Biopolitics in Russia: History and Prospects for the Future
Biopolitics in
Russia: History and Prospects for the Future
1.
Introduction
Biopolitics, a field of research
employing biological concepts, data, and methods in political science, took
shape in the West (originally in the USA) in the 60s and 70s. To a considerable
extent, this development can be regarded as a "response" to a conceptual
crisis in political science within the United States as some political
scientists expressed their concern about the insufficient attention given to
human nature and, more generally, inadequate conceptual foundations of
political science (see Degler, 1991). For example, this concern was voiced in a
Presidential Address to the American Political Science Association by John
Wahlke (1979), who reproached his discipline with "pre-behavioralism"
despite its professed focus on a science of behavior.
It was also in
response to a crisis that biopolitics took root in Russia (and some other
countries in Eastern Europe). But in these countries it was not just a
conceptual crisis. It was a profound political, social, and economic crisis,
associated with a general collapse of the pre-existent social system. Many
millions of people have had to go through hard times. Prices skyrocketed, and
unemployment soared. Many certainties of Soviet life (e. g., free education and
medical care), formerly taken for granted, did not exist any longer. Ethnic
strife intensified and resulted in fratricidal conflict (e. g. in Moldavia) and
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and Stalin's empire (first Afganistan, the Baltic
countries and Eastern Europe, later the disintegration of the the C.I.S. and
Chechnya). The economic system became increasingly dependent on mafia
structures. In this situation, Russian scholars, politicians, and people at
large tried to use any available idea (no matter from what field of science) in
an attempt to get an insight into the extremely complex political situation and
to find a way to improve it. "In short, Russia and Eastern Europe are
industrialized societies characterized by intense social conflicts and the
absence of conceptual maps (emphasis added—authors) or intellectual
doctrines with which to understand them" (Masters, 1993, p.244).
Biopolitics
concentrates on the biological dimension of the human being as "political
animal" (Homo politicus) and emphasizes the common behavioral
trends in humans and other forms of life. Obviously, this subfield of political
science is expected to gain in social importance whenever the political
situation favors biosocially determined human behaviors, as
distinguished from those that are psychocultural, to use the term
suggested by P. Meyer (1987). Such a situation is likely to arise in a period
characterized by the collapse of a formerly dominant value system. In this
case, normally suppressed or culturally controlled biosocial behavioral trends
may become more manifest than usual. Many people in Russia were concerned about
uncontrollable outbursts of "bestial" aggressivity, occurring during
ethnoconflicts or clashes between different mafia "clans". Another
interesting example is provided by presidential (and other politically
important) elections in post-communist Russia, which are evidently dominated by
"gut feelings". Although political campaigns in all modern societies
are heavily influenced by non-verbal communication and primate
dominance-submission relationships (cf. Masters, 1989), these effects may seem
especially pronounced where institutions and partisan attachments are new and
weak. Under such circumstances, evolutionary biology and its socially important
ramifications such as biopolitics acquire additional weight, and its concepts
can provide the theoretical foundations for a new social "cognitive
map".
Biopolitics is
also of special interest for Russians because their political life has another
significant "biological component", which was the focus of the
seminal paper by L. Caldwell (1964). In Russia, the environment has not yet
been adequately protected against industrial pollution and destruction. One
important issue is the overpopulation stress ("the effects of noise and of
crowding on human population", according to Caldwell, 1964), and much
public concern is also caused by the abortion issue as well as by other
bioehical and bio-medical problems. Hence in many areas of public policy,
biopolitics offers necessary substantive information as well as a more
generalized "cognitive map" for understanding human nature and
politics.
2.
Historical
The history of
biopolitics on the Russian soil has been short but eventful. It began in the
August of 1987, when the 8th International Conference on Logic, Methodology,
and Philosophy of Science was held in Russia (partly in Moscow and partly in
the Pacific harbor town of Nakhodka). A relatively young scholar in the field
of philosophy of science, Dr. Anatoly T. Zub, presented a talk on
"Biopolitics—Methodology of Social Biologism in Political Science".
Thie presentation, subsequently published by the organizers of the conference,
was the first extensive Russian review article on biopolitics1, with references
to the works by L. Caldwell, A. Somit, T. Wiegele, R. Masters, S. Peterson, C.
Barner-Barry, P. Corning, G. Schubert, J. Schubert, J. Wahlke, J. Laponce, H.
Flohr, W. Tonnesmann, and other prominent scholars. In this paper, A. Zub
demonstrated his profound knowledge and expertise in the field of biopolitics,
which he had been studying since the early 80s. Nevertheless, because scholars
at this time had to pay tribute to the still powerful Marxist-Leninist theory,
biopolitics was described as a product of bourgeouis thinking in this paper by
him.
About a year
later, Dr. Alexander Oleskin from the Biology Dept. of Moscow State University
(MSU), inspired by the work by A. Zub he had just browsed through, established
a seminar on Biopolitics with the help of his colleagues. Originally
entitled "Seminar on Bioethics, Biopolitics, and Biotechnology", this
seminar is still in operation at the Biology Department of MSU. Once a
fortnight, the Seminar brings together a mixed collective composed of
professional biologists (E. R. Kartashova, I. V. Botvinko, T. A. Kirovskaya,
and others) including mammal ethologists (N. L. Nesterova) , political
scientists such as O. V. Borisova (a postgraduate student at the Political
Sociology Dept.2 of MSU), philosophers (E.N. Shul'ga) as well as, in some
cases, invited politicians and public activists. The Seminar has been
repeatedly attended by the Dean of the Biology Dept. of MSU, Prof. Mikhail V.
Gusev. Dr. A. Zub gave a talk on biopolitics at one of the Seminar meetings.
Some of these meetings took place in the presence of foreign guests, such as
Prof. G. Teuchert-Noodt, a neurologist from Bielefeld (Germany) and Mr. J.
Briggs, a senior staff member of the Coca-Cola Company (USA).
In 1989, A. Zub
produced a comprehensive paper dealing with biopolitics and sociobiology, which
appeared in the collection of articles entitled Western Theoretical
Sociology in the 80s (published by the Institute for Information in Social
Sciences, USSR Academy of Sciences). Zub also suggested a biopolitical research
project for his postgraduate student N. Sidyakina. In 1990, she completed her
Ph. D. dissertation, largely focusing on the works by R. Masters, P. Corning,
and the German astronomer and biopolitician E. Jantsch. P. Corning's attention
was attracted by Sidyakina's brief contribution to the materials of an
international conference, and he sent her a letter. Shortly thereafter, Prof.
Roger D. Masters began to correspond with Dr. A. Zub.
In 1990, N.
Sidyakina and A. Oleskin gave talks on biopolitics at the Annual All-Russian
Fyodorov Conference (Moscow) dealing with gerontology, life span prolongation,
and bioethical issues. In 1991, the year of the failed hard-liners' coup and
the collapse of the Communist regime, a group including Prof. M. V. Gusev and
Prof. V. D. Samuilov (Director of the Biotechnology Center) from the Biology Dept
of MSU, as well as Prof. M. Manakov made two consecutive visits to Athens
(Greece), where they met with a charming lady, Dr. Agni Vlavianos-Arvanitis.
She was the President of the Greece-based Biopolitics International
Organisation (B.I.O.) focusing on the ethical, cultural, legal,
environmental, and technological aspects of biopolitics. The second visit (in
May, 1991) had an unpleasant surprise in store for the Russian guests, who
arrived by boat at the Piraeus Harbor. The Greek frontier guards considered
their "shipman's passports" as invalid, and Profs. M. V. Gusev and V.
D. Samuilov spent three days and nights in the transit lounge under arrest,
having only 250 drachmas (= USD 1.25) with them. On the fourth day, the hapless
visitors were released with the personal help of A. Vlavianos-Arvanitis. They
were rewarded for their trouble by the very friendly, almost affectionate,
treatment they received at the B.I.O. conference. Prof. Samuilov burst into
tears on the day of their return to Russia (on another occasion, Mrs.
Vlavianos-Arvanitis also shed some tears—this happened when she received a
letter from Prof. Samuilov).
A long-term
contract was concluded between MSU and B.I.O. On the basis of this contract, A.
Oleskin was sent to Greece for 4.5 months. This project resulted in producing
the book (by A. Vlavianos-Arvanitis and him) entitled Biopolitics - The
Bio-Environment. Bio-Syllabus, published in English (1992) and Russian
(1993). Dr. A. Vlavianos-Arvanitis made a number of visits to Russia, and she
gave several talks at MSU, the Institute of Philosophy (Russain Academy of
Sciences), and other research centers. In December, 1991, a Hellenic-Russian
Symposium on Bio-Diplomacy took place in Athens, with participation of
Mr. Valery Grishin, one of President Yeltsin's aides. In 1994, B.I.O. organized
an international festival commemorating Academician A. Sakharov (the Soviet
physicist and political dissident) in combination with a biopolitics
conference.
Starting in
1991, the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research began to
explore the interactions between biology, politics, and law in the
post-communist region, with special attention to Russia. Established a decade
earlier by Dr. Margaret Gruter to bring together the work of scholars in the
life sciences, social sciences, and law, the Gruter Institute invited
several leading Russians, including Dr. Kemer Norkin, Director General of the
Mayor's Office of the City of Moscow, to a conference on "The
Infrastructure and Superstructure of the European Market: Implications for the
Next Two Decades" (St. Moritz, Switzerland, August 26-28, 1991). Based on
discussions at this meeting, the Gruter Institute organized a conference
"From a Centrally-Planned Government System to a Rule-of-Law Democracy"
at the Siemens Stiftung, Munchen, Germany (May 18-19, 1992), followed by a
fact-finding trip to Moscow by members of its Steering Committee (May 20-24,
1992). These deliberations in turn led to a major conference at the Brookings
Institution in Washington DC on "The Rule of Law, Human Nature, and the
New Russia" with the participation of Russian guests who included Cief
Justice Lebedev of the Russian Supreme Court and Dr. Norkin of the Mayor's
Office (for proceedings, see Danilenko and Smith, 1993; Masters, 1993). Participants
from Russia and other post-comunist countries attended subsequent conferences
of the Gruter Institute, such as the international symposium on "Migration
from the Perspective of Law and Behavioral Research" at the Freie
Universitat Berlin (April 16-29, 1995) at which Dr. Norkin presented a paper on
migration in Russia and the former USSR.
