Biopolitics at 50 Years: Volume 13

Biology and Politics (or Biopolitics) has been a part of the political science firmament since the 1960s. Over time, it has become less an odd outlier in the discipline and more a tolerated (and sometimes respected) part of the enterprise. After about 50 years of existence, this is a proper time to reflect on where biopolitics has been, where it is now, and where it might go as an academic endeavor. Indeed, some have said that the best step would for biopolitics to no longer be seen as a special, narrow part of political science – but a part of every field in the discipline, integrated into the larger world of the study of politics.

Politics in human societies represents a variation, and elaboration, on a major evolutionary theme. Political processes have played an important functional role in goal-oriented, cooperative social systems in the natural world. This view of politics is also consistent with a causal theory – known as the Synergism Hypothesis – which explains the rise of complexity in evolution over time and, equally important, the frequent examples of devolution and dissolution. In addition to a brief discussion of this theory, the evolution of political systems in humankind will be described, from its possible origins among our remote australopithecine ancestors to the emergence of complex modern civilizations. Now, however, we confront an existential threat to our species, and to many others, due mainly to climate change. The future is very problematic. I will argue here that the only viable path going forward is a new social contract coupled with (democratic) global governance – a global “superorganism.”

Aristotle's Politics provides an example of what a biopolitical science might look like. Three key elements stand out: (1) an account of political structure as a multilevel society including kin and non-kin relationships; (2) an account of the human species that includes comparison with other social species that are capable of coordinated action; and (3) an emphasis on the human capacity to understand and communicate moral rules. Over the last 50 years, a number of research programs in evolutionary anthropology have provided the basis for a biopolitical science that maps onto the elements above. Schultz, Opie, and Atkinson describe the trajectory of human evolution from solitary to a pair bonded, familial species. Michael Tomasello's two-step account of the evolution of human cooperation shows how the ancestral humans went from merely gregarious to genuinely political animals. Christopher Boehm shows how the human capacity for moral emotions and decision making by consensus developed. Richard Wrangham provides evidence that the suppression of reactive aggression by ancestral human societies resulted in a self-domesticated species, a process that enhanced the human capacity for cooperation and communication. Bernard Chapais argued that the emergence of pair bonding among ancestral humans laid the foundation for both consanguineal and affinal kinship structures. That these bodies of research hold together can best be seen when they are viewed in light of Aristotle's biopolitical science.

A multidimensional understanding of human nature based on biology can provide a very useful framework of analysis and bring some understanding and coherence to the very fragmented perspectives within moral, political, and legal philosophy. A useful four-part framework of analysis can be based on the evolution of the brain as described by Paul MacLean (1973, 1990) and Sir John Eccles (1989). A similar pattern of development of our mental and moral capacities through experience in childhood was also described by Jean Piaget (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) and Lawrence Kohlberg (1981). This multidimensional understanding of human nature considers the individual, social, rational, and metaphysical perspectives. Because this four-part multidimensional understanding of human nature is based on a naturalized epistemology related to the development of our mental capacities in both evolution and through experience, this pattern can be seen across a wide variety of disciplines. Medical ethics, US constitutional democracy, and legal philosophy will be used as examples of the usefulness of this multidimensional understanding of human nature.

This chapter seeks to look at the most important trends in international relations and global affairs spurred by the coronavirus crisis, and its long-term repercussions. In this analysis the author adapts the current biopolitical scholarship to such disciplines as security studies, foreign policy analysis, international relations and regional studies, and world politics and globalization. The chapter starts with discussing the biopolitics of the coronavirus crisis from a security perspective that requires a juxtaposition of COVID-19 emergency with some other securitized biopolitical events and experiences such as the war on terror and the refugee crisis. When it comes to the global level, the analysis includes the new roles of global organizations and their contribution to the fight against COVID-19. Another perspective is grounded in the discussions on the idea of “the international” and the reverberations of COVID-19 for the entire system of inter-state/inter-governmental/trans-national relations, including its regional dimensions. From the viewpoint of national foreign policies, the pandemic can be viewed as a global calamity producing new forms of diplomatic activity that significantly re-actualize and expand the concepts of biodiplomacy and health diplomacy.

Studies of public policy, particularly the explanation and prediction of policy outcomes, are motivated by a desire to improve policy success. However, most policies fall far short of solving problems. Why is it so difficult for policy to succeed? Biology's answer: because we are human. Many natural tendencies are less than optimal for the policy cognition and behavior necessary to make effective policy popular. The portions of human nature which are most interesting for our purposes include the way humans think, the role of emotion, the power of interpersonal relationships, the power of belonging to a group, and the power of competition for status. These human realities anticipate ineffective policy development. Knowing something about humans might explain why it is difficult for policy to succeed.

Research at the intersection of neurotoxicology, cognitive neuroscience, genetics, and behavior – “toxicogenomics” – promises to improve understanding of behavior and public policies. Many toxicants modify neurotransmitters with effects depending on genotype, development, and experience. For example, lead and manganese downregulate dopaminergic or serotonergic function, weaken behavioral inhibition, and are positively correlated with hyperactivity (ADHD), substance abuse, or violent crime. Within this context, the chapter argues that neurotoxicology holds great promise for improving public policies in areas such as criminal justice and education. After discussing research methods, the chapter surveys previous work in neurotoxicology as it pertains to educational outcomes and to crime. Data are summarized linking: (1) children's blood lead levels with poor educational performance; (2) hair and blood levels of heavy metals with violent crime; and (3) uptake of multiple toxicants with pollution from abandoned mines. The chapter concludes by drawing lessons for ongoing research agendas at the intersection of neurotoxins, behavior, and policy.

In recent decades, oxytocin (OT) has been extensively studied across disciplines. Yet, the role of OT has been discussed little in the context of politics. This chapter proposes that studying the role of this hormone can enrich and advance the study of politics. The chapter reviews the previous findings on OT categorized into two sections: one that focuses on the biological mechanisms and therapeutic potentials and another that focuses on the effects on social behaviors. This review is not exhaustive but is intended to bring political scientists up to date with the progress in OT studies. Next, this chapter highlights that studying the role of OT in political context will benefit both the OT and political science literature, since there is currently a great interest in the context-dependent nature of OT. I highlight several research questions that can be answered at this intersection. Rather than waiting for other disciplines to complete unfolding the precise role of OT, students of biopolitics can make important contributions. Political science can further understand the biological underpinnings of concern for others and partisan behaviors, while OT applied to real-world settings would demonstrate how different contexts shape its effects.

This chapter examines how lawmakers had to grapple with whether and how to regulate medically assisted reproduction after the 1988 Baby M court case in the United States propelled surrogate motherhood and related reproductive technologies onto the public policy stage. The chapter compares the public policy approaches of two countries, France and Germany, with the regulatory structures in the United States where the Baby M court case that garnered international attention took place. Specifically, the chapter provides an in-depth examination of the legal and historical contexts of each country's policy approaches in the form of existing national marriage, family, and adoption laws as well as policies regulating human reproduction. Lawmakers' task became even more pressing once citizens began using the court system and traveled abroad to either gain access to proscribed technologies or use them for a lesser fee elsewhere. As a result, Germany developed one of the most restrictive national laws in the world while France established certain legal proscriptions, which are still more far-reaching than the regulatory structures in the United States. Along the way, this developing policy area contributed to the creation of international frameworks governing medically assisted reproduction and the development of national bioethics advisory councils.

This chapter argues that neoliberal governmentality in immunization relocates the Turkish state's position regarding vaccine and immunization policies. Neoliberalism is often discussed in the context of privatization, performance, and effectiveness separately. However, more attention should be paid to the set of strategies that are employed in public policy processes to manage populations in terms of immunization, while intertwining power with knowledge. Following Foucault's concept of governmentality and taking it further within the context of biopolitics, this chapter focuses on different knowledge practices regarding vaccine and immunization policies in Turkey. In doing so, this case study applies a post-structural analysis to examine vaccine production, vaccine know-how, and immunization policies inscribed in policy documents as a form of knowledge practice. The analysis sheds light on the reflexive transformation of the concept of biopolitics, which is moving from state-oriented knowledge practices toward a neoliberal governmentality of immunization.