ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree

1 Agamben K

Agamben K
Agamben K.....................................................................................................................................................................1

Agamben K.....................................................................................................................................1
Strat Sheet.......................................................................................................................................................................5

Strat Sheet.......................................................................................................................................5
1NC Shell........................................................................................................................................................................6

1NC Shell........................................................................................................................................ 6
1NC Shell........................................................................................................................................................................7

1NC Shell........................................................................................................................................ 7
1NC Shell........................................................................................................................................................................8

1NC Shell........................................................................................................................................ 8
Link: Citizenship Rights................................................................................................................................................9

Link: Citizenship Rights.............................................................................................................. 9
Link/Impact: Citizenship Rights..................................................................................................................................10

Link/Impact: Citizenship Rights...............................................................................................10
Link: Counter-Struggle................................................................................................................................................11

Link: Counter-Struggle..............................................................................................................11
Link: Democracy Citizenship......................................................................................................................................12

Link: Democracy Citizenship.................................................................................................... 12
Link: Disease................................................................................................................................................................13

Link: Disease............................................................................................................................... 13
Link: Economy.............................................................................................................................................................14

Link: Economy............................................................................................................................14
Link: Political Process.................................................................................................................................................15

Link: Political Process................................................................................................................ 15
Link: Transnational Refugee Protection......................................................................................................................16

Link: Transnational Refugee Protection.................................................................................. 16
Link: Rights Talk.........................................................................................................................................................17

Link: Rights Talk........................................................................................................................17
Link: Rights Talk.........................................................................................................................................................18

Link: Rights Talk........................................................................................................................18
Link: State Implementation..........................................................................................................................................18

Link: State Implementation.......................................................................................................18
Link: Immigration Reform Reinscribes the Exceptional State....................................................................................20

Link: Immigration Reform Reinscribes the Exceptional State.............................................. 20

ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree

2 Agamben K

Link: Terrorist Exclusion Reform................................................................................................................................21

Link: Terrorist Exclusion Reform............................................................................................ 21
Link: Visa Eligibility Expansion Makes People Self-Police (1/2)................................................................................22

Link: Visa Eligibility Expansion Makes People Self-Police (1/2)............................................22
Link: Visa Eligibility Expansion Makes People Self-Police (2/2)................................................................................23

Link: Visa Eligibility Expansion Makes People Self-Police (2/2)............................................23
Link: AT Rights Turn..................................................................................................................................................24

Link: AT Rights Turn................................................................................................................ 24
Internal Link: Securitization Leads to War..................................................................................................................25

Internal Link: Securitization Leads to War.............................................................................25
Impact: Internment.......................................................................................................................................................26

Impact: Internment.................................................................................................................... 26
Impact: Massacres........................................................................................................................................................27

Impact: Massacres......................................................................................................................27
Impact: Genocide.........................................................................................................................................................28

Impact: Genocide........................................................................................................................28
Impact: No Value to Life ............................................................................................................................................29

Impact: No Value to Life ...........................................................................................................29
Impact: Terrorism Reform Leads to Unending War....................................................................................................30

Impact: Terrorism Reform Leads to Unending War.............................................................. 30
Impact AT: Liberalism Stops Biopower.......................................................................................................................31

Impact AT: Liberalism Stops Biopower....................................................................................31
Impact AT: Liberalism Stops Biopower.......................................................................................................................32

Impact AT: Liberalism Stops Biopower....................................................................................32
Impact AT: Ojakangas..................................................................................................................................................33

Impact AT: Ojakangas................................................................................................................33
Impact AT: Biopower Good (Foucaultian Zoe)...........................................................................................................34

Impact AT: Biopower Good (Foucaultian Zoe).......................................................................34
Impact AT: Biopower Good (Foucaultian Zoe)...........................................................................................................35

Impact AT: Biopower Good (Foucaultian Zoe).......................................................................35
Alternative: Whatever Being........................................................................................................................................36

Alternative: Whatever Being.....................................................................................................36
Alternative: Passivity...................................................................................................................................................37

Alternative: Passivity..................................................................................................................37
Alternative: Identity-Stripping (1/2)............................................................................................................................38

Alternative: Identity-Stripping (1/2).........................................................................................38

ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree

3 Agamben K

Alternative: Identity-Stripping (2/2)............................................................................................................................39

Alternative: Identity-Stripping (2/2).........................................................................................39
Alternative: AT No Roadmap......................................................................................................................................40

Alternative: AT No Roadmap....................................................................................................40
Framing Card (1/2)........................................................................................................................................................41

Framing Card (1/2)......................................................................................................................41
Framing Card (2/2)........................................................................................................................................................42

Framing Card (2/2)......................................................................................................................42
AT: Alt Doesn’t Solve.................................................................................................................................................43

AT: Alt Doesn’t Solve.................................................................................................................43
AT: Perm (Cede the Political)......................................................................................................................................44

AT: Perm (Cede the Political)....................................................................................................44
AT: Perm (Cede the Political)......................................................................................................................................45

AT: Perm (Cede the Political)....................................................................................................45
AT: Perm......................................................................................................................................................................46

AT: Perm..................................................................................................................................... 46
AT: Perm......................................................................................................................................................................47

AT: Perm..................................................................................................................................... 47
AT: Perm......................................................................................................................................................................48

AT: Perm..................................................................................................................................... 48
AT: Perm......................................................................................................................................................................49

AT: Perm..................................................................................................................................... 49
AT: Perm......................................................................................................................................................................50

AT: Perm..................................................................................................................................... 50
AT: Framing.................................................................................................................................................................51

AT: Framing................................................................................................................................51
AT: Friend-Enemy Distinction Good..........................................................................................................................52

AT: Friend-Enemy Distinction Good........................................................................................52
AT: Realism.................................................................................................................................................................53

AT: Realism.................................................................................................................................53
AT: Agamben Totalizes...............................................................................................................................................54

AT: Agamben Totalizes..............................................................................................................54
Aff: Alternative Doesn’t Solve....................................................................................................................................55

Aff: Alternative Doesn’t Solve................................................................................................... 55
Aff: Alternative Doesn’t Solve....................................................................................................................................56

Aff: Alternative Doesn’t Solve................................................................................................... 56

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................63 Aff: Perm........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 59 Aff: Biopower Good..................................................................................................................65 Aff: Rights Good—Deranty................................ 66 .......... 65 Aff: State of Exception Good............................ 63 Aff: Rejecting Sovereignty Bad..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................61 Aff: Friend/Enemy Distinction Good.......................................57 Aff: Bare Life != Powerlessness..........................................................................................................60 Aff: Biopower Good............................... 64 Aff: Rights Good—Deranty...................................................................................................................................................................................61 Aff: Link Turn........64 Aff: Rejecting Sovereignty Bad........60 Aff: Friend/Enemy Distinction Good......................................................................................................................................................59 Aff: Alternative = Totalization..............................57 Aff: Alternative = Powerlessness.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................66 Aff: State of Exception Good.......................................ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 4 Agamben K Aff: Alternative = Powerlessness..................................... 62 Aff: Perm.........................................58 Aff: Bare Life != Powerlessness...........................................................................................................62 Aff: Link Turn...................................................................................................................................................58 Aff: Alternative = Totalization.................................................................................................................................................................................

which Agamben thinks is the only remaining point of contestation in modern politics. The affirmative can win against the Agamben K by defending Western politics.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 5 Agamben K Strat Sheet The Agamben K is a useful generic K for all affirmative that attempts to expand the visa regime. feel free to contact me at shree.awsare@gmail. Agamben claims that this paradigm of inclusion/exclusion is a monopolization of control and biopolitical violence by the sovereign—it is what allows the sovereign to make determinations of what constitutes bare life and what constitutes a life that matters politically. biological life… for example. there are pretty good pieces of evidence (like Deranty) that indicate that Agamben totalizes the detrimental aspects of the rights/visa system and neglects the positive aspects. The control over political representation via visas is what organizes and calculates the way in which violence occurs. Specifically. The kritik claims that Western politics relies on a process of inclusion/exclusion that creates a distinction between zoe (bare. refugees not under the purview of the law) and bios (politicized life). There are also your stock biopower/state of exception good arguments.com -Shree . The alternative is to rethink the distinction between inclusion and exclusion. If you have specific questions about the K or its answers.

” a process by which a traveler with false travel documents is refused entry and barred entry for five years.35 Nevzat Soguk’s discussion of the refugee regime as a management of that “surplus” international population not encompassed by the nation-state norm is also central to this perspective. uses “expedited removal. to leave their country.”40 This method of international political sociology. a health certificate (declarations that one is not an epidemiological risk : AIDS/HIV.33 There is also a broad behavioral consensus in relation to the documentary regime. such as the International Civil Aviation Organization and International Air Transportation Agency. I have argued elsewhere that there exists a broad consensus on the fundamental tenets of the global mobility regime. the international global mobility regime endows the citizen with a right to exit their “home. encouraged) to waive their rights to a deportation hearing and return to Mexico without lengthy detention.”37 In modern usage. and institutions).” a right to return “home. on the other hand. Bodies. while fixity has become an encumbrance of the poor. whereby the practices and beliefs of actors are taken into account in the consideration of public and international policies. meaning having been seen.39 In some instances. it refers to the prescreening of travelers and represents a prima facie case for admission. yellow fever.”43 Generally. passports. behaviors. when measured by the traditional standards of regime theory. From the French visé.44 To preclude asylum seekers from claiming rights inherent in the liberal community. but in such cases it is viewed mostly as a revenue generator rather than a security function. rights of applicants are suspended at the border of the community as an exceptional case of normal law. expensive bonding. “The British passport and visa system as it now is. despite the lack of specific legal treaties. and les sans-papiers (the stateless and the refugee). visitors are not allowed to work and need not contribute to the tax system. business. states issue settlement and temporary visas. Barry Hindess has argued that the rights of citizenship. Preliminary empirical work suggests that there are a number of common requirements for visas: a fee for processing (a remote tax). Alternatives 31 P 174-7//shree) The visa is a necessary supplement to the passport system. which constitute one quarter of the global mobility regime : frontier formalities. As the British Passport Office states.45 The United States.” and a right to become a refugee. if we use James N. Expedited removal is not subject to judicial or administrative appeal. then. the visa refers to “(1) the authorisation given by a consul to enter or to pass through a country. statement of qualifications (to distinguish the degree of skilled labor). School of Poli Sci @ U of Ottawa. Rosenau’s progressive model of instantiation of global governance (ideas.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 6 Agamben K 1NC Shell The 1AC’s participation in the visa regime is not benign—visa eligibility expands the sovereign’s biopolitical management of populations Slater ‘6 (Mark B. Mobility is structured in terms of entry. Fundamental to this regime is the lack of a significant right of entry.36 At its root.32 There is a normative consensus in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Every individual has a right to a nationality. I want to unpack this discretionary moment that is vital to the delimitation of the population of the state.42 Bauman discusses a politics of exclusion. which remains the prerogative of the sovereign and its agents at the border. or entirely the discretionary by noncitizenship. Paralleling my earlier work in Rights of Passage. I agree with Koslowski that mobility is a better description of the field of social relations than the more restrictive migration— which is why I talk about a global mobility regime and try to understand the system of tourist.”47 In each of these cases. In this structure. The visa and passport systems are tickets that allow temporary and permanent membership in the community. at which point other sovereigns have an obligation to permit admission. and (2) the stamp placed on the passport when the holder entered or left a foreign country. We may see this dynamic in European discourse wherein refugees and economic migrants have been recast as asylum seekers and the attempts to locate camps at the margins of the European community. the fundamental right of the sovereign is to be able to exclude and define the limits of its population with little reference to other states or sovereigns. has been built up as the result of practical experience gained during and since the war and is applied in a practical spirit. return tickets (good faith illustration that the applicant’s stay is temporary). and affirmation of acceptable . and the concomitant function of a state not only to regulate its population not only entry into it. Biopolitics. can be viewed as a way of managing international population.).34 There are also functional institutions.46 The “voluntary departure” program at the US/Mexico border illustrates the power of the bureaucracy to condition marginalized migrants to give up their rights: “Arrested aliens are permitted (indeed. in which I examined the governmental problems to which a passport was an administrative solution. which draws substantial interest toward the notion of rejection: “The mark of excluded in an era of time/space compression is enforced immobility. and trial. The visa regime allows for a delocalization of the border function so that states may engage in sorting behavior away from the physical limit of the state. which is made obligatory by citizenship or refugee status. and settler trajectories. it is important to detail the way in which the contemporary visa system has been built in response to (apparent and real) failures. visas may be applied for and received at the actual border of a state.31 the global mobility regime seems to be more robust.41 Simon Dalby has suggested ways in which mobility has become a luxury of the rich and developed populations. Hollifield suggests the delocalization of border functions acts as a solution to the problem of liberal rights. James Hollifield and Rey Koslowski have offered grim prognoses on the health of the global mobility regime. in the light of conditions which exist in the world today. and to return to their country. that set global standards for travel. visas. Thus settlers are allowed to work and must contribute to the tax system.30 However. The Global Visa Regime and the Political Technologies of the International Self: Borders. with its attendant right of entry. decisions are made outside of the state where no such appeal can be claimed .38 The visa in no way guarantees actual admission. funds for stay. tuberculosis. etc. which are distinguished by the length of stay and degree of integration into the host community (often in terms of labor/taxes). pays close attention to the importance of experience.

and only to be issued if the validity of the passport was in doubt. wealth. the average non-OECD citizen needs a visa to travel to approximately 156 countries. treaty. labor/leisure.48 In 1920. and efficiency is determined by rates of rejection against some imagined norm of regularly occurring fraud. . the management of international populations is conditioned presently by nationality/statelessness. The guarantee of the passport is its isomorphic representation of a particular body to a set of governmental records. these norms of necessity. and police institutions. and risk. etc. each country retaining its full freedom of action in respect to the enforcement of its legislation with regard to police measures for foreigners. and states agree to a standard inoculation document. which represented the first modern institutionalization of the global mobility regime.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 7 Agamben K 1NC Shell behavior (declarations that one is not a criminal/felon). health/disease. As Don Flynn has suggested. and normalcy/risk. either generally or under condition of reciprocity. Despite the lack of a formal visa (or passport) conference. Travelers from OECD countries possess far fewer restrictions on their travel than non-OECD travelers. the mobile subject is configured by the receiving state in terms of health. The visa application. The loose structure of the global visa regime represents an important aspect of this international control of bodies or control of international bodies.”50 Public health threats are also mentioned as a key concern for states at this meeting. which always tests and depends on the validity of the passport. we see responsibility for vetting travelers shift from sending states to receiving states at the Conference on Passports. health. In the first proceedings. educational. like passports. the regulation of the labour supply. or institution. and visas were to be issued with the same period of validity as the passport itself. attempts to render the position of the applicant in terms of state.49 The League Technical Committee recommends that.”51 As in the interwar period. Eric Neumayer outlines some of the nascent patterns in the global visa regime in the first empirical analysis of visa requirements. preliminary visas (issued before arrival at the border) were free of charge. labor/leisure. though there is a general trend toward reciprocity in the system: “The average OEC citizen faces visa restrictions in travel to approximately 93 foreign countries. “except in special or exceptional cases. entrance visas should be abolished by all countries. Customs Formalities and Through Tickets. and cooperation typify the modern visa system. the product of the visa bureaucracy is rejection . reciprocity. entry and exit visas were eliminated for nationals. Thus.

Andrew Norris. can be only itself. Between bare life and its ways of living. its own simplicity and singularity. ~ death. why not death? Does it not follow with perfect rigor that the death of God should be the death of death. If we are to think the political again. and thus the life it most intimately articulates. excepted. In our era in which the furious and totalizing will-to-identity is driven by the anxiety and shame of nihilism. and internally de-structure every form of relation from makeshift anarchist collectives to fascist ethnocities. this has always been their secret ambition: to make of that inspiration a separation and a relation . fracturing the organism into a mosaic or melanae. as such. in owning the estranged intimacy of its to-death. Estranged and intimate because death names only that which it suspends. the disappearance of death as an event? Why should death not simply be a political strategy. political power must absorb death. that a deportee ill with influenza would be allowed to recover before being transported to a death camp. in the last analysis. professor of English at national tapai university. or is given power. a medicotechnical accident. outside the to-death that defines Dasein and that transforms bare life into being. assistant professor of political science at the university of Pennsylvania. This is what law and sovereign power have always been about. bare life and its communities. This missing link is what the West is running up against again and again in its perpetual crises: the production of the biopolitical body always also secretes bare life. and this rethinking begins with analysis of the ban. there can only be decision. editor. But if God can be killed. or even driven. pg. for death—the right to death (and. an unceremonious being-killed and. this is not about euthanasia.) Indeed. Metaphysics. Wall 5 (Thomas Carl. Between bare life and the ways in which it is lived. its ways of life. Whether the sovereign takes power. a public health issue. and not vainly try to rid ourselves of the political in favor of who knows what theofundamentalist human nature or cosmosophical evolution. Falling outside Sein-zum-Tode is bare life au hasard in the space of the political. Bare life is thrust. political life and bare life—only then can we begin to conceptualize a community beyond biopolitical violence.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 8 Agamben K 1NC Shell Visas depict the world in terms of bare life and political life. arranges power. at the same time. the absence of any determinate or destinal relation to bare life will perpetually. but about the decision as to what counts as death and when and in what way death counts as death and not simply perishing. at the same time and by the same logic. begin to do this by thinking bios without relation to zoe. there exists no fundamental relation and there never has. Homo Sacer is the history of that secret. is perpetually au hasard. . a primordial nonrelation. which remains as a proximity and an exception to any form of life (or death). an unceremonious being-kept-alive by any means necessary? (It is known. nonconnection of bare life to death. there is an always disappearing distinction. for now. We must think that it is the essence of bios to exist in its own zoe. and Death: Essays On Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer. the uncanny relation of being to death as delineated by Heidegger (where the possibility of not being there anymore opens decisively the already-being-there that the existent is at its own most) is. It is the very space of decision (political and ontological) and. exigently. which is to say. we must. count at all)—is the ontological decision whereby the living being can remain possible unto its own-most self Bare life owns only itself. Their move towards statist politics tries to heal this originary biopolitical rupture through a eugenic politics that displaces any value to life. Power sees before it life that is already no longer natural but not yet properly the life of a people. Bare life is the nonrelational and thus invites decision. And this is why. The disappearance of this distinction is biopolitical inspiration. 38-39) Agamben’s advance on these analyses is as follows: between unqualified. The alternative is to break down the relationship between bios and zoe. which runs pell mell throughout life itself. it always sees before it a magma of anchored life. a state. for example. Every sovereign and every state has always confronted this. Agamben argues. Politics. and in which resistance to totality is driven only by “alternative” identities (or “lifestyles” or “communities”).

Palgrave Journals//shree) Bare life is life that is excluded from the political order. But the role played by noncitizens in constituting the political order is contingent on their exclusion from this order. obscures other experiences of racist exclusion that cannot be assimilated into this paradigm. The utility of Agamben's insights derive from their uncanny ability to highlight both the constitutive role that politically marginalized populations play in shaping the modern political order and the logic of their exclusion from this order. for instance. phD in Socio at UMich. and attributes the myriad abuses suffered by refugees and denaturalized subjects during the last two centuries to its immanent unfolding. Agamben sees this exclusive logic as the fatal flaw of the modern nation-state. Hesse (2004). Latino Studies.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 9 Agamben K Link: Citizenship Rights The notion of citizenship requires the exclusion of non-citizens intrinsic to sovereign power and perpetuates violence Astor ‘9 (Avi. Rather. Securitization. Scholars must be cautious. not to lose sight of the fact that Agamben's analysis of bare life emerged from his analysis of specific European events. which has no place in the modern political order when decoupled from political existence . Taking the Holocaust as the ideal-typical case of biopolitical exclusion. Unauthorized Immigration. is not purely a relation of exteriority. and the Making of Operation Wetback. Hesse writes. argues that Agamben's conception of racism is "Eurocentric. however. the lynchpin of the modern political order. bare life is the "zone of indistinction" in which political life and natural life "constitute each other in including and excluding each other" (p. They are not excluded simply by virtue of being non-citizens . most notably the Holocaust. Citizenship. 90). whether real or imaginary. refugees or stateless persons. and therefore may miss unique aspects of the experiences of racism and exclusion in non-European contexts. 5/29. however. of non-citizens. . would be meaningless without the presence. but by virtue of being the embodiment of pure life itself. The relation of bare life to the political order." as it defines racism as a "relation of exception" and consequently overlooks the ways in which racism is built into social institutions.

the illegal migrant—who most fundamentally represent bare life in the exception. governments suspend elements of the normal legal order and strip individuals of the rights that mark politicized life. a figure of Roman law. the stateless person. Dept of Politics @ U of British Columbia. Under Roman law. p 2-4.” (2005.edu/euce/eusa2009/papers/ellermann_02G.” they are the object of a pure de facto rule. Agamben’s understanding of life in the state of exception reflects a conception of rights as fundamentally grounded in the institution of national citizenship. life. Reduced to bare. Not only do the Taliban captured in Afghanistan not enjoy the status of POWs as defined by the Geneva Convention. embodies what Agamben terms “bare” or “depoliticized” life (1998). but also as a case whose exceptionalism surpasses that of comparable zones of exclusion: “What is new about President Bush’s order [of November 13. the zone of exception is most clearly embodied in the detention center and (concentration) camp. Following Arendt. it is those excluded from citizenship—the refugee. Agamben juxtaposes the bare life of homo sacer who subsists in zones of exclusion and rightlessness with the citizen’s “politicized” and rights-based life. Agamben rejects the notion that human rights are viable outside the confines of membership in the nation-state. since it is entirely removed form the law and from judicial oversight. 126). The state of exception is thus the ultimate expression of state sovereignty as the power to proclaim the emergency and suspend the operation of law. the refugee is rendered politically insignificant. on the other. Instead. a man convicted of certain crimes was banished from society and stripped of his rights as a citizen. 4-5) Agamben’s description of bare life in Guantanamo thus suggests that the denial of citizenship rights not only deprives individuals of the prospect of ever leaving behind bare life. Accordingly. In states of emergency. 2001] is that it radically erases any legal status of the individual. The existence of homo sacer is central to Agamben’s understanding of sovereign power because the possibility of rights-stripping reveals a schism between the individual’s biological existence . Neither prisoners nor persons accused. but the related denial of a legal identity completely strips homo sacer of any state protection whatsoever. on the one hand. thus producing a legally unnamable an unclassifiable being.” Homo sacer. or biological. The notion of state of exception reflects the augmentation of government powers during times of emergency when state sovereignty is perceived to be under threat. of a detention that is indefinite not only in the temporal sense but in its very nature as well. Agamben elaborates on this relationship between sovereign power and bare life in his historical treatise State of Exception (2005).pdf//shree) Giorgio Agamben’s seminal work on the relationship between the individual and the sovereign state is anchored in the concepts of “homo sacer” and “state of exception. “the so-called sacred and inalienable human rights are revealed to be without any protection precisely when it is no longer possible to conceive of them as rights of the citizens of a state” (1998. Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s description of the “naked life” of the refugee (Arendt 1973). they do not even have the status of persons charged with a crime according to American law. but simply “detainees. In Agamben’s work. Undocumented Migrants and Resistance in the State of Exception.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 10 Agamben K Link/Impact: Citizenship Rights The existence of homo sacer is fundamental to citizenship rights and makes concentration camps possible Ellerman 9 (Antje.unc. and her political life. http://www. Agamben treats the detention center at Guantanamo Bay not only as the exception’s incarnation. . In State of Exception.

innovation. resistance. 394) Following the innovations of Society Must Be Defended.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 11 Agamben K Link: Counter-Struggle Counter-struggles against the state don’t change the fundamental nature of sovereignty— they’re working for the right to speak in its name. 29. Thus President Bush and Prime Minister Blair seek to draw upon. but in the name of a national ideal. and propagate (perhaps differing) national images of universal "freedom. sovereignty should not simply be understood as an outmoded." "democracy. colonization. but they are not struggles against the state form. I would. or at least a part of it. in agreement with Hardt and Negri." and "civilization. interpret governmentality not as an alternative to the concept of sovereignty. 24 As my analysis of Society Must Be Defended shows. but rather as a more sophisticated development of sovereignty. We could anticipate that a typical critical response to the argument that Foucault does not "cut off the King's bead" is that his theory of governmentality is in fact his alternative to sovereignty." Neoconservatism in particular expresses this nationaluniversal ideology. the nation becomes the aspiring bearer of the universal. The question is not simply one of who is or is being constructed either as "the enemy of the state" or "the enemy of the nation/society/people. centered institution of power but as a political concept that holds a rich history of contestation. for example—are merely struggles over the meaning of. “Cutting Off The King’s Head: Foucault’s Society Must Be Defended and the Problem of Sovereignty. These struggles may be struggles against a particular form of the nation-state.^^ This also means that political counterstruggles—antiwar and civil-liberties campaigns." but a frightening union of the two . pg. As Foucault makes clear. . Once sovereignty has been transformed from modern state sovereignty to modern nation-state sovereignty. many contemporary political and theoretical lines of flight have already been recaptured. the national ideal. and even freedom that permeates the coproduction of subjects by society and of society by subjects . This opening leads into a more establisbed area of Foucault's work— that of the power. governmentality. but with a politics of collective subjective enmity wedded to a terrifying state machine. promote. and radical transformation. However. and right to speak for. school of politics @ keele u. The challenge we face is that the potentially bellicose and oppressive state seeks to claim legitimacy not simply by acting according to security imperatives or on behalf of a people.” Alternatives. today we should consider that we are faced with a politics not simply of rational-actor-led sovereign-state war and oppression. Neal 4 (Andrew W.

In both cases. and the priest. It is almost as if.’ the ‘right’ to rediscover what one is and all that one can be. acquire their true sense only if they are brought back to the common biopolitical (or thanatopolitical) context to which they belong. prof of philosophy at university of Verona. in the state of exception. nevertheless. before impetuously coming to light in our century the river of biopolitics that gave homo sacer his life runs its course in a hidden but continuous fashion. and biopolitics can turn into thanatopolitics. the expert. in which sovereignty consisted. this line no longer appears today as a stable border dividing two clearly distinct zones. the scientist. And only because biological life and its needs had become the politically decisive fact is it possible to understand the otherwise incomprehensible rapidity with which twentiethcentury parliamentary democracies were able to turn into totalitarian states and with which this century’s totalitarian states were able to be converted. the liberties. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. 121-123) The contiguity between mass democracy and totalitarian states . The fact is that one and the same affirmation of bare life leads. we can observe a displacement and gradual expansion beyond the limits of the decision on bare life. and impassable biopolitical space (insofar as it is founded solely on the state of exception)— will appear as the hidden paradigm of the political space of modernity whose metamorphoses and disguises we will have to learn to recognize. absolute. private and public) lose their clarity and intelligibility and enter into a zone of indistinction.” writes Foucault.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 12 Agamben K Link: Democracy Citizenship Democracy doesn’t prevent totalitarianism—citizenship is founded on the primacy of bare life which collapses into a zone of indistinction Agamben 98 (Giorgio. to happiness. to the satisfaction of needs and. p. beyond all the oppressions or ‘alienation. this ‘right’—which the classical juridical system was utterly incapable of comprehending— was the political response to all these new procedures of power” (La volontt’. .” or the contemporary debate on the normative determination of death criteria). in bourgeois democracy. explaining the importance assumed by sex as a political issue. and the rights won by individuals in their conflicts with central powers always simultaneously prepared a tacit but increasing inscription of individuals’ lives within the state order. In the pages that follow. 191). almost without interruption. This line is now in motion and gradually moving into areas other than that of political life. thus offering a new and more dreadful foundation for the very sovereign power from which they wanted to liberate themselves . every decisive political event were double-sided: the spaces. seems to maintain). control. the decisive political criterion and the exemplary realm of sovereign decisions. Once their fundamental referent becomes bare life. The ex-communist ruling classes’ unexpected fall into the most extreme racism (as in the Serbian program of “ethnic cleansing”) and the rebirth of new forms of fascism in Europe also have their roots here. pg. “The ‘right’ to life. into parliamentary democracies. to health. starting from a certain point. and in which the only real question to be decided was which form of organization would be best suited to the task of assuring the care . “ to one’s body. traditional political distinctions (such as those between Right and Left. areas in which the sovereign is entering into an ever more intimate symbiosis not only with the jurist but also with the doctor. If there is a line in every modern state marking the point at which the decision on life becomes a decision on death. in totalitarian states. as well as others that seem instead to represent an incomprehensible intrusion of biologico-scientific principles into the political order (such as National Socialist eugenics and its elimination of “life that is unworthy of being lived. the camp—as the pure. does not have the form of a sudden transformation (as Lewith. to a primacy of the private over the public and of individual liberties over collective obligations and yet becomes. these transformations were produced in a context in which for quite some time politics had already turned into biopolitics. From this perspective. here following in Schmitt’s footsteps. Along with the emergence of biopolitics. we shall try to show that certain events that are fundamental for the political history of modernity (such as the declaration of rights). liberalism and totalitarianism. and use of bare life.

These baroque scenarios are shaped by the eroticism of disaster. trodden like grapes in the winepress. resisting the dangerous lure of Endism. But my concern here is not so much with the difference between “good” and “bad” apocalypses (is total extinction “better” than selective genocide?) as with the interplay of eschatology and politics in the construction of the apocalyptic body. justifying extermination Gomel 2K (Elana. But most of all it is a suffering body. The contagious body is the most characteristic modality of apocalyptic corporeality. it may be approrpriated to the standard plot of apocalyptic purification as a singularly atrocious technique of separating the damned from the saved. social upheavals. apocalyptic fictions typically linger on pain and suffering. and sores. Rather. But pestilence offers a uniquely ambivalent modality of corporeal apocalypse. [2] On the other hand. Nor does it limit itself to a particular disease. the one whose ride begins most intimately.” trembling in abject terror while awaiting an unearthly consummation (122). On the one hand. 20 th Cent. Pestilence. Instead of delivering the climactic moment of the Last Judgment. along the lines of Susan Sontag’s classic delineation of the poetics of TB and many subsequent attempts to develop a poetics of AIDS. unlike nuclear war or ecological catastrophe. Thus. The end result of apocalyptic purification often seems of less importance than the narrative pleasure derived from the bizarre and opulent tribulations of the bodies being burnt by fire and brimstone. a brief sketch of the poetics and politics of the contagious body. On the other hand. This essay. it contains a counterapocalyptic potential. and “millennial perfection” (Quinby 2). its ultimate object is some version of the crystalline New Jerusalem. apocalypse in general may be used “in order to validate violence done to others” while it may also function as a modality of total resistance to the existing order (3). The apocalyptic body is perverse. I consider both real and imaginary disease. On the one hand. pestilence lingers on. and ends in the devastation of the entire community. pandemic has a venerable historical pedigree that leads back from current bestsellers such as Pierre Quellette’s The Third Pandemic (1996) to the medieval horrors of the Black Death and indeed to the Book of Revelation itself. It is a body whose mortal sickness is a precondition of ultimate health. generating a limbo of common suffering in which a tenuous and moribund but all-embracing body politic springs into being. focusing on the narrative construction of the contagious body rather than a precise epidemiology of the contagion. purified by the sadomasochistic “bloodletting on the cross. On the other hand. Pestilence is poised on the cusp between divine punishment and manmade disaster. are caught between two contrary textual impulses: acquiescence in a (super) natural judgment and political activism. All apocalyptic and millenarian ideologies ultimately converge on the utopian transformation of the body (and the body politic) through suffering. Lit V 46//shree) In the secular apocalyptic visions that have proliferated wildly in the last 200 years. whose grotesque and excessive sexuality issues in angelic sexlessness. Since everybody is a potential victim. The finality of mortality clashes with the duration of morbidity. an image of purity so absolute that it denies the organic messiness of life. the ideologically potent combination of “apocalyptic terror”. Thus. and the body. is the last one. Head of Eng Dept @ Tel Aviv. In his contemporary incarnations the Fourth Horseman vacillates between the voluptuous entropy of indiscriminate killing and the genocidal energy directed at specific categories of victims .ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 13 Agamben K Link: Disease Disease securitization turns subjects into apocalyptic bodies whose lives have meaning only if they achieve health. As Richard Dellamora points out in his gloss on Derrida. and whose torture underpins a painless—and lifeless—millennium. The end is indefinitely postponed and the disease becomes a metaphor for the process of living. my focus is on the general narrativity of contagion and on the way the plague-stricken body is manipulated within the overall plot of apocalyptic millennialism. The apocalyptic desire that finds satisfaction in elaboration fictions of the End is double-edged. In this interplay between the incorporeal purity of the ends and the violent corporeality of the means the apocalyptic body is born. functioning as such both in Mein Kampf and in Camus’s The Plage. the experience of a pandemic undermines the giddy hopefulness of Endism. shaping much of the twentieth-century discourse of power. unstable and mutating from maleness to femaleness and back again. progressing from the first symptoms of a large-scale disaster through the crisis of the tribulation to the recovery of the millennium. the plague becomes a metaphor for genocide. Contemporary plague narratives. points out Tina Pippin. Any apocalypse strikes the body politic like a disease. tormented by scorpion stings. embracing such diverse manifestations as religious fundamentalism. Nazism. But of all the Four Horsemen. I will argue. does not attempt a comprehensive overview of the historical development of the trope of pestilence. Their impossible combination produces a clash of two distinct plot modalities. and technological shutdowns. the line between the pure and the impure can never be drawn with any precision. the world has been destroyed by nuclear wars. . including the buregeoning discourse of AIDS. a text written in the script of stigma. in the private travail of individual flesh. scars. which is a powerful ideological current in twentieth-century political history. and other forms of “radical desperation” (Quinby 4-5). domination. climactic changes. At the same time. On the one hand. alien invasions. meteor strikes. disease is one of the central tropes of biopolitics. wounds.

for an inheritance and a task. The Open: Man and Animal. to their inessentiality and their inactivity {inoperosit~4}— and who grope everywhere. Professor of Philosophy at the University of Verona.” .ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 14 Agamben K Link: Economy The invocation of the economy participates is supremely biopolitical Agamben ‘4 (Giorgio. so to speak. an inheritance as task? Even the pure and simple relinquishment of all historical tasks (reduced to simple functions of internal or international policing) in the name of the triumph of the economy. and at the cost of gross falsifications. often today takes on an emphasis in which natural life itself and its well-being seem to appear as humanity’s last historical task—if indeed it makes sense here to speak of a “task. Do we not see around and among us men and peoples who no longer have any essence or identity—who are delivered over. p 76) It is likely that the times in which we live have not emerged from this aporia.

The Foucauldian thesis will then have to be corrected or. constitutes the first paradigm of the political realm of the West. At the same time. Everything happens as if. the new biopolitical body of humanity. has thus offered the key by which not only the sacred texts of sovereignty but also the very codes of political power will unveil their mysteries. the bare life that dwelt there frees itself in the city and becomes both subject and object of the conflicts of the political order. in which human life is included in the juridical order II ordinamento Il solely in the form of its exclusion (that is. An obscure figure of archaic Roman law. together with the process by which the exception everywhere becomes the rule. along with the disciplinary process by which State power makes man as a living being into its own specific object. ‘When its borders begin to be blurred. the life of homo sacer (sacred man). another process is set in motion that in large measure corresponds to the birth of modern democracy. and whose essential function in modern politics we intend to assert. in which man as a living being presents himself no longer as an object but as the subject of political power. pg. enter into a zone of irreducible indistinction. Instead the decisive fact is that. at least. before or beyond the religious. the realm of bare life—which is originally situated at the margins of the political order —gradually begins to coincide with the political realm. in itself. These processes—which in many ways oppose and (at least apparently) bitterly conflict with each other—nevertheless converge insofar as both concern the bare life of the citizen. outside and inside. the hidden foundation on which the entire political system rested . and exclusion and inclusion. of its capacity to be killed). this ancient meaning of the term sacer presents us with the enigma of a figure of the sacred that. professor of philosophy at the University of Verona. Homo Sacer. . At once excluding bare life from and capturing it within the political order. however. the state of exception actually constituted. who may be killed and yet not sacrificed. in the sense that what characterizes modern politics is not so much the inclusion of zo~in rhepo/is—which is.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 15 Agamben K Link: Political Process Every action that participates in the political process is one that creates an exception and results in biopolitical control Agamben 98 (Giorgio. bios and zoe right and fact. 8-9) The protagonist of this book is bare life. the one place for both the organization of State power and emancipation from it. absolutely ancient —nor simply the fact that life as such becomes a principal object of the projections and calculations of State power. completed. that is. in its very separateness.

or to national citizenship. The middle ages recognized a "jus gentium" or law of nations. Those laws offered guidance for the treatment of one nation by another. indicates contemporary political belonging. That recognition is not without precedent. The refugee exists in a transnational space made of an awkward separation and mixture of domestic life and international life. and the power regulating it. As Agamben teaches us. By definition. Life in and of itself. can no longer be coded by domestic categories alone.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 16 Agamben K Link: Transnational Refugee Protection Refugees cannot appeal to their own state for protection because they exist in transnational space—the 1AC participates in a politics of inclusion/exclusion that results in violence Caldwell 4 (Anne. was evoked by the Stoics. or on the rights of humanity as a universal group exceeding different classifications of peoples. The complex mixture of these categories were not particularly visible so long as life was wholly defined by nation-state belonging. Nor can the distinctions between natural and political life be limited to the field of the nation-state. but as a figure of an international life or human belonging meriting protection solely on that basis. however. 7. without focusing on either the rights of individuals as members of humanity. Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Louisville. The refugee must therefore appeal to some other power to recognize it not as a national citizen. is for the first time offered up as a political category. What is novel is the new category of a "man" at once citizen and member of universal humanity -without fully being either. for protection. . The refugee is the most explicit indication of this impossibility. The refugee . is among the first official formulations granting the natural life scorned by the ancients a value purely for its own sake. rather than local belonging. Some sense of world citizenship. Theory & Event. wherever natural life and political appear. so too will appear the figure linking them: homo sacer. A power that offers such protection can no longer be adequately classified under the heading of nation-state sovereignty. the refugee cannot appeal to its own state.2) This transformation suggests the real novelty of the French Declaration is not its definition of citizenship. The French Declaration. despite its flaws.

In the period after the Second World War. the so-called sacred and inalienable rights of man show themselves to lack every protection and reality at the moment in which they can no longer take the form of rights belonging to citizens of a state. “The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man. . metajuridical values binding the legislator (in fact. A simple examination of the text of the Declaration of 1789 shows that it is precisely bare natural life—which is to say. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. 126-128) Hannah Arendt entitled the fifth chapter of her book on imperialism. inaugurating the biopolitics of modernity. The same bare life that in the ancien regime was politically neutral and belonged to God as creaturely life and in the classical world was (at least apparently) clearly distinguished as zoe from political life (bios) now fully enters into the structure of the state and even becomes the earthly foundation of the state’s legitimacy and sovereignty. which is dedicated to the problem of refugees. In the system of the nation-state. the pure fact of birth—that appears here as the source and bearer of rights. and her suggestion has therefore not been followed up. “The conception of human rights. The nation—the term derives etymologically from nascere (to be born)—thus closes the open circle of man’s birth. pg. Burke’s boutade according to which he preferred his “Rights of an Englishman” to the inalienable rights of man acquires an unsuspected profundity. professor of philosophy at university of Verona. Declarations of rights represent the originary figure of the inscription of natural life in the juridico-political order of the nation-state. in whom rights are “preserved” (according to the second article: “The goal of every political association is the preservation of the natural and indefeasible rights of man”). and to begin to consider them according to their real historical function in the modern nation-state. it is not clear whether the two terms homme and citoyen name two autonomous beings or instead form a unitary system in which the first is always already included in the second.” Linking together the fates of the rights of man and of the nation-state. And if the latter is the case. The paradox from which Arendt departs is that the very figure who should have embodied the rights of man par excellence—the refugee—signals instead the concept’s radical crisis.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 17 Agamben K Link: Rights Talk Rights Talk and ethical principles are the founding feature of biopolitics—notions of citizenship create a community of violence. Agamben 98 (Giorgio. is placed at the foundation of the order vanishes into the figure of the citizen. “Men. this is in fact implicit in the ambiguity of the very title of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. In the phrase La dicia ration des dro its tie I’homme et du citoyen. the very natural life that. At the same time. p. the kind of relation that exists between homme and citoyen still remains unclear. Yet it is time to stop regarding declarations of rights as proclamations of eternal.” she states. And the Declaration can attribute sovereignty to the “nation” (according to the third article: “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation”) precisely because it has already inscribed this element of birth in the very heart of the political community. though the author herself leaves the question open. Gendered language under erasure. without much success) to respect eternal ethical principles. If one considers the matter. of 1789. “based upon the assumed existence of a human being as such. her striking formulation seems to imply the idea of an intimate and necessary connection between the two. broke down at the very moment when those who professed to believe in it were for the first time confronted with people who had indeed lost all other qualities and specific relationships—except that they were still human” (Orz~ins. however. essential hints concerning the link between the rights of man and the nation-state. Arendt does no more than offer a few. From this perspective. the strictest formulation of all is to be found in La Fayette’s project elaborated in July 1789: “Every man is born with inalienable and indefeasible rights”). “are born and remain free and equal in rights” (from this perspective.” the first article declares. both the instrumental emphasis on the rights of man and the rapid growth of declarations and agreements on the part of international organizations have ultimately made any authentic understanding of the historical significance of the phenomenon almost impossible. 299).

Agamben argues in his book Homo sacer that we continue to live under the auspices of a classical state as it was conceived in early modern Europe. Link: State Implementation State action devalues life through ceaseless death threats . the pure space of exception—is the biopolitical paradigm that it cannot master . The bare life of physical individuals. Frankfurt. the primary charasteristic of the state is its capacity to define and occasionally erase the boundary between "normality" and "emergency" and thus the capacity to transform society into a "camp" or Lager populated by citizens reduced to "bare life.. 845-8) A more forceful and radical critique has been put forth by the Italian political philosopher Giorgio Agamben. p. Agamben plays to a primarily Continental European public once again afflicted by self-doubts about the moral standing of liberal societies and their legal systems. but it was also isolated and separated from the wider range of human forms of expression. Concordia University. Agamben maintains that since the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 the "bare life" of the individual has been subjected to a twofold move: it was given a protected. German Law Journal."5 There is. the current western state is said to blur the line between the normal and the exceptional. maintain a secret solidarity with the very powers they ought to fight [. I will either reject these propositions outright or extract the kernel of truth contained within them before making a suggestion about how we might theoretically classify Agamben’s position. he writes: The separation between humanitarianism and politics that we are experiencing today is the extreme phase of the separation of the rights of man from the rights of the citizen .ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 18 Agamben K Link: Rights Talk Rights talk ties the population to the sovereign by defining life only in terms of what can be defended by the state—this turns the citizen-subject into bare life. which has assured us for years that state sovereignty is gradually disappearing to the benefit of a "world of flows" comprising goods.]. and therefore. 2) The goal of humanitarian organizations is the identification and preservation of "bare life. 4) The separation between humanitarianism and politics can and should be overcome in favor of something completely new." Moreover. individuals. in all seriousness. I will confine myself to a nutshell summary of his main argument before I offer a concise critique of his ideas on the place of humanitarian law and humanitarian action in today's legal and political world. Agamben’s principal cause for vexation lies in the persistent separation of this core aspect of the human from wider political and communitarian questions. capital and information. of course. In all these cases. medical end-of-life issues or the detention of "illegal combatants" have indeed turned the bare life of individuals into an object of widespread concern and debate. and the camp—which is to say. Agamben mistrusts the human right to physical integrity in a way that is reminiscent of Michel Foucault. Agamben. The vaguely dystopian perspective of his legal theory explains why Agamben is considered "interesting" by many. such organizations become unwitting accomplices of those who are responsible for the very social suffering that they aim to minimize.6 The concern for the life of others is also nurtured by the reporting mechanisms of U. In the final analysis. Germany. Accordingly.N. despite themselves. between peace and war." 3) Because of their reliance on the political/humanitarian divide. Drawing on the distinction between human rights and civil rights made by Hannah Arendt. No. stripped of moral agency and social intercourse. and Senior Fellow at the Institute for Social Research. Heins 5 (Volker. A humanitarianism separated from politics cannot fail to reproduce the isolation of sacred life at the basis of sovereignty. however.. for example. even "sacred" status beyond the immediate grasp of political power.4 Since Agamben's theses are already well-known and much-discussed. By suggesting that human rights are deeply intertwined with the forces of inhumanity against which they are being invoked . has placed this trend in an epochal relationship with the tatooing of concentration camp inmates. Visiting Professor of Political Science.2 In noticable contrast to the sociology of globalization. 5. became the object of a particular juridical mode of attention. humanitarian organizations—which to-day are more and more supported by international commissions— can only grasp human life in the figure of bare and sacred life. some prima facie plausibility that the trafficking of human beings. 6. human rights bodies as well as the continuous attention of specialized NGOs and the media. but also as embodied beings—an interest illustrated.7 This paragraph contains four propositions that are questionable on both empirical and normative grounds. Montreal. by the growing tendency towards biometric registration of travelers at border crossings. In what follows. who felt that the discursive isolation of "sexuality" along with its construction as a singular object of attention was far more significant than the fluctuating history of its "liberation" or "repression. Vol. by increasingly taking an interest in us not only as citizens.3 His essay's far-reaching appeal rests on the fact that it combines in a single formula the moral and legal achievements of western societies— in particular the ethos of human rights—with their slides into totalitarianism. The four propositions are: 1) The distinction between the humanitarian and the political is an expression of the opposition between human rights and civil rights.

The puissance absolue et perpe’tuelle. takes place precisely when naked life —which normally appears rejoined to the multifarious forms of social life —is explicitly put into question and revoked as the ultimate foundation of political power. p 56) Thus. in the Hobbesian foundation of sovereignty. prof of phil @ the College International de Philosophie in Paris. Means Without End: Notes on Politics. which is kept safe and protected only to the degree to which it submits itself to the sovereign’s (or the law’s) right of life and death.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 19 Agamben K Agamben 2K (Giorgio. (This is precisely the originary meaning of the adjective sacer (sacred] when used to refer to human life. life in the state of nature is defined only by its being unconditionally exposed to a death threat (the limitless right of everybody over everything) and political life—that is. But what is valid for the pater’s right of life and death is even more valid for sovereign power (imperium). which defines state power. of which the former constitutes the originary cell. Thus. which is what the sovereign each and every time decides. life originally appears in law only as the counterpart of a power that threatens death . . is not founded—in the last instance—on a political will but rather on naked life. the life that unfolds under the protection of the Leviathan — is nothing but this very same life always exposed to a threat that now rests exclusively in the hands of the sovereign .) The state of exception. The ultimate subject that needs to be at once turned into the exception and included in the city is always naked life.

is precisely the place where the fracture that divides the body of the law becomes impossible to mend: between Macht and Vermogen. in order to clear an ultimate heaven and enable it. “there is a baroque eschatology” the editors. [the baroque] is faced with the idea of catastrophe .” The baroque knows an eskhaton. he is the lord of creatures. . as Benjamin immediately makes clear. And it is in response to this antithesis that the theory of the state of exception is devised” (Benjamin 1928. and to this countermove Benjamin replies by bringing in Schmitt’s distinction between the norm and its realization. 56-57) The division between sovereign power and the exercise of that power corresponds exactly to that between norms of law and norms of the realization of law. but he remains a creature” (Benjamin 1928. 246/66).. in which the sphere of creatures and the juridical order are caught up in a single catastrophe. . in Benjamin the sovereign is “confined to the world of creation. as in Political Theology. and from it the baroque extracts a profusion of things that until then eluded all artistic formulation . Agamben 5 (Giorgio. but. but consigns it to an absolutely empty sky—that configures the baroque state of exception as catastrophe. by virtue of a law that is in force in its suspension: it is. This drastic redefinition of the sovereign function implies a different situation of the state of exception. one day to destroy the earth with catastrophic violence” (246/66). rather. or between anomie and the juridical context.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 20 Agamben K Link: Immigration Reform Reinscribes the Exceptional State The state of exception results in a catastrophe that encompasses the entire earth—even when immigration reform encourages more emigration. This is why. “In antithesis to the historical idea of restoration. In Political Theology Schmitt responded to Benjamin’s critique of the dialectic between constituent power and constituted power by introducing the concept of decision. who should decide every time on the exception.. the paradigm of the state of exception is no longer the miracle. a zone of absolute indeterminacy between anomie and law. 246/66). with a further shift. It knows neither redemption nor a hereafter and remains immanent to this world: “The hereafter is emptied of everything that contains the slightest breath of this world . professor of aesthetics at the University of Verona. It is this “white eschatology”—which does not lead the earth to a redeemed hereafter. . with a singular disregard for all philological care. Es gibt eine barocke Eschatologie. a gap opens which no decision is capable of filling. an end of time. State of Exception. And it is again this white eschatology that shatters the correspondence between sovereignty and transcendence . that defined the Schmittian theologico-political. And yet the passage that follows is logically and syntactically consistent with the original reading: “and for that very reason [there is] a mechanism that gathers and exalts all earthly creatures before consigning them to the end [dem Ende].“there is no baroque eschatology” (Benjamin 1928. The sovereign.. but the catastrophe. While in Schmitt “the sovereign is identified with God and occupies a position in the state exactly analogous to that attributed in the world to the God of the Cartesian system” (Schmitt 1922. between the monarch and God. Where Benjamin’s text read. have corrected it to read: Es gibt keine . which in Dictatorship was the foundation of commissarial dictatorship. between power and its exercise. as a vacuum. It no longer appears as the threshold that guarantees the articulation between an inside and an outside. 246/66) An unfortunate emendation in the text of the Gesammelte Schriften has prevented all the implications of this shift from being assessed. 43/46). this eskhaton is empty. it focuses state action on the exception. p.

The thought of security bears within it an essential risk. A state which has security as its sole task and source of legitimacy is a fragile organism. which justifies securitizing the state of exception. 9/20 //shree) Today we face extreme and most dangerous developments in the thought of security. convinced that terrorism was the only answer to the guerrilla phenomenon in Algeria and Indochina. now becomes the sole criterium of political legitimation. security becomes the basic principle of state activity. In the course of a gradual neutralization of politics and the progressive surrender of traditional tasks of the state. When politics. the way it was understood by theorists of the "science of police" in the eighteenth century. Agamben ‘1 (Giorgio. who thought of himself as a patriot. the Organisation de l©ˆArmée Secrète (OAS). We should not forget that the first major organization of terror after the war. it can always be provoked by terrorism to become itself terroristic. . the difference between state and terrorism threatens to disappears.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 21 Agamben K Link: Terrorist Exclusion Reform The 1AC reproduces terror discursively. professor at the University of Verona. On Security and Terror. was established by a French general. What used to be one among several definitive measures of public administration until the first half of the twentieth century. In the end security and terrorism may form a single deadly system. reduces itself to police. in which they justify and legitimate each others’ actions.

and complicated by an incomplete documentary trail. sexuality. communal sense. . In US vs. Didier Bigo suggests that within the European context the emergence of a cohort of migration managers has shifted policing “from the control of and hunt for individual criminals . and on small-scale narratives of dispositions and their intended consequences. mechanism of shame that makes one blush at expressing any bad thought. In US v. Timothy Mitchell. and Mountz have discussed the ways that governmental bureaucracies enact specific roles within an administrative structure. as it becomes a condition. discomfort. yet governmental interests in stopping smuggling at the border are high indeed. This lighter “reasonable suspicion” standard is applied to other travelers at the airport. uninterrupted examination. “States don’t deal with strange peculiarities of networked and virtualised individuals. . we must turn to anthropologists or sociologists of the border.”75 The credibility of the entrant’s story becomes crucial to the decision to admit or reject. gender. through some political technology of individuals. These social scripts are reached through the auto-confession of the body . exclusion looms. . Terror is similar to alimentary canal smuggling (swallowing balloons of cocaine in this instance). which is not viscerally visible. . It is clear that the right to be presumed innocent or to have a fair trial must be held in abeyance at the border under the twin rubrics of efficiency and security. Heyman develops a broad model. but that we come to manage ourselves through the confessionary complex.”64 The confessionary complex is a structure framed by law and instantiated in various practices at the border (and in the faces of agents of the state). to the surveillance of socalled risk groups. they prefer to keep the subject within the more knowable constraints of identity. examination. What are these profiles? How are they managed? How are decisions made? Since Agamben neglects this moment of decision. and language skills as evidence of class. at the border the document is compared to the body which is compared to the story. Biopolitics. as a part of nation or of a state. and hence of their identity. Psychologist Paul Ekman trains law enforcement officials and others in his theory of “micro-expressions. and exhaustive confession” and “appears as an indispensable component of the government of men by each other.69 Gilboy charts how immigration inspectors informally share experiences that lead to the supplementing of official risk profiles with national stereotypes. The exceptional application of law in this instance is also revealing of the weakness of Agamben in explaining the moment of decision. This leads to consideration of the agents of discretion. defined by using criminology and statistics. social group. Heyman.”73 These ethnographies of the bureaucracy suggest there is a slippage between risk profiles and stereotypes. Foucault describes the importance of “the way by which. . The case revolved around a drug smuggler detained due to a number of suspicious activities that met a particular profile. an essential reference of their collective. The examination at the border is a corporeal documentary affair.”67 Thus. leads to the rule by decision. The court upheld that meeting an established profile would lead to reasonable suspicion and thus grant law enforcement the authority to stop the traveler. Montoya de Hernandez.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 22 Agamben K Link: Visa Eligibility Expansion Makes People Self-Police (1/2) Visa eligibility necessitates biopolitics—they force subjects to participate in self-policing Slater ‘6 (Mark B. through the presumption in training that the examined body will confess even if the soul is reluctant. the standard of probable cause is held in abeyance at the body/border. may meet the standard of reasonable suspicion.70 Heyman describes the “thought-work” of immigration officers. confession) provides a crucial link between the “political economy of the body”62 and the biopolitical governmentality of international management of populations. he points to “covert classifications” used by officers to structure their discretionary decisions. tied with the exceptional state of the border.”63 Balibar relates the governmental function of the border as the limit of community to the process of identity-formation: “The normality of the national citizen-subject .”66 Thus. face. . ethnicity. is also internalized by individuals. the systems persist in relying on stereotypical images. School of Poli Sci @ U of Ottawa. Sokolaw.”74 The reliance on technology to cope with the rapidly increasing number and variety of risk profiles should be viewed with skepticism: “Notwithstanding the increasing appeal to sophisticated computer-based models within geodemographics. As a consequence. the confessionary complex (obedience. a decision that is always made on the basis of insufficient evidence and mistrust of the speaker.” by which interrogators can learn the self- . as a part of a social entity.”61 Though not traced by Foucault himself. and “apparent social class. with some specific implications for the policing of populations. The Global Visa Regime and the Political Technologies of the International Self: Borders. If the isomorphism between this body-dossier-narrative tests the guard’s credibility. consisting of developing conceptual schema through which to apply abstract rules to specific cases. anxiety. the Supreme Court held that for offense for which there will be “no external signs…inspectors will rarely possess probably cause to arrest or search. This is doubly true in the case of terrorism. clothes. . in that the signs of the bad intent are secondary: nervousness. borders cease to be purely external realities. posture.72 The covert classification is made according to perceived “moral worth. It also is assumed to happen through the examination process. This confessionary complex is also written on the body in terms of embodied anxiety and the signs of untruth: “a .68 Consequently the test of reasonable suspicion. we have been led to recognize ourselves as a society.71 In his evaluation of the thoughtwork of officers on the US/Mexico border. In addition to a legal superstructure. Bodies. focusing as he does on the capacity for decision.”65 As with general searches at the border. As Gillian Fuller suggests. teeth. However the moment of decision must be disaggregated. reasonable suspicion must be visible not only in the body but in the mind of a border guard. the court argued that adherence to a law enforcement profile. It is not simply that the international population is managed. . gendered language under erasure) This part of the mechanism for the creation of the modern subject who knows himself in relation to the confessionary state is a function of “unconditional obedience.” “national origins stereotypes” similar to those elaborated by Gilboy. which does not meet the standard of probable cause. Alternatives 31 P 180-3//shree. so that we may not infer practice from policy documents alone. . This auto-confession happens through the interpretation of body.

but the whole. entire. and confession. about our intentions. self-policing truth. confession. and examination thus binds the mobile subject to the sovereign. .”77 Small talk and jokes are dangerous because they express untruths. along with our documents. These regulations against joking and small talk train travelers to self-police their speech and behavior to present a low-risk profile toward the authority figure. But border examiners rely on the anxiety of the passenger and themselves to affect obedience. Like doctors.” Other technologies on offer to the security apparatus of the state include heat cameras that detect blush responses around the eyes during deception and motion sensors that detect awkward or abnormal movement. described by one agent as training in “one of these things is not like the other. If we do not confess in a way that echoes with the story that the examiner has told him/herself about us. a corporeal lens makes visible to us the ways in which the body comes to testify. “you should never joke or make ‘small talk’ about bombs. moral quality. Thus. utility.76 Training for Canada Customs agents in the past has focused on this kind of visual acuity. The ritual of obedience. The confessionary dynamic is illustrated by the ubiquitous “no joking” rule now posted at most airports. we must all tell the truth to agents of the state: not just the truth from a certain point of view. firearms or other weapons while going through pre-board screening. In the words of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. character. examination. and social and economic origins. then we are suspect. and teachers. but does not accord him/her rights. judges.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 23 Agamben K Link: Visa Eligibility Expansion Makes People Self-Police (2/2) confessing secrets of facial expressions that last one twenty-fifth of a second.

ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree

24 Agamben K

Link: AT Rights Turn
New link—the aff’s claim that they’re good enough masks liberalism’s exclusionary impulses Brown 4 (Wendy, Professor of Political Theory @ UC Berkeley, “The Most We Can Hope For…Human Rights and the Politics of
Fatalism.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 103:2/3, Spring/Summer p 461-2)

It is an old ruse of liberal reformers, in pursuing agendas that have significant effects in excess of the explicit reform, to insist that all they are doing is a bit of good or holding back the dark. On this view, rights simply set people free to make the world as they see fit—they do not have normative-or subject-producing dimensions; they do not carry cultural assumptions or aims; they do not prescribe or proscribe anything; they do not configure the political in a particular way or compete with other political possibilities or discourses. They simply expand autonomy and choice. I have suggested otherwise and in deciding whether the reduction of suffering promised by human rights is the ‘‘most we can hope for,’’ I have argued that we must take account of that which rights discourse does not avow about itself. It is a politics and it organizes political space, often with the aim of monopolizing it. It also stands as a critique of dissonant political projects, converges neatly with the requisites of liberal imperialism and global free trade, and legitimates both as well. If the global problem today is defined as terrible human suffering consequent to limited individual rights against abusive state powers, then human rights may be the best tactic against this problem. But if it is diagnosed as the relatively unchecked globalization of capital, postcolonial political deformations, and superpower imperialism combining to disenfranchise peoples in many parts of the first, second, and third worlds from the prospects of self-governance to a degree historically unparalleled in modernity, other kinds of political projects, including other international justice projects, may offer a more appropriate and far-reaching remedy for injustice defined as suffering and as systematic disenfranchisement from collaborative self-governance. In addition to the question of how one diagnoses the present ills of the world, there is another question here, a genuine question, about the nature of our times. Is the prevention or mitigation of suffering promised by human rights the most that can be hoped for at this point in history? Is
this where we are, namely, at a historical juncture in which all more ambitious justice projects seem remote if not utopian by comparison with the task of limiting abuses of individuals? Is the prospect of a more substantive democratization of power so dim that the relief and reduction of human suffering is really all that progressives can hope for? If so, then human rights politics probably deserves the support of everyone who cares about such suffering. But if there are still other historical possibilities, if progressives have not yet

arrived at this degree of fatalism, then we would do well to take the measure of whether and how the centrality of human rights discourse might render those other political possibilities more faint.

ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree

25 Agamben K

Internal Link: Securitization Leads to War
Securitization breeds war as a permanent condition and banishes us to bare life Moretti ‘3 (Ben, Der Standard, 2/3, http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime@bbs.thing.net/msg00101.html)
It is the suspension of such procedures that, according to Giorgio Agamben, characterizes the state of emergency, in which all sovereign power is assumed by the police. It surely is no coincidence that the new interventions are often likened to police operations, quite as if they were a matter of the superpower's official duties. In a paradoxical way, this state of emergency seems to establish itself as a permanent condition in which the difference between "war" and "peace" becomes obsolete because both terms are dissolved in the technological spectacle of "security" - a kind of cold peace that rests on the permanent possibility of war. Consequently, the appeal speaks of "peace" only in conjunction with "security", while arguing in favour of war. Already now many speak of "the war" against Iraq, not of "a possible" war. But "the war" has always already begun, it has its place in peace . As Brecht writes, "Their
war kills what their peace has left". The appeal of the "new Europe" shows that the argument for peace as security is an implicit argument for war, and postulates war as an instrument of peace. This becomes possible when in the state of emergency the moral criterion of justice is dissolved in the technological criterion of "precision" (strategists have already pointed at the increased precision of the weapons systems to be used against Iraq), and the democratic criterion of an

open debate is substituted by the tactical criterion of speed and trick. In this way, the justification of war is annulled by being placed within the police / military logic of the state of emergency, where and can be deployed smoothly and efficiently, much like an artillery gun or a aircraft carrier . The military
notion of unity is placed above the democratic notion of difference. In all this, the present can only be understood as a result of past wars (more precisely: victories), and violence becomes more natural with each further war: more difficult to identify and name, more difficult to distinguish from what happens anyway, more problematic to ward off. With every new war, it becomes more

difficult to argue in favour of peace without being viewed as insane or irresponsible. As a result, aside from killing of people and destroying resources, aside from the suffering generated, wars such as the one which is now being prepared turn the intellectual landscape into a desert. Their unnamed casualties include the intellectual foundations which would make it possible to think of politics as something different from security. Perhaps, after "Desert Shield" and "Desert Storm", it would be appropriate to name the
coming invasion "Desert Peace". (How could we not think that a system that can no longer function at all except on the basis of emergency would not also be interested in preserving such an emergency at any price?) This is that case also and above

all because naked life, which was the hidden foundation of sovereignty, has meanwhile become the dominant form of life everywhere. Life — in its state of exception that has now become the norm — is the naked life that in every context separates the forms of life from their cohering into a form-of-life .
The Marxian scission between man and citizen is thus superceded by the division between naked life (ultimate and opaque bearer of sovereignty) and the multifarious forms of life abstractly recodified as social-juridical identities (the voter, the worker, the journalist, the student, but also the HIV-positive, the transvestite, the porno star, the elderly, the parent, the woman) that all rest on naked life. The

state of exception is the reduction of humanity to the homo sacer, the life that can be killed but not sacrificed. The person stripped of citizenship, held at undisclosed locations, possibly subject to torture, unable to make any claim whatever to human rights (in as much as those rights are predicated on the power of a nationstate to recognize them) can be killed or disappeared but nothing more. This "recognition" of human rights, the power of the State to see in us a humanity deserving of such rights, is failing under a system where proof of our guilt has become always already visible. Identity papers are no longer visible evidence of rights inasmuch as a piece of clothing, a gesture, an utterance is enough to supercede our citizenship and banish us to naked life.

ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree

26 Agamben K

Impact: Internment
The affirmative divides Being between the living and the dead, producing both the normative subject of the law and a concomitant zone of indistinction between the two poles where the Muselmann arises as the zero point of atrocity, annihilating meaning and value. Agamben 99 (Giorgio, Professor of Philosophy at University of Verona, Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive, 155-157)
In the light of the preceding reflections, a third formula can be said to insinuate itself between the other two, a

formula that defines the most specific trait of twentieth-century biopolitics: no longer either to make die or to make live, but to make survive. The decisive activity of biopower in our time consists in the production not of life or death, but rather of a mutable and virtually infinite survival. In every case, it is a matter of dividing animal life from organic life, the human from the inhuman, the witness from the Muselmann, conscious life from vegetative life maintained functional through resuscitation techniques, until a threshold is reached: an essentially mobile threshold that, like the borders of geopolitics, moves according to the progress of scientific and political technologies.Biopower’s supreme ambition is to produce, in a human body, the absolute separation of the living being and the speaking being, zoe and bios, the inhuman and the human — survival. This is why in the camp, the Muselmann— like the body of the overcomatose person and the neomort attached to life-support systems today— not only shows the efficacy of biopower, but also reveals its secret cipher,so to speak its arcan urn. In his De arcanhs publicarurn (1605), Clapmar distinguished in the structure
of power between a visible face (jus imperil) and a hidden face (arcan urn, which he claims derives from arca, jewel casket or coffer). In contemporary biopolitics, survival is the point in which the two faces coincide, in which the arcan urn imperli comes to light as such. This is why it remains, as it were, invisible in its very exposure, all the more hidden for showing itself as such. In the Muselmann, biopower sought to produce its final secret: a survival separated from every possibility of testimony , a

kind of absolute biopolitical substance that, in its isolation, allows for the attribu tion of demographic, ethnic, national, and political identity. If, in the jargon of Nazi bureaucracy, whoever participated in the “Final Solution”
was called a Geheimnistriiger, a keeper of secrets, the Muselmann is the absolutely unwitnessable, invisible ark of biopower. Invisible because empty, because the Muselmann is nothing other than the volkioser Raum, the space empty of people at the center of the camp that, in separating all life from itself, marks the point in which the citizen passes into theStaatsangeh~irige of non-Aryan descent, the non-Aryan into the Jew, the Jew into the deportee and, finally, the deported Jew beyond himself into the Muselmann,that is, into a bare, unassignable and unwitness-

able life.

poverty and exclusion are not only economic and social concepts but also eminently political categories. according to different modalities and horizons. which have all been united in the plan to produce one single and undivided people — an ulti mately futile plan that. p. it has undergone in our time one last and paroxysmal acceleration.) From this perspective. rather. sovereignty is entrusted solely to the people. If the struggle between the two peoples has always been in process. the split internal to the people was juridically sanctioned by the clear distinction between populus and plebs—each with its own institutions and magistrates —just as in the Middle Ages the division between artisans [popolo minu to] and merchants [popolo grasso] used to correspond to a precise articulation of different arts and crafts. Such an attempt brings together. meaning. or. professor of philosophy at the College International de Philosophie in Paris. both the right and the left. our time is nothing other than the methodical and implacable attempt to fill the split that divides the people by radically eliminating the people of the excluded. . starting with the French Revolution. The obsession with development is so effective in our time because it coincides with the biopolitical plan to produce a people without fracture. In the modern age. both capitalist countries and socialist countries. in fact. 33-34//shree) If this is the case—if the concept of people necessarily contains within itself the fundamental biopolitical fracture—it is possible to read anew some decisive pages of the history of our century. and poverty and exclusion appear for the first time as an intolerable scandal in every sense. Means Without End: Notes on Politics. the people become an embarrassing presence.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 27 Agamben K Impact: Massacres Biopolitical management thru visas create the notion of an undivided people which necessitates purging all that is difference Agamben 2K (Giorgio. (The economism and “socialism” that seem to dominate modern politics actually have a political. a biopolitical. however. has been partially realized in all industrialized countries. In ancient Rome. But when.

H. ttat et sante’. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. It thus aims to fortify the health of the people as a whole and to eliminate influences that harm the biological growth of the nation. B.. . From the end of the nineteenth century. is that these concepts are not treated as external (if binding) criteria of a sovereign decision: they are.. 88). gave National Socialist biopolitics its fundamental conceptual structure. did not limit itself to using and twisting scientific concepts for its own ends.. Morgan and J. almost impossible to identify (in particular. 40). to the formation of the first map of the X chromosome in man and the first certaln identification of hereditary pathological predispositions. National Socialist biopolitics moves. and the care of life coincides with the fight against the enemy. pg. which has by now become biopolitics. von Justi assigned the first a merely negative task. more disturbing. the care of health and the fight against the enemy become absolutely indistinguishable. with Nicolas De Lemare. Yet both Fischer and Verschuer know that a pure race is. Thus the concept of race is defined. more generally. 4: I5o—6i). therefore. eugenic motives and ideological motives. so the physician is responsible for the economy of human values. Race is genetic heredity and nothing but heredity” (in Verschuer. as such immediately political. .” Fischer writes. Foucault has documented the increasing importance that the science of police assumes starting in the eighteenth century. p. Johan Peter Franc. “The National Socialist revolution. Francis Galton’s work functions as the theoretical background for the work of the science of police. neither the Jews nor the Germans constitute a race in the strict sense—and Hitler is just as aware of this when he writes Mein Kampf as when he decides on the Final Solution). absolutized. that he recognize that the level of the people’s health is the condition for economic gain. contrary to a common prejudice. in which the police and politics. the care and growth of the citizens’ life. S. G.. which is understood as the science of a people’s genetic heredity . which had recently discovered the localization of genes in chromosomes (those genes that “are ordered. . The principles of this new biopolitics are dictated by eugenics..” Only from this perspective is it possible to grasp the full sense of the extermination of the Jews. ≤tat et sant4 p. it brings out problems of vital importance for all European civilization. 145-147) Hence the radical transformation of the meaning and duties of medicine. The relationship between National Socialist ideology and the social and biological sciences of the time—in particular. according to this definition. The new fact. during the same years. however. National Socialist biopolitics—and along with it. instead. 84). professor of philosophy at university of Verona. which is increasingly integrated into the functions and the organs of the state: “Just as the economist and the merchant are responsible for the economy of material values. for example.” one reads in the introduction to State and Health. It is not surprising. the fight against the external and internal enemies of the State. rather. “ Racism” (if one understands race to be a strictly biological concept) is. when. “is not determined by the assembly of this or that measurable characteristic. andJ. the very same works of Anglo-Saxon genetics that led. The book does not discuss problems that concern only one people. in now being founded on properly eu genic concerns. It is important to observe that Nazism. as “a group of human beings who manifest a certain combination of homozygotic genes that are lacking in other groups (Verschuer. not the most correct term for the biopolitics of the Third Reich. in accordance with the genetic theories of the age. von Justi. a good part of modern politics even outside the Third Reich— cannot be grasped if it is not understood as necessarily implying the disappearance of the difference between the two terms: the police now becomes politics.” as Fischer writes. that the exemplary reference studies for both Verschuer and Fischer are T. Fluctuations in the biological substance and in the material budget are usually parallel” (ibid. surprising as this may seem. “Race. H. Distinguishing between politics (Politik) and police (Polizei). it takes as its explicit objective the total care of the population (Dits et tCcrzts. Haldane’s experiments on drosophila and. “wishes to appeal to forces that want to exclude factors of biological degeneration and to maintain the people’s hereditary health. “like pearls in a necklace”). . continued to teach genetics and anthropology at the University of Frankfurt even after the fall of the Third Reich) and Fischer (the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology in Berlin) shows beyond a doubt that the genetic research of the time. therefore.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 28 Agamben K Impact: Genocide Biopower necessitates genocide for the sake of the health of the population Agamben 98 (Giorgio. in a horizon in which the “care of life” inherited from eighteenth-century police science is. and the second a positive one. . It is absolutely necessary that the physician contribute to a rationalized human economy. at the same time. . A glance at the contributions of Verschuer (who. of a scale of colors. genetics—is more intimate and complex and. p. as in the case.

on which the politicization and the exceprio of natural life in the juridical order of the state depends. Every society sets this limit. It is even possible that this limit. which still today. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 29 Agamben K Impact: No Value to Life Biopower ensures the devaluation of life Agamben 98 (Giorgio. Nor are we concerned with the radicaliry with which Binding declares himself in favor of the general admissibility of euthanasia.” and can as such be eliminated without punishment .3. professor of philosophy at university of Verona. It is as if every valorization and every “politicization” of life (which. after all. is implicit in the sovereignty of the individual over his own existence) necessarily implies a new decision concerning the threshold beyond which life ceases to be politically relevant. Bare life is no longer confined to a particular place or a definite category. be killed without the commission of a homicide. . 139-140) 3. More interesting for our inquiry is the fact that the sovereignty of the living man over his own life has its immediate counterpart in the determination of a threshold beyond which life ceases to have any juridical value and can. pg. in certain countries. has done nothing but extend itself in the history of the West and has now— in the new biopolitical horizon of states with national sovereignty—moved inside every human life and every citizen. The new juridical category of “life devoid of value ” (or “life unworthy of being lived”) corresponds exactly—even if in an apparently different direction—to the bare life of homo sacer and can easily be extended beyond the limits imagined by Binding. occupies a substantial position in medical debates and provokes disagreement. therefore. every society—even the most modern—decides who its “sacred men” will be. becomes only “sacred life. It now dwells in the biological body of every living being. It is not our intention here to take a position on the difficult ethical problem of euthanasia.

and projection into the future. considers the event. what this document outlines is a civilizational project machined to a necropolitics. reason. biopolitics. political (it gives the security state the aura of a need). In the future. determining each other in a dance of pure repetition. time itself. communities. and always surveil citizens and immigrants and thereby multiply the borders to be policed (and. biopolitics. They interpenetrate at each moment. present has given way to the anxieties of the present-future.38 In that sense its immediate precursor and ally is the technology of insurance. economic (the economics of fear drives the billions of dollars spent on everything from spy planes to home security systems). In insurance. what enunciations are heard. to values or capitals possessed or represented by a collectivity of individuals: that is to say. "The future can only be anticipated in the form of an absolute danger. there is no risk in reality. and humanity. The sliding between the securely fixed and the terrifyingly unmoored that names the essential dynamic of counterterrorism technologies generates specific kinds of self-legitimating exchange values that have innumerable trajectories and their own surplus: cultural (counterterrorism revalues Western civilization). an implicitly Christian cosmology gives its adherents a sense of mission. . and discourse. it all depends on how one analyzes the danger."41 which demonstrates the discursive kinship to ecological risk. as Achille Mbembe has so movingly shown. it is the enunciation of the stereotype that is crucial to this paradox). But these terms—pre-sent. and now. As if projecting itself into an always already mastered future. and the rule of law govern who has a voice. what becomes possible through this preliminary diagram of terrorist risk is the return of the early modern practice of a "good risk. With every new body bag and suicide bomber the value of "danger" goes up. it is a means of price setting on the promise that a future is attainable. and the parameters of debate. anything can be a risk. as a sort of monstrosity. civilizational burden unequally shared between members of a risk community. the sliding between structure and network returns here in the form of a sort of insurance value. Adorno once called it. Terrorist risk is both an acknowledgment of the limits of knowledge and a kind of abstract but very real spur forever driving into the bodies of these men and women. Thus when Randy Martin states that risk "is a rhetoric of the future that is really about the present. danger is revalued as a civilizational value. It is that which breaks absolutely with constituted normality and can only be proclaimed. That is why the civilized are waging an unending war. like panopticism. and affective (fear itself has been given Risk is at once the technology of the future that calls forth all the arts of prediction that science can conjure in its mission to master the future and the abstract machine that diagrams our present. countries. when it will come. an impossible becoming-totalitarian. counterintelligence. better. future-oriented. and. necropolitics. Counterterrorism.40 Terrorist risk engenders a nation or. Bhabha so brilliantly points out. Thus. and it will certainly come. risk (financial or terroristic) is not merely a rhetoric—it is an abstract machine whose shiny surfaces do not reflect or signify something as much as they form assemblages with other machines. the "subaltern public sphere" is another version of it—where civility. containment. Its analysis is predicated on the fixity of implacably opposed political forces whose only resolution resides in the murderous destiny of the United States to manage democracy for the world (it is our "calling. presented. if "the United States will confront the threat of terrorism for the foreseeable future.42 In that sense. once again. meanwhile." one must see that.43 In any case. on the same plane of immanence. rationality."44 Because terrorist risk is both a burden of civilization for the transnational risk community against the axis of evil and a mission for the truth. where the risk of terrorism is neutralized before actualization. there will be no terrorism. its seemingly infinite proliferation only means that all we are saying is beside the point: we must exterminate the brutes. But all dissent of course is treason in a state of emergency. Prof of English @ FSU. the good. the time of counterterrorism discourse is always in a future that is continuous with a fixed and romanticized national past. risk names a [End Page 92] procedure of assessment.45 This civilizational project also puts in place specific spaces of participation and resistance—artificial negativity." Counterterrorism is a technology that dreams of managing and mastering this monstrosity by targeting subjectivities. Members of that community would include the capitalist elite from all countries." the counterterrorism imaginary aspires to the total management of this "foreseeable" political risk. strategies and rationalities of discipline. Derrida once said. of course. is a war machine that assembles. a population. microtechnologies of surveillance and policing— everything from a total awareness database to eye recognition software—operate at speeds up to a hundred times faster than current computer processors. the term risk designates neither "an event nor a general kind of event occurring in reality (the unfortunate kind) but a specific mode of treatment of certain events capable of happening to a group of individuals—or. the future is now: the ambivalence of the a new value after 9/11). Social Text 22:3//shree) But perhaps most crucial is the very grammar involved: the obsessive use of the future tense signals both a founding anxiety of (and in) this discourse and the drawing of the subject of counterterrorism to the pleasures of the always as yet unimagined. the terrorist threat draws its enemies (the civilized subjects [End Page 93] of modern risk communities) to a future that has already excluded it. and second. to detain. in the present. first. Asst Prof of Gender @ Rutgers and Amit. Moreover. to connect bodies to security machines.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 30 Agamben K Impact: Terrorism Reform Leads to Unending War The rhetoric of terrorism is a political construct used to manage the future through future surveillance and vigilance—this results in extermination Puar and Rai 4 (Jasbir. "free and open economies" (it goes without saying today that a very closed capitalist restructuring is implied by this phrase) are enshrined in its charter. harass. Nothing is a risk in itself . but not all could exercise equally the right to articulate a position in a "collectively binding" process of "decision making. or necropolitics. future—are no longer actually operative in community formations of terrorist risk." as President Bush says). market-savvy subjective forms are produced through its normalization practices. this anxiety is itself a temporality." which is affirmative and designed to be "embraced for self-betterment. as Homi K. As we have shown."39 In the counterterrorism imaginary. driving them to produce absolute knowledge of the other. more exactly. As strategy. and so the spaces of resistance alternate as holding cells as well. civilization is the nodal point for multiple axes of power: a normalizing sexuality as well as a white supremacist agenda operate through it. But on the other hand. indeed.

bio-political and even sovereign interventions.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 31 Agamben K Impact AT: Liberalism Stops Biopower Liberalism becomes totalitarianism when it becomes concerned with biopolitical management Hoffmann 7 (Kasper. but instead through an endless process of comparison and normalization” (Ewald 1990: 152). my translation). Modern so-called “liberal” practices of government therefore also entail ‘illiberal’ aspects (see Hindess 2001. there is a long history of people who. even if the norm has allowed modern biopower to transform negative restraints of power into more positive controls or normalisation. values are not defined a priori. or micro populations. However. Governance is now exercised at the level of life and of the population. for one reason or another. bio-politics is not confined to liberal forms of rule: liberalism just makes the articulation in a specific way.ruc. Within the normative system. the focus is on the fostering and promotion of life. economic development. the dangerous etc. at least. the savage. bio-politics. responsibility) required of the juridical and political subjects of rights and who are therefore subjected to all sorts of disciplinary. there seems to be a kind of inescapable connection between the power to foster life and the power to disqualify life which is characteristic of bio-power. Dean 1999 Chapter 7). the delinquent. By aligning delinquent or abnormal subjectivities (through. Rather than denying that non-liberal practices are indeed an integral part of all forms of liberal democratic government. does not put an end to the practice of war. Within liberal forms of government . International Development Studies at Roskilde University. thought. (Dean 1999: 134) The list of those so subjected would include at various times those furnished with the status of the indigent. Militarised Bodies and Spirits of Resistance. spirituality etc. It is through the systematic accumulation of knowledge about certain social problems and deviations that we come to know the normal and the norm that stabilise and indicate it in social contexts (Ewald 1990: 140). are deemed not to possess or to display the attributes (e. Thus. or even elimination of life at the level of entire populations. the normal order.g. as concrete political method of security. the native. concepts of the norm and normal have played a kind mediating role in the formulation and execution of normative projects (Canguilhem 2005 [1966]. In such circumstances the community calls upon its fundamental right to exist as such and thus evokes its right to deny the right to life of those who are seen as a threat to the life of that same population. abnormality is inscribed upon individual “other” bodies. In modern processes of government. Therefore. so that normality can only be understood in relation to the abnormal. autonomy. In Foucault’s account. the degenerate. It intensifies the killing. This brings us to the heart of Foucault’s challenging thesis about biopolitics. http://diggy. Through the establishment of the norm. human development. such as authoritarian or totalitarian forms. Ewald 1990). This new scope allows the actual neutralization. Other types of rule. the homosexual. also depend on the elements of a biopolitics that is concerned with the detailed administration of life . Rose has made the point that the “very notion of normality has emerged out of a concern with types of conduct. can be restored allowing normative goals to be considered “for the good”: “[T]he good is figured in terms of adequacy – the good product is adequate to the purpose it was meant to serve. May. This allows us to consider what might be thought of as the dark side of bio-politics (Dean 1999: 139). the species.) to the norm. though in certain circumstances this fundamental “security” of the population is experienced as threatened. and wars will be waged at that level on behalf of the “security” of each and all. namely that there is an intimate connection between the exercise of a life-administering power and the commission of genocide: “If genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers […] it is because power is located at the level of life. whether by “ethnic cleansing” that visits holocausts upon whole groups or by the mass slaughter of classes and groups in the name of the utopia to be achieved. the feeble-minded. expression deemed troublesome or dangerous” (Rose 1996: 26). The emergence of a bio-political racism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries can be approached as a trajectory in which the demand for a homogenous social space articulated by the norm appears to turn into a life necessity. and the large-scale phenomena of population ” (Foucault 1976: 180.dk:8080/handle/1800/2766 //shree) In modern forms of government. it is still producing dangerous subjectivities. it provides it with renewed scope. for instance. the race. techniques of pedagogy. health. we could see the will to establish the authority of liberal democracy – this will to power – as an element of sovereignty in the heart of the “democracy”. casting certain deviations as both internal dangers to the body politic and as inheritable legacies that threatens the well-being of race: On behalf of the existence of everyone entire populations are mobilised for the . Liberalism always contains the possibility of non-liberal interventions in the lives of those who do not possess the attributes required to be a “citizen”.

