The (re-)birth of biopolitics. Autonomy, biopower, coronavirus, discourse, emergency, fear, globalization, health, I…


The article reveals the problems of biopolitics in a globalized world, which were actualized by the social, political, economic, cultural and other consequences of the pandemic. Based on the work of Michel Foucault regarding biopolitics and biopower, the author analyzes the key concepts of the study of biopolitics in the context of globalization from the sociology of knowledge perspective. The problem of (re-)birth of biopolitics in the conditions of a globalized capitalist society is investigated. It is emphasized, that the trends and patterns discovered by M. Foucault differentiate, become more diverse and unexpected in their manifestations. Classifications of subjects of biopolitics, as well as biopolitics themselves, where the author identifies biotactics and biostrategies, are given and analyzed. A special emphasis is placed on the multilevel structure of biopolitics in the modern world: from the point of view of Foucauldian consideration of dispersed and diffuse power, using examples of the activities of different subjects of the modern world it is studied, how the same participants in the social game turn out to be both subjects and objects of biopolitics. Here, the security discourse as a tool for legitimizing biopolitics in a state of emergency (according to G. Agamben) turns out to be the most important plot. In addition, the participation of various actors (academic, political, economic, sacred, every day, communicative) with the use of a wide variety of biopolitical tools (material, symbolic, discursive, practical, communicative) by them is important. A number of conclusions are formulated both about the changing role of biopolitics, and about the potential place of sociology in such a world.

  1. Weber, M. (1990). Selected works. Moscow: Progress [in Russian]

  2. De Certeau, M. (2013). The invention of everyday life. 1. The art of acting. St. Petersburg: European University at St. Petersburg [in Russian]

  3. Deleuze, J. (2004). Negotiations. St. Petersburg: Nauka [in Russian]

  4. Beck, U. (2001). What is globalization? Moscow: Progress-Tradition [in Russian]

  5. Vattimo, G. (2002). The transparent society. Moscow: Logos [in Russian]

  6. Agamben, G. (2011). Homo sacer. Sovereign power and naked life. Moscow: Europe [in Russian]

  7. Lipovetsky, G. (2001). The ephemeral era: an essay on modern individualism. St. Petersburg [in Russian]

  8. Virilio, P. (2013). The vision machine. The Information bomb. Strategy of deception. Lugansk: Big-Press [in Russian]

  9. Latour, B., Illouz, E., Nancy, J.-L. (2020). What will the world after the pandemic be like? URL: [in Ukrainian]

  10. Latour, B. (2019. Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Moscow: Ad Marginem [in Russian]

  11. Agamben, G. (2020). Reflections on the plague. URL: [in Italian]

  12. Agamben, J. (2020). Sotera Fornaro – Agamben and the requiem for the university. URL: [in Italian]

  13. Zizek, S. (2020). Pan(dem)ic!: COVID-19 shakes the world. New York: OR Books.

  14. Klein, N. (2020). New digital course: high-tech utopia in the era of coronavirus. URL: [in Russian]

  15. Jacques Rancière: “The landscape is a metaphor for the coexistence between individuals”. (2020). URL: [in French]

  16. Rancier, J. (2011). Oligarchs “sell” us a sense of danger. URL: [in Russian]

  17. Yadov, V.A. (2001). Sociological research strategy. Description, explanation, understanding of social reality. Moscow: Dobrosvet [in Russian]

  18. Oleskin, A.V. (1998). Network structures of modern society in terms of biopolitics. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya Polis. Political Studies, 1, 68-86 [in Russian]

  19. Oleskin, A.V. (2001). Biopolitics. The political potential of modern biology. Training manual on biopolitics. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University [in Russian]

  20. Oleskin, A.V. (2007). Biopolitics. The political potential of modern biology: philosophical, political science and practical aspects. Moscow: Scientific World [in Russian]

  21. Kostyuchkov, S.K. (2014). Human nature in the context of biopolitics: ethological and sociological aspects. Hileia: naukovyi visnykGilea: science newsletter, 88, 312-316 [in Ukrainian]

  22. Rykhtik, M.I., Kvashnin, D.A. (2009). Modern biopolitics and issues of managing new risks (problem statement). Vlast’, 8, 28-31 [in Russian]

  23. Sandomirskaya, I. (2013). The blockade in a word: Essays on the critical theory and biopolitics of language. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [in Russian]

  24. Negri, A. (2008). Labor of the multitude and the fabric of biopolitics. Blue sofa, 12. URL: [in Russian]

  25. Beck, U. (2000). Risk Society. Towards a new modernity. Moscow: Progress-Tradition [in Russian]

  26. Mashlykina, O.V. (2012). Biopolitics and risks of modernization development. Vestnik Kamchatskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universitetaBulletin of the Kamchatka State Technical University, 19, 102-104 [in Russian]

  27. Kharkevich, M.V., Kasatkin, P.I. (2011). Biopolitics and religion in the postmodern era. Vestnik MGIMO Bulletin of MGIMO, 6 (21), 217-222 [in Russian]

  28. Foucault, M. (2011). Security, territory, population. St. Petersburg: Nauka [in Russian]

  29. Collier, S.J. (2009). Topologies of power: Foucault’s analysis of political government beyond “Governmentality”. Theory, culture & society, 26, 6, 78-108.

  30. Jones, J. (2020). Bundesliga stars face sex ban if partner has coronavirus symptoms and must go to ground on different buses upon return. URL:

  31. Karazy, S., Williams, M. (2020). Kiev monastery fights coronavirus with homemade hand sanitizer. URL:

  32. Kobylin, I.I. (2011). The Sublime Object of Biopolitics (G. Agamben on the Problem of Evidence). Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta imeni N.I. LobachevskogoBulletin of the N.I. Lobachevsky Nizhny Novgorod University. Series: Social Sciences, 3 (23), 118-123 [in Russian]

  33. Golikov, A.S., Sokuryanskaya, L.G. (2016). The discourse of the social subject and the subject of social discourse: the possibility of knowledge theorems. Science and Education a New Dimension. Humanities and Social Sciences, IV (17), 108, 58-65 [in Russian]

  34. Winter, S. (2008). The dominant meaning of the new Aryans. In A. Badiou, Conditions 3 (pp. 105-133). St. Petersburg: Academy of Cultural Research [in Russian]

  35. Foucault, M. (2005). Society must be defended: lectures at the College de France in the 1975-1976 academic year. St. Petersburg: Nauka [in Russian]

  36. Schmitt, K. (2000). Political theology. Collection. Moscow: Canon-Press-Ts [in Russian]

  37. Kryukova, K.V., Kuznetsov, N.V. (2016). Genealogy of biopolitics. KonfliktologoyaConflictology, 3, 108-120 [in Russian]

  38. Cheshko, V.F., Kuz, O.M. (2016). Biological and biopolitics: anthropological and social and political measurement of techno-human balance. Hileia: naukovyi visnykGilea: Scientific Herald, 107 (4), 267-272 [in Ukrainian]

  39. Popov, D.V. (2016). Geopolitics, biopolitics, religion. In Religious situation in Russian regions: abstracts of reports and messages of the Fifth All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference (pp. 62-64). Omsk: OmA MVD [in Russian]

  40. Shaev, Yu.M. (2016). The Internet of Things and the Foundations of Biopolitics. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kulturologiya i iskusstvovedenieHistorical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice, 12-3 (74), 203-206 [in Russian]

  41. Baudrillard, J. (2000). Seduction. Moscow: Ad Marginem [in Russian]

  42. Koretskaya, M.A. (2016). Virtual war as a continuation of biopolitics by other means. Aspirantskii vestnik PovolzhyaVolga region graduate students’ herald, 7-8, 57-62 [in Russian]

  43. Deleuze, J., Guattari, F. (2010). Capitalism and schizophrenia: A Thousand Plateaus. Moscow: U-Factoria, Astrel [in Russian]

  44. Baudrillard, J. (2016) The spirit of terrorism. The Gulf war did not take place. Moscow: Ripol Classic [in Russian]

  45. Perepelitsa, O.N. (2013). Actualization of the question “What is Enlightenment”: between biopolitics and freedom. Aktualnye problemy gumanitarnykh I estestvennykh naukActual problems of the humanities and natural sciences, 10-1, 315-320 [in Russian]

  46. Pogorelova, O. (2014). Biopolitics of childhood. Sotsiologiya vlastiSociology of power, 3, 248-254 [in Russian]

  47. Oparin, A.Yu. (2018). Michel Foucault’s concept of biopolitics in the context of the modern neoliberal social order. In Sakharov Readings of 2018: Environmental Problems of the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 18th International Scientific Conference (pp. 84-86). Minsk: IVC Ministry of Finance [in Russian]

  48. Kobylin, I.I., Nikolai, F.V. (2014). Redefining community boundaries: cultural memory, trauma, biopolitics. Istoriya i istoricheskaya pamyatHistory and historical memory, 9, 90-103 [in Russian]

  49. Seeley, K.M. (2008). Therapy After Terror: 9/11, Psychotherapists, and Mental Health. Camridge: Camridge University Press.

  50. Foucault, M. (2010). The Birth of Biopolitics: lectures at the College de France in 1978–1979. St. Petersburg: Nauka [in Russian]

  51. Foucault, M. (1999). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. Moscow: Ad Marginem [in Russian]

  52. Popov, D.V. (2018). Ambivalence of biopolitics in the modern world. Vestnik Omskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universitetaBulletin of the Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian research, 4 (21), 35-39 [in Russian]

  53. Habermas, J. (2002). The future of human nature. Moscow: Ves mir [in Russian]

  54. Badiou, A. (2005). Metapolitics: Is it possible to think about politics. A brief treatise on metapolitics. Moscow: Logos [in Russian]

  55. Vasilchenko, O.K. (2016). Metapolitics, biopolitics and fear management. Sistema tsennostei sovremennogo obshchestvaThe value system of modern society, 50, 39-43 [in Russian]

  56. Sloterdijk, P. (2010). Spheres. Plural spherology. Volume 3. Foams. St. Petersburg: Nauka [in Russian]

  57. Popova, O.V. (2018). Sport in the world of technology: ethos and biopolitics. Znanie. Ponimanie. UmenieKnowledge. Understanding. Skill, 3, 102-111 [in Russian]

  58. Popova, O.V. (2015). Childhood as an object of biopolitics. In Higher education for the 21st century: reports and materials. Symposium “Higher Education and Human Development” (pp. 83-93). Moscow: Moscow University for the Humanities [in Russian]

  59. Koretskaya, M.A. (2016). The ideal of autarchy: from sovereign power to biopolitics. Vestnik gosudarstvennogo universiteta Dubna. Seriya: Nauki o cheloveke i obshchestve Bulletin of Dubna State University. Series: Sciences about man and society, 1, 2 (2), 20-28 [in Russian]

  60. Badiou, A. (2020). Toward an epidemic situation. URL: [in Russian]

  61. Hen, Yu.V. (2015). Qualitative demography as an instrument of biopolitics. In Philosophical problems of biology and medicine (pp. 257-259). Moscow: Moscow Philosophical Society [in Russian]

Full text