Abstract
Socio-philosophical addressing of the biopolitical issues in the context of digitalization is determined by the necessity to study the reasons, consequences, and mechanisms of ongoing changes in the sociocultural and political spheres. Digitalization significantly changes the relationship between power and society, the hierarchy of social institutions, and the ways of power influence. The purpose of this research is to study the institutional cross-section of society in the context of biopolitics and the functioning of formal and informal institutions in the era of the dominance of bio- and information technologies. The study examined the issues related to changes in power priorities in the context of the transformation of social hierarchies, as well as the growing role of science and technology in the processes of social management. The article reveals that today, science and technology serve as the foundation for changes in the structure and as the main value reference of modern society. It is the inextricable link between science and technology that makes possible the biopolitical transformation of traditional management methods. The change in the principles of building social ties under the influence of various, first of all, information and communication technologies, forms a new type of sociality - network society, in which the principles and rules for organizing vertical and horizontal ties between individuals, social groups, and institutions are changing significantly. The implementation of the control impact in such society is carried out through the widespread penetration of power relations into all levels of social interaction.
Keywords: Biopoliticsbiotechnologycontrol actionformal and informal social institutionsinformation technologysocial hierarchy
Introduction
The digitalization of almost all areas and spheres of society life radically changes the priorities of power at all its levels. In the absence of a monopoly on information and censorship that has become practically impossible in the global world, with a high density of social communication, the authorities strive to find and implement basic forms and methods of influencing the sociocultural space that maximize the range and depth of managing human behavior.
However, the relatively high level of development of education in developed countries, the ability to access information around the world, and other transformations of modern society associated with the phenomenon of digitalization make it almost impossible to use traditional methods of management and control.
The classical forms of political relations give way to other forms of power representation, which entails changes in the institutional structure and hierarchy of society. Modern biopolitical scenarios are a “bright” soft power variety “that does not imply direct control and exploitation, but acts indirectly: for example, through artificial constructing and imposing new needs, promoting new types of goods and services. Despite its “softness”, biopower does not cease to be power, since the asymmetry between its subjects and objects remains” (Zhelnin, 2019, p. 320). “Biopower works in such a way that an object, subject to power influence, simply ceases to feel any pressure, realizing what is happening as something inherent” (Alasania, 2018, p. 75).
Problem Statement
The modern digital society is an environment dominated by IT and biotechnology. They are becoming the leading tools for forming new and reforming existing sociocultural spaces, building other configurations of formal and informal social institutions, which are often impossible in the context of traditional political relations.
Biotechnologies are “biomedical technologies, which include classical methods of treatment (including psychoanalysis), its newest forms - gene diagnostics and gene therapy, cloning, transplantology, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy in psychopharmacology, as well as control practices of bodily and mental functions based on the medical folklore of mass consciousness” (Tishchenko, 2001, p. 4).
The era of biotechnology would not have been possible without another important component of progress: information technology. The highest computing power of modern computers, united in local and global networks, makes it possible to operate with large amounts of data, to exchange information between subscribers in the shortest possible time, to build and maintain high-tech production chains, etc. It is important to stress that “the processes of production informatization, digitalization, and technicalization and the processes of social practices technologization are always superimposed on the processes of penetration and saturation of technologies with scientific achievements. Through innovative technologies based on scientific achievements, science actively forms the image, as well as the structural and functional basis of the modern postindustrial society” (Pelevin, 2020, p. 104).
The latest scientific achievements in the field of biology and IT have become the reference point for the authorities in the era of high technology: it is on this “scientific basis” that the production and consumption management processes are built; control over social processes and the activities of individuals is carried out.
Research Questions
The major research questions are as follows:
Purpose of the Study
The purpose is to study the institutional cross-section of society in the context of biopolitics and to assess the functioning of formal and informal institutions in the era of the dominance of bio- and information technologies.
Research Methods
Findings
The absence of human dimension in technology, primarily in those industries where the loss of control poses the greatest threat (from nuclear power to genetic engineering), makes us look at security problems differently. Thus, “the tragedy of 2011 (Fukushima, Japan) sharply undermined public confidence not only in nuclear technology, but also, in a broader sense, in science and technology, however, many people continue to pin high hopes on science, expecting that only scientific methods are able to cover multiple and varied facts of reality and to reconcile the conflicting interests of the actors” (Pyastolov, 2016, p. 140). The safety requirement is especially acute in situations of hardly predictable behavior of certain systems, as well as in situations of a high degree of uncertainty in their behavior. A paradoxical situation appears: on the one hand, uncertainty is an integral property of natural and social systems (see, for example, Karabanov, 2017; Mikhina, 2018; Sokolova, 2018), which must be taken into account when interacting with them; on the other hand, the main task of both scientific management and power influence is the minimization of uncertainty and the requirement to achieve maximum predictability of the system’s behavior.
One more fundamental point cannot be ignored: power relations have penetrated into the relationship between a human and technology. First of all, we mean the dependence of everyday human life on modern gadgets. A person today is simply forced to rely almost everywhere on technology, first of all, on electronics, which controls, in the literal sense of the word, every step (we are talking about navigators, fitness trackers, planners, etc.). If earlier technology was an auxiliary tool, now it has turned into the environment of human existence; nowadays, it is almost impossible to imagine human life without technology. Moreover, the so-called “smart technology” is rapidly developing, based on artificial intelligence that surpasses human intelligence in many ways. Thus, the power subordination of artificial intelligence capabilities opens up unlimited possibilities in the field of management.
Conclusion
The next stage of the information revolution, often referred to as digital, has significantly changed the face of modern society, radically transforming many of its spheres and institutions. The economy, politics, law, science and technology, education and culture, communication, and everyday life have undergone a radical transformation. In the context of the changes considered, the tasks of political governance have also changed: the most important task of the authorities is to change the very essence of a person, and the change should be regular and permanent. Modern biotechnologies, primarily genetic ones, combined with progress in the IT field, already allow this task to be partially performed. Institutional transformations, in which informal institutions and horizontal ties come to the fore, are actively pushing official institutions with their vertical ties aside; they form a new type of power where the power relations dissolve, penetrating all levels of social interaction, including human-technology relationship which was not previously observed.
References
- Agamben, J. (2011). Homo Sacer. Suverennaya vlast’ i golaya zhizn’ [Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Naked Life]. Evropa.
- Alasania, K. Yu. (2018). Filosofskaya kontseptsiya biovlasti: istoki i perspektivy [The philosophical concept of biopower: origins and perspectives]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 7. Filosofiya [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7. Philosophy], 4, 70-77.
- Butler, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. Routledge.
- Esposito, R. (2008). BIOS: Biopolitics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
- Foucault, M. (2011). Bezopasnost’, territoriya, naseleniye. Kurs lektsiy, prochitannykh v Kollezh de Frans v 1977–1978 uchebnom godu [Security, Territory, Population. A course of lectures given at the College de France in the 1977-1978 academic year]. Nauka.
- Gobrusenko, G. K. (2014). Novyye strategii kontseptualizatsii prostranstva v sovremennykh “Issledovaniyakh nauki i tekhnologii” [New strategies for conceptualizing space in modern “Science and Technology Research”]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 7. Filosofiya [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7. Philosophy], 2, 40-57.
- Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2004). Imperiya [Empire]. Praxis.
- Kaplun, V. (2019). Perestat’ myslit’ “vlast’” cherez “gosudarstvo”: gouvernementalité, governmentality studies i chto stalo s analitikoy vlasti Mishelya Fuko v russkikh perevodakh [Stop thinking “power” through “state”: gouvernementalité, governmentality studies and what happened to Michel Foucault’s analysis of power in Russian translations]. Filosofsko-literaturnyy zhurnal “Logos” [Philosophical and literary magazine “Logos”], 29(2), 179-220. DOI: 10.22394/0869-5377-2019-2-179-218
- Kapoor, P. (2018). Communicating Gender, Race and Nation in the Purvi Patel case: The State, Biopower, and the Globality of Reproductive Surveillance. Gender and Women’s Studies. 2018, 1(1). DOI: 10.31532/GendWomensStud.1.1.004
- Karabanov, A. P. (2017). Sovremennyye podkhody k ponimaniyu kontsepta neopredelennosti [Modern approaches to understanding the concept of uncertainty]. Steps, 3(1), 49-63.
- Kobylin, I. (2019). Igry metodologov: Michel Fuko i “orgupravlencheskiy” proyekt Georgiya Shchedrovitskogo [Games of methodologists: Michel Foucault and the “organizational management” project of Georgy Shchedrovitsky]. Filosofsko-literaturnyy zhurnal “Logos” [Philosophical and literary magazine “Logos”], 29(2), 268-288. DOI: 10.22394/0869-5377-2019-2-268-285
- Lysak, I. V. (2018). Setevizatsiya ku’'tury: na puti k obshchestvu vzaimnoy prozrachnosti [Networkization of Culture: Towards a Society of Mutual Transparency]. Manuscript, 4(90), 75-79. DOI: 10.30853/manuscript.2018-4.16
- Mikhina, M. V. (2018). Neopredelennost’: osnovnyye kharakteristiki i opredeleniye [Uncertainty: basic characteristics and definition]. Innovatsionnaya nauka [Innovative Science], 2(5), 140-143.
- Nikolai, F. (2019). Diskurs bezopasnosti i politicheskaya anatomiya strakha v epokhu “Novykh voyn” [Security Discourse and the Political Anatomy of Fear in the “New Wars” Era]. Filosofsko-literaturnyy zhurnal “Logos” [Philosophical and literary magazine “Logos”], 29(3), 217-230. DOI: 10.22394/0869-5377-2019-3-217-228
- Parchev, O. (2018). Biopower, Sadomasochism, and Pastoral Power: Acceptance via Transgression. Sexuality and Culture, 23(1), 337-355. DOI:
- Pelevin, S. I. (2020). Postindustrial’noye obshchestvo v usloviyakh tsifrovizatsii [Postindustrial society in the context of digitalization]. Manusript, 13(7), 101-104. DOI: 10.30853/manuscript.2020.7.18
- Prozorov, S. (2007). The Unrequited Love of Power: Biopolitical Investment and the Refusal of Care. Foucault Studies, 4, 53-77.
- Pyastolov, S. M. (2016). Genezis i perspektivy transdistsiplinarnosti [Genesis and perspectives of transdisciplinarity]. Terra Economicus, 14(2), 139-158. DOI:
- Rodin, L. (2017). Studies on Governmentality: six epistemological pitfalls. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Socioilogical Review], 16 (2), 9-28. DOI:
- Sakevich, V. I., Denisov, B. P., & Rivkin-Fish, M. (2016). Neposledovatel’naya politika v oblasti kontrolya rozhdayemosti i dinamika urovnya abortov v Rossii [Inconsistent birth control policies and dynamics of the abortion rate in Russia]. Zhurnal issledovaniy sotsial’noi politiki [Journal of Social Policy Research], 14(4), 461-478.
- Samovolnova, O. V. (2017). Sotsial’no-filosofskiy analiz osnovnykh kontseptsiy biopolitiki: M. Fuko, Dzh. Agamben, A. Negri. [Socio-philosophical analysis of the basic concepts of biopolitics: M. Foucault, J. Agamben, A. Negri]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya “Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Iskusstvovedeniye” [RGGU Bulletin. Series “Philosophy. Sociology. Art history”], 4-2(10), 261-271.
- Sharon, T. (2018). When digital health meets digital capitalism, how many common goods are at stake? Big Data & Society, 5(2). DOI:
- Sivkov, D. (2018). Svoye ili chuzhoye? Sozdaniye tela v immunologii [Yours or someone else’s? Building a body in immunology] Filosofsko-literaturnyy zhurnal “Logos” [Philosophical and literary magazine “Logos”], 28(5), 249-286. DOI: 10.22394/0869-5377-2018-5-249-282
- Skopin, D. (2019). Upravleniye umershimi: distsiplina i biopolitika [Managing the Dead: Discipline and Biopolitics] Filosofsko-literaturnyy zhurnal “Logos” [Philosophical and literary magazine “Logos”], 29(2), 82-103. DOI: 10.22394/0869-5377-2019-2-82-101
- Sokolova, O. I. (2018). Ponyatiye “neopredelennost’” v kontekste vzaimodeystviya subjekta i objekta nauchnogo poznaniya [The concept of “uncertainty” in the context of the interaction of the subject and the object of scientific knowledge]. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta [Minin University Bulletin], 6(2), 17. DOI:
- Tishchenko, P. D. (2001). Bio-vlast’ v epokhu biotekhnologiy [Biopower in the Age of Biotechnology]. IFRAN.
- Zhelnin, A. I. (2018). Biovlast’ kak obshchesotsial'nyy fenomen i yeye sovremennyye krizisnyye transformatsii [Biopower as a general social phenomenon and its modern crisis transformations]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya [Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Political science], 41, 49-56. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/41/6
- Zhelnin, A. I. (2019). Biopolitika i biopoliticheskaya ekonomiya: sushchnost’ kontseptov. [Biopolitics and Biopolitical Economy: the Essence of Concepts]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya [Perm University Bulletin. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology], 3, 320-330. DOI:
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
27 May 2021
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-107-2
Publisher
European Publisher
Volume
108
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-1907
Subjects
Culture, communication, history, mediasphere, education, law
Cite this article as:
Spornik, A., Nekita, A., & Shipulin, V. (2021). Biopolitical Evolution Of Social Hierarchies In The Digital World. In E. V. Toropova, E. F. Zhukova, S. A. Malenko, T. L. Kaminskaya, N. V. Salonikov, V. I. Makarov, A. V. Batulina, M. V. Zvyaglova, O. A. Fikhtner, & A. M. Grinev (Eds.), Man, Society, Communication, vol 108. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 800-806). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.02.102