“Biopolitics: Lessons From History” By Steven A. Peterson: Summary and Critique

🧬 Introduction: The Emergence of Biopolitics

• Biopolitics is an evolving subfield in political science that examines how biological factors influence political behavior, theory, and policy.
• The essay outlines three historical categories of biopolitical thinking:
  1. Metaphor
  2. Evolutionary/genetic explanations of behavior
  3. Public policy implications
• Peterson explains the value of historical inquiry:
  “An inquiry into the intellectual ancestors of the present effort provides a context for criticizing and evaluating this renewed interest” (p. 355).

---

📈 Indicators of Growing Interest in Biopolitics

• Academic visibility: 13 out of 30 international politics textbooks (1971–1975) referenced biology’s political relevance.
• Conference presence: Panels held at IPSA, APSA, MPSA from 1970–1976.
• Journal publications: Journal of Politics, Polity, American Political Science Review featured biopolitics articles.
• Elite endorsement: David Easton emphasized the relevance of biological factors:
  “The biological nature of man has a significant place” in political systems (p. 356).

---

🧠 🧩 Category 1: Biopolitics as Metaphor

• Political thinkers have historically used organic metaphors to describe the state.

Key Examples:

• Plato viewed the state as a body with interdependent parts:

“The auxiliaries, the producers, and the philosopher-kings must each perform their own proper functions” (p. 358).

• Aristotle linked political revolutions to imbalance in state parts:

“Every member ought to grow in proportion, if symmetry is to be preserved” (p. 358).

• Thomas Hobbes described the state as an “artificial animal”, likening sovereignty to the soul and money to blood (p. 359).
• Woodrow Wilson declared:

“Government is not a machine but a living thing…accountable to Darwin, not to Newton” (p. 360).

• Herbert Spencer emphasized society as an organism:

“Functional interdependence of parts…is scarcely more manifest in animals than in nations” (p. 359).

---

🧬 🐒 Category 2: Evolutionary and Genetic Theories

• Inspired by Darwin, this category links natural selection to politics and society.

Main Points:

• Walter Bagehot: Natural selection occurs among nations:

“The best nations conquered the worst” (p. 361).

• Social Darwinism became a dominant explanation for racial and national superiority (p. 357).
• Ludwig Gumplowicz emphasized group struggle as a motor for social evolution.

---

🌎 🌡️ Category 3: Racial-Genetic & Environmental Theories

• These explanations attributed political traits to race, genetics, and climate.

Examples:

• Plato believed some are born to be rulers; Aristotle claimed:

“From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule” (p. 363).

• Arthur de Gobineau ranked races, placing Aryans at the top (p. 363).
• Francis Galton measured racial intelligence and claimed:

Africans were less fit for civilization than Europeans (p. 364).

• Montesquieu connected climate to temperament:

“Cooler climates produce vigor and courage” (p. 363).

• Treitschke argued harsh winters encouraged strength and introspection.

---

📜 Policy Implications of Biopolitical Theories

• Many thinkers used biology to justify inequality, eugenics, and colonialism.

Key Cases:

• John W. Burgess claimed:

“The Teuton really dominates the world by his superior political genius” (p. 364).

• Madison Grant influenced immigration policy with his racial hierarchy model (p. 364).
• Herbert Spencer warned against welfare:

“If benefits go to the inferior… progressive degradation would result” (p. 365).

• William Graham Sumner wrote:

“Root, hog, or die” – defending laissez-faire and natural selection in society (p. 365).

---

⚠️ Three Major Problems in Biopolitical Thought

1. ❗ Reductionism: Oversimplifying political behavior by attributing it solely to biology.
   • Example: Davies’ theory of political unrest triggered by “energy in memory cells” is critiqued as biologically dubious (p. 366).
2. 🧪 Uncritical Use of Biological Concepts:
   • Ardrey’s territoriality theory and Master’s riot explanations are considered speculative and flawed (pp. 366–367).
3. 📉 Lack of Empirical Support:
   • Much of the historical work lacks data. Peterson notes this weakens the field’s scientific legitimacy (p. 366).

---

✅ Conclusion: Learning From the Past

• Peterson calls for a rigorous, empirically grounded biopolitics:

“Otherwise, the fate of contemporary biopolitics will be as dismal as previously” (p. 366).

• He encourages caution, interdisciplinary validation, and theoretical refinement to fulfill biopolitics’ potential.

🧬 1. Biopolitical Theory (Foucault, Agamben, Esposito)

Biopolitics as a literary theory analyzes how power operates through the biological regulation of life. Peterson’s work historically situates this dynamic long before Foucault’s formulation.

• 🧠 Peterson provides a genealogical account of how biology became intertwined with political meaning—paralleling Foucault’s “genealogy of biopower.”
• 📚 He exposes how scientific discourse (e.g., Darwinism) shaped political narratives about race, progress, and governance.
• 💬 “An inquiry into the intellectual ancestors of the present effort provides a context for criticizing and evaluating this renewed interest.” (p. 355)
• 🔍 This aligns with Agamben’s concern about life’s politicization and Esposito’s critique of immunitary paradigms in governance.

---

🏛️ 2. Structuralism & System Theory

Structuralist theory sees society and texts as composed of interrelated structures. Peterson traces how biological analogies helped shape structuralist political thought.

• 🧩 The organismic metaphor of the state as a body reflects structural interdependence, mirroring literary structuralism’s reliance on interrelated functions.
• 📘 “Plato noted that the auxiliaries, the producers, and the philosopher-kings must each perform their own proper functions…” (p. 358)
• 🔁 Systems thinkers like Lowell and Wilson, cited by Peterson, conceptualize government as a living structure, not unlike how texts are analyzed as coherent systems in structuralism.

---

💣 3. Postcolonial Theory

Postcolonial theory critiques how Western ideologies, including science, have justified imperialism and racial hierarchies. Peterson critiques this within biopolitical racial-genetic discourse.

• ⚖️ He shows how biological determinism justified colonialism, eugenics, and racial superiority in political thought.
• 📘 “The Teuton really dominates the world by his superior political genius.” – Burgess (quoted on p. 364)
• 📚 This directly supports postcolonial critiques of scientific racism and imperialist knowledge systems in literary narratives (cf. Edward Said’s Orientalism).

---

🧠 4. Psychoanalytic Theory

Psychoanalytic literary theory often addresses instincts, drives, and unconscious behavior, all of which appear in Peterson’s historical examples.

• 🌀 Peterson discusses theories about political behavior rooted in instinctual drives (e.g., crowd behavior, herd instinct).
• 💬 “One of the primary bases of the state was the herd instinct in man.” (p. 363)
• 🧬 This overlaps with psychoanalytic emphasis on pre-rational forces (e.g., Freud’s death drive or Lacan’s Real) as determinants of political/subjective behavior.

---

📜 5. Metaphor and Rhetoric in Political Discourse (Literary Formalism)

Peterson reveals how metaphor functions not just poetically, but ideologically—serving as a tool for naturalizing political structures.

• ✍️ The use of the state-as-body metaphor exemplifies the rhetorical strategies analyzed in literary formalism.
• 💬 “Government is not a machine but a living thing…accountable to Darwin, not to Newton.” – Wilson (p. 360)
• 🔍 Peterson’s study becomes a literary rhetorical analysis of political language and how metaphors shape ideological perception.

---

🚨 6. Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)

Critical theorists (Adorno, Horkheimer) caution against uncritically adopted scientific rationality. Peterson echoes this concern in his critique of early biopolitical theories.

• ⚠️ He critiques reductionism, uncritical adoption of biology, and lack of empirical evidence in biopolitical claims.
• 💬 “Many of the studies mentioned reflect the deadly sin of reductionism.” (p. 366)
• 📚 This supports critical theory’s argument that biologically framed ideologies can serve oppressive systems.

---

🧩 7. Discourse Analysis & Ideology Critique

Peterson’s historical tracing of political-biological discourse fits within discourse theory, especially in showing how language and science construct power.

• 🧠 The article shows how biological terms—e.g., “fitness,” “instinct,” “degeneration”—became political tools.
• 📘 Example: “Social Darwinists supposed that human progress demands a struggle and competition…between races.” (p. 357)
• 📚 This contributes to literary discourse analysis by mapping how seemingly neutral scientific language acquires ideological force.

❗ Over-Reliance on Historical Survey

• Too Descriptive, Not Analytical: The essay largely catalogs historical instances rather than engaging in deep critical analysis of their theoretical validity.
• Lack of Theoretical Innovation: It presents historical antecedents but doesn’t sufficiently build a new theoretical framework for contemporary biopolitics.

---

❗ Weak Empirical Foundation

• Insufficient Empirical Support: Peterson himself acknowledges that “little solid support has been marshalled” (p. 366).
• Anecdotal References: The examples given are often literary or speculative, without rigorous data or scientific testing.

---

❗ Conceptual Ambiguity

• Unclear Definition of Biopolitics: The essay loosely defines biopolitics without anchoring it in contemporary theoretical frameworks, such as those by Foucault or Agamben.
• Vague Categorization: The three-part division (metaphor, genetic/evolutionary influence, public policy) lacks interconnectivity or philosophical depth.

---

❗ Absence of Ethical and Philosophical Engagement

• Ignores Bioethics: There’s minimal attention to normative or ethical questions, despite discussing race, eugenics, and pharmacological control.
• No Critical Evaluation of Power Structures: Unlike Foucault’s concept of biopower, Peterson doesn’t explore how biopolitical control operates through institutions or discourse.

---

❗ Eurocentric and Gender-Blind Perspective

• Dominated by Western Thinkers: The essay focuses almost exclusively on Western male theorists, omitting non-Western or feminist perspectives on biopolitics.
• Lack of Intersectionality: It fails to address gender, class, or postcolonial dynamics, all crucial in modern biopolitical discourse.

---

❗ Reductionism Critique Not Fully Resolved

• Contradictory Stance on Reductionism: Peterson criticizes reductionism but still adopts biological determinism in parts of his analysis.
• Fails to Offer Alternatives: The work doesn’t provide a clear integrative model balancing biology, culture, and political agency.