The Biopolitical dimension of the modern macropolitical identity of Russians

Belov Ivan Valentinovich ORCID: 0009-0000-3065-461X Postgraduate student; Department of the History of Political Philosophy; Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences 66 Mayakovsky St., Kaluga, Kaluga Region, 248009, Russia ivan.belov.2000@mail.ru

In the context of modern man's ideas, the development of our civilization is conditioned by a natural positive logic, the substantive and chronological aspects of which we trace on the pages of scientific literature. At the same time, such external attributes of civilization as culture and language, as well as achievements of scientific and technological progress, have their own origins. And if civilization is the result of conscious and predominantly creative human activity, then man himself in his current form was formed as a result of long-term biological and evolutionary processes that determined not only our morphological and cognitive features, but also those patterns of social behavior that have not undergone significant changes over time.

The further technological as well as social development of society has a common determinant – the biological essence of man. It seems that the biological basis of life determines the needs for food, sleep, human communication and procreation and traditionally constitutes the "animal" or physiological dimension of it, which most motivates a person to create and create all the necessary conditions to meet their needs. At the same time, the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben refers us to Aristotle's ideas about human nature and emphasizes that there is also a socio-political dimension of life that is indirectly influenced by biological factors. And now a stable reverse trend has emerged, associated with the gradual "politicization of life" ^{[1, p. 153]}. The biological properties and patterns that make up our human essence have become the object of close attention from politicians and ideologues. Using a person's natural need for group membership, politicians have been constructing various forms of group identity based on religious, ethnic, and ideological differences for centuries. In the 20th century, the trend of "politicizing life" intensified.

It should be understood as an increase in the interest of the state in managing processes that are a consequence of the biological nature of man. In this regard, the phenomenon of biopolitics arises, that is, literally the power over life. The author of this concept in its modern understanding is the French philosopher and thinker Michel Foucault. The key goal of biopolitics, from the philosopher's point of view, is to "provide, maintain and multiply life, to put this life in order" ^{[2, p. 139]}.

In fact, we are witnessing the intersection of socio-political and physiological dimensions of human life, as the former begins to steadily prevail. Moreover, it becomes one step higher than the biological characteristics and needs of humans, which serves as the basis for the implementation of new political projects. At the same time, substantive aspects of biopolitics have always been present in political practice. But if for most of history state institutions have interacted with a specific citizen, then during the period of mass industrialization, the enlargement of cities and the emergence of the first mass societies, the place of the individual is occupied by a single multiple entity – the "population". At the same time, the author of the concept of biopolitics understood it as "... a global mass subject to the general processes of life" ^{[3, p. 256]}. In other words, Michel Foucault proved that the population in its development obeys certain laws, primarily biological ones.

As the author of the concept of biopolitics emphasizes: "For thousands of years, man remained what he was to Aristotle: a living animal, capable, moreover, of political existence; modern man is an animal in whose politics his life as a living being is called into question" ^{[2, p. 248]}. This thesis leads to the logical conclusion that politics throughout human history has remained a means of achieving certain individual and collective goals, which required the creation of a centralized and well-coordinated management system. This system was focused on aggregating the interests of individual social groups in order to solve those tasks that were previously associated with the physical survival of the entire community. However, at present, the problem of survival, associated with a shortage of both human and material resources, is gradually losing its importance. At the same time, the biological essence of man remains unchanged, which means that our needs, inner fears, psychological archetypes and everything that stems from our human nature remains under the close attention of those who create and manage meanings in our society.

At the same time, it is more expedient from a practical point of view to manage the population as a set of biological beings, since the system of governance inherent in the feudal world, based on personal authority, is no longer applicable in a mass society. This thesis is confirmed by A. Negri, who has studied the problem of biopolitics in the modern world. The philosopher emphasizes: "Biopolitics is designed to take care of the well-being and reproduction of the population, it takes control of the management of health, hygiene, nutrition, fertility, sexuality, etc., representing since then a kind of great "social medicine", which, as a way to manage life, is used in population control" ^{[4, p . 80]}.

In our opinion, it is precisely the category of "control" within the framework of this thesis on the content of biopolitics that is key. The current biopolitical toolkit is based on a specific list of human biological characteristics, the manipulation of which allows achieving the desired result in the context of goals and objectives relevant to the political elite.

In particular, researchers E. V. Mishchinina and A. S. Kostomarov noted that currently this toolkit is significantly expanding and includes "... new technologies such as video surveillance cameras, Face-ID, fingerprint identification ..." ^{[5, p. 59]}. In fact, government institutions have our biometric data, which allows us to identify a person with high accuracy, as well as manage their behavior. In exchange for the everyday comforts associated with daily purchases using biometrics, as well as with the registration of certain social benefits or official documents, a person transmits to the authorities the information that allows them to streamline the system of control and accounting of complex social processes. This also generates the necessary statistics based on information about the birth rate, mortality, consumer interests of citizens, as well as other features of public life, accounting for which allows you to track the main social trends.

At the same time, man is a biological being that has not only external morphological differences, but also observable behavioral features that are also determined by physiological and social factors. The analysis of specific political behavior deserves special attention, since in the modern world and in Russia, in particular, the institution of electoral democracy is developed. In this case, society should be oriented towards a certain political activism, a model of electoral behavior that presupposes human participation in the political life of the country.

The case of Russia is interesting because our state has changed the ideological vector of development several times over the past century. If during the Soviet era the ideas of socialism and the idea of the "Soviet man" as the bearer of these ideas dominated, then with the collapse of the Soviet Union, an identity crisis arose throughout the post-Soviet space. Therefore, the collapse of Soviet ideologies motivated the political elites of the former Soviet republics to seek new unifying meanings. Russia has remained a multinational and multicultural country with millions of citizens sharing different religious, political and ideological meanings. Instead of the "Soviet man", the "Russian" came to the forefront of domestic politics – a political term and a marker of a new civic identity. However, over time, it became obvious that it did not meet the needs of the elites and the Russian society itself. Already in the noughties, a course was set towards the formation of a discourse of historical continuity, in which Russia appears as a thousand-year-old civilization. This required the formation of a new macropolitical identity that would form the basis for the unity of our society.

The formation of an actual model of macropolitical identity in modern Russia has become a consequence of the historical transformation that our state has undergone. The collapse of the USSR and the bankruptcy of the Soviet idea predetermined the impossibility of its political use within the framework of the capitalist model of development. The new Russia faced the need to reinvent its identity. This has happened more than once, because over the centuries-old history of the country, the political and value structure of Russia has repeatedly changed under the influence of those political projects implemented by the ruling elite. With the collapse of the USSR, the country became one of the so-called "nationalizing states", which R. Brubaker wrote about ^{[14, p. 1786]}. There are over 190 peoples living in Russia, so the task of forming a unified identity based on new political ideals has become the main task.

The process of transition from the "Soviet" to the "post-Soviet" identity was already active in the 90s. At that time, Boris Yeltsin was the president of the country, who pursued an identity policy based on the opposition of Soviet Russia and democratic Russia. In this contrast, if we follow the rhetoric of the former president, the latter won, as it assumed a more viable model of development, free from the "communist dictatorship." During these years, a model of civic identity was actively being formed, and the place of the "Soviet citizen" was occupied by the "Russian." At the same time, the internal content of the new identity remained vague. If Soviet people were distinguished by common socialist values, then society accepted democratic ideals "with a creak."

As a result, the identity crisis remained unresolved, and nationalist tendencies that developed in various parts of the country often came to the fore. Russian society and elite groups needed a full-fledged replacement for the Soviet idea, which was the basis of identity. Specialist E. Pain noted that the obstacles to such a replacement were not only nationalist movements, but also the unformed national identity of the Russians themselves. Historically, it was defined by special civilizational symbols like the Orthodox cross and the Soviet hammer and sickle, therefore, in the conditions of the new state, it was necessary to form a new symbolic landscape. The search for new civilizational symbols began with the affirmation of the symbolic unity of all peoples living in our country. In the early 2000s, the Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution was replaced by National Unity Day, which has been celebrated since November 4 in memory of the victory over the Polish-Lithuanian invaders during the Troubles. This marked the transition from a "Soviet" to a new "post-Soviet" macropolitical identity within the boundaries of new civilizational symbols. These conclusions are confirmed by V.I. Pantin in his study of modernization in modern Russia. He concludes that the idea of Russia's "special path" represents a new civilizational construct ^[8]. Later, President Vladimir Putin will develop this concept and present the idea of a thousand—year-old Russian civilization, a new model of macropolitical identity. Specialists of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, having conducted a series of sociological measurements in the period from 1998 to 2004, came to the conclusion that the collapse of the USSR did not lead to a cooling of Russians' attitude towards the Soviet heritage. On the contrary, most citizens felt proud of Soviet history, but at the same time they began to evaluate the imperial period of history less critically. Also in the post-Soviet years, the share of respondents who noted the need to preserve our traditions increased to 47% ^[10]. Therefore, the new civilizational model of macropolitical identity corresponded to public expectations.

In modern political science, the concept of macropolitical identity is being developed by Olga Malinova. The researcher understands it as "... identification with a broader community, which presupposes solidarity across borders related to political and ideological preferences" ^{[7, p. 12]}. In other words, macropolitical identity is designed to unite diverse political, social and even ethnic groups of citizens who can live together not only in a single state, but also in a certain historical space that has common cultural and value grounds. If the main tool for building a new macropolitical identity has become the memory policy pursued by the Russian elites, then biopolitics remains not the most obvious, but an important tool. In this regard, it is interesting to see exactly which biopolitical practices are used in the framework of constructing a new identity in modern Russia.

First of all, it is necessary to turn to the consideration of the archetype, which traditionally serves as the basis for building a group identity. This archetype is called "us and them." As V. S. Mukhina notes: "They" meant strangers, dangerous enemies, from whom one should alienate and defend oneself. "We" meant our own people, close by blood, who were united by a common life and common origin, which prompted identification with all members of the family" ^{[5, p. 194]}. This archetype influences our behavior at the present time, which is due to a deeply ingrained biological need for survival. It is possible to ensure survival within a single group with distinctive features. Biologically, we are more inclined to support the person whom we identify with ourselves by skin color, language, beliefs, and those traits that can characterize both the biological and social sides of a personality. This approach is also valid for policy initiatives and meanings.

In particular, in 2020, as part of an advertising campaign related to the adoption of Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, promotional materials were actively distributed on the Internet, which emphasized that the new Constitution would protect our historical memory, the institution of the family, and traditional values from external encroachments. Thus, the thesis was put forward that everything that makes up the core of our society is currently under threat. An external enemy is preparing to disintegrate our society, destroy our cultural and historical unity. Later, with the start of a Special military operation, it became obvious that the advertising messages of 2020 had a fair basis. However, technology is important to us. The main idea of that advertising campaign was to form a consensus in society about the need to protect our historical truth in the face of an external enemy. Taking into account the results of the all-Russian vote, we consider this task to be solved. Let's just note that such advertising is based on the very archetype of "we" and "they", against which it is convenient to build new political meanings.

The idea of protecting historical memory and truth was reflected in the draft law, which summarized the amendments being adopted. We are talking about the law of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated 03/14/2020. This bill has become a kind of manifesto of the constructed macropolitical identity of Russians. To denote one's "self," it required not only a symbolically outlined, but also an institutionalized image of the "other." It is interesting here that, according to the new amendments, the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are no longer required to comply with the norms of international law. In our opinion, this is the final practical potential of the adopted draft law, since people, being primarily biological and social beings, are more likely to identify themselves with a certain group with similar characteristics, including values and interests. This phenomenon is dictated by the biological nature of humans, namely aphylation, the desire of individuals of the same species to be together.

