Culture Clash – the biopolitics of popular culture

November 10, 2009

This is a first for 2020 Science – a plug for a meeting which I have
nothing to do with!  But next month’s seminar on the Biopolitics of
Popular Culture being run by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging
Technologies (IEET) looks so intriguing that I couldn’t resist! (that,
and a heads-up from IEET Managing Director Mike Treder :-) )

First though, a word on that term “biopolitics.”  Biopolitics is a
rather versatile concept that embraces a whole raft of stuff – from
politics of bioethics through the use of biotechnology to human
enhancement (check this overview out if you really want your brain
scrambled).  But there seems to be some convergence on the idea of
biopolitics as grappling with the tough questions that arise at the
intersection of emerging technologies and life.

In other words, how do we handle new technologies that could
profoundly and intimately alter who we are and what we can do as a
species?

When Jeff Goldblum’s character in the movie Jurassic Park came out
with the line “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with
whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”
he was echoing a long-running debate on who decides how science is
used.  As the rate of scientific discovery and technology innovation
accelerates, this question is becoming increasingly relevant, and is
central it seems to biopolitics.

But biopolitics is also being driven by another factor – imagination.

Imagination drives the vision of scientists underpinning emerging
technologies – it’s the ever-present “what if…” of the consummate
researcher.  It drives the promoters of emerging technologies –
selling dreams of Utopian futures enabled by revolutionary
breakthroughs.  And it fuels the aspirations and fears of people who
stand to benefit or suffer from technological advancements – turning
technological possibilities into imagined probabilities that end up
influencing lives in complex ways.

And here you have the link with popular culture.

To quote the introduction to the IEET seminar,

    Our most transcendent expectations for technology come from pop
culture, and the most common objections to emerging technologies come
from science fiction and horror, from Frankenstein and Brave New World
to Gattaca and the Terminator.

    Why is it that almost every person in fiction who wants to live a
longer than normal life is evil or pays some terrible price? What does
it say about attitudes towards posthuman possibilities when mutants in
Heroes or the X-Men, or cyborgs in Battlestar Galactica or Iron Man,
or vampires in True Blood or Twilight are depicted as capable of
responsible citizenship?

    Is Hollywood reflecting a transhuman turn in popular culture,
helping us imagine a day when magical and muggle can live together in
a peaceful Star Trek federation? Will the merging of pop culture,
social networking and virtual reality into a heightened augmented
reality encourage us all to make our lives a form of participative
fiction?

It’s this interplay between popular imagination, technology
development and – for want of a better word – “biopolitics” that I
find fascinating.  And to explore it, IEET have lined up an equally
fascinating group of people – including Annalee Newitz (editor of
Science Fiction blog io9), David Brinn (scientist and best-selling
author), Natasha Vita-More (pioneer of transhumanists aesthetics) and
Jamais Cascio (futurist), along with may others.

Sadly, I won’t be around in Irvine CA on December 4, and so will miss
the fun.  But if you are even remotely interested in the intersection
between popular culture and future technologies, this seems to be a
meeting worth checking out – more details here.

Read more: http://2020science.org/2009/11/10/culture-clash-the-biopolitics-of-po...