This semester, I’m taking the course Environmental Justice. Although I wasn’t quite prepared for the amount of reading I’d be doing this fall, I was pleasantly surprised at what we read for Week 4 – Nadia Kim’s Fighting for Breath in the Other LA, an introduction to the book Refusing Death. Kim’s work analyzes the intersectionality of environmental injustices through a framework explicitly including gender. Something that stood out to me, however, was her discussion of Foucault.
Read more: Foucault and Environmental JusticeIn Week 2 of Unruly Bodies, we discussed Foucault’s idea of biopower; the power of life and how it is controlled. Kim is critical of this concept, however. She argues that Foucault focused too heavily on biopower’s dimension of making life, and not enough on the ability to “let die”. She states, “[Foucault] does not tell us about a state that circulates deadly air.” (p27). Here, she proposes the term bioneglect, not to replace biopower, but to instead add to it. Essentially, the term bioneglect stands to emphasize the “…process of ‘letting die’ waged by neoliberal racial capitalism and the racial state.” (p27). What this means is, where biopower represents the power of life, bioneglect represents the power of discriminating against and neglecting life. Kim discusses how communities made up of low income individuals and people of color are targeted by bioneglect, leading to problems such as health disparities caused by higher rates of pollution, among other issues. This is perpetuated by the (in)actions of the government as well as large corporations.
I think Kim’s addendum to Foucault’s concept of biopower is important when discussing environmental injustices such as these in particular. The struggles faced through environmental injustices are inherently tied to our bodies and how we experience them, as the forces that control our bodies – whether they be large corporations and governments or on smaller community scales – also have the power to control the environment around us; they control everything from the policies we keep to the norms we follow, for better or for worse. The work we are expected and forced to do under capitalism is also directly intertwined with environmental injustices, as it is inherently unsustainable, though not through our own fault. All in all, I believe Kim’s concept of bioneglect is a useful addition to the conversation of biopower proposed by Foucault, one that is necessary to consider when trying to understand the full scope of the effect of larger powers on life.
Image source: https://www.sustainableprinceton.org/explainer-series-2-environmental-justice/
Unruly Bodies 
Kim’s idea of bioneglect makes a lot of sense when we think about how certain communities, especial poor or minority groups, are ignored by the government or big companies. Foucault talked about how life is controlled by those in power, but Kim says that they also neglect certain people, leading to things like pollution, health problems, and more. It’s not just about what’s done to people, but also what isn’t done- like not protecting certain communities from harm. This concept really helps us understand how some lives are valued less by certain people.
This is a great connection between these two concepts of biopower and bioneglect. While Foucault highlights biopower and the means by which certain powers control life and bodies, Nadia Kim emphasizes bioneglect. This concept of bioneglect is particularly important, as it understands the ways in which powerful bodies can also neglect life while also controlling it. Notably, bionegelct becomes a powerful tool in targeting marginalized communities and neglecting the environmental concerns around them. I think you bring up great points about how this is relative to bodies and embodiment. Not only does the environment effect our bodies and how we perceive them, but the environment and our bodies are also controlled (or neglected) by the same powers. In addition, notions surrounding the embodiment of race, gender, sexuality, and class are often used by larger powers to dictate bioneglect and vice versa. Thus, biopower and bioneglect cannot necessarily be thought of without one another, as the power to control also provides the power to neglect.
I really, really like this comparison, but I may be biased I have always been interested in Foucalt’s framework/theories. Foucalt really focuses a lot on power dynamics, which is really all that capitalism is. Capitalism is meant to enhance and support the rich while continuously keeping the poor down. Lower class are expected by the rich to work endlessly, being called lazy or looked down upon if there are any other circumstances. There are always eyes everywhere, which is another idea from Foucalt with Panopticon. This idea is not only locked up in prison, but seen in our everyday lives, especially in terms of capitalism. There is, and always will be, eyes everywhere. Lower class will always be a target of bioneglect, which is however an opposing idea of Foucalt as you discuss. I find this interesting. To me personally, I do not feel that these ideas differ as much as Kim suggests. Both are about how we as humans are controlled in our daily lives (at least that is what I am collecting from both). Whether biopower and bioneglect, both highlight the control people face, whether higher or lower.