but also Gypsies. It fragments the biological field and establishes a break within the biological continuum of human beings by defining a hierarchy of races. Thus. and in its most radical form it is a means of introducing a fundamental distinction between those who must live and those who must die. Bolsheviks and other inassimilable elements. Foucault understands racism as a sort of permanent feature of biopower and not as the paroxysmal convulsion of a decaying moral order (Stoler. that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars. my translation. a set of subdivisions in which certain races are classified as “good”. the more you kill and let die. normalising governmental rationalities and their bio-political technologies. Foucault’s argument is that racism is not only confined within those obviously racist forms of authoritarian government such as the German Nationalist Socialist state. as an “excess” of biopower that does away with life in the name of securing it. homosexuals. It is essential to note that racism as a biopolitical practice does not draw on a particular theory of race – it does not need to. It is worth remembering that the Nazi concentration camps housed not only Jews. It is as managers of life and survival. death. but a fundamental feature of modern processes of government.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 32 Agamben K Impact AT: Liberalism Stops Biopower purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of the life necessity: massacres have become vital. war does more than reinforce one’s own kind by eliminating a racial adversary: it “regenerates” one’s own race (Stoler 1995: 56). By showing how racism possesses a polyvalent mobility. Within this bio-political practice the sovereign right to kill appears in a new form. in modern biopolitical practice. he shows that racism is not merely an ideological discourse of exceptionally cruel regimes. of bodies and the race. causing so many men to be killed…at stake is the biological existence of a population. production and illness. To sum up. fit and superior (Stoler 1995: 84). It therefore establishes a positive relation between the right to kill and the assurance of life. Instead racism designates a much more general practice which introduces a rift in the biological continuum that is the human species between those who are worthy of citizenship and those who are not. (Foucault 1976: 180. but that it is intrinsic to the nature of all modern. Internal threats to the health and wellbeing of a social body come from those who were deemed to lack an ethics of “how to live” and thus the ability to govern themselves. It posits that. 1995: 64). emphasis) Bio-politics presides over the processes of birth. the more you will live. It acts on the human species. .

Each foregrounds the self-immolating logic that ineluctably applies in a politics of life that understands life biologically. .”28 In racism. moreover. When recalling the significance of the Christian pastorate to biopolitics. “but the care of ‘all living’ is the foundation of biopower. comprehensively subject to biopolitical governance in such a way that life shows up as nothing but the material required for biopolitical governance. in biopolitics. Ojakangas says: “Foucault’s biopower has nothing to do with that [Agamben] kind of bare life. It has to. the biologised life of biopolitics also raises the issue of a life threatened in supremely violent and novel ways. ‘care for all living’ threatens life in its own distinctive ways. Foucault’s biopolitics concerns an historically biologised life whose biologisation continues to mutate as the life sciences themselves offer changing interpretations and technical determinations of life.26 Power over life must adjudicate punishment and death as it distributes live across terrains of value that the life sciences constantly revise in the cause of life’s very promotion. So it does for Agamben. There is a value in it.”29 But: “The specificity of modern racism. No. Foucault insists: “We are dealing with a mechanism that allows biopower to work. Being cared to death poses the issue of the life that is presupposed.” I agree. “Not bare life that is exposed to an unconditional threat of death.24 For Foucault. That done. One. also. with the technology of power. It is bound up with the techniques of power. Foucault Studies. ideologies or the lies of power. For Agamben’s loathing of biopolitics is I think more ‘true’ to the burgeoning suspicion and fear that progressively marked Foucault’s reflections on it than Ojakangas’ account can give credit for. perhaps the difference needs however to be both marked differently and interrogated differently. or nomologically. Biopower deserves presumption of suspicion because it justifies violent intervention. 2. Emphasising care for all living . is the reason why the modernising developmental politics of biopolitics go racist: “So you can understand the importance – I almost said the vital importance – of racism to such an exercise of power.the promotion. Dillon 5 (Michael. p. is not bound up with mentalities. in the way that Foucault documents for us. nomologically for Agamben and biologically for Foucault. which threatens to elide the intrinsic violence of biopolitics and its essential relation with correction and death. The threshold of modernity is reached when the life of the species is wagered on its own (bio) political strategies. Exploring that value requires another ethic of reading in addition to that of the exegesis required to mark it out. in the way that Agamben’s bare life contends. There is however much more going on in this ‘betrayal’ than misconstruction and misinterpretation.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 33 Agamben K Impact AT: Ojakangas Even if biopolitics necessitates care for part of the population. May. protects and invests life. Prof of Politics and International Relations at Lancaster University.” (emphasis in the original). then. Massacres have become vital. but differently and in a different way. or what gives it its specificity. It does teach us how to punish and who to kill. biopolitics prompts a revision of the question of life and especially of the life of a politics that is not exhaustively biologised. whether in terms posed by Foucault or Agamben. 43-44) The key point of dispute with Ojakangas concerns the self-immolating logic of biopolitics . In posing an intrinsic and unique threat to life through the very ways in which it promotes. since he concentrates on providing the exegetical audit required to mark it out rather than evaluate it. That is also why we now have a biopolitics gone geopolitically global in humanitarian wars of intervention and martial doctrines of virtuous war. I have argued that there is a certain betrayal in the way Agamben reworks Foucault. it REQUIRES that subsections of the population be perpetually annihilated so that the rest can optimize the quality of their lives. Ojakangas seems to emphasize a line of succession rather than of radical dissociation.” he says in the introduction to his paper. Biopolitics must and does recuperate the death function. This biologised life of biopolitics nonetheless also raises the stake for Foucault of a life that is not a biologised life. protection and investment of the life of individuals and populations – elides the issue of being cared to death. but again differently and for the same complex of reasons. 25 In contesting Agamben in the ways that he does. Ojakangas marks an important difference. between Foucault and Agamben. So it does for Agamben.27 Here.”30 In thus threatening life.

it is that modern democracy presents itself from the beginning as a vindication and liberation of zoe and that it is constantly trying to transform its own bare life into a way of life and to find. which would authorize the liquidation and leveling of the enormous differences that characterize their history and their rivalry. This idea alone will make it possible to clear the way for new politics. modern democracy’s specific aporia: it wants to put the freedom and happi ness of men into play in the very place—”bare life”—that marked their subjection. the one place for both the organization of State power and emancipation from it. professor of philosophy at university of Verona. together with the process by which the exception everywhere becomes the rule. too. in the sense that what characterizes modern politics is not so much the inclusion of zoe in the polis—which is. at the very moment in which it seemed to have finally triumphed over its adversaries and reached its greatest height. in which human life is included in the juridical order [ordinamento]’ solely in the form of its exclusion (that is. When its borders begin to be blurred. absolutely ancient—nor simply the fact that life as such becomes a principal object of the projections and calculations of State power. what the camps taught those who lived there was precisely that “calling into question the quality of man provokes an almost biological assertion of belonging to the human race (Le’spece humaine. the realm of bare life—which is originally situated at the margins of the political order—gradually begins to coincide with the political realm. and whose essential function in modern politics we intend to assert. Instead the decisive fact is that. rather. with every caution. According to the testimony of Robert Antelme. proved itself incapable of saving zoe to whose happiness it had dedicated all its efforts.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 34 Agamben K Impact AT: Biopower Good (Foucaultian Zoe) The 1AC’s politics of inclusion participates in a ceaseless decision on bare life—modern democracy and its bedrock of rights is capable of genocidal violence Agamben 98 (Giorgio. which remains largely to be invented. completed. from unprecedented ruin. then. 8-11//shree) The protagonist of this book is bare life. At the same time. in itself. These processes—which in many ways oppose and (at least apparently) bitterly conflict with each other—nevertheless converge insofar as both concern the bare life of the citizen. so to speak. An obscure figure of archaic Roman law. Behind the long. in which man as a living being presents himself no longer as an object but as the subject of political power. however. and exclusion and inclusion. p. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. at least. has thus offered the key by which not only the sacred texts of sovereignty but also the very codes of political power will unveil their mysteries. who may be killed and yet not sacrificed. . constitutes the first paradigm of the political realm of the West. another process is set in motion that in large measure corresponds to the birth of modern democracy. of its capacity to be killed). Nazism and fascism—which transformed the decision on bare life into the supreme political principle—will remain stubbornly with us. the new biopolitical body of humanity~ If anything characterizes modern democracy as opposed to classical democracy. strife-ridden process that leads to the recognition of rights and formal liberties stands once again the body of the sacred man with his double sovereign. to try to understand once and for all why democracy. outside and inside. Everything happens as if. At once excluding bare life from and capturing it within the political order. his life that cannot be sacrificed yet may. It is. advance) is obviously not (like Leo Strauss’s thesis concerning the secret convergence of the final goals of liberalism and communism) a historiographical claim. Modern democracy’s decadence and gradual convergence with totalitarian states in post-democratic spectacular societies (which begins to become evident with Alexis de Tocqueville and finds its linal sanction in the analyses of Guy Debord) may well be rooted in this aporia. since it alone will allow us to orient ourselves in relation to the new realities and unforeseen convergences of the end of the millennium. no nonvalue) other than life. To become conscious of this aporia is not to belittle the conquests and accomplishments of democracy. Today politics knows no value (and. nevertheless. The idea of an inner solidarity between democracy and totalitarianism (which here we must. the bios of zoe Hence. the bare life that dwelt there frees itself in the city and becomes both subject and object of the conflicts of the political order. this ancient meaning of the term sacer presents us with the enigma of a figure of the sacred that. consequently. before or beyond the religious. pg. in its very separateness. it). and until the contradictions that this fact implies are dissolved. in fact. enter into a zone of irreducible indistinction. the state of exception actually constituted. The Foucauldian thesis will then have to be corrected or. along with the disciplinary process by which State power makes man as a living being into its own specific object. that is. the hidden foundation on which the entire political system rested. Yet this idea must nevertheless be strongly maintained on a historico-philosophical level. the life of homo sacer (sacred man). which marks the beginning of modern democracy and forces it into complicity with its most implacable enemy. bios and Zoe right and fact. be killed.

on this analysis. is defined by its dependence upon sovereign power for its status. and bios as a specific political way of life. something of homo sacer appears in Aristotle's distinction between zoe as the natural life shared by all animals. Asst Prof in the Dept of Poli Sci @ Louisville. What at first appears an opposition between natural life and political life is rather an implication "of bare life in politically qualified life" (p. Theory & Event. 90). The terminology we are familiar with from modernity.10 Despite periodic uses of bare life and zoe interchangeably. He finds a Roman category in a Greek world that would not have known it. Neither political bios nor natural zoe. regardless of whether it lives a life of happiness or misery. are. As Agamben reports. Like sovereignty.8). and their integration into the exception. . Bare life is distinct from natural life because its precarious status is due to its capture by sovereign power. political life is defined by the exception of natural life. 7). As Agamben explains. 7:2//shree) Although homo sacer is the figure who will "unveil" the mysteries of sovereignty (p. Agamben's account of sovereignty is equally indebted to Greek thought. sacred life is the zone of indistinction in which zoe and bios constitute each other in including and excluding each other (p.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 35 Agamben K Impact AT: Biopower Good (Foucaultian Zoe) Your turn misunderstands biopolitics—biopower is the production of bare life rather than just “life”—Western politics creates a distinction between political and non-political life which requires subsets of the population to be annihilated to care for the population Caldwell ‘4 (Anne. homo sacer is "the hinge on which each sphere [zoe and bios] is articulated at the threshold at which the two spheres are joined in becoming indeterminate . in which sovereignty emerges by capturing life in the exception. This nexus. Agamben here treats zoe (natural life) as bare life or homo sacer. 11 Homo sacer. defines the nature of political belonging in the West. That usage is strange. it belongs to the zone of indeterminacy generated by sovereignty. The good life of the polis emerges from a distinction between natural and political life. especially of contract and rights. secondary phenomena. homo sacer is a creature of the limit. and appears to treat bare life as identical to natural life. their distinction is essential to his argument.

Yet Agamben never suggests this order is necessary.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 36 Agamben K Alternative: Whatever Being Vote negative to endorse Whatever-being in opposition to the affirmative’s maintenance of sovereign power Caldwell 4 (Anne. The total condition that is man refers toan alternative life incapable of serving as the ground of law.Agamben describes this alternative life as "whatever being. Bio-sovereigntyresults from a particular and contingent history. race. If indeed sovereignty is bio-political before it is juridical. 139).a life in which it is never possible to isolate something such as naked life . which it then places in a relation of indeterminacy. geo-political position have become the subjects of rights declarations. and it requires certain conditions. factors that once might have been indifferent to sovereignty become a field for its exercise.mere life is the life which unites law and life. calls for "a new decision concerning the threshold beyond which life ceases to be politically relevant. Attributes such as national status. calls up and depends upon the life caught within sovereignty: homo sacer. finds its grounds in specific coordinates of life. 7. " (2. Agamben's own concept of whatever being is extraordinarily dense. Theory & Event. every further politicization of life. Sovereignty's capture of life has been conditional upon the separation of natural and political life. color. to reduce life an instrument of its own power. From a liberal or cosmopolitan perspective." as described by Agamben. and non-value of life (1998: 142). What follows is only a brief consideration of whatever being. but provides sites for its expansion .2//shree) Can we imagine another form of humanity. Since then. it is also shaped by several particular dense thinkers. in its relation to sovereign power. It is made up of varied concepts." More recently he has used the term "formsof-life. becomes only 'sacred life. Asst Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Louisville. That tie permits law. economic status. Sovereign power. That separation has permitted the emergence of a sovereign power grounded in this distinction. In his earlier Coming Community. Agamben's analysis suggests the contrary. In recent decades.3). in other words. Such a lifewould exist outside sovereignty.' and can as such be eliminated without punishment" (p." For Benjamin and Agamben." These concepts come from the figure Benjamin proposed as a counter to homo sacer: the "total condition that is 'man'. then juridical rights come into being only where life is incorporated within the field of bio-sovereignty. including language and potentiality. in its endless cycle of violence. This expansion of the range of life meriting protection does not limit sovereignty. . as Agamben describes it. What defies sovereign power is a life that cannot be reduced to those determinations: a life "that can never be separated from its form. including Benjamin and Heidegger. sex. in turn. and another form of power? The bio-sovereignty described by Agamben is so fluid as to appear irresistible. such enumerations expand the range of life protected from and serving as a limit upon sovereignty. "Whatever being. religion. and empowered to decide on the value. lacks the features permitting the sovereign capture and regulation of life in our tradition . The language of rights.

[that is. she has already learned how to build one) and it is on that basis that she may decide not to build it. I think we are allowed to clarify and amend the visionary statement found in the “Postilla 2001” to the Coming Community in the following fashion: “Not work.has at the same time the potential not to build it. of not-being. when applied to the political dimension of his project. and thus the argos. and its opposite. Professor of Philosophy at Stanford. of not-doing. then the argos is. Franchi ‘4 (Stefano. As I said above. or rather it is inoperose because it is lazy. Contretemps 5. it is the thought of desoeuvrement as passivity. Agamben remarks that the potentiality of human beings is always the potentiality not to do something(as opposed. She does not need to undergo any any alteration: she has it already (that is. December.”13 The politics to come (à-venir) will be a passive politics. conversely. it is lazy. The architect who knows how to build a house. to the potential not to be. I will limit myself to pointing out an aspect that is not always adequately emphasized. The opposition to the work of man. Agamben moves on to Met. dynamis. and it is lazy because it is always capable.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 37 Agamben K Alternative: Passivity Only a politics of passivity can rupture biopolitics and achieve whatever-being. Theta 1 (1050b10) and remarks that if to be potential means to be in relation to one’s own incapacity. He concludes that “the potential welcomes not-Being. the being of pure dynamis. it follows that it is true a fortiori. . Or. potentiality. If the work of man. on the contrary. then what is potential is capable of both being and not being . it follows that the fundamental problem of Agamben’s thought —and I use the word here in the sense of Sache (des Denkens)—is passivity. and is therefore a potential being. once she has ‘suffered’ the proper alteration). his ergon. that is. 418b-419a1). that is to man in his actuality. to the potentiality of the child who does not know but eventually will. The voyou is not just inoperose. p. fundamental passivity. After having generalized his reading to Aristotle’s treatment to sensation and perception (see de An. is ultimately connected to the notion of energeia.fundamental passivity] are the paradigm of the politics to come (to come.”12 Here I think we have reached our first conclusion: the being of desoeuvrement that is at stake in the definition of the argos is to be found in potentiality as fundamental passivity. does not mean future). The voyou welcomes not-Being and its fundamental passivity is exposed in this welcoming. as a purely potential being. when applied to Agamben’s thought as a whole. that is. If this statement is true in general. to be more precise. as fundamental opening to non-Being. Thus. but inoperosity and decreation. actuality. must be found by a detour through the terms that Aristotle links to it—energeia. and this welcoming of non-Being is potentiality. Since Agamben’s insistence on this concept is rather wellknown. 36-37//shree) We are finally in a position to introduce the notion of passivity . for the reasons briefly mentioned above. for instance.

Dept of Politics @ U of British Columbia. they can’t touch me. “The territorialization of life means that the refugee is put in a position where she lacks apportioned rights but depends on the charity or goodwill of aid workers or the police. and they are able to very effectively frustrate the administrative processing of return programs.’ The Gambians. While the following figures and illustrations all refer to immigration enforcement in Germany. they tell us.” (Rajaram and Grundy-Warr 2004. prosecuting. argue. the hands of the liberal state are tied. ‘if they don’t know who I am. In particular. In the words of Broeders and Engbersen. 108). This act of resistance is far from exceptional. a necessary condition for expulsion from the national territory. ‘if he is Gambian he’ll have to confirm that he’s applying for papers voluntarily. Moreover. But maybe he’s not Gambian. 172). state officers are forced to go “embassy-shopping” in the vague hope of identifying the migrant’s nationality. These self-stripping strategies clearly exemplify the possibility of resistance in the state of exception. The lives of illegal migrants and refugees in many ways exemplify the condition of rightlessness that marks bare life. Presumably the only effective way for states to induce voluntary compliance would be to grant the migrant residence rights—in which case travel documents would of course no longer be needed. The embassy employee tells us. “We need to get papers for a Sudanese national. have sought to escape the state’s reach by destroying or hiding their identity documents. 41) While much has been written on the dehumanizing consequences of the denial of membership.’1 What is important to note is that homo sacer’s ability to render herself unidentifiable is ultimately contingent on bare life. ‘he’s not Liberian. By the year 2000. For the state.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 38 Agamben K Alternative: Identity-Stripping (1/2) The sovereign’s ability to exercise biopolitical control is contingent on identity documents like visas—identity stripping makes resistance possible Ellerman 9 (Antje.’ We go to the Nigerian embassy. it simply cannot expel individuals with unknown identities. p 11-15. … we apply for an interview with the Sudanese embassy. … Finally we get an interview. ‘he’s not from Sudan. In other words. in the case of illegal migrants.”(2008. What are the implications of identitystripping for the exercise of state sovereignty? Confronted with the challenge of expelling an unidentifiable noncitizen across international borders. Many of them are difficult to manage by state officials. ‘there is a good chance that he’s from Nigeria. from the perspective of immigration officers . the inability to execute deportation orders because of missing documents is particularly frustrating because it presents the last in a lengthy chain of administrative actions. they could easily apply to control contexts elsewhere in the advanced democratic world. and detaining deportable immigrants into sunk costs. and. in turn. are regularly perpetrated against the refugee or asylum seeker. Undocumented Migrants and Resistance in the State of Exception. Unless a state seeks to transport individuals surreptitiously to a foreign territory. It is important to recognize that the state’s inability to secure travel documents is directly linked to the individual’s refusal to cooperate. http://www. Levels of innuendo and violence unthinkable to regular human beings. As liberal states have stepped up their deportation efforts. citizens. in particular unsuccessful asylum seekers. 1593) by their citizens. Migrants whose name and nationality is unknown to the state cannot be issued the identity and travel documents on which lawful deportation to another’s state’s territory hinges. In contemporary states. he’s from Liberia.edu/euce/eusa2009/papers/ellermann_02G. Liberal states infrastructurally penetrate their societies far too deeply (Mann 1984) to allow for a pervasive “creation of fog” (Broeders and Engbersen 2007. The refugee as homo sacer describes the condition of exclusion that those exempt from the normal sovereignty are subject to. in the mid-1980s. The refugee is outside the law. Unable to secure voluntary compliance. you need to .” (2007. and they say. the inability to “render legible” those within its custody presents a significant threat to sovereignty. As John Torpey argued. as I have argued elsewhere. he could be from Nigeria. “[t]he strategy of noncooperation shows that many immigrants are not docile persons who fully cooperate with the authorities. International law only obliges states to readmit their own nationals while recognizing the right of states to refuse entry to any non-national. we will examine whether these forms of resistance can succeed in curtailing the state’s sovereign powers. “unidentifiable migrants are constitutionally rather invulnerable to expulsion” (van der Leun 2003. Thus. the absence of rights at the same time makes possible acts of resistance such as identity-stripping.unc. “Being unable to bring deportees across the border turns the administrative successes of identifying. apprehending.’ Then we go to the Liberian embassy. identity is the authoritative marker of exclusion and inclusion. 224). it is the rightlessness of the illegal migrant that is the source of her capacity for resistance by means of identity-stripping.pdf//shree) The exercise of sovereignty over homo sacer is ultimately contingent on the state’s knowledge of the individual’s identity. German interior officials estimate that. The vast majority of those who lead “politicized lives” have entered into too many bureaucratic relationships with the state to have the choice to render themselves unknowable. “individuals who remain beyond the embrace of the state necessarily represent a limit on its penetration” (1997. he’s from the Gambia. migrants. However. locating. 1603) We will now return our focus on the state and explore how its officers handle these acts of identity-stripping. the population of “undocumented” asylum applicants is estimated to have increased to 85 percent (Böhling 2001). immigration authorities had to obtain travel documents for about 30 to 40 percent of all asylum seekers. The dilemma that an unknown identity poses to the state is aptly captured by a deportation officer ’s account of the resistance strategies of illegal migrants: “People have started to realize.

the diplomatic representatives of the countries of origin of most “undocumented” migrants face few incentives to actively cooperate with the identification efforts of deporting states because they only stand to lose from the return of their nationals. it often is accompanied by enormous problems in the area of social and economic reintegration. . Not only does return migration represent the loss of vital remittances. 2008). district Ostprignitz-Ruppin. November 27. The paper will now examine a number of identification strategies pursued by the German state that target the undocumented migrant herself.’” (Author interview. 2001) Significantly. These strategies can be distinguished both by the extent to which they rely on the migrant’s cooperation and by the degree of coercion involved. While the deporting states of the Global North have pursued various diplomatic strategies to improve bilateral cooperation to facilitate the issuing of documents—most prominently the conclusion of readmission agreements—success has rarely been forthcoming (Ellermann.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 39 Agamben K Alternative: Identity-Stripping (2/2) provide us with clear evidence. Brandenburg. deportation officer.

according to the rabbi’s saying told by Benjamin. he will only come after his arrival. the messianic event is considered through a bi-unitary figure. but on the very last day. Only in this way can the event of the Mes siah coincide with historical time yet at the same time not be identified with it. only the day after his arrival. so to speak. he will come not on the last day.” The particular double structure implicit in this messianic theologumenon corresponds to the paradigm that Benjamin probably has in mind when he speaks. This paradigm is the only way in which one can conceive something like an eskhaton—rhar is.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 40 Agamben K Alternative: AT No Roadmap There is no roadmap for whatever being—it is impossible to know the history of when we take action Agamben 99 (Giorgio. This figure probably constitutes the true sense of the division of the single Messiah (like the single Law) into two distinct figures. . at the same time. here. 174) It is in this light that one must read the enigmatic passage in Kafka’s notebooks that says. something that belongs to historical time and its law and. the messianic kingdom consists. professor of philosophy at university of Verona. puts an end to it. Although while the law is in force we are confronted only with events that happen without happening and that thus indefinitely differ from themselves. one of which is consumed in the consummation of history and the other of which happens. in the Eighth Thesis. of “a real state of exception” as opposed to the state of exception in which we live. Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy. effecting in the eskhaton that “small adjustment” in which. pg. instead. “The Messiah will only come when he is no longer necessary.

professor of philosophy at the College International de Philosophie in Paris. the media establishment. the very structure of truth. and exposition are today the objects of a global civil war. rather. p. the one who looks is confronted with something that concerns unequivocally the essence of the face. by a calculated stratagem. they want to take possession of their own very appearance. whose victims are all the peoples of the Earth. Human beings thus transform the open into a world. it is also and immediately the location of simulation and of an irreducible impropriety. truth. it is founded above all on the control of appearance (of doxa). that is. whose battlefield is social life in its entirety. It is happening more and more often that in pornographic photographs the portrayed subjects. thereby exhibiting the awareness of being exposed to the gaze. Precisely because the face is solely the location of truth.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 41 Agamben K Framing Card (1/2) Challenging sovereign representations is key to preventing violence Agamben 2K (Giorgio. This struggle. whose object is truth. The face. on the other hand. State power today is no longer founded on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence — a monopoly that states share increasingly willingly with other nonsovereign organizations such as the United Nations and terrorist organizations. any nature. rather. In that precise moment. separate images from things and give them a name precisely because they want to recognize themselves. but rather appearing itself. that is. according to which the one who looks surprises the actors while remaining unseen by them: the latter. If there is no animal politics. that is perhaps because animals are always already in the open and do not try to take possession of their own exposition. . We may call tragicomedy of appearance the fact that the face uncovers only and precisely inasmuch as it hides. In both cases. and thus they transform it into a miserable secret that they must make sure to control at all costs. to cause appearance itself to appear. Politicians. Human beings. The fact that politics constitutes itself as an autonomous sphere goes hand in hand with the separation of the face in the world of spectacle — a world in which human communication is being separated from itself. and hides to the extent to which it uncovers. the appearance that ought to have manifested human beings becomes for them instead a resemblance that betrays them and in which they can no longer recognize themselves. This unexpected gesture violently belies the fiction that is implicit in the consumption of such images. and the advertising industry have understood the insubstantial character of the face and of the community it opens up. Means Without End: Notes on Politics. In this way. The same procedure is used today in advertising: the image appears more convincing if it shows openly its own artifice. That is why they are not interested in mirrors. that appearance dissimulares what it uncovers by making it look like what in reality it is not: rather. goes by the name of History. what human beings truly are is nothing other than this dissimulation and this disquietude within the appearance. they paradoxically appear more real precisely to the extent to which they exhibit this falsification. Because human beings neither are nor have to be any essence. This does not mean. or any specific destiny. their condition is the most empty and the most insub stantial of all: it is the truth. their being nothing other than a face. the insubstantial nature of the human face suddenly comes to light. nevertheless. they simply live in it without caring about it. What remains hidden from them is not something behind appearance. Exposition thus transforms itself into a value that is accumulated in images and in the media. 93-95) Exposition is the location of politics. however. whose storm troopers are the media. that is. into the battlefield of a political struggle without quarter. in the image as image. knowingly challenge the voyeur’s gaze and force him to look them in the eyes. while a new class of bureaucrats jealously watches over its management. look into the camera. The fact that the actors look into the camera means that they show that they are simulating. The task of politics is to return appearance itself to appearance.

professor of philosophy at the College International de Philosophie in Paris. p. language). inside its own mute identity—it turns into a grimace. This is precisely why the most delicate and graceful faces sometimes look as if they might suddenly decompose. Means Without End: Notes on Politics. Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability. politics then arises as the communicative emptiness in which the hu man face emerges as such. But because what human beings have to communicate to each other is above all a pure communicability (that is. but was also and above all directed to the alienation of language itself. but what one has to take possession of here is only a nonlatency. of the communicative nature of human beings. it is a victory over character—it is word. which is what one calls character. Character is the constitutive reticence that human beings retain in the word. every human face. thus letting the shapeless and bottomless background that threatens them emerge. The face is not something that transcends the visage: it is the exposition of the visage in all its nudity. signals and answers. 95-97) If what human beings had to communicate to each other were always and only something. by keeping it separate in a sphere that guarantees its unseizability and by preventing communicativity itself from coming to light. is always suspended on the edge of an abyss. As soon as the face realizes that communica bility is all that it is and hence that it has nothing to express — thus withdrawing silently behind itself. This is why the face contracts into an expression. there would never be politics properly speaking. a pure visibility: simply a visage. But this amorphous background is nothing else than the opening itself and communicability itself inasmuch as they are constituted as their own presuppositions as if they were a thing. and thus sinks further and further into itself. even the most noble and beautiful. The only face to remain uninjured is the one capable of taking the abyss of its own communicability upon itself and of exposing it without fear or complacency. This means that an integrated Marxian analysis should take into consideration the fact that capitalism (or whatever other name we might want to give to the process dominating world history today) not only was directed to the expropriation of productive activity. but only exchange and conflict. stiffens into a character. . It is precisely this empty space that politicians and the media establishment are trying to be sure to control.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 42 Agamben K Framing Card (2/2) Language shapes reality Agamben 2K (Giorgio.

pg. but because “thus is best. in the sense that it could not be otherwise. its principium individuationis. without being master of its own being” and that “it does not remain below itself. he explained that we cannot say that “it happened to be thus. which we expose as our proper being. which we use. but rather an improperty. is its thus without remainder-such a being is neither accidental nor necessary. a way that does not. that does not presuppose itself as a hidden essence that chance or destiny would then condemn to the torment of qualifications. trying to define the freedom and the will of the one. continually engendered from its own manner. . but makes use of itself as it is” and that it is not thus by necessity. Plotinus had to have this kind of being in mind when.” but only that it “is as it is. manner. It is our second. professor of philosophy at the university of Verona. is that this improperty is assumed and appropriated as its unique being. however. it is perfectly common. The Coming Community: Theory Out of Bounds Volume 1. The being that does not remain below itself. happier nature. allows us to find a common passage between ontology and ethics. The improperty. Being engendered from one’s own manner of being is. but this being does not belong to it. 28-29) Only the idea of this modality of rising forth. in effect. however. treat existence as a property. an ethos. in effect. but rather exposes itself in its qualifications. what makes it exemplary. this original mannerism of being. The example is only the being of that of which it is the example. is to think of it as a habitus. the very definition of habit (this is why the Greeks spoke of a second nature): That manner is ethical that does not befall us and does not found us but engenders us. so much a property that determines and identifies it as essence.” Perhaps the only way to understand this free use of the self. But a manner of rising forth is also the place of whatever singularity. but is. And this being engendered from one’s own manner is the only happiness really possible for humans. so to speak.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 43 Agamben K AT: Alt Doesn’t Solve Ontology can access the whatever singularity a position of nonjudgment that can rupture disciplinary technologies Agamben 93 (Giorgio. engenders us. For the being that is its own manner this is not.

ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 44 Agamben K AT: Perm (Cede the Political) The aff’s immigration politics is predicated on isolating bare life which justifies infinite atrocity. Politics therefore appears as the truly fundamental structure of Western metaphysics insofar as it occupies the threshold on which the relation between the living being and the logos is realized. In the “politicization” of bare life—the metaphysical task par excellence— the humanity of living man is decided. separates and opposes himself to his own bare life and. Homo Sacer. modernity does nothing other than declare its own faithfulness to the essential structure of the metaphysical tradition. Lou bios. even as it dwells in the polis by letting its own bare life be excluded. pg. 8) The question “In what way does the living being have language?” corresponds exactly to the question “In what way does bare life dwell in the polis?” The living being has logos by taking away and conserving its own voice in it. In assuming this task. Agamben 98 (Giorgio. at the same time. . within it. in language. maintains himself in relation to that bare life in an inclusive exclusion. The exclusion of bare life is inscribed in immigration policy.The fundamental categorial pair of Western politics is not that of friend! enemy but that of bare life/political existence. professor of philosophy at the University of Verona. exclusion/inclusion. There is politics because man is the living being who. as an exception.

It is even likely that if politics today seems to be passing through a lasting eclipse.the entry of zoe into the sphere of the polis—the politicization of bare life as such—constitutes the decisive event of modernity and signals a radical transformation of the political-philosophical categories of classical thought. to the point of entering today into a real zone of indistinction—will have to be abandoned or will. Only within a biopolitical horizon will it be possible to decide whether the categories whose opposition founded modern politics (right/left. a link that secretly governs the modern ideologies seemingly most distant from one another. Homo Sacer.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 45 Agamben K AT: Perm (Cede the Political) The alternative comes first—healing the split between natural and political life is a prerequisite to solving the problems that have plagued Western Politics. this is because politics has failed to reckon with this foundational event of modernity. however. even tually regain the meaning they lost in that very horizon. professor of philosophy at the University of Verona. The “enigmas” (Furet. etc. thematically interrogates the link between bare life and politics. private/public. taking up Foucault’s and Benjamin’s suggestion. 4-5) Foucault’s death kept him from showing how he would have developed the concept and study of biopolitics. pg. In any case. . And only a reflection that. p. at the same time. absolutism/democracy. 7) that our century has proposed to historical reason and that remain with us (Nazism is only the most disquieting among them) will be solved only on the terrain—biopolitics—on which they were formed. will be able to bring the political out of its concealment and. Agamben 98 (Giorgio. return thought to its practical calling. LAllemagne nazi.)—and which have been steadily dissolving. instead.

11) In contrasting the “beautiful day” (euemeria) of simple life with the “great difficulty” of political bios in the passage cited above. Nevertheless. Western politics has not succeeded in constructing the link between zoe and bios. every theory and every praxis will remain imprisoned and immobile. How is it possible to “politicize” the “natural sweetness” of zoe? And first of all. In carrying out the metaphysical task that has led it more and more to assume the form of a biopolitics. Aristotle may well have given the most beautiful formulation to the aporia that lies at the foundation of Western politics. Bare life remains included in politics in the form of the exception. does zoe really need to be politicized. professor of philosophy at the University of Verona. . as something that is included solely through an exclusion.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 46 Agamben K AT: Perm The Perm cannot avoid codifying the exception of bare life Agamben 98 (Giorgio. Homo Sacer. that is. until a completely new politics—that is. pg. that would have healed the fracture . between voice and language. or is politics not already contained in zoe as its most precious center? The biopolitics of both modern totalitarianism and the society of mass hedonism and consumerism certainly constitute answers to these questions. a politics no longer founded on the exception of bare life—is at hand. The 24 centuries that have since gone by have brought only provisional and ineffective solutions. and the “beautiful day” of life will be given citizenship only either through blood and death or in the perfect senselessness to which the society of the spectacle condemns it.

ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 47 Agamben K AT: Perm The permutation damns the attempts to conceive of a new politics because it refuses to extend the “happy life” to everyone. . in fact. And the planetary masses of consumers. 113-115) While the state in decline lets its empty shell survive everywhere as a pure structure of sovereignty and domination. a society in which the sole goal of production is comfortable living. see in all this the surest sign of the end of politics . Agamben 2K (Giorgio. that is.” leaves no doubts regarding the fact that “The order of the profane should be erected on the idea of happiness. society as a whole is instead irrevocably delivered to the form of consumer society. rather. professor of philosophy at the College International de Philosophie in Paris. The theorists of political sovereignty.”’ The definition of the concept of “happy life” remains one of the essential tasks of the coming thought (and this should be achieved in such a way that this concept is not kept separate from ontology. isn’t this precisely the goal of philosophy? And when modern political thought was born with Marsilius of Padua. if we look closer. because: “being: we have no experience of it other than living itself”). However. such as Schmitt. Means Without End: Notes on Politics. in the “TheologicoPolitical Fragment. wasn’t it defined precisely by the recovery to political ends of the Averroist concepts of “sufficient life” and “well-living”? Once again Walter Benjamin. an absolutely profane “sufficient life” that has reached the perfection of its own power and of its own communicability—a life over which sovereignty and right no longer have any hold. This “happy life” should be. p. do not seem to foreshadow any new figure of the polis (even when they do not simply relapse into the old ethnic and religious ideals). The “happy life” on which political philosophy should be founded thus cannot be either the naked life that sovereignty posits as a presupposition so as to turn it into its own subject or the impenetrable extraneity of science and of modern biopolitics that everybody today tries in vain to sacralize. the problem that the new politics is facing is precisely this: is it possible to have a political community that is ordered exclusively for the full enjoyment of wordly life? But.

what it may suggest is that the freedom that has been so long associated with a particular organization under the banner of sovereign right may need to be rethought so that we may better understand and give shape to a politics of freedom more commensurate with the conditions of late modernity. Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. “Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom. Normalizing the norm—is there a more succinct definition of cybernetics than that? Normalizing the norm---is this not the great (unannounced) end of the various strategies aimed at human extinction? A question that emerges for us at the end of the twentieth century is whether the style of freedom that has accompanied disciplinary society and that has been nurtured by it—and for the sake of brevity let us call that freedom liberal freedom---has itself been the reason leading humankind to this moment of terminal risk . The problem of the normalization of norms is perhaps better discussed under the rubric “bio-power. 116-117) Here I am slightly ahead of myself.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 48 Agamben K AT: Perm The perm is a normalization of resistance that links to the K and justifies extinction Dumm 96 (Thomas. But even if it has. in normalizing the forms of resistance as they emerge from delinquency. I believe that this is what Foucault may be thinking when he urges us to rethink the form that the idea of right might take as sovereignty and normalization vitiate the very possibility of repression in a disciplinary age.” P. However. in working to normalize even that which resists normalization. those who engage in contemporary exercises of power may have been able to put at risk more than just a mode of freedom but the very possibility of free existence itself. this does not mean that liberal freedom has not been a way of being free.” The emergence of this more complete normalizing discourse is itself not neatly or completely separate from its own genealogy within disciplinary society. Instead. .

The practical implication would be not that there is no differ ence between Aristotle or Hitler. all life becomes sacred and all politics becomes the exception” (I48)~~ In the end. These are still marginal figures in our current political life. “life and death [cease to be] properly scientific concepts [and become] political concepts. Metaphysics. and urinating”—is in fact a human being at all. Politics. Ironically. and linked together by means of the no-man’s-land of the state of exception that is inhabited by bare life—begin to become one. It is this that leads him to conclude that the camp is the as yet unrecognized paradigm of the modern. But if Agamben is right. for instance. “When life and politics—originally divided. pulsating. and not by politicians: “In the biopolitical horizon that characterizes modernity . are we to do when we are dealing with agents or things that have not already been recognized as the bearers of rights? Here the reassertion of rights is simply not an option. the physician and the scientist move into the no-man’s-land into which at one point the sovereign alone could penetrate” (159). Agamben’s argument is not that Aristotle’s or Locke’s reflections on politics carry with them an implicit commitment to the substantive racist policies of National Socialism. What. the attempt to resist this through the assertion of human rights ignores the connection between the humanism that undergirds the concept of rights and the events that seem to conflict with it. and Death: Essays On Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 49 Agamben K AT: Perm The liberal philosophy of the permutation guarantees perm failure Norris 5 (Andrew. or from which to construct an alternative. We must decide whether a neomort—a body whose only signs of life are that it is “warm. In such cases. the concept of the margin is itself being swept away. nor does he claim that they “caused” the Holocaust (a term to which he objects [114]). but that Aristotle will not provide a stable point from which to critique those who follow after him. . What he does argue is that there is a deep affinity between such contemporary horrors and the tradition of political philosophy to which we might turn in an effort to understand and combat such phenomena. and “the ‘body’ is always already a biopolitical body ” (187). Politics is always a matter of the body. 14-15) Finally. the distinction between bare life and political life is hopelessly confused. As the logic of the sovereign exception comes unraveled (or is realized—this paradox being a necessary function of that logic). assistant professor of political science at the university of Pennsylvania. pg. which as such acquire a political meaning precisely only through a decision” (164). and the impossibility of categorically distinguishing between exception and rule is made manifest.~~ There is no Archimedean point outside biopoli tics. the liberal strategy reveals its limitations when we recognize that the notion of the threshold is in fact expanding into areas where we will not have the luxury of refusing to consider the inner logic of phenomena we should like to reject as evil and incomprehensible . such decisions are increasingly made by scientists. an agent or a thing.

they are the rights of those who have no rights. appear as two parts of the same "biopolitical" body. Any kind of claim to rights or any struggle enacting rights is thus trapped from the very outset in the mere polarity of bare life and state of exception. As a result.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 50 Agamben K AT: Perm The perm maintains human rights are ontologically correlated with the state of exception— only the alternative alone can solve Rancière 4 (Jacques. which amounts to a tautology. That polarity appears as a sort of ontological destiny: each of us would be in the situation of the refugee in a camp. In order to do this. let us have a closer look at the Arendtian argument about the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The will to preserve the realm of pure politics ultimately makes it vanish in the sheer relation of state power and individual life . the executioner and the victim. the correlation of sovereign power and bare life takes place where political conflicts can be located. rule and application. social. Agamben's view of the camp as the "nomos of modernity" may seem very far from Arendt's view of political action. This attempt depopulates the political stage by sweeping aside its always-ambiguous actors. The South Atlantic Quarterly. standing in front of bare life—an opposition that the next step forward turns into a complementarity. This means setting the question of what politics is on a different footing. no. This means that they are the rights of those who have rights. the political exception is ultimately incorporated in state power. we have to reset the question of the Rights of Man —more precisely."10 In this space. 2/3. Nevertheless. If we want to get out of this ontological trap. the rights attached to the fact of being a citizen of such or such constitutional state. professor of philosophy at the University of Paris VIII. the question of their subject—which is the subject of politics as well. Politics thus is equated with power. She makes them a quandary. apolitical life. I would assume that the radical suspension of politics in the exception of bare life is the ultimate consequence of Arendt's archipolitical position. Any difference grows faint between democracy and totalitarianism and any political practice proves to be already ensnared in the biopolitical trap . Vol. 301-02) In such a way. which amounts to nothing—or the rights of man are the rights of the citizen.11 . which can be put as follows: either the rights of the citizen are the rights of man—but the rights of man are the rights of the unpoliticized person. p. a power that is increasingly taken as an overwhelming historico-ontological destiny from which only a God is likely to save us. 103. The camp is the space of the "absolute impossibility of deciding between fact and law . exception and rule. of her attempt to preserve the political from the contamination of private. the German body and the Jewish body. an argument that Agamben basically endorses.

with their ostensible concern for the lack of power experienced by marginalized people. as well as to the media that depict them. (p. and transportation. Merod (1987) decries this situation as one which leaves no vision. The political sympathies of the new cultural critics. concrete situation" (p... homophobia. Spring. or any Third World population. “Other Ways”) The postmodern passwords of "polyvocality. and protection are basic human needs that require collective activity for their fulfillment. To this assertion. postmodern emphasis on new subjects conceals the old subjects. People whose lives form the material for postmodern counter-hegemonic discourse do not share the optimism over the new recognition of their discursive subjectivities." and "difference. 170). and economic injustice. Clarke examines Lyotard's (1984) The Postmodern Condition in which Lyotard maintains that virtually all social relations are linguistic. v. those who have limited access to good jobs. West (1988) asserts that borrowing French poststructuralist discourses about "Otherness" blinds us to realities of American difference going on in front of us (p. sexism. argues that "the justice that working people deserve is economic.. their discourses on intertextuality and inter-referentiality isolate them from and ignore the conditions that have produced leftist politics--conflict. In short. Lopez (1992) states that "the starting point for organizing the program content of education or political action must be the present existential. and injustice . . health care. or commitment to activism. It may be the intellectual's conception of terror (what else do we do but speak?). 255). 60. creates a solipsistic quagmire . shelter. 3. and the budgets that fuel them. 530) Clarke's assessment of the postmodern elevation of language to the "sine qua non" of critical discussion is an even stronger indictment against the trend. because such an acknowledgment does not address sufficiently their collective historical and current struggles against racism.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 51 Agamben K AT: Framing Policy analysis should precede discourse – most effective way to challenge power Taft-Kaufman 95 (Jill. despite their adversarial posture and talk of opposition. aligns them with the political left. 1987). The need to look beyond texts to the perception and attainment of concrete social goals keeps writers from marginalized groups ever-mindful of the specifics of how power works through political agendas. 2-27) The realm of the discursive is derived from the requisites for human life. housing. Emphasizing the discursive self when a person is hungry and homeless represents both a cultural and humane failure.(pp. racism. Yet. which are in the physical world. Southern Comm. Provoked by the academic manifestations of this problem Di Leonardo (1990) echoes Merod and laments: Has there ever been a historical era characterized by as little radical analysis or activism and as much radical-chic writing as ours? Maundering on about Otherness: phallocentrism or Eurocentric tropes has become a lazy academic substitute for actual engagement with the detailed histories and contemporary realities of Western racial minorities. most writers from marginalized groups are clear about how discourse interweaves with the concrete circumstances that create lived experience. Journal. agencies." "Otherness. not just textual " (p. will. Iss. Although the material conditions that create the situation of marginality escape the purview of the postmodernist. white women. food. They do not appreciate being told they are living in a world in which there are no more real subjects. institutions. it is through the coercion that threatens speech that we enter the "realm of terror" and society falls apart. but its projection onto the rest of the world would be calamitous .(4) Nutrition. as Clarke (1991) asserts. 571). we are appallingly ignorant of terror in its elaborate contemporary forms. He notes that academic lip service to the oppositional is underscored by the absence of focused collective or politically active intellectual communities. Postmodern emphasis on the discursive without an accompanying analysis of how the discursive emerges from material circumstances hides the complex task of envisioning and working towards concrete social goals (Merod. Speech prof @ CMU. If the worst terror we can envisage is the threat not to be allowed to speak. Ideas have consequences. therefore." unsupported by substantial analysis of the concrete contexts of subjects. Clarke replies: I can think of few more striking indicators of the political and intellectual impoverishment of a view of society that can only recognize the discursive. 299). and. Robinson (1990) for example. Unlike postmodern "textual radicals" who Rabinow (1986) acknowledges are "fuzzy about power and the realities of socioeconomic constraints" (p. rather than in a world of ideas or symbols. the situation and its consequences are not overlooked by scholars from marginalized groups. poverty.

even as it dwells in the polis by letting its own bare life be excluded. The fundamental categorial pair of Western politics is not that of friend/enemy but that of bare life/political existence. There is politics because man is the living being who. maintains himself in relation to that bare life in an inclusive exclusion. in language.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 52 Agamben K AT: Friend-Enemy Distinction Good Western politics is not built on friend/enemy but rather on inclusion/exclusion Agamben 98 (Giorgio. . Politics therefore appears as the truly fundamental structure of Western metaphysics insofar as it occupies the threshold on which the relation between the living being and the logos is realized. pg. gendered language under erasure) The question “In what way does the living being have language?” corresponds exactly to the question “In what way does bare life dwell in the polis?” The living being has logos by taking away and conserving its own voice in it. In assuming this task. at the same time. modernity does nothing other than declare its own faithfulness to the essential structure of the metaphysical tradition. 8. zoe/ bios. professor of philosophy at university of Verona. In the “politicization” of bare life —the metaphysical task par excellence— the humanity of living man is decided. as an exception. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. within it. exclusion/inclusion. separates and opposes himself to his own bare life and.

withdrawing itself from every concrete instance of speech. We have seen that only the sovereign decision on the state of exception opens the space in which it is possible to trace borders between inside and outside and in which determinate rules can be assigned to determinate territories. of being named. always to “speak the law.” ius dicere. “is the perfect element in which interioriry is as external as exteriority is internal” (see Phdnomenologie des Geistes. . in this sense. Homo Sacer. in a permanent state of exception. only language as the pure potentiality to signify. To speak [dire] is. professor of philosophy at the University of Verona. Discourse acts as the law and expresses the bond of inclusive exclusion that is the structure of sovereignty and politics Agamben 98 (Giorgio.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 53 Agamben K AT: Realism Recourse to a prediscursive realm of “realist” politics is exactly how the state of exception operates. pp. pg. In exactly the same way. divides the linguistic from the nonlinguistic and allows for the opening of areas of meaningful speech in which certain terms correspond to certain denotations.” he wrote in the Phenomenology of Spirit. 527—29). Language is the sovereign who. 21) Hegel was the first to truly understand the presuppositional structure thanks to which language is at once outside and inside itself and the immediate (the nonlinguistic) reveals itself to be nothing but a presupposition of language. declares that there is nothing outside language and that language is always beyond itself. It expresses the bond of inclusive exclusion to which a thing is subject because of the fact of being in language. “Language. The particular structure of law has its foundation in this presuppositional structure of human language.

and to have exchanged a juridico-political phenomenon (homo sacer’s capacity to be killed but not sacrificed) for a genuinely religious phenomenon is the root of the equivocations that have marked studies both of the sacred and of sovereignty in our time. according to the original sources. Sacer esto is not the formula of a religious curse sanctioning the unheimlich. Not the act of tracing boundaries. or the simultaneously august and vile character of a thing: it is instead the originary political formulation of the imposition of the sovereign bond. And this proximity is just as little the consequence of the “sacred”—that is. pg. which is to say. merit sacratio (such as terminum exarare. whose ambivalence has so tenaciously oriented not only modern studies on the phenomenology of religion but also the most recent inquiries into sovereignty. The originary structure by which sovereign power is founded is this complex. or the swindling of a client by a counsel) do not. Life is sacred only insofar as it is taken into the sovereign exception. after all. nor merely the attempt to grant the latter a theological foundation. teaches with perfect clarity). but their cancellation or negation is the constitutive act of the city (and this is what the myth of the foundation of Rome. They constitute instead the originary exception in which human life is included in the political order in being exposed to an unconditional capacity to be killed. and the syntagm homo sacer names something like the originary “political” relation. professor of philosophy at the University of Verona. 84-85) This symmetry between sacratio and sovereignty sheds new light on the category of the sacred . The proximity between the sphere of sovereignty and the sphere of the sacred . which has often been observed and explained in a variety of ways. verberatio parentis. sacredness is instead the originary form of the inclusion of bare life in the juridical order. The crimes that. bare life insofar as it operates in an inclusive exclusion as the referent of the sovereign decision. is not simply the secularized residue of the originary religious character of every political power. . Numis homicide law (parricidas esto) forms a system with homo sacer’s capacity to be killed (parricidi non damnatur) and cannot be separated from it. Homo Sacer. have the character of a transgression of a rule that is then followed by the appropriate sanction. the violence of the son against the parent. If our hypothesis is correct.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 54 Agamben K AT: Agamben Totalizes Agamben is not totalizing—the original form of politics is the sovereign ban and implicit in this process is the death of homo sacer Agamben 98 (Giorgio. august and accursed— character that inexplicably belongs to life as such. therefore. the cancellation of borders.

he is very wrong-headed. it is necessary to govern the living body that maintains this potential. "biopolitics. the child that says "mama. June//shree) Agamben is a thinker of great value but also. multitude. a thinker with no political vocation. Revolutionary. my fear. As soon as this potential is transformed into a commodity. in all cases. in my opinion. in my opinion. then. a word with an exclamation point. on the other hand.” Archipelago n54. that the biopolitical is only an effect derived from the concept of labor-power. when what serves us are. mama!".. a word that carries the risk of blocking critical thought instead of helping it. And. is that the biopolitical can be transformed into a word that hides. because it is not a real commodity like a book or a bottle of water. my fear is of fetish words in politics because it seems like the cries of a child that is afraid of the dark. Then. but Foucault spoke in few pages of the biopolitical . Then. A fetish word. basing it on Foucault. but rather is simply the potential to produce. instruments of work and not propaganda words. biopolitics!". I don't negate that there can be a serious content in the term. in this.. however I see that the use of the term biopolitics sometimes is a consolatory use.in relation to the birth of liberalism . like the cry of a child. that labor-power is only one of the aspects of the biopolitical. I believe.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 55 Agamben K Aff: Alternative Doesn’t Solve The alternative fails to confront biopolitics and entrenches the harms Virno ‘2 (Paolo. covers problems instead of being an instrument for confronting them. When there is a commodity that is called labor-power it is already implicitly government over life. that contains this potential . The problem is. Agamben says. an "open doors" word. on the other hand. “General intellect. when Agamben speaks of the biopolitical he has the tendency to transform it into an ontological category with value already since the archaic Roman right. I say the contrary: over all because labor power is a paradoxical commodity. Toni (Negri) and Michael (Hardt). use biopolitics in a historically determined sense.. .that Foucault is not a sufficient base for founding a discourse over the biopolitical and my apprehension. exodus.

For decades. . we do not notice that in the meantime art has become a planet of which we only see the dark side. . "it will only have laid out. art immediately receives in itself its own negation. "Whatever criterion the critical judgment employs to measure the reality of the work. http://www. he was twenty-eight." he argues. . and Kafka. and that therefore his understanding of human life is left wanting. cultural critic. . Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1995 [1998]) and Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive (1998 [1999]). Some even charge that he aestheticizes the denuding of life as a pornographic transfixion for his gaze. stains. death. . an interminable skeleton of dead elements. his thought has been sailing in search of that ungraspable something that not only constitutes life but also makes it worth living. Art is important to us because it has no purchase on meaning. Where will he go? In a phrase: to Aristotle. and that aesthetic judgment is . Kant says somewhere in the Critique of Pure Reason that all possible knowledge and experience are marooned on an island surrounded by the dangerous waters of the unknown. The Man Without Content begins to chart that course in order to resist the dark temptations of unknowability and ineffability. espionage takes the place of adventure. What has been negated is reassumed into the judgment as its only real content. tends increasingly to identify the work of art with the non-artistic product. In contemporary art. in place of a living body. . "through its holes. "dreams dry up. 2004. thus suppressing and rendering superfluous its own space." In contemporary art.com/archive/sum_04/morris. pg. the reunion of art and its shadow. Only when there is no mast in knowledge or experience that can be raised are we in trouble. theorists. "In civilizations without boats. as Agamben dubs it. . or Something Like It: The Philosophical Chiaroscuro of Giorgio Agamben. That it does not have to matter is perhaps the only reason it does. When he published The Man Without Content. and nonpictorial materials. Agamben is today in his early sixties.bookforum." The boats of thought capsize when they no longer carry ideas. Yet Agamben won't go there. Thus. and concepts as brigand chasers of our dreams. . and philosophers have phlegmatically resigned themselves to this space of abnegation. becoming aware of its shadow. art criticism reaches its terminus: extreme object-centeredness.html) Contemporary critics of Agamben at times accuse him of reveling in the indeterminacy of naked life. . Part of the misadventure of aesthetic thought for Agamben is that it traffics in nothingness.” Summer. it is critical judgment that lays bare its own split. Caught up in laboriously constructing this nothingness." Many critics. and the police take the place of pirates. or the world. slits. Benjamin. significance. These critiques are usually launched against Agamben's two best-known books. The trick is to discover the best way to set sail. I mention these criticisms here not because they are facile and misinformed (though they are) but because they emerge from a refusal to understand the full range of Agamben's philosophical project. and the skeletal remains of the living. and what has been affirmed is covered by this shadow." Michel Foucault remarked in a 1967 lecture. categories.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 56 Agamben K Aff: Alternative Doesn’t Solve The alternative leaves no hope for politics beyond obscure aesthetics Morris ‘4 (Daniel. . . . “Life.

My hesitation with this view is that by posing the extreme case of the concentration camp as the heart of sovereignty it tends to obscure the daily violence of modern sovereignty in all its forms.” Theory & Event. in which the modern functioning of rule becomes a permanent state of exception. What results from this analysis is not so much passivity.) What we are interested in finally is a new biopolitics that reveals the struggles over forms of life. though. Agamben brilliantly elaborates a conception of modern sovereignty based on Carl Schmitt's notions of the decision on the exception and the state of emergency. although cast on a very different register. The pinnacle and full realization of modern sovereignty thus becomes the Nazi concentration camp: the zone of exclusion and exception is the heart of modern sovereignty and grounds the rule of law. that is. But still none of that addresses the passivity you refer to. and it has its own subtle and not so subtle horrors . It implies. but powerlessness. he explains. This description may not immediately give you the same sense of horror that you get from Auschwitz and the Nazi Lager. The most significant difference between our projects. It no longer takes the form of a dialectic between Self and Other and does not function through any such absolute exclusion. In the final analysis. the bare minimum of existence that is exposed in the concentration camp. Imperial sovereignty has nothing to do with the concentration camp. making hierarchies of hybrid identities. There is no figure that can challenge and contest sovereignty.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 57 Agamben K Aff: Alternative = Powerlessness The alternative breeds powerlessness—it makes resistance to oppression impossible Hardt & Dumm 2K (Michael & Thomas. Our critique of Agamben's (and also Foucault's) notion of biopower is that it is conceived only from above and we attempt to formulate instead a notion of biopower from below. For that we have to look instead at Agamben's notions of life and biopower. modern sovereignty rules over naked life and biopower is this power to rule over life itself. "Sovereignty. Project Muse//shree) MH: Our argument in Empire does share some central concerns with Agamben's Homo Sacer. I would say. Prof of Romance Studies Dept @ Duke University. . 4:3. but imperial sovereignty is certainly just as brutal as modern sovereignty was. Prof @ Amherst College. Multitudes. that if we could do away with the camp then all the violence of sovereignty would also disappear. what we call imperial sovereignty. Absolute Democracy: A Discussion between Michael Hardt and Thomas Dumm about Hardt and Negri's Empire. particularly surrounding the notions of sovereignty and biopower. is closer to our notion of a biopower from below. (In this sense. Agamben uses the term "naked life" to name that limit of humanity. is that Agamben dwells on modern sovereignty whereas we claim that modern sovereignty has now come to an end and transformed into a new kind of sovereignty. a power by which the multitude itself rules over life . but rules rather through mechanisms of differential inclusion. He then links this conception to the figure of the banned or excluded person back as far as ancient Roman law with his usual spectacular erudition. the notion of biopower one finds in some veins of ecofeminism such as the work of Vandana Shiva. in other words.

Antonio.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 58 Agamben K Aff: Bare Life != Powerlessness The production of bare life doesn’t prevent subjects from being politicized—those who are interpellated as bare life can transcend that labeling Cesarino and Negri ‘4 (Cesare. yes. what do you think about the fact that the concept of naked life has become so enormously and increasingly important for Agamben lately? AN: I believe Giorgio is writing a sequel to Homo Sacer. This essay was published originally as a little book that also contained Deleuze's essay on Bartleby: well. which is why I felt the need to attack this concept in my recent essay. especially when it has been actually enacted and enforced in such a way so many times. this book is extremely learned and elegant. I found his essay on Bartleby. V 57. in which desires expand. in effect. it turns out that what Deleuze says in his essay is exactly the contrary of what Giorgio says in his! I suppose one could say that they decided to publish their essays together precisely so as to attempt to figure this limit— that is. rather than constituting a full-fledged attempt to reconstruct naked life as a potentiality for exodus. that is. pg. “It’s a Powerful Life: A Conversation on Contemporary Philosophy. But have you discussed all this with Agamben? What does he think about your critiques? AN: Whenever I tell him what I have just finished telling you. from the standpoint of power [potenza]? I am worried about the fact that the concept of naked life as it is conceived by Agamben might be taken up by political movements and in political debates: I find this prospect quite troubling. but I think this attempt largely failed: as usual. it is possible to think all this: the naked bodies of the people in the camps. but I don't think that this attempt was really successful in the end. and in which life becomes increasingly fuller. power reduces each and every human being to such a state of powerlessness. And the type of problems he runs into in this book recur throughout many of his other works. But this is absolutely not true! On the contrary: the historical process takes place and is produced thanks to a continuous constitution and construction. can lead one precisely in this direction. all this incessant talk about the limit bores me and tires me out after a little while. Of course it is possible to conceive of the limit as absolute pow-erlessness. I believe it is possible to push the image of power to the point at which a defenseless human being [un povero Cristo] is crushed. absolutely infuriating. one and the same standpoint? Isn't this the story about power that power itself would like us to believe in and reiterate? Isn't it far more politically useful to conceive of this limit from the standpoint of those who are not yet or not completely crushed by power. which undoubtedly confronts the limit over and over again —but this is an extraordinarily rich limit. however. of course. The limit is creative to the extent to which you have been able to overcome it qua death: the limit is creative because you have overcome death. and I feel that this new work will be resolutive for his thought—in the sense that he will be forced in it to resolve and find a way out of the ambiguity that has qualified his understanding of naked life so far. inasmuch as it is death. I believe that the concept of naked life is not an impossible. Agamben. for example. nonetheless. isn't such a conception of the limit precisely what the limit looks like from the standpoint of constituted power as well as from the standpoint of those who have already been totally annihilated by such a power— which is. I still maintain. the limit is not creative. through genetic engineering—and the ultimate result of such a process of saturation and capture is a capsized production of subjectivity within which ideological undercurrents continuously try to subtract or neutralize our resistance.” Cultural Critique. it remains. But this is also the point at which this concept turns into ideology: to conceive of the relation between power and life in such a way actually ends up bolstering and reinforcing ideology. Ultimately. The point is that. from the standpoint of those still struggling to overcome such a limit. somewhat trapped within Pauline exegesis. is saying that such is the nature of power: in the final instance. From a logical standpoint. to conceive of that extreme point at which power tries to [End Page 173] eliminate that ultimate resistance that is the sheer attempt to keep oneself alive. but what do you think? And. unfeasible one. . And yet. in particular. to rethink naked life fundamentally in terms of exodus. I feel that nowadays the logic of traditional eugenics is attempting to saturate and capture the whole of human reality—even at the level of its materiality. to give it a form— by some sort of paradoxical juxtaposition. Spring. from the standpoint of the process of constitution. even angry. [End Page 174] CC: And I suppose you are suggesting that the concept of naked life is part and parcel of such undercurrents. He already attempted something of the sort in his recent book on Saint Paul. 172-174) CC: Well. he gets quite irritated. for example. to find a figure for it. In any case. assoc prof of cultural studies. that the conclusions he draws in Homo Sacer lead to dangerous political outcomes and that the burden of finding a way out of this mess rests entirely on him. revolutionary.

ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 59 Agamben K Aff: Alternative = Totalization Only the plan can solve the harms—their totalization of state power is unable to explain violence and prevents effective action Astor ‘9 (Avi. Unauthorized Immigration. 5/29. Agamben's ideas are not especially useful for explaining why xenophobic sentiment and discriminatory practices crystallize during some periods and not others. however. from Agamben's overemphasis on political and legal exclusion. or why they target certain collectives but neglect others similarly situated economically and socially. Latino Studies. The most serious is that it is overly teleological. suffer from several shortcomings. and the Making of Operation Wetback. Palgrave Journals//shree) Agamben's argument does. . Consequently. phD in Socio at UMich. attributing essentially all atrocities committed against those at the margins of the political community to the actualization of the logic inherent to the foundational principles of nationstates. This shortcoming results. and when this tends to occur . in part. and his neglect of the important role of social processes and practices in determining which populations become marked as excluded and targeted by discriminatory policies. Securitization.

If bio‐power multiplies and optimizes life. that bio‐power invests and optimizes.” It could be argued. It enables bio‐power to “invest life through and through”. a notion of life which enables it to accomplish this task. there would be no power that could have any hold over men’s existence if life were understood as a “form‐of‐life”. Doctorate in Social Science. a main strategy of the sovereign power to establish itself to the same degree that sovereignty has been the main fiction of juridico‐institutional thinking from Jean Bodin to Carl Schmitt. from the nutritive life to the intellectual life. In order to function properly. above all. but is as the synthetic notion of life implies. by multiplying and optimizing potentialities of life. based on bare life because it is capable of confronting life merely when stripped off and isolated from all forms of life. In the case of bio‐power.49 According to Agamben. that instead of bare life (zoe) the form of life (bios) functions as the foundation of bio‐power. this does not hold true. Foucault Studies) Moreover. as Foucault puts it. as Foucault emphasizes. to “multiply life”. However. the result of the exclusion of zoe from the political realm. into the site where politics is freed from every ban and “a form of life is wholly exhausted in bare life.45 to produce “extra‐life.50 . because bare life is life that can only be taken away or allowed to persist which also makes understandable the vast critique of sovereignty in the era of bio ‐power. of course. the life of bio‐power is a plenitude of life. It can be taken away without a homicide being committed. it becomes everywhere is in no way bare. when the entire existence of a man is reduced to a bare life and exposed to an unconditional threat of death . bio‐power cannot reduce life to the level of bare life. The modern synthetic notion of life endows it with such a notion.44 Agamben is certainly right in saying that the production of bare life is. it does so. that is to say. life as untamed power and potentiality. to “optimize forces. by fostering and generating “forms ‐of‐ life”. Agamben gives this life the name “form‐of‐life”. It has already moved into the site that Agamben suggests as the remedy of the political pathologies of modernity. however. Impossible Dialogue on Biopower. there is no room either for a bios in the modern bio‐political order because every bios has always been. Life is undoubtedly sacred for the sovereign power in the sense that Agamben defines it. in other words. it is precisely this life. signifying “always and above all possibilities of life. and life in general without at the same time making them more difficult to govern. As a matter of fact. Bio‐power needs a notion of life that corresponds to its aims.” 48 At the end of Homo Sacer. understood as potentiality (potenza). The modern bio‐political order does not exclude anything – not even in the form of “inclusive exclusion”. The sovereign power is. always and above all power”. However. life as the object and the subject of bio‐power given that life is everywhere . indeed. from the biological levels of life to the political existence of man. What then is the aim of bio‐power? Its aim is not to produce bare life but.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 60 Agamben K Aff: Biopower Good Biopower good—it doesn’t create bare life.43 Instead of bare life. the multiplicity of the forms of life. aptitudes. life is already a bios that is only its own zoe.” Ojakangas 5 (Mika. in the era of bio‐politics. instead it produces “extra-life. and has been since Aristotle.”46 Bio‐power needs. as Agamben emphasizes.

By virtue of its universality and abstract normativity. in Schmitt's eyes. Der Nomos der Erde. 1988. it has no localizable polis. Jerusalem.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 61 Agamben K Aff: Friend/Enemy Distinction Good Whatever Being is built on a politics of universal friendship built upon the designation of an inhuman enemy. is the polis. but is that which makes the distinction possible. in his words. In the history of the nineteenth century. the Christianity of Vitoria. once the term used to describe the horizon of a distinction also becomes that distinction's positive pole. spatially imaginable order. as if by internal necessity. However. the . and outside its walls lie the barbarians. As Schmitt says: Only with the concept of the human in the sense of absolute humanity does there appear as the other side of this concept a specially new enemy. the apparent fact that the liberal and humanitarian attempt to construct a world of universal friendship produces. in other words. reduces the political to the social and economic and thereby nullifies all truly political opposition by simply excommunicating its opponents from the High Church of Humanity. This. The humanism that Schmitt opposes is. “Human Rights as Geopolitics:” Cultural Critique 54 120-147//shree) Yes. so in the history of humanity the superhuman brings about with a dialectical necessity the subhuman as its enemy twin. After all. enabling endless violence Rasch 3 (William. 1539. His complaint there is that liberal pluralism is in fact not in the least pluralist but reveals itself to be an overriding monism. Indeed. only an unregenerate barbarian could fail to recognize the irrefutable benefits of liberal order. This is civilization. Schmitt tries to grasp something both disturbing and elusive about the modern world —namely. is the horizon within which the distinction between believers and nonbelievers is made. Spain. despite the claims that pluralism allows for the individual's freedom from illegitimate constraint. the monism of humanity. Thus. ultimately. In the same way that the human creates the inhuman. Positionen und Begriffe. they must be of the same category of being. of Salamanca. centered (still) in Rome and. But the contrast between Christianity and humanism is not just prejudice. represents a concrete. It seems to resonate with the apologetic mid-twentieth-century Spanish reception of Vitoria that wishes to justify the Spanish civilizing mission in the Americas. it is also instructive.9 This "two-sided aspect of the ideal of humanity" (Schmitt 1988. Schmitt presses the point home that political opposition to liberalism is itself deemed illegitimate. be inhuman. a philosophy of absolute humanity. humanity per se is not part of the distinction.. against whom or what does it wage its wars? We can understand Schmitt's concerns in the following way: Christianity distinguishes between believers and nonbelievers. its Greek philosophy. it needs its negative opposite. Does humanity embrace all humans? Are there no gates to the city and thus no barbarians outside? If not. liberal pluralism. the inhuman. To be human. no clear distinction between what is inside and what is outside. because with it. with its divine revelations. the one between the superhuman and the subhuman. Henry. If humanity is both the horizon and the positive pole of the distinction that that horizon enables. then the negative pole can only be something that lies beyond that horizon. 151-65). then. For Schmitt. can only be something completely antithetical to horizon and positive pole alike—can only. Prof of Germanic Studies @ Indiana U. Since nonbelievers can become believers. 72) is a theme Schmitt had already developed in his The Concept of the Political (1976) and his critiques of liberal pluralism (e.g. and its Roman language and institutions. That is. ever new enemies . setting off the inhuman from the human is followed by an even deeper split. this passage attests to the antiliberal prejudices of an unregenerate Eurocentric conservative with a pronounced affect for the counterrevolutionary and Catholic South of Europe.

24 Positive law thus constituted undocumented immigrants as criminals.4 million immigrants-20 percent of those who had entered the country before 1921-might already be liv. philosopher Giorgio Agamben tells us. especially when it is considered that there is such a great percentage of our population ." Nativists like Madison Grant. anti-alien animus shifted its focus to the interior of the nation and the goal of expelling immigrants living illegally in the country. It warned. It is no coincidence that the regime of immigration restriction emerged with World War I.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 62 Agamben K Aff: Link Turn Illegal migrants exist in a zone of indistinction—the plan reverses this through expansion of visas Ngai 3 (Mae M. this body stripped of personage has no rights.land that was created when the war loosened the links between birth and nation. 1921-1965. wrong.23 Second. The figures presented are wor.duced into the country since the quota restrictions of 1921." also advocated alien registration "as a necessary prelude to deport on a large scale. the so-called sacred and inalienable rights of man show themselves to lack every protection and reality at the moment in which they can no longer take the form of rights belonging to citizens of a state. the mere idea that persons without formal legal status resided in the nation engendered images of great danger." Critics of nativism predicted that "if every man who wears a beard and reads a foreign newspaper is to be suspected unless he can produce either an identification card or naturalization papers.thy of very serious thought. it considered them illegal. or of those who may have entered under the guise of seamen.ace.. but because it had no record of their admission..ing illegally in the United States. Once nativism succeeded in leg. Moreover.22 Recalling Hannah Arendt. The Los Angeles Evening Express alleged that there were "several million foreigners" in the country who had "no right to be here. human being and citizen. whose very presence is trou. also created millions of refugees and stateless persons. The service conceded that these immi. not to say men. whose first act upon reaching our shores was to break our laws by entering in a clandestine manner-all of which serves to emphasize the potential source of trouble.islating restriction. The war. In 1925 the Immigration Service reported with some alarm that 1.try whose legal presence here could not be established.bling. No estimate could be made as to the number of smuggled aliens who have been unlawfully intro. The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States." 25 .naturalized persons during the postwar period. by simultaneously destroying the geopolitical sta. we shall have more confusion and bungling than ever. a body stripped of individual personage." Certainly the illegal alien appears in the same historical moment and in the same juridical noman's. recognizing that deportation was "of great importance. that such a situation suggests.bility of Europe and solidifying the nation-state system. both fulfilling and fueling nativist discourse. Asst Prof of History @ U Chi. JSTOR//shree) The illegal alien that is abstractly defined is thus something of a spec. "In the system of the nation- state.ter.. as well as denationalized and de.grants had lawfully entered the country. (I)t is quite possible that there is an even greater number of aliens in the coun.

Yet. the way we look at it and what we expect to see must be altered. a mere call to change this structure of the system does little except activate reactionary impulses and intellectual retrenchment. What we look at. This is the call for international scholars and actors. We cannot wait until we have a neat self-contained and accurate theory of transnational relations before we launch into studies of Third-World issues and problem-solving.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 63 Agamben K Aff: Perm Perm: Do the plan and break down the relationship between bios and zoe. If we wait we will never address the latter and arguably most important issue-area: the welfare and quality of life for the human race. does not in and of itself address the problems and issues so critical to transnational relations. p 161) Sovereignty is in our collective minds. Perspectives on Third-World Sovereignty. The assumptions of the paradigm will dictate the solution and approaches considered. One does not and should not precede the other. That is why theoretical changes and paradigm shifts must be coterminous with applicative studies. . as has been done in many instances. Associate Political Science Prof @ Tampa. Sovereignty must be used strategically – critique can be simultaneous Lombardi 96 (Mark Owen. Questioning the very precepts of sovereignty.

Spinozan or Christian ontology of original harmony. in its extreme ferocity . the world as it is is as it is because of the moral perversity of (some) human agents who willfully construct flawed social institutions. “Sovereignty and its Discontents. In this way. p 28). and the unconditional violence that will be used to eliminate their presence will be justified by invoking the ‘harmonic peace’ or ‘natural innocence’ they have so deliberately and maliciously disturbed. That is. In the words of John Milbank. One must. But rather than asserting the value of the political as an essential structure of social life. is itself an act of fierce and ultimate violence – ultimate in its purported finality. the faulty supposition of ineluctable violence that guides political theory from Hobbes to Weber is to be replaced by a Heideggerian. In the most celebrated works of recent years. condition by flawed or morally perverse social institutions. nay. violence. that flowering of human productivity that the Western metaphysical tradition has suppressed. one would think that theoretical opposition to this trend would seek to rehabilitate the political. the post-Marxist left seems intent on hammering the final nails into the coffin. certainly. Thus violence ‘is always a secondary willed intrusion upon this possible infinite order’ (Milbank. cataclysmic cleansing of the world will allow our activities to be both ‘innocent’ and ‘productive’. This. there is no ‘original violence’. therefore. not the abolition of such sovereignty . What remains equally clear. the political is the cause of the loss of ‘natural innocence’ (Agamben.” p 3-4//shree) Now. Deleuzean. is the fact that this cleansing. the political (denoted by the notion of sovereignty) is irretrievably identified with nihilism and marked for extinction. Determining the nature of this desired. In both instances. which aims at ridding the world of intrusive violence. p 5). totally disengage from the world as it is before one can become truly engaged. 1990. a Christian social theorist who currently enjoys a modest following among political thinkers on the Left. Only a thorough. though not acknowledged. Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer (1998) and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s Empire (2000). -1998. What our ultimate sovereign of harmonious peace will do with the willfully violent intruders can only be guessed. but rather an originary ‘harmonic peace’ which is the ‘sociality of harmonious difference’. is the great supposition that links the ascetic pessimism of an Adorno with the cheery Christian optimism of Milbank. if the triumph of a particular species of liberal pluralism denotes the de-politicization of society. and the logical paradox of sovereignty is to be overcome by the instantiation of a new ontology. then. is that whoever has the power to determine the nature of this harmonious sociality is the one who can determine which acts of violence are to be judged as intrusions into the placid domain and which acts of violence are to be condoned as necessary means of re-establishing the promise of perpetual peace . . Prof of Germanic Studies @ Indiana U. Clear. is to be averred. but it is certain that they will not be looked upon as legitimate political dissenters. required originary peace is itself a sovereign act. though only partially acknowledged. To seek to remedy the perversity of the world as it is from within the flawed social and political structures as they are only increases the perversity of the world.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 64 Agamben K Aff: Rejecting Sovereignty Bad Cleansing the ontological slate of sovereignty justifies unconditional violence Rasch 4 (William. but also. which is not thought of as part of the state of nature but is introduced into the human.

between the lawlessness of war times and democratic discourse. and of depriving itself of a major weapon in the struggle against oppression. We should heed Honneth’s reminder that struggles for social and political emancipation have often privileged the language of rights over any other discourse (Fraser. . political loss for accompanying present struggles. Assoc Lecturer in Phil @ Macquarie University. then our testimony should go also to all the individual lives that were freed from alienation by the establishment of legal barriers against arbitrariness and exclusion . critical theory would be in the odd position of casting aspersions upon the very people it purports to speak for. “Agamben’s Challenge to Normative Theories of Modern Rights. N 1//shree) In the case of empirical examples. To reject the language of human rights altogether could be a costly gesture in understanding past political struggles in their relevance for future ones.” Borderlands. and a serious strategic. of modernity’s moral superiority. From a practical point of view. it seems counter-productive to claim that there is no substantial difference between archaic communities and modern communities provided with the language of rights. that does not simply equate it with Nazi propaganda (Ogilvie 2001). but not at the cost of renouncing the resources that rights provide. Otherwise. There must be a way of problematising the ideological mantra of Western freedom. Honneth 2003). the erasure of difference between phenomena seems particularly counter-intuitive in the case of dissimilar modes of internment. V 3.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 65 Agamben K Aff: Rights Good—Deranty Human rights are good—the alternative is totalizing and re-entrenches domination Deranty ‘4 (Jean-Philippe. If the ethical task is that of testimony. We want to criticise the ideology of human rights. Habermas and Honneth probably have a point when they highlight the advances made by modernity in the entrenchment of rights.

all in response to strikes. when all men [and woman] become homines sacri. during the Heath government. workers break their contracts with a view to renegotiating them. for institutions last longer if they retain the capacity to start over. the strike is simultaneously within the law and outside it. just as important for the survival of institutions as dictatorship. exceptions to work can easily come about by accident. . but it has its own sacred history. through the spread of wildcat strikes or absenteeism. a purely formal device which allows 'the state to exist even as the law recedes'. “State of Exception by Giorgio Agamben. the latter is to be encouraged. Instances such as this. and. a primary function of the emergency has been to deal with strikes. the first Emergency Powers Act was passed in 1920 and used the following year against the miners' strike. all men [and women] are sovereign. slaves freed and the poor reunited with their property. in itself. reformation enables them to be renewed. then resuming work. the exception is often made in an attempt to close a space opened up by someone else. Livy mentions an occasion when a iustitium was declared because people had given up going to work to participate in the Bacchanalia.ADI 2010 Fellows—Shree 66 Agamben K Aff: State of Exception Good The state of exception has been used to stop political violence Bull 5 (Malcolm. jubilees were years when normal working activities ceased. 'in the exception the power of real life breaks through the crust of mechanism that has become torpid by repetition. Like the state of exception. In a strike. as Machiavelli first recognised.” pg. But Agamben gives little indication that the state of exception is usually only one side of a social confrontation. Missing from his account of the state of exception is any real acknowledgment that. . but whereas the former is to be deployed as sparingly as possible.' Unlike the state of exception. In this respect. In the United Kingdom. to render all men [and women] equal. when 'we shall legislate for all [hu]mankind'. William Benbow's 'Grand National Holiday'. established to establish plenty. a state of emergency (which lasted eight months) was declared to deal with the General Strike. or the crisis that it provokes. the state of exception produces outlaws. The symmetry between the strike and the emergency is not just historical. in its modern form. A formal state of exception may result. Dictatorship and renovation may both be precipitated by crisis. or that. Such practices provided the model for the first attempted general strike.) Who then decides the exception? In Agamben's work. In the Jewish law. in which the government sanctions collective (in)action. for while dictatorship only allows norms to be preserved. but if there are enough outlaws there is effectively no law in any case. both of which have the capacity to remake established legal and social frameworks. the exception differs significantly from constituent power and the political general strike. London Review of Books. The ability to revise existing norms is. on the holy day. and it is the body politic that becomes the defenceless homo sacer. Agamben does not refer to this tradition of exception. to abolish want. (The 2 January Bank Holiday in Scotland is a more recent example. and the socially dead were resuscitated .debtors given relief.' Yet it is not the state of exception itself that carries the power of real life so much as the crisis with which it attempts to deal. . According to Schmitt. 104-114//shree) This distorts Agamben's argument at both a historical and a theoretical level. The state of exception is. there were five states of emergency. are unusual. Yet unlike exceptions to the law. most recently. so named because 'a holiday signifies a holy day and ours is to be of holy days the most holy . The state of exception is more often used to suppress industrial action: an attempt to turn law into violence in order to oppose the law-making violence of the strike. rather than creating a void in the law. editor. and provides a bridge across the abyss between two moments of law.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful