post 7

Biopolitics is the study of the very specific cross section where biology and politics meet. This is an incredibly niche area of study, however the presence of both biology and politics intersect much more than one would assume. This is an important field of study, as government politics directly interfere with human life. This can range from the mild to extreme. An early example of biopolitics could be the employment of eugenics, which, according to the dictionary, is the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Many governmental bodies, including the United States of America utilized eugenics programs up until the mid-twentieth century, sterilizing many ethnic minorities and people with disabilities who were considered inferior by government standards. Some countries, such as Nazi Germany, went even farther with this, executing their undesirable ethnic minorities and disabled folks. A more mild and contemporary example of biopolitics can be observed in modern day health care systems. While most first world countries in this day and age adhere to a single payer system, also known as universal healthcare, the United States of America has a private system, where health insurance coverage is determined by your job and level of income. Those who have better paying jobs or work for the government generally have access to better healthcare whereas those who work minimum wage or blue collar jobs typically have to settle for cheaper healthcare options with less coverage. This is a huge point of contention for many liberals and conservatives. Many of those on the right argue that under a private healthcare system, citizens have more choice over who is taking care of them. Those on the left side of the aisle argue that Americans pay much more to their insurance companies than they would under a single payer system, but receive worse healthcare coverage despite this. Also, there are over forty-four million Americans who do not have insurance, nearly fifteen percent of the country’s entire population. These statistics can be incredibly concerning, especially in a global pandemic situation that we are experiencing right now. Due to an alarming amount of uninsured Americans, it is for certain many people in our country would be much less likely to go to a doctor or emergency room in the event of them thinking that they might be infected with the virus. Going to a medical practitioner or emergency room is already astronomically expensive for those who do not have insurance, so one cannot even imagine the cost of going to the hospital for the treatment of a deadly infectious disease without insurance. Already there have been reports of uninsured Americans receiving staggering bills for their treatment of the coronavirus, and studies show that going to the hospital uninsured with coronavirus will put Americans in serious medical debt. 

“Those who are hospitalized with coronavirus can expect to pay anywhere from $42,486 to $74,310 if they are uninsured or if they receive care that’s deemed out-of-network by their insurance company, according to recent analysis by independent nonprofit FAIR Health. For those with insurance who are using in-network providers, out-of-pocket costs will be a portion of $21,936 to $38,755, depending on the cost-sharing provisions of their health plan.”

In this sense, the very wellbeing of humans is being held firmly in the grasp of biopolitics. It is up to our both our political leaders as well as the nation’s top scientists and doctors to not only find a way to combat the virus, but also find a way to make sure every infected American is cared for without sending them into plummeting medical debt. 

 

post #7

There are many different types of viruses. From the plague that swept through medieval Europe to MERS that shook Middle Eastern society in 2015 to the new coronavirus. In addition, numerous infectious diseases such as cholera, smallpox, tuberculosis, and AIDS appear in human history. These viruses would have had significant social and political ramifications at certain times or continuously.

The relationship between viruses and countries differs in many ways from other diseases. In many cases, the role or responsibility of the state in individual diseases is not well important, and blaming the state is often not appropriate. However, when a virus-like Corona turns, the nation is called, whether it is good or bad. Talk about the state’s role and pursue its responsibilities. The virus is not one of many diseases, but a national disaster itself.

The two forms of biopolitics virus during individual body discipline and population control are important risk factors in the latter area. In order to ensure the safety of the entire population, politics must protect the population from hunger and virus. Failure to respond effectively to infectious diseases makes biopolitics difficult to function.

Virus are accompanied by psychological disasters. The virus spread from person to person. When a virus occurs, people evade the epidemic for self-defense. When the virus spreads, people feel anxious and avoid places where people gather in the mind. Movie theaters and amuse parks are slack, and more schools are closed. The relationship between people and people is broken up, and people are isolated.

An area or place where an epidemic occurs is an unfavorable place and is subject to evasion. In a hospital where an virus patient has gone, the patients escape like a tide. At the time of the Corona pandemic, Korea itself was the subject of evasion, and tourists’ visit to Korea was largely canceled and the travel industry was damaged by a direct hit. Now, on the contrary, China and Italy are the object of evasion.

Politics of containment and exclusion works. The psychology of evading and accusing patients of plagues for harming others justifies the policy of quarantining and excluding them. In the past, when the plague circulated, patients were kept in distant cottages or shelter. Whether it was dead or living there, fate was a matter. Neither the doctor nor the government had anything to do with the disease. The most basic response to the plague was quarantine policy.

Even in the modern virus, the way we respond is unchanged. Patients are unconditionally admitted to the quarantine room and completely blocked outsiders, no family visits, and those who are likely to develop the disease by contact with the patient are registered as self-containment subjects.

Biopolitics, which has been discussed for a long time, refers to the state of modern nations who want to recognize and actively manage population groups as a whole and individual human bodies as a mean to maintain power. The virus poses a serious challenge to this vital power’s population management function. The virus expands when everyday management functions fail, while the virus increases the likelihood that the management will be further damaged.

From the standpoint of biopolitics, the virus must be a hostile being that must be managed and controlled. Modern countries have introduced various methods and prepared various devices to manage the virus. The development of medicine greatly contributed to the operation of this vital power and at some point came to believe that the virus was conquered. However, the emergence and virus was enough to shake this belief.

In the case of an virus emergency, the epidemic operates. When the epidemic is activated, the patient is recognized as a perpetrator or criminal, and containment and devices are activated. The patient’s every move is subject to surveillance, and everything related to the patient-the items handled, the space passed through becomes unsuccessful. The increasing number of patients is called by serial number, and the patient’s uniform is recognized as a prison uniform.

Blog #4

Our moral obligations to take action for the future of our planet would mostly just look like not contributing to it. Most of us are not millionaires or have extreme power where we could pressure politicians or corporations to start sustainable practices. This means we cant make changes on a macro scale. Instead, we can stop our contribution to the problem, and live sustainably in our personal lives. We can make changes on a micro scale, and if enough people take part, our massive amount of micro changes will make a macro change. There isn't enough being done by world leaders. Trump still denies climate change is even a thing. He is loosening restrictions on emissions and overall pollution for huge corporations in the United States. Same with the Chinese and Indian governments. China has air they sometimes can't even breathe because of the amount of pollution in it.

SalvaNATURA is an environmental group out of El Salvador whose mission includes many aims, including implementing sustainable development policies, and protecting and conserving El Salvador's natural areas. Greenpeace El Salvador is mainly just on Facebook. It looks like they are mainly focused on recycling and people getting money for recycling.

Larsen responded to the claim that a place has agency in full support. He felt that the Cheslatta indigenous people, and they land he spent a lot of time on, to be extremely connected to his soul. He understood that Cheslatta lake meant so much to the people and that they all understood from early on, all of their ancestors came from the lake, and all of the creatures around also came from the lake. He felt that the lake was the source of life and it had a certain ancient wisdom about it. Like it had been around for a lot of time.

Blog #7

The coronavirus pandemic has brought to light many aspects of biopolitical strategies. To be honest, I didn't really know what biopolitical strategies were until we started talking and learning about them in this class. Now that I know the definition and examples of biopolitics, I feel that this is a major part of society that I didn't really pay attention to until now, which is exactly what those in biopolitical power prefer. I think the virus has made us realize several things that those in power have been slowly implementing and creating systematic dependence so that the general public becomes more dependent on those in power. An example of this, which is extremely relevant to what is going on right now, is our healthcare system. Our healthcare system is one of the most broken in the world, which is apparent by how much our health care costs for the average person. This is because our hospitals are not run to provide proper care to patients, instead they are run to maximize the amount of money each bed can make the hospital's shareholders. For the past several decades, our healthcare system has been slowly trading capability (number of beds, number of patients a hospital can take care of) for efficiency. This means that instead of our hospitals being able to handle a massive health crisis like what we are experiencing now, our hospitals have instead been built to squeeze out every possible dollar they can from patients, and maximize the profit from each bed, which quick patient turn around so that each bed can make us much money as possible. This is where the biopolitics of our healthcare corporations have been systematically making people more indebted and more dependent on health care, to the point where we have to pay an outrageous amount of money for any health emergency, and any elective type of care. This is how biopolitics have impacted our health care system. I think a lot of the biopolitical processes involving grocery stores and transportation have been complicated with the coronavirus pandemic. We have seen gas prices plummet, which is seriously hurting the fossil fuels industry, which is something I am particularly appreciative in relation to the virus. We have seen grocery stores still open as well as drive-thrus of fast food. I think we have become particularly dependent on the fast food industry and restaurant industry here in the United States, and that this is another biopolitical strategy to keep the American people dependent on the food industry as a means to eat. Some people never cook at home. They are completely dependent on fast food and restaurants to feed themselves, and since eating is an essential part of survival, we see that the food industry here in the United States has many Americans depending on it to survive and eat.

Blog #6

1. Slavoj Žižek has a great point when he speaks about ideology. His interpretation of it is that its a spontaneous kind of lens that we see through that distorts reality in real time to show us things in ways that go along with our beliefs. He uses an example from the movie “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” to use as an example of how the glasses that the main character finds show the underlying message on ads and money and even people who have been taken over by the body snatchers. This differs from how most people think about ideology being a belief system that people believe and refuse to listen to anything that opposes it. Slavoj’s description talks about a kind of lens that in real time will literally distort how you see things based on your ideology.
2. When Žižek talks about escaping into our dreams being within ideology and how he defines ideology, he is trying to explain that even when people think they have escaped their ideology, they are still being affected by it. It doesn't just go away with a sudden discovery, it's like a belief system that has to become completely unlearned.
3. I think growing up in my house I was influenced a lot by my parents political views, and until I got older and was able to experience more of our systems and have my own thoughts and opinions I was heavily perceiving the world in my parents point of view and dogmatic ideas. I think my mom is quick to judge and I picked that up from her from a young age, which took several years to unlearn as a behavior and belief. My parents haven't been rich my whole life but they have always been comfortable, which i think will cause you to see reality from a different perspective and different way than if my parents had been poor all my life. Another way I could have some ideological  thinking is just the friends and people i am around on a daily basis. No matter what, people that you spend time with will rub off on you and you might share some opinions and ideologies with them.

post 6

Zizek has a very interesting and different view of ideology. To him, his definition of ideology isn't what most conventional academics would consider as ideology. To most people, an ideology is basically an idea manifested in a sort of organized, comprehensive theory, usually in a political context. Some examples of ideology include Marxist ideology, or capitalist ideology. They can be broad, or single issue. Zizek, however is not talking about any of these. To Zizek, ideology is a much more personal thing. According to Zizek, an ideology is essentially what you personally think about your surroundings and how you react to them. Your internal monologue is the truest version of your personal beliefs.

To delve into one's inner thoughts and dreams is to analyze their ideology as well. The subconscious without a doubt is a great source of someone's personal creed. When saying that “Ideology is our spontaneous relationship to our social world, how we perceive its meaning…”, Zizek trying to describe our initial reaction to our surroundings, how we perceive the world around us. While there isn't necessarily a political narrative to everything we come across in our day to day lives, there is without a doubt a way to analyze how we feel about the world around us and turn it into an ideology for a specific person.

I was actually shown the movie that Zizek describes in a digital media class last semester, when I studied abroad in Seville, Spain. It is a great representation of how advertising and news works to subconsciously nudge us in the "right" direction, that being the direction of being a consumer who reproduces and creates more consumers. I also feel this way when I see political ads. Although most political ads make you want to vote for a candidate, I often feel they are fake and overproduced, and work to make the candidate feel less "real".

Blog #6

Unlike traditional Marxist ideology (false consciousness), Zizek presents ideology as a "reality." As in a new interpretation of Marx's theory of ideology, ideology is not a lie to deceive us into blinding reality, but rather an important component of reality. In other words, the ideology clearly functions to cover something, but through the covering action, rather it constitutes reality, or more precisely, social reality.

He says we act like we believe in the ideology, even though we don't believe in it. This belief is not a belief in thought, but a belief in action. For example, we know that money is not everything. Nevertheless, it acts as if money is everything.

Zizek approaches ideology not in a purely dualistic way, but in a ternary way. The dualist method divides ideology and reality into dualism, but the tri scientist method means a reality that is not recognized as a symbolic system in reality. He calls this the ghost of ideology that conceals the gaps inside the symbolic world. It means the real world that is not ideological. Zizek says these ghosts confirm the existence of ideology. He says that through this, he can criticize ideology by talking about the existence of ideology.

According to Freud, the ultimate function of dreams is to help dreamers continue to sleep. When an external disturbance threatens us to wake up, we are dreaming just before we wake up. They can quickly imagine a situation created by mixing external stimuli, and this will allow them to continue to sleep. However, it is said that when the external stimulus becomes too strong, it wakes up.

In the meantime, he tells the story of a father's dream that fell asleep next to his dead son. Contrary to the previous explanation, this dream is that the father prolonged his sleep to avoid the unpleasantness of waking up, but the ghost of the son he met in the dream was much harder to endure than the outside, so he awoke and fled to reality. This was to avoid the unbearable trauma of his own responsibility for his son's painful death.

In Freud's example of a father's dream, it is often understood that reality exists for people who cannot endure dreams. But it is not sure yet. When people have a really painful nightmare, he or she knows in dreams that this is a dream. So they woke up trying hard to come to reality. But when they fall asleep again, they have a nightmare.

Zizek insisted the fantasy scene is not a fascinating scene that we see, it is the idea that there is someone out there watching us, not a dream, it is the idea that we are the object of someone's dream.

Personally, the ideology that Zizek says to me is more touching. I think his way of thinking realistically, not a philosophical approach, will make it more understandable to the public. In particular, the method of using money as an example was very sympathetic. People know what is right, but we live in a way that is not right for personal desire or pleasure. And he thinks it is an ideology.

So am I. I think that all human beings deserve respect, but acts are not. The bad things of others are seen and avoided. Treating people like this is not the right way, but it ism y ideology. I know what is ideal, but what I am doing is different.