Doped and disclosed: Anatomopolitics, biopower, and sovereignty in the Russian sports industry
In this article, we scrutinize a policy area in which the Russian government has had to react to negative publicity in the last few years, namely, the doping scandal surrounding the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. This scandal uncovered important aspects of Russia’s vulnerability in the global sports milieu, yet so far, it has remained almost unnoticed in the literature on mega sports events in Russia. Our analysis is premised on the convergence of two types and techniques of control and regulation: anatomopolitics, which presupposes, in Michel Foucault’s interpretation of the term, measures of control over individual bodies, and biopolitics, which refers to policy practices that target and concern the entire population. Their conflation in the Russian context results in a controversial effect: it strengthens relations of hegemony yet also exposes the sovereign power to the regulations of global sports organizations.
In Putin's third term, official rhetoric has become a normative, moralizing discourse promotng Russian tradtional values as opposed to the "moral decay" of the West. This "biopolitical turn" in Russian politics -- a redefining of the boundaries of the Russian political community and extension of state sovereignty into private lives -- is part of the authortarian drift of the Russian political regime.
Autonomism is a relatively new post-Marxist school, which is still developing fruitfully, providing us with critical account of the modern society. Although autonomists ground on Marxist «axiomatics», they are quite successful in elaboration of their own social theory and terminology. In my article I demonstrate the major concepts, coined by autonomists, which became later the basis for autonomists’ theory, and explain the connection between these notions and significant social phenomena of the contemporary epoch, as well as with the traditional categories of social and political philosophy. Introducing these concepts, autonomists not only set some conventional glossary, but also join the dispute with notable social and political philosophers of the past such as Thomas Hobbes, thus showing historicity of these thinkers’ philosophical views as well and with the help of such deep comparisons, clarifying the key aspects of modernity.
Novel biotechnologies drastically enhance human capacities. However, initial optimism concerning new methods of therapy and body modification gradually gives way to fears that technologies can easily get out of hand and alter human nature in an undesirable way. Philosophers approach bioethical discussion from various assumptions and perspectives: while some of them believe that new technologies enhance and better human beings, others are concerned those technological innovations can be perilous. This paper overviews the discussion between utilitarians and bioconservatives on the extent to which human enhancement technologies should be permitted. I suggest an alternative communitarian approach to consider human beings primarily as members of political communities and recognition-seekers. I take the debate on doping legalization in sports to demonstrate how communitarianism doesn’t reject new technologies and still argues for making them work for preservation and flourishing of human communities. All major decisions on regulating biotechnologies should be made by communities themselves in a democratic way and drawing on bioethical expertise.
This chapter explores the relationship between sexuality and nationalism in the Russian context. We consider how restrictions on citizens’ sexual and reproductive rights are justified in the name of the national interest, and how family and demographic policies are deployed in the construction of ideals of nation and national belonging which are both sexualised and gendered.
This article addresses the relationship between the concepts of national identity and biopolitics by examining a border-transit camp for repatriates, refugees and asylum seekers in Germany. Current studies of detention spaces for migrants have drawn heavily on Agamben’s reflection on the “camp” and “homo-sacer”, where the camp is analyzed as a space in permanent state of exception, in which the government exercises sovereign power over the refugee as the ultimate biopolitical subject. But what groups of people can end up at a camp, and does the government treat all groups in the same way? This article examines the German camp for repatriates, refugees and asylum seekers as a space where the state’s borders are demarcated and controlled through practices of bureaucratic and narrative differentiation between various groups of people. The author uses the concept of detention space to draw a theoretical link between national identity and biopolitics, and demonstrates how the sovereign’s practices of control and differentiation at the camp construct German national identity through defining “nonmembers” of the state. The study draws on ethnographic fieldwork at the German border transit camp Friedland and on a discourse analysis of texts produced at the camp or for the camp.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.