Reading Response 9/30

This week's reading was quite interesting for me as it offered a perspective from a seminal thinker which could then be applied to our readings about Chernobyl. Foucault writes at length about the concept of biopower, the sociopolitical power which can be exhibited over bodies by discussing the various ways in which biopower has manifested itself throughout history, finally discussing sex as the ultimate way in which people exhibit control over their own physical condition, saying "Through the themes of health, progeny, race, the future of the species, the vitality of the social body, power spoke of sexuality and to sexuality; the latter was not a mark or a symbol, it was an object and a target...Power delineated it, aroused it, and employed it as the proliferating meaning that had always to be taken control of again lest it escape" (147-48). Invoking this viewpoint, we are now able to further appreciate sexual mores of pre-feminist times; being the harbinger of the species' future and a representation of such unwieldy power, the fact that sex is reined in behind a conservative ideology, kept behind closed doors and not really spoken of is hardly surprising. Sexuality is the most iconic and representative vehicle for biopower because creation of new life is lauded (within certain restrictive borders) while societal guidelines for engaging with ones peers about sex are quite restricted as well. The gravity and magnitude of society's biopower as it applies to our own continuance is thus transferred to tacit respect, subdued discussions, talk, and public behavior regarding our own sexuality.

Why this talk of biopower though? It's evident through both our Petryna readings that the disaster in Chernobyl represented a way of manifesting sociopolitical power on bodies. By having an almost nonexistent response at first, the Soviets demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the catastrophic toll that the explosion of the nuclear core had. When Ukraine declared independence in the midst of the Soviet breakup, the lack of organization and chaos presented a perfect opportunity to present itself as an organizing force under the purview of techno-scientific detail. Those who felt they were eligible could apply for social welfare as a "sufferer," "disabled," or other labels, depending on the degree to which they were affected by the disaster. Through this process, Ukrainian citizens could take advantage of all the benefits awarded to a "biological citizen."

In this way, living bodies are affected by bureaucratic decisions of the government. In addition, systems of epistemology are altered so that those who are concretely aware of how much have the potential to be awarded more, as we see when Petryna states, "One had to know one's dose and be able torelate it to one's symptoms and work experiences in the Zone of Exclusion. The effectiveness of this knowledge determined the place one could occupy and how long one could occupy it in the system of management of Cherobyl populations" (255). Depending on your level of suffering, you were either entitled to more or less benefits. The fact that the degree of damage, short-term and long-term, to the health and lives of the Ukrainian people was unknown further exacerbated this complicated issue. What about those who simply didn't know their degree of exposure? What about those who weren't in the Zone of Exclusion but still suffered chronic low-level exposure? It's entirely possible that structural issues of socioeconomic disparity were engendered as a result of a reductionist system that relies on purported knowledge, and to a large degree, luck at working the system. When creating new policies for aid in catastrophe, we must take lessons from events like this, and consider it within the anthropology of development.