The techno-politics of self in late capitalism

Enhancement, like susceptibility, is future orientated. Almost any capacity of the human body or soul – strength, endurance, attention, intelligence and the lifespan itself – seems potentially open to improvement by technological intervention. Of course, humans, at almost any place and time one cares to investigate, have tried to improve their bodily selves – using prayer, meditation, diet, spells, physical and spiritual exercises, and much more to increase their health, fertility, sporting prowess, longevity, acuity, and almost everything else. And, in all these places and times, there have been experts of bodily improvement with their own potions and systems, as well as lay beliefs about the life-enhancing powers of particular activities, foods, thoughts, and the like. What is new, then, is neither the will to enhancement, nor enhancement itself. In part, I suspect, the feeling of novelty and disquiet arises from the sense that we are moving, in the words of Adele Clark and her colleagues, “from normalization to customization” (Clarke et al. 2003: 181-82). Previously expert medical interventions were utilized in order to cure pathologies, to rectify generally accepted deviations from desirable functioning or to promote biopolitical strategies through lifestyle modification. Now recipients of these interventions are consumers, making access choices on the basis of desires that can appear trivial, narcissistic, or irrational, shaped not by medical necessity but by the market and consumer culture. In part, also, the feeling of disquiet about contemporary enhancement technologies arises from the belief that they have become more powerful, precise, targeted and successful – powerful because they are grounded in a scientific understanding of bodily mechanisms.

Nikolas Rose, The Politics of Life Itself. pg 20