August 16, 2025 - English Studies

“Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal: A Critical Analysis

“Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal first appeared in 1962 in her debut poetry collection We Are Going, which was the first book of poetry published by an Aboriginal Australian woman.

Introduction: “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

“Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal first appeared in 1962 in her debut poetry collection We Are Going, which was the first book of poetry published by an Aboriginal Australian woman. The poem is a powerful political manifesto that articulates the demands of Aboriginal Australians for equality, justice, and dignity. Through a series of parallel constructions and contrasts—“hope, not racialism,” “brotherhood, not ostracism,” “independence, not compliance”—Noonuccal rejects tokenistic gestures and calls for tangible change in social, political, and economic life. The poem’s popularity lies in its uncompromising yet lyrical voice, its rhythmic, chant-like repetition that mirrors protest slogans, and its ability to turn lived oppression into an eloquent public demand for reform. Its enduring resonance comes from its unflinching exposure of racial discrimination (“Must we native Old Australians / in our land rank as aliens?”) and its insistence on self-determination, making it a cornerstone of Aboriginal literary and political expression.

Text: “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

We want hope, not racialism,
Brotherhood, not ostracism,
Black advance, not white ascendance.
Make us equals, not dependents.
We need help, not exploitation,
We want freedom, not frustration;
Not control, but self-reliance,
Independence, not compliance,
Not rebuff, but education,
Self-respect, not resignation.
Free us from mean subjection,
From a bureaucrat Protection.
Let’s forget the old-time slavers:
Give us fellowship, not favours;
Encouragement, not prohibitions,
Homes, not settlements and missions.
We need love, not overlordship,
Grip of hand, not whip-hand wardship;
Opportunity that places
White and black on equal basis.
You dishearten, not defend us,
Circumscribe, who should befriend us.
Give us welcome, not aversion,
Give us choice, not cold coercion,
Status, not discrimination,
Human rights, not segregation.
You the law, like Roman Pontius,
Make us proud, not colour-conscious;
Give us the deal you still deny us,
Give goodwill not bigot bias;
Give ambition, not prevention,
Confidence, not condescension;
Give incentive, not restriction,
Give us Christ, not crucifixion.
Though baptised and blessed and bibled
We are still tabooed and libelled.
You devout Salvation-sellers;
Make us neighbours, not fringe-dwellers;
Make us mates, not poor relations,
Citizens, not serfs on stations.
Must we native Old Australians
in our land rank as aliens?
Banish bans and conquer caste
Then we’ll win our own at last

Annotations: “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

Line	Original Text	Simple English Explanation	Literary Devices
1	We want hope, not racialism	We want optimism, not racism	Antithesis, Repetition
2	Brotherhood, not ostracism	We want unity, not exclusion	Antithesis
3	Black advance, not white ascendance	We want progress for Aboriginal people, not white dominance	Antithesis, Alliteration
4	Make us equals, not dependents	Treat us as equals, not as reliant on others	Antithesis
5	We need help, not exploitation	We need support, not being taken advantage of	Antithesis
6	We want freedom, not frustration	We want liberty, not obstacles	Antithesis, Alliteration
7	Not control, but self-reliance	We want independence, not domination	Antithesis
8	Independence, not compliance	We want autonomy, not submission	Antithesis
9	Not rebuff, but education	We want learning opportunities, not rejection	Antithesis
10	Self-respect, not resignation	We want dignity, not giving up	Antithesis
11	Free us from mean subjection	Release us from cruel oppression	Alliteration
12	From a bureaucrat Protection	From government control disguised as help	Irony
13	Let’s forget the old-time slavers	Let’s move past historical oppressors	Allusion
14	Give us fellowship, not favours	Offer us partnership, not charity	Antithesis, Alliteration
15	Encouragement, not prohibitions	Support us, don’t restrict us	Antithesis
16	Homes, not settlements and missions	Give us proper homes, not controlled communities	Antithesis
17	We need love, not overlordship	We want compassion, not domination	Antithesis, Alliteration
18	Grip of hand, not whip-hand wardship	Offer friendship, not oppressive control	Antithesis, Metaphor
19	Opportunity that places	Chances that make us equal	–
20	White and black on equal basis	Both races treated the same	Antithesis
21	You dishearten, not defend us	You discourage us, not protect us	Antithesis
22	Circumscribe, who should befriend us	You limit us instead of supporting us	Antithesis
23	Give us welcome, not aversion	Accept us, don’t reject us	Antithesis
24	Give us choice, not cold coercion	Let us choose, don’t force us	Antithesis, Alliteration
25	Status, not discrimination	Give us respect, not prejudice	Antithesis
26	Human rights, not segregation	Grant us equality, not separation	Antithesis
27	You the law, like Roman Pontius	You, the authorities, act like Pontius Pilate	Allusion, Metaphor
28	Make us proud, not colour-conscious	Help us feel pride, not judged by race	Antithesis, Alliteration
29	Give the deal you still deny us	Give us the fair treatment you withhold	–
30	Give goodwill, not bigot bias	Offer kindness, not prejudice	Antithesis, Alliteration
31	Give ambition, not prevention	Encourage our goals, don’t block them	Antithesis
32	Confidence, not condescension	Build our confidence, don’t patronize us	Antithesis, Alliteration
33	Give incentive, not restriction	Motivate us, don’t limit us	Antithesis
34	Give us Christ, not crucifixion	Share Christian love, not suffering	Antithesis, Allusion
35	Though baptised and blessed and bibled	Despite being Christianized	Alliteration
36	We are still tabooed and libelled	We’re still stigmatized and slandered	Alliteration
37	You devout Salvation-sellers	You hypocritical religious people	Irony, Metaphor
38	Make us neighbours, not fringe-dwellers	Treat us as equals, not outcasts	Antithesis
39	Make us mates, not poor relations	Treat us as friends, not lesser kin	Antithesis, Metaphor
40	Citizens, not serfs on stations	Recognize us as citizens, not slaves on farms	Antithesis, Metaphor
41	Must we native Old Australians	Why must Indigenous Australians	Rhetorical Question
42	In our land rank as aliens?	Be treated as foreigners in our own country?	Rhetorical Question, Irony
43	Banish bans and conquer caste	End restrictions and social divisions	Alliteration
44	Then we’ll win our own at last	Then we’ll achieve our rights finally	–

Literary And Poetic Devices: “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

Literary Device and Symbol	Definition	Example from Poem	Explanation
🟢 Alliteration	The repetition of initial consonant sounds in closely positioned words to create rhythm and emphasis.	“Freedom, not frustration” (Line 6)	The repetition of the “f” sound emphasizes the contrast between the desired state (freedom) and the current state (frustration), enhancing the poem’s rhythm and urgency.
🟡 Allusion	A reference to a well-known person, place, event, or work, often to add deeper meaning.	“You the law, like Roman Pontius” (Line 27)	Refers to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who sentenced Jesus, implying authorities’ moral failure in upholding justice for Indigenous people.
🔵 Anaphora	The repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses or lines for emphasis.	“We want hope… We need help… We want freedom…” (Lines 1, 5, 6)	The repeated “We want” and “We need” emphasize the collective demands of the Aboriginal people, reinforcing their urgency and unity.
🔴 Antithesis	The juxtaposition of contrasting ideas in balanced phrases or clauses to highlight opposition.	“Hope, not racialism” (Line 1)	Contrasts positive (hope) and negative (racialism) concepts to underscore the speaker’s desire for equality over discrimination.
🟠 Assonance	The repetition of vowel sounds in nearby words to create musicality or emphasis.	“Make us mates” (Line 39)	The repeated “a” sound in “make” and “mates” creates a rhythmic flow, emphasizing the call for camaraderie.
🟣 Caesura	A pause or break within a line of poetry, often marked by punctuation, to create emphasis or rhythm.	“Give us Christ, not crucifixion.” (Line 34)	The comma creates a pause, emphasizing the contrast between Christian love and the suffering imposed on Indigenous people.
🟤 Consonance	The repetition of consonant sounds, typically within or at the end of words, for effect.	“Banish bans” (Line 43)	The repeated “n” sound reinforces the call to eliminate restrictions, adding a forceful tone.
🔷 Diction	The choice of words and style of expression to convey tone or attitude.	“Mean subjection” (Line 11)	The word “mean” conveys a harsh, degrading form of oppression, reflecting the poet’s disdain for unjust treatment.
🟡 Enjambment	The continuation of a sentence or clause across a line break without a pause.	“Opportunity that places / White and black on equal basis” (Lines 19-20)	The thought flows over the line break, linking the idea of opportunity to racial equality, emphasizing their connection.
🔶 Hyperbole	Exaggeration for emphasis or dramatic effect.	“Must we native Old Australians / In our land rank as aliens?” (Lines 41-42)	Exaggerates the alienation of Indigenous people to highlight the absurdity of their marginalization in their own country.
🔸 Imagery	Vivid descriptive language that appeals to the senses.	“Grip of hand, not whip-hand wardship” (Line 18)	Evokes tactile and visual imagery of a friendly handshake versus oppressive control, contrasting inclusion with domination.
🟥 Irony	A contrast between expectation and reality, often highlighting hypocrisy or injustice.	“From a bureaucrat Protection” (Line 12)	The term “Protection” is ironic because it refers to oppressive government policies, not genuine care, exposing their hypocrisy.
🟦 Juxtaposition	Placing two elements side by side to highlight their differences or similarities.	“Homes, not settlements and missions” (Line 16)	Juxtaposes the warmth of “homes” with the institutional “settlements and missions” to critique forced displacement.
🟧 Metaphor	A direct comparison between unlike things without using “like” or “as.”	“Whip-hand wardship” (Line 18)	Compares oppressive control to a whip, evoking imagery of slavery and dominance to criticize colonial authority.
🔹 Parallelism	The use of similar grammatical structures to create rhythm and reinforce ideas.	“Give us welcome, not aversion, / Give us choice, not cold coercion” (Lines 23-24)	Repeated “Give us… not…” structures emphasize demands for positive treatment over negative experiences.
🟪 Personification	Attributing human characteristics to non-human entities.	“You dishearten, not defend us” (Line 21)	The law or authorities are given the human ability to “dishearten,” emphasizing their active role in harming Indigenous people.
🔺 Repetition	Repeating words or phrases for emphasis or rhythm.	“Give us… Give us…” (Lines 23, 24, 29, 30, etc.)	The repeated “Give us” underscores the speaker’s persistent demands for justice and equality.
🔻 Rhetorical Question	A question asked for effect, not expecting an answer, to provoke thought.	“Must we native Old Australians / In our land rank as aliens?” (Lines 41-42)	Challenges the reader to consider the injustice of treating Indigenous people as outsiders in their own land.
🟨 Symbolism	Using an object or word to represent an abstract idea.	“Christ, not crucifixion” (Line 34)	“Christ” symbolizes love and salvation, while “crucifixion” represents suffering, highlighting the gap between Christian ideals and actions.
🟩 Tone	The poet’s attitude or mood conveyed through word choice and style.	“Make us proud, not colour-conscious” (Line 28)	The tone is assertive and demanding, conveying urgency and a call for dignity over racial prejudice.

Themes: “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

★ Equality and Human Rights: One of the central themes in Oodgeroo Noonuccal’s “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” is the demand for equality and recognition of universal human rights, which is conveyed through a persistent plea for dignity and fair treatment. By juxtaposing phrases such as “Black advance, not white ascendance” and “Status, not discrimination,” the poet dismantles systems of racial hierarchy, insisting on parity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. The repeated antitheses—“Human rights, not segregation” and “Citizens, not serfs on stations”—emphasize the unjust exclusion of Indigenous people from full civic participation, exposing the hypocrisy of a nation that preaches democratic values yet perpetuates structural inequality. The poem frames equality not as a concession granted by the dominant society, but as a rightful claim grounded in moral and legal justice, underscoring that without recognition of these rights, any national identity remains incomplete.

★ Self-Determination and Independence: A strong thread running through “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” is the call for self-determination, which the poet frames as both a political necessity and a moral imperative. Lines such as “Not control, but self-reliance” and “Independence, not compliance” reject the paternalistic governance structures that reduced Aboriginal Australians to passive dependents. The appeal is not for mere inclusion within existing oppressive systems, but for the dismantling of those systems in favour of autonomy and agency—symbolized in the shift from “Homes, not settlements and missions” to self-directed community building. By framing independence as an antidote to both “exploitation” and “frustration,” Noonuccal redefines freedom as the ability to shape one’s destiny without interference, thereby challenging colonial policies that sought to manage and control Indigenous life under the guise of ‘protection.’

★ Resistance to Racial Discrimination: The poem’s repeated structural pattern serves as a rhetorical weapon against entrenched racial prejudice, making resistance to discrimination a core theme in “Aboriginal Charter of Rights.” The poet condemns the systemic racism that subjects Aboriginal people to “mean subjection” and “bureaucrat Protection” while hypocritically preaching equality. By invoking the biblical allusion “Give us Christ, not crucifixion,” she equates racial injustice with moral betrayal, highlighting the gulf between religious ideals and colonial practice. Furthermore, the rhetorical question, “Must we native Old Australians / in our land rank as aliens?” crystallizes the paradox of being both the original custodians of the land and its most marginalized inhabitants. The persistent rhythm of negation and assertion throughout the poem functions as an act of verbal protest, systematically rejecting every form of racist exclusion and replacing it with an inclusive vision of justice.

★ Unity and Brotherhood: Finally, “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” envisions unity and mutual respect as essential foundations for a just society, urging the dismantling of both physical and psychological barriers between races. Through pleas such as “Brotherhood, not ostracism” and “Give us welcome, not aversion,” Noonuccal portrays reconciliation as an active process that requires genuine fellowship rather than superficial charity. Her call to “Make us neighbours, not fringe-dwellers; / Make us mates, not poor relations” emphasizes the importance of shared social spaces where equality is lived rather than legislated. This vision of unity does not demand the erasure of cultural identity, but rather its affirmation within a framework of mutual respect, in which “Grip of hand, not whip-hand wardship” becomes a symbol of solidarity. By rejecting division and advocating for brotherhood, the poem transforms a political manifesto into a moral appeal for collective humanity.

Literary Theories and “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

Literary Theory	Application to “Aboriginal Charter of Rights”	References from the Poem
⚖️ Postcolonial Theory	The poem critiques the legacies of colonization, exposing the structural racism and political oppression imposed on Aboriginal Australians. It deconstructs the colonial narrative of ‘protection’ by revealing it as “mean subjection” and challenges the alienation of Indigenous people in their own land. The demand for “Human rights, not segregation” reflects resistance to ongoing colonial hierarchies.	“Must we native Old Australians / in our land rank as aliens?” / “Banish bans and conquer caste”
✊ Critical Race Theory	Noonuccal addresses systemic racial discrimination, demonstrating how law and governance perpetuate inequality. The juxtaposition “Black advance, not white ascendance” critiques racialized power structures, while “Status, not discrimination” calls for equity in legal and social standing. The theory’s focus on lived racial experience is embedded in her depiction of ongoing marginalization.	“You the law, like Roman Pontius” / “Give goodwill not bigot bias”
🕊️ Humanist Theory	The poem appeals to universal human dignity, emphasizing shared values like brotherhood, love, and respect. Lines such as “Brotherhood, not ostracism” and “Grip of hand, not whip-hand wardship” frame justice as a moral obligation grounded in empathy, transcending racial and cultural boundaries. The humanist ideal is the foundation for her vision of an inclusive Australian society.	“Make us mates, not poor relations” / “Give us choice, not cold coercion”
📢 Marxist Theory	The text critiques class oppression intertwined with racial inequality, portraying Aboriginal Australians as an exploited underclass within capitalist and colonial structures. Demands for “Homes, not settlements and missions” and “Opportunity that places / White and black on equal basis” highlight economic disparity and the denial of material resources, aligning with Marxist calls for structural change.	“We need help, not exploitation” / “Citizens, not serfs on stations”

Critical Questions about “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

🔴 Question 1: How does Oodgeroo Noonuccal use contrasting pairs in “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” to highlight the disparities between Aboriginal aspirations and the oppressive realities they face?

“Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal employs contrasting pairs to powerfully critique systemic racism and advocate for genuine equality. The poem’s use of antithesis, seen in lines like “We want hope, not racialism” and “Black advance, not white ascendance,” juxtaposes the positive desires of Aboriginal people with the negative realities imposed by colonial systems. This rhetorical strategy continues with demands for “brotherhood, not ostracism” and “equals, not dependents,” emphasizing the gap between the community’s aspirations for unity and autonomy and the marginalization they endure. By structuring the poem around these contrasts, Noonuccal not only highlights the injustices faced by Aboriginal people but also issues a compelling call for societal change, urging readers to confront the need for “self-reliance” over “control” in the pursuit of true equality.

🟢 Question 2: In what ways does “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” expose the hypocrisy of Christian missionary efforts in the treatment of Aboriginal people?

“Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal reveals the hypocrisy of Christian missionary efforts by contrasting their proclaimed values with their oppressive actions toward Aboriginal communities. Lines such as “Give us Christ, not crucifixion” and “Though baptised and blessed and bibled / We are still tabooed and libelled” underscore how Indigenous people were subjected to Christian conversion yet remained stigmatized and marginalized as “fringe-dwellers.” Noonuccal critiques the superficiality of missionary efforts, which offered “overlordship” instead of genuine “love” or fellowship. This contrast exposes the irony of religious institutions that preached salvation while perpetuating suffering, prompting readers to question the moral contradictions in colonial policies that claimed to “protect” but instead enforced cultural erasure and subjugation.

🟡 Question 3: Why does “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” question the alienation of Aboriginal people in their own land, and how does this reflect broader issues of citizenship and sovereignty?

“Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal challenges the alienation of Aboriginal people through poignant rhetorical questions and imagery that highlight their dispossession. The lines “Must we native Old Australians / In our land rank as aliens?” use a rhetorical question to underscore the absurdity of treating Indigenous people as outsiders in their ancestral homeland, while references to “homes, not settlements and missions” and “citizens, not serfs on stations” critique the forced displacement and loss of autonomy under colonial policies. This question reflects broader issues of citizenship and sovereignty, as Noonuccal asserts the right to “self-reliance” and “independence,” calling attention to the systemic denial of Indigenous land rights and political agency. The poem thus serves as a powerful commentary on the need for reconciliation and recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty in postcolonial Australia.

🔵 Question 4: How does “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” advocate for empowerment over paternalism, and what role does education play in achieving self-respect for Aboriginal communities?

“Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal advocates for empowerment by rejecting paternalistic control and emphasizing the transformative power of education and opportunity. Lines like “Not rebuff, but education” and “Self-respect, not resignation” contrast the desire for growth and dignity with the oppressive barriers imposed by colonial systems. Noonuccal’s calls for “encouragement, not prohibitions” and “opportunity that places / White and black on equal basis” highlight the need for systemic change to foster “ambition, not prevention.” Education is positioned as a key mechanism for achieving “self-respect” and “confidence,” countering the bureaucratic “Protection” that perpetuates dependency. By demanding access to knowledge and resources, the poem underscores the potential for education to empower Aboriginal communities, enabling them to reclaim agency and build a future free from “cold coercion.”

Literary Works Similar to “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

🌾 “We Are Going” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal – Like “Aboriginal Charter of Rights,” this poem confronts the dispossession of Aboriginal Australians, using direct, communal voice to assert cultural identity and protest colonial erasure.

🪶 “Municipal Gum” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal – Shares the same social justice focus, employing a symbolic image of a trapped gum tree to parallel the oppression and confinement of Indigenous peoples.
🌍 “Song of Hope” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal – Aligns in its rhythmic call for unity and equality, envisioning a future where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians coexist in mutual respect.

Representative Quotations of “Aboriginal Charter of Rights” by Oodgeroo Noonuccal

Quotation	Context in the Poem	Theoretical Interpretation
🌾 “Hope, not racialism”	Opens the poem with a direct contrast between aspiration and racial prejudice, setting the tone for the demands that follow.	Critical Race Theory – Challenges systemic racism by framing equality as the necessary foundation for national progress.
✊ “Black advance, not white ascendance”	Highlights the imbalance of power between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, rejecting racial hierarchy.	Postcolonial Theory – Deconstructs colonial power structures that position whiteness as dominant.
🏠 “Homes, not settlements and missions”	Critiques imposed living arrangements under government ‘protection’ policies.	Marxist Theory – Calls for material equality and the dismantling of state-controlled dependency systems.
🕊️ “Brotherhood, not ostracism”	Urges reconciliation and mutual respect over exclusion.	Humanist Theory – Promotes universal moral values and shared humanity.
⚖️ “Human rights, not segregation”	Explicitly demands equal legal and social rights for Aboriginal Australians.	Critical Race Theory – Confronts legal discrimination and racialized law enforcement.
📜 “Must we native Old Australians / in our land rank as aliens?”	Uses rhetorical questioning to expose the paradox of Indigenous alienation in their homeland.	Postcolonial Theory – Exposes the irony and injustice of settler-colonial citizenship structures.
✝️ “Give us Christ, not crucifixion”	Critiques the hypocrisy of religious institutions preaching salvation while perpetuating oppression.	Postcolonial Theory – Highlights religious colonialism and the betrayal of Christian moral ideals.
🤝 “Make us neighbours, not fringe-dwellers”	Rejects spatial and social segregation.	Humanist Theory – Envisions integration through equality and mutual respect.
🏛️ “Citizens, not serfs on stations”	Condemns economic exploitation in rural labour systems.	Marxist Theory – Frames Aboriginal oppression as class exploitation reinforced by race.
🔓 “Banish bans and conquer caste”	Calls for the removal of systemic restrictions and social stratification.	Postcolonial Theory – Advocates dismantling racialized caste-like structures inherited from colonization.

“Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose: Summary and Critique

“Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose, published in 2006 in BioSocieties (Volume 1, Issue 02, pp. 195–217), refines Foucault’s concept of biopower as truth discourses, authoritative interventions, and self-subjectification shaping human vitality in liberal societies, emphasizing “making live” over thanatopolitics, contra Agamben and Negri.

Introduction: “Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose

“Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose, published in 2006 in BioSocieties (Volume 1, Issue 02, pp. 195–217), refines Foucault’s concept of biopower as truth discourses, authoritative interventions, and self-subjectification shaping human vitality in liberal societies, emphasizing “making live” over thanatopolitics, contra Agamben and Negri. Focusing on race, reproduction, and genomic medicine, it explores how genomics reintroduces race biologically, reproduction navigates individual choice and population control, and genomic medicine shifts health care toward molecular interventions. In literary theory, it offers a framework to analyze narratives of identity, health, and governance, encouraging critical engagement with biotechnology’s ethical implications in contemporary literature.

Summary of “Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose

📜 Conceptual Clarification of Biopower

Rabinow & Rose revisit Michel Foucault’s concept of biopower—power exercised over life—clarifying its meaning and relevance today.
Defined as comprising:
- Truth discourses about the “vital” nature of human beings.
- Authorities competent to speak that truth.
- Interventions on collective existence for life and health.
- Modes of subjectification where individuals work on themselves in the name of life/health (p.197).
Quote: “Biopower entails one or more truth discourses… strategies for intervention upon collective existence in the name of life and health… modes of subjectification” (p.197).

⚖ Distinguishing Foucault from Agamben & Negri

Against “epochal” claims: They critique Giorgio Agamben’s “homo sacer” model and Antonio Negri & Michael Hardt’s “Empire” framing for overgeneralizing biopower.

Argue these philosophical versions empty the concept of analytical precision.
Foucault’s approach: grounded in historical specificity—two poles:
- Anatamo-politics (body discipline).
- Biopolitics (population regulation) (Foucault, 1978: 139).
Quote: “This version of the concept of ‘biopower’ is quite antithetical to that proposed by Foucault: the concept is emptied of its critical force—it can describe everything but analyse nothing” (p.198).

🛡 From Sovereignty to Governmentality

Critique of viewing all biopower as an extension of sovereign power.
Modern states rule through governmentalized networks involving non‐state actors—NGOs, professional bodies, patient groups.
Quote: “Non-state bodies have played a key role in biopolitical struggles and strategies since the origin of ‘the social’” (p.202).

🧬 Race in the Era of Genomics

Historical role: race central in biopower (nationhood, colonialism, eugenics).
Post–WWII: biological racism discredited officially (UN 1963 Declaration).
Genomics reintroduces race via molecular gaze (e.g., SNP & HapMap projects).
Uses: health equity, pharmaceutical targeting, identity tracing—but risk of re‐coding race in old categories (“Caucasian”, “African”, “Asian”).
Quote: “New challenges for critical thinking are raised by the contemporary interplay between political and genomic classifications of race” (p.207).

👶 Reproduction as a Biopolitical Space

Decoupling of sexuality and reproduction in last 50 years.
National & global population control campaigns (e.g., China’s One Child Policy, India’s sterilization drives) framed via economics & ecology.
Contemporary assisted reproductive technologies (ART) framed as choice but involve responsibilization—especially of women.
Quote: “The economy of contemporary biopolitics operates according to logics of vitality, not mortality: while it has its circuits of exclusion, letting die is not making die” (p.210).

🧪 Genomic Medicine & Biocapital

Potential shift in medicine: from restoring normativity to molecular re‐engineering of life.
Industry examples: Celera Diagnostics (polygenic disease testing), pharmacogenomics for tailored antidepressants.
Raises new risk calculation logics and individual genetic self‐understanding.
Quote: “If this model were to succeed… the logics of medicine, and the shape of the biopolitical field, would be altered” (p.213).

🔍 Method: Modest Empiricism

Advocates empirical, specific, historically‐attuned analysis over grand abstractions.
Focus on small mutations in truth, authority, ethics—where “today is becoming different from yesterday” (p.204).
Quote: “Celebration or denunciation are insufficient as analytical approaches” (p.215).

🌐 Conclusion: Vital Politics

Biopower remains analytically useful if applied precisely and empirically.
Contemporary biopolitics:
- Transnational flows of biological materials & knowledge.
- Localized forms of subjectification and activism.

Aim: Develop analytic tools for the “near future” (Deleuze) to diagnose transformations in life, health, and governance.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose

Term/Concept	Reference from Article	Explanation
🌱 Biopower	p. 196: “The concept of ‘biopower’ serves to bring into view a field comprised of more or less rationalized attempts to intervene upon the vital characteristics of human existence.”	Biopower refers to power exercised over life processes, involving strategies to manage human vitality, health, and populations through truth discourses, authoritative interventions, and self-subjectification, distinct from sovereign power’s right to kill.
🧬 Biopolitics	p. 196: “We can use the term ‘biopolitics’ to embrace all the specific strategies and contestations over problematizations of collective human vitality, morbidity and mortality.”	Biopolitics encompasses specific strategies and struggles over managing collective human life, health, and mortality, involving knowledge, authority, and interventions at individual and population levels.
📜 Truth Discourses	p. 197: “One or more truth discourses about the ‘vital’ character of living human beings, and an array of authorities considered competent to speak that truth.”	Truth discourses are authoritative knowledge systems about human vitality, often blending biological, demographic, or sociological perspectives, legitimizing interventions by experts like scientists or doctors.
🧠 Subjectification	p. 197: “Modes of subjectification, through which individuals are brought to work on themselves… in the name of their own life or health.”	Subjectification describes how individuals internalize biopolitical norms, self-regulating their behavior and identity in relation to health, life, or collective well-being under authoritative guidance.
🤝 Biosociality	p. 197: “Rabinow has examined the formation of new collectivities in terms of ‘biosociality’.”	Biosociality refers to new social groups formed around shared biological traits or conditions, such as patient groups or communities defined by genetic markers, reshaping identity and collective action.
🧍 Somatic Individuality	p. 197: “Rose has examined the formation of kinds of human subject in terms of ‘somatic individuality’.”	Somatic individuality highlights how individuals understand and manage themselves through their biological and bodily conditions, particularly in relation to health and genetic information.
💀 Thanatopolitics	p. 200: “Contemporary biopower, they imply, is a form of power which ultimately rests on the power of some to threaten the death of others.”	Thanatopolitics refers to a politics of death, where biopower, in extreme cases like Nazi regimes, involves killing or letting die to strengthen certain populations, contrasting with biopower’s focus on vitality.
⚖️ Making Live/Letting Die	p. 203: “It takes the form of ‘letting die’ as much as of ‘making die’… central to the configuration of contemporary biopower are all those endeavours that have life, not death, as their telos.”	This describes biopower’s dual strategy in liberal societies: promoting life (making live) through health interventions while allowing certain deaths (letting die) through exclusion or neglect, rather than active killing.
🩺 Bioethics Complex	p. 202: “A whole ‘bioethical complex’, in which the power of medical agents to ‘let die’… are simultaneously enhanced by medical technology and regulated by other authorities.”	The bioethics complex involves regulatory frameworks, commissions, and professional bodies that govern medical decisions, balancing technological advancements with ethical oversight in health practices.
🛂 Biological Citizenship	p. 197: “Emergent biosocial collectivities, sometimes specified in terms of categories of race, ethnicity, gender or religion, as in the emerging forms of genetic or biological citizenship.”	Biological citizenship refers to rights and obligations tied to biological or genetic identities, where individuals claim access to health resources or social recognition based on their biological status.

Contribution of “Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose to Literary Theory/Theories

🏛 Poststructuralism & Discourse Theory

Extends Foucauldian discourse analysis by clarifying “biopower” as a historically grounded and analytically precise term.
Moves beyond language‐only analysis to the interplay of truth discourses, authorities, and material interventions in life processes.

Quote: “Biopower entails one or more truth discourses about the ‘vital’ character of living human beings… strategies for intervention… modes of subjectification” (p.197).
This reinforces poststructuralist focus on contingency and discursive formation, but insists on empirical grounding.

⚖ Critical Theory (Frankfurt School Tradition)

Challenges totalizing narratives (e.g., Negri & Agamben) that treat biopower as an all‐encompassing domination.

Encourages critical differentiation between forms of life‐governing power and death‐dealing politics, resisting “one‐diagram” explanations.
Quote: “It would clearly be misleading to diagnose [contemporary biopolitics] as a form of genocide, or the re‐awakening of the spectre of the camp” (p.210).
Contributes to critical theory’s emphasis on historical specificity and judgement over abstract critique.