In 1992, A. Zub
published a detailed study concentrating on the ethological and sociobiological
dimensions of biopolitics, under the title "Power as Reflected in the
Biopolitical Mirror" (with I. L'vov as co-author). The following year,
Vitaly Egorov of the Department of Psychiatry organized an international
conference at the University of Crimea at Sebastopol. In addition to scholars
from the West were participants from a number of universities from the former
Soviet Union. In 1993, R. Masters published his paper on "Evolutionary
Biology and the New Russia".
In the same
year, Oleskin wrote a paper on a somewhat paradoxical subject, the interactions
between biopolitics and microbiology, published in the Russian journal
Microbiology (a revised and updated version of this paper appeared in
English in The Journal of Basic Microbiology). In 1994, Oleskin
published a series of 3 papers on biopolitics in the Russian journal Moscow
University Proceedings (Biology Series), and in 1995, a generalizing
article on this subject, entitled "Biopolitcs and its Applicability to
Social Technologies" in The Problems of Philosophy (Moscow).
As far as the
gradual dissemination of biopolitical ideas in Russia is concerned, special
tribute is to be payed to the Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of
Sciences. The Head of one of its subdivisions, the Laboratory for Philosophy of
Biology and Ecology, Prof. Igor K. Liseev, received Dr. Vlavainos-Arvanitis
during her visits to Russia. The Institute produced a fundamental monograph
entitled Philosophy of Nature: the Coevolution Strategy (by R. S.
Karpinskaya, I. K. Liseev, and A. P. Ogurtsov), which gave sufficient attention
to biopolitics and related subjects.
Since 1986, the
Dean of the Biology Dept of MSU Prof. Gusev was a member of the international Commission
for Biological Education (CBE) under the auspices of the International
Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). The CBE goals were to eradicate
bio-iiliteracy, to promote a biological educational system for non-biologists,
and to cope with various "biopolicy" issues. At the conferences of
this organization, M. Gusev gave a number of talks on biopolitics. Under his
influence, the former Chairman of CBE, Prof. Gerhard Schaefer (Hamburg,
Germany) also developed an interest in biopolitics, and mentioned this term in
a number of his recent publications. Prof. Gusev supported Dr. Oleskin in
establishing a new subdivision, the Educational & Research Sector for
Biopolitics and Biosociology (short title Sector for Biosocial Problems)
at the Biology Dept of MSU. This Sector was officially set up in January, 1995.
The staff members of the Sector and the associated scientists and scholars have
been dealing with both parts of the word bio-politics. They have been
doing biological research (on the role of chemical tramsmitters in the social
behavior of living organisms), engaging in politics-related activities, such as
the Hirama Project, and writing a Biopolitics & Bio-Humanities
Thesaurus. This contribution can be considered a preliminary
publication in terms of the Thesaurus-related project supported by the Russian
Humanities Research Foundation (grant # 96-04089).
In 1995, Dr. Zub
defended a Doctor of Science dissertation at MSU on the Philosophic and
Methodological Foundations of Biopolitics. Dr. Oleskin gave talks on this
subject at conferences organized by the International Center for Economics
and Ecology in 1994 (Tubingen, Germany) and in 1995 (Miscolc, Hungary).
Biopolitical matters were also discussed by him at an international German
Limnological Society conference (Berlin, 1995). His presentation was also
included into a broadcast by one of the Moscow radio stations. As it happened,
the Deputy Administration Chief of the Moscow City Council Mrs. Olga A.
Bektabegova heard this broadcast while driving to her office. She set up a
creative lab, Future of Russia, under the aegis of the City Council.
Biopolitics was incorporated into the research and development projects carried
out by this lab, which generally concerned itself with long-term urban planning
and optimizing social and political structures in Moscow.
Two talks on
biopolitics-related matters (by Prof. Franz Wuketitz from Vienna, Austria, and
Oleskin) were given at a Synergetics Conference in Moscow in January 1996. A
travel grant from the American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR) enabled
Dr. Oleskin to spend six months at Dartmouth College, working under Prof. R.
Masters on biopolitics and to establish contacts with M. Gruter from the Gruter
Institute for Law and Behavioral Research and with Professors Albert Somit,
Steven Peterson, James Schubert, Peter Corning, Peter Meyer, and others during
the ESS/IPSA/APLS Meeting in Alfred (July 22-27, 1996). One of the goals of Dr.
Oleskin's visit was to intensify the cooperation between Russian and American
biopoliticians (and scholars in related fields).
Following is a
brief description of selected biopolitical problems which are currently being
actively researched in Russia.
3.
Biopolitics and Social Technologies. The Network Group (Hirama) Project
Social
technologies
are interpreted here as including all kinds of techniques aimed at (1)
ameliorating interpersonal and intergroup relations in various social settings
(families, worker collectives, research teams, artistic creative groups,
parliamentary commissions, etc.) and (2) improving the organizational patterns
of human social structures per se. With the aid of other scientific approaches
(based on game theory, decision-making theory, small group sociology,
management theory, etc.), biopolitics can be expected to make its contribution
to a number of Russian social and economic problems. Biopolitics-related social
techniques should help the country accumulate its "social capital"
(Nichols, 1996), i. e. establish dependable relationships between the
incumbents of various social roles (bank clerks, clients, sales assistants,
production managers, etc.), based on the rule of democratic law.
The project
discussed below has been developed by the Sector for Biosocial Problems at MSU
and by the Creative Lab at the City Council of Moscow. This project envisages
establishing a system of social networks, whose organizational patterns are in
conformity with the recent data and concepts of evolutionary biology. The
variant of network structures promoted in Russia by biopoliticians has been
termed "the hirama model", since these small-scale networks
resemble the Middle East hiramas established about 2,000 years ago3. There is,
nevertheless, also a modern interpretation of the word hirama (High-Intensity
Research and Management Association). The hirama-type networks promote
non-hierarchical (horizontal) relationships among people. This principle is in
conformity with
Roles or
functions in this network structure as not fixed or defined, as with the
"offices" in a Weberian bureaucracy. Often only one person, the subproblem
leader, is explicitly attached to a particular subproblem (see Fig. 1).
This person collects ideas on this subproblem, generated by other group
members. A hirama-type network group has also a psychological leader.
The individual in this functional role estimates the contributions of all
members to the intellectual "money-box" of the network group. The
psychological leader, however, does not overemphasize this controller function.
This role is rather that of a helper, providing advice, support, and
psychological help that is often sought by other group members. Like a
"socio-emotional leader" in any task-oriented groups, this individual
"can reinforce or reward people on a personal level, take care of the
emotional well-being of the group, and behave in ways designed to reduce tension
and provide orientation for the group" (Burgoon et al. 1974: p. 146).
A network of
this kind typically also includes an "external affairs" leader.
This individual with this role is responsible for organizing the activities
outside the group itself, propagandizing hirama-promoted ideas, establishing
contacts with other network groups and organizations, and shaping the pastime
and leisure activities, thus contributing to the development of informal loyal
relationships among group members. Both the psychology and external affairs
functions entail personalizing and harmonizing the relations among members.
Modernized hirama-type networks usually make alterations in the group's
organizational pattern. For instance, additional leader roles are introduced:
Figure
1. Hirama networking pattern. This is a "momentary close-up" picture,
since this structure is dynamic, and creative subunits included in it are
constantly in the process of formation & disintegration (fission-fusion
structures, resembling the hunter-gatherer society pattern, see Maryansky and
Turner, 1992). Designations: S, subproblem leaders; G - just group members; O -
an outsider collaborating with the group on one of the subproblems. Thin-line
circles are temporary creative subunits or discussion groups. These
relationships all correspond to the "task-fullfillment plane" shown
in the picture. The psychology and "external affairs" leader (P and
E, respectively), are beyond this plane. Types of relations: → partial
(task-limited) leadership; ↔ horizontal networking; no symbol between two
individuals, standing by and watching.
- a commercial
leader, responsible for searching for sponsors and grant opportunities
and for marketing and other profit-making activities;
- an organizational
leader who is particularly important while a hirama-like group is
organizing its work and legalizing its status;
- a spiritual
leader (a "guru"). It is evident from the above historical
examples that the operation of community-type structures depends on
unitary spiritual values, often implying collective attempts at
"attaining certain ideals" (Kanter, 1972: p.2). This conceptual
basis is personified by the "guru" image.
The group
members strive to attain the goals formulated by the "guru" (King
Hiram was probably the first of such "gurus"). Importantly, this
"spiritual guidance" by the "guru" should be prevented from
transforming into an authoritarian dictatorship, which would be quite
incompatible with the decentralized non-hierarchical character of a hirama-like
group. For this reason, "hiramists" typically prefer a legendary
"guru" (like Wilhelm Tell in Switzerland), a long-deceased person
whose ideas are contained in his/her works, or, finally someone sufficiently
far away from the group's location (the Moscow University hirama dealing with
biopolitics has recently suggested an American biopolitician as the
"spiritual leader").
Hirama-type
structures, despite all modifications, retain some general structural
similarity to a primitive hunter-gatherer band. Some essential social functions
in a hunter-gatherer group have their equivalents in a hirama. For instance,
the "headman" described by Maryansky and Turner (1992) corresponds to
the "external affairs" leader in a network group, the shaman
resembles the "psychology leader", and the influential people, who
are especially skillful in doing certain jobs, are clearly related to creative
"subproblem leaders".
Hiramas and
similar groups can be useful in a number of different ways in post-communist
countries. As internally dynamic and flexible, informal relationships-enhancing
collectivities, they can effectively operate in an unstable, unpredictable,
turbulent, and ruthless social environment. In contrast, more formalized and
more hierarchical groups can only perform well under stable socio-political
conditions (Scott, 1981). The following list deals with "a representative
sample" of potential applications of hirama-like groups in present-day
Russia:
- Interdisciplinary
Scientific Research. For instance, an analysis of
the effects of environmental pollution on human social behavior cannot be
carried out by any traditional-style specialized "Scientific Research
Institute," insofar as this analytic research calls for joint efforts
of chemists, biologists, neuropsychologists, and scholars in various
fields of social sciences and humanities. A modernized network group seems
to be an attractive option in this situation. The transition to a market
society in Russia (and other similar post-communist countries)
necessitates creating special job positions dealing with grant
applications, financial accounting, and other tedious "paperwork".
The commercial leader position in a modernized network group is perfectly
adapted for this sort of work. However, according to the hirama principles
(and common sense as well), the commercial leader should only coordinate
this work, done by the whole network group with its creative
"subproblem leaders".
- Small
Management-Oriented Group can be structured as a
hirama (a kibbutz is also an option successfully tested by history). Apart
from the commercial leader, who becomes a "star of the first
magnitude" under these circumstances, the organizational leader can
also be expected to be extremely useful. This individual will be
responsible for all the legal procedures involved, from promoting the
official establishment of the management group to filing commercial lawsuits,
a very frequent practice in an "uncivilized" market environment.
In such fields as computer software, such networking groups have often
proved far more effective than larger, bureaucratized firms.
- Small-Size
Political Decision-Making or Problem-Resolving Organization. The creativity-oriented laboratory "Russia's Future,"
set up under the aegis of the City Council of Moscow, is a good real-life
example of an operative network composed of 12 hirama-like structures. In
the United States over the last generation, "think tanks" like
the Rand Corporation or Hudson Institute have repeatedly illustrated the
advantages of such networks in policy planning.
- Family. Particularly an extended, polynuclear family (e. g. resulting
from a previous divorce with subsequent reconciliation, achieved in the
interest of the children) can be restructured as a network group.
Everybody will feel like a partial leader, and viewing someone as a family
"psychology leader" will undoubtedly help overcome the tensions
characteristic of such post-divorce families (or ex-families).
- Staffs,
Cabinets, and Committees within Command-and-Control Bureaucracies. Even within traditional, hierarchically organized bureaucracies,
much of the crucial work is conducted in committees and staff networks
that are organized in a loose fashion that does not correspond to formal
tables of organization and morms of authority. Most obvious in
"inter-ministerial" coordinating committees established to meet
temporary crises, the hirama is also approximated in some standing
committees. High level officials in business and government typically have
staffs and aides that are often organized in loose networks, particularly
under leaders like the American Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt or John
F. Kennedy who resist bureaucratic rigidity. Even at the apex of a modern
industrial state, the Council of Ministers advising the head of government
may be supplemented by an informal "kitchen cabinet".
Despite these
applications of these small-scale structures, post-communist society cannot be
restructured from below unless these isolated networks are linked to produce
"molecular" networks.hiramas should use horizontal, non-coercive
contacts between them. The establishment of a truly horizontal "molecular"
network is facilitated by the social leaders who fulfill "external
affairs" function. It is in their competence to conduct negotiations
between network groups, thereby establishing creative unions, hiramiades. The
resulting unions may be very loose, temporary task-oriented organizations (with
the main decision-making power resting with the individual network groups). An
example of such relationships might be the interlocking memberships on the
Boards of Directors of large American industrial, commercial, and banking firms
(Levine, 1984). A relatively rigid second-order structure (practically tested
by the Moscow City Council) may be expedient under conditions favoring
long-term cooperation among a number of hirama-like groups, with each group
specializing in a specific part of the overall task. Despite this
specialization, each network group deals with a sufficiently broad field of
interdisciplinary research, and the tasks of individual network groups overlap.
The resulting network can be called a"second-order" network group if
the individual groups join together according to the hirama pattern. In this
case, each of the modernized hirama functions (subproblem, psychology,
"external affairs", organizational, and commercial leaders)
corresponds to a specific network group, which, in keeping with its
organizational principles, breaks down its subproblem into
"sub-subproblems". Thus, one of the groups deals with the external
affairs of the whole collective, and this task is further subdivided inside it.
Interestingly,
the leader hiramas can be supplemented by a number of non-specialized groups,
equivalents of members with no leadership duties in a first-order hirama. These
"free lancers" can alternately generate ideas on different subjects,
temporarily forming unions with some specialized network groups.
There is, in
principle, no reason why the above pattern cannot be further applied, in order
to form third-order, fourth-order, etc. networks. The resulting structures will
represent horizontal, non-hierarchical and non-bureaucratic networks. They
would revive, on a new basis, Kropotkin's idea of establishing networks
composed of an endless variety of groups and federations of all sizes and ranks
(Kropotkin, 1918). These structures can acquire a considerable weight and deal
with political problems and decisions.
4.
Biopolitics as Part of the Cognitive Map for Navigating in Post-Communist
Society
Post-communist
countries differ in their historical experiences. In some of them (the former
Czechoslovakia, in part the Baltic States), socialism made a relatively
short-time presence, and the preceding capitalist-society traditions and values
have not been completely obliterated. In others, the impact of communist ideas
was stronger, more long-lasting, and/or superimposed upon a tradition favoring
a centralized power-system (Russia and other CIS countries). Despite these
differences, all post-communist countries have experienced (or are
experiencing) a period of ideological chaos, characterized by the collapse of
the previously powerful unifying ideas and by often uncritical perception of
ideas coming from the developed capitalist countries. Under these
circumstances, one of the major tasks to be fulfilled by the fledgling civil
society is to develop a system of socio-political and ethical principles &
values. This value system is essential for the development of coherent
networks, since in its absence disagreements and conflicts between hiramas or
their analogs appear inevitable. The overarching cognitive map, to be used for
navigation in post-communist societies, should primarily pursue the following
important objectives:
- filling up the
post-Communist ideological vacuum;
- supporting the
people by providing them with the most basic ethical, cultural, and
political ideas and values;
- denouncing
dangerous, impermissible ideas, views, and activities;
- promoting national
and political self-identification;
- reconvincing the
people that their life is not in vain, that they really can hope to attain
a better future;
- criticizing the
political course and the behavior of the government and the whole state
machinery.
The discussion
of all possible variants of such "cognitive maps" is beyond the scope
of this paper. Instead, we will deal with a concrete map based on biopolitics.
As pointed out in the beginning of this paper, it deals with human political
behavior as influenced by biosocial factors, and also seeks to conceptualize
relations between the human species and its natural environment. A large number
of books and papers by prominent scholars have been recently published on this
subject (see, e. g. Caldwell, 1964; Somit, 1968, 1972; Somit and Slagter, 1983;
Somit and Peterson, 1992; Corning, 1983, 1987; Flohr and Tsnnesmann, 1983;
Flohr, 1986; Masters, 1983, 1989, 1991; Schubert, 1983, 1986; Schubert and
Masters, 1994; Anderson, 1987; Zub, 1987, 1995; Gruter, 1991;
Vlavianos-Arvanitis, 1985, 1991; Vlavianos-Arvanitis and Oleskin, 1992; Gusev,
1991, 1994; Gusev et al., 1991; for a review, see Oleskin, 1994a).
Two dimensions
of biopolitics are of interest in this connection. First, it
concentrates on the biologically influenced aspects of human behavior and
needs, thus contributing to our understanding of ethnic conflicts, cooperation
and other loyal social behavioral patterns. Second, it aims to establish
mutually acceptable relations between humankind and the biological environment.
In this context, biopolitics can be construed as introducing into political
science and practical politics the whole ensemble of biological knowledge
concerning Homo sapiens and the living organisms around us.
Biopolitics can
form part of a new post-communist overarching cognitive map, since it
can perform a number of important important functions in society:
- the function of a
borderline bio-social science based on biological data and also taking
into account sociological and political-science research on human
behavior. In this scientific role, biopolitics can help design optimized
models of human relations and social organization—starting from the
grass-roots level (the above "hirama scenario" being one of the
examples);
- the mission of a
new value system distinguished by its "soft", not-repressive and
non-restrictive, character, based upon a most natural idea regarding man
as intrinsic part of planetary life (bios). Considering human beings from
an evolutionary perspective would help avoid both the Charibda of
nationalism and the Scylla of losing national identity. Biopolitics
supports the earlier ideas of "environmentalists" and
"ecologists" on "Unity In Diversity" concerning both
living nature and human society;
- evolutionary
biology, a conceptual cornerstone of biopolitics, has a number of potential
attractions for all those involved in re-constructing post-communist
society (Masters 1993). It emphasizes change rather than constancy, thus
encouraging important social changes. It also enhances the importance of
individual initiative & enterprise as evolutionary force in general
and catalyst of miracle-oriented economic and political developments, in
particular. Modern evolutionary theory emphasizes cooperation and mutual
support, and these types of interpersonal and intergroup
("inter-hirama) relations are essential for overcoming the
post-communist crisis without waiting for the governments to take action;
- in animal
societies, there is no clear boundary between family and society, private
and public. These facts can be used to promote personal, not dehumanizing,
approach in politics, again starting from below.
Human beings
represent multi-dimensional systems, and biology can provide knowledge only in
some of these dimensions. The biopolitical "overarching map" has a
large number of "white zones", to be dealt with by scholars in
respective fields of social sciences & humanities. But the very heuristical
limitations of biology as basis for social knowledge are a potential asset of
biopolitics, since they provide for its social and cultural flexibility.
In a special
work (Vlavianos-Arvanitis and Oleskin, 1992: pp.65—68), we demonstrated that
biopolitics is compatible with all major world religions, unless they take an
over-fundamentalist attitude. With a more tolerant attitude, each religion can
find, in its own doctrine, ideas enhancing the importance of biology. For
example, regarding environmental protection, the Muslims believe that
"whoever plants a tree and diligently looks after it until it matures and
bears fruit is rewarded" (quoted according to Vlavianos-Arvanitis and
Oleskin, 1992: p.67). In countries with a multi-religious population (like
Russia, Bulgaria, or China), biopolitics can help ease the religious tensions.
It also has a special appeal in terms of bios-related mythology characteristic
of Ancient human society, which deified animals and plants as spirit-endowed
beings, as well as life as planetary spirit.
In summary, the
politically relevant dimensions of modern biology can be recommended as an
"intellectual paradigm for understanding human society". Particularly
in the Eastern European geopolitical zone, they conform to such traditional
features as collectivism, mutual aid, spirituality, and hope for a better
future. Importantly, biopolitics represents an open paradigm, since it provides
incentives for fruitful cooperation involving natural and social sciences and
humanities.
5.
Bio-Policy Issues in Russia
The role of biopolitics
as an important component part of the post-communist "overarching
cognitive map" is further enhanced by the fact that it can be used not
only in social technologies and in a quasi-ideological role. Evolutionary
biology has recently developed important ramifications applicable to a variety
of social problems and issues. Among them, the following problems & issues
seem to be of paramount importance for Russia:
- Environmental
Protection. This dimension of biopolitics has
been long one of the foci of the activities of various action groups, both
formal and informal. Under Gorbachev, many of such groups, starting their
activities as "environmentalists", gradually switched over to
more political agendas. It is pertinent that in the Baltic countries,
which still formed part of the Soviet Union in the late 80s, national
liberating movements often employed ecological and "green"
slogans. Generally speaking, struggle against environmental destruction
provides a very attractive ideological basis for the development of
network-like groups including the type discussed above (in this case, such
a network group is biopolitical in terms of both its structure and
specific goals). Despite all the activities of environmentalists, however,
environmental deterioration still remains a burning question in
contemporary Russia. This is in part due to the economic chaos and a low
standard of living (for a majority of people), so that protecting the bio-environment
(as termed by A. Vlavianos-Arvanitis) is sometimes considered a luxury, in
view of the more vital concerns. Importantly, biopolitics provides a
broader conceptual basis for environmental protection than, e. g. the
"green" or purely "environmental" movements. Since it
includes the behavioral and neurophysiological dimensions, it encourages
scholars and scientists to consider the relationships between environmental
factors and human behavior and the performance of the nervous system. In
this vein of research, R. Masters has recently investigated the
correlations between heavy metal (Pb, Mn) pollution, alcoholism, and
violent criminality in the US. A similar study would be even more interesting
in Russia, which is notable for its heterogeneity in terms of both
pollution (there are great differences between polluted and ecologically
clean regions, or, for that matter, even between "dirty" and
"clean" districts of Moscow) and criminality rates. A.
Vlavianos-Arvanitis (e. g., 1985, 1991) considers the whole package of
problems in more philosophic (almost mystical) terms. She describes the
totality of all living organisms on Earth as a single body of bios,
and she compares destroying the Amazon rainforests to damaging the
"lungs" of this planetary quasi-organism.
- Education. The above discussion on environmental protection provides per
se a sufficiently important reason for introducing a biological
curriculum into the educational system for non-biologists and thereby
attempting to eradicate bio-illiteracy (Gusev 1991; 1994;
Vlavianos-Arvanitis 1985; 1991). An additional reason is that biological
(and specifically biopolitical) knowledge seems to be mandatory for
lawyers, political decision-makers, public activists, medical doctors, and
reprentatives of a large number of other professions in their everyday
activities. The international Commission for Biological Education (CBE)
currently pays considerable attention to Russia, which is in part due to
the fact that CBE includes an active Russian member;
- Legislation. The development and enforcement of a reliable legal framework,
with respect to environmental concerns and other issues of bio-policy (e.
g., abortion, euthanasia, organ transplantation, patenting genetically
engineered organisms, etc.) still represents a seroius challenge for
Russia, despite the considerable recent progress in this field. Bearing in
mind the relationship between the environmental and behavioral issues of
biopolitics, special attention should be given to the following questions:
"What species-specific behaviors are most relevant to environmental
law?... What are the implications of these behaviors for laws dealing with
environmental preservation?" (Gruter, 1991, p.123);
- Technology. Using living cells and their components for the purpose of
producing drugs, food additives, etc. has become an important industrial
strategy in Russia. An active role in these developments has been played
by the Biotechnology Center of MSU, which for a long time was headed by
Prof. V. D. Samuilov. Another active catalyst of these biotechnological
developments was Prof. Manakov from the Fine Chemical Technology Institute
(Moscow, Russian Academy of Sciences). The Biotechnology Center published,
in the late 80s, a series of 8 guide-books covering genetic and cell
engineering, enzyme technology, cell cultivation in vitro, protein
production, and other dimensions of modern biotechnology. Inportantly,
biotechnological and environmental problems often overlap. On the one
hand, biotechnological developments can help protect the environment. For
example, industrially cultivating and then using under field conditions
the natural enemies of weeds and harmful insects (e. g., the bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis can be used to fight insect pests) is an ecologically
clean alternative to employing pesticides. On the other hand, biotechnology
can itself produce ecologically dangerous substances. For instance,
large-scale industrial production of bacterial protein in the Russian town
of Kirishy resulted in releasing huge amounts of this protein (as an
aerosol) into the atmosphere. This kind of air pollution caused an upsurge
of "green" protesters' activity—almost to the point of an
organized rebellion.
- Energy. With the help of unicellular organisms, one can produce
renewable fuel (ethanol, bio-gas, hydrogen) as an environment-friendly and
economical alternative to oil, gas, coal, or uranium. Curiously enough,
some of these bio-fuels can be produced only by mixed cultures of
microorganisms. For example, no single microorganism species can convert
industrial or municipal waste to methane-containing biogas; this requires
a concerted action of at least 3-4 microbial species, each carrying out
one of the many reaction steps. The cooperation-based microbial
association required for this task is characterized by complex biosocial
interactions and can itself be described in quasi-biopolitical terms
(Oleskin, 1993).
- Urban Planing, a part of bio-architecture (Eibl-Eibesfeldt und Hass,
1985; Vlavianos-Arvanitis and Oleskin, 1992). This is a research direction
aiming to use biological patterns (e. g., a honey comb, a spider's web, a
bio-membrane structure) in architecture. It also emphasizes the idea that
an architect should pay sufficient attention to ethologically based human
behavioral trends. In a primate group or in primitive human society, there
was virtually no distinction between social and family life, public and
private activities. Bearing in mind these evolutionary considerations, the
idea of a creative mix was put forward in bio-architecture. This idea
envisages mixing, within a small area, educational facilities, industrial
enterprises (on condition that they are prevented from polluting the
environment), recreational facilities, as well as apartment houses.
Moreover, architectural innovations may promote the people's feeling of self-identification
with a specific local community (e. g., by installing sports facilities
and constructing leisure game club rooms on the roofs of houses), bring
the people closer to nature (by cultivating ivy plants climbing up the
house walls), and provide necessary premises for partial economic
self-sustainability of such a community. This can be achieved, for
instance, by cultivating vegetables on house roofs and balconies. The
color palette used in the interior of a house is also of considerable importance.
Since our evolutionary ancestors spent most of their time in forests or on
savannas, the green color still carries a special, subconsciously
perceived message, comforting and reassuring us, and also stimulating the
operation of the eye and the visual cortex. Bio-architecture is one of the
foci of the activities of the Creative Lab Future of Russia under the
Moscow City Council.
- State Politics. The process of social self-structuring, discussed above in the
example of the network group model, can be facilitated by establishing a
horizontal network structure (e. g., a hirama or an association of
hiramas) inside the state machine itself. There are different strategies
for attaining this goal. Either the state can be persuaded to set up a new
hirama-type structure dealing with an overarching socio-political
doctrine, or one of the pre-existing network structures can pressurize the
state, by winning popular support, into incorporating it into its
apparatus. This network group could then make good use of all
state-supported facilities, such as mass media and publishing houses, in
order to propagandize its doctrine. Importantly, in contrast to the
Soviet-epoch "ideological commissions" of the Communist Party,
this network group inside the state must not be able to coerce or oppress
the people. This organization must not persecute dissidents, who should
feel free to express and defend their views (unless they come into
conflict with laws). It should try to convince the people of its views by
organizing public discussions and debates.
A final point
concerns the impact of the state's political course on the development of
biopolitics in Russia. A moderate middle course, based on a compromise between
the reformers and the moderate conservatives, the central and regional
political systems, the churches and the state, etc., is most likely to create
optimal conditions for positive socio-economic developments in general (Yergin
and Gustafson, 1993). Such a well-balanced political course would also
contribute to the growth of network structures, clear the hurdles on the way of
biopolitics as a cognitive map, stimulate a scientifically-based discussion of
all biology-related social issues, as well as help create the necessary legal
framework for their solution.
This work was
supported in part by a grant from the Russian Humanities Research
Foundation, grant no 96-03-04089, and by a grant from the American
Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR). The sponsors bear no responsibility
for the views expressed in this article.