Separately, it is necessary to consider exactly how citizens' beliefs about certain domestic or foreign policy issues are formed in the conditions of modern Russia. Ethologists T. Vigel and G. Schubert at one time studied in detail how exactly the physiological state of a person affects his beliefs, as well as decisions made. In the course of research, it has been revealed that parameters such as age, stress, health status, etc. really influence our beliefs and the decisions we make, including in relation to the political sphere. One of the factors that contribute to increased stress is the danger of physical destruction, as well as fear of an external enemy. In this regard, the narrative that has strengthened in our information agenda in the light of the current confrontation between Russia and Western countries is interesting. Before this confrontation turned into a heated stage, the thesis about the potential danger of NATO expansion was actively voiced. When it comes to physical survival, outside factors fade into the background, and we are witnessing a process of group consolidation.

It should be noted that the image of an external enemy is also used to make certain political decisions in Western countries. In particular, during the 2020 election campaign related to the election of the new US president, Democrats accused Donald Trump of having ties with Russia, while Republicans themselves emphasized that China poses a real threat to the United States, and only if Donald Trump wins will the state be able to effectively counter this threat. We emphasize that we are not talking about objective reality, but about ways of interpreting and perceiving it. As a result of fear, stress arises, which blunts a person's thinking abilities, forcing him to make certain decisions and adopt those beliefs that are more dictated by irrational motives – those mechanisms that are embedded at the level of human biology.

Continuing the theme of physical survival, it is necessary to consider exactly how the state implements social policy. According to Rosstat data for 2023, more than 20 million Russian citizens are below the so-called "poverty line", as their total income did not exceed the set target of 12,916 rubles ^[9]. At the same time, state institutions implement appropriate social support measures so that citizens have high consumer activity and can provide basic needs. For these purposes, the State social security system operates, which includes the financing of various social benefits, pensions and benefits. At the same time, as noted in the materials of the newspaper Kommersant, in terms of social support for the population, priority is given to that part of society that actively participates in the process of population reproduction, i.e. families and mothers who do not have a stable and sufficient level of financial income ^[11]. Birth control is one of the key areas of biopolitics in modern Russia, which is associated with a general decline in fertility rates, as well as the risks it entails for the state. In this regard, traditional family values formed one of the foundations of the constructed macropolitical identity. The desire to have a family and children in line with this paradigm is a unifying factor in our society.

Also, some principles of biopolitics are regularly used during election campaigns in modern Russia. It can be not only about building the "right" image of a candidate, which must correspond to certain biologically determined ideas of voters about what the desired political leader should be, but also about the specifics of information transmission within social groups. In particular, research conducted using the methodology of network analysis has shown that our society is a single biological network in which each individual is connected to another through a finite number of social connections. American sociologist M. Grannovetter has revealed that there are so-called "strong bonds" that exist between friends and relatives, as well as "weak bonds" that form between unfamiliar people. At the same time, "weak connections" have a great potential for influence, since they prevail quantitatively, and therefore contribute to the accelerated dissemination of important information ^{[12, p. 1371]}. Given this fact, modern political technologists regularly involve specialists working in the service sector to carry out "everyday" campaigning. It is unobtrusive, but at the same time effective, since a short conversation with a stranger can form a false impression that his opinion is widespread in society, and therefore correct.

In this regard, it is necessary to pay attention to the existing problem of social conformity. From the point of view of the American social psychologist S. Asch, conformism should be understood as "the voluntary abandonment of one's own opinion in order to adapt to a group of people" ^{[13, p. 263]}. Conformism as a separate phenomenon of social life has a biological nature. From the point of view of evolutionary biology, the survival of our species depended on how united the group was, since it was possible to overcome the difficulties faced by primitive man solely through collective efforts. For this reason, natural selection favored those individuals who preferred adaptation to public opinion instead of confrontation. Currently, conformism is deeply rooted in our society, which has opened up additional opportunities for manipulation of public and individual consciousness. In particular, in the modern world, including in Russia itself, the practice of using various Internet bots is widespread. They imitate a human personality and publish comments and posts on the Internet on her behalf, which creates the effect of popularizing a certain position existing in society. For example, during the first months of its existence, a number of foreign brands left Russia, which negatively affected the economic situation. At the same time, Internet bots have become more active on social networks, which were designed to argue that the departure of foreign brands does not have critical consequences for the Russian economy and, on the contrary, opens up new opportunities for the development of domestic companies. Thus, despite the existing concerns on the part of society, a reverse position was artificially formed, which was mostly necessary to reduce social tension. However, this example is not the only one that highlights the need for further study of the nature of social conformity in the light of large-scale political projects.

Thus, biopolitics is one of the priorities of the domestic policy of modern Russia. The key reason for using its tools is the biological nature of a person, which determines certain needs, behavioral characteristics and perception of information, as well as principles and criteria for making certain decisions. Despite the fact that the biopolitical tools in our country are quite effective, it is necessary to identify the possible negative consequences of using biopolitical tools and those key areas in which their application would allow for positive results in the future.

First of all, we note that biopolitics presupposes a certain degree of unification of society. This can cause new social rifts, as in the context of Russian cultural diversity, the approach to the perception of the human body can be radically different. For example, in Islam, it is customary for women to be covered in public places. However, this does not allow identifying a person's identity using video surveillance cameras, which means that it restricts the operation of one of the biopolitical social control tools described by us and can provoke conflicts with law enforcement agencies. Also, in the Islamic religion, it is not allowed for a man to conduct a medical examination of a woman, which means that Muslim women may visit medical institutions less often, which increases the risks of various diseases. In addition, we note that biopolitics can strengthen social antagonism, dividing society on biological and other grounds into "friends" and "strangers." This can provoke an increase in social conflicts. Here it is enough to recall the historical experience of Germany, where biological differences between people and nations served as a justification for the idea of national superiority of Germans.

As for the positive consequences, the use of the principles of biopolitics will allow us to resolve existing interethnic contradictions in the future, since evolutionary biology attaches great importance to unity in diversity. Currently widespread nationalism is based on the idea that one nation is superior to another for one reason or another. However, from a biological point of view, this understanding is false. There is only the illusion of this superiority, embedded at the level of cultural attitudes of an individual and individual social groups. The restructuring of these cultural attitudes is one of the priorities of biopolitics in modern Russia. This is especially relevant in the light of the constructed model of macropolitical identity, according to which our multicultural society remains united, as it shares the common history and values of our civilization.

Biopolitical tools should also be used in the context of establishing intergroup and interindividual interaction. Cooperation and mutual assistance have played a key role in the context of the survival of our species, but their potential is not exhausted. Currently, in a developed information society, it is necessary to establish effective communication between people, which will avoid further "atomization" of society, which in the future may become a serious threat to our sociality and identity. Our State has been able to achieve special success in this area in the international arena. One of the core elements of the emerging macropolitical identity is the idea of traditional values that best correspond to the biological nature of a person, his orientation towards social and family principles. In the context of the ongoing CW, a dialogue with representatives of the Western political sphere is being built, including on the basis of the discourse of traditional values. Negotiations are actively underway with US President-elect Donald Trump, who has proclaimed a traditionalist "turn" in American politics. The dialogue with the German AFD party and the French National Union, led by Marine Le Pen, is also continuing. Thus, the landscape of future world politics is already being formed on the basis of traditional values that grow from the natural biological nature of man.

Finally, those social and political practices that will be actively implemented in Russian society in the future must be designed in full accordance with the biological aspects of human life, which will enhance their effectiveness. It is also necessary to pay attention to bioethics, i.e. the moral dimension of those technological processes that accompany the development of society at the present stage. Competent biopolitics will make it possible to raise a generation of responsible citizens who will perceive themselves as part of a single biological ecosystem, which is necessary in the context of solving those environmental problems that currently have a decisive impact on us. At the same time, the problem of the formation of a macropolitical identity in modern Russia is a complex phenomenon that will be considered in detail in other studies.