It is my pleasure to let you know that Alex Bryant (McMaster/UBC) is coordinating a reading group on my book, Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability, that will run from next week to early August. Alex has indicated on Twitter that anyone interested can still join the group by sending him a DM on Twitter […]
Philosophy and Structural Gaslighting About Disability
Philosophers generally do not regard critical examination of disability as suitable to research and teaching in social metaphysics and social epistemology; nor do they, generally, appreciate the critical importance of philosophy of disability but rather remain resolute that philosophical inquiry about disability is appropriately and adequately conducted in the established subfield of bioethics. Indeed, a […]
The Biopolitics of COVID-19
Learning From The Virus By Paul B. Preciado If Michel Foucault had survived AIDS in 1984 and had stayed alive until the invention of effective antiretroviral therapy, he would be ninety-three years old today. Would he have agreed to confine himself in his apartment on rue de Vaugirard in Paris? The first philosopher of history to […]
Biopolitics and Coronavirus, or Don't Forget Foucault (How Could We?)
An excerpt from the essay “Biopolitics and Coronavirus, or Don’t Forget Foucault” by Felipe Demetri: “What the coronavirus epidemic shows us is more the strength of Michel Foucault’s explanatory scheme than the current necro-thanatopolitical strain of interpretations. We all know that Foucault saw biopower as a series of events, from theoretical ones to concrete practices, […]
Biopower, Normalization, and Slippery Slopes
[This post previously appeared on Discrimination and Disadvantage. In an upcoming post, I will discuss how the subfield of bioethics has shaped Canadian philosophy and how the predominance of the subfield of bioethics in Canadian philosophy is intertwined with prestige bias. An earlier post on prestige bias in Canadian philosophy can be found here.] ____________________________________________________ […]
Is “The Right to Die” Racialized Biopolitics?
[This post originally appeared at Discrimination and Disadvantage. In one respect, the title of the post was redundant: biopolitics are always racialized.] _________________________________________________ My post earlier in the week drew attention to the imbrication of the sub-field of bioethics in the workings of biopower and neoliberal biopolitics. I noted how biopolitics has produced discussions in bioethics that […]
The Biopolitics of Bioethics
[This post originally appeared at Discrimination and Disadvantage.] In a chapter of my forthcoming book, I argue that (most of the) claims advanced in the sub-field of mainstream bioethics and even feminist bioethics rely upon an outdated conception of power that manifests in ideas about “choice,” “informed consent,” and “autonomy.” (Most) bioethicists assume what Foucault referred […]
The Bioethics of Enhancement – Now In Paperback!
Melinda’s book, The Bioethics of Enhancement: Transhumanism, Disability, and Biopolitics, is now available in paperback and will be on display at SPEP! Here is a description of the book: In a critical intervention into the bioethics debate over human enhancement, philosopher Melinda Hall tackles the claim that the expansion and development of human capacities is […]
CFP: Bio-communism – Reconceptualizing Communism in the Age of Biopolitics, Warsaw, Jan. 25-26, 2020 (deadline: Dec. 1, 2019)
What could bio-communism be? Perhaps it is a form of communism where the workers, freed from the tyranny of capitalism has reconnected with their species-being (Gattungswesen)? Or rather a form of communism which aims to emancipate not only human but also non-human workers from their bonds? Maybe it is neither, and instead, it is a […]
Reviews of Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability
In the past week, two very positive reviews of Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability have appeared (well, if they appeared before last week, I was unaware that they had been published). I was happy to read that, for the most part, the two reviews focus on and draw out disparate aspects of the book. […]
