FIIITr|r|r|r|r|

r|

l|III

C \R\ WOI EE, SERIEq tDITOR

D o r s ttl i ty : T hi nk in s B a ck tl Lr o u g h Te chn ol o gyanti PoliticsDavid \Ą,11ls

Bfos: Biopolitics nnd PhilosoplryRoberto Esposito

It\l'nerL S pecies NIee t

Donna J. Harawav

The Poetits o/ Dr\,A

fuciith Roof

The Pnrasite

N,lichel Serres

T\,2D10s

Biopolitics and

Roberto Esposito

'frunslated and with en IntrurLuctron bv Timothy Cempbell

posthuman,

L:nrversity of N[innesottt Press

|v[innettpoLis

London

Philosophy

Introduction

France, I{ovenber zooo. A decision of the French Appeals Ctlurt opens a

liłcerating conflict in French jurispr-udence. Tlvo appeals are overturned,

r,vhich had in turn reversed the previous sentences. -fhc court recognized

that a babv by the name of Nicolas Perruche, rvho was born with serious

genetic lesions, had the right to sue the doctor who had misdiagnosed a

case of German measLes in the pregr.rant mother. Against her expresse,.i

wishes, she was prevented fiom aborting. what zrppears to be the legally

irresolvable object of controvelsy in the entire incident is attributing to

sma11 Nicolas the right nol to be born. At issue is not the proven error ot

the medical laboratory, br-rt rather the status of the subject who conte sts it.

How can an individuzrl have 1egal lecourse against the onlv circltmstance

that turnishes him with juridical subjectivit,v, namelY, that of his own birth?

The dithculty is both of a logical and an ontologicaL order. If it is aiready

problematic that a being can invoke I'ris or her right not to be, it is even

more dilficult to think of a nonbeing (rvhich is precisely who has not yet

been born) that claims the right to remain as such, and theretbre not to

enter into the sphere of being. What appears undeciciable in terms of the

law is the reIqll=ol.bęt*ę-ęn bipJo'gicąl 'ręąlly ą!d th.,ltrrldig4 pcIs9.n' thŁrt

is, betw.een natural lite and ir tbrm oi lif'e. It is true that being born into

such conditions, the baby incurred harm. But who if not l're himseli coulcl

have clecided to avoid it, eiininating beforehand his or,vn being irs the sub-

ject ol lifc, thc liie proper ol u subiect? NoL onlv. Bc..rttse cverv subicctivc

right corresponds to the obligation of not obstructilg those whu .rre in rt

condition to do so signifies that the mother wouic1 havc been torced ttr

llIIl|IIIII|

l|IlIIl|ll

r Introduction

.rbort irrcsp.'ctive oihcr cl'roice. The right of the titiLs not to be born r,vouldbe configured theretbre as a preventive dutyon the part oIthe person ivhoconceived to elin.rinzrte him [sopprinterlo;,, instit]-rting in such a \\,'av a euqenicc.resura, one that is legallv recogr-rizecl, between a jr-rridical lif'e that is judscdas valid and another "lite utr,vorLhv oiiite," to use the Nazi phrase.

Afghttnistttrt, November:oor. Two months after the terrorist attacks ofSeptember 11, a ne\v kind of "humanitarian" rvar takes shape in the skiesabove Afghanistan. The adjective lrurnanitttrittn no longer concerils the rea-sons beirind the conflict-as had occurred in Bosnia and Kosovo, namel-r,.,

to def-end entire populations fiom thc threat of ctl.rnic genocide-but Lts

privileged instrument, lvhich is to sav air bombardments. And so we findthat both bighly destructive bombs were rcleased aiong r,vith provisions andmedicine on the samc territory at the same time. \V'e must not lose sight ofthe threshold that is crossed lre re. The probłem doesn't 1ie only in the du.bious jr-rridical legitimacy of rv.rs tbught in the name of universirl rightson the basis of arbitrarl.or biascd decisions on the part of'those who hadthe lbrce to impose and execute tl-rem, and not even in the iack of unifbr,mitv often established between proposed ends and the results that are ob-tainecl. The most acute ox,vmoron of humanitarian bombardment liesrather in the sqperimpo.sit1gp lhlt is mąpjt.ested in.it bętween the.declareclintg5rqlg1 t-cr..!"elgnc! ,!iJe a1d loprodLlce- 4c,t,r-ral-deqLlh_, The wars of the twen-ticth centurv have made us accustomed to thc rel'ersal oi the proportionbetwecn military deaths (which r'vas largelv rhe case betbre) and civilianvictims (r,vhich are today t'ar superior to the fbrmer). From timc immcmo-rial racial persccutions have been bascd on the presuprposition that thedeath of some strengthens the life of others, br-it it is precisely for this reasonthat the clemarcation of a clear division betr.veen lives to clestroy and lir,.es

to save endures ancl incleed grows. It is preciselv such a ciistinction that istendentiouslv erased in the logic of boml>arclments that are destineci tokill and protect the sanre people. The root of sr-rch an indistinction is not tobe sought, as is ofien done, in tr strr-rctural mutation of war, but rather inthe rntrcl.r l-l.rore radical transformation oI the idea oi |nLłulnitas that sub-tends it. priiumeJ tor...rr.i.i.,.

". runuipi"... i.,,,''on f .i.gr lyi ucrnittil.';ebove the simplc con.ron lit'e of other living species (and theretbre chargecl

with a political value), htLmanittłs increasing-lv comes to adhere to its or,vn

biological rlaterial. But once it is reduce.l to its p,,rre vitd substance andtbr that rcirson removed ttom everv juridical-political form, the humanrtyof man re nrrrins necessarilv e.tposed to lvhirt both saves and annihilates it.

1nIIO11uct1ol] 5

Rris,.lrr, October :oo:.. Special groups of the Russian state police raid the

Dubrovska Theater in NIoscow, r'vhere a Chechen commando unit is hold-

ing irlmost a thousand peopie hostage. The incnrsion resuits in the de:rth ofr:8 hostages as r,vell as almost all of the terrorists thanks to an incirpacitating

and lethal gas. The episodc, iustifred and indeed praised by other so\rern-

ments as a mode I of firinness, marks irnother step lvith respect to ihe others

I'r.'e already describcd. Even if in this case the term "humanitarian" was not

used, the underlying Logic is no ditTcrent: the deaths here emerse out of the

same desire to save as many lives as possibLe. \\rithout lingerinq over other

troubling crrcunrst.rnces (such as the use of a gas that was prohibited bv

international treaties or the impossibility oi making available adequate anti-

.lotes trhilc kccping sccret thcir VĆrV nattlre)' Ir't.s c.lnsiJer the poini th.rt

intcrests us most. The death of the hostages wasn't an indirect and accidental

ci'feeL ol thc raiJ b1 lar,. cnf,rrecmcnt. rvhieh..rn h.lppen in.lse' suqh l>

these. It wasn't the Chechens, rvho, surprised by the police assault, kjlled the

hostages, but the police rvho killed the4 diry.lly Fr*quentlv onr' spcxks ofthe specularity of the me thocls bctlveen terrorists ancl those that face otT

against them. This is understandable and under certain limits inevitable.

But never befbre does one see governmental agents, charged with saving

prisoners from a possiblc dcath, crrrry oLrt the massacre themselves, lvhich

the terrorists had themselves on1v threatened. Various tactors'węished in the

Pllssi;ln nresi.Ienf's decision: thc desirc to disc.'rrr.llc orllcr JttĆnlDts oI thc

iort: Ihc mcss.l,g3 to rlrc Chec-hcns thlt thJir fighr I'.l"r.i nu hopc of srrcccc.l-ni it< rnn,rrcnt,'riqi< P,,.tng; Jnd .l dlSPlJV_ol sovL'rclgn.po.wer. tn J. tlmc vL .,,..r'J,J. rlli,

[un.jłmcnt.lIly. somĆthing cIsc con:tittrtcs irs t.lcit.lssLtmpiion. Thc blitz

on the Dubrovska Theater n()t onlv marks, ls I saitl, the withdralvul of poli-tics in the face of brute force, nor is it irreclucible t. t ;;;r "i oi on

Ęn;;'.;";"".iio" u.iii"en politics and evil [male]' it is the e*t'ę,n. .*'pression th.rt politics crn assume rvhen it firccs, withorrt.lnv nrcdiation, thc

e!e!!i.o_n at ths survival of hLLman beings sr-rspended between lite ancl

deeth. To kecp lhem irlirc.lt.rll cc''1, ofle rrfl cvcn deciJc to hJstcn thcir:' *':

deatn.

Chiną, FebrtLcLry 2003. The Western media circulates the nelvs (stronglv.

censored by the Chinese government) that in the sole province oi Henan

there are a million and a half Chinese lvho are seropositive, lvith some vil-lages such as Donghu having J pclcĆntJge thJt ;i.Ńś upiłards of 8o per.

ce nt of thc p,lpuhtion. Unlikc other Third \Vorld countries. the eont.rgion

does not have a naturai or a sociocultnral cause. but an immediate economtc

-

r r

6 Introdnction

and,pgl!q19-a!o..19, At its origin is not unprotected sexuar rerations nor crirtvdrug needles, but rather thc sare en masse of L.rooc, w,hich the central gov-ernment encourased and oreanized. The bloocr, which the government hadcxtfacted from peasants who were in need oI mone,v, was centritirgecl inlarge conrainers that separ:rteci the piasma tiom the red grobules. r,vhlie thefbrmer lvas sent to rich buyers, the latter was agaln injectecr into the cr.,.orsso as to avoid anemia and to tbrce them into repeating the operation. Butit onlv took one of them to be inf-ected to contaminate the entire stock ofblood containec' in the hugc cauldrons. Thi-rs, errtire villages łvere fi.ledwith those who r'vere seropositir.e, which, given the rack of medicine, be-..1rl1:

" death sentgnce-. It is r^re rhat China has ..."ntiu roiJ .heap

"niiĄlu) meLlic]nes procucec1 locaiiy on the market, but it dirj not make themavailable to the peasants of Henan, r,vhom it not onry ignorecr, but whom itobligeci to keep r}riet at the risk of imprisonment. The aftair was revealedby someone rvho, left alone alter the c-leaths of his relatives, preferred cryingln prlson rather than in his .lvn hut arone. It's enough to move o.r gazeonto another, larger phenomenon to see that biorogical serection in a coun-try tl'rat continues to define itseif as communist isn,t onry of crass, but alsoof se't' This happens at the moment when the state poricy of "a single chilci"(which was intended to halt a growing demographic) is joinccl to thc tech_nology of ecography' c;rusing the abortion of-a large nurnber of those w.howou-ld have becorne rirture women. f'his made the former traditional prac_tice in the countrvside, of clrowning femare infants upon birth, o,.r"..r-sary' br-rt it was bound to augment the numericar disproportion betweenmales and fćmales. It has been calculatecl that in less than twenty years itwill be ditficult fbr Chinese men to find a wif-e, if they don't tear her awayfiom her family as an adorescent. pcrhaps it's fbr this reason that in chinathe relation between female antl male suicides is five to one.

Rwant\ą, April:,oo1. A United Nations report tells us t-lrat arounc] ten thou-sand babies of the same age are the biologicar resurt of mass ethnic rapesthat occurred ten vears ago during the ger.rocide that the Hutu committeclon the Tutsi- As occurred rater in Bosnia and other parts of the woricr, slrcha practlce modified in original ways the relation between life rrnd cleath thathacl untll then been recognized in traditional wars zrncl even in those so*cailed asvmmetrical wars .rgainst terrorists. whiie in these wars cleath al_wavs comes ttom rif-e-and even comes throttghlif'e as rn kamikaze suicideattacks-in th9 1ct of ethnic rape it is also rife that emerges tiom death,

i I I I r, rl Ll;1 i e I 1

tiom violence' ancl tiom the terror of rvomen l'vho were mac1e prcgnałt . ,

l'vhi]eunćoi-lsciousfiolntheb1or'vsthev-hat]receivedorimmobi1iz.j*i.r'. ti"ir" to their thro;rt. It is an exampre oi "positive" eugenics tl-rat is not1ut|"poś"a t|, ihe negative one prlctice..i 1ą Clrina or elselvhere' br-tt ratherconstitutcs its cor-rnterfactual rcsuit. Whereas the Nazis ancl all their imita-tors carriecl out genocide bv preemptiv.el) destroying birth, those Lrf todaydo so thror-rgh forced birth and theretbre in thc most drastic perversion ofthc event that brings essence to self fliz sć l,essenztL] , other tl'ran the pronr-ise of life. contrarv to those u.ho sirw in the nervness of birth the symbolicanc] real presupposition for rener,vcd po1itical action, tĘl' rqp-s!'''akę, itqhe mgst :4-q_t-e_ pglnt of connection between lite anci death, bLrt rvhich oc_cu1.s. in tt'. t.ągi| poiaclox of a new generation o| life]. That all Rwanclinrnothers of the wtrr, when asked about their olvn experiences, declirrecltheir-love tbi their children born tionr hate signihes that the force of lif-eprcvaiis once again over that of death. Furthermore, the most extreme im-ryE{lir|y pla.9!!qę'.'i{hich is to say 4ffi111i'qg tł'.

'"p"iioiitv..lf one,ś oyun

-b_loq4 !u the point of imposing it on those with whom one cloes ntlt shą'reit, is destined to be turn_ed. agiinst itself, pro<lucing cxactly what it lvanteclto ;rvoitl. The uutu'i[iiJren oirutri#ii-.n, or the Tutsi children ot Flutu

'-.} men, are the qĘ.Ę9gve''com-.,pi1.1iąn,"rvhicl'r is to say n1ultiethnic ol-ttcomeof the most violent racial immunization. \,ve are ttrced here too with .r sort

"iu".t".ia"uititv, ui

" doufle facecr phenomenon in which lit-e and poli-

tics are ioined in a relation r,vhose interpretation clemands a ne\,v concep 1,.*','trr.ll lnngurrge

At the center of such a lang.age is tl-re notion of biopolitics. it is b.vstarting with biopolitics thirt events such as those I've just described, whichescape a more traditional interpretation, find a cornplex of meaning thatmoves bevond their simpie manif-estation. It is tme that they provicle anextreme image (though certainlv not untbithful) of a dynamic that alreaclyinvolves all the most important politicar phenomena of our time. Fromthe war of .nd against terrorism to mass migrations; from the politics ofpublic health to those of clemography; from measures of security to theuniimited extension of emergency legislation-there is no phenomenonof international importance that is extraneoLrs to the double tendency thatsituates the episodes I've jLrst described within a single of line of me aring.on the one hand, a growing superimposition betrveen the dor'ain of p.weror of lalv Itliritto] and that of lite; on the other, an equallv ckrse implication

TI

TI|r|rlIrlrlrlr|llIl|l|I

rI

I Introduction

that seerns to hrrvc been derived l,vith regard to death. It is e,ract.lv the tragrcparadox that Nlichel Foucault, in a series of writines <iating back to themidd1e oi thc r9;os' eramined. l!h1{oes q p olilię! of lite alr,vays risk bcingreversed iqlo a work of- deeth?

I think I can sar'', without tiriling to ackno'vieclge the extraorclinarv ana-lvtic por,ver of his r.vork, that Foucault never fu.ilv ansrvered the cluestion; orbetter, that he aln'a;,s hesitatecl choosins ti-orn among clitferent responses,responses that \,vere fbr their part tributaries of diilerent modes of approach_ing the tluestion that he himself had raised. The opposite interpretatrons oibiopolitics, the one radically negati'e and the other absolutelv euphoricthat todav lead the field, do nothing except make absolute (bv sprea,lingthem apart) the tlvo hermeneutic optrons between rvhich ForLcault nc'erdecided. lVithout anticipating here ;r more detailer,l reconstruction of theatfair, mv impression is that this situation of phiiosophical and politicalstalemate originates rvith a question that is either missing or has been in-sufEcientlv posecl concerning the presuppositions of the theme in questron:not just .n1! bigPgĘt.s signi1ies brrt horv it r'v.!s-born. Holv is it configuredove'time and r"hah . ;,^Eo tt ."",i"*a.,- carry? It's enough to extenclresearch on the cliachronic axis rrs well the horizontal level to recognizethat For-rcault's decisive theorizations are nothing but the final segment (irsr.vell as the most accomplished) of a line of discourse that goes rather fur-ther back in time, to the beginning oI the last century. To bring to light thislcxical tradition (fbr tl-re first tirne I rvourcl adcl), revealing its contigr-rityand semantic intervals, obviouslv doesn't only have a philological empha-sis' because only a similar ki.rd of operation of- e,xcavation prornotes theforce and originalitv of Foucault's thesis through ditl-erences with it; butabove all because it allows us to peer into the black box of biopolitics irom avarietvoiangles and with a greater breadth of gaze. It becomes possibłe toconstruct a critical perspective on the interpretive path that Foucault himselfcreated; tbr example, with ret'erence to the complex relationship, rvhich heinstituted, between the biopolitical regime and sovereign power. \,ve will re-turn rn more detail to this specific point turtl-rer on, but lvhat ousht to clr;rr,vour attention-because it involves the verv samc meaning of the categorvrn qr,restiori-is the reiation betr,veen the politics of tit'e .rncl the ensemble ofmodern political categories. Does biopolitics pr.ecedc, fbllor,v, or coincidetemporallv with modernitv? Docs it have a 1:ristorical, epochei, or origin.rydimcnsion? Fouc.'lt's response to such a question is not completelv clear, aqrrestion that is decisivc because it is logicallv connecte,,l to the interpreta-

IntrodLrctiori 9

tion of contemporarv expe rience. Hc oscillates bet.uveen a continuist atti-

tucle and another that is more inclined to mark ditlerential thresholds.

NIy thesis is that tl-ris kinLi oi an ep1stĆmoltlgical uncertaintv is attribut-

.lblc t,-.' thc llilur. lu Llse J ntrrrc Juctilr'p.lr.lJig,m. trnc thrrt is c.lprlble ot

articulatins in a more intrinsic manner the tlvo lemmas that are en,:1osed

in the concept in question, r'vhich I have tbr some time nor.v referred to in

terms of immunization. Without e,xpanding here on its overall meaning

(lvhich I've hacl occasion to define elservl-rere in ll1 its projections of sense),

Lhc eicment thlt quickll ncc.l' to bc cst.lbliihctl is thc pe-ulilr knul th.tr

imqrunization posits between biopolitics an{ mqlgpqti,.L I say quicklv be-: ,.cause it restores the missing link of Fouceult.s .rrgunrentation. \Ąrhat I lvant

ro i.1v i5 that onlv rvhcn bropolitig. rs linf c.|.9!59p.!uril_v_-lg Lhc_ immunr

rlrr Jyn."rlri. ol tlrc ncg.ltitc..pt:orr:rtitrrl oi l.itc Joct hiopolitics rcrerl its

specificirlly modern genesis- This is not because its roots rrre missing in other

pre ceding epochs (they aren't ), but bccause on[y modernity urakes of incli-

viclLral self-preservatior-r the presupposition of ali other political categorir's,

iiom sovereigntv to liberty. Naturally', tl-re fact that mg!9_lq biopolltlgq 19

aiso embodied through-th.e m'ęd.!4ilotl, q! 'gąr.Ęgories that are still ascribtrble

to the idea of older (understootl as the transcenclental of the relation be-

t\,veen połVer and sub,jects) mcJns tlrat the pqlrqc.1!rq"t- Ąi91...i.s p!]1'19taffirrned ą!s91ut5'.]y' So that it might be' which is to say so [hirt lite is imrne'

tłiatelytransl'atable into poiitics or so that politics night irssume an intrin-sic,i1l1, biologic.rl characterization, we have to wait fbr the totalitarian turn-

in3pointoithelo3os,inpurticrrl.lr{brNirzism. Ihcre.notonlvtllencg.ltive(which is to say the work of death) u'i1l be functionalized to stabilize order(as certainly rvas still the case in the modern perio.l ), but it will be pro-

duced in growing quantities according to a thanatopolitical clialectic that is

bound to condition the strengthening of lit'e vis-)-vis the ever more exten-

sivc realizltion oi Jc.rth.

In the point of passage fiom tł.re first to the se conc{ tbrm of immttnizarion

wiLl be fbunci the rvorks of Nietzsche, to whom I've dedicated an entire chap-

ter of this book. I have done so not only tbr his underlving biopolitical rele-

vance, bi,it becausc he constitutes an extraordinary seismogrlph of the ex-

haustion of modern political categories when mediating between politics and

lit.e. To assume the 1.il1 o.|po!'V-ęI a!. !bę-.f99c111n.91tl1yit.rl lmpulse means

Jltirming Jt thc sJmc tirnc rhlr liic h.rr J runstitutivcly pr'liticrldimcnsi,rn.rnd th.rgpoliric' hls.nr) oLhcr obiecL th.rn thc m.rintcnlnee.rnd exp.lnsionof lite. Ir is prccisclv in thc rclrrtionship beilveen thcse hro ulLinr;:Le nrodcr

IIl|IlllIIllIlll|llIlrlI

r!t

Il_

12 Introduction

Here the rc is a hna1 point tłrat seems to me lrsetul to clarrtv betore pro-

ccc.lins. \t ilhoLrL Jcnvrns tllc legirimacv oi trthcr inLcrprctions or oLhcr

normative proiects, i do not believe the task oi philosophlr-even when

biopolitics chrilenqes it-is that rtf prol.rosing models of political action that

make biopolitics the flag of a revolutionary manifesto or merelv somethingretbrmist. This isn't because it is too radical a concept but because it isn't

ruclicll cnough. This would. morco\er. conirJdict the initi.rl prcsupposi-tion .lccorJinS tr' 1u1-'.n it i\ no longcr possiblc to disarrictrlatc politicsand lit-e in a form in which the former can pror..ide orientation to the latter.

This is nor to srv, oi;orrrsc. thaL prrlitics is incap.rble of lcting on whlt is

both it' trbicet.rn.l subicul.l loirsenin3 thc grip ot ncw sovcrtign ptrrvers is

possible and necessarv. Perhaps lvhat we need today, at least for those lvhopractice philosophv, is the converse: not so much to think life as a t'unctLon

oI pclitics, but to think politics rvithin the same,form o_f li!,e It is a step

that is anvthing but ea.sv because it would be concerned with bringing lif'e

intrr relrtirrn with hinnolitics not from the outside-in the moclalitv ofrccepting or retusins-but t_ro_m w_it!r,!, to open life to the point at which

something emerges rvhich hird until today remained <tut of view because itis held tightlv in the grip of its opposite. I have attempted to offer more

than one example of such a possibilitv and oIsuch a demirnd rvith regard

to the figure of tlesh, nornt, nnd birth thought inversely with respect to bodv,

1aq and nation. But tlrc 39.s!'gq1.e.rg!-an{ 11geg9ę dimen5!.qil 9.f thrs-col-stl'L]cl]ve deconstruction has to do precr5ęly with that immunitlrry p_ara-

digm that constitutes the distinctive mode in rvhich biopolitics has utriitnotr bcen pur lbrwxrd. \ever morc th.rn in rhis.asc Jtrcr it: scn)Jnllcs,that of the negative protection of lit-e, reveai a t'undamental relation withits cornmunitarian opposite. If immtLnlfas is not even thinkable outside ofthe common munLts that also negates it, perhaps biopolitics, lvhich untilnorv har been Ibl.led tightlv rnto it, c.ln irl:o trLrn irs negrtive \ign into J

ditferent. oositive sense.

CHAPTER ONE

The Enigma of BioPolitics

Bio/politics

l{ecently'notonlvlrasthenotiono|..biopolitics''moveritothecenterofinternationaL debate, but the tcrm hirs opened a completely nerv phase in

contemporar,v thought. From the moment that rv-lichel Foucault reproposed

ancl redcttnecl the concept (when not coining it), the entire fiarne oi politi-

calphilosophyemergeclasprotbuncll,vmodihetl'Itwasn'tthrtclassicllcrte-gu.i., ,...}' as those of ..lalv''

Itliritto],..sovereigntv',' and ..democracv''

sudclenl,v left the sce ne-they continue to organize cLlIIent political dis-

course-but that their etfective meaning always appears weaker and lacking

trnv real interpretive capacit,v. Rather than explaining ,r re;rlitv thrrt cvcrYlvhere

slips through their analytic grip, these categclries thcmselves demand to be

sutjcctecl to the scrutiny oi l more pcnetrsring girze tha[ both deconstructs

and cxplains rhem. Let's consider, for instance; iaw'flcggeJ Difttrently fiom

whatmanvhal.eargued,thereisnotlringtlratśiiggeststhatsuchadomirrnhas somehorv been recluced. on the contrary, t-h-9'-1Lnp-q-e-ss1qn is that the

domain of law' is gaining telrain !-9L!-c19mesti9aly and'internationaLlv;

tt ,.,t th" proc"r, oi n.xr'rotivization-'is investing increasi'rgiy wider spaces'

Neverthcless, this doesn't mean that juriclical language per se reveals itself

to be incapable of illuminating the profound logic of such a change' \\tren

onespeaksof"humanrights,"tbrexample'ratherthanreierringtoestab-lisheJ j,_rriclical subjccts, one ret'ers to indivicluals dehned by nothing other

than the simple fact of being alive' Something analogous can be said about

the political ctisposiif of sovtreignt'v' Anvthing but destinecl to rveaken rs

li

-TI

I

ii

&

Btttłi:

.ł

,i

t'

t,

iFFr

rt_

1.+ 'fhe Enigma of Biopoiitic.s

some had rashlv forecast (at least with resard to the worlcl's greatestpo\\'er), sovereigntv seems to have extendeci ancl intensihed its range of ac-tion-bevond a repertoire that for centuries had characterized its relation toboth cltizens anc] other state structures. !V'ith the clear distinction bctłveeninside and outside weakened (ancl therefore also the distinction betweenlvar and peace that had charactcrized sovereign power for so long), sover-eigntv finds itseif directly engaged with questions of lite ancl cle.th thar nolonger have to do lvith single areas, bLrt lvith the worlcl in all of its extcn-sions. Therefore, if lve take up an,v perspective, we see that something tl-iatgoes bevond the custoinary language appears to involve dircctly law andpolitics, clragging them into a dimension that is outside their conceptualapparatuses. This "something"-this element and this substance, this srLb-strate and this upheaval-is preciselv the object of biopolitics.

Yet there doesn't appear to be an adequate categorical ex;rctitude thatcorresponds to the epochal relevance of biopolitics. Far tiom having ac-quired a definitive order, the concept of biopolitics appears to be traverseclbv an uncertaint,v, by an uneasiness.that impedes every stable connotatlon.Indeed, I i,vould go further. Biopolitics is exposecl to.ą g1olving h9rm.ę1ętl-tic pressure that seems to make it not only the instrumęni b"t also theobtect ol u hitt.er philos.rphiral .lnd poliLic.tl fight over rhe confiqLrrlrionand destiny of the current age. From here its oscillation (though or." .o.,ljwcll sav its disruption ) be [\\Ćen interprctations' .'rncl bc|ore tllJt cVcI1 it5different, indeed conflicting tonalities. lvhat is at stake of course is thenatLlre of the relation that tbrces together the tlvo terms that make up thecategorv of biop*olitics. But even befr>re that its definition: what rjo weunderstand by bios and horv do we want to think a pqliligg that .ditectlvirddresses it? tlte ieference ro the classic ngu.. of bios politikos doesn,tiielplslnce the semantics in question become meaningtul precisely r,vhenthe meaning of the term withdraws. If lve want to remain with the Greek(and in particular with the Aristotelian) 1exicon' Ę!cl.p.o]it!99 1ęfers, if an,v-thing, t-o.tLe-digr-ę119ig.ł of :oc, which is to sav tq lit-e in ils:irypl.e-blqlqsic"1głpaeitv.-[tentLJa], more than it d.oes to''ii.,'.; unc]erstooci n, ...1.-ioiit,.a tir.''or "fo-rm of life," or at least to the line oi conjugation along which bios rsexposed to zoe, naturalizing bios as well. But preciselv lvith regard to thisterminological e-rchan9e, the iclea of bloporitics.appears to be situatecl in azone of double indiscernibilit,v, first because it is inhabited bv a term thatdoes not belong to it and indeed risks distorting it. An<1 then beciuse it isfixed bv a concePt, preciselv that of zoą lvhich is stripped of everv fbrmal

Thc Enigna of Biopolitics ij :

connotation..Zoe itself c.tn onlv bc dehned problematlcallir: what, assum-

ing it is even coiceir.'able, is an absolutely natururl life? It's even more the

clse todav, lvhen the \t-1" .b-qit."-rppears to be increasingl;r chailenged

'rnJ al,o liter.rllv t.1.-.t{*Ęy technoloey t;;tlica1.|Po]iric; PcnelrJlcsclirectlv in iit-e and lii-e b.;,";t "ih.ifioni

itseif. Thus' if a natural life

doesn't exist that isn't at the same time technological as weli; if Qs, r-e,lation

be11v9ęq'|1o1 q'1c1;o.e. 1eeds by nolv (or has always needed) to inc]trde in it

e thir.cl correlated term, technć-t|ren how clo we h,vpothesize an e.tclustve

relation betrveen politics and life? -Here too the concept oibiopolitics seems to lvithdraw or be emptied of

content in the same moment in which it is formulated. \'\&at remzrins ciear

is its negative value, lvhat it is nor or the horizon of sense thirt marks its .'

closing. Biopolitics hirs to do with that complex of mediations, opposi-

tions, and dialectical operations that in an extended phase made possible

the modern political order, at least according to current interprctrtion.

With respect to these and the questions and problems to which they corre-

spond relative to the definition of por,ver, to the measure of its exercisc

and to the dclineation of its limits, it's indisputable that a general shift of

fie1c1, 1ogic, and the oblect of politics has taken place. At the moment in

which on one side the,modern distinctions b+y=eg! p-qp-.iic31d pr!,19!e'

sĘ9-ancl socie.q,v, local ancl grob"r .oil;P;",;;J;" the otl-rer that ą!1 ot]]-e'r

sources- of legitimacy dry up, ][..p..o-.' eŁ3TŁę! -|ł'!Ęl"",-ęl qf gy'e.I-y^

poIitic.rI proccdure . \o olher puIitics is.eonceir.rble o1h-e1.1Ęi1 J p9|.j.t]:''*o-iI -'-. ---: ' -'lifb, in ttre objective and subjective sense of the term. But it is precisely

wiih rct-erence to the relation between the subject irnd object of politrcs

that the interpretive divergence to which I alluded earlier appears agaitl:

How are we to comprehend a political government of 1if'e? In what sense

does 1if'e govern politics or in what sense does politics govern lit-e? Does it

(on\'.rn J g()vL'rning oJ'or ovt'r litc? tt is the same coneeptuul .lltcrllllivcthat one can express throLrgh the lexjća1'bifl.rrcirtion betr'veen the terms,

r-r'eJ inrIiflcrcntly 'ometirncs. ol"'biopoIiti,-s' .lnJ "bioporvcr." Br the hrst

is meant u3oĘgrt1Ę-,r.lq--Ju.-ilirę i".] bu th. ,".nn|l a tit..'ti'u1e.9iq..i"19.

tl-rg_gommand of poiitics. But here toc in this mode tl're paracligm that

seeks a conceptrial linking bcŁłl-een the terms cnle rges as split, as if it had

been cut in tlvo bv the very same moverhent. Compressecl (lnd at the same

time destabilized) bv competing readings ancl subjcct to continuous rota

tions of meaning around its orvn ;r,xis, the conce Pt of biopolitics risks losing

its identitv and becorn.ing an enigma.

rlIrlrlrlIllItI

rtj The Eniqma of Biopolitics

To unclcrstercl whv', it isn't enoLlgh to limit our pcrspectir.e simplv;eFoucault's observltiorLs. Ratl-rer, lve need to return to those texts an,l toautłrors (often not cited) that Foucault,s discussion c]erives tiom' anc] agalnstrvhich he repositi.r.rs himsell, ivhilc criticaily cieconstructing them. T.hesec.n b.: cataiogcd in tl'rree distinct anci successivc blocks in time (ar least

h<l:ho:" that explicitlv retcr to rhe concept ofbiopolitics). -fhev

are character-

N2lzcrr' respcctLvelv' bv an approach that is organistic, anthroporogical, anclPnrrrurliisric. In thc hrst instance, tl-r.y ..t.ito-iT,,6rtorrtiol ,"ri., ot essays!

pho.iiu c.rnrirn' thirt arc joinec1 by a vit4istic conception of tlre .stąte'such as K.rr!=B1g{jag's Zutt ]!_il-Ąl Lt,tl Lebe:rt cle:r Snaten(r9:o), of r'vhichr,ve lvill h;rve occasion to speak later; lb-e1ha1gl Dęnnęr1]s Der Stąttt ąlsIebentliger c)rganismtLs (r9:.o); and Ecfivaril Hahn's Der stttat, ein Lebert_rr'(-i(,/.r rq:n'. our.rtrr'rliun rrill hr tucn:cd, nu*.u.i, nrost intr,ntlvtrn thcswedc Rudolph Kie,lLen, probabiv because he rvrrs thc hrst to cn-rproy theterm "biopolitics" (r'vc also .rve him the expression ,,geopolitics"

thtrtFriedrich Ratzel and Karl Hausl-rof-er will later eiaborate in a ciecidcdlyracist kcv). \'vith respect ro such a racist propcnsitl', wl-rich wilr shortr,vthereafter culminate in trre Nazi theorization of a "vital spnce,, (Lebett,srtttLm) we shouic] note that Kjellćn's pclsition remaitls less cot-lspicuolrs,clespite his proclaimed sirmpathy tbr lVilhelminian Clerman a.s well as acertaur propensitl' tbr an aegressive tbreign poricv. As he hacl previousryargued in his book of igo5 0n the great powers, vlgoroLls strrtes, endor,veclr'vith a limited territory, discover the neecl for extenr]ing their bordersti-rrough the conquest, fi-rsion, and colonialization of other lancis.,, But it,s inthe volurne trom 1916 titLed The State as Form of LiJe that Kjellćn sees thisgeopolitical demiind as e-xist.ing in crose relation to an orgirnlstic co.cep-tion that is irreducible to constitutional theories of a liberal framer,vork.rlvhile these latter represent the state as the artihcial procluct of a freechoice of inclividuals that have created it, he understands it to be a.il!yi.stornl" 1sołn Livst'brm in Srvcciish <>r tlls LebensJ-ornr in German), to the qx.!e]-!. '!h1t' L!5 tiLrnlslłed luith instinc-ts-irnd-na1uraldrił.es. Alreadv heie in thistranstilrmłrtion of the idea of the state, according to r,vł'rich the state Is nolonger a subjcct of lar,r' boi:n fiom a voluntary contract but tr wh.[e that rsintegrated bv men and which behaves .rs "r singre individuar both spiritualand corporeal,.r've can trace the originarv nucieus of bioporitical semantrcs.In outline 'tbr tt Politicrll Systern, KjeJ1ćn brings together a compenc1ium ofthe precedinu thcse.s:

t he Enigma of BiopoLitics i;

This tension tl-rat is ch4llctenstic oilifc itseli. . . pushcd me to denominatesuch l discipline b1-opo'iilics, which is ar-ra'|og9-qs 11.jtJ1 1]}9j"91ę]]c-e"9|!!ie'

n.1mel\', -!lglgsf, ltt so doinq u'r' grin much. c,-lnsirlering that the Greekword łio'. i1esignates not on1y naturirl and pllvsical lite, bLLt perl.raps jlrst as

srgrrificantlv c1t!1ury! |1|-e. Naming it in this lvav łlso ĆXplesses that depencl.e19,e 9!_th9 llys ot liil tf at 'ociety menitests rnd thxt prom()te, more rhan

:li to ihat iole oI arbiter or .rt a rninimum uLJn\ tnIn:: cl'Ć. tnc sIJ[c ll\(

mediator. j

These are expressions that take us beyond the ancicnt mctaphor oi the

body-state with all its muitiple metamorpi'roses of post-Romantic inspira-

tion. \Vl'rat begins to be glimpsed here is the ret'erence to a naturai snb-

strate, to a substantial principle thlt is rcsistant and that underlies any

abstraction or construction of institutional character. The rdca of the rrn-

possibililvol-rtrucorereonlingol-thcn.rturrl 't;Lein th.tl ,rl the pc'liti.rrI

emerges in opposition to the modern conception derived fiom Hobbes that

olre c.ln prcserve liic only bv insrituting an artihe iai blrricr rvith reg.lrd to

ntturc, which is itself incapable of neutralizing thc contljct t.rnd inrlcecl is

lr,rund IO:trenglh('1 il, I ^..,1';-,.1-',' rL , - ,.,.',i,,- ,,i - ,r,,... ,', , ^,,li,iCttl

is nothing else but the continuation of nature at another leve I anil theretLi:c

Jc'rincd to inctrrporltr' .rnd rcproduee nJturc s ,,rigin.ll e hrrrre tcristics.

If this process of the naturalization of politics in Kie llcn rcmains rn-

scribec-1 r,vithin a historical-culturirl apparatlls, it experiences a decisive .rc-

celeration in the essay that is destined to become lamous preciselv in the

field of compirrative bioiogv. I rm reterring to fryP_Tl:95_which was

aLso published in 19z,o bv Birron I.l&!*u:g:"^V.ę..*Ę!L-with the syr.nptornatic

srrbtit]e Ąu!o1ry."!Ęy::.!.!"',-$l-: 'gr:!.?-!]t-bp!B.gy-OłJhę's-utę:J1ere , as lvitir Kiel-1ćn, the discourse revolves around the bio']-ogl-cal conf,gur.rtion of .t st..rjeboclv rh,rt is unihcJ br h.rrm,rni.'rel;rlions of its orvn orpJns, reDrcscn-

tą1jve- qf d!!|919pt p19t.essions 1r1tJ competencies, t-,ut wiin "

J.."r iunairnvthing but irrelevantl Ę154-:!l!-yi1Ę19-9'lect to the preccding mude|

Here lvhat is spoken about is not anv state but the German state r,vith its

peculirr ch.rrecteristics and vital demzrnds. What makes the ditference,

ltt-llvever, is chief1y the emphasis t1rat patł'rolog\. essllmcs lvith respt.ct ttl

what is subordinated to it, nrmcly, anrtomv .rnd phvsiologv. Here \'ve can

aIrcadr spot the llrrbinge r of .l Lheor.'tic;-rl rvcrrr ing -th.rl .rI thc dcq,'ncrl-ti.,-e syndrome and the conseqLlent regenerative program-fatecl to reach

ils nl;lc.lbre ś|)1cn.lors in the t'.ll]orr ing dccldcs. Thrclrcning rhc public

t$ri

rt

rs rhe Enigna orBiopoliiic, II

the EnigEa ofBiopoLitio Le

he']th ofthe Ge'min bodvis a series of disea'es whi"lr obviohlr, fefer- | d.J.-u ""0 * *nstitured b). an er-traordinary comparison berween the

'ins ," ,he re\olu(.onin ,raum:s of -r-e rime. .,e 'ocr ed in .ubve,sive I ;";:. "" .rpprra.u, o ,he ,,r.e and e i___ir. I .":,;r,n,r rnr .i

IrJde un.on'sm' e'Ą lorJ demo.fu( v' fo lhe rignt.o 'Irike: rmort lhJ| i ""...""ll1"'";'.'eicruditsa'""\iJh"ebiIIeluln:g ow in e li.,Les of he {Je. cJ-sing rarch) Jnd rinJUy (he ,r, en dis- " r"* -

solution. It would be "as if the majority of rhe ce s i. o ur bodv ( rrther j rl e s inplest -ay to ihink of ilm ity is to look on the humM boCy as a

than those in our brain) decided which impu]ses to communicJte to the fumPlą social organism'md L\e laŁiodaL orglnisn as as]mpler tnndjÓla]

nerves:,?But even more re,evant, ir rve consider;h" dt,;.;;;;;;,;;. #Jip;i,i.niffi::*""i1;i:ilT;ii::i#.iTfi:i"]ll:il:iT:,ftotalitarian developments, is the biopolitical reference to those ..parasites,, ;;"...which, having penetrated the potitical body, orgaaize tiemselves to the ,disadvantage of other citirens. These are divided betiveen ..srmbionjs" Beginning with this lirst rbrmulation, Roberts develops a parallgLbetweenfrom diffe.ent races who under certain circumstances can be usetul to rhe the state and the human body involving the enlife immunological repeFstate and true Parasites' which insta]l themselves a5 an ertraneo$ Living j loire_from antigens to antibodies, from the funition Óft;1ei'n;;i;ih;body within the state, and which feed off of the same

"it.rl 'ubstance. le .u|oendothelial s}sten-md iinds ił eath biologica] element its Politi'

UĘ*U' | . l|JeJ len i-g|) DropIet jc . o.lcIulion .. ' h',.

"* *.a" . *.*" . cJ eluivlerr' The no,l 'ig- ir' - l .'"p. '"we' e"' onłt* -n' ". i n"ai

class of state doctors to frght the parasites, or to cont.. ." tl'" ,t"i"." ."a ! rection Previous]y taken by UexkLlJl' is perhaps constituted by thŁrglr-engęical comPetenry that is capable ofbringing it back to hea|th b}' removjng to mechanjsms of immunitary repr :ion.md expuĘon ofthe racial sort:

the causes ofthe disease and by epelling the cadeś ofgelms. He lYrites: .lhe student ofPo]iticJl biology should Śtudy nationil mass attitudes ud"Wlat lYe are stil] lxking is an academy with a forwaldJooking vision not J"', ."'.'u

", '. .n", **.

"ctual ŚeĆrćtloN or dcrĆtion. National o. inteF

only for creatin8 a class ofstate doctors'but also for instituting a s!ą!es!s nltionai reluLsions may rest o! little''lb Put thematter rt once on thetem of mćdicjne' \r'r'e possess no organ to which we can trust the hveiene of lÓwest Ph,ysiologiccl levć]' it is weu known that the ŚmĆl] o| one lace maythe state'''3 trend as nuch or evĆ! more thd dilTĆrent habiis and customs''

The third text th.rt shouid hold our attention-because it is expressly cled-icated to the category in question- k s!o-p9li1c; !V.11Lęł by the English-man NlorĘtoberts, it lvas publishea in ro"..lo" in ig:s with the subtitlesn rss2l .n. t\L !Ł,j3sy:-U!,y]lgyand PĄi91 9i tle sy,.nl a1t Som,tti,.O|{!,:!:' Here loo rhe underlving ;.rssumprion, *i i.t

-noU.it.Gtsl6rrhimmediately in the book's introduction, is the connection, not only analog-ical, but real, betrveen politics and biologv, ."a puitr.irr".lymeclicine. Hisperspective is not so distant fundamentaily from that of Lrexkull. If physi-ology is rndivisible from the pathology tiom which it derives its meaningand emphasis, the state organism cannot be truly known or gliided exceptby evaluating its actu.l and potential diseases. tr'Iore than a simple risk, thesediseases represent the ultimate truth because it is principally a living entitvthat in fact can die. For this reason, biopolitics has the assignment on theone hand ot recognizing lhe olganic risks that jeopardize the body politicand on the other ot.locating and preJisposing mecŁLanisms of c]efenseagainst them; these too are rooied in ihe sarne biologicat terrlin. The mostinnovative part of Roberts's book is connected pi.".i,!fu to ihiś dtimate

Ih.lt RoberLs.s ie.tt cl.lscs wiLh.r comparison bctwĆen.tn irllmunitary reiec-

tion of the ]ews by the English and an anaphylactic shock of the politicalbocly in the year in wl'Lich the Se cond Worid War begins is indicative of the

increasingly slippery slope that the first biopolitical elaboration tal<es on: a

'' pol]qi9-9.99l.|1lY!-ted dilect1y on .bioq'.i}hyal| 1isks'.v-1ole11]r-;Lrbj.e-ęt1g bi'qs

to politics. T7lt< /

The se conffive oi inte rest in the thematic of biopolitics is registered inFra.nqe.in lhg r9!gs. The diflerence fiom the first rvave is all too obvious

rnrl it coulcln't be trthcrwisc in l historirrrl trume thrr tvrt' protoundly.

modified bi' the ep9.'cĘi1i-{ę|ą!.o|Ną.zlb:9*cl1cf. The nelv biopolitical theory

appeared to be conscious oi the necessit,r of a semantic retbrmulation even

Jt the eo\1. ol'rvcrll<ening rhe 'peciticity ol'the crtegorv in llvor of a nlore

domesticated neohum;rnistic declension, with respect not onl,v to NazibLocracy, but also to olganistic theories qhat hacl in sonte wlw anticipated

their themes and accents. The volumc that in r96o r.irtrLallv opened this new

stagr'of slttdv rv;ts pro9,rammJtierllv tiL[eJ [ 6 [litlptllirit1t'.': f;;.ii d'ittterprć

ttttion de L,hi,stoire t]e l,htnlnnitć et tłes ciyilistttlclns IBiopolitics: An essay on

IIIIIllllrlIrlrlrltI

:o Tfre Enigrna of Biopolitics

the interpretation end l-ristory of humanitv ancl civilization], and it takes

exactlv this ste p.l: A1readv thc double retelenc. to hł!]!\.J'r{-!}]Fl-iluy as

the coorclinates of a discoursc intentionally oriented toward Dios expresses- --------:-----:-----=the cenlr.rl direction and conciliatorv path of r\roon Starobinski's essa,v. \\hen

he writes that..biopoiitics is .rn attempt to exphilthi t.Ńoli ot'Ejr,!l!7at1on

on the basis of the laws of cellular liie as lve11 as the most elementary bro-

logical lite," he does not in tict intenri to push his treirtment tolvard a sort

of naturalistic outcomc.ii On the contrar,v, the author argues (sometimes

eren.rekn,'wledging th.'neg.ltrve eunnotJtions th.rt Lhe nJtLIr.ll po\vcrc

lpotenzelof lit'e enjoy), ior the po_ssibllitf as we]l as the necessit)/ thlt po]:

tics incorporates spiritual elements that are crp.rble oI governing these

naturai polvers in tirnction oi metapolitical values:

Biopołitics doesn't ncgatt. in Jtlv \VJ\.the blind forces oI violence arrd the

rvrll to polvcr, nor the tbrces of selt:destruction th.rt exist in man and it-t

human civilizetion. On the contrar,v, biopolitics afhrms their existence in;r lvav that is coinplcteil' particular because thcse tbrces are the elenentaryfbrces of iiie. But biopoiitics denies that these tbrces are fatal and that they

cannot be opposed ancl rlir.-ct.-tl bv spiritlLal torces: the tbrces oijustice,charit,v, and truth.rt

That tl-re concept oi biol.,rlitics thus r.!$.bcing r'vhittled dorvn to the pointot'losinr, its mc:rning. tlr.rt is. ,rI lreifiiove'trrrncri into I sort ol'trrdiLiori.l]

humanism, is also made clear in a secon,l te-<t puLblished four vears later

bv an author clestincd tor grelter fortune. I anr referring to Edgat,N-{orin's

Introduction ti une politique de l'hornme.L5 Here the "helds" thlrt are truly"biopolitical ot-life and of survival" are included in a more sweeping ag

qrpu,rre oi the ".rnrllroo,lliti,.rl" lvn,'. whi,'h in lurn refi'rs ltr Lhc oroicct oI,\r ,v !,,! r..,,,

a "multidimensional politics of man."16 Rather th.rn tightening the biologicrl-

political nexus, lvlorin situirtes his perspective on the problematic connec-

tion in r'vhich the infiapoiitical tlremes of minimirl strrviviłl are prodr-rc.

tivelv crossed with those that are suprapolitical or philosophical, relative to

the sense of life itselt. The resr-r1t, more than a biopolitics in the strict sense

of the expression, is ir sort of "onto-politics," which is given the task of cir-

cLrmscribing the .leveiopment of the humirn species, lin-riting the tendencv

to see it as economic and productive. "-\nd so a1l the paths of lit-e and all

the paths of politics begin to inte'rse ct an.l then to penetrate one another.

