Advertisement

Wither Anarchy? Harvesting the ‘Global’ Bio-tech Body, Indian Markets and Biomedical Technologies

  • Anna M. AgathangelouEmail author
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

The co-emergence of life and value, bodies and the body politic is a major aspect of world politics today. This chapter, first, frames key debates in IR on anarchy, order and postcolonial understandings of the ‘corporeal’ and the ‘international’ with a focus on debates of biocapital and biovalue in STS. Second, I grapple with how biological sciences are simultaneously contesting and facilitating global biotechnology ventures, and how the ‘international’ and ‘corporeality’ co-emerge. I argue that what counts as corporeal and what counts as international must be critically examined in order to break away from the delirious and omnipresent re-inscriptions of imperialism and its dominant presumptions of anarchy and order that come with the imaginary, the thinking, and praxis of bio-value. In the attempt to craft a distinctive geopolitical niche, states and markets bio-innovate the making and (un)making of living beings and their distribution as symptomatic of practices, discourses, and strategies that define, zone, and make possible the appropriation and governing of life. The emergence of infrastructures of biotechnology and ‘lively capital’ debates in India and the play Harvest orient us at what is at the forefront of claiming and constituting ‘global’ power. Reading these debates in India, I want to argue, opens up the space for articulating analytics grounded in the empirical-as-‘material-semiotic configurations’ and ‘orientations’ that offer lessons and methods for IR and STS by challenging strategies of zonings (i.e., the ‘international’ and the ‘corporeal,’ theory and practice, bioeconomy and capital) upon which a geopolitically spatiotemporal order of modernity depends. I conclude with some insights into the ethical imperative to read ontologies and epistemologies that transgress and alter the hierarchies and disciplinary formations that come with anarchy and order.

Keywords

Corporeality Anarchy/Order Tech-nobodies Bio-tech body Bio-value Biomedical technologies Life sciences The international 

References

  1. Agathangelou, A. M. (2013a). Neoliberal geopolitical order and value: Queerness as a speculative economy and anti-blackness as terror, for a special issue titled ‘Murderous Inclusions’. International Journal of Feminist Politics, 15(4), 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agathangelou, A. M. (2013b). The avenging of the Americas: Cholera matters, empire, and economies of blackness. The Greek Review of Social Research, 140–141((B–C)), 185–201.Google Scholar
  3. Agathangelou, A. M., & Killian, K. D. (2014). Time, temporality and violence in international relations: (De) fatalizing the present, forging radical alternatives. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Agathangelou, A. M., & Ling, L. H. M. (2009). Transforming world politics: From empire to multiple worlds. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Arora, P. (2005). Healthcare biotechnology firms in India: Evolution, structure and growth. Current Science, 89(3), 458–464.Google Scholar
  6. Barrett, L. (1999). Blackness and value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke UP.Google Scholar
  8. Birch, K., & Tyfield, D. (2013). Theorizing the bioeconomy: Biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or … what? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38(3), 299–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boero, F. (2010). Study of species in the era of biodiversity: A tale of stupidity. Diversity, 2(1), 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruno, L. (1993). We have never been modern (Catherine Porter, trans). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy (G. Burchell, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carney, J. (2011). Out of Africa: Colonial rice history in the Black Atlantic. In S. Harding (Ed.), Postcolonial science and technology and studies reader (pp. 140–158). Durham: Duke Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chandran, M. (1999). The panoptic living room in Manjula Padmanabhan’s harvest. Journal of Literature and Aesthetics, 7(1), 86–89.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, L. (2005). Operability, bioavailability, and exception. In A. Ong & S. J. Collier (Eds.), Global assemblages: Technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (2011). Theory from the South: Or, how Euro-America is evolving toward Africa. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  16. Connolly, W. E. (2002). Neuropolitics: Thinking, culture, speed. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, M. (2008). Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  18. DBT Affiliated Autonomous Institutions. (2010). Ministry of Science and Technology, India. http://dbtindia.nic.in/Draft%20NBR%20Act_%2028may2008.pdf. Accessed February 2014.
  19. DBT Research and Development. (2009). Ministry of Science and Technology, India. http://www.dbtindia.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?id_pk=21. Accessed February 2014.
  20. Department of Biotechnology Ministry of Science and Technology Government of India (2009). National Development Biotechnology Strategy. http://dbtindia.nic.in/biotechstrategy/Biotech_strategy
  21. Detsi-Diamanti, Z. (2002). Bio-slavery, or the cannibalistic quest for longevity: Harvesting for human organs in Manjula Padmanabhan’s drama. In D. Pastourmazi (Ed.), Biotechnological and medical themes in science fiction (pp. 111–130). Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dirlik, A. (1994). The postcolonial aura: Third world criticism in the age of global capitalism. Critical Inquiry, 20(2), 328–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dubow, J. (2000). From a view on the world to a point of view in it’: Rethinking sight, space and the colonial sublet. Interventions, 2(1), 89–90, 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dumit, J. (2012). Drugs for life: How pharmaceutical companies define our health futures. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dummit, J. (2012). Prescription maximization and the accumulation of surplus health in the pharmaceutical industry: The_BioMarx_Experiment. In K. Sunder Rajan (Ed.), Lively capital: Biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in the global market. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fanon, F. (1967). The wretched of the earth. New York, NY: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fortun, K. (2012). Biopolitics and the informating of environmentalism. In K. Sunder Rajan (Ed.), Lively capital (pp. 306–328). Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foucault, M. (1978, 1990). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Picador.Google Scholar
  29. Franklin, S. (2006). The cyborg embryo: Our path to transbiology. Theory Culture and Society, 23(7–8), 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franklin, S., & Lock, M. (eds.) (2003). Remaking life and death: Toward an anthropology of the biosciences. Santa Fe, New Mexico: SAR Press.Google Scholar
  31. Fukuyama, F. (2014). Robert Wright interviews Francis Fukuyama on limits of science. http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=fukuyama&topic=limitsci. Accessed February 2014.
  32. Georg, H. (1992). Lectures on the philosophy of world history; introduction, reason in history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gerlach, N., Hamilton, S. N., Sullivan, R., & Walton, P. L. (Eds.). (2011). Becoming biosubjects: Bodies, systems, technologies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ghooi, R. B., & Ravindra, B. (2014). Institutional review boards: Challenges and opportunities. Ethics, 5(2), 60–65.Google Scholar
  35. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science Technology & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  37. Haraway, D., & Harvey, D. (1995). Nature, politics, and possibilities. Society and Space, 16, 507–527.Google Scholar
  38. Harding, S. (2011). The postcolonial science and technology studies reader. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harvey, D. (2005). Brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  40. Hayden, C. (2003). From market to market: Bioprospecting’s idioms of inclusion. American Ethnologist, 30(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hayden, C. (2005). Bioprospecting’s representational dilemma [Special issue on postcolonial technoscience, Maureen McNeil (ed.)]. Science as Culture, 14(2), 185–200.Google Scholar
  42. Hecht, G. (2012). Being nuclear: Africans and the global uranium trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Helmreich, S. (2007a). Species of biocapital. Science as Culture, 17(4), 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Helmreich, S. (2007b). An anthropologist underwater: Immersive underwater: Immersive soundscapes, submarine cyborgs, and transductive ethnography. American Ethnologist, 24(4), 622–641.Google Scholar
  45. Helmreich, S. (2008). Species of biocapital. Science and Culture, 17(4), 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hobbes, T. (1997). Of the laws of nature. In Leviathan. New York, NY: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  47. Hobson, J. M. (2011). Discovering the oriental west. In S. Harding (Ed.), Postcolonial science and technology reader. Durham: Duke Press.Google Scholar
  48. Irwin, A. (2008). STS perspectives on scientific governance. In Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 39–60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: Co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  51. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2011). Reframing rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kaplan, A. (2005). Anarchy of empire in the making of U.S. culture. Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  53. Kelley, L., & Hayward, E. (2009). Tranimals: Theorizing the trans-in zoontology. November 5–8, 2009, from http://www.litsciarts.org/slsa09/archive/slsa09-1132.pdf
