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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?
  • a)
    Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.
  • b)
    While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.
  • c)
    Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.
  • d)
    The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on i...
  • Option 1 - Nothing with respect to this can be inferred. Although both sovereign power and bio-power were different, the struggle, and ''resulting'' development of capitalism based on this struggle, cannot be inferred.
  • Option 2 - This is incorrect. Bio-power was more direct and overt in its approach, while capitalism covertly tried to disguise forms of power as economic processes.
  • Option 3 - The author will agree with this. The passage mentions that capitalism was a ''development'' and states the following in the fourth paragraph: "Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism", which suggests that capitalism was a more comprehensive scheme than bio-power that covered every aspect of human lives."
  • Option 4 - No comparison of subjugation is being made. In fact, both approaches led to subjugation, irrespective of the magnitude. It can be inferred from ''the social discourses ... and subjugation they brought.''
Free Test
Community Answer
Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on i...
Explanation:

Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives:
- The passage highlights how capitalism and bio-power are interconnected and how they work together to shape social discourse.
- It is mentioned that capitalism required adjustments in economic processes, stable labor force, private ownership, and wage labor.
- Foucault also pointed out the existence of two classes, bourgeoisie, and proletariat, in capitalism, emphasizing the antagonism between them.
- Moreover, the author agrees that bio-power was an indispensable element in the development of capitalism, indicating the close relationship between the two concepts.
- Capitalism, as described in the passage, affects various aspects of human life, such as production, economic processes, labor relations, and class structures, making it a broader theory compared to bio-power.
- The passage also discusses how capitalism and bio-power together create social discourses that normalize certain conditions and conceal the subjugation experienced under these systems.
- Therefore, based on the information provided in the passage, it is likely that the author would agree with the statement that capitalism was a wider theory than bio-power, impacting all aspects of human lives.
Attention CAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
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."... 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.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?

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?

Top Courses for CAT

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?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?a)Capitalism developed as a result of a struggle between bio-power and sovereign power.b)While bio-power involved a covert display of power, capitalism was more overt in its approach.c)Capitalism was a wider theory than the theory of bio-power, affecting all aspects of human lives.d)The level of subjugation experienced under capitalism was significantly greater than that under bio-power.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev