Date:May 9, 2008 (Fri.) 14:30 - 16:20PM
Venue:Room AA447, Research Bldg. No.2
Presentation:
Akio Tanabe (Associate Professor, Institute for Research in Humanities)
Title: Towards Anthropology of Life
This seminar presented the idea and possibilities of “the anthropology of life,” which attempted to reunite the biological and cultural aspects of human beings, focusing on contemporary technology and institutions that have intervened in the interaction between these two aspects.
In the anthropological literature, most scholars have recently been discussing the body through the concept of “biopolitics”. According to Foucault, individuals had been disciplined and controlled by the state through a series of technological and institutional apparatus surrounding their body. To resist this control by state power, TANABE Shigeharu attempted a breakthrough by emphasizing “social practices that expand the scope for individuals to exercise freedom in the face of the ruling power.” The presenter objected to this idea as being based on the traditional framework of responsible “subjects” constructed under authority in modern society and thus the foundation of freedom was itself unclear.
Based on this criticism, the presenter reexamined what Foucault conceptualized as “art of life” (techne tou biou). It should not be applied to autonomic subjects within the network of governmentality or power; rather, this art should be grasped as the practical and ethical act of constructing “self” and “world” simultaneously through living in an eco-social environment. The presenter refered to this approach as a “biomoral” one. In this seminar, the presenter suggested the need to introduce this “biomoral” perspective through scrutinizing a case study involving political changes in village communities in India.
During the question and answer period some attendees asked questions about the concept of “biomoral”, especially about the difference between “biopolitics” and “biomoral”. There were active discussions on how to understand the relation between the intervention of the state and institutions into the body, and biomorality in everyday practice. Additionally, an attendee asked whether the adoption of biomoral as an analytical framework included the analyst’s values and another stated that “biomoral” converged with Foucault’s biopolitics. The presenter responded that, rather than simply understanding “biomoral” as an antithesis to “biopolitics”, or as being on an opposite axis, it should be understood as coming close to Foucault’s arguments, and that we should attempt to go beyond the current comprehension of the mechanism that subjects were (re)produced by power and search for alternative possibilities by utilizing this new concept.
(Masato Kasezawa)