Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta cinepolitics. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta cinepolitics. Mostrar todas las entradas

lunes, 16 de febrero de 2015

From institutionalized body to interspecie body. Communication in the 2nd Congress of Critical Social Psychology

Finally, the congress ended. It has been such an interesting weekend, where I could learn much about all the lecturers, know researches and collect a lot of information. I want to thank particularlly to Mari-Luz Esteban for the feedback she gave me in order to spread our vision out about the anthropological studies of ebola.

Despite I promised I was going to upload the communication I presented at the 2nd Congres of Critical Social Psychology, finally I couldn't due to some technical problems (the battery ran out in the middle of the recording). 

In order to offset this issue, I want to share an adapted version of my speech with all of you. You can see our Prezi slides here and read one abstract here, so let's start:

Hi everyone. As I am the moderator of this communication so I have to self-present. I am Enrique Baleriola, I am a PhD student in Social Pschology at this university (Autonomous University of Barcelona), led by the senior lecturer, Francisco Tirado. 

I would be satisfied if you catch only one idea or concept I want to share today. This is a new shift we think have occured in relation with the traditional concept of body by Foucault. In order to do this, I want to present this index (see slides) where we will begin talking about of some elements that constitute the background of our research. In second place, we want to talk about this new concept of body, derived or displaced from the Foucaultian conception. After this, we want to mention briefly some aspects of the traditional conception of body and its management, called "biopolitics" or "biopower". And finally, I want to expose some empirical examples about this shift in order to understand it better.

Okey, so where are us? in this slide you can see what we refer as the background from where we take off: the "9-11 attacks", the recent episoded of ebola in Africa and Spain, Chernobyl, Neoliberalism as the previous researcher, Diego, has exposed... the Big Data analysis of massive data amounts, anthrax... well, this is our point of departure. 

In second place, I want to present our proposal. The new body and its management. What is it? We have called it as the "interspecie body", and in which consists? well, as we can see in the first slide, we point out that body is no longer conceived as a clear-boundaries object, but a body that is all time in relation with other species, as this human-skin and mosquito shows. But it not only happens with the humans bodies and others animals, but also between animals: a flock  of sheeps that are spread with a virus contained in a close flock of cows; a fruit bat that bites a monkey... we can see it later, but our results are pointing in this sense. As we can see, is an interrelated body: interspecie, an unfold body, open literally (in their tissues or organs), a body where the key is the movement of the outbreak (transported by this symbiosis between species), a collective body, mediated by the techné that Agamben told us. Thus, body is mediated by technologies. Life, split in bios and zoé, is becomed bios due to a technology. The "bare life" not exists because it is a bared life. Bared by some kind of technology.

Well, so how is managed and administrated this new body? through new practices that are distinct from the classical conception of biopolitics by Foucault. We have named it as "kinepolitics" (from the greek root, kiné) because we think this new body is managed in its movement. The best example is a plane. Where people is controlled (i.e his or her fever by a heat gun) before entry to one foreign country. But as I have said, there are a lot of examples.

About the classical body in Foucault, I don't want to say so much because we don't have much time. Only some key concept: the shift from let-live/make-die to make-live/let-die in the modern time; and we want also to highlight this "closed" body, institutionalized (molded in instutitions), fold, with some clear boundaries.

Okey, we can discuss it in the questions section or at the coffee break. Let's go to the last part: some examples of this new body.

(See slides) well, the first interesting thing in this maps are the arrows. Movement is administrated because there are a (bio)risk that begins in Africa and goes to USA and Asia. We can see this arrows also in the zoonotic course of an infection. The deer is infected by a fruit bat, and the first one then, is eaten by a monkey that is in conctact with humans. So, what we can do? stablish controls in these movements as we will see now. Finally, before arrive to the documents, we can see another feature of this body. As I said, this body is literally open, showing tissues and organs, and always related with a map, a territory (regadless of what we understand by territory).

In the last place, we can read some extracts about the interspecie-body (I want to use the english documents only): 

"Ebola outbreaks among humans have been associated with direct exposure to fruit bats and mortality among other wild animals, which tend to succumb to the infection. "

"Preventing infection in communities:
Visitors and residents in EVD-affected areas face a low risk of becoming infected in the community if the following precautions are strictly followed:
• Avoid contact with symptomatic patients and their bodily fluids.
• Avoid contact with corpses and/or bodily fluids from deceased patients.
•Avoid contact with wild animals (including primates, monkeys, forest antelopes, rodents and bats), both alive and dead, and consumption of bushmeat.
• Wash hands regularly, using soap or antiseptics. "

Well, as we can see, the key concept is about avoid the contact, that is, to interrupt the interspecie-body. In all the cases, there is a symbiotic process where two kind of species or animals are in contact. For instance, in the second document, we can see some forms of try to manage this new body (we can consider it within the kinepolitics): avoid contact with sumptomatic patients, avoid contact with wild animals (without any control in their movement), wash hands, etc.

That's all, thank you so much. We can discuss it when all the researches would talk. 




Photo Credit: Flickr, user Christian Senger


lunes, 12 de enero de 2015

New Congress in February!

After few days disconnected due to an important task I carried out for the Open University of Catalonia, I come back to Anthropology of the Bios talking about the 2nd Congress of Critical Social Psychology that will be held in Barcelona, from February 12th to February 14th. This congress is titled “Affect, Embodiment and Politics” (registration is still open for everyone), where my research group will expose two communications about our current line of research.

For this, the current post is about one of this communications, particularly the one I will espose, whose name is “The new Management of Biorisk and the Biopower’ shift: from the Institutionalized body to the Interspecie Body”. Although the communication will be in Spanish, you can check the Prezi’ slides I am going to use here

For this work, we will begin talking about the current situation of our society in several realms: technology, society, outbreaks… whose assemblage is so different from that pointed out by Foucault in the 80’s which he never could observer because his death. After this introduction we will present two new concepts: interspecies-body and cinepolitics (I wrote one post talking about cinepolitics). Both interspecies-body and cinepolitics are linked at the basis of this new techno-scientific panorama drawn in the first part, where when a new outbreak is emerged, management and surveillance are carried out over the movement of a plural or heterogeneous body made by the union of animals, bacteria, viruses and humans. Is so difficult cutting of the link between all of them, and is observed that peril or risk is no longer one animal (a sheep or a flock of sheep for instance) but the jump to the human or to a whole farm (cows, horses, pigs…).

The next step in our communication is to compare this conception with the Foucaultian view of body: let live-make die to make live-let die, and his conception of a close and finalized body, passing from institution (school, jail, madhouse…) to institution. To finish, we will show some examples extracted from several European documents, including images and some text (you can check it in the last slides.


What is your opinion about that? We need some people in order to discuss our research and enrich our empirical material. 

Photo Credit: Flickr, user Castgen

martes, 23 de diciembre de 2014

Cinepolitics and Biosecurity


The post I want to publish today is about a new condition we are researching in relation with biosecurity and the politic management, surveillance and power.

In fact, as I have already written a post where I talk about biosecurity and biopolitics, pointing out some short ideas mentioning the work of Foucault, Agamben or Negri, for instance. The reason for the brevity of that post is we are deploying a work where biopolitics would give away to cinepolitics, that is to say, the management of movement or flows, and no longer souls or bodies as it happens in biopolitics.

However, what is cinepolitics exactly? As Tirado (2010) says, consists in a highlight into the Foucault notion of movement within biopolitics. In this sense, Foucault assumes that movement is one variable that is added to either vital and biologics that shape biopolitics. Nonetheless, in cinepolitics the key concept is this movement, located at the same level of biology where control and management is carried out by the exchange and motility.

Thus, control and management is exercised throughout the movement of data (in a Nikolas Rose interpretation), information (maybe XXXX) or bioactants in this case. For instance, a virus that is transported by a flock of sheep or bacteria that comes from a tropical country to Europe through an air travel. The result is typically shown in maps where fluxes are enacted with arrows or lines. Because of this, bodies are no longer the key concept of management: there is a shift where bodies become solely a further element, that is to say, one bioactant more in the set of bioactants put on stage. Now, we can say that one essential feature of bioactant is the need of movement.

In this realm of cinepolitics, bodies are transformed: we are in front of open bodies, bodies that lookout better than look in, and waiting for connections with other bioactants. The most important issue then, is not what is connected but how is the connection:

a    a) The connection folds space and time: bioactants perform as acceleration operators. 
    b)The body is no longer self-contained: body is one element that flows and is monitored due to its open nature. Body is constituted by a set of little bodies (human-virus-bacteria-animals) that is a potential risk from others bioactants (flocks, population… but also economy, public infrastructure…).

References:


Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be Defended. New York: Picador.
Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Tirado, Francisco. Baleriola, Enrique. Amaral Giordani, M. Do. A. Giordani, Tiago. Torrejón, Pedro. (2014). Subjetividad y subjetivadores en las tecnologías de bioseguridad en la Unión Europea. Polis e Psique, 3(4), 23-50.

Tirado, F. (2010). Cinepolítica y cinevalor: la gran transformación de la biopolítica. In Ignacio Mendiola (ed.) Rastros y rostros de la biopolítica. Barcelona: Anthropos.

PhotoCredit: Flickr, user Alexander Babashov