Control and Biopower in Contemporary Humanitarian Aid: The Case of Supplementary Feeding
Control and Biopower in Contemporary Humanitarian Aid: The Case of Supplementary Feeding
复制标题
当代人道主义援助中的控制和生物权力：补充喂养的案例
DOI：
10.1093/jrs/feu018
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Tom Scott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tom Scott
生命权力的概念经常用于分析当代援助。提及一种在生命中行使并通过自治运作的权力，这似乎非常适合人道主义机构的运作，特别是在难民背景下。本文批评了生命权力在人道主义研究中的应用，认为许多援助行动是基于自上而下的控制，而不是自治和规范的内化。作为例证，我研究了南苏丹的一个补充喂养计划，研究了如何提供食物、如何衡量饥饿程度，并指出其中涉及的等级制度和家长式控制。除了表明生物权力在难民背景下常常缺乏相关性之外，我还认为它的应用过于广泛。由于与大量的人道主义实践联系在一起，它有可能失去任何分析效用，成为权力详细描述的替代品。本文试图回到这个细节，描述一项人道主义计划，并指出与一直流行的生物权力概念的一些差异，我认为，生物权力的概念往往在没有充分定义的情况下被应用。
The concept of biopower is often used in the analysis of contemporary aid. Referring to a power that is exercised over life and that operates through self-government, it seems very appropriate for the operations of humanitarian agencies, particularly in refugee contexts. This article critiques the application of biopower in studies of humanitarianism, arguing that many aid operations are based on top-down control, rather than self-government and the internalization of norms. As an illustration, I examine a supplementary feeding programme in South Sudan, looking at how food was provided, how hunger was measured, and pointing out the hierarchical and paternalistic control involved. As well as suggesting that biopower often lacks relevance in refugee contexts, I also argue it has been applied too broadly. By being associated with a vast array of humanitarian practices, it risks losing any analytical utility, becoming a substitute for detailed descriptions of power. This article seeks to return to that detail, describing a humanitarian programme and pointing out some discrepancies with the ever-popular notion of biopower, which, I argue, has a tendency to be applied without an adequate definition.