CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Directions: The passage below is followed by ... Start Learning for Free
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.
Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.
It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.
Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".
Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.
Q. Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?
  • a)
    While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.
  • b)
    While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.
  • c)
    Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.
  • d)
    While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on i...
Bio-power was a process where instead of deciding the case of life and death of people, it focused on modification of the people to suit existing requirements. It can be inferred that bio-power was more concerned about using people, by creating an 'ideal' workforce, instead of regarding people as absolute and non-changeable.
(1) - No such inference can be made. Written rules may also have been present in case of bio-power.
(2) - This captures the explanation provided. The 'modifying' nature of bio-power is indicated in the second paragraph. The authoritative governance can be inferred from ''absolute prohibition'', ''absolute and final determinant'' and ''seizure and deduction''.
(3) - No inference about sovereign power being unethical can be made. Although bio-power was tolerant, no comparison between the ethical or non ethical nature of bio-power and sovereign power is being made.
(4) - Sovereign power may/may not have been concerned with generating acceptability. Even if acceptability was not present, sovereign power had the 'ultimate' right to prohibit or allow something.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on i...
Explanation:

Difference between Bio-power and Sovereign power:
- Bio-power focused on modifying existing resources to advantage.
- Sovereign power relied on authoritative governance for control over resources.
The passage explains that bio-power, as defined by Foucault, is about the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life. It emphasizes administration and management, which suggests that bio-power is concerned with modifying existing resources to benefit the ruling power. On the other hand, sovereign power is portrayed as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives, indicating that it relies on authoritative governance for control over resources. Therefore, the main difference between bio-power and sovereign power lies in their approaches to exert control - bio-power focuses on modifying existing resources, while sovereign power focuses on authoritative governance.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q."Which of the following statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q."... alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable." From this it can be inferred that the author is LEAST likely to agree with which of the following statements?

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.In the statement, "Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a ... and subjugation they brought", what do you infer is the tone of the author?

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?a)While bio-power sought to exert control through behaviour modification, sovereign power relied on written rules for such control over resources.b)While bio-power was concerned with modifying existing resources to advantage, sovereign power focused on authoritative governance.c)Sovereign power was regarded as unethical because of its focus on regulating life and death as compared to bio-power that was much more tolerant.d)While bio-power focused on generating obedience, sovereign power was more concerned about generating acceptability.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam
Signup to solve all Doubts
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev