Foreign Agents in Russia - Doria

6. Conclusive Discussion
88
In this chapter I revolve the research results I have concluded to in previous chapters. Via this final
discussion with theories and empirics, hypotheses and theses I provide a lead-in to the final
conclusions. Outside the theoretical discussion I have notticed that there was little if any real
variability of the overall discoursive content of foreign agents between the three media companies
of my primary research material despite of the pre-assumptions I presented in paragraph 1.3..
6.1 The Relation to Life of Russian Governmentality: Biopower or Biopolitics?
I have argued that biopolitics are present to certain degree in the NKO law, however the need to
label NKOs by exclusion of segment of it is a signal of the dominating presence of sovereign (geo-
)politics where the immunity from external influences legitimates the use of power more than the
fostering of the well-being of social body that NKOs are often founded for. The fostering of the
political body of Russians is done in the way of state racism where the political life as the object of
politics is a challenge to the state sovereignty. When considering the 'life' or bio/zoo in perspective
of the Russian political life, then the foreign agent phenomenon resembles usage of biopower as
Roberto Esposito (2008, 15) defines it (look chapter 1.5.).
The direct ways of the Russian 'power vertical' has roots much deeper in history than
Vladimir Putin's regime in the 21 st century and the case of foreign agents do not seem to change
anything significantly in the long run of Russia's governmental rationality. According to existing
literature, the Russian civil society is held more under control for the sovereign strength instead of
cultivating independent subjectivity to foster the social health. In the perspective of Russian regime
claiming the hegemonic statement of foreign agents in the NKO law, the governmentality
demonstrates the same kind of direct nature as the most popular theories views have argued.
Does the foreign agent governing apply a new sphere of politics? Thomas Lemke (2008, 5)
pointed out to be the basis of biopolitics is in scoping the range of politics and power to the life. The
politics on civil organizations is not in this sense the best example of biopolitics as a methodology
examing the dynamic borders of politics that have changed among others with humanitarianism,
environmental questions, genetic engineering and animal rights. I consider Russian politics in
foreign agents still being biopolitical - or rather biopower - in the sense that it is defining the new
borders of politics in non-traditional sphere of politics of NKOs in Russia, although they are already
previously regulated to some degree. Moreover the law relies on normative categorization,
regularization, and surveillance mechanisms on its legal (political) citizens, although not on the
biological sphere of population. It subjugates organization groups to codification according to