Take a position—about how to sort out the many, often contradictory, factors bearing on what Nikolas Rose calls 'Biopolitics' (described below), by taking one of our readings, and showing how a few parts of it anchor a smart, workable ethical case.
What the hell does this mean? 'BIOPOLITICS' is a useful term. It names the intersection of LIFE and SOCIETY that troubles decisions like whether to let people cut off limbs because they want / need to. Or lengthen their legs. Or live on Prozac. Or use Ritalin to get through Finals. Or take Dianabol to raise your batting average. Or demand new plastic lenses for 20 / 15 vision. Or any of the things we've talked about where the ethical dimension of the life / society link is important. When we say 'people have a right to their own bodies,' were taking a 'biopolitical' position. When we say 'society has no obligation to take care of someone who cut off their own leg,' we're taking a different one.
Start with an article you liked (or hated—that can work, too). Engage it, and go where you want. This is sort of like writing a really smart letter-to-the-editor responding to one of our readings as if it just showed up in The Atlantic (Carl Elliot did). Or the Hastings Center Review (which 'Emily's Scars' did).
You can bring in anything more that you want, but start with a solid engagement with one of the things we've read. Then take it where you want.
The core question we're all working on is HOW BEST TO MAKE SENSE of these impossibly hard, topics.
Speak your mind. Make some sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment