메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한양대학교 법학연구소 법학논총 법학논총 제27권 제1호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
167 - 182 (16page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The total medicalisation of life implies both the politicizing and depoliticizing of life. The contemporary bioscience modifies the form and the meaning of life. It makes the life of individuals more somatic, risky, and variable. Analysing the power and truth discourses Foucault has argued the modern biopower controlls the modes of subjectifications of individuals in use of the double bind of individualising and totalising procedures, through that the modern men are reshaped as disciplined individual bodies and regulated population. The concern of the modern biopower is absolutely ‘making live’. For Rose who is indebted to Foucault, the postmodern biopolitics is related to the advent of the biovalue and the molecularization and capitalization of vitality. Rose suggests that the individuals are on the one hand subjected to the pastoral biopower and -capital. On the other they can take the new identities in terms of ‘somatic individuality’ and ‘biological citizenship’. The postmodern ‘politics of life itself’ of Rose enables the formation of new types of subjectification and identity, through that it can be defined as more positive and productive than Foucault’s. Rose’attempt to the positive reframing of the postmodern biopolitics is effective and meaningful, but his conception is not complete enough to include the basic problem of ‘power’ and ‘death’.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0