Biopower

In the introduction to the volume, the editors explain the overarching aim of the volume and contextualize the main themes of its chapters. Even if the notions of biopolitics and biopower have played a crucial role in philosophy, the humanities, and the social sciences over the last decades, they have been used in various and at times diverging senses, which has also produced different narratives about the history of biopolitics. The main aim of the volume is to clarify whether and to what extent the concept of biopolitics is applicable to antiquity. To answer such questions, the chapters collected in the volume address three main topics, namely the possible presence of biopolitical discourse in ancient thought, the extent to which the application of a biopolitical approach to ancient thought requires qualifications, and some influential contemporary interpretations of the relation between biopolitics and antiquity.

“Power is war, the continuation of war by other means”: Foucault’s reversal of Clausewitz’s formula has become a staple of critical theory — but it remains highly problematic on a conceptual level. Elaborated during Foucault’s 1976 lectures (“Society Must Be Defended”), this work-hypothesis theorises “basic warfare” [la guerre fondamentale] as the teleological horizon of socio-political relations. Following Boulainvilliers, Foucault champions this polemological approach, conceived as a purely descriptive discourse on “real” politics and war, against the philosophico-juridical conceptuality attached to liberal society (Hobbes’s Leviathan being here the prime example).
However, in doing so, Foucault did not interrogate the conceptual validity of notions such as power and war, therefore interlinking them without questioning their ontological status. This problematic conflation was partly rectified in 1982, as Foucault proposed a more dynamic definition of power relations: “actions over potential actions”.
I argue, somewhat polemically, that Foucault’s hermeneutics of power still involves a teleological violence, dependent on a polemological representation of human relations as essentially instrumental: this resembles what Derrida names, in “Heidegger’s Ear”, an “anthropolemology”. However, I show that all conceptualisation of power implies its self-deconstruction. This self-deconstructive (or autoimmune) structure supposes an archi-originary unpower prior to power: power presupposes an excess within power, an excessive force, another violence making it both possible and impossible. There is something within power located “beyond the power principle” (Derrida). This (self-)excess signifies a limitless resistantiality co-extensive with power-relationality. It also allows the reversal of pólemos into its opposite, as unpower opens politics and warfare to the messianic call of a pre-political, pre-ontological disruption: the archi-originary force of différance. This force, unconditional, challenges Foucault’s conceptualisations of power, suggesting an originary performativity located before or beyond hermeneutics of power-knowledge, disrupting theoreticity as well as empiricity by pointing to their ontological complicity.
The bulk of this essay is dedicated to sketching the theoretical implications of this deconstructive reading of Foucault with respect to the methodology and conceptuality of political science and social theory.

This chapter focuses on how the political right in the United States, particularly in California, has propagated a highly charged political rhetoric in which Third World migrants, Mexicans in particular, are deemed to present a threat to the welfare of the nation. This sort of rhetoric has given rise to and legitimated numerous efforts to exclude the immigrant from the body politic. One way to interpret these practices of exclusion is in terms of what Michel Foucault called biopower. This term describes the operating logic of modern forms of government, whose main concern is the welfare of the population, the improvement of its condition, the increase of its wealth, longevity, health, etc. There is an underside to biopower however, since it is often the case that entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity. Thus the counterpart of the power to secure an individual’s continued existence is the power to expose an entire population to death. Using the Foucauldian notion of biopower, this paper explores how the state, in order to fortify the health of the population, aims to eliminate those influences that are deemed harmful to the biological growth of the nation. It thus shows how the exclusion of the immigrant is codified as an essential and noble pursuit necessary to ensure the survival of the social body.

This essay analyzes the collective mnemonics embedded in the statistical discourse of Planned Parenthood’s 1955 conference, _Abortion in the United States_. Conferees recalled a culture that was diseased, remembered both through social data on abortion pathology and epidemiology. The essay conceptualizes how to think of social data as a collective memory of secrets that is incumbent to biopower, particularly regarding statistical anonymity as a form of strategic amnesia. Although primarily a study of this conference, the essay notes the broader importance of collective memory and secrecy for the study of biopower.

This book investigates drone technology from a humanities point of view by exploring how civilian and military drones are represented in visual arts and literature. It opens up a new aesthetic ‘drone imaginary’, a prism of cultural and critical knowledge, through which the complex interplay between drone technology and human communities is explored, and from which its historical, cultural and political dimensions can be assessed. The contributors to this volume offer diverse approaches to this interdisciplinary field of aesthetic drone imaginaries. Sprouting from art history, literature, photography, feminism, postcolonialism and cultural studies, the chapters provide new insights to the rapidly evolving field of drone studies. They include historical perspectives on early unmanned aviation and aerial modes of vision; they explore aesthetic configurations of drone swarming, robotics and automation; and they engage in current debates on how drone technology alters the human body, upsets available categories, and creates new political imaginaries.

A paper discussing the ways in which psychology is implicated in current forms of government and regulation, particularly in TV media. The discussion stems from Michel Foucault's notions on governmentality and power and is applied to examples of makeover culture in recent TV show formats.

This article aims to explore the notion of activist-art, identifying it as a distinct tendency in Modern art through a re-examination of historical and theoretical approaches to the radical avant-garde, drawing on autonomist Marxist and materialist post-structural perspectives.

First, through a critique of Peter Bürger's Theory of the Avant-Garde, I attempt to place the use of the idea of ‘autonomy’ by the avant-garde in its critical historical context not only in the negative sense of separation, but in the positive sense of freedom from restraint. I argue that for the avant-garde this took the particular form of a thematic engagement with the refusal of work. Secondly, I examine one particular form of this refusal: the engagement with social movements amongst Dadaists in Berlin. I set out a theoretical frame of ‘affective composition', in order to place avant-garde artistic production in relation to the art of social movements, whose production operates outside the institutions of art. I argue that not only is the avant-garde at crucial points influenced by the art of social movements, but that the Dadaists in Berlin attempt to imagine new forms of ‘activist-art’ which synthesise avant-garde and social movement performance and object-art in disobedient performances and performative disobedient objects.

This volume provides a critical perspective on the meaning and significance of modernity – one of the more significant areas of anthropological inquiry. The purposes of the book are especially (1) to introduce students and scholars to the growing and exciting body of anthropological literature on modernity; (2) to introduce readers to Foucauldian inspired anthropologies, thus demonstrating the pertinence of Foucault for contemporary anthropological study; and (3) to highlight the importance of ethnographic approaches for Foucauldian scholarship and for the study of modernity.

The majority of gay men are now meeting online; however, little is understood about how body presentations in cyberspace affect gay men’s intimate contacts. In this article, I develop the concept of the quantifiable-body discourse to illuminate how a dating Web site’s infrastructure measures the body, impacting how gay men interact with one another. Through in-depth interviews and analyzing profiles on a top gay personal Web site, I show how gay men numerically discuss and compare bodies online. Bolstered by Connell’s concepts of hegemonic masculinity and cathexis, I reveal how this quantification of bodies leads to the valuing and desiring of fit bodies and discriminating against fat bodies in cyberspace and off-line. I also illuminate how dating and “hookup” Web sites perpetuate hegemonic norms around bodies, beauty, and biopower.

"Representations", N. 129, Winter 2015.

The essay analyzes the project of maintaining the body of V. I. Lenin in the Mausoleum in Moscow for the past ninety years, focusing on the unique biological science that developed around this project, and the unexpected political role this body has performed.

Ανατρέχοντας στο σύνολο του μαρξικού έργου, η παρούσα μελέτη επιχειρεί να αναδείξει την ύπαρξη μιας κεντρικής προβληματικής που διαπερνά τόσο τις πρώιμες όσο και τις ώριμες στιγμές της σκέψης του Μαρξ. Πρόκειται για την κριτική της βιοπολιτικής λειτουργίας του κεφαλαίου, προβληματική η οποία αναφέρεται στην κοινωνική λειτουργία του κεφαλαίου ως ενός πλέγματος σχέσεων εξουσίας και εκμετάλλευσης που συγκροτούνται ιστορικά και προσιδιάζουν ως τέτοιες αποκλειστικά στον καπιταλιστικό τρόπο παραγωγής. Διαμέσου μιας διαδικασίας που λαμβάνει χώρα τόσο στα «άδυτα της παραγωγής» όσο και εκτός της άμεσης παραγωγικής διαδικασίας, οι σχέσεις αυτές εγγράφονται στην ίδια την ύπαρξη του παραγωγικού υποκειμένου, σταθεροποιώντας την ταξική κυριαρχία στις νεώτερες κοινωνίες. Κάνοντας την εμφάνισή τη ήδη στα 1843, η εν λόγω προβληματική βρίσκει την πλήρη της ανάπτυξη στο ώριμο μαρξικό έργο και ειδικότερα στο πλαίσιο της κριτικής των μορφών της καπιταλιστικής συνεργασίας, όπου καταδεικνύονται οι τεχνικές για την υπαγωγή και πειθάρχηση των παραγωγικών υποκειμένων στον καπιταλιστικό (ανα)παραγωγικό κανόνα και αναλύεται ο ιστορικός ρόλος της κρατικής εξουσίας στην εμπέδωση του κανόνα αυτού.

ABSTRACT
This work aims to inquire the relation between biopolitics and freedom in the thought of Michel Foucault, particularly in the last phase of his life (1978-1984). Here we see how his encounter with ancient philosophy allowed him to experience the practice of philosophy: the work of self formation that the greek called askesis. Very important for this objective is the use of 'techne tou biou' (technology of self). I try to demonstrate that: this new way of practicing philosophical askesis evokes Foucault’s ethical resistance to modern relations of power and knowledge (biopower and biopolitics) and open the possibility of contemporary practices of freedom.

Dans ce travail j'ai cherché d'analyser les relations entre biopolitique et liberté dans la pensée de Michel Foucault, en particulier dans la dernière phase de sa vie (1978-1984). Ici, nous voyons comment sa rencontre avec la philosophie antique lui a permis de découvrir une pratique de la philosophie dans les termes d'un travail de formation de Soi que les Grecs appelaient 'ascèse' (askesis). Très important pour atteindre cet objectif est le rapport avec la technique à travers l'utilisation d'une 'technè tou biou' (technologie de Soi). J'ai tenté de démontrer que cette nouvelle façon de pratiquer l'ascèse philosophique évoque une résistance éthique aux relations modernes de pouvoir-savoir (biopouvoir et biopolitique) et ouvre la possibilité de nouvelles pratiques contemporaines de liberté.

(In press: November 2020)
Refiguring childhood stages a series of encounters with biosocial
power, which demarcates a specific zone of intensity within the more
encompassing arena of biopower and biopolitics. Attentive to the
contingency of childhood - the ways in which particular childhoods are
constituted and configured - the method used in the book is a
transversal genealogy that moves between past and present, and
across a series of discourses and practices framed by children's rights
(the right to play), citizenship, health, disadvantage, and
entrepreneurship education. With an emphasis on the how, where and
when of biosocial power, Refiguring childhood will appeal to
researchers and students interested in examining the relationship
between power and childhood through the lens of social and political
theory, sociology, cultural studies, history, and geography.

What is the relationship between Foucault’s concept of biopower and Deleuze’s concept of control? Despite the similarities between these two concepts, there is not a single scholarly article that solely thematizes this question, nor a comparative survey of the answers given so far. This essay aims to fill this lacuna. Drawing on Deleuze's unpublished and untranslated lectures on Foucault, the original thesis of this essay is thus that biopower and control are the same concept of power in both content and form.

Preámbulo: El siguiente manuscrito, tiene por propósito desarrollar una exposición documentada acerca del concepto de biopolítica en el pensamiento filosófico de Michel Foucault. Será posible, por ello, identificar diferentes estratos que intentan dar cuenta del complejo campo de problemas y tradiciones intelectuales en el que se inscribe. Dibujar la cartografía del concepto, así como su conjunto problemático, no resulta tarea sencilla, por varios motivos. En primer lugar, por tratarse de un aspecto del pensamiento filosófico contemporáneo que, desde su formulación, ha concitado un conjunto de tensiones políticas y epistémicas que permanecen abiertas y forman parte de la conceptualidad misma del fenómeno biopolítico. Al mismo tiempo, existe una diversa y abundante bibliografía sobre la cuestión, que excede a la filosofía para extenderse al amplio espectro de las ciencias sociales y humanas, dificultando así cualquier intento de ordenamiento o sistematización. Finalmente, se trata de un punto cardinal que recorre el pensamiento de Michel Foucault, de tal manera que intentar desentrañarlo no podría sino conducir el trabajo hacia un examen detallado de su "obra". Advertidos de esta complejidad, intentaré, de todos modos, proponer algunas estancias desde las cuales abordar la problematicidad de la biopolítica, para rastrear allí su textualidad, su contexto, y sus derivas. Intentaré, por tanto, analizar un corpus textual específico que permita diagramar, establecer las coordenadas, de una interrogación filosófica acerca de la actualidad de la biopolítica para el pensamiento contemporáneo.

She loved accidents: any mention of an animal run over, a man cut to pieces by a train, was bound to make her rush to the spot.
—Émile Zola, La Bête Humaine (1890)

The spectacle of the wounded body has always had its lurid attractions. Coverage of serial killings and graphic accounts of brutal murders by various media are part of our “spectacular” culture fascinated by violence and brutality. The television is often the site where private desire and public fantasy meet, and where the fascination regarding dangerous offenders is initiated and nurtured (Knox, 17–18; Lesser). The convening of the public around scenes of violence represents what Mark Seltzer terms the “wound culture,” a lethal space in which the public interest in scars and mutilated and opened bodies constitutes a collective fascination with the unbearable aspects of human life.

Tesis de maestría que sostiene que el biopoder es la forma del poder político contemporáneo. La primera parte es una genealogía de los conceptos biopolítica y biopoder en Foucault, la segunda parte intenta desarrollar la idea de biopoder contemporáneo, mientras que la tercera parte elabora sobre las posibilidades de resistencia.

A obra de Achille Mbembe trespassa os temas que relacionam poder e violência, tendo Políticas da Inimizade o foco na relação histórica entre estes tópicos. Como notificado pelo filósofo, este livro apresenta natureza episódica e espasmódica, com excertos repetidos ao longo do seu tecido, sendo que o frémito de intermitência dificulta a análise do ensaio. Não pretendendo fazer uma análise crítica, esta recensão ousa formalizar uma reorganização das palavras e ideias expostas promovendo uma simplificação do texto para dotar os interessados de uma base de análise para a sua leitura.

Palavras-chave racismo; pós-colonial; violência; biopoder; necropoder.

The biopolitical interpretation of contemporary violence, advanced most conspicuously by Michel Foucault, views violence as the production and circumscription of the life of a people. According to this interpretation, biopower is a violence that produces life rather than punishing with death. But this essay argues that, as psychoanalytic theory shows, death is always inserted into life in the form of lack. The biopolitical turn is illusory and obscures the continued sexualized nature of contemporary violence, a violence that retains its fundamental link with loss and death rather than bare life.

Con questo mio lavoro intendo investigare i rapporti che intercorrono tra molteplici discorsi critici sul potere che si vennero a sviluppare nel secondo dopoguerra del Novecento e un’opera che ne incarnò e ne traspose cinematograficamente  le contraddizioni e le idiosincrasie : Indagine su un cittadino al di sopra di ogni sospetto di Elio Petri.
  Indagine su un cittadino al di sopra di ogni sospetto è un film del 1970 - primo di una trilogia ideale, definita Trilogia della nevrosi, proseguita con La classe operaia va in paradiso (1971) e La proprietà non è più un furto (1973) – che offre spunti di riflessione sul momento storico di grande conflitto politico e sociale in cui fu realizzato e che ho voluto accostare alla ricerca portata avanti da Michel Foucault negli ultimi anni della sua vita, quando arrivò ad elaborare il concetto di biopolitica.
  Biopolitica come nuovo orizzonte nel dibattito sul potere e come nuovo modo di concepire quest’ultimo, che non si applica agli individui bensì circola tra di essi in un sistema reticolare provocando ad ogni passaggio precise micro-dinamiche, micro-reazioni che si inscrivono in una osservabile e determinata microfisica.
  Nel capitolo centrale dell’elaborato esporrò come negli ultimi tre secoli dell'epoca moderna tali meccanismi di potere degli Stati si siano attuati sempre più attraverso istituzioni e discipline che sono passate ad occuparsi e a regolamentare non più solo la zoè ma anche la bìos, di quelli che da sudditi sono passati ad essere cittadini. Nei campi della psichiatria, della galera e quindi della giustizia, della medicalizzazione-ospedalizzazione, nell'educazione scolastica e, infine, nella sessualità, si sono messe in campo forze e leggi normative che mai come prima nella storia avevano influito così direttamente e peculiarmente sul corpo dell'uomo.
  Mia intenzione è concentrarmi sulla ricerca riguardante la sessualità, che Foucault ha indagato nella  trilogia intitolata Storia della sessualità, scritta nel 1976, poiché  proprio la sessualità è il nodo di congiunzione tra le applicazioni delle discipline corporali che ne hanno fatto uso per un’accumulazione dei corpi e di capitale, e la morbosa vicenda raccontata in Indagine.
  Sei anni prima della pubblicazione della Storia della sessualità, in Italia, Indagine veniva distribuito nei cinema con enorme successo di pubblico ma con il rischio di censura per vilipendio delle istituzioni costituzionali: un film che narrava la storia di un funzionario dello Stato che compiva un delitto apparentemente passionale, ma con tutti altri moventi reali.
  Nel primo capitolo sarà delineato il periodo storico da cui l’opera prese ispirazione e dei particolari fatti di cronaca in cui venne ad inscriversi.
Questa controversa pellicola usciva infatti nelle sale di un'Italia ancora scioccata dalla strage di Piazza Fontana, dalla morte violenta dell'anarchico Giuseppe Pinelli e dall'accusa mossa al commissario Calabresi. Per la prima volta si facevano spazio all’interno della società civile i concetti di devianze del potere interne alla democrazia e di strage di Stato: in tutta Italia si verificava una radicalizzazione degli scontri e un uso deliberato della violenza, sia a destra che a sinistra, preparando il terreno per quelli che saranno gli anni di piombo. Attraverso una vera e propria militarizzazione della lotta politica, a cui si accompagnava una nuova ondata di ideologia fascista, spinte reazionarie e autoritarie miravano a creare una strategia della tensione per instaurare forme di governo anti-democratiche sulla scia del colpo di stato in Grecia.
  Per la prima volta insomma, la società civile si trovava a doversi porre questioni sulla processabilità dello Stato, sul controllo dei controllori, sulla legittimità del potere e sull’esercizio della sua autorità, anche grazie a quel movimento antisistemico e dirompente che fu il Sessantotto che permise una delocalizzazione della discussione politica nei luoghi della contestazione, accelerando e diffondendo nelle democrazie occidentali tardo-capitalistiche un discorso critico sul potere sovrano stesso, percependo un'incrinatura nascente nell'aura che da secoli lo circondava.
  Nella sacralità del potere, relitto della prima modernità, si aprì uno squarcio: vennero messe a nudo le dinamiche irrazionalistiche della legge, proposta fino ad allora come assoluta e dettata da regole che si davano per certe e di provenienza quasi divina.
Sarà compito del terzo capitolo dare un’interpretazione alla scelta di Petri che, cogliendo appieno lo spirito del tempo, conclude la sua opera con una citazione tratta dalla parabola intitolata Davanti alla Legge, contenuta nel Processo di Franz Kafka.
  L'accessibilità alla legge è impersonata da guardiani che ci svelano tutto il suo nulla della rivelazione. Muovendo da questa definizione di Walter Benjamin, riportata nell’Homo Sacer di Agamben, cercherò di comprendere come il carattere sovraumano della legge, si riveli in realtà regolato da logiche di violenza cristallizzata all’interno dell’ordine sociale con lo scopo di mantenerlo immutabile e sempre uguale a se stesso.
  Per fare questo mi sono inoltre avvalsa della concezione di illuminismo come processo di razionalizzazione, che elaborarono i francofortesi  Horkheimer e Adorno nella Dialettica dell’illuminismo, interpretando il protagonista del film di Petri e quello del Processo in chiave mitica per arrivare a dimostrare quanto il mito sia già illuminismo e l’illuminismo torni a rovesciarsi continuamente nel mito. La colpa del Commissario è quella di aver voluto sfidare il destino e le leggi umane, e proprio per questo sarà condannato all’innocenza.

  Questi sono i filtri che mi propongo di applicare all’opera di Petri ed alla sua funzione di rinnovato strumento di  semantizzazione della Weltanschauung della sua epoca, della condizione di dissolvimento dell’individuo in essa, e della valenza quasi profetica che ciò viene ad assumere nella stretta contemporaneità.
  Per farlo, ho inoltre visitato la Cineteca di Bologna e il Fondo Petri dell’Archivio del Museo Nazionale del Cinema di Torino, dove ho potuto consultare e vedere da vicino documenti cartacei e fotografici appartenenti al regista, come ad esempio gli Atti Giudiziali del Giudice Giovanni Caizzi dove egli nega la censura del film, che qui vengono riportati per intero . Ringrazio la Signora Carla Ceresa dell’Archivio del Museo del Cinema di Torino che ha permesso ed agevolato la mia ricerca.

This article reviews recent literature on the political ecologies of conservation and environmental change mitigation, highlighting the biopolitical stakes of many writings in this field. Although a large and apparently growing number of political ecologists engage the concept of biopower directly – in its Foucauldian, Agambenian, and various other formulations – recent writings across the humanities and social sciences by scholars utilizing an explicitly biopolitical lens provide us with an array of concepts and research questions that may further enrich writings within political ecology. Seeking to extend dialogue between scholars of biopolitics, of political ecology, and of both, then, this article surveys both new and shifting contours of the various ways in which contemporary political ecologies increasingly compel us to bring the very lives of various human and nonhuman populations, as Foucault once put it, "into the realm of explicit calculations." In doing so, 'new frontiers' of biopolitical inquiry are examined related to: i) species, varieties, or 'multiple modes' of governmentality and biopower; ii) critical (ecosystem) infrastructure, risk, and 'reflexive' biopolitics; iii) environmental history, colonialism, and the genealogies of biopower, and iv) the proliferation of related neologisms, such as ontopower and geontopower.

Cet article est une revue de la littérature récente sur les écologies politiques de la conservation et de l'atténuation des changements environnementaux, qui met en évidence les enjeux biopolitiques de nombreux écrits dans ce domaine. De nombreux écologistes politiques engagent directement le concept de biopouvoir-dans ses formulations foucaldienne, agambénienne et diverses autres. Des écrits récents dans le domaine des sciences humaines et sociales, élaborés par des chercheurs utilisant une optique explicitement biopolitique, nous offrent un ensemble de concepts et de questions de recherche susceptibles d'enrichir davantage les écrits sur l'écologie politique. Cet article examine les différentes manières dont les écologies politiques contemporaines nous obligent à amener la vie de diverses populations humaines et non humaines, comme Foucault l'a dit, «dans le domaine des calculs explicites». Il élargit le dialogue entre les chercheurs en biopolitique et en écologie politique. Ce faisant, les «nouvelles frontières» de l'enquête biopolitique sont examinées concernant: 1) les espèces, les variétés ou les «modes multiples» de gouvernementalité et de biopouvoir; 2) infrastructure écosystémique critique, risque et biopolitique «réflexive»; 3) l'histoire environnementale, le colonialisme et les généalogies du biopouvoir; 4) la prolifération de concepts connexes, comme ontopower et geontopower." 

Este artículo hace una revisión de la literatura reciente sobre las ecologías políticas de la conservación y la mitigación del cambio ambiental; además, destaca los intereses en biopolítica de muchos escritos en este campo. A pesar de que un gran y aparentemente creciente número de autores en ecología política involucran el concepto de biopoder directamente-en sus formulaciones de acuerdo a Foucault, Agamben y otros-, escritos recientes de académicos en humanidades y ciencias sociales que utilizan explícitamente un lente biopolítico, proveen de una variedad de conceptos y preguntas de investigación que pueden enriquecer escritos de la ecología política. En la búsqueda por ampliar el diálogo entre académicos de biopolítica, ecología política, y dentro de ambos, este artículo explora nuevos y cambiantes contornos de las diferentes formas en que las ecologías políticas contemporáneas nos obligan cada vez más, a presentar las vidas de varias poblaciones humanas y no humanas, como Foucault planteó alguna vez, "en el dominio de cálculos explícitos." De este modo, 'nuevas fronteras' de investigación biopolítica son examinadas en relación a: i) especies, variedades, o 'múltiples modos' de gubernamentalidad y biopoder; ii) infraestructura (ecosistémica) crítica, riesgo, y biopolíticas 'reflexivas'; iii) historia ambiental, colonialismo, y las genealogías del biopoder, y iv) la proliferación de neologismos relacionados, tales como ontopoder y geontopoder.

This article reconsiders the politics and aesthetics of aftermath photography. Many critics have argued that the emerging, experimental genre of documentary photography ‘abstracts’ and renders ‘sublime’ the traumatic historical events that it takes as its subject matter. While these terms accurately reflect the aesthetics of aftermath photography, their politics cannot, the author argues, be so easily dismissed. The article reconsider the genre through Gene Ray's theories of the sublime and Rosemary Laing's photograph welcome to Australia (2004), which documents the Woomera refugee detention centre, in order to offer a better understanding of what is at stake in this new mode of documentary photography.

Third Text, 28.6 (December, 2014), 555-562

Free download for those without access to Third Text:

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/65x3pFdkmTNRu4ZkQbj9/full

Or
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09528822.2014.970775#.VbMVRjWzq-0

This article penetrates the idealistic, Marxist concept of the 'new  Soviet man', linking it with the notion of eugenics. Departing from a reconstruction of the history and specificity of the eugenic movement in Russia since the late 19th century until the installation of Joseph Stalin as the only ruler of the Soviet Union, Lysenkoism paradigm of Soviet natural sciences is being evoked as a theoretical frame for Soviet-specific eugenic programme. Through referring to a number of chosen – both theoretical (classic Marxist works) and practical (chosen aspects of Soviet science and internal politics) – issues and cases, the concept of the 'new Soviet man' is being confronted with an original reading of eugenics, understood in neo-Lamarckian terms of direct shaping human beings through environmental conditions (comprehending the GULag system of labour camps, pseudo-medical experiments and other) and intergenerational transfer (through inheritance) of acquired traits.

"La communauté politique contre le néocapitalisme ?
par Jérôme Maucourant, Frédéric Neyrat. La réflexion que nous avons entreprise situe en son cœur la question de l’institution. Il ne s’agit pas ici de se servir de ce terme comme le font les économistes adeptes de la New Institutional Economics pour ajouter un peu de supplément sociopolitique mal fondé à la froide logique économique, en un temps où le déclin du marxisme semble condamner les économistes à ne pouvoir discourir sur la totalité du social. Il ne nous semble pas fécond de se servir de l’idée de “ coût de transaction ”, ou de “ règles ” dont le contenu serait indifféremment applicable des micro-niveaux ou macro-niveaux : cela nous semble appauvrir la notion de politique, dont l’introduction au sein de nos réflexions nous apparaît fondamental. Dissoudre, dans un discours vague, cette notion de politique, en pensant l’entreprise comme “ institution ” par exemple, revient à penser le monde de la production sur un mode “ néoféodal ” où l’indistinction du politique et de l’économique est aussi inquiétante que totale. En réalité, c'est parce que l’Etat, en tant qu’incarnation de la communauté politique, a le monopole de l’exercice de la souveraineté qu’il peut déterminer les bornes de l’effectivité des pouvoirs privés et ainsi les modi operandi de la subordination des salariés aux propriétaires des capitaux.
Loin de ces tentatives, trop empreintes d'un déterminisme économique discutable pour être universalisables, nous avons voulu revenir ce qui fonde d’abord l’institution en son principe, c’est-à-dire comme un ensemble d’actes et de décisions politiques constitutifs d’une existence et d’un devenir social. Plus communément, les “ institutions ” incarnent un projet humain, en ce que celles-là sont des médiations entre le politique et l’économique. Le cas de la monnaie unique européenne est d’ailleurs une belle illustration du caractère institutionnel de la monnaie. Mais la monnaie n’est jamais souveraine et l’on aurait tort de penser que la difficile représentation du peuple qui est propre aux actuelles démocraties parlementaires doive nous conduire à liquider la figure du peuple souverain – même s’il est vrai que l’émergence d’un capitalisme aux ambitions planétaires semble donner du corps à l’idée de cette dissolution de la souveraineté – mais quel corps ? selon quelle politique, quelles orientations économiques ? C’est ce que nous avons éclairci en quelques points.
Nous avons tout d’abord proposé une interprétation de la logique du capitalisme, dans son rapport aux territoires, aux formes politiques et à la destruction/reconstruction de celles-ci. La prétendue “ mondialisation ” est souvent présentée comme un phénomène nouveau : ceci est inexact comme nous l'avons rappelé ; de plus, il conviendrait de parler de transnationalisation du capital car la capitalisme n'est pas mondial ou cosmopolite, il provient d'entités dominantes qui traversent (trans), déstructurent les nations et cassent depuis bien longtemps l'efficacité du keynésianisme national [Dockès, 1975]. Un “ néocapitalisme ” s’est ainsi constitué depuis vingt ans et se caractérise par l’actualisation maximale de l’ensemble des virtualités qui constituent le capitalisme comme système : la transnationalisation accrue des marchés, la mobilisation d’un salariat déqualifié au niveau mondial, le démantèlement des protections qui avaient rendu possible l’émergence de capitalismes dynamiques au Sud, la transition vers le capitalisme à l’Est, l’arrivée à maturité de “ nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication ” (N.T.I.C.), l’appropriation des bio-pouvoirs par l’économie de marché, la possibilité offerte à des entreprises privées de transformer en marchandise le code génétique humain, l’aménagement du territoire selon des logiques propres à ce néo-capitalisme, la déterritorialisation incessante des marchandises et des hommes se traduisant par une tendance à la suppression des valeurs traditionnelles, des codes, des cultures, au profit d’une libération sans entrave des flux de capitaux, de marchandises, et de forces de travail, tout cela inaugure une nouvelle phase dans l’essor du capitalisme. Sur le plan économique comme sur celui des représentations collectives, le capital aujourd’hui, comme rapport social, recouvre et innerve la totalité de notre espace.
Dans un second temps, nous avons opéré un retour sur les conceptions classique de la souveraineté et leur ancrage historique originels, pour imaginer quelques outils théoriques allant à l’encontre de l’ère “ postpolitique ” qui est souvent annoncée. Nous avons soutenu ceci : la souveraineté ne doit être abandonné ni au profit de la logique transnationale, qui pervertit la souveraineté en pouvoir capitaliste,  ni de la pseudo-souveraineté de l’individu, où sombre, dans le consumérisme le plus vide, ce que certains se complaisent à nommer encore “ liberté des Modernes ”. La souveraineté doit prendre sa source en son creuset originel : le peuple. Mais un peuple non substantiel, dégagé de tout rapport à la terre, au sol, au sang etc. Si l’expression de peuple européen a un sens, ce n’est que sous la forme non d’un aplanissement des différences nationales que l’idéologie européaniste tend à négliger, mais d’une communauté de la praxis, d’actes communs, orientés selon l’idée d’un bien collectif. L’Europe n’a de sens que dans l’orientation politique et sociale que nous lui donnons, comme “ communauté contre le marché ”, selon la belle expression de Morris [1993], à l’heure ou le principe du marché s’incarne dans un néocapitalisme aux visées planétaires, à un moment où une certaine l’Europe, rêvée par beaucoup, signifierait la fin de la politique de par la grâce du Droit dit “ international ”.
Nous avons enfin voulu montrer la dérive désastreuse d’une économie de marché qui devient société de marché, selon l'expression de Polanyi [1977] dont Hayek [1988] s'est fait le chantre. Il existe ainsi une justification évolutionniste de la  biopolitique libérale qui implique un mépris des gens. A cet égard, celui-ci est renforcé par la techno-politique propre à la société de contrôle, théorisée par Deleuze [1990] (et Virilio [1999]). Contrôle continu, communication instantanée, transparence, formation permanente :  telles sont les caractéristiques de cette société de contrôle, qui applique ses techniques à même la production bio-politique et l’appropriation capitaliste du vivant. Il serait sans doute problématique de qualifier rapidement ce contrôle de “ totalitaire ” - et pourtant : n’est-ce pas un droit de vie ou de mort sociale que peut s’arroger le capital grâce à ces nouveaux biopouvoirs ? Priver d’accès au marché des biens, du travail et du crédit des être humains grâce à ces nouveaux développements de la génétique équivaut au rejet de ces hommes hors des limites du champ social.
Ces analyses nous ont conduit au constat suivant : la subordination de ce que Foucault a, le premier, nommé des “biopouvoirs“ [Foucault, 1976] au capitalisme sous hégémonie américaine fait que les conditions actuelles de production, de reproduction et de contrôle de la vie ont pour conséquences notables un désastre écologique tel qu’il met en péril la possibilité même de la vie, de l’habitation du territoire. Alors, quelle Europe voulons-nous ? Que pouvons-nous faire, nous, Européens ? Ne nous faudrait-il pas créer des points d’immobilité dans les replis de la mobilisation ultra-libérale, des énoncés politiques au cœur de la gestion juridico-économiste du monde, des “ vacuoles de non-communication ” [Deleuze, 1990, p. 238] au sein de la société de contrôle, de la phylia où domine l’individualisme, de la déliaison là où dominent les liens serrés de la marchandise, de la souveraineté où elle s’absente et du détachement où s’acharnent les techniques de la société de contrôle ? Nous voyons la difficulté d’une telle entreprise : toute politique qui, aujourd’hui, s’oppose au néo-capitalisme risque d’être taxée de conservatrice. Il est certain que le capitalisme peut être considéré comme une forme de révolution permanente, et que toute volonté de changement doit, dans le même temps, s’opposer à l’air ultra-libéral de notre aujourd’hui. Il est de même certain que l’universalisation du capitalisme rend difficile la pensée et la mise en pratique d’une politique alternative.
Mais, justement : peut-on véritablement parler de capitalisme universel ? Une valeur universelle est très précisément ce devant quoi les particularités sont déposées, deviennent indifférentes sans pour autant être niées [Sumic, 2000]. Nous voyons bien, a contrario, en quoi le néocapitalisme élève des particularités (identitaires, idéologiques, made in USA …) au rang de normes indiscutables, en supprimant dans le même temps toutes les “ particularités ” (souverainetés nationales etc.) qui lui semblent préjudiciables. Et si l’Europe devenait justement le nom de ce qui revendique l’universalité de la chose publique au détriment des affaires privées ? Le nom d’une communauté qui, loin de réduire le capitalisme à un épouvantail, l’intégrerait comme moyen au service de ses fins ? Une communauté composée de membres autonomes, refusant que la Souveraineté se réduise au pouvoir néo-libéral, ou à l’hégémonie américaine. Une Europe, oui, sociale.
"""

Amikor életről beszélünk, hajlamosak vagyunk pusztán az emberi létezésre gondolni. Emellett az állati élet vagy a természet mint létező alacsonyabb státuszt foglal el. Az emberi élet felsőbbrendűsége azonban nem magától értetődő, sőt az sem, mit tekintünk e fogalom alá tartozónak. Az antik gondolkodás az életet a biosz és zoé kategóriáira osztja, úgy mint emberi és nem-emberi élet. Az értelmes és boldog élet ez alapján a bioszon belül valósítható csak meg. Ez a gondolat kibillenti a két szféra közti egyensúlyt, az emberi élet felsőbbrendűségét hirdetve. Jelen írás az új materialista filozófia felől vizsgálja az élet fogalmát, kimutatva a létezők közti kölcsönös függést és komplex viszonyokat, szemben a nyugati gondolkodás alárendelő életfogalmával. Célja, hogy a revideált életfogalmon keresztül értelmezzen olyan kortárs jelenségeket, mint a kapitalista logika, a nők helyzete vagy az ökoválság.

This chapter approaches the question of biopolitics in ancient political thought looking not at specific political techniques but at notions of the final aim of the political community. It argues that the “happiness” (eudaimonia, beatitudo) that constitutes the greatest human good in the tradition from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas is not a “biopolitical” ideal, but rather a metabiopolitical one, consisting in a contemplative activity situated above and beyond the biological and the political. It is only with Thomas Hobbes that civic happiness becomes “biopolitically” identified with simple survival; for modernity, as Hannah Arendt puts it, mere being alive becomes the greatest human good, and happiness is understood as a subjective “quality of life.” In both models, the political realm is a means to an end. Arendt draws our attention to a neglected third alternative to both the classical/metabiopolitical and the modern/biopolitical ideals: “public happiness” consisting in political participation itself.

Informal communities of Russian artists and intellectuals during the late Soviet years practiced a “politics of indistinction.” They claimed to be uninterested in anything political and differentiated themselves from ordinary “Soviet citizens,” whether supporters of or dissenters from the system. However, their apolitical lifestyles and pursuits contributed greatly to creating the conditions for making the collapse of the Soviet state imminent. Close examination of one such group, the Necrorealists, raises a set of questions that are central for an understanding of momentous and unexpected social transformations, and of the concept of "politics" more broadly

The article proposes a semiotic interpretation of the concept of bio-politics. Instead of a politics that takes "life itself " as its object and, as a result, separates life as an object from subjects, biopolitics is read as subjectification-a governmental rationality that constructs social ways of being and forms of life, that is, social subjectivities. The article articulates this position on the basis of two concepts: Jakob von Uexküll's umwelt and Michel Foucault's dispositive. While the former makes it possible to show that the process of life can be conceptualized as subjectification, the latter enables us to argue against an interpretation of biopolitics as a totalized structure of power intervening directly, without semiotic mediation, into "life itself ".

Roberto Esposito claims that biopolitics characterizes the entire modernity, and that it is built on the immunity dispositive. Im-munity is the negation of the munus which animates and builds com-munity: inside the immunitarian paradigm, thinking politics and ontology is considering men as ab-solutes beings, without any kind of engagement to each other, inhabited by a vacuum to deny. Esposito believes this means shaping an anthropological paradigm (systematized by philosophical anthropology in the 20th century) in which man is thought to be distinct from the animal since he is capable of denying his own nature and, more generally, his relationship with the world and the other beings – that is, a paradigm in which community has no ‘positive’ place. In order to overcome the immunitarian paradigm, we need to define the outlines of an affirmative biopolitics, a politics ‘of ’ life and not ‘on’ life. This biopolitical shift requires the understanding of the ‘flow of life,’ of its everlasting and unprotected openness: Esposito claims that life is impersonal and intrinsically normative, over-human and perpetually exposed to the ‘outside.’ Finally, this perspective leaves open a crucial question: can over-man exist without man?

Konferencë e mbajtur në seminarin « Nga gjendja natyrore te biopushteti », Universiteti UFO, Tiranë 2009, organizuar nga Alment Muho. Pjesa e pare e ketij artikulli eshte botuar filimisht, me titullin "Biopolitika Kuq e Zi", ne te perjavshmen aktiviste, GAZETA, n°41, Tirane