  54. Keramaris, N. C., Kanakaris, N. K., Tzioupis, C., Kontakis, G., & Giannoudis, P. V. (2008). Translational research: From benchside to bedside. Injury International Journal, 39, 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krige, J. (2006). American hegemony and the postwar reconstruction of science in Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  58. Mavhunga, C. C. (2008). The mobile workshop: Mobility, technology, and human-animal interaction in Gonarezhou (National Park), 1850-present. Dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  59. Mavhunga, C. C. (2013). What is Africa in technology? What is technology in Africa? Keynote at MIT-Africa Interest Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 1.Google Scholar
  60. Mbembe, A. (2001). On the postcolony. Oakland, California: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Meyer, N. (2010). Modeling proteins, making scientists: Rendering molecular life in the contemporary biosciences. Durham: Duke UP.Google Scholar
  62. Meyers, T. (2013). Lively capital: Biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in global markets ed by Kaushik Sunder Rajan (review). Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 87(4), 706–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Milner, H. (1991). The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: A critique. Review of International Studies, 17(1), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Murphy, M. (2012). Seizing the means of reproduction: Technoscience, feminist health, and biopolitics in the contradictions of American empire. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Murphy, M. (2013). Economization of life: Calculative infrastructures of population and economy. In P. Rawes (Ed.), Relational ecologies: Subjectivity, sex, nature and architecture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Natesh, S., & Bhan, K. (2009). Biotechnology sector in India: Strengths, limitations, remedies and outlook. Current Science, 97(2), 157–169.Google Scholar
  67. Nyamnjoh, F. B. (2012). “Potted plants in greenhouses”: A critical reflection on the resilience of colonial education in Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 47(2), 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nyamnyoh, F. (2012). Blinded by sight: Divining the future of anthropology in Africa. Africa Spectrum, 47(2–3), 63–92.Google Scholar
  69. Okri, B. (1993). Songs of enchantment. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  70. Olwage, E. (2013). ‘Growing together’: The politics of knowing and conserving (bio) diversity in a small conservancy in Cape Town. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  71. Ong, A. (2013). A milieu of mutations: The pluripotency and fungibility of life in Asia. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 7, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Paarlberg, R. L. (2004). Knowledge as power: Science, military dominance, and U.S. Security. International Security, 29(1), 122–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Padmanabhan, M. (1994). Harvest. London: Aurora Metro Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  74. Padmanabhan, M. (1997). Harvest. New Delhi: Kali for Women.Google Scholar
  75. Padmanabhan, M. (2003). Harvest. In H. Gilbert (Ed.), Postcolonial plays: An anthology (pp. 214–249). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Petryna, A. (2005). Ethical variability: Drug development and globalizing clinical trials. American Ethnologist, 32(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pravinchandra, S. (2006). The third world body commodified: Manjula Padmanabhan’s harvest. Un/Worldly Bodies, 8, 1–17.Google Scholar
  78. Ramani, S. V., & Visalakshi, S. (2000). The chicken or the egg problem revisited: The role of resources and incentives in the integration of biotechnology techniques. International Journal of Biotechnology, 2(4), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ranger, T. (1999). Voices from the rocks: Nature, culture, and history in the Matopos Hills of Zimbabwe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Rao, R., Ratna, J. V., & Rao, T. M. (2004). Comparative bioavailability of four marketed Sparfloxacin formulation in healthy human volunteers. E- Journal of Chemistry, 1, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Roosth, S., & Silbey, S. (2008). Science and technology studies: From controversies to post-humanist social theory. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  82. Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Rose, N. (2013). The human sciences in a biological age. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Russell, E. (2001). War and nature: Fighting humans and insects with chemicals from World War I to silent spring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Sahai, S. (2009). India’s national biotechnology development strategy: A policy mired with controversies. Annals of Neurosciences, 16(1), 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage.Google Scholar
  87. Shanker, D. (2002). India, the pharmaceutical industry and the validity of TRIPS. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 5(3), 315–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Silko, L. M. (1991). Almanac of the dead. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  89. Sunder Rajan, K. (2007). Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham: Duke UP.Google Scholar
  90. Sunder Rajan, K. (2012). Pharmaceutical crises and questions of value: Terrains and logics of global therapeutic politics. South Atlantic Quarterly, 111(2), 321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sunder, R. K., & Leonelli, S. (2013). Introduction: Biomedical transactions, postgenomics, and knowledge/value. Public Culture, 25(3), 463–475.Google Scholar
  92. Synopsis of Public IP in India. (2008). Central Ministry of Science and Technology. Government of India.Google Scholar
  93. Valdiya, S. (2010). Neoliberal reform and biomedical research in India: A story of globalization, industrial change and science. Unpublished dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York.Google Scholar
  94. Wadlby, C. (2002). Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health, 6(3), 305–323.Google Scholar
  95. Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  96. Wilderson, F. (2010). Red, white & black: Cinema and the structure of U.S. antagonisms. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wright, A. (1972). Valley of the ironwoods: A personal record of ten years served as district commissioner in Rhodesia's largest administrative area, Nuannetsi, in the South-Eastem Lowveld. Cape Town: T.V. Bulpin.Google Scholar
  98. Wynter, S. (2001). Towards the sociogenic principle: Fanon, identity, the puzzle of conscious experience, and what it is like to be “black”. In M. F. Duran-Cogan & A. Gomez-Moriana (Eds.), National identities and sociopolitical changes in Latin America (pp. 30–66). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its over-representation–an argument. New Centennial Review, 3(3), 257–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zhan, M. (2009). Other-worldly: Making Chinese medicine through transnational frames. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zhan, M. (2013). The empirical as conceptual transdisciplinary engagements with an experiential medicine. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(2), 236–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations