actually is, again this is in contrast to those who have mastered this amazing endeavor, with grace, humility and a never-ending commitment to Philosophy. Again, thank you for your........"help"?
@@jamespotts8197 I do apologise for any offence, I was calling my questions stupid as well.......
@Khaled Rapp thank you sir.
James Potts I like Dr Gregory Sadler.
Did I hear well at 06:56 and on? "Epidemic Control..."
ua-cam.com/video/4RjIDA0CoVY/v-deo.html
It remains to be understood, whether it is Control of Epidemies, or Control through Epidemies ;) Or just an Epidemy of Control?...
Trabiccolo - Well put. All three, I think.
I feel like a lot of the forms of power he discusses arise from human desire. If one was to approach life from, say, a Buddhist perspective, they would disconnect themselves from a lot of the common power structure of our time. Obviously this is easier said than done and does not apply to things like police and military.
How this video starts, "Power it is an ambiguous concept. In physics ... " Power is an ambiguous concept in physics but in physics there is an attempt, even a desire to make "power" less ambiguous, that is to make more meaningful. Foucault on the other hand resists that urge because meaningful statements might be shown to be wrong.
Similarly, an unique (2:30 in the video) definition or "understanding" of a word makes it easy to make claims with no objective content, it all depends on that unique individual understanding of the term. It gives Foucault a lever to the power of saying something while meaning nothing in particular.
That's why this is political _philosophy,_ not political _science._ Science is about finding quantifiable and identifiable processes and causality, and forming falsifiable models to generate an objective understanding of the facts. Philosophy is about generating the ideas and language to even talk/think about those kinds of things in the first place, speculating on different perspectives to spark reinterpretation and new insights that could eventually become more objective scientific models or understandings, but aren't yet.
Foucault's ideas might be vague, but what he's doing is providing a framework that later people can reference and build upon with more precise definitions of what they mean by political "power" in their own contexts. Having that referent there can make their more precise interpretation of "power" more clearly understandable since similar ideas are already present in the academic sphere. Or it might even let them come up with the ideas in the first place, as they might not have thought of it at all without the prompting of some still-vague, up-to-interpretation perspective shifting their attention towards this general idea. So just because it doesn't meet the strict criteria of a fully-formed scientific theory at this point, that doesn't mean it's worthless.
@Cole Reed I am not sure what nationality it is but, yes, I think I am describing much of what passed as philosophy in the 20th century. Hopefully the 21st century will do better.
@@MarshmallowRadiation "what he's doing is providing a framework that later people can reference and build upon with more precise definitions " Has that worked? Have people been about to come up with more precise definitions? And most importantly, how can we know they are more precise and accurate?
@@myothersoul1953 I don't mean "precise" as in "precise and accurate," I mean "precise" as in "this is something we can test and quantify with an objective measure we can back up." But in the philosophical exploration stage, you don't need that yet, you're just exploring the possible. That's how philosophy and science have worked together from the beginning. People come up with ideas first, and then they or other people find ways to operationalize those ideas into workable, testable definitions, and only _then_ experiment with real-world data to figure out the scientific reality. Theories don't spring from nothing, science can only ever build off of philosophy and speculation. The vague "I think we can look at it this way" is a necessary step towards hard factual knowledge, otherwise we're just stuck staring at the same old metrics wondering why it's not working right. Only valuing the end product of rigorously tested scientific theories without any regard for the messy sausage that goes into it is kinda short-sighted. It's good for laymen, but not good for academia.
@@MarshmallowRadiation Science is based on philosophy but it's a particular philosophy one that takes matter or nature as the one thing of the universe. Power might be a useful way of taking about that reality at some level. But Foucault's subjective methodology of historical "archaeology" is the antithesis of science. It's not objective, it's not repeatable and there isn't agreement on that supposed facts it produced.
If Foucault's goal was produce a framework for theories that could be scientifically tested then he failed.
If Foucault's goal was to be a political and cultural critic, then he succeeded.
He didn't produce a useful theory of social power or framework from which a useful theory sprung. But he did show how power is sometimes used and structured.
This is the first time I’ve started exploring his ideas in any depth. On the surface there seems to some value in his viewpoint, however his analysis is lacking any biological perspective. That’s quite a huge omission.
You might benefit from getting a comprehensive Foucault reader or just straight up reading his texts
You can no doubt also find all the works informed by Foucault that bring in more of the biological
Thank You Sir for all you have done for us poor mofo's that didn't take the bait. Bless You )'( !
I really love the content and want to get to the end of the video but I can help feeling drowsy half way through the video. Please consider raising your tone, reducing your pause and diversifying the way you EMPHASIZE (I see that you want to instill a mysterious, documentary vibe to your videos to make them more intriguing but seriously the youtube platform sometimes subverts our desired effects). You have been my main source of digital nutrition and it would be a great shame if I cannot enjoy your content to the full. I hope this would not come off as off-putting because I'm your big fan and I believe UA-cam, facebook need more content-creator like you. Keep up the good work!
❤❤
Isn't it appropriately related to the actuality?
Trabiccolo - I agree it is exquisitely relevant to current realities, to the biopolitics of covid19.
18:19min Actually if he is able to isolate a set of ideological instances of exploitative relations by definition, if they are true, if what he reveals in his analysis is the case then a whole set of prescriptions immediately are generated from it: if they do not then he has failed at his initial objective to be able to account for his object of study aka exploitative relations. Yes, but if the generalization about exploitative social relations, within the laws of the logic of their motion, are able to be finitized and particularized in their ideological temporality then one must be capable of isolating each instance of illegitimacy, and the limitations of its operations. How do they plant the seeds of their own destruction. It seems, once again, that if it does not lead to such then one has failed at sucessfully understanding what is it that is being depriving one of a healthy existance.
In physics power is energy per time and is measured in Watts (joules per second)
My apologies if I missed it, but I'd like to know the name of that documentary that was excerpted in this video, specifically the one discussing juvenile delinquency. It has relevance for a book I'm working on.
If I understand what you're saying (Focault is on my bucket list), the criticism of his investigation of biopower misses in that all he's doing is explaining the rules by which it operates so that we have the rules necessary to determine what a (for lack of a better term) "good" use of it is. In other words, as you say, he treats it as a scientific term, with its own logic, mechanisms, and maybe even formulae so that, same as with any science, we have the data necessary to make intelligent decisions about how to apply these rules to our lives. Would you say this a fair interpretation?
Can we agree that abusing children is wrong irrespective of time and place?
2 deep 4 me.
I'm still trying to understand AfroPessimism. Would love to see a video that goes into AfroPessimist thought.
I'm potentially going to be having a discussion with someone who is a 'gender abolitionist' who is also trans. I had defined my position by saying, while I don't know what causes trans people to exist, I think conditions such as 'cushing syndrome' give insights - for example, people with cushing's syndrome have elavated cortisol (stress) hormone levels which has the side effect of producing more of body fat distribution and hair growth typically seen in males (and as such cushing's syndrome is more obvious in women than men). So I am already talking about stress. cortisol - like sex hormones - is also a steroid. In their first initial reply the gender abolitionist said I was confusing sex with gender. But I had actually asserted no sex or gender at all - just biology. I am genuinely interested in what they have to say. I have spent years now studying neuroscience, trans issues, and now philosophy (I wrote a 50 page essay about trans identities through using a mix of Heidegger - for the ontology - and neuroscience - such as the dorsal ventral brain hyposthesis). But I haven't really discussed my ideas with anybody. But I fear in general that the concept of 'how?' is being eroded from our culture (I was originally an engineer). For example the question of 'how do trans people come about?' seems almost offensive perhaps? And instead the question of 'why do trans people exist?' seems favoured - with those on the right arguing trans people are disfunctional, while those on the left critique the very concepts of functions themselves.
@@MowMowMowDiittyMow I am not an academic really. So I can't talk toe-to-toe with what you are saying. Though I am open minded. I learn a lot through osmosis. It is difficult to separate environmental factors from innate factors - indeed, I don't think science even considers the 'nature vs nurture' dynamic, and I would agree with that approach.
I am not an expert on Descartes. Or biology (or anything really LOL). But I guess in contemporary terms Descartes 'doubt' could be viewed as 'anxiety'. Similar to 'anxiety' would I guess be 'wonder' - different emotion but still expressed towards something vague and beyond our immediate comprehension. 'Anxiety' being in the category of the 'non-contextual'. Whereas in contrast to 'anxiety' we have 'fear' which is categorized as 'contextual'. In the same realm as 'fear' we could have 'curiosity'. Rather than fear of an object we could be curious about it - whereas wonder or anxiety could be directed towards no object at all. I know this is something existentialists discuss, and really I am only a beginner when trying to properly appreciate existentialist philosophy.
From what I understand with looking at the biology. Fear is something proximal, something of short duration. Fear can pass. Whereas anxiety is essentially the opposite.
If we have information coming at us that we have to respond to quickly - no matter what it is. Be it a tiger trying to kill us or (a bit extreme) some situation at work where our boss gives us an ultimatum that involves a lot of risk to our selves (like we could go bankrupt and lose everything - I know a bit extreme). It doesn't really make a difference I don't think.
