<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<header class="css-d92687">
<h1 class="css-19v093x">The Coronavirus: Biopolitics and the Rise
of ‘Anthropocene Authoritarianism’</h1>
<div class="css-1x1jxeu">
<div class="css-7kp13n">By</div>
<div class="css-7ol5x1"><span class="css-1q5ec3n">David Chandler</span></div>
<div class="css-8rl9b7">eng.globalaffairs.ru</div>
<div class="css-zskk6u">9 min</div>
</div>
<div class="css-1890bmp"><a
href="https://getpocket.com/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Feng.globalaffairs.ru%2Farticles%2Fcoronavirus-authoritarianism%2F"
target="_blank" class="css-1neb7j1">View Original</a></div>
</header>
<p><em><strong>If the lesson of the global response to the
Coronavirus is that humanity itself is the problem, then
Anthropocene Authoritarianism looks set to pose a larger
long-term challenge to our ways of life than the virus itself.</strong></em></p>
<p>With politics suspended, societies under lockdown, parliaments
closed and States of Emergency in force globally (Runciman, 2020),
many commentators have turned to Foucauldian-inspired
understandings of biopolitics and population control to analyze
contemporary events (Horvat, 2020; Agamben, 2020a; Demetri, 2020;
Singh, 2020; Sotiris, 2020). Biopolitics has become a key concept
in critical discourses of security governance in the last two
decades (Rose, 2007; Esposito, 2008; Dillon, 2015). Deriving from
the work of Foucault, at the heart of biopolitical thought is the
relationship of politics to life as both the basis of governance
and as an object to be secured (Foucault, 2007; 2008). For
Foucault, ‘life’ was a way of articulating an ‘outside’ to the
human world of politics, an outside that appeared natural but was,
in fact, a malleable construct (Lemke, 2011).</p>
<em>[...]</em><br>
</body>
</html>