- PII
- S023620070007676-0-
- DOI
- 10.31857/S023620070007676-0
- Publication type
- Article
- Status
- Published
- Authors
- Volume/ Edition
- Volume 30 / Issue 6
- Pages
- 130-144
- Abstract
The concept of biosociality is associated with the problematic of the role of knowledge about life and the laws of inheriting genetic information in the processes of the emergence and formation of social order and the transformation of social practices. An example of such changes can be considered the transformation in modern medical practice of the diagnosed risk of breast cancer to a disease that requires preventive treatment. This case reveals a radical change in the relationship between public health and modern biomedicine. Such changes in social practices are impossible without extrapolating scientific knowledge to the public sphere with its subsequent appropriation by various social groups. This appropriation is made possible by the diffusion of the public/private boundary. At this point, the concept of biosociality intersects with a popular notion of biocapitalism. The term itself is not conventional, along with it are also used concepts such as cognitive or communication capitalism, lively capital. The concept of biocapitalism is a product of development of the traditions of political economy, concerning the reduction of the problem of the genesis of the social order in the field of Economics. Observed in the theory “proven” and “universal” economical laws act as an important source of development of society. The well-known theorist of biocapitalism K.S. Rajan, trying to eliminate this latent universalism, introduces the concept of contingence, removing the strict economic determinism. However, the approach developed by Rajan does not make it possible to conceptually describe the problem of public/private because of the elimination of aspects related to the existence of the level of global capital. Following J. Damit and T. Tanner, the author of this article seeks a solution to this problem in the analysis of new forms of commodity fetishism inherent in biocapitalism.
- Keywords
- biosociality, biocapitalism, private, public, commodity fetishism, symptom fetishism, K. Marx, neoliberalism, STS, overdetermination
- Date of publication
- 12.12.2019
- Number of purchasers
- 78
- Views
- 1925
References
- 1. Althusser L. Lenin i fiosofiya: per. s fr. [Lenin and the Philosophy: transl. from Fr.]. Moscow: Ad Marginem Publ., 2005.
- 2. Althusser L. Protivorechie i sverhdetermiaciya: (Zametki k issledovaniyu) [Contradiction and Overdetermination]. Za Marksa: per. s fr. [For Marx: transl. from Fr.]. Moscow: Praksis Publ., 2006.
- 3. Korsani A. Kapitalizm, biotehnonauka i neoliberalism: Informaciya k razmyshleniyu ob otnosheniyakh mezhdu kapitalom, znaniem i zhizn'ju v kognitivnom kapitalizme [Capitalism, Biotechnoscience and Neoliberalism: Information for Reflection on the Relationship between Capital, Knowledge and Life in Cognitive Capitalism]. Logos. 2007. Vol. 61, N. 4. P. 123–143.
- 4. Marx K. Kapital: Kritika politicheskoi ekonomii. T.1: рer. s nem. [Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1: thransl. from Germ.]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury Publ., 1952.
- 5. Srnicek N. Kapitalizm platform: per. s angl. [Platform Capitalism: transl. from Engl.]. Moscow: Izdatel'skii dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki Publ., 2019.
- 6. Srnicek N. Navigatsiya po neoliberalizmu: politicheskaya estetika v epokhu krizisa [Navigating Neoliberalism: Political Aesthetics in an Age of Crisis], transl. from Engl. by A. Ul'ko. URL: http://moscowartmagazine.com/issue/39/
- 7. article/784 (date of access: 03.08.2019).
- 8. Clarke A.E., Shim J.K., Mamo L. et al. Biomedicalization: Technoscientific Transformations of Health, Illness, and U.S. Biomedicine. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health, and Illness in the U.S., еds. A.E. Clarce, L. Mamo, L.R. Fosket et al. Durham; London: Duke Univ. Press, 2010.
- 9. Banner O. Communicative Biocapitalism: The Voice of the Patient in Digital Health and the Health Humanities. Michigan: Univ. of Mich. Press, 2017.
- 10. Cooper M. Life as a Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era. Seattle: Univ. of Wash. Press, 2008.
- 11. Dumit J. Prescription Maximization and the Accumulation of Surplus Health in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Biomarx Experiment. Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets, еd. by K.S. Rajan. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 2012.
- 12. Fosket J.R. Breast Сancer as Disease. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health, and Illness in the U.S., еds. A.E. Clarce, L. Mamo, L.R. Fosket et al. Durham; London: Duke Univ. Press, 2010.
- 13. Jasanoff Sh. Taking Life: Private Rights in Public Nature. Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets, еd. by K.S. Rajan. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 2012.
- 14. Jasanoff Sh. Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva. 2003. Vol. 41, N 3. P. 223–244.
- 15. Rajan K.S. Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham; London: Duke Univ. Press, 2006.
- 16. Rajan K.S. Introduction: The Capitalization of Life and the Liveliness of Capital. Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets, еd. by K.S. Rajan. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 2012.
- 17. Tanner T. Marx in New Zealand. Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets, еd. by K.S. Rajan. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 2012.
- 18. Vora K. Life Support: Biocapital and the New History of Outsourced Labor. Minneapolis: Difference Incorporated, 2015.
- 19. Weinbaum A.E. The Afterlife of Reproductive Slavery: Biocapitalism and Black Feminism’s Philosophy of History. Durham; London: Duke Univ. Press, 2019.