Thc.l lnntltLllce an cnto-politics that is becomillg Ćver more irl[imatelv

ancl gloirlLh, nran's being."ri Although Nlorin, in the follttlving book dedi-

..rrtr'rl trr thc parecligm of hnman n.lture, contests in a partialiy selt-critical

Tl're Entgma ot

key tl,rc humanistic mytholttg,v that defines man in opposition to thc ani-

mal' cultlLre in opposition to na[LLIe, ancl order in opptlsltion to disorcler,

there doesn't seem to emcrge from oiall this ln iclea oibiopolitics endorvecl

* ith .r -onvincing physio3nornv *

Here lve are dealing lvith a theoretical lve,rltncss,ls wcii Js J scmantlc

uncertainty to which the tr'vo volumes of Ctthiers cle ltt biopolitlqLie, pub-

lishccl in Paris łt the end of t1re r96os by the organisation au Serr'.ice de la

\,ie. cert:rinly .do not put ż1n end. It is true that lvith respect to the preced-

rng essav we can recognize rn them a morg concrete ltt91l.1.9,l to the rc;'rl

...in,liriun, o! lilc of th9 wo{c119 popglation, e'tposed to a double checkmate

oi ,r.o."pit.llrrn .t,J socialist realism-both incapable of guiding pro-

cluctive ii.uelop*e'rt in a clirection that is compatible ivith a signilicant in-

crease in thc quality of life. And it is also t*re th"rt In scve'rl of thcse texts

criticism oi the current economic ancl political model is substantiated in

reterences concerning technolog'v, citl'planning' 'lnd rnedicine (or better

the spaces and the m;iterial formsof living beingsl' still' not eve n here can

\\( s.l\ LhJr thc tlcll nition oi biopolirr.. rrvc,i.ls a e,rtcgoricll gclltricttcss

that r,vill wind up re ch-rcing its hermeneutic scope: "Biopolitics was '1efiit:d

as a science by tire condr-rct of sta-tes ancl huma4 c9!l9c1i"-es' determl4ed !i1

]alvs, thć iiiiural environme nt, ancl ontolclgical givens that support lit.e and

cleterntine man's activities."'u There is' horvevcr, n() sLrqsestion ill snch a

clefinition of what thc specihr. statute of its object or a critical analvsis of

its effects mighr be. Niuch like the Days of BiopoLitical Research held in

Bordenux in December i966, so too these lvorks have difficultlr fiec'ing the

conceptofbiopoliticstiomamanneristtbrmulationintoamelningfulconLcPtuJl ellborrrtion. "

l| . rr',. thircl resumption of biopoiitical studies took p1acc ln1Ł.$gl".r7 Sa.19n worl.land it is one !ha!1i.it-1U,9tlgoipg'!!'e can locate its tbrmal in-

PJ tro.l,,.tir,rr i1 1,1.3, wherr thc Intcrnation'rl no!-i1!941 55iencg ]-ss9:l*!Lon

othciirlly op!19j " 1ę'."'.l.r site on liolggy an.cl po]!t'ic9 '-lfter that Vilrious

international conventions r,vere organizecl, the hrst of which took place in

paris in rg75 at the Ecole cles Hautes Etudes en sciences Humaines rrnd ln-

otheratBellagio,in\!'arsar'v,Chicago,andNelvYcrk'il-lr98i'theAssocrt-tioq for Politicg a1ll the Life Sciences was tbuncled' as was the journal Politics

ttnd Liie Sclcncei two y.".r irt.r, as well as the series Research in Biopolitics

(oi r,vhich a numbe r of volun]es lvere published).r' BtLt to locrte the begin-

ning of this sort of research we need to return to the middle of the r96os

when rwo texts appeared that claboratecl the biopolitical lericon. If Lvnton K'

Biop'oLitics

rr1 The Enigd, ofBiopotitjc, I

Gldwell \va' the 6Ąt to Jdopl the term in q l Thc Enigm! ofBioPolłics żr

DluPullucs: sclence' Ińlc.' -d P"bli. P"ll-,::::::':.|]: ]:...'"1.]." f alatonical alrd physical possibi]itr but a]so the hi^l^;..' '.:ł*1":::.iśI.i*'*::H:..l'J,*ffi.T['"::l.H: i :5rfii$Jiil.}!',:".,.:'jl'..."j,*"tT:"n."*l.*j..rrj:l""iąj|i:.':j::::.'j:'"ffJ."1.;f:lffiJg:il.i**:'J::.'.: i lł:.ti.",".-:T:1ił;:[ffiil:T:;:H::i'j:J:.:Y#ił-t**o**ii*ł*:**ni*l',il

. fl*t1;i$if''"":ffilll:TJ:lfiJi".{l.:',jffi

rrslectiveorabióoltica;:.;;;il.J#..,"-".Hl!:***l #."I1i:.#:ł[hy.ł.?ł'.,".jffi'.ł;.:'.m':::i:::.

;:; jil';*i::,#*:'fi

:TTi:::i:T,:';.j""#T;: liilĘ,Tl . ***'.***u*.**un**ffi:.::ff:::'$::1ffT::ixjxr.1ln.x**::.:,=ru$ *a****|1*m.;.i, ::'1i;:;";:łl,*nl::l::xil[ifiif.:il::i"jJ:':::j*'ilł::l.ljlr;r"::i" ")ii'm:m;:;'r:::#:.:.#;*,"i: ń.cT-l|f'bU!

l**ł*'::.n#;';jl;l[fiIr.,{*:ilr;: ,{'ll.." -", ,'.'-....".*.il;;J'.;:l:";l.lfiłł*:

; ofńepoliticalordei.co*;.ri;;;;;,".".l;]jią;.i.il{:: r*:ii;:T3$[#}i',"j.,.#.*ln::.,;.::*:i:::i;

ir##T#ił'-.'F.'':ffi:iT:Fff.ł*"#*#:. ;!lł"x":*i*i*k**:i.:::Tl"łi,'...".T:

;1:,::''..;;ą;*1ru'': *T{T[:}*:',.'k - ;;*ru,;;.n*;nn:.''.".ł*:ł,iłł:n*"-l*::

:$ i|T"*l.Ę.-.ńruĘóff].ol'::':. : .":"'

"..''"'.- . ;;;;l H:::.:*:n:,:: ;l"::;:;:; .:ll;{l. tililił [iliłj:*łtłJ:T:.ffi 3T*i g;;;. i*".*ryi*:i: n::ri"ił ł::; *:l.l *i*:;l*,ę:nll:il.":::lilłT#:-'i::T::$ii;.":|f;:T *:*#lł::'i'.*,-;:*'::m::*:T:;i:::xgłł'ą,..*mHT"''#fiJ #j*#rjT'ł.t.'$j* fr".:il*#H"*j','ł':#'m-'ł"*nł#Bopol'.ŁJ'jWhatmatrer"'.*";";.';;i:.:Jfi.Tiij:j:{.x..:'"'J.5

::5':T:,:ff:::;.,j::'.**i::'';;i]*:::*:.*::;#,fJ:ł:iilt'J:'*:""mrq;ę;i,*ii[Ę xlt*::*.'lm:;j:;.TT"HreaĘumentrests:no;.";:iff[il?H..1#r'::"x*r.l*n:l*::..lll.j#

[łi:;::;l*r;H":T:"j:"J:,l,::"""T:,..,:*i#iffi

r+ The Enign'ra of Biopolitics

hJrc llrv.rv: hcun. Br,'ughr brrck ro it5 nJturJl. inncrnlosr p.lrt, poliLic: rc-

mJini in rhc 3rip.rt'biologv without bcing.rblc tur replr. Huln.n historv is

nothing but our naturc repelted, sometimes misshapen, but never reallvJil-|erenL. Thc r.,,Ic oise ience Ibur cspccialłv oIpoliticsl is thlt oI impedingthc opcnrn*.rl'too broal r qrp bctwccn nJturc Jnd hisrorv; mlking ournrture, in the final analvsis, our only histon'. The enigmrr of biopoiiticsappears resolved, but in a tbrm that assumes exactly r,r'hat needs to be"researched."

Politics, Nature, History

From l certrrin point of vier'v it's understandable that Foucault never ses-tured to thc ditlerent biopolitical interpretations that preceded his orvn-tiorn the monrent in r'vhich his e-vtraordinarv survey is born preciselv fiomthe distance l're takes up with regard to his predecessors. This doesn't meanthat no points of conlact exist, if not with their positive contents, thenr.vith the critical clemand that tbllor,vs from them, which ret-ers more broadlvto a general dissatisfaction with how modernitv has constructecl the rela-

tion rmong politics, nature, and history. It is only here that the work be-

gun by Foucault in the mrddle of the t97os manifests a_comp1_exity_ancl a

radicality that are utter1y incomprrrable with the preceding theorizłtions.It isn't irrelevant that Foucault's spccific biopolitical perspective is indebted

:"-in the first nl.rce to Nietzschcan geneJlo!:v. This is he,.rrse ir is nrecisclv... .. f ...,, ." . *_-._-_:...._-.

..--.-.._-..o,.. y

tiom geneelogy that Foucault derives that oblique capacitl' tbr disa-ssembly

.rnd conccpturl reclrrboretion that give> his rvork the originaIitv thJt cverv-

.i" !-":..l.-*nize.]' \lĄen Ftlucartlt, returning to the Kaniin., q.-.L".tio,'

surrounding the meaning of the Enlightenment, establishes a contempo-rary point of view, he doesn't simply allude to a ditTerent mode of seeing

things that the past receives trom the present, but also to the interval thatsuch a point of view of the present opens betlveen the past and its self-interpretation. From this perspective, Foucault doesn't think of tł're end ofthc modcrn epoch-or at lcrst the.rn.rlvtie bltrcl< ol its categories high-lightcd bv thc first biopolitic.rl theoriz.rtions -rs.r point or.l iine thrt inter

rupts an epochal journey, but rather as the disruption of its trajectory pro-duced bv a ditlerent sort oi glze: if the present isn't what (or onl,v what) lve

have assumed it to be until now; if its meanings begin to clnster.iround a

d ji|crent \Ćrx"lnt:( .piLi'nLĆri iI somcthing nor'cl or ltncicnt emĆre.C'j fromwithin that contests the mlnnerist inrage; this means, then, that the past,which nonethcless thc present derives from, is no longer necessarilir the

The Enigma of Bionolitics :5

samc. This can reveal a t.rce, rrn rspe ct, or .L protile that betbre lvas obscured

or perh.rps hidJcrr bu.l 'upcrimpr'strl ;lncl rtt timcs inlpuie.l nJrr.lti\cr

not necessarilv a false narrative, but instead iunctional to its prer'lilint iogic,

and tbr this reason partial, w-hen not tendentiotls.

Foucanlt identifies ti-ris narrative, i,vhich contpresses or represses with in-

creasing dithcultv something that is heterogeneous to its cxvt'l language,

r.vith thc discourse on so,,'ereigntv. Despite the infinite variations and trans-

ibrmations to lvhich it has be.'n sLrbiected in the course of modernity on

the part of those lvho have made use of it, stlv-ereigłll hn': always been basec1

,rn the slme hr.trrirl :.hcmJ: thar oi thc erislenrc ot- [rvu dirtinct erltitie.'':-,,-_:,.---- ..--:r ^.

nlmclv, tllc totalitv oi in,.iir idulls lntl p,rwcr that rt I ee rtlin point enggrs' - ' -;

nJiviclrlals in thc nrotl.rliric' Jcri ncJ bu l itrird elc-tnt() rclJtlon bet\vc('n I

ment, which is constitr.rtecl by the larv. \Ve crn sa)/ that trll modern philos-

iphics. ilt':pitc tIleir hctĆroScllcitv or JPlrilrclll opp.l*ition' lrc lrr.rngcd

,r ith in this triangular gricl, now one, now the other, of its poles. Tl'rat these

athrm the ib9lu!5.h.!1ąi=!g {x]J^q9.!s[p.9y.ęijlę-99{.g.1j].$J'a-!bę*Hp'bbes-ian nodel or that, on the contrarv, they insist on its limits in line with the

-.--r--..

,li6eill tra.lition; that they srLbtract or subject the monarch with respect to

lfia.L.łś.ih.,t he himself has promulgated; that thev slLbject or distinguish

tl-rc principies of legalitv .rnd r.i lcgitim.rcy-rvhirt remains:ggrn1-oL!,, 41,Ę".-:g:.:l.|l."* is the iailo,that sr-rbtends them, which is precisely tlre

.lttc cltaractcrizcJ b1 the 'f.eeristcnt< tll >iIbięct: lrl stlvcrii3.n po\V.r LhJt

these conceptions introduce and therefbre by the rights [dirittcr/ that in

this mode thev maintain in relation to subiects. Even apart from the breadth

of such rights-one that moves from the minimum of the preservation of

life ancl the maximum of participation in politicnl governmen t- the role

oi corrnicrwe ight th.rt is rssju.ned to subiects in rel,lti,tn to sovcrciqn Je, i-

sion is clear. T'hc result is a sort of a zelo-sum relation: the m_ore riglts onq

-has, the less polver there is and vice versa. The entire modern phiiosophical-juridical debate is inscribed to varying degrees within this topological

alternltive that sr'cs politics and 1ar,v [legge], clecision trnd the norm as

situated on opposite poles of a clialectic that has ls its obit-ct the relationbe-

trrccn >'-rbjccts lsttd,liri .rnd the s6iercign. " l hcir r(spc(tivc nci*ht Jepcntis

on the prcvrlcnce that is periodicallv assigned to the two terms being com-

pared. \!hen, at the end of tl'ris tradition, Hirns Keisen ancl Cari Schmitt

will .lrgLre (the onĆ' normltivism';:rmeti.tglinst thc other. decisionism '' rhcr

do nothing but replicate the same topological contrast thtrt from Boclin on,

indeed in Bodin, seemcd to oppose the vers,aq!-o_f law-to.tlat of por,ver

rI

F

i

iIttIIIr|rlIIIII|rl

TI

I

26 thc Enigrna ofBi.rnnliri"rpol,ri( l rf- L1.8mJ. rB.ooo....e -

J"".f:H:,*:*:lj'.Ttr;#|*filihłj:d;$in::'"J* | :::tł*uTi'Tffi:Ij::::":i:'il1j:T"iJ:T;i* l

f+-1lł;tłi!q*ł:i;nih:l,x. :.:.$ f il:1"łłąi*łł *'.."-:;l**.-Tliffi |

*lłH*Hffij#j##Jl1';ił.#.;.1'#Ęł | :{.' #.*.Jn:j*itl*$"il:'i'i'::1;H.ł::T: I

operation ln this wav, what appeared as spt;i in a" "l;.;"d"" ;;p";; i relds to what might be termed state conuot or e tio;;

gi";$l'"'"::t[:*'y"il".J:+::,il:,::1,ru;t**::l , ]*a[TjT::tr;T:,.ffiT:iT:,,,;,:ixfect of the reversal of perspective thrr Fouca!sec,swi,hano,hererrec,ra",.,.;*;;iiJ"ii*:',:ili:ii;:,fi , il::::,iiil#ilil, "::,1:i::*':::T:i:"":,

ii {i,:lil J:.ilffi :""'"",,:: x.;xl4m*i*r"n::::, ff ffi*,:fi :"',T*.';il::T$t;j':l:..tr;cal procedure ofpolar oppositions. It is as if Foucaurt undertook the duar r the sowo.torae.onstrL.cr"go.""J"*;;;;;.....".."ti"",*I'i.l,"u;r" . '';,.ill.ji:ii'1#:::"""łTi::"g ffi:::::l'il:::'":- ::'i''.X':?:fi"."ffi1"-:;0"il:' o':":"".'

" ;" o'""i'"f , ir i'"

"o" r-- those vtars seem to converge in a th

*,,*.ig"p*"ais-,,",*J"J;:;;;;;",dffTlj:T.,i::#L* . ;li:H:::;1.""$:j",,TT:ffiJ:.::il:""T:

:'*?:li"Xr,'"Tii::i;:; i*:iiil:,1:il'#ffi{':. il::i ;Ti:#.;_"";.";;:;;;";_:;,;;:: :Y:--":"].;:"tuct between potential .ivals who fight over the use ereisnrr, which was represenred bythe decline orits dea

;i'::""x.'.';::':1.il#1ij;:;:ili::LtĘ:':..'jĘ#::,'.:. r.**:*}irl.T:"*łlffffiH*;j**: :ll:'"": t":edins and resuratins the s,.uggr. u,'i- *"v, ii the dismemberment ur trre coouicted ,espo.ds wei;H:":.:::j:'":l:*lTxT$,..j:,":H:i:ł*:l.x*:: :...JHi*j:"":"lT::l*xltjrj'",":lwar but rather that

'Yar adopts the discourse of righu i" ".a.,.."',.. in ."f.,oo .o

" 'ł"r .o.,irement of society ił its totcrate the retation of forces that war itself de6. es' course tbucallt otlćred simu]taneo usly titled A''o',?,L

Aireadv this unearthing of the constituitive character of waf not its a..."r,*o." *,n. **reign paradigm in both its s

fi:I.T::Ł:|i:jill;l:..ff:.J,,ff;i:]i#.*.of politics-inau. tionandits juridi.alidentityor,oui".t"ot.i".t",'tt,

seetodavButtierereren"",.;;;;Jffi::""':J::iHJ:':ffi thesbtrecotonizationornedi'arknowledgeinwhat\

Foucaultdedicatedhisc;;;;;ffi;,.*;;;""_,;.i."* ffi::ilTJ1#::;::HHi:i:ili:;:;:-*,

rii l'he Enigrna oi 13iopoiitics

in the sanre body oi thosc r,vho irre its carriers.i5 In the n)oment in whichthe criminal act is no longer ro be chargcci to the wirl ol the sr,rbject, butr.rrhcr to.l p\\cllupJrhoJogierrl tonfigLlrlliorl. ru...nt., int.r.l zullc,,l ilr-clistir.rction betr,veen lar,v and n.redicine in lvhose ricpths rve crn ."k. o,riunew rirtionirlitv centerecl on the question of life-of its preservation, rtsdevelopment, and its man.rgement. of course, we must not co'tuse levelsof discourse: sr-rch a problematic lvas alr,vavs at the center of sociopolitical,lr nrtmic.. btrL it ii ()nly .lt .r cerflin p,'int th.lL its ccntr"llitr rc.lchc. ,r threrh-old of ar.'areness. \'lodernitvis the place nore than the time of this transi-tion and turning Isvolta]. By this I mean that

'vhile, tbr a long period of

time, the relation bet\,veen politics and life is posed indircctly-which is t.sav mecliated bva series of categories that arc capabie of ilistilling or ficil-itating it as a sort of clearir.rgl'rouse-beginning at a certain point thesepar titions are broken and life enters directlv into the mechi.Lr-iisms and r/l_._

positiJś oi governing hutnan bcings.\'vithor,rt retracing the steps that articulatc this process of tfre govcrn-

mentalization of life in Foucauldian genealogy-from "pastorirl polver" tothe rcason of state to the expe rtise of the "police"-let's ke ep our .rttentionon the oLltcome: on the one side, ali politic_al practices that governmentspqt 1q!9 !lg-!!91 (or cven those practices that opposc them) turn to lit-e, toits process, to its needs' and to its fiacture s. on the other sic]e,. lite enieiśint() po\vcr rclilIions not only or tlrc side ot its criricrl thre.hol,-]s or iisprrthologie,rl cxLeption\. but in.rll its erfcnsi,rn, rrrticulrtLion,lnd.lur..rtion.From thi: pcr)pe.ti\c, lil'e cvervw'hcrc er.'cc.[s thc jLrrirlierl con5trJintiused to trap it. This doesn't implv, .rs I .rlre.r.lv suggested, some kind ofrvithdralval or contraction of the field that is subjected to the 1alv. Ratłrer, itis the latter that is progressively transferred fiom the trenscent]ent.ri levelof co,lcs and sirnctions rhrt cssenti.rily hrvc to Jo wirh subit,rts,,i will to rheimmanent levei of rules and norms that are addressecl insteacl to bocLes:"these por,ver mechanisms .re, at least in part, those that, beginning in tl-re

eighteenth century, took charge of men's eristence, men as living botlics."roIt is the sirme premise of the biopolitical regin.re. Nlore than a removal of iif-etrom the presslrre that is exercisecl upon it by law, it is prcsentecl rather asdelivering their rel.rtion to a dimension that both determines antl exceedsthem both. It is with regard to this meaning that the apparentl.v contrat-iic-torv expression nceds to be understoorj accr,rding to i,vhich "it lvas life morethan the lrrrv th.rt be carnc thc issue of political struggles, er.en if the latrer

The E nigma of Biopolitics :9

\,!,ere fbrmLliated through atfirrnations concerning right5.";; \!'hat is in qi-res-

tion is no longer the distribution of por'ver or its suboi-diniition to the 1arv,

n.r the kind oi regirne nor the consensus that is obtaii'red, but sonlething

rhat precedes it because it pertains to its "primarv material." Bchind th.:

declarations and the silences, the n'rediations and thc conflicts that have char-

acterized the clvnamics of modernity-the dialectic that r,rp until a certain

stage we have named lvith the terms of 1ibertł-' equalit1., democracv (or, oil

the contrarv, tyrann\', tbrce, and domination)-Foucault's i'rnalvsis Llncovers

tn bios the concrete power t|om I'vhich these terms orisinate trnd tot'varcl

r.vhich thev are ciirected.

Regar.ding such a conc1tłsion, FoucalLlt,s perspective qoułcl seem to bc

ciose to that of Anrerican biop<llitics. Certainl1'. he too p1a991 !f.e--ą1!9centel oi-the-!lq: 1"d he too, :rs we have seen, does ;o p9leq1941ly

-n-ig ''

vrs the iuriclic,l!t"big.!lu-ls"r and humrrnistic historicism 9-t-m9d911 99-1ir1

cal philosophy. But the l!o_-rthat he opposes to the discourse of rights ancl

its eff.ects on domination is a-lsg_gor.rfigq.ry{ln t-qqr1s-o-tjŁŁr19191i9a.!'g.e.q1irrr.

tics that is also symmetricail,v reversecl with respect qo th_e l-egt!mating olrc

Ąoye1elgn pgwer. Ntlthing more ihan lit.e-in thc Lines clf .1eve1opmcnt

in r,vhich it is inscribed or in the vortexes in whicl-r it contracts-is tol-Lchctl,

crossed, and modified in its innermost being by historv. This was the les

son that Foucault dre'"v tiom thc Nietzscheirn genealoQy, r,vhen he places it

within a theoretical frame that substitutecl a search For the origin (or tirc

prcfiguration of the end) r,vith that of a tbrce held t199,{ tlom tlre sLlclt:s

sion of events and conflict betr,vecn bodies. Yet he also wtrs influenced by

Darlvinian evolution, whose cndr,rring .rctuility cloesn't reside in havrng

substituted "the grand old biological metaphor of life and evolution" tbr

histor,v, but, on the contrarv. in having recognized in life the marks, the rn-

tervals, and the risks of histor1..r8 it is preciseiy from l)arwin, in fnct, th:rt

the knowleclge comes that"iife evoivecl, that tl're evolution of the species is

determined, b,v a certain degree, by accidents of a historical nature."re And

so i1-qyk1 lit11e sense to opposg ą qqtural paradigm to a historical onc

within the irame of lit-e, or locate in nature the hardened she1l in which 1it!

is immobiiizeJ or loses irs historie.rl contcnt. I his is bcc.lusc, contrlrrv l()

the underlving presupposition of Anglo-strxon bittDolitics' sornething like rr

detrnable an<j identihable hrrman natllre doesn't exist as such, independent

tiorn the meanings that cu]ture and tlrerefore hisŁtlry have, over the coursc

of time. imprintecl on it. And thcn because the same knowledges that har,'c'

tt3o Thu Lnigm.r oi Biopo)iri;s

themarizcd it cont.rin rvithin them x prcLi5c historirrl conIlot.lIion out:idęof rvhich their theoretical direction risks remainins indetermin.rtc. Biologvirsell.is born lrolLnJ the end of thc cightet'nth cenlitrv' thlnl<s t.J thĆ ap-

pearance of nelv scientific categories that gave wav to a concept of lite that

is radically ditTerent tiom what was in use beibre. "I would sav," Foucaultwill s.rv in thi: rccard. "thaL the notion oi tifi i" ':. ,';a 'i nOT a Silentlna CO.t1c-?p!l tt

hrs been Jn epistemol02iatl in,licator ol'whieh the clrs.ifuinq delimitir- LllL Lru)Jr' LrLS. urrrrrrrr_rllS.

and other tunctions had an eff'ect on scientific discussions. ancl not onwhrt thev wcre talkins about."ro

It is almost too obvior-rs the shift (though one could also rightlv say thercversal) thlt srrch rn epistcmologicrl deconsLruction imprcsses on thccategory of biopolitics. That it is ahvays historically qualified according to

.i mo.lllity that Foucaulr dcfines with the term "biohisLorv" as rnvrhingbut limited to its simple' nutural ca\ting implics r ltrrthęr slep thlt Lo rhis

point has been excludecl from all the preceding interpretations. Biopoliticsdoesn't ref-er only or most prevalently to the way in which politics is cap-tured-limited, compressed, and determined-by 1it-e, but also and aboveall bv the wily in _w.hich politics grasps, chrrllcngcs. and pcnerrlte-s liie:

->-If one can apply the terrn bio'history to the pressules through whicłr themoVĆmĆnIs oI lit.e lntl processe\ of hislorv interlere rł'irh one.lnUrhcr' onewtlulc] hałe to speak of bio-powir to de signete r,vhat broJght 1it.e an.i.itsmechanisms into the realm-OIexplicit caiculations .rnd made knowleclge,p9wel

1n'agent of transformat'1on o| hum1n ]Ę

'vVe can already glimpse in this formulation the radical novelty of the Fou-cauldian approach' \\'hat in the preceding decłensions of biopolitics was

presented as an unalterable given-nature or lif'e, insofar as it is human-now becomes a problcm; not a prcsuppositi,rn but x"sitc," thc produ.t ol'rseries of causes, fbrces, and tensions thirt themselves emerge as modifred inan incessant game of action and reaction, of pushing and resisting. Historvand nature, life and politics cross, propel, and violate each other accordinqto a rhythm that makes one simultaneously the matri,-c and the provisionaloutcome of the other. But it is aiso a sagittal gaze that deprives it of its pre-sumed t'uliness, as lvell as of every presumption of masterv of the entirelleid of knowledge. Just as Foucault adopts the categorv of lii-e so .rs tobryakapar.t themodern-discourse of sovereiqnty and its laws from within,so too in turn does that ot'hisio1y.--r.-ot:e f.om life the naturalistic flatten-i-^ t,, ,^,Li-L rL^ -\ --- ic.rn biopolirical exposcs ir:

[he Enigma oi BioPolitrcs 3r

It is histor,v that desiglts these compleres fthe genetic variations from 1'hich

,i. u".iou, populations arise] betbre eresing them; there is no need to searcl-r

ar O."r. l'llr,l .l.hniti"t biological tact-s that trom the depths of "nature"

rvoulcl impose themselves on history *'

ltisasifthephilosophermakesuseofaconceptullinstrumentthetisnec-.rr"r,t to. taking irpart a given order of discourse in order to give it other

.."nir.gr, at the moment in lvhich it tcnds to trssunle a similarly pervasive

ir.l'r"uior. Or aclditionally that it is separated fiom itself' having been

ot...a ir., the inte rvai in such a wav as to be subject to the same etfcct of

["""0.0*. that it allows externall]" From here we can see the continual

mo\.ement, thc rotatron of pcrspective' along a margin that' rather than dis-

trngrirhir'tg concepts, dismantles and reassembles them in topologies that

arJirreducibie to a monolinear logic. Life as such cloesn't belong either to

theorderotn:rtureortothatofhistorv'ltcannotbesimplyontologized'nor complete ly historicizecl, but is inscribed in the moving margin of thcir

inrersection and their tension. The mealing 9!-biopg]!1-ics is sought "in

tni, a.,ot positiolr of iite that placecl it at the same time outsicle history' in

its biological environment' and insicle human historicity' penetrated by

the latte r's techniques of knowledge and polver'"'r

The cornple'titv of Foucault's perspective' that is' of his biopolitical

c(:rntiere,cloesn't encl here' It cloesn't onlv concern his olvn position' which

is situated preciselv between l,vhat he calls "the thresholcl of modernitv," on

the limit in rvhich moclern knorvledge folds upon itseli carried in this

wa.v outside itself.ao Rather, it is also the effect of meirnir-rg thrt from rn un-

decidablethresholclcommunicateswiththenotiondcfinedthusly:oncetheclialectic between politic.s ancl life is reconstructecl in a form that is irre-

.luciblc to cvery ffionotJUScl svnthcsis' whlt is thc consequt'n(e that tlcrives

tbreachofthetlvotermsandfbrtheircombination?Andsou'ereturntothe rluestion with which i openecl this chapter on the ultimate meaning of

biopolitics. What cloes biopolitics lean, rvhat oLttcomes does it Produce'

.ni houu is a world contlnualiy ,,.oi. gou".'ted bv bigpolitics confrgurecl?

c..toirrlv,*. are concerned with a mechanism or a procluctive ditpositif,

tromthemomentthattherealitythatinvestsandencompassesitisnotieftunaltered. Btrt procluctive of what? -\J/t'ąt is thę ęff,pt of p!9po-|1.1!cs? At this

pointFoucault.sresponseseemstodivergeindirectitlnsth.rtinvolvetlvoother notions that are implicated from the outset in thc ctlncept of bios'

butwhicharesituatedontheextremesofitsscmrntiuc-\tctlsiotl:thc-Seare

--

- | r' rL LnismJorB Po '( l 'e|lem-old-puri ' r''

l| l subjecti|izątianand'dedth.Withrespectto[fe'bothc::.,,:.:":..:".:::.-| ::::',*::l*::::'9;:T:::i:i"Tij*il:"J:jili:ll,:ffii:j::,

t-]2 The Eńigma of BioPoLitl(. |

,Ihe lnigma of Biopolitics Jj

s bjecti|izątianand dedth. With respect to [fe' horh constitutć more tha!- l ::"::.1::ltiixl,:'9;l'J::::i:i"Tij*il:"J:jili:ll,::ffii:.'x;;"

""'. 'i.''.'.'' . n* *. .l !^. .Jme rime ''ń t lolql rrd i

' b.:c\g-"unc ' | .'",'.'*.

oriein' u.a a"sti."tio.; in *.n "*.,

o.**"" *.#; ffi;.:$-;; l 'ower

o! ]ii-e' but rehtŃe to its effects, measuled along a movinsline that'

śĆemsnottoadmitanvmedlation;itiseitheroneortheother.Eithe.bjo.ias'was'said,hasa|oneheadtheploductionofnewSubjectivityandattheDolitics produces subjecrivityor it produces deJ. Either it makes thi lub- j otur its raaical aestructionTh't these contrastive possibilities cohabit

jectitsownobjeaoritde"o'*,.op.uo",n.,*Jl.'""o.ii'",*'on". i :'.':jili1Tjł:*HT:l[l.:;?ili:".}T:,":ji::j::l::T:::::lpo|.l'c.o.erLle'orc".rg"...1',".u'.961vgIbloooIi i.roldlinUDoni|śe'I i ::.;:.''"."'".eentireJ;''oL|*eiroppo(tśdIre.|'o.tbo'hlI^-lnewill.ollrdi.cloś'nSlhe'olu'.on|o;L'o"vne.|gra' l .'*"'.".*o*<''y|:.|:cpo|nloF\icw'sLchJd\'.rl.iJi(recog.izJble

Politjcs of Life l i a s"ries of Logi."L g"pl "nd

of 'm]Ll

|sica| i ncoĘruen*s or of suddm

In this interpretiv€ ..ivergence there is somethins thłt moves b€yond ńe i a'*'"'''.""ńy' oil which it i" not poxible to linBer in detailhere. when

simple dif&culty of defrnition' which touches the Profoutul stru'ture of i taket^toseth*' however' they mnrk a difficulty that is never overcome

the concePt of bioPolitics' It is as it lt were travers;d initjul\, "nd

indeed :1::...,.".*t an unde!]ying hesitation between"twÓ orientations that

constituteLlbyanintervalofditterenc€orasemanticlay".th"tcutsa.d1t".ptro,'*.'tt"quaiLy-Yetheneverdecisivelyoptsforoneovertheorher.oPensitintotwoelement.tt'o."..-t.",ti."r"J.""i**ooo..o"..r'" . 1':,:".il'JJ:::T"J:i:,:T;ilił:}.:Tffi:.:j..ff;:T''"::i:;"L-ents

ar" co"stltutea onLyat the price of I certainvioLcnce thrt subjects tire denr

".",",r"a"-i".,,.""r,n.*n*,-.on.*i,inil;;;;il;'; I )::THfi:ffi:11i:il::ffi.,:':::yJ::,-;:.J;,1ij"""T":i

;::ll',sll;tl.*,:::.Jłi?l1"fiff:';l.xj1*jJilffi l itii:ilil.'.*eiorpeń"psl.o"cau1|s.ostcelebratedformui.r.exceptthroughamodalityth"tsi."tta."ou"ly.ffi'.#ffi'.;...;; . .':1l"j1"*jij#ff1.,:*T;;:il::łt1:H'[:i:*li::

I

ililT:i::::::::""';il;Jfli::tT:il"i;";i'*; a:r:t:::ti::::iJH"i#:'"i1:5lli::,:i:::1il;T;;:tion, they appear to be opposetl in a long-lasting struggle' the stakes of which moclern nran is an animal r,vhose politics places his existence as a living being

tion, they appeal to be oPposed in a iong-Last}ng strugg'e' lne $aś u1 B Luut 'on],!5 This is even more the case where the notion of biopolitics is

"..r.. "^.f' il.

"pp."p.l"tion and the domination of the ot'\er.Ironr here ; ' q*']1

. --- -.1:-r" rr.- i^ri^n 6f derrved frorn the contnst with the sovereign paradigm In thrs case too a

,n" ".*-*r""*i'""1'.", thatlaceratjns effect from which the notion of derrved rorn tne c

biopolirics never seems ro be able ro iiberate itsei;;..".J.0.in.; *" nesative modalitv prevails: bioPolitics is Primarilv tha! which is sor sove'

,tces rhe elrect in the for* or o" olt""'unu" o"t*l;;;;;';;t "J"' .1'"t""'" *'" havhg its own source of light' biopolitics is iiluminated

be byDassed. Either life h"La, p.ri i., u".r, pj;il ;;l; ;:';;;.il uv-,r''. wit,gt'1er "eq'ah;!g

thrt precedcs it' bv sovereisntv s advmce into

'"'iiii'-i.' or' - 'n"

.ontrary, i! is life that is Captured and prey to a ,'..il]^1iJ.]".,,

'. ', ,...isely here in the łrEul!l.!9s !f the relation be.

:lm*x;;:;:l."ł;,,'.ff,]l]liilT"."-::l'.J.l.u:;l; ::"#-,*'liliłl:ł,ł::;ułlll*,:l:i]i::il:i:";;;,.,.*;; "," '"."m"f 'en'e rr 's r. iroiopou' c' i' mls'n* {rF :::l:::11;.i.:;il-"" .'o,n;

",;^^"'',"rroirerm n..,ion Hoq

;**:Sf:m:n::f:i:fi:iJ$::*.'T';:'.i:;::T#:; ,L"iii;*,'".;''"'",i,ics,oberera."d?chronorogica[vorbvadir.

"--J""-o**n*"a*-,n",,*,*.*.."*'n"in"*il ;,,'*." :Tfi1:g;'1il:"Ji::;;i;.;'if:TffiTru:'.'"'.lll"i':ffi::*";#llll

llJ:::i,::il::..,:':.";.;:*:.:ii,1"'ll1ljil.ili;-', :i"5;il; ;;;;".e,iLnc resencą o::ith:: is it thc horizon that

ablc l.l .s.J|. .ol.pletely,.. *"n " u*o"*]".;t;;;"il" ;;'-Ę embraces and holds what ne'vly emerges wiLĘin it? And is such an emd.

in r r,r,)li,LLrr,llv nevv fr3mework with respect to the PEceding formula **" t"i'" ""t * u n tready inadvertently insta ed in the categorical

.-,r(rnierofBjuPo,,.., rrrJreho-r...J!ird:,,J,.".".,v,o,,r,.":-,. I 'r.rn,em"o.B,oDoj,,:.. j5

;:#:.:::;l;:i"l;1}:]:l#'.:i"{!::jlT;::"..h:J; | ;::;:l;.Ś.noo,.bJ-'.c|G'ho.D;|JJ'|'l(lory-i.^h.ch".evd'LJdlh(

:];'[i:ł,:.i:?.:.]ir"łł:nii;n".;t1T.Ti.:;::: l *';*.i.:ru;:i}ix*'-ł':j}i:iHiłiłilxa"c" '"l a .o.

"rrt hc'.'" śj| |]|e v|'nl d|//ite*

'l',' .i^"',"""""''.

l : iJ:'**ii:;l ';):::;.j::::1 :i;;l.::;:

".ji"-:::'':1.o.::*u'"u,*"-..o**'*.,.u.,.,,**un,' l ł#::""ł:",*:$:ffff:T";:i:j{..il:"#:":;i{::3:::*}lłłi',''' :f*jy';".:;fT[iłlfiiĘ"'.# i ft:;i;;r:l.T:i,T.il::T:.::5"*:..11ilj1".:l*.*y::'

i

)

llll;"1.fl::::::l::.::;il'J;::',K:il:::ril'"'.; ; :f."l,l::;',i:;ff::::J"*:""" '''""'"';p'"* '|""n.i3..

'"-^".l-'",.."' -;:i.;J:;il.l;:;ł1;"J,":.:,::::ffi..,l ] n,],]i |i'.",',oe''o l\Jl .rodJjil} o' potelnrnenI n.me. r|ct jn Lhe

:::;;::il:.1';|::,!:ji*Jillj'Ę|' .".,*'","'",'5'a ::.,:'.#::::liiłlil:il.:;l[l*;.::l.j:;i::xlJliilT:t,"?;a::::;:'"?lilililii.l';::;:il:*il:t ' ;:in:;l-T"lt;J;":J:;:,Tj:::,:::t":;::[':::i.?::

por'verthatconstitutesth.fr.st,.;;;;.,;]:.':'.,:|.'n"tdiscip1iiiryi,^..-..^..---'.''vVn1cnthe.blo.p-o-l!:'gg|.q.1ę.ooiiticai: "An imi.,ortant "n.-,.-.-^^

tlispositiJ that is tnrly bio- i tt to say tnose that FoLtcault clefrnes

". th. po.t,rral power. rhe rrr ^r ^^,.

:[:::':1i:f;:::;:^,il'ilJ:fl"fii:;:1"'"*:lt ;J:;#:;**:i':;:]il:lii:H;lli-;i:,f;':;::i::rppea^,;ona.dndb,,h"",".;;:;..;:i::::;,T;';hji;:l# I il.;,;.",;"':.:":jif.l:ililil*,ttl"l.lffil:}!:iT*ił##.*il.:trI:ii!:*:#1;"H ' r.:[ł'f":l[i;;1$' ::}:,l;i ,"," ".'.,.'t*;:r[:.ik#*mlix.6"":,ffi ,1ffi!ffi:#f****-,*:

#"d$,.llrł.".ffifr[jxfnł'łifr *t' 'imnl'*.:m'łl5'*'łilłltj"iffi[l#;'"łffi $jłłgffi*i';fłTi.J*1ilffij^.,.J;:.''"j:"il:::Hfiłln;lłm#l:fii:ili*:'.ł

#':{$T#jł*i**J[il*,:;'.'mlĘ;;#j1:,#il.n*-ł.Iikł'''1;:,5 r**'*ii1*;:*l#:lxl:::';łl:l;l.Ę"l",1:::'T:lT::l,"# :""T11T "Ę.##Ttrrii ;*"t::i,;. $*i:ffij:łił*:ff tl,':'''jlł::

IIIIIIIIIIIItI

jÓ The Enigma oi Bioprl1itics

It is e tor-n-r of ,4 plxv-er llrlr:.1\:-g individuals ,suljeqq, There are two mean_il-rgs of tlre l'vclrd ..sr-rbjećt'':

subjegt !9 son!]onę else bv control a.n<l dependencc; ancl tierl_1o hls 9r,vn iclenrit;,* by a conscience ur self knorvlear.. n';lLmelninq' suggest .r f.-irnl oipower.,vhich subjugates and makes sub'ieę1 to jl

If the direction oI the conscience bv the pastors ol so'ls opens the move-incnt of the subjectivizirtir:n of the object, the conduct of government,r'vhich was theorized irncl practiced ln the form oi the rerson of stlte, trans-lates and determines the progressive shift of polver from the outsicle to lvithinthe contines of that on lvhich it is cxerciseci. Although the Nlachiavellianprinciple still preserves a relation of sinaularity and of transcendence withregard to its olvn principalitv, the art oi governing induces a double move-me nt of making immanent and pluralization. on the one sicle, polver is nolonger in circulirr relation with itsell which is to sav to the preservation orthe amplification of its own order, but in relation to the lif'e of those that itgoverns) in the sense tlrat its u]timate end is not simply that of 9.będrę.qe.--but also the welfirre of the governed. Polver, more than dominating menand territories tiom on high, a.iheres to their demands, inscribes its olvnoperation in the processes that the governed establish, and draws fbrth itsown fbrce fiom that of the subjects [sttclttiti].Ilut to do so, that is, to collectand satisfy all the req.esrs that arrive from the body of the population,porver is forced into multiplving its own services for the areas that relate tosubjects-fiom that of detense, to rhe economy, to that of public health.From here there is a double move that intersects: the first is a vertiqąl sort-that moves t}om the top 1owa1d t-!9 pqttgq], placing ln .qł!!lqŁq-'.!911-q.luliia1l9q-1[e sph91ę of the state r,ylth that of the popu1ation and fami-lics' reaching tineilv that of single individuals; the other the.horizontąl'wlrich places il

-pry4q.l'yę 1elat19n the p14clices antl ti9 io"g"ug.i.qt1r!in a tbrm thąt amplifi9s the horizons, imp1ovę9 the services' and inte1s.ifiesthe performance. with respect to the inflection of sovereign poner thot.,

-

prrnarilv negrtivc, thc ditrerence is obvious. If sovereign power was exer-cisec-1 in terms oi suLrtraction ancl e-xtraction of goocls, services, and blooclfrom its oivn sub.iccts, governmental power, on the contrarv, is addressedto thc srrlrir'.1' lives. not ,rlliv in the scnse or'thcir dclcnse, but also wirhrcg.lrJ t,l hrrtv lrr.lepl,rv..rrang,han,.lnJ mrrimizc lit'e. Sovercign po*.,.remove d, crtluctcrl, .rnc-l fil-rallv destroyed. Governmental po'"ver reinforces,aLrgnrcnt\. rilrrl stirilLrlates. tr\rith respect to the salvific tendencyof tl-re pas-torrrl p1ri,v1'1., 1l()\'e rnnrcntill power shitts decisiveiy its attention onto thesecttlltl- |L'r'.'l rl| |lr.lrlth' ionuevit1', ancl łvealth.

The Enigma of Biopolitics 37

Yet in order that the genealogy of biopolitics can be manitested in al1

its breadth, a fina1.step is missing. This is represented bv the sc.ier-rce of the

n.,li.e' Poliee scicnce is nt-,t to bc unJer.to.-ld in lnv WxV.I) J \pĆLi|lc lĆLh-

nologv r'vithin the appirratus of the state as lve understand it toclar'. It is

rather the productive mo.la]itv that its government assqqgg !n all sęcto.r.s

of indiviclual and collective r'xperience-from iustice, to finance, to work'

to lrealth care, to pieasure. Nlore than avoitling harm [nulii. the police neecl

to produce.g r>o_ds [beni]. Here the process of the positive reconversion of

the lne ienl s.rvercign right ot death relchc> its zenith. Il the mclning ol-thc

tern Politik remains the negative one of the defense from internal and ex-

ternal enemies, the sJmintl.'ot.p,il'}is abso1ute1ł-positive. It is tlrdered

ro |.lror li|c jn l|l irs mĘnitti.1c. llong-it, enrire ertcnsion''throug'Ll a[J iLs.

articulations. And' as Nicolas De Lamare łvrote in his compendium, there

is even more to be reckoned with. The police are given the task oi doing

what is necessary as well as lvhat is opportune and pleasurable: "In short,

Lfe is the obj9c1 of the police: the lndispe nsable, the ugetul, and the super-

tluous. That people silrvive, live, and even do better thln just that: this is

what the pcllice hl*. -o eoś.''.e.;ś. |nnii rti,,,,ts of P:ol|;ce,iohon,, He inrich

Gottlob von Justi aims the lens even fr-Lrther ahead: if the obiect of the police

is defined here too as "live inclividuals living in society," a more ambitious

unclerstauding is that of :_..1j'"g I tTl!19:: :1..:ll

b:]*9..1l ,t'te. vit! devel-

opment of indivrduals and the strengthening of the torces of the state:."

[1']he police has to keep the citizens happl'-happines.s being understood

as srrrvival' 1itć, ancl improved living. ' . to develtlp those eienents constr-

trLitive ot indivicluals'lives in such a lvay that their clevelopmeut also fbsters

the strength of the state.54

The atfirmativc character is already tully delineate d above, those tertures

(at least tiom this perspective) that Foucault seems to assign to biopolitics

in contrast to the commanding tendency of the sovereign regime. In oppo-

-*) >ition to it, bigpoLiti.r's does not limit or cocree lviolentallife. btrt exp,rnds

it in a manner proportional t9 i19 dev.elop-men*t. \lore than two parallel flolvs,

*. o"gt'tiŃp.Ń of a singular expansive process in which power and life

constitute the two opposing and complementarv f-aces. To slrengthen itselt,

power is forced at the same time into strengthening the obiect on r'vhich it

discharges itse1Ę rrot only, but, as we sŁrw it is also fbrcecl to rencler it subject

to its own subjugirtion Iassoggettamenrtl/. Nloreover, if it ovanis to'śi.mui.rte

the action of subjects, power must not onlv preslłppose but also produce

rtI

I

i

'

i

I

Ir

I

I

38 l'he Enigma of Biopoiitics

the conclitions of tiBut_and rr... pou.ui,L1;,*,*:;lb;;cts ro whom it arlclresses itse]tits own semantic ."il;;_;;::: ::"1":t"ward

the nraximum point of.yin!!Łower.-.".:i:;:Ł;:y"..r:J;:.".g.1,'1;fi *TŚJ;*::.tilTT:, #f-.T^ i3r. In f ac t, Fo u.u ui t con chr des th a t,, wh ereslsrance 1s never t" .

t^lll]il"ce' and yet' or rather to,tr.q,,.rrtlu, this re-cloesn't mean, as a"".::i]t|":

of exteriority in-relation to-poou.."', 161,re a dy s u bj e c t. 0,, ; ;;:':;li.#li,:.fi ::::r,: J :Hi:t i : ;lJ::il,;"T:ffiil:Tj.T:i",

of conrrast "*.,",,,"n,.n it can measure itself in

to reinfbrce itself, need any definitive outcome. It is as if pow.., in u.,1".

;:**ltlTt'"':'r,iillli'J':':;:'.l.;TiHii:T:ii*r:*':?the s u bj ect

", ."*,""..]-f .ff |:

j:: :i :

jH:.T i: i: ::..l.ffi ;ł;:

:,::-.. lttn recoils againsr power, against ,lr. ,u_" ".,'.',u::::::1,"":,".:.0

.

rise to it: f -.'v1) .tśdlrl)L tne same shiking tbrce that gave

lll::"".. :*"inst this polver thar wtrs still new inrhe forces tr.,ut ...i. t"a iJ;; i;., : *t: :..I'' the n ineteen th cen tur.v,

rs, on rife and man n. o,ittto for support on the ve

taken at race valuc "'o,i:j:*l;;::;; "' ilJl:iffi;J:Jffi::'f ::;:"controlling it.jo

:rned back against the system thut was bent on

The Enigma of Biopolitics 39

to ieave unanslvered a decisive question: ii'rif'e is strolger than the por,ve rthat besieges it, if its resistance doesn,t irilP olver' th c n hołv d"'.

".:; ;;; ;;;..#:";: :IL:HTT :'x; : ltrre mass production of death?5s How do we explain that the culmrnatio'of a politics of iife generated a lethal polver that contradicts ,l_,. pr.oar.ri""impulse? This is the paraclox, the impassable stumbling block that not onlvtrventieth-centur;z totalitarianism, but also nuclcar po,"ver asks phil;;;;with regard to a resolutely affirmative .ecrension of biopolitics. How is itpossible rhat a por.ver.o,ltire is 9x,c1!rss!i-rc_+.llff d,L ;;;, "; '* ,-l.'''llĘ with i*o pii"ll.l p.o..',., * ,.;;1, t'vo s.multaneous processes?Foucaurt accents the. direct ancr proportional relation that rtus bctrveenthe deveropment of biopower o.i,r ,h. incremental growth in homrciclarcapacity. There have never been so many biood;, ancl genocidal r,vars ashave occurred in the hst two cent.ries, which is to sav in a con.rpretelybiopolitic.r period. it is enough to recarl that the maximum internatronalefIort for organizing heaith, the so-called Beveridge Pliłn, r,vas elaboratedin the middle of a rvar that produced 50 milrion dead: "one courci symbol-ize s.ch a coincidence. by a srogan: Go get slaughtered and lve promise youa lo'g and pleasant rife. Lile i.rru."nJ. is connecteci with a cleath com_mand"'5e !\rhy? lvhy does a power that tunctions by ins.ring, protecting,ancl augmenting lifb express such a potentiar tbr .eath? It is t^re that wars.lnd nl.lss dcstrLt.tion cre no Ionger perpcrr"ltcd in th. nłn.

",..,0",,,,..of por'ver yp'ot'':i'ot -^t least acc<r'r.ri"g a ;. dec.lare. intentions of thoser'vho conduct 1hę5g y/n15-but in the nl.-. of

tions that are irrvolvecl. But it is preciśeiv *n".,|;",i?jlll:'.il:"jl:Til:1i;of a death that is neceso_rot!:r:ruld6,;r;:"".t,l,TJ::::T^[:,:::i.;&if;T':1#;l;;y.o;..*

onr.e a.q,rin we are r,rced *ith ihar cnigmr. ;;r,.;r;;l:;n.l'id, rh,,r rr,.'bio" place d betbre politics holcls fbr the ;.;i ,rics c.nrinuatv tt ..oi.,r ro be reversed i"," *Tffii,Hl':r::i:rJ:i:resPr)nse to srrch un intof intersection b.,-".,'...ogatrve

seęms to ręsi{e in 1he

proĘ|ematic pointangle of reria.,ro,. ,no,"i.l.l"t::]Y::l

an{' biopolitics' But '""n noou trom an

rlvo typ es o f re gim e rff:il J,:iilTllTi'i:.1'l jffiJ:i'::iJ::::representation of their relarion by the slight but meaningfr-rl semantic slipbetween the verb ,,to

substitute,, (which l;,rr, ."the ve rb "to .o

".p1"rr1.,]r,,, wht.h alt udes .r*.";il::: ::::::itilt;:_ ::1sive and continuous mutation:

t

Simultaneously withinentrre scenario of exis

and outside of porver, lif.e appears to dominate the

x.;Ęi:kH."*il::*l:nii,:l.l:lT}T:T.*;;il*hrinfinite folds.

r! urruL. duu or tncorporating it into its

Politics over Life

This, ho,"vever, isn,t Forthere is an internal .o*u.u,,tr,.

entire respon.., lr.:.

is it his only. Certainl,,

;:iI*::** i:ilT!*:r:i:,?ii:,, i*:::::;..ffimanilest inrentions.si ut-p.:t,l"o

F'oucaults response well beyoncl his or,vn

=: *'::'#'i.';# :t *l,',=.; ł:l:il:T x**;:

by i'ris own l-risrorical-con."",.,,;;:.^:111"::tt wasn't compietely satisfieclo n lv p a r t i a i

" ".' ..' * o., J : T:ii..

".",il :;:::J.j ".l.,:: :".ł:l:*: łj

rItITTTIl.l.TtIII

_+o l'he Enigma of Biopolitics

And I think that one of the greatest trensfbrmations rhat rhe political rightunclenvent in the nineteenth centurl_rva-s preciselr.thet, I wouicln't say exactlytlrat sovereigntv's old right-to rr,lq lii-e oi lJt ll e-rvas repLLlced,buLt itcirmc to be contpLemen lrdtru u r..-.ight lvhich,loes not erase the o1d right

_

birt whi.h Juc> pr'nctr:le ir. pcrme.lte ir.

it isn't that Foucault soiiens the tvpological distinction as r,vell as theopptrsition betwecn the two kinds of power: these are clefined as they werepreviousi-v'. it is onlr. that, rather than deploving the distinction along a

'inrlc ;ii.linq line. hc re turn5 ir Lo .l logic .,f .opr.rcn.c. From this poinrof view the same steps that'uvere read before in a discontinuous key nowappear to be articulated according to a ditTerent arsumentati\-e strJtegv:

This power cannot be described or justihed in tcrms of the theor_v ofsovcreigntr'. It is radicallv heterogeneous and should logicallv have led totl-re complete ciisappearance of the great juridical edifice of the theory ofsovereignty. In tict, the thcorv of- sovereigntv not onLl' c9nti1L19,1!1qgjst.iu,ii r.ou lilie, an ideology of right; it also continued ro organize the jurlQlcal

9qqle.s lhąt nineteenth-centurv Europe adopted after the Napoleonic codes..j2

Fo*ceult iurnishes an initial explanation of the ideological-functionalkind vis-)-vis such a persistence, in the sense that the use of the theoryofthe sovereign, once it has been transt'erred ttom the monarch to the people,vvoL1lcl have allorved both a concealment and a jnridicization of the tlisposi-ry's oIcorrtroJ put into action by biop.g1yę,. From here tl're institution of a

double 1evel that is intertlined betu'een an eft'ective practice of the biologi-ca1 kind and a fbrmal representatic'rn of juridiciii character. contractualistphilosophies would have constitllted from this point o[ view the naturalt9na!19-!.:Ł.".l5y.-:n !!e 91d s'overeign order and th9 new g9ve11-mentq-1 4p.p-ą.r3t1p,' applied this tinre not on1y to the inclividuał sphere, buta]9q !9 -{ll.ąre1-9f poprr|.rtiolr in its totalitv. Ąncl yct' this reconstruction,insof.ar as it is plauśible on the histclric.rL level, doesn't comp1etely ans\'Ver

the qucstion on the theoretic;rl level. It is as if betrveen the two moclels,sovereigntv and biopolitrcs, there passes a relation .tt once more secret andcssentiai, one that is irreduciblc both to the cate*ory ofanalogv and to thatof contiguitv. \'Vhat Foucault seems to ref'er to is rather a copresence oiop-posing vcctors superirnoosed in a threshold of originarv indistinction thatinakes one both the grolrnd and the pnrjection, the truth ancl the surplusct- the other. It is this antitomic crossing, this aporctic knot, that preventsus liom interpreting the association of sovcrcisntv and biopolitics in a

monolinear tbrm or in the sensc rtf contcnrporencitv or succession. Nei-

The Lnignra oi lSiopoiitics 4r

thcr tltc one nor thc othcr restores the complcrit\ ol Jn rrssoci.ltion th.rr is

iluch more antithetical. In thcir mutual relation, ditttrent times are com-

nre.>cJ rt ithin l tinqulll r r.ooch;tl \c9mcni ..()nŚtituted .lnJ *imultlltc.'uslvf'. ,-- "'J-"'-T -.'"'

alt..red by the'ir reciprocal tension. Iust as the sovereign model incorpo,

ratcs the ancienl pastoral pol'ver-the first genealcgical incunabulurn of

biopowcr-so too biopolitics carries rvithin it the sharp blade of ir sover,

eign polver thirt both crosses and surpasses it. If ive consider the Nazi statc,

1ve can saf indifferentll', trs Foucault hlmself does, that it was the olcl sover-

eiqn ptrwer Lhlt arlopis bi..'logicaJ r.rcism tbr itsc[t,.r rlcism born in oppori-''a- r

iiun to it. or' on the coniitrr1.' that it iś the new biopolitical power that macle

use of the sovereign right of death in or,-ler to give lit-e to state racisrn.lf we

have recoLrrse to the hrst interpretive nlodel, biopolitics becomes an internal

articulation of sovere ignt,v; if we privilege the second, sovereigntv is reduced

to a tbrmal schema of biopolitics. The antinomv emerges more strongly with

regrld ro nuclcirr cqrriJibriunl. Du tvr'nced to look Jt it l-rom tllc pcrspecLire

oilif'e that, notwithstanding everything, has been able to ensure it or from

the perspcctive of total and mass de ath thirt continues to threate n us?

So the p,;rver thet is bcing e,xercised in this atomic power is exercised in

such a rvay that it is capable ofsuppressing life itselt. Ancl, therefore, to\nnnrcs\ irseli in.olirr;r; it is thc L)ower thJt uu.lrJnlee\ lilc. Eirher ir i.sovereign ancl uses the atomic bon-rb, and therefbre cannot be power, bio-power) or the polver to gu.lrr-rntee lif'e, as it has bcen ever since the ninc-tecnth centurl'. Or, at the opposite extreme, vou no Longer have a sovereignright th.rt is in exce >s of biopor,ver, but a biopower that is in e,rcess ofsovereign right.6r

Onee agliIl' lftcr h.lving d.'fint.d thc łcrms oi.tn .tltern"itin{ hcrnlcncuticbetween trvo opposing theses, Foucault never opts decisively tbr one orrhc othcr. On the one hrnd. hc hvpothesizes somrlhing like r rcturn to rhe

sovereign paradigm wrthin a biopolitical h_orizon. In that case, we wouidhc clcrling wirh .l lirer.rllv ph.lnt.rsm.ll cvenr. in rhc tcchnie.rl scnsc ot.rrcapperrJnce of de ,rth

-oi the destitute sovereign decapitated b,.r the grand

revolution-on the scene of lit-e; as if a tear suddenlv opened in the reign

of lmmunization (which is preciselv that of biopolitics), trom which the

bIlde oI trlnsccndcnce on(e Jg;lin \,'ibratcs' the rncienI s..lVerĆign PoWcrol tiiking lif'e. On the other hand, For-rcault introduces the opposing hy-

pothcsi:, r^llith says th.lt it w.ls preciiclv the fin.ll Jisupperi-.rnc,'ol rhc

\overcign parrrdigm that liberlLes .r vitll l.orcc \o Jcnse,1, 16 e1 gv116rv.lnd

bc Iurn..LI lrg.rinst itse|l.. \\'ith rhc b.llJncing eonstiłul'ed bv soverci9n porv.'r

r*"

r{ś

.+2 The Enigma oi Biopolitrcs

climinished in its double orientation of absolute polver and individuari

rights, lile lvould become the sole field in which power that was otherwisc

defeated is exercised:

The excess of bioporver appears r,vhen it becomes technoLogically and politi

cal1y possibLe tbr man not onlv to manage lif'e but to make it proliferate' to

create living matter, to build the monster, and ultimartel,v, to buiid viruses

that cannot bc control.led and that are universally destructive. This tbrmid-

able extenslon of bioporver, unlike what I was just saying about atomic

porver, will p,ut it be,vo1{ {] hqpan sovereigntv.o'

Pe rhaps we have arrived at the point of maximum tension, as \'ve11 as at

the point of potential interna1 t.racluię o-| the I]oucatr]{ian 4scourse. At

the center remains the relation (not oniy historical, but conceptnal ancl

theoretical) between sovereignty and politics, or more generally between

modernity and what precedes it, between present and Past. Is that past

truly past or does it extend as a shadow that reaches up to the present until it

covers it er-rtirely? In this irresolution there is something more than a simple

exch.rnge betlveen a topological approach ofthe horizontal sort and another,

more epochal, of the vertical kind; or we are dealing with both a retrospec-

tive and a prospective gaze.6j There is indecision concerning the underlying

meaning of seculatization. Is it nothing other than the channel, the secret

passage through which death has returned to capture "life" again? Or' on

the contrar,v, \,vas it precisely the absolute disappearance of death, its con-

clusive cleath without remainder that sparks in the living a 1etha1 battle

against itseltJ Once again, how do we rvish to think the sovereign para-

digm łvithin the biopolitical order, and then what does it represent? Is it a

residue that is dela,ved in consuming itsell a spark that doesn't go oL1t, a com-

pensatory ideology or the Llltimate truth, because it is prior to and originary

of its orvn installation, its own profound subsurface, its olvn underlying

structtlre? And when it pushes r,vith greater force so as to resurf-ace (or, on

the contrary, when it ultimately collapses), does death rise again in the

heart of 1if-e until it makes it burst ope n?

What remains suspended here isn't on11' the question of the relation of

*949{ty wr!.bi{lpq'br-rt also that of the reiation wiln ils qg9fl'Whatwas tr,ventieth-century totaiitarianism r,vith respect to the society that pre -

cedecl it? Was it a limit point, a tear, a surplus in which the mechanism of

l'ri,rporvcr broke fr.'c, got otrt oF hrnd' or' on the contrrrv. wrs ir society's

sole and natlrral outcome? Did it interrupt or clid it fulfill it? Once ag.rin

the problem collcerns the relation with the sovereign paradigm: does

The Enigma of Biopolitics 43

Nazism (but also true [rettle] communism) stand on the outside or inside

vis-i-r,is it? Do they mark the encl or the return? Do they reveal the most

intimate linking or the ultimate disjunction behveen sovereignry and biopoli-

tics? It isn't surprising that Foucault's response is split into lines of argument

that are substantially at odds lvith each other. Totalitarianism ancL nloder-

nity are rtt the same tinte continlrous and discontinuous, not assimilable

and indistingr,rishable:

One of the numcrous reasons wh,v lfascism and Stalinism] are' fbr us,

so puzzling is that in spite of their historical weakness they are not quite

originai. They used and extended mechanisms already present in most

other societies. lvlore than that: in spite of their internal madness, they

used to a large extent the icleas and the devices of our political rationalit,v.nÓ

The reason Foucanlt is prevented from responding less Paradoxically Is

clear: if the thesis of inclistinction between sovefeignt,v, biopolitics, and

totalitarianism lvere to prevail-the continuist hypothcsis-he would be

tbrcecl to assume genocide as the constituitive paradigm (or at least as the

inevitable outcome) of the entire parabola of modernity.6T Doing so would

contrast with his sense of historical distinctions, which is always keen.

If instead the hypothesis of diflerence łvere to prevail-the discontinuist

hypothesis-his conception of biopower would be invalidzrtecl every time

that death is projected insicle the circle of iif'e, not only during the first half

of tl're r9oos, but also afler. If totalitarianism vvere the result of what came

before it, power would alwavs have to enclose and keep r'vatch over life

relentlessl,v. If it r,vere the temporary and contingent displacement, it would

mean that life over tin.re is capable of beating back every porver that wrnts

to violirte it. In the lirst case, biopolitics would be an absolute power over

life; in tl-re second, an absolute porver of lit'e. Held betlveen these two op-

posing possibilities ancl blocked in the aporia that is established when they

intersect, Foucault continues to run simultaneously in both directions. He

doesn't cut the knot, ancl the resuit is to keep his ingenious intuitions

unfinished on the link betrveen politics and life.

EvidentLy, Foucault's ditlicuity and h.is indecision move weli beyond łsimple question of historical periodization or geneirlogical artlculation be

tłveen the paradigms of sovereignty and biopolitics to invest the same 1ogi

cal ancl semantic confrguration oI the latter' iV[f impression is that such ir

hermeneutic impasse is connected to the tact that, notwithstanding the

theorization of their reciprocal implication, or perhaps because of this,

the tr,vo terms of life ai'rd politics are to be thought as originally distint t

IItIIT

.+.+ The Enigma of Biopolitics

and on11'later joined in a manner that is still extrJnĆoL15 to them. Ir is pre-

cisely for this reason that politics and lite rcmein indelinite in profiie and in

qualification. lVhat, precisely, .rrc "politics" and "11fc" ibr FoucaLrit? Holv are

they to be understood and in lvhat wav does therr dehnition retlect on thcirrr-l,rtirrnshin? ( )r.,tn lhe, onlrrrr\'. hnw does lheir rel,rlion rmttlcl on thcirr)\n,','t;\ e d. nition<t Ii rrna lr+oins rn rhink fhem .enrrrt,'lv in th,'ilkllJH\!trt rl vll! U!5LrLr.U Ll.lliN lll!,ll )LP(tl!ltlr) lrl (lr!ll Jlr-

soluteness, it becomes ditficult and even contraclictor,v to condense them in

a single concept. Not on1v, but one risks biocking a more profbuncl uncler-

standing, relating preciselv to the originary lrnd elemental character of that

association. It has sometimes been said that Foucault, absorbed fbr the

most part in the question of porver, never sutficiently articulated the con-

cept of poljtics-t,,r the point oi substlnti.rllv superimposing the expres-

sions of "biopower" and "biopolitics." But an irnalogous observation-aconceptual elaboration th.rt is lacking or insufficient-could be raised as

well in relation to the other term of the relation, which is to say that of lite;

thrl de.pitc .les'ribing thc [crm ln"rIr tielllr in its historicrrl-institutionlL,

economic, social, and productive nervaturc. 1i1'e remains, nevertheiess, little

problematizecl r,vith regard to its epistemological constitution. \Vłiat is lił.e

in its essence and even befbre that, does life have an essence-a recogniz-

able and clescribable designation or-rtside of the relation with other lives

and with what is not lifc'? Does there exist a simple lit-e-a bare life-ordoes it emer:ge from the beginning as tbrmed, as put into forne by some-

thing that prrshes it bcvond itsell? From this perspcclive.ls well. thr'ertc-gory of biopolitics seems to demand a new horizon of meaning, a ditTerent

interpretive key that is capable of linking the tlvo polarities together in a

way that is at the same time more limiterl and more complex.

CHAPTER TWO

The Paradigm of Immunization

lmmunttY

Lrlr ntv Part' IbĆ|ievc l've traecd the intcrprctive kcv in the plrldi3In oi"immunization" that seems to have eluded Foucault. Hor'v and in whrit

sense can immunization fi11 that semantic void, that interval of meaning

lvhich rentains open in Foucault's text between the coilstitutive poles of the

conccpt oi bi,rpolitics, n.rmcly, biology rrncl politie s? Let's begin bv observ-

irlg that the category of '..Ęmgn|ry'even i!.its curren!T5]i!9: ii 11scJileclg99!se1y - 1,!"T

int".-19951|q1. that is, on the. t11c9!!:!.1]l9 9Ę |i.9k9 tlesphere of [i! ivith that.

't2'''''''''''''''|Jalv..\ĄIhere the term ..imnlunity'' tbr the biomed-

ical sphere refers to a condition oI natural or induced retractoriness on the

part of a living organism when taced lvith a given disease, immunitv rn

political-juridical language alludes to a lemporary or definitive exemptlon

on the part ofsubiect lvith regard to concrete obligations or responsibili-

ties that under normal circumstances would bind one to others. i\t this

point, holvever, we stil1 remain only at the outermost side oI the question:

manv political terms of biological derivation (or at least of assonance) such

as those of "bod,v," "nation," and "constitution" come to mincl. Yet in the

!-oj!.Lo!rnls!]Ą1-Z'f]'t.l9!. something more determirres its spgcificiry 1vlr'9n

compared with the Fgg9ryld14n qgtion of biopolitics. It concerns the intnn-

sic character that forces together the tlvo elements that compose biopolitics.

Rather than being superimposed or juxtaposed in an external tbrm that

subjccts one to the domination of the other, in the immLrnit.rrv p"rra.ligm,

bios and nomos,life and politics, emerge as the two constituent elements ot

a single, indivisibie lvhoLe that assllrles meaning from their interrelation.

Contents

TRANSLATOR'S I NTRODUCTIONTl-re Uniyersity of Nlinnesota Press gratefullv acknolviedgcs the assistance provrded

tor rhe publicetior] oi rhis book bv the \,lcKnight Founclirrion. Bros' lmrnunitv, Liti: The Tbought oi Robetto Esposito viiTimothlt Ctwtpbell

originall1, pubLislreci ls Bios: Biopolitica e fioso'ha' Copvrlght .]00.ł Giulio Einarrcii

editore s.p.a., Turin. B'OS

Copyright 1008 bv the Regents of the Univcrsitv of \,linnesota Introduction j

All rights reserveci. No part of this pubiication may be reproduced, strrred ina retrieval svstem, or transmitted, in an1' tbrm or bv any means, electronic, ONEmechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherrvise, withuut th< prior writtcn The Enigma of Biopolitics tjpermis;ion oi the publi.hcr.

Published bv the University of \{innesota Press TWO

L 11 Third.Ąvenue South' Suite 290 The Paradigm oi Immuniz.ltion +5

lvlinneapołis, NIN 55.ł0 l -25]0http :,//r,rrr-r,v.unress. umn. ed u tnntrtr

Librar;, of Congress Cirtaiogillg-in-Pubłtcatiorr Data Biopower and Biopotentiałity 78

Esposito, Roberto, I950-

fBios. English.l FoUR

Bios : biopolitics and philosophv / Roberto Esposito i rranslateci ancl rvith Thanatopolitics (The C;rcle of Genos) 11o

an introcluction by Timoti-ry Campbell.p cm. -

(Posthumanities series ; v. -{l FIVEOriginallv published: Bios: Biopolitica e fiLrsolia. The philos.phy of Bios 146Ir, lrrdes h;hliou'anhic.rI rcri.renccs "rn,l in.1cr.

ISBN-13:978-0-8166-4989-1 (hc : alk. paper)

ISBN-10:0-8166-4989-3 ihc: alk. paper) Notes 195

ISBN-1i: 978-0-8166--1990-7 (pb : alk. paper)ISBN-l0: 0-8116 1990-I lpb:alk. paperr lndex 1s1. Biopolitics. -1. Political science-Philosopl-rv. I. Title.1A80.E7713 2008310.0 l-dc22 200704;8i;

Printed in the Lhited States oIAinerica on acid-tlee paoer

T'he Universitv oi.Vlinnesota is an ecluaL-opportunit.r educator and emplover.

15 l.1 l-] 12 1l 10 09 08 l0 9 8 7 6 5 .ł j 2 l

rf

'!

Ji Lo Introductioir

oi re[crrinc to blos Lh;.rt the inn.'rlttire or ConscrVJIiVĆ' Ur Jcti\c or reJctiVę

character of tbrces lacing each other is established. Nietzsche himseli and the

mc"rning rl|-fii5 qtlr|' ir plrt Oi this ;tlmplri:.ln lntl j|rugqlĆ. in thc sctlsc

rh.rr {')edrhcr lhL.\ d\nri\s Lhc most c\Dllcil .'rirlcism oi'thc morlcrn intnLu-.'.*..'5.''r..'"nitary loss of meaning and an elemcnt of acceleration tiom lvithin. Fromherc.r c.ttcgorical .rs ivell as stylistic splitting occurs betłveen tlvo tonalities,'f lhorrr'ht rrlrl.rnosc,l lnil intcrrvoven rhlt c(rn\tilllfps thr'rnrrst tvnj..1l""".^5"..'"'*r""".."'"""./l.ipher oI.the NietzsehęJn tĆKt: de;rincd on thC onc iidt't.l .ln.;..o..',.'.'lcest on tlle thcoretic.ll lcvel. rhc rlcstructivc lnd se ll-dc'tru.tivc slipp.rgc

of tlventieth-century biocrac,v, and on the other the prehqurltion of the

lines of an affirmative biopolitics that has vet to come.

The tinal section oi the book is dedicated to the relation betr'veen phi-1osophy anc1 biopolitics after i^'Iązism. Why do I insist on retcrrirrg plrilos_

ophil to whirt lvanted to bt' the most Ć-{plicit negation of philosophy as ever

appeared? Wel1, hrst because it is precisely a sintilar negation that demancls

to be understood philosophically in its drrrkcst corners. '\nd then because

Nazism negatecl philosoph;' not only generically, but in t'avor of biolog,v, ofłvhich it considere d itself to be the most accompiished reaiization. I exam-

ine in detail this thesis in an extensive chapter here, corroborating its truth-iuInes'' Jt l(J5t ln the litcr.llsĆn5C thJr thc Nozi rcgime brotLghl the biologi-zation ot- politics to a point rhat hacl never been reached previor-rsl,v. Nazisrn

trerrte d the Germln people as an organic body that needed a radical cure,

which consisted in the violent removal of a part that was already considered

spiritually dead. From this perspective ancl in contrast to communism (r,vhich

is still joinecl ln posthumous homage to the category of totaiitarianism),Nazism is no longer inscribable in the self-preserving dynamic of both the

earlv and later modernities; ancl certainly not because it is ertrancor,rs to

immunitary logic. On the contrary, Nirzism lvorks lvithin that logic in such a

paroxvsm.il mrnncr Js tu ltLrn thc protcctivc rppJrJLus .lg.rinst its.orvnbo-dv, lvhich is precisely what happens in irutoimmune diseases. The finalorders of selt-destruction put tbnvard by Hitler barric.r.1e.1 in his gerlin

bunker ofier overlvhelming proot. From this point of viel.r', one can say

that the Nazi experience represents the culmination of biopolitics, at Ie ast

in that qualilled expression of being absolutely indistinct from its reversal

into thanatopolitics. But preciselv tbr this reason the catastropl're in łvhichit is immerse d constitutes the occasion tbr an epochal rethinking of a cat-PU^r\/ th:]l F'l. f.nm .]ic '....'.i..

p','.'' ,.ł". ',-D ... "...... / .,-) -.qulres morc mcJnlng, not

IntroductioLr rt

on.ly in the events I noted above, but also in the ovelall conflgulation of

contemporarv experience, and above all fiom the moment r.vhen the im-

plosion ot soviet communism cieared tire field oi the last phiiosophv of

n',rd..,, history, delivering us over to a rvorlcl th:rt is completelv globaiizcd.

It is at this levelthat4'!ęg}.l:ę t9{ay is to be conducted: the b9.d.v-1hat

experience-s e5J mcl1e lnt'ęg-sęly !h9 ind19lil:!g" u:!iu991 p_91-e1 ancllifc p

",r tono.r.in.rt ot the indivitlu'rl' n"r is it lhrrL sovereign b'-rJv oi- r'ilLion5'

il, ,l'"", uo.ł., "r Ę-li1,.d4-that is both.!94ł and *!Łe-ŁNer,er betore as

ioa"utu ,rr. .-""t ir, wolrncls, and tears that tear the bocly to pieces se em

to put into pla,v nothing lcss than lit'e itself in .r singulrrr rercrslrl between

the classic philosophical theme of the "r,vorld o1'liib" and that theme heard

sooftentodayofthe..lit.eofthelvorld.''ThisisĘg9+;o-uthat-t-on!9j-!-LQ.

-Ełary thouglrt cannot fooi itself (as still l-rappens today) in belatecl1y de|cnc

ąo* ;aa."; pi,Tjit'j| .Jte3.Jii., thlt h.'.. bi.'n shaken .ln.l. overtuined .

C""tem ffii iii;Ęii|;;ui "'-'a

must not do anything of the sort, be-

cause biop.o1itl9:*9i1ciTle-: preci9elr 1'l !1r.99e p9lit1ca|91t.ę.s911ę9.lleibre it

,.b"l' og..i"ii|i'enl; ond tli"" 6.ćause t].-"".!.ę*.] 9| the p19ble'3 that ryę.11e

Ęcing,whichistosaythemoclihcatiorro|biosbyapartofpoliticsidentihed-with technol og'1 [t;cnica];, was po-setl f91 the first time (in a manner that -n

wor-rli]beinsutficienttoclefineasapocalyptic),preciselyintheantiphilo-sophical ancl biologictrl philosophy of Hitlerism. I do realize irorv delicate

this kincl of statemcnt mry seem in its contents and still more in its reso-

nance, but it isn't possible to place questions of expediency before the

truth of the matters at htrncl. From another pcrspective, twcnticti1-century

thought has from the beginning implicitlv unclerstood this, accepting the

comparison and the struggle with radical eYil on its orvn terrain. It was so

tbr Heiclegger, along an itinerary that brought him so closc lo thlt vortex

that he risked letting himself be swailolved bv it. But the same was also true

for Arendt ancl Foucault, both of whom were conscitlus, albeit in diilerent

lvays, that one could rise above Nazism onlv by knowing its clrifts and its

precipices.Itisthepaththatlmyselfhavetriedtotbllowherc,workingbacktofrontr,vithinthreeNazitlispositifs:theąbsolttte'normt]liyiza!|oyy!-life, the dotfule enclosttre of the body, and the cłnticlpL1tory suppr.ession of

birth. I have traced them rvith the intention ol profiling the admittedlr'

approximate and provisionai contours of an affirmative biopoiitics that is

capable of overturnrng.jĘNazi politics of death in a po1itics th.rt is no

longer over life but-o/1ife.

l

l

i

i

I