I disagree with your take that poststructuralism needs to be integrated in order to stave off technocratic social engineering commonly associated with scientific biopolitics. I'm coming to believe postmodernism and poststructuralism are philosophical dead ends that inhibit ratiocination. You have said yourself that the great myth enabling managerial liberalism is the notion of popular sovereignty. Why can't we just attack the philosophical foundation of popular sovereignty, or even sovereignty in general? Doesn't sovereignty as a concept violate our nature rooted in "meat egalitarianism"? Can we then attack this using scientific biopolitics? If successful, neutralizing sovereignty would nullify the rationale for social engineering as a violation of natural rights, would it not? What am I missing?
> A potential strength in poststructuralist biopolitics, that inoculates it against the kind of instrumentalization observed as possible with scientific biopolitics and its flirtation with bio-policy, is its radical historicism. It refuses to accept any power position as being transhistorical, but rather deconstructs all such positions into their historically and socially constructing context.
Looking forward to future posts which translate this paper into plain English
I disagree with your take that poststructuralism needs to be integrated in order to stave off technocratic social engineering commonly associated with scientific biopolitics. I'm coming to believe postmodernism and poststructuralism are philosophical dead ends that inhibit ratiocination. You have said yourself that the great myth enabling managerial liberalism is the notion of popular sovereignty. Why can't we just attack the philosophical foundation of popular sovereignty, or even sovereignty in general? Doesn't sovereignty as a concept violate our nature rooted in "meat egalitarianism"? Can we then attack this using scientific biopolitics? If successful, neutralizing sovereignty would nullify the rationale for social engineering as a violation of natural rights, would it not? What am I missing?
> A potential strength in poststructuralist biopolitics, that inoculates it against the kind of instrumentalization observed as possible with scientific biopolitics and its flirtation with bio-policy, is its radical historicism. It refuses to accept any power position as being transhistorical, but rather deconstructs all such positions into their historically and socially constructing context.
Looking forward to future posts which translate this paper into plain English