Time is the issue. The shorter the time and the more information that requires processing, then the larger the energy demands on the individual. Our brains use about 20% of our energy apparently - that's a lot. There are also nutrient demands etc.
I am not an expert. But it seems our bodies use fats for slower energy consumption and carbohydrates for faster energy consumption. Women seem more built for endurance and fat burning. While men seem more built for power and carbohydrate burning (glycogen in the muscles). Fat is less effective at releasing energy quickly but is twice as efficient per gram at storing energy as carbohydrates...
...Whether this translates into (fixed) psychological differences between men and women though is an interesting question that I don't know the answer to. And I don't think it is a good approach to start with roles for men and women and try and justify it with biology. The science should be independant.
Modern life is very much different to prehistoric times. (Using stereotypes for the moment) men aren't hunting animals while women look after the children - men and women can do the same jobs in terms of high paid office work in business for example these days.
So it could well be that 'alienation' is the biggest stressor these days?
Anyway.
@@MowMowMowDiittyMow That is kind of you, thanks. I was just looking into more detail of the terms you put in your original comment. Such as 'Interprellation' - I am a little familiar with the idea (e.g. Lacan), but not in any detail. But I had already come across something very similar by looking into neuroscience. Just very quickly, the 'hail' or the 'call' which subjectifies individuals, sounds very similar to something that happens when someone calls your name while you may be busy with a hobby (like drawing for example). (I am not an expert) When focusing on position and space we use our Dorsal Lateral Prefrontal Cortex (also associated with working memory and executive functions). However, if someone was to call our name, activity in the Dorsal Lateral Prefrontal Cortex decreases and activity increases in the Ventral Medial Prefrontal Cortex (associated with social activity but also REM dream sleep activity as well as emotional restraint) - this increased activity to the ventral part is also associated with dissociative disorders (from environment - feeling as though in a movie) and depression and AD(H)D as it is very much like being in a waking dream where we are aware but seem to lack conscious control (from our Dorsal Lateral Prefrontal Cortex lacking activity). I'll continue to look up the rest of the terms in your comment! Thanks.
@Khaled Rapp Thanks. I understand the argument about the distinction between sex and gender. It is similar to the distinction between morality and ethics I think. As well as the individual and society. Or object and subject. And so on... Unfortanely, they haven't gotten back to me as yet - they were going to go into quite some length.
If social constructs about gender were created at random by a computer then I think I would agree that they should be completely separate. But this is not the case, and they are at least informed by sex. (though I recognised this is not a water tight argument).
The problem is in your very last statement: "Twin studies seem to suggest that genes play some causal role (in transgender identities)". I am aware of this apparent fact as well.
It comes back to the age old 'mind-body problem' in the end, which hasn't been resolved... (for example in refernence to 'qualia' or 'mind states vs physical states')
...I think my argument would be not to put the burden of proof (in light of the lack of any resolution to the mind-body problem) on transgender people. I would include in this being a bit chilled on the paradoxes created by the sex and gender distinction - i.e. cut trans people some slack.
@@jonwhite8815 I'm sympathetic to Butler's approach as well. I don't think biology undermines what she is setting out to do.
My background is in engineering design. And I have come to understand Marxism in that context.
A problem with capitalism is that it creates something I call 'Backwards Bullshit' - where why something is done overides how it can be achieved. In essence this leads to functional demands overriding quality.
Instead of products being created from the needs of customers (for example to serve their quality of life), profit motives (the functions of companies) determine what products the customer can buy.
Like the quote from Stanely Kubricks 'Full Metal Jacket' - "What is your major malfunction".
Marx's critique was that capitalists own the means of production. Such that people's needs cannot be met in the long run. Tackling climate is a good example of the flaw of capitalism. We know what needs to be done. And how to do it. But all the solutions are tied up in the hands of a few wealthy entities who own all the means of production - who gatekeep anything that could be done.
So I am basically saying that when Gender Constructs are used in the context of what I just described. Then absolutely get rid of Gender.
But people will always have their individual and collective needs. I don't want to get into debates about morality and objectivity. I am aware of existentialist (the banality of evil etc) and postmodern criticisms of functions and so on - if not an expert.
A problem comes in effect when Gender Abolitionists deviate from punching up at the oppressive systems and them start punching down on transgender people. Transgender people are just afterall expressing their needs, which is what we are trying to liberate I woud've thought?
Anyway. Thanks.
This is why a lot of social power studies moved into game theory. Especially Elanor Ostrom's work on common pool management. But because these are nominally "economics" the "social sciences" lag behind
greqt
This quote is by Maurice Samuel from his book, "You Gentiles".
"A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews access to your world. In that period the great attempt was made, by advance guards of reconciliation, to bring our two worlds together. It was a century of failure. We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build."
Wait, Charles Taylor is white? I totally thought he was black. Maybe I'm mixing him up with the Liberian president.
Is cocaine compatible with postmodern philosophy? Apparently cocaine use in the long term has the equivalent effect of having lesions in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex of the brain - as long terms use apparently reduces grey matter there. I'm not an expert. But it seems to me that cocaine use (or maybe reward seeking behaviour in general? - relating to dopamine pathways... twitter?) would then deminish awareness of 'other minds'.
I get this from the effect that if you were doing some kind of hobby, this engages your dorsal stream (the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex - involved in working memory and spatial tasks and conscious co-ordination and planning of movement). However if someone was to call your name, activity in the dorsal stream deminishes and ventral activity increases (the ventromendial prefrontal cortex - involved in social relations, emotional restraint and REM dream sleep)...
(Apparently also reduced dorsal activity and increased ventral activity is associated with depression - kind of the opposite to the feeling of being on cocaine I think)
...This seems very similar to 'The Hail' or 'The Call' effect in 'interpellation'. Apparently similar to Lacan's 'Mirror Stage' effect. But is also very similar to Sartre's 'The Look' and 'The Other' - our prereflective awareness of other people as subjects rather than objects. Also similar to Heidegger's notions of 'presence'. I guess relates to Plato and The Forms as well as Descartes similar beliefs.
That we drop into this kind of marvel comics mode of perception as a result of other beings. Spatiality disappears and people pop into our focus of attention in ways that mere objects do not.
But cocaine would possibly deminish this ability if it damages the ventromedial prefrontal cortex which appears to play an important role. I also notice that psychopaths/sociopaths (anto-social people) seem to lack activity in this part of the brain also. Apparently figures in power have a higher sensitivity/dependancy to dopamine (maybe even willing to kill for that rush?)
I really am not sure though.
It sounds like you've observed some of the same kinds of behavior I have among (some) who use cocaine as part of their creative process of academic production. I've noticed it with academics who snort heroin, too. Without even going into the neural stuff, it seems to me that the very feelings of intellectual power, invulnerability, and absence of normal anxiety that can enhance intellectual productivity can also reduce empathy and sensitivity to other people's feelings, stunting emotional and ethical growth. I've seen some turn into callous but academically successful elitist bastards, others not. A lot also depends on what kinds of behaviour and attitudes get rewarded and modelled in the environment they are in.
@@anonymoushuman8344 No, I haven't observed any of the things you say because I don't have anything to do with the academic world.
I guess my concern is with people who just rather than starting from a place of empathy - for matters like social justice for example - they instead adopt the same view of reality as people who would crush others without a moments hesitation. But then they justify their view by saying that being callous is contradictory (for example Marx's argument about the contradictions of capitalism) - so I guess the argument there being that as long as they are aware of their contradiction they are being academically sound?...
...so no risk of advancing arguments such as those put forward recently in the Michael Moore supported film "Planet of the Humans" that there needs to be a 'Mass die off' of the human population?
And I guess anyone with 'Empathy' is just too naive to be taken seriously?
It is striking how a certain quasi-technical medical and epidemiological use of the word 'surveillance' has become popular in medical research in recent years. It refers to the systematic collection and scrutiny of diachronic statistical data through state and corporate mechanisms for purposes of public health management. Why has the term 'surveillance' been adopted in health research communities when some less scary, less panoptic term would just as well? The answer, I think, has to do with feelings of professional power, status, in-goup belonging, and alliance with mechanisms of state power that the term engenders.
When communicating with larger publics, medical researchers point out that in medical contexts the word 'surveillance' is a technical term that has a very different meaning from its usual senses. But why not speak instead of 'vertical public health data tracking' or some such? The answer is not that a single word is less cumbersome. An acronym or other short technical term could after all be coined. To use the word 'surveillance' in medical research communities is to signal membership in these such understood as possessing elite knowledge and power relative to the publics they surveil for the ostensible public good.
The institutional selection of a term with panoptic connotations and are not accidental, even when data are carefully anonymized. Indeed, the anonymizing of the data can contribute to a leveling anonymization of individual persons that affects the self-conceptions of the medical researchers themselves. Perhaps use the word 'surveillance' in these institutional settings is also a form of compensation.
see ROBERT M PERSIG AND THE METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY
For a champagne socialist and bdsm fetishist, he was remarkably disconcerned and dismissive of the existential and biological.
His entire premise is comprised of presumptions and assertions.
Find a way to clean the sound quality of your voice, too many pops. The "P" sound is too pronounced. It's distracting but otherwise, I appreciate your interest and articulation of the subject.
I'm gay