🧠 Psychoanalytic Theory & Subjectivity Studies

Links biopower to modes of subjectification, showing how individuals internalize medical/genetic norms and act on themselves.
Parallels psychoanalytic readings of the subject as constituted through authority and self‐surveillance.
Quote: “Modes of subjectification, in which individuals can be brought to work on themselves… in the name of life or health” (p.197).

Opens space for analysis of somatic individuality (Rose) as a form of subjectivity shaped by biomedical discourse.

🌍 Postcolonial Theory

Illuminates biopolitics in global contexts—population control campaigns, genomic projects in diverse geographies—revealing how colonial and postcolonial governance intersect with life regulation.
Challenges simplistic analogies between contemporary development policies and colonial eugenics.

Quote: “Limiting population in the interests of national economic prosperity… is not the same as purification of the race by elimination of degenerates” (p.210).
Encourages postcolonial theorists to consider molecular-level governance alongside historical racial governance.

📈 Science and Technology Studies (STS)

Directly contributes to Actor–Network Theory‐inflected readings of science by tracking how genomics, race, reproduction, and medicine become sites of political and social meaning.

Treats scientific categories (e.g., SNPs, haplotypes) as discursively and institutionally embedded.
Quote: “New challenges for critical thinking are raised by the contemporary interplay between political and genomic classifications of race” (p.207).
Adds biocapital and biosociality as analytical categories for cultural theorists.

📚 New Historicism

Models a historically layered approach to concepts, tracing Foucault’s original context (18th–19th c. state formation) and 21st‐century mutations.
Emphasizes that concepts like “biopower” cannot be lifted wholesale into new eras without adaptation.
Quote: “It would certainly be misleading simply to project Foucault’s analysis forward as a guide to our present” (p.203).

Offers literary historians a method for reading contemporary texts through genealogies of power.

🧬 Biopolitics as Cultural Criticism

Equips literary and cultural theory with a refined analytic toolkit for engaging with narratives of health, life, death, and governance.
Rejects “celebration or denunciation” (p.215) as sole modes of critique, promoting “modest empiricism” attentive to local variations.

Enables analysis of novels, films, and cultural artefacts that engage genomic futures, medical ethics, and bodily regulation.

🎭 Narratology & Identity Politics

Provides a framework for analysing life narratives and identity claims rooted in genetics, race, and reproduction.
Shows how “biosocial collectivities” emerge as narrative communities in politics and culture.

Quote: “The growing sense of many individuals that genetics… holds the key to their ‘identity’” (p.206).
Informs literary readings of memoirs, testimonies, and fiction dealing with medicalized selfhood.

Examples of Critiques Through “Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose

Novel	Reference to Biopower Today	Critique Through Biopower Lens
📘 Klara and the Sun by Kazuo Ishiguro (2021)	p. 197: “Modes of subjectification, through which individuals are brought to work on themselves… in the name of their own life or health.”	Ishiguro’s novel explores biopower through Klara, an artificial friend, and the genetically enhanced children she serves. The narrative critiques subjectification, as characters like Josie are shaped by biotechnological interventions to optimize health and social status, reflecting Rabinow and Rose’s concept of individuals self-regulating under biopolitical norms. The novel questions the ethics of such enhancements, highlighting how they reinforce social hierarchies and commodify life, aligning with the article’s focus on genomic medicine’s impact on identity and health.
📙 The Testaments by Margaret Atwood (2019)	p. 208: “The question of reproduction gets problematized… because of its economic, ecological and political consequences.”	Atwood’s sequel to The Handmaid’s Tale examines biopower through Gilead’s control over women’s reproduction, resonating with Rabinow and Rose’s analysis of reproduction as a biopolitical space. The novel critiques state-driven reproductive policies that prioritize collective survival over individual autonomy, illustrating the tension between molar (population-level) and molecular (individual) biopolitics. The resistance by characters like Agnes and Daisy underscores the article’s notion of contestations against such control.
📗 The Water Dancer by Ta-Nehisi Coates (2019)	p. 205: “Race, together with health, and in variable relations with it, has been one of the central poles in the genealogy of biopower.”	Coates’ novel uses biopower to critique the racialized control of enslaved bodies in antebellum America, with Hiram’s supernatural “conduction” symbolizing resistance to biopolitical subjugation. Rabinow and Rose’s discussion of race as a biopolitical category is reflected in the novel’s portrayal of slavery as a system of managing vitality and labor, with race justifying exploitation, aligning with the article’s exploration of race’s re-emergence in biological terms.
📕 The Power by Naomi Alderman (2016)	p. 197: “Emergent biosocial collectivities, sometimes specified in terms of categories of race, ethnicity, gender or religion.”	Alderman’s novel reimagines biopower through women’s newfound biological ability to generate electric shocks, disrupting gender-based power structures. This aligns with Rabinow and Rose’s concept of biosociality, where new biological traits create collectivities that challenge existing norms. The novel critiques how biopolitical shifts in bodily capacities can invert social hierarchies, raising questions about the ethical and political implications of such biological citizenship.

Criticism Against “Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose

⚖ Over‐Emphasis on Empiricism

Their “modest empiricism” (p.204) is seen by some critics as too cautious, potentially downplaying the need for strong normative critique of biopolitical systems.

Focus on small‐scale, situated studies may underestimate systemic or global structural patterns of domination.

🗺 Underestimation of Global Power Asymmetries

While they address transnational biopower, critics argue they underplay economic imperialism, global capitalism, and neocolonial biomedical exploitation.
Limited engagement with how global inequalities shape access to life‐saving technologies.

🛡 Critique of Agamben & Negri May Be Over‐Simplified

Their dismissal of Agamben’s “homo sacer” and Negri’s “Empire” risks mischaracterizing these thinkers’ nuanced political‐philosophical claims.
Some scholars argue that Rabinow & Rose understate the importance of states of exception in contemporary governance (e.g., migrant detention, pandemic lockdowns).

📉 Minimizing Thanatopolitics

Their claim that contemporary biopower is oriented toward “making live” rather than “making die” (p.210) can be criticized for ignoring:
- Structural health inequalities.
- Environmental racism.
- Neglect or abandonment of populations (e.g., Global South health crises).

🧬 Optimistic Reading of Genomics

While cautious, their treatment of genomics sometimes leans toward neutral or hopeful interpretations, possibly overlooking the commercial exploitation and data colonialism inherent in genetic research.

📚 Lack of Cultural Textual Engagement

For literary and cultural theory audiences, their analysis remains sociological and policy‐oriented, not engaging deeply with cultural representation or narrative analysis of biopolitics in media, literature, or art.

⏳ Potentially Presentist Focus

Despite genealogical awareness, their focus on contemporary configurations may underemphasize deep historical continuities in racial and reproductive governance beyond Foucault’s European frame.

🧠 Limited Ethical Prescriptions

While strong in conceptual clarification, the work offers little guidance for ethical or political action against harmful biopolitical practices, leaving the normative stance ambiguous.

Representative Quotations from “Biopower Today” by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose with Explanation

Quotation and Reference	Explanation
🌱 “The concept of ‘biopower’ serves to bring into view a field comprised of more or less rationalized attempts to intervene upon the vital characteristics of human existence.” (p. 196)	This foundational statement defines biopower as a framework for analyzing power over life processes, emphasizing interventions on human vitality, health, and mortality. It sets the stage for understanding how power operates through managing life, distinct from sovereign power’s focus on death.
🧬 “We can use the term ‘biopolitics’ to embrace all the specific strategies and contestations over problematizations of collective human vitality, morbidity and mortality.” (p. 196)	Biopolitics is introduced as the practical application of biopower, encompassing strategies and struggles over collective human life. It highlights the contested nature of managing populations, involving knowledge, authority, and interventions, central to modern governance.
📜 “One or more truth discourses about the ‘vital’ character of living human beings, and an array of authorities considered competent to speak that truth.” (p. 197)	This outlines a key element of biopower: truth discourses, authoritative knowledge systems (e.g., biology, demography) that legitimize interventions by experts like scientists or doctors, shaping how life and health are understood and managed.
🧠 “Modes of subjectification, through which individuals are brought to work on themselves… in the name of their own life or health.” (p. 197)	Subjectification describes how biopower operates at the individual level, encouraging self-regulation in alignment with health and life norms. It reflects how individuals internalize biopolitical imperatives, shaping their behavior under expert guidance.
🤝 “Rabinow has examined the formation of new collectivities in terms of ‘biosociality’.” (p. 197)	Biosociality refers to new social groups formed around shared biological traits, such as patient advocacy groups. This concept illustrates how biopower fosters collective identities based on biological conditions, reshaping social and political interactions.
🧍 “Rose has examined the formation of kinds of human subject in terms of ‘somatic individuality’.” (p. 197)	Somatic individuality captures how individuals define themselves through their biological and bodily conditions, particularly in health and genomics. It underscores biopower’s role in shaping personal identity through bodily management and medical interventions.
💀 “Contemporary biopower, they imply, is a form of power which ultimately rests on the power of some to threaten the death of others.” (p. 200)	This critiques Agamben and Negri’s view of biopower as inherently tied to death (thanatopolitics). Rabinow and Rose argue this oversimplifies contemporary biopower, which in liberal societies focuses more on managing life than enforcing death, except in extreme cases like Nazi regimes.
⚖️ “It takes the form of ‘letting die’ as much as of ‘making die’… central to the configuration of contemporary biopower are all those endeavours that have life, not death, as their telos.” (p. 203)	This highlights the dual nature of biopower in liberal societies: promoting life (making live) while allowing certain deaths (letting die) through neglect or exclusion. It emphasizes that contemporary biopower prioritizes vitality over mortality, distinguishing it from sovereign power.
🩺 “A whole ‘bioethical complex’, in which the power of medical agents to ‘let die’… are simultaneously enhanced by medical technology and regulated by other authorities.” (p. 202)	The bioethical complex describes regulatory frameworks governing medical decisions, balancing technological advancements with ethical oversight. It illustrates how biopower operates through a network of authorities managing life and death in health practices.
🛂 “Emergent biosocial collectivities, sometimes specified in terms of categories of race, ethnicity, gender or religion, as in the emerging forms of genetic or biological citizenship.” (p. 197)	Biological citizenship refers to rights and obligations tied to biological identities, where individuals claim health resources or social recognition based on genetic or biological status. It reflects how biopower shapes new forms of citizenship through biological markers.

Day: August 16, 2025