Artist's Statement:
My introduction to postmodernism was rooted in vengeance, denial, and frustration. It all started during a debate round my junior year, when my partner and I encountered a team running a philosophy-based argument about Baudrillard's theories of hyperrealities. At the time, I couldn’t even pronounce the name “Baudrillard,” so imagine my confusion when my opponents began spewing postmodernist jargon at 400 words per minute. Long story short, my partner and I lost that round. Badly. But even though we lost, it prompted me to immerse myself in postmodernist literature and sparked my passion for international relations and postmodernist theories about the world. Determined to never lose a debate round on postmodernism again, I began reading philosophers like Baudrillard, Foucault, Nietzche, and Agamben, who each provided me with unique insight about the world and the nature of humans. Although I’m still not an expert in postmodernism, my Capstone Project has allowed me to explore how postmodernism interacts with the world more deeply.
Originally, I intended for my project to be about the intersection between postmodernism and politics. More specifically, I wanted to explore how postmodernism interacted with the ethics of politics and the idea of government control. Because postmodernists reject the idea of an objective natural reality, where human nature is predominantly determined at birth and not through social forces, I wondered how postmodernist perceptions of politics differed from traditional political theories, and I used this question to guide my research. However, after months of research, I realized that my Capstone project was too broad and decided to narrow down my topic. When I met with Dr. Holt to discuss my project, we began talking about the coronavirus pandemic, and how contradictory it was to human nature that people were willing to relinquish their control to achieve stability. During this meeting, I realized just how applicable postmodernism was to our lives; through understanding postmodernism, we could better understand the nature of humans during the coronavirus. Additionally, I realized that biopolitics, the idea that the state possesses an inextricable influence over our decisions, was paramount to understanding human nature and politics.
I’ve loved getting to explore the relationship between biopolitics and the coronavirus, and it was comforting to look at the pandemic from the perspective of a postmodernist. It was nice to know that throughout this crisis, the Capstone Project was the one thing that has remained relatively constant. Although I lost a bit of motivation towards the end of the year, I’ve enjoyed exploring a topic that holds such a paramount importance to our current situation.
I chose to format my Capstone project in a Ted Talk because I felt like that was the only way to make my project enticing and comprehensible to the average reader. I understand how confusing postmodernism is, and I wanted to make my project as understandable as possible. Additionally, most postmodernist literature is rooted in academia and not made for anyone who is not already an expert in postmodernism, so I wanted to provide a format that would allow non-experts to learn about postmodernism too.
In my Ted Talk, I discussed how the government has used the coronavirus pandemic as a means of expanding their power and exercising social control, and I revealed why individuals are so willing to relinquish their power in order to achieve stability during crises. I also explained why I decided to write my Ted Talk about biopolitics and the coronavirus: not to spread anti-government propaganda, but rather to empower people to learn how to exercise agency in a world where they lack control or stability.
Originally, I intended for my project to be about the intersection between postmodernism and politics. More specifically, I wanted to explore how postmodernism interacted with the ethics of politics and the idea of government control. Because postmodernists reject the idea of an objective natural reality, where human nature is predominantly determined at birth and not through social forces, I wondered how postmodernist perceptions of politics differed from traditional political theories, and I used this question to guide my research. However, after months of research, I realized that my Capstone project was too broad and decided to narrow down my topic. When I met with Dr. Holt to discuss my project, we began talking about the coronavirus pandemic, and how contradictory it was to human nature that people were willing to relinquish their control to achieve stability. During this meeting, I realized just how applicable postmodernism was to our lives; through understanding postmodernism, we could better understand the nature of humans during the coronavirus. Additionally, I realized that biopolitics, the idea that the state possesses an inextricable influence over our decisions, was paramount to understanding human nature and politics.
I’ve loved getting to explore the relationship between biopolitics and the coronavirus, and it was comforting to look at the pandemic from the perspective of a postmodernist. It was nice to know that throughout this crisis, the Capstone Project was the one thing that has remained relatively constant. Although I lost a bit of motivation towards the end of the year, I’ve enjoyed exploring a topic that holds such a paramount importance to our current situation.
I chose to format my Capstone project in a Ted Talk because I felt like that was the only way to make my project enticing and comprehensible to the average reader. I understand how confusing postmodernism is, and I wanted to make my project as understandable as possible. Additionally, most postmodernist literature is rooted in academia and not made for anyone who is not already an expert in postmodernism, so I wanted to provide a format that would allow non-experts to learn about postmodernism too.
In my Ted Talk, I discussed how the government has used the coronavirus pandemic as a means of expanding their power and exercising social control, and I revealed why individuals are so willing to relinquish their power in order to achieve stability during crises. I also explained why I decided to write my Ted Talk about biopolitics and the coronavirus: not to spread anti-government propaganda, but rather to empower people to learn how to exercise agency in a world where they lack control or stability.
Ted Talk:
capstone_project-_biopolitics_and_the_coronavirus.mp4 | |
File Size: | 5900 kb |
File Type: | mp4 |
Transcript:
Hello, my name is Jessie Dietz. Welcome to my Capstone project about the implications of biopolitics on the coronavirus pandemic.
Have you ever wondered about the implications of the coronavirus on society or maybe why the government has reacted the way they have? As crazy as it may sound, the postmodernist theory of biopolitics answers all of those questions and more.
With the creation of a single theory, Michel Foucault forever altered our relationship with the government and each other. In 1975, while lecturing at the Collège de France, Foucault introduced the transformational theory of biopolitics, the idea that the state has an inextricable influence over our thoughts and actions (Makarychev and Yatsky, 2016). Drawing from the example of a panopticon, a watchtower created to make prisoners believe they are being watched at all times, Foucault explained how, like prisoners, we are constantly subjected to social control from the state. Similar to the prisoners, we live in constant fear of getting in trouble with the state, and as a result, self-impose norms and rules, even when they aren’t necessary. For example, Foucault explains how a driver may stop at a red light, even when there are no other cars or police present. Although there would likely be no repercussions for the driver running the red light, they still stop because they have internalized rules and norms imposed by the state; because the state has told us we should stop at a red light, we stop at red lights. Simply put, we don’t do things because we want to: we do them because we have been socialized into a world where they are the norm (Brown, n/a). Although this theory may sound fallacious, it provides an integral framework through which we can understand the nature of humans. And more importantly, it provides us with important insight about our response to the coronavirus pandemic (Wuest, 2020).
Concerned that the coronavirus would escalate into a global pandemic, governments around the world began propagating securitized rhetoric, confining families to isolation and quickly shutting down all normal aspects of life. While these actions were made in good faith and in the interest of public health, they are a prime example of the biopolitical relationship between citizens and the state. Why were so many people willing to relinquish their power and control in order to obey the government's demands? In an ideal world, the answer would be that people were acting selflessly because they care about public health. But in reality, the answer is much more complex: biopolitics (Wuest, 2020). Fear of government retaliation, an internalization of norms, and a deeply rooted desire for stability were at the forefront of our decision to stay home. We stay home because we have internalized the government as an authority figure, and because we feel that the government can provide us with the stability and control we so desperately seek (Agamben, 2020).
Although some may argue that the coronavirus reveals the shortcomings of biopolitics, the pandemic is the perfect medium through which the government can expand their control. With individuals left scared and vulnerable, they become particularly amenable to state imposed norms and suggestions. So, is the government using the outbreak to expand their control? According to Italian postmodernist philosopher Giorgio Agamben, the answer is a resounding yes. In a recent blog post, Agamben commented that Italy’s lockdowns are part of a “growing tendency to use the state of exception as a normal paradigm of government,” implying that Italy has used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to control and surveil its people. Even more shockingly, he notes that “it would seem that once terrorism is exhausted as the cause of exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic could offer the ideal pretext for expanding them beyond all limits.” Agamben explains how Italy, like governments around the world, has used the coronavirus to expand their power and establish a militarized state of control in the name of public health. In the absence of terrorist threats, Agamben claims that Italy’s government turned to the coronavirus as a way of inciting public fear (Agamben, 2020). Although Agamben was wrong about the coronavirus being an “invented pandemic” and received quite a bit of backlash for his statements, his critique still provides an important framework through which we can understand government actions throughout this crisis.
In the US, even Trump has begun using the coronavirus as a means of expanding his political control. Throughout the past month, Trump has used the coronavirus as political cover to enact a series of anti-immigration policies, such as restricting border access and availability of visas (Jackson and Collins, 2020). While his actions may not intentionally be rooted in biopolitics and governmentality, they provide a prime example of how the coronavirus has expanded the power of the state.
The global crisis induced by the coronavirus provides a quintessential platform through which we can understand government action and the nature of humans. It reveals how the government can manipulate global crises to expand their sphere of influence and why individuals are willing to relinquish their power in exchange for stability. But more importantly, it allows us to understand our relationship with the government and to recognize the ways in which we lack autonomy. This isn’t supposed to be anarchist or even a warning about the state. Rather, it should be used as something that empowers us to exercise our agency, even in a state of militarized control. If we can recognize that the state has an inextricable influence over our lives, we will be more empowered to operate within the structures and norms that frame our lives.
Have you ever wondered about the implications of the coronavirus on society or maybe why the government has reacted the way they have? As crazy as it may sound, the postmodernist theory of biopolitics answers all of those questions and more.
With the creation of a single theory, Michel Foucault forever altered our relationship with the government and each other. In 1975, while lecturing at the Collège de France, Foucault introduced the transformational theory of biopolitics, the idea that the state has an inextricable influence over our thoughts and actions (Makarychev and Yatsky, 2016). Drawing from the example of a panopticon, a watchtower created to make prisoners believe they are being watched at all times, Foucault explained how, like prisoners, we are constantly subjected to social control from the state. Similar to the prisoners, we live in constant fear of getting in trouble with the state, and as a result, self-impose norms and rules, even when they aren’t necessary. For example, Foucault explains how a driver may stop at a red light, even when there are no other cars or police present. Although there would likely be no repercussions for the driver running the red light, they still stop because they have internalized rules and norms imposed by the state; because the state has told us we should stop at a red light, we stop at red lights. Simply put, we don’t do things because we want to: we do them because we have been socialized into a world where they are the norm (Brown, n/a). Although this theory may sound fallacious, it provides an integral framework through which we can understand the nature of humans. And more importantly, it provides us with important insight about our response to the coronavirus pandemic (Wuest, 2020).
Concerned that the coronavirus would escalate into a global pandemic, governments around the world began propagating securitized rhetoric, confining families to isolation and quickly shutting down all normal aspects of life. While these actions were made in good faith and in the interest of public health, they are a prime example of the biopolitical relationship between citizens and the state. Why were so many people willing to relinquish their power and control in order to obey the government's demands? In an ideal world, the answer would be that people were acting selflessly because they care about public health. But in reality, the answer is much more complex: biopolitics (Wuest, 2020). Fear of government retaliation, an internalization of norms, and a deeply rooted desire for stability were at the forefront of our decision to stay home. We stay home because we have internalized the government as an authority figure, and because we feel that the government can provide us with the stability and control we so desperately seek (Agamben, 2020).
Although some may argue that the coronavirus reveals the shortcomings of biopolitics, the pandemic is the perfect medium through which the government can expand their control. With individuals left scared and vulnerable, they become particularly amenable to state imposed norms and suggestions. So, is the government using the outbreak to expand their control? According to Italian postmodernist philosopher Giorgio Agamben, the answer is a resounding yes. In a recent blog post, Agamben commented that Italy’s lockdowns are part of a “growing tendency to use the state of exception as a normal paradigm of government,” implying that Italy has used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to control and surveil its people. Even more shockingly, he notes that “it would seem that once terrorism is exhausted as the cause of exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic could offer the ideal pretext for expanding them beyond all limits.” Agamben explains how Italy, like governments around the world, has used the coronavirus to expand their power and establish a militarized state of control in the name of public health. In the absence of terrorist threats, Agamben claims that Italy’s government turned to the coronavirus as a way of inciting public fear (Agamben, 2020). Although Agamben was wrong about the coronavirus being an “invented pandemic” and received quite a bit of backlash for his statements, his critique still provides an important framework through which we can understand government actions throughout this crisis.
In the US, even Trump has begun using the coronavirus as a means of expanding his political control. Throughout the past month, Trump has used the coronavirus as political cover to enact a series of anti-immigration policies, such as restricting border access and availability of visas (Jackson and Collins, 2020). While his actions may not intentionally be rooted in biopolitics and governmentality, they provide a prime example of how the coronavirus has expanded the power of the state.
The global crisis induced by the coronavirus provides a quintessential platform through which we can understand government action and the nature of humans. It reveals how the government can manipulate global crises to expand their sphere of influence and why individuals are willing to relinquish their power in exchange for stability. But more importantly, it allows us to understand our relationship with the government and to recognize the ways in which we lack autonomy. This isn’t supposed to be anarchist or even a warning about the state. Rather, it should be used as something that empowers us to exercise our agency, even in a state of militarized control. If we can recognize that the state has an inextricable influence over our lives, we will be more empowered to operate within the structures and norms that frame our lives.