WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Biopower Answers- We Needed Some

Technological modernity is not all bad- it pro ides the tools that can lead to either the !a"i Holoca#st or a $ree democratic society- it is more li%ely that o#r #se o$ biopo&er is not coer ice' b#t rather prod#cti e in a $reedom and s#$$ering alle iating sense (iopo&er )ns&ers- We !eeded *ome+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++, (iopo&er )gency T#rn+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Po&er .riti/#e Fails++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++0 12ardstic%3 T#rn+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++4 Po&er .riti/#e 5imited+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++5 )-6 2o#r responses78nlightenment Tho#ght+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++9 (iopolitics:(are 5i$e Wrong+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++; )-6 (iopo&er <mpact++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Democratic *ociety .hec%s (iopolitical 8>termination+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,0 )-6 (iopolitics ())))D' J#hdge+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,, )-6 (iopolitics 1?ight to Kill3++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,)-6 (iopo&er 8>termination+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,0 )-6 (iopolitics -@ Fascism:Toto+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,4 )-6 (iopolitics !a"ism++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,5 )-6 (iopo&er Holoca#st:Aiolence++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,9 )-6 (iopo&er <mpact:?ights (ad+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,; )-6 (iopo&er:?ights (ad+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,B )-6 (iopolitics )lt++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,= )-6 (iopo&er:*tate (ad- *tate:5a& *ol es Cenocide+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-0 D) t#rns biopo&er++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-, (iopo&er Cood+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-(iopolitics Cood:<mpact Ta%eo#t+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-0 (iopolitics Cood+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-5 )-6 (iopolitics++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-9 )-6 .alc#lation+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-; Fo#ca#lt )ns&ers++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-B

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Biopower Agency Turn

A) The theory of socially and politically located biopower destroys human agency
D?C: P+ *te en *angren' anthropology pro$ D .ornell' 1Po&er )gainst <deology3' .#lt#ral )nthropology ,0+,' ,==5 p+ 5

B) No role for human agency dooms a theory of biopower to static structuralism- impedes change
D?C: !eal (renner' Pro$essor o$ Philosophy at Uni ersity o$ .hicago' 1Fo#ca#lts !e& F#nctionalism3' Theory and *ociety -0+5' ,==4 p+ online

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Power Critique Fails

Critique of power obscures other foundations of oppression
D?C: P+ *te en *angren' anthropology pro$ D .ornell' 1Po&er )gainst <deology3' .#lt#ral )nthropology ,0+,' ,==5 p+ 5

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Yardstic ! Turn
Biopower theorizations make it impossible to differentiate between resistance and disciplinary power- the suffering the one may belie e comes from modernity could also come from a post structural site
D?C: !eal (renner' Pro$essor o$ Philosophy at Uni ersity o$ .hicago' 1Fo#ca#lts !e& F#nctionalism3' Theory and *ociety -0+5' ,==4 p+ online

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Power Critique "imited

The critique of power is limited by its epistemological scope
D?C: P+ *te en *angren' anthropology pro$ D .ornell' 1Po&er )gainst <deology3' .#lt#ral )nthropology ,0+,' ,==5 p+ ,4

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Your responses%&nlig'tenment T'oug't

The idea of biopower also includes enlightenment thought
D?C: P+ *te en *angren' anthropology pro$ D .ornell' 1Po&er )gainst <deology3' .#lt#ral )nthropology ,0+,' ,==5 p+ 9

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Biopolitics(Bare "i)e Wrong

The idea of bare life and biopolitics relies on an o erdetermined social totality thesis
!itzpatrick' Pro$+ o$ 5a& D U-5ondon' "##$ p+ EPeter' 1(are *o ereignty3 in Theory and Event 56-F G Finally' and mo ing yet $#rther beyond the immanent' < &ill o$$er' as a counter to %an unconditional power of death% in Agamben%s so ereign scenarios Ep+ =0F' a socio-logic o$ so ereignty &hich &o#ld combine the themes o$ la&Hs insistence and li$eHs e>cess+ <mmanence and the H&or% o$ deathH ha e' ho&e er' one last hold on my analysis+ I,-J )gamben o$$ers' as &e ha e seen' t&o modes o$ concei ing a modern bare li$e and its conK#red Hcorrelate o$ so ereign po&erH Ep+ ,50F+ &ne mode is that of the totality' a mode in which the pall of bare life(so ereignty is about to encompass all in a %catastropheH Ep+ ,-F+ 8 en no&' Hhomo sacer is irt#ally con$#sed &ith the citi"enH and politics has been Htotally trans$ormed into biopoliticsH' so m#ch so that it is no longer possible to di$$erentiate Hbet&een o#r biological body and o#r political bodyH Epp+ ,-0' ,;,' ,BBF+ )gamben &o#ld /#ali$y yet con$irm the totality in en isaging its replacement by an alternati e plenit#de+ This comes &ith the re elation' #nenc#mbered by detail' o$ a m#tation o$ the e>isting sit#ation &hich is someho& also its redemption Epp+ ,50' ,BBF+ The other mode of concei ing of bare life(so ereignty comes with its aried instantiation -- in %the camp%' refugees' zones dHattentes ' and others -- added to the rendering one o$ them' Hthe campH' as paradigm+ These t&o modes correspond' prod#cti ely < &ill s#ggest' to the characteristic attempts in modernity to acco#nt $or society+ *#ch attempts gi e e$$ect to' as 5e$ort &o#ld ha e it' Han ill#sion &hich lies at the heart o$ modern society6 namely' that the instit#tion o$ the social can acco#nt $or itsel$H' an ill#sion engendered by the so ereign claim o$ society' in the absence o$ any re$erence beyond it' to ha e become Htransparent to itsel$H or Hintelligible in itsel$H E5e$ort ,=B96 ,B4' -0,' -0;F+ G )s to the mode o$ the totality' the pro$$ered ariety o$ ostensibly $ormed social totalities attests at least to their instability+ )t the ris% o$ being o er-schematic' three related mani$estations co#ld be identi$ied+ With one' there is an en$olding clos#re &hich combines society &ith some encompassing $orce or entity+ Aariants in ol e some capital per asion -- o$ leadership' o$ comm#nion -- inhabiting society and con$erring on it &hat is in common bet&een its members Ec$+ !ancy ,==,6 0' ,-F+ The most Hper$ectH e>ample o$ this is perhaps totalitarianism' b#t liberal claims to Hthe end o$ historyH co#ld also /#ali$y+ This %ind o$ encompassing clos#re is #s#ally rendered in terms o$ &hat is nat#ral or organic abo#t society or its members' or in terms o$ some p#rpose$#l agency' some ital and #ni ersal $orce or $orm#la -- the &ill o$ the leader' the spirit o$ a race' o$ history' o$ the people+ <t $ollo&s $rom its s#pposed totality that &ith s#ch a society each member is con$ined in a relation to the social or to its e>pression' a relation &hich displaces or incorporates the relations bet&een members+ <t &o#ld also be the case that society as totality absorbs all alterity+ There can be neither di ision &ithin it nor any one apart $rom it+ )nd it $ollo&s' $#rthermore' that s#ch a society itsel$ can ne er be anything other than &hat it is -- a %ind o$ terminal stasis+ Ln this point the second mani$estation o$ the social totality may seem /#ite di$$erent b#t it only some&hat moderates the $irst+ Here society is still de eloping or e ol ing b#t it remains society as a totality &hich is de eloping or e ol ing+ <ts incl#si e completeness is yet to come+ The third is less a moderation and more a reprise o$ the $irst mani$estation+ Here some $orce is identi$ied &hich' altho#gh &ithin society' has a comprehensi e constit#ent e$$ect on it -economy' di$$erent diachronies' ario#s sociological la&s+ 2et &ith these $orces &ithin' &e still end #p on the plane o$ the impossible social totality' b#t no& &ith some pointed emphasis gi en the $#rther /#estion o$ ho& something encompassed &ithin society may also encompassingly determine or impel it+ G )s $or the mode o$ a aried instantiation o$ the social' these comprise claims which would supplement society as totality' yet they tend more to displace it' by positing some distinct' sensate particularity + The social thence becomes bo#nd to its enactment by HagentsH' or it becomes operati e in Hlocali"edH sites' or it can only be in the perspecti e or interpretations bro#ght to bear on it+ )ll o$ these are HsocialH in that they represent or perhaps are paradigmatic o$ a social &hich th#s end#res adKecti ely+ (#t $or this society to H&or%H in s#ch terms' $or its partic#lar entities to be distinct yet in common' it &o#ld ha e to be a society o$ conKoint ins#larity in &hich the entities &o#ld be the same as each other' and thence lose their distinctness+ The necessity $or this strange o#tcome co#ld be indicated $rom another perspecti e6 that is' $rom en isaging the alternati e to that o#tcome+ The only alternati e &hich co#ld accord &ith the terms o$ that societyHs constit#tion &o#ld be $or the social entities' being distinct' to ad ance as many di$$erent ersions o$ &hat is social or in common as there are entities+ This &o#ld be the #tter dissipation o$ the social+ )f nonetheless' and to repeat somewhat' the social is to be accorded force in this setting where it can only be responsi e to disparate entities' then for these to be in common they would ha e to be rendered the same as each other and thence be in no relation to each other -- another terminal impasse* The seemingly parado+ical price of distincti eness' then' would be the e+istence of some determinate and determinant being-in-common inhabiting and limiting the entities %in% their distinctness + G

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

2et in their distinct partic#larity' these social entities cannot relate simply or solely to a set totality' to some comprehensi ely determined commonality beyond* That would be to lose the particularity and the distinctness in the comprehensi e determination + The scene beyond m#st be one o$ possibility+ Ho&e er' and as &e ha e K#st obser ed' it m#st also be a scene o$ some determinant being-in-common+ For the contin#al constit#tion o$ partic#lar social being' there has to be some determinant po&er to deal &ith in$inite possibility+ )ltho#gh this imperati e has pro ided impet#s $or claims to a set yet s#rpassing so ereignty' any dealing &ith in$inite possibility cannot be $i>ed or totali"ed+ 2et some $i>ity is imperati e+ The price o$ distinctness and partic#larity is the e>istence beyond o$ some set limits b#t these cannot be end#ringly set+ <n s#m' the $ail#re o$ society to acco#nt $or itsel$ either as a positi ely set totality or as a collection o$ distinct partic#larities prod#ces t&o dimensions o$ the social' dimensions &hich are disparate yet integral to each other -- the in$inite possibility o$ the social and its determinant:determinate being-in-common+ <n modernity' it is a so ereign la& &hich constit#ently combines these t&o dimensions o$ the social+ G ,uch a so ereignty is bare in its own way* )t cannot be endowed with content in a death-dri en telos or in any terminate work* Nor can it assume a robust materiality or occupy an absolute space' to use Agamben%s terms* )t does call for some surpassing authority and it does so in accord with the attributes of so ereignty' but not as these attributes are combined either classically or by Agamben+

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopower *mpact

Biopower means a life force- this checks its most iolent instantiations- since it is a power of life it must create life' not destroy it' in order to perpetuate its own e+istence
D?C: Mi%e LKa%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ - -005 p+ http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no-:oKa%angas,+pd$ accessed 0:-0:09 Moreo er' li$e as the obKect and the s#bKect o$ biopo&er N gi en that li$e is e ery&here' it becomes e ery&here N is i n no &ay bare' b#t is as the synthetic notion o$ li$e implies' the m#ltiplicity o$ the $orms o$ li$e' $rom the n#triti e li$ e to the intellect#al li$e' $rom the biological le els o$ li$e to the political e>istence o$ man+40 <nstead o$ bare li$e' the li$e o$ biopo&er is a plenit#de o$ li$e' as Fo#ca#lt p#ts it+44 )gamben is certainly right in saying that the prod#ction o$ bare li$e is' and has been since )ristotle' a main strategy o$ the so ereign po&er to establish itsel$ N to the same d egree that so ereignty has been the main $iction o$ K#ridicoinstit#tional thin%ing $rom Jean (odin to .arl *chmitt+ T he so ereign po&er is' indeed' based on bare li$e beca#se it is capable o$ con$ronting li$e merely &hen stripped o$$ a nd isolated $rom all $orms o$ li$e' &hen the entire e>istence o$ a man is red#ced to a bare li$e and e>posed to an #nco nditional threat o$ death+ 5i$e is #ndo#btedly sacred $or the so ereign po&er in the sense that )gamben de$ines it+ <t can be ta%en a&ay &itho#t a homicide being committed+ <n the case o$ biopo&er' ho&e er' this does not hold tr#e+ < n order to $#nction properly' biopo&er cannot red#ce li$e to the le el o$ bare li$e' beca#se bare li$e is li$e that can onl y be ta%en a&ay or allo&ed to persist &hich also ma%es #nderstandable the ast criti/#e o$ so ereignty in the era o$ biopo&er+ (iopo&er needs a notion o$ li$e that corresponds to its aims+ What then is the aim o$ biopo&erO <ts aim i s not to prod#ce bare li$e b#t' as Fo#ca#lt emphasi"es' to 1m#ltiply li$e3'45 to prod#ce 1e>trali$e+349 (iopo&er nee ds' in other &ords' a notion o$ li$e &hich enables it to accomplish this tas%+ The modern synthetic notion o$ li$e endo &s it &ith s#ch a notion+ <t enables biopo&er to 1in est li$e thro#gh and thro#gh3' to 1optimi"e $orces' aptit#des' and li$e in general &itho#t at the same time ma%ing them more di$$ic#lt to go ern+34;

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

+emocratic Society C'ec s Biopolitical &,termination

-emocratic modernity and modern fascism are different- both can be said to be biopolitical but only the fascist society allows e+termination- democratic societies ha e checks that pre ent e+termination
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F <n short' the continuities between early twentieth-century biopolitical discourse and the practices of the welfare state in our own time are unmistakable+ (oth are instances o$ the 1disciplinary society3 and o$ biopolitical' reg#latory' social-engineering modernity' and they share that genealogy &ith more a#thoritarian states' incl#ding the !ational *ocialist state' b#t also $ascist <taly' $or e>ample+ )nd it is certainly $r#it$#l to ie& them $rom this ery broad perspecti e+ (#t that analysis can easily become superficial and misleading' because it obfuscates the profoundly different strategic and local dynamics of power in the two kinds of regimes* Clearly the democratic welfare state is not only formally but also substanti ely quite different from totalitarianism* Abo e all' again' it has nowhere de eloped the fateful' radicalizing dynamic that characterized National ,ocialism /or for that matter ,talinism)' the psychotic logic that leads from economistic population management to mass murder+ )gain' there is al&ays the potential $or s#ch a disc#rsi e regime to generate coerci e policies+ )n those cases in which the regime of rights does not successfully produce 0health'1 such a system can 2and historically does2 create compulsory programs to enforce it* But again' there are political and policy potentials and constraints in such a structuring of biopolitics that are ery different from those of National ,ocialist 3ermany* -emocratic biopolitical regimes require' enable' and incite a degree of self-direction and participation that is functionally incompatible with authoritarian or totalitarian structures* And this pursuit of biopolitical ends through a regime of democratic citizenship does appear' historically' to ha e imposed increasingly narrow limits on coerci e policies' and to ha e generated a 0logic1 or imperati e of increasing liberalization* Despite limitations imposed by political conte>t and the slo& pace o$ disc#rsi e change' < thin% this is the #nmista%able message o$ the really ery impressi e &a es o$ legislati e and &el$are re$orms in the ,=-0s or the ,=;0s in Cermany+=0 L$ co#rse it is not yet clear &hether this is an irre ersible dynamic o$ s#ch systems+ !e ertheless' s#ch regimes are characteri"ed by s#$$icient degrees o$ a#tonomy Eand o$ the potential $or its e>pansionF $or s#$$icient n#mbers o$ people that < thin% it becomes #se$#l to concei e o$ them as prod#cti e o$ a strategic con$ig#ration o$ po&er relations that might $r#it$#lly be analy"ed as a condition o$ 1liberty'3 K#st as m#ch as they are prod#cti e o$ constraint' oppression' or manip#lation+ )t the ery least' totalitarianism cannot be the sole orientation point for our understanding of biopolitics' the only end point of the logic of social engineering+ This notion is not at all at odds &ith the core o$ Fo#ca#ldian Eand Pe#%ertianF theory+ Democratic &el$are states are regimes o$ po&er:%no&ledge no less than early t&entieth-cent#ry totalitarian statesP these systems are not 1opposites'3 in the sense that they are t&o alternati e &ays o$ organi"ing the same thing+ (#t they are t&o ery di$$erent &ays o$ organi"ing it* The concept 0power1 should not be read as a uni ersal stifling night of oppression manipulation' and entrapment' in which all political and social orders are grey' are essentially or effecti ely 0the same*1 4ower is a set of social relations' in &hich indi id#als and gro#ps ha e arying degrees o$ a#tonomy and e$$ecti e s#bKecti ity+ )nd disco#rse is' as Fo#ca#lt arg#ed' 1tactically poly alent+3 -iscursi e elements /like the arious elements of biopolitics) can be combined in different ways to form parts of quite different strategies /like totalitarianism or the democratic welfare state)5 they cannot be assigned to one place in a structure' but rather circulate+ The arying possible constellations o$ po&er in modern societies create 1m#ltiple modernities'3 modern societies &ith /#ite radically di$$ering potentials+=,

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopolitics BAAAA+- .u'dge

The path of biopolitics is not a one way street- it has many potentialities- the current idea that biopolitics puts us on a negati e path towards destruction is an unfounded bias-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F 5i%e Frit"sches essay' 8leys acc#rately re$lected the tone o$ most o$ those it introd#ced+ <n the body o$ the ol#me' 8li"abeth Domans%y' $or e>ample' pointed o#t that biopolitics 0did not 6automatically7 or 6naturally7 lead to the rise of National ,ocialism'1 but rather 0pro ided * * * the political 8ight in 9eimar with the opportunity to capitalize on a discursi e strategy that could successfully compete with liberal and socialist strategies*1:; This is correct5 but the language of biopolitics was demonstrably one on which liberals' socialists' and ad ocates of a democratic welfare state could also capitalize' and did+ Lr again' Jean Q#ataert remar%edR/#ite rightly' < belie e R that 0the most progressi e achie ements of the 9eimar welfare state were completely embedded1 in biopolitical discourse+ *he also commented that !a"i policy &as 1contin#o#s &ith &hat passed as the r#ling %no&ledge o$ the time3 and &as a prod#ct o$ 1an e>treme $orm o$ technocratic reason3 and 1early t&entieth-cent#ry modernitys dar% side+3 The implication seems to be that 1progressi e3 &el$are policy &as $#ndamentally 1dar%3P b#t it seems more acc#rate to concl#de that biopolitics had a ariety of potentials* Again' the point here is not that any of the interpretations offered in these pieces are wrong5 instead' it is that we are' collecti ely' so focused on unmasking the negati e potentials and realities of modernity that we ha e constructed a true' but ery one-sided picture* The pathos of this picture is undeniable' particularly for a generation of historians raised on the <anichean mythR $orged in the cr#cible o$ World War << and the .old WarR o$ the democratic &el$are state+ )nd as a rhetorical gesture' this analysis works magnificently 2 we e+plode the narcissistic self-admiration of democratic modernity by re ealing the dark' manipulati e'murderous potential that lurks within' th#s arri ing at a healthy' mat#re sort o$ melancholy+ (#t this gesture too often precludes asking what else biopolitics was doing' besides manipulating people' reducing them to pawns in the plans of technocrats' and pa ing the way for massacre + <n ,=B= Detle Pe#%ert arg#ed that any adequate picture of modernity must include both its 0achie ements1 and its 0pathologies12 social reform as well as 0<achbarkeitswahn'1 the 0growth of rational relations between people1 as well as the 0swelling instrumental goal-rationality'1 the 0liberation of artistic and scientific creati ity1 as &ell as the 1loss o$ s#bstance and absence o$ limits IHaltlosig%eitJ+395 2et he himsel$ &rote nothing li%e s#ch a 1balanced3 history' $oc#sing e>cl#si ely on !a"ism and on the negati e hal$ o$ each o$ these binariesP and that $oc#s has remained characteristic o$ the literat#re as a &hole+

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopolitics /ig't to 0ill!

Biopolitics actually checks the 0right to kill1-it e+ists for the collecti e life' not collecti e iolence
D?C: Mi%e LKa%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ - -005 p+ http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no-:oKa%angas,+pd$ accessed 0:-0:09 <n $act' the history o$ modern Western societies &o#ld be /#ite incomprehensible &itho#t ta%ing into acco#nt that there e+ists a form of power which refrains from killing but which ne ertheless is capable of directing people7 s li es+ The e$$ecti eness o$ biopower can be seen lying precisely in that it refrains and withdraws before e ery demand of killing' e en tho#gh these demands &o#ld deri e $rom the demand o$ K#stice+ <n biopolitical societies' ac cording to Fo#ca#lt' capital p#nishment co#ld not be maintained e>cept by in o%ing less the enormity o$ the crime it sel$ than the monstrosity o$ the criminal6 1Lne had the right to %ill those &ho represented a %ind o$ biological danger to others+3,,- Ho&e er' gi en that the 1right to %ill3 is precisely a so ereign right' it can be arg#ed that the biopolitical societies analyzed by !oucault were not entirely biopolitical+ Perhaps' there neither has been nor can be a society that is entirely biopolitical+ !e ertheless' the $act is that present day =uropean societies ha e abolished capital punishment* )n them' there are no longer e+ceptions+ )t is the ery 0right to kill1 that has be en called into question* >owe er' it is not called into question because of enlightened moral sentiments' but ra ther because of the deployment of biopolitical thinking and practice+ For all these reasons' )gambens thesis' according to &hich the concentration camp is the $#ndamental biopolitical paradigm o$ the West' has to be corrected +,,0 The biopolitical paradigm o$ the West is not the concentration camp' b#t' rather' the presentday &el$are society and' instead o$ homo sacer' the paradigmatic figure of the biopolitical society can be seen' for e+ample' in the middle class ,wedish social democrat+ Although this figure is an ob?ect @ and a product of the huge biopolitical machinery' it does not me an that he is permitted to kill without committing homicide+ )ct#ally' the $act that he e ent#ally dies' seems to b e his greatest 1crime3 against the machinery+ E<n biopolitical societies' death is not only 1something to be hidden a& ay'3 b#t' also' as Fo#ca#lt stresses' the most 1shame$#l thing o$ all3+,,4F There$ore' he is not e>posed to an #ncondit ional threat o$ death' b#t rather to an #nconditional retreat o$ all dying+ <n $act' the biopolitical machinery does not & ant to threaten him' b#t to enco#rage him' &ith all its material and spirit#al capacities' to li e healthily' to li e long a nd to li e happily N e en &hen' in biological terms' he 1sho#ld ha e been dead long ago3+,,5 This is beca#se bio power is not bloody power o er bare life for its own sake but pure power o er all life for the sake of the li ing + <t is not po&er b#t the li ing' the condition o$ all li$e N indi id#al as &ell as collecti e N that is the meas#re o$ the s #ccess o$ biopo&er+

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopower &,termination

Nazi 3ermany may only e+ist in a world of totalitarian state domination- it is not biopolitical domination' but fascism
D?C: Mi%e LKa%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ - -005 p+ http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no-:oKa%angas,+pd$ accessed 0:-0:09 *#ch trans$ormation' ho&e er' changes e erything+ ) biopolitical society that wishes to 0e+ercise the old so erei gn right to kill1'=- e en in the name o$ race' ceases to be a mere biopolitical society' practicing merely biopoliti cs* )t becomes a 0demonic combination1 of so ereign power and biopower' e>ercising so ereign means $or biop olitical ends+ <n its most monstro#s $orm' it becomes the Third ?eich+ For this reason' ) cannot subscribe to Agamb en7s thesis' according to which biopolitics is absolutized in the Third 8eich+=0 To be s#re' the Third ?eich #sed biopolitical means it &as a state in &hich 1ins#rance and reass#rance &ere #ni ersal3=4 and aimed $or biopolitical e nds in order to impro e the li ing conditions o$ the Cerman people b#t so did many other nations in the ,=00s+ 9ha t distinguishes the Third 8eich from those other nations is the fact that' alongside its biopolitical apparatus' it erected a massi e machinery of death+ <t became a society that 1#nleashed m#rdero#s po&er' or in other &ords' th e old so ereign right to ta%e li$e3 thro#gho#t the 1entire social body3' as Fo#ca#lt p#ts it+=5 )t is not' therefore' bio politics that was absolutized in the Third 8eich as a matter of fact' biopolitical measures in the Nazi 3ermany were' although harsh' relati ely modest in scale compared to some presentday welfare states but ra ther the so ereign power6 This po&er to %ill' &hich ran thro#gh the entire social body o$ !a"i society' &as $irst m ani$ested &hen the po&er to ta%e li$e' the po&er o$ li$e and death' &as granted not only to the *tate b#t to a &hole se ries o$ indi id#als' to a considerable n#mber o$ people Es#ch as the *)' the **' and so onF+ Ultimately' e eryone in t he !a"i *tate had the po&er o$ li$e and death o er his or her neighbo#rs' i$ only beca#se o$ the practice o$ in$orming ' &hich e$$ecti ely meant doing a&ay &ith the people ne>t door' or ha ing them done a&ay &ith+=9 The only thing t hat the Third ?eich act#ally absol#ti"es is' in other &ords' the so ereignty o$ po&er and there$ore' the na%edness o$ bare li$e at least i$ so ereignty is de$ined in the )gambenian manner6 1The so ereign is the one &ith respect to &ho m all men are potentially homines sacri' and homo sacer is the one &ith respect to &hom all men act as so ereigns+3 =;

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopolitics -1 Fascism(Toto

-emocratic checks in countries like the A, ensure no slippery slope to biopolitical e+termination
D?C: Mi%e LKa%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ - -005 p+ http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no-:oKa%angas,+pd$ accessed 0:-0:09 ) comparati e $rame&or% can help #s to clari$y this point+ &ther states passed compulsory sterilization laws in the $B;#s R indeed' indi id#al states in the United *tates had already beg#n doing so in ,=0;+ Cet they did not proceed to the ne+t steps adopted by National ,ocialism R mass sterili"ation' mass 1e#genic3 abortion and m#rder o$ the 1de$ecti e+3 <ndi id#al $ig#res in' $or e>ample' the U+*+ did ma%e s#ch s#ggestions+ (#t neither the political structures of democratic states nor their legal and political principles permitted such policies actually being enacted* Nor did the scale of forcible sterilization in other countries match that of the Nazi program+ < do not mean to s#ggest that s#ch programs &ere not horribleP b#t in a democratic political conte+t they did not de elop the dynamic of constant radicalization and escalation that characterized Nazi policies*

Nazi 3ermany was the e+ception' not the rule' to biopolitical modernity
D?C: Mi%e LKa%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ - -005 p+ http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no-:oKa%angas,+pd$ accessed 0:-0:09 )nd yet' it is clear that anti-,emitism and eugenics did not imply' presuppose' or necessitate each other* The Nazi ariant of biopolitical modernity was in fact quite idiosyncratic* <t is ery di$$ic#lt to assess the place o$ e>plicitly ethnic racist thin%ing in the de elopment o$ e#genicsP b#t despite a res#rgence o$ interest in the di$$ering 1character3 and $ate o$ ethnic gro#ps a$ter abo#t ,=-;' on the &hole ethnic racism appears to ha e become grad#ally less interesting to e#genicists $rom the late imperial period $or&ard+ The Nazis shifted the balance quite suddenly and forcibly in fa or of ethnic racial thought after $B;;* <t may be that the gro&ing in$l#ence o$ e#genics made !ational *ocialist thin%ing more pla#sible $or many people in the early ,=00sP b#t it seems e/#ally li%ely that the moderation o$ e#genics in the ,=-0s may ha e increased the appeal o$ the *ocial Democratic Party Eas the strongest ad ocate' among the non-!a"i political parties' o$ e#genic policiesF &hile act#ally discrediting the !a"is more dated ideas+50

<odernity doesn7t kill people- NAD), kill people

D?C: Mi%e LKa%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ - -005 p+ http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no-:oKa%angas,+pd$ accessed 0:-0:09 <n a partic#larly pro ocati e passage' Michael *ch&art" has s#ggested that' each political system in Cermany bet&een ,B=0 and ,=45 prod#ced that ariant o$ e#genic science &hich it Sneeded+355 <n ,==9' Peter Frit"sche' similarly' posed the rhetorical /#estion' 1Doesnt politics choose its o&n science at least as m#ch as science preT g#res political regimesO359 (oth' < thin%' are ma%ing e>plicit a concl#sion that is broadly present' tho#gh not o$ten $orce$#lly stated' in the more recent literat#re6 that the realization of the potentials of modernity is a product of choices between alternati e possible ideas' and alternati e possible policies* To make this kind of suggestion is not to argue that Nazism 0per erted1 a modern science that was itself alue-free and 0innocent*1 The point is rather that politicians' like scientists themsel es' choose from among a broad range of ideas Eo$ greater or lesser credibilityF generated by the intellect#al and instit#tional comple> o$ modern science+ They also choose what policy conclusions to draw from those ideas +L$ co#rse' as ?ichard Wet"ell has remar%ed' this interpretation has implications $or o#r #nderstanding o$ the moral signi$icance o$ !ational *ocialism' as &ell+5; <odernity and science were not responsible for the crimes of the Nazis* The Nazis were*

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopolitics Na2ism

!oucault7s theories about biopolitics do not e+plain the Nazis- that was totalitarian politics' not modern politics and rationality
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online E8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F <n an important programmatic statement o$ ,==9 Ceo$$ 8ley celebrated the $act that !oucault7s ideas ha e 0fundamentally directed attention away from institutionally centered conceptions of go ernment and the state * * * and toward a dispersed and decentered notion of power and its Smicrophysics+34B The 1broader' deeper' and less isible ideological consens#s3 on 1technocratic reason and the ethical #nbo#ndedness o$ science3 &as the $oc#s o$ his interest+4= (#t the 0power-producing effects in !oucault7s 6microphysical7 sense3 E8leyF o$ the constr#ction o$ social b#rea#cracies and social %no&ledge' o$ 1an entire instit#tional apparat#s and system o$ practice3 E Jean Q#ataertF' simply do not e+plain Nazi policy+50 The destructi e dynamic of Nazism was a product not so much of a particular modern set of ideas as of a particular modern political structure' one that could realize the disastrous potential of those ideas* 9hat was critical was not the e+pansion of the instruments and disciplines of biopolitics' which occurred e erywhere in =urope* )nstead' it was the principles that guided how those instruments and disciplines were organized and used' and the e+ternal constraints on them* )n National ,ocialism' biopolitics was shaped by a totalitarian conception of social management $oc#sed on the po&er and #bi/#ity o$ the Ul%isch state+ <n democratic societies' biopolitics has historically been constrained by a rights-based strategy o$ social management+ This is a point to &hich < &ill ret#rn shortly+ For no&' the point is that &hat &as decisi e &as act#ally politics at the le el o$ the state+

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopower 3olocaust(4iolence

Nope- biopower and bare life were not the root cause- the modern democratic polity is not equi alent to the Third 8eich- no mechanism for mass iolence
D?C: Mi%e LKa%angas' Helsin%i .ollegi#m $or )d anced *t#dies' in Fo#ca#lt *t#dies !o+ - -005 p+ http6::&&&+$o#ca#lt-st#dies+com:no-:oKa%angas,+pd$ accessed 0:-0:09 For Fo#ca#lt' the coe+istence in political structures of large destructi e mechanisms and institutions oriented t oward the care of indi idual life was something puzzling6 1<t is one o$ the central antinomies o$ o#r political reas on+3,,0 Ho&e er' it &as an antinomy precisely beca#se in principle the so ereign po&er and biopo&er are m#t#all y e>cl#si e+ >ow is it possible that the care of indi idual life pa es the way for mass slaughtersE )ltho#gh Fo# ca#lt co#ld ne er gi e a satis$actory ans&er to this /#estion' he &as con inced that mass slaughters are not the eff ect or the logical conclusion of biopolitical rationality* ) am also con inced about that+ To be s#re' it can be arg #ed that so ereign po&er and biopo&er are reconciled &ithin the modern state' &hich legitimates %illing by biopoliti cal arg#ments+ 8specially' it can be arg#ed that these po&ers are reconciled in the Third ?eich in &hich they seemed to 1coincide e>actly3+,,, To my mind' ho&e er' neither the modern state nor the Third 8eich in &hich the mon strosity o$ the modern state is crystalli"ed are the syntheses o$ the so ereign po&er and biopo&er' b#t' rather' the ins tit#tional loci o$ their irreconcilable tension+ This is' < belie e' &hat Fo#ca#lt meant &hen he &rote abo#t their 1dem onic combination3+

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopower *mpact(/ig'ts Bad

Cou o eressentialize- the features in common of Nazi 3ermany and the democratic polity are similar but do not mean the democratic polity causes iolence- do not re?ect the tools of modern rights
-eranty' Philosophy Pro$+ D Mac/#arie Uni ersity' "##. p+ online EJean-Phillipe' Borderlands Aol+ 0 G , 1)gambens .hallenge to normati e theoriesV3 .onsistent &ith this $o#ndationalist essentialism' Agamben does not restrict indistinction to the conceptual or structural le el' but e+tends it to empirical' historical phenomena* The archaic ,tate is not substantially different from the modern one* There is no essential difference between democracy before Auschwitz' the totalitarian ,tates themsel es' and democracy after Auschwitz between liberal democracies and dictatorships E)gamben ,==B6,0F+ <n )#sch&it"' there is no di$$erence bet&een ictim and e>ec#tioner E)gamben ,===a6 -,F+ !o distinction bet&een the sacred priest' the criminal banned $rom the archaic comm#nity and the modern citi"enP no distinction between the bodies in Auschwitz and the bodies of ictims of car accidents in modern =urope E,==B6 ,,4FP no distinction bet&een the M#selmann in the e>termination camp and the immigrant loc%ed #p by police in a hotel at .harles de Ca#lle )irport E,==B6 ,;4F' or bet&een the M#selmann and the o ercomatose person E,===a6 ,59FP no distinction bet&een the !a"i e>termination camps and the camps established in the $ormer 2#gosla ia+ Ln a general' philosophical le el' the essentialist method that leads to general indisting#ishability &o#ld be /#estioned by other traditions o$ tho#ght+ The strongest criti/#e &o#ld probably come $rom the Hegelian tradition' $or &hich the essence is to be found nowhere but in its modes of appearance' identity in differences* The conceptual imperati e that ensues is the task of thinking precisely what appears as different' and not look for a transcendent Fthing-in-itselfF in which all differences are swallowed + <$ indeed there are historiographical di$$erences bet&een democracy and $ascism E,==B6 ,0F' then perhaps it sho#ld bear more &eight in the theory' and not be bl#rred into indistinction+ From a Hegelian perspecti e' Agamben7s conceptuality looks ery much like a ,chellingian night where all cows are black+ This in itsel$ is ob io#sly not a gro#nd $or reKection' as all theory starts $rom a theoretical decision &hich is itsel$ #ngro#nded and the matter o$ p#re $reedom' as Fichte demonstrated+ Tho#ght' li%e politics' is all abo#t the decision and its implications+ <n the case o$ empirical e>amples' the erasure of difference between phenomena seems particularly counter-intuiti e in the case of dissimilar modes of internment+ From a practical point o$ ie&' it seems co#nter-prod#cti e to claim that there is no s#bstantial di$$erence bet&een archaic comm#nities and modern comm#nities pro ided &ith the lang#age o$ rights' bet&een the la&lessness o$ &ar times and democratic disco#rse+ There m#st be a &ay o$ problematising the ideological mantra o$ Western $reedom' o$ modernitys moral s#periority' that does not simply e/#ate it &ith !a"i propaganda ELgil ie -00,F+ Habermas and Honneth probably ha e a point &hen they highlight the ad ances made by modernity in the entrenchment o$ rights+ <$ the ethical tas% is that o$ testimony' then o#r testimony sho#ld go also to all the indi id#al li es that &ere $reed $rom alienation by the establishment o$ legal barriers against arbitrariness and e>cl#sion+ We sho#ld heed Honneths reminder that struggles for social and political emancipation ha e often pri ileged the language of rights o er any other discourse EFraser' Honneth -000F+ To re?ect the language of human rights altogether could be a costly gesture in understanding past political struggles in their rele ance for future ones' and a serious strategic' political loss for accompanying present struggles* 9e want to criticise the ideology of human rights' but not at the cost of renouncing the resources that rights pro ide* &therwise' critical theory would be in the odd position of casting aspersions upon the ery people it purports to speak for' and of depri ing itself of a ma?or weapon in the struggle against oppression*

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopower(/ig'ts Bad

9e can use the tools of biopower to challenge its worst manifestations- re?ecting these tools leads to horrid iolence
-eranty' Philosophy Pro$+ D Mac/#arie Uni ersity' "##. p+ online EJean-Phillipe' Borderlands Aol+ 0 G , 1)gambens .hallenge to normati e theoriesV3 4B+ Lne can ac%no&ledge the descripti e appeal o$ the biopo&er hypothesis &itho#t reno#ncing the antagonistic de$inition o$ politics+ )s ?anciWre remar%s' Fo#ca#lts late hypothesis is more abo#t po&er than it is abo#t politics E?anciWre -00-F+ This is /#ite clear in the ,=;9 lect#res E*ociety m#st be de$endedF &here the term that is mostly #sed is that o$ Xbiopo&erX+ )s ?anciWre s#ggests' &hen the Xbiopo&erX hypothesis is trans$ormed into a XbiopoliticalX thesis' the ery possibility o$ politics becomes problematic+ There is a &ay o$ artic#lating modern disciplinary po&er and the imperati e o$ politics that is not disK#ncti e+ The power that sub?ects and e+cludes socially can also empower politically simply because the e+clusion is already a form of address which unwittingly pro ides implicit recognition* 4ower includes by e+cluding' but in a way that might be different from a ban+ This insight is precisely the one that Fo#ca#lt &as de eloping in his last &ritings' in his de$inition o$ $reedom as XagonismX EFo#ca#lt ,=B06 -0B---BF6 XPo&er is e>ercised only o er $ree s#bKects' and only inso$ar as they are $reeX E--,F+ The hierarchical' e>cl#sionary essence o$ social str#ct#res demands as a condition o$ its possibility an e/#i alent implicit recognition o$ all' e en in the mode o$ e>cl#sion+ )t is on the basis of this recognition that politics can sometimes arise as the indication of equality and the challenge to e+clusion* 4=+ This proposal rests on a logic that challenges )gambens red#ction o$ the o ercoming o$ the classical concept#alisation o$ potentiality and act#ality to the single Heideggerian alternati e+ <nstead o$ collapsing or d#alistically separating potentiality and act#ality' one &o#ld $ind in Hegels modal logic a &ay to artic#late their negati e' or re$le>i e' #nity' in the notion o$ contingency+ .ontingency is precisely the potential as e>isting' a potential that e>ists yet does not e>cl#de the possibility o$ its opposite EHegel ,=9=6 54,-554F+ Hegel can lead the &ay to&ards an ontology o$ contingency that recognises the place o$ contingency at the core o$ necessity' instead o$ opposing them+ The $act that the impossible became real indicates Hegels claim that the impossible should not be opposed to the actual* )nstead' the possible and the impossible are only reflected images of each other and' as actual' are both simply the contingent* Auschwitz should not be called absolute necessity E)gamben ,===a6 ,4BF' but absolute contingency* The absolute historical necessity of Auschwitz is not Fthe radical negationF of contingency' which' if true' would indeed necessitate a flight out of history to con?ure up its threat* )ts absolute necessity in fact harbours an indelible core of contingency' the locus where political inter ention could ha e changed things' where politics can happen* Yygm#nt (a#mans theory o$ modernity and his theory abo#t the place and rele ance o$ the Holoca#st in modernity ha e gi en sociological and contemporary rele ance to this alternati e historical-political logic o$ contingency E(a#man ,=B=F+ 50+ <n the social and historical $ields' politics is only the name o$ the contingency that stri%es at the heart o$ systemic necessity+ )n ontology o$ contingency pro ides the model &ith &hich to thin% together both the possibility' and the possibility o$ the repetition o$' catastrophe' as the one heritage o$ modernity' and the contingency o$ catastrophe as logically entailing the possibility o$ its opposite+ <odernity is ambiguous because it pro ides the normati e resources to combat the apparent necessity of possible systemic catastrophes + Politics is the name o$ the str#ggle dra&ing on those reso#rces+ 5,+ This ontology enables us also to rethink the relationship of modern sub?ects to rights* <odern sub?ects are able to consider themsel es autonomous sub?ects because legal recognition signals to them that they are recognised as full members of the community' endowed with the full capacity to ?udge* This account of rights in modernity is precious because it pro ides an adequate framework to understand real political struggles' as fights for rights+ We can see no& ho& this acco#nt needs to be complemented by the notion o$ contingency that #ndermines the apparent necessity o$ the progress o$ modernity+ Modern s#bKects %no& that their rights are granted only contingently' that the possibility o$ the impossible is al&ays act#al+ This is &hy rights should not be taken for granted* But this does not imply that they should be re?ected as illusion' on the grounds that they were disclosed as contingent in the horrors of the "#th century* )nstead' their contingency should be the reason for constant political igilance* 5-+ (y /#estioning the reKection o$ modern rights' one is #ndo#btedly #n$aith$#l to the letter o$ (enKamin+ 2et' i$ one accepts that one o$ the great &ea%nesses o$ the Mar>ist philosophy o$ re ol#tion &as its inability to constr#cti ely engage &ith the /#estion o$ rights and the *tate' then it might be the case that the politics that define themsel es as the articulation of demands born in the struggles against in?ustice are better able to bear witness to the Ftradition of the oppressedF than their messianic counterparts*

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopolitics Alt

They ha e no political strategy- its ?ust mumbo ?umbo and buzzwords
Girno' grassroots acti ist and 8#ropean philosopher' "##" p+ http6::&&&+generation-online+org:p:$p irno-+htm EPaoloF )gamben is a problem+ )gamben is a thin%er o$ great al#e b#t also' in my opinion' a thin%er &ith no political ocation+ Then' when Agamben speaks of the biopolitical he has the tendency to transform it into an ontological category &ith al#e already since the archaic ?oman right+ )nd' in this' in my opinion' he is ery wrong-headed+ The problem is' < belie e' that the biopolitical is only an e$$ect deri ed $rom the concept o$ laborpo&er+ When there is a commodity that is called labor-po&er it is already implicitly go ernment o er li$e+ )gamben says' on the other hand' that labor-po&er is only one o$ the aspects o$ the biopoliticalP < say the contrary6 o er all beca#se labor po&er is a parado>ical commodity' beca#se it is not a real commodity li%e a boo% or a bottle o$ &ater' b#t rather is simply the potential to prod#ce+ )s soon as this potential is trans$ormed into a commodity' then' it is necessary to go ern the li ing body that maintains this potential' that contains this potential+ Toni E!egriF and Michael EHardtF' on the other hand' #se biopolitics in a historically determined sense' basing it on Fo#ca#lt' b#t Fo#ca#lt spo%e in $e& pages o$ the biopolitical - in relation to the birth o$ liberalism - that !oucault is not a sufficient base for founding a discourse o er the biopolitical and my apprehension' my fear' is that the biopolitical can be transformed into a word that hides' co ers problems instead of being an instrument for confronting them* A fetish word' an Fopen doorsF word' a word with an e+clamation point' a word that carries the risk of blocking critical thought instead of helping it* Then' my fear is of fetish words in politics because it seems like the cries of a child that is afraid of the dark***' the child that says Fmama' mamaHF' Fbiopolitics' biopoliticsHX+ < donHt negate that there can be a serio#s content in the term' ho&e er < see that the #se o$ the term biopolitics sometimes is a consolatory #se' li%e the cry o$ a child' &hen &hat ser es #s are' in all cases' instr#ments o$ &or% and not propaganda &ords+

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopower(State Bad- State("aw Sol5es 6enocide

The Nazis imposed racial policies onto biopolitics' not ice ersa
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online E8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F We may dra& some brie$ concl#sions $rom this story+ First' there clearly &as no especially con incing lin% bet&een e#genic ideas and totalitarian politics+ *econd' the !a"is adopted and s#pported one partic#lar ariety o$ e#genic tho#ght+ They &ere not dri en by 1the3 logic o$ e#genicsP rather' they p#rs#ed 1a3 logic o$ e#genics+ Third' the Nazis imposed this particular ariety of eugenics on a biopolitical 0establishment1 a comple+ of institutions' disciplines' practices' and policies that was not ery e+cited about eugenics of any ariety' much less the racist negati e eugenics the Nazis fa ored+ Ho& do &e sort o#t the elements o$ contin#ity and discontin#ity in this patternO While debate &ill no do#bt contin#e' there is no& something approaching a pla#sible consens#s on this /#estion+The de elopment o$ e#genic tho#ght since the ,B=0s Ror $or that matter o$ Dar&inian tho#ght since the ,B50sR &as' as Ceo$$ 8ley p#t it in ,==9' a 1condition o$ possibility3 $or !a"i e#genic policy+44 9hat made mass murder a reality' howe er' was not the inheritance o$ e#genic thin%ing' b#t the emergence of a 1Massnahmenstaat3 R a political system that operated by administrati e fiat rather than by law* The massi ely radicalized sterilization policy adopted by the Nazis R &hich e ent#ally e$$ected some 400'000 personsR could only be implemented by a regime that had effecti ely silenced open discussion among eugenic e+perts and among the broader publicP and the m#rder o$ some ;0'000 in the !a"is e#thanasia program' and some tens o$ tho#sands in less organi"ed $ashion later' co#ld only be implemented as a conspiracy by a regime that abhorred legality and silenced criti/#e+ This is a concl#sion that &as common already in the seminal &or%s on e#genics in the ,=B0s' and &as stated &ith partic#lar ehemence by Hans-Walter *chm#hl in ,=B;P it is no& irt#ally #nchallenged+45 Detle Pe#%ert pointed o#t in ,=B= that the silencing o$ p#blic dissent and the abrogation of legality were the key steps toward mass murder in the Third 8eich5 the 0 ital factor1 leading to mass murder was 0the character of the Nazi dictatorship*3 49 Jochen-.hristoph Kaiser' K#rt !o&a%' and Michael *ch&art" stated this ie& &ith partic#lar clarity in ,==-' arg#ing that6 9ithout the conte+t of the * * * growing erosion of the state of law in $a or o$ the Massnahmenstaat' the National ,ocialist 0euthanasia1 could not ha e been implemented* = en then' it still required the state of emergency of the war and e+tensi e' if not ery effecti e secrecy to put it into motion+ Whate er the long-term preconditions may ha e been' this speciT c 1sol#tion3 to the problem' the 1e>termination o$ li$e #n&orthy o$ li$e'3 became possible only #nder the conditions o$ the 1Third ?eich+34;

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

+A turns 7iopower
4olitical disasters like economic collapse create the scenarios whereby modernity can be corrupted into biopolitical Nazism instead of enlightening freedom
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F )gain' Pe#%ert &as ery a&are that he &as &riting the history o$ only one %ind o$ modernity' and that the most destr#cti e potentials o$ modern social engineering disco#rse &ere only to be reali"ed in a ery speciT c historical conte>t+ The 0!inal ,olution1 was' as he remarked' 0one among other possible outcomes of the crisis of modern ci ilization'1 and one possible only in the conte+t of the concatenation of economic' social' and political disasters through which 3ermany passed in the two decades before $B;;* The fact that Nazism was 0one of the pathological de elopmental forms of modernity does not imply that barbarism is the ine itable logical outcome of modernization'1 which also created 0opportunities for human emancipation +3 )nd yet' again' the history that Pe#%ert act#ally &rote &as the history o$ disasterR a disaster that' $re/#ently' does seem at least highly li%ely+ The 1$atal racist dynamic in the h#man and social sciences'3 &hich consists in their assignment o$ greater or lesser al#e to h#man characteristics' does 1ine itably become $i>ated on the #topian dream o$ the grad#al elimination o$ death'3 &hich is 1#n$ailingly3 $r#strated by li ed reality+ <n periods o$ social crisis the $r#stration o$ these 1$antasies o$ omnipotence3 generates a concern &ith 1identi$ying' segregating' and disposing o$ 3 those K#dged less al#able+9B <n the most detailed e>position o$ his analysis' Cren"en der *o"ialdis"iplinier#ng' Pe#%ert arg#es that' gi en the 1totalitarian claim to alidity3 o$ bo#rgeois norms' only the t&o 1strategies o$ pedagogical normali"ation or e#genic e>cl#sion3 &ere open to middle-class social re$ormersP &hen the one $ailed only the other remained+ 2et the $ail#re o$ pedagogical normali"ation &as preprogrammed into the collision bet&een middle-class 1#topias o$ order3 and the 1li$e-&orlds3 o$ the &or%ing class' &hich &ere rendered disorderly by the logic o$ ind#strial capitalism+9= )gain' in Pe#%erts model it seems to me that it is really only a matter o$ time and circ#mstance be$ore the $#ndamentally and necessarily m#rdero#s potential o$ modernity is #nleashed+

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Biopower 6ood
Biopower can be good- for e+ample in 3ermany in the $B"#7s it reduced infant mortality rates
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F L$ co#rse' at the most simple-minded le el' it seems to me that an assessment o$ the potentials o$ modernity that ignores the &ays in &hich biopolitics has made li$e tangibly better is someho& deeply $la&ed+ To gi e K#st one e>ample' in$ant mortality in Cermany in ,=00 &as K#st o er -0 percentP or' in other &ords' one in &hich children died be$ore reaching the age o$ one year+ (y ,=,0' it &as ,5 percentP and by ,=-= E&hen a erage real p#rchasing po&er &as not signi$icantly higher than in ,=,0F it &as only =+; percent+=0 The e>pansion o$ in$ant health programs R an enormo#sly ambitio#s' b#rea#cratic'medicali"ing' and sometimes intr#si e' social engineering proKectR had a great deal to do &ith that change+ <t &o#ld be bi"arre to &rite a history o$ biopolitical modernity that r#led o#t an appreciation $or ho& absol#tely &onder$#l and astonishing this achie ementR and any n#mber o$ others li%e it really &as+ There &as a reason $or the 1Machbar%eits&ahn3 o$ the early t&entieth cent#ry6 many mar elo#s things &ere in $act becoming machbar+ <n that sense' it is not really acc#rate to call it a 1Wahn3 Edel#sion' cra"inessF at allP nor is it acc#rate to $oc#s only on the 1ine itable3 $r#stration o$ 1del#sions3 o$ po&er+ 8 en in the late ,=-0s' many social engineers co#ld and did loo% &ith great satis$action on the changes they gen#inely had the po&er to accomplish+

Biopolitics is a re ersible tool to change power from abo e

-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F <n short6 is the microphysics o$ modern po&er:%no&ledge al&ays the microphysics o$ oppression' e>ploitation' and manip#lationO )re technocratic elites al&ays in charge o$ the imperati es o$ disco#rse or do disco#rses ha e their o&n logic' &hich technocrats can deT ne' escape or direct no more Eor lessF than can anyone elseO Disco#rse may or may not be a locomoti e' dri ing do&n a predetermined trac% and dictating indi id#al decisions and $ates by its o&n internal logicP b#t e en i$ it is' the technocrats arent dri ing it' and in $act their schemes may get $lattened K#st as e$$ecti ely as the a#tonomy o$ the a erage citi"en+ (iopolitical policy as a $ield o$ state acti ity &as o$ten the prod#ct o$ technocratic 1readings3 o$ biopolitical disco#rse+ (#t it &as only one small part o$ a m#ch broader process by &hich a large proportion o$ the Cerman pop#lation came to de$ine their needs and aspirations in ne& &ays+ We need not e>aggerate the degrees o$ $reedom that process generated to be able to appreciate that in some cases' to some e>tent' and sometimes &illy-nilly' disco#rse and policy &ere act#ally a response to that broader process o$ rede$inition in short' to 1demand-side3 press#res+

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Biopolitics 6ood(*mpact Ta eout

Biopolitics can be good and empirically ser es the side of quality- I reasons
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F 9hy was =urope7s twentieth century' in addition to being the age of biopolitics and totalitarianism' also the age of biopolitics and democracyO Ho& sho#ld &e theori"e this relationshipO < &o#ld li%e to o$$er $i e propositions as $ood $or tho#ght+ First' again' the concept o$ the essential legitimacy and social al#e o$ indi id#al needs' and hence the imperati e o$ indi id#al rights as the political mechanism $or getting them met' has historically been a cornerstone o$ some strategies o$ social management+ To borro& a phrase $rom Detle Pe#%ert' this does not mean that democracy was the 0absolutely ine itable1 outcome of the de elopment of biopolitics P b#t it does mean that it &as 1one among other possible o#tcomes o$ the crisis o$ modern ci ili"ation+3,,- *econd' < &o#ld arg#e that there is also a causal fit between cultures of e+pertise' or 0scientism'1 and democracy + L$ co#rse' 1scientism3 s#b erted the real' historical ideological #nderpinnings o$ a#thoritarian polities in 8#rope in the nineteenth cent#ry+ <t also in a sense replaced them+ Democratic citi"ens ha e the $reedom to as% 1&hy3P and in a democratic system there is there$ore a bias to&ard pragmatic' 1obKecti e3 or nat#rali"ed ans&ersR since al#es are o$ten regarded as matters o$ opinion' &ith &hich any citi"en has a right to di$$er+ *cienti$ic 1$act3 is democracys s#bstit#te $or re ealed tr#th' e>pertise its s#bstit#te $or a#thority+ The age o$ democracy is the age o$ pro$essionali"ation' o$ technocracyP there is a deeper connection bet&een the t&o' this is not merely a matter o$ historical coincidence+ Third' the #lnerability o$ e>plicitly moral al#es in democratic societies creates a problem o$ legitimation+ L$ co#rse there are moral al#es that all democratic societies m#st in some degree #phold Eindi id#al a#tonomy and $reedom' h#man dignity' $airness' the r#le o$ la&F' and those al#es are part o$ their strength+ (#t as peoples states' democratic social and political orders are also implicitly and o$ten e>plicitly e>pected to do something positi e and tangible to enhance the &ell-being o$ their citi"ens+ Lne o$ those things' o$ co#rse' is simply to pro ide a rising standard o$ li ingP and the isible and astonishing s#ccess o$ that proKect has been cr#cial to all Western democracies since ,=45+ Another is the pro ision of a rising standard of health5 and here again' the democratic welfare state has 0deli ered the goods1 in concrete' measurable' and e+traordinary ways* )n this sense' it may not be so simpleminded' after all' to insist on considering the fact that modern biopolitics has 0worked1 phenomenally well* Fo#rth' it &as precisely the democrati"ing dynamic o$ modern societies that made the /#estion o$ the 1/#ality3 o$ the mass o$ the pop#lation seemR and not only in the eyes o$ the dominant classes increasingly important+ )gain' in the co#rse o$ the nineteenth and early t&entieth cent#ries the e>pected le el o$ the a erage citi"ens acti e participation in 8#ropean political' social' c#lt#ral' and economic li$e rose steadily' as did the e>pected le el o$ her e$$ecti e in$l#ence in all these spheres+ This made it a matter o$ increasing importance &hether the a erage person &as more or less ed#cated and in$ormed' more or less moral and sel$-disciplined'more or less healthy and physically capable'more or less socially competent+ And modern social reform 0biopolitics1 defined ery broadly2seemed to offer the possibility of creating the human foundation for a society ordered by autonomous participation' rather than by obedience+ This too &as part o$ the Machbar%eits&ahn o$ modernityP b#t this &as potentially a democratic 1Wahn'3 not only an a#thoritarian one+ Fi$th' historically there has been a clear connection bet&een the concept o$ political citi"enship and the idea o$ moral a#tonomy+ The political 1s#bKect3 Eor citi"en R as opposed to the political s#bKect'&ho is an obKect o$ state actionF is also a moral s#bKect+ The citi"ens capacity $or moral reasoning is the legitimating post#late o$ all democratic politics+ The reg#lation o$ se>#al and reprod#cti e li$e has long been #nderstood in 8#ropean societies to be among the most $#ndamental iss#es o$ morality+ There is' therefore' a connection between political citizenship on the one hand' and the se+ual and reproducti e autonomy implied in the indi idual control that is a central element of the modern biopolitical comple+' on the other+ The association in the minds o$ conser ati es in the late imperial period bet&een democracy and declining $ertility &as not a panic%y del#sionP panic%y it certainly &as' b#t it &as also a gen#ine insight into a deeper ideological connection+,,0 Perhaps it sho#ld not be s#rprising' there$ore' that the $irst great homeland o$ e#genic legislation &as the United *tates R the $irst great homeland o$ modern democracy+ <n $act the United *tates ser ed both as a %ind o$ promised land $or racial and e#genic 1progressi es3 in Cermany' and as a &orst-case scenario o$ 1regression into barbarism3 $or those opposed to coerci e e#genic meas#res+ ,,4 !or sho#ld it be s#rprising that' apart $rom !a"i Cermany' the other great land o$ e#genic sterili"ation in 8#rope in the ,=00s &as *candina ia' &here democratic go ernments hea ily in$l#enced by social democratic parties &ere b#sily constr#cting the most ambitio#s and e>tensi e &el$are states in the &orld+,,5 The lesson is not that modern democracy is 1dangero#s3 or destr#cti e' m#ch less that it is crypto-$ascist R that' as Jac/#es Don"elot p#t it' the ,=00s &as the age o$ 1social $ascism3 and o#r o&n age that o$ 1social sector $ascism+3 ,,9 The rele ant message is' rather' that it is time to place the less $amiliar history o$ modern democratic biopolitics

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

alongside the more $amiliar history o$ modern totalitarian biopolitics+ The dream o$ per$ectibility R Machbar%eits&ahn R is central to modernity+ (#t social engineering' the management of society' can be organized in different ways* >istorically' totalitarian biopolitics was a self-destructi e failure* -emocratic biopolitics has' in contrast' been2 not in any moral sense' but politically 2a howling success* !or the historian interested in modernity' that story is no less interesting or important than the story of the implosion of the Nazi racial state*

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Biopolitics 6ood
There are two sides to biopolitics- sure management can be oppression' but it can also stop iolence like rape
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F <n $act' e en &here social &or%ers really &ere attempting to limit or s#b ert the a#tonomy and po&er o$ parents' < am not s#re that their actions can be characteri"ed only and e>cl#si ely as part o$ a microphysics o$ oppression+ Progressi e child &el$are ad ocates in Cermany' partic#larly in the !ational .enter $or .hild Wel$are' &aged a campaign in the ,=-0s to pers#ade Cerman parents and ed#cators to stop beating children &ith s#ch $erocity' reg#larity' and nonchalance+ They did so beca#se they $eared the #nintended physical and psychological e$$ects o$ beatings' and implicitly beca#se they belie ed physical iolence co#ld compromise the de elopment o$ the %ind o$ a#tonomo#s' sel$reliant s#bKecti ity on &hich a modern state had to rely in its citi"enry+=9 Lr' to gi e another common e+ample from the period' children remo ed from their families after being sub?ected by parents or other relati es to repeated episodes of iolence or rape were being manipulated by biopolitical technocrats' and were often abused in new ways in institutions or foster families5 but they were also being liberated* ,ometimes some forms of the e+ercise of power in society are in some ways emancipatory5 and that is historically significant*

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Biopolitics
The belief that rational technologisation carries the seeds of oppression is ridiculous-it protects rights and may use biopower but only in ways that reduce suffering
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F )ll o$ these /#estions' ho&e er' still address primarily the acti ities o$ technocrats and social managers+We are still as%ing ho& bad social engineering is+ <n $act' this entire discourse seems to be shaped by the fundamental suspicion that trying acti ely to create a better society is always and necessarily a bad thing 2 an undemocratic' manipulati e' oppressi e thing*BJ This assumption is rooted in a particular understanding of the micropolitics of e+pertise and professionalism+ <t is $re/#ently arg#ed that modern $orms o$ technical %no&ledge and licensing create relations o$ dominance and s#bordination bet&een e>perts and their 1clients+3 Th#s Pa#l Weindling' $or e>ample' asserted that' 1Pro$essionalism' rein$orced by o$$icial po&ers meant that &el$are denied ne& spheres $or the e>ercising o$ coercion + + + The ne& technocracy o$ pro$essions and &el$are administrators might be seen as erecting antidemocratic and coerci e social str#ct#res by e>tending the &el$are state+3 Michael *ch&art"' similarly' obser ed in ,==- that 1e en in the democratic ariant o$ science there &as a tendency to technocratic elitism3 and the 1scientistic obKecti$ication o$ h#manity+3== )nd Detle Pe#%ert reminded #s that 1rationali"ation as a strategy o$ e>perts inherently contained Ibarg systematischJ the danger o$ the technocratic arrogance o$ e>perts' the o er&helming o$ those a$$ected by the catalog o$ norms $or rational li ing deri ed $rom the e>pert %no&ledge o$ the pro$essions' b#t not $rom the e>perience o$ those a$$ected+3,00 8 en more sinister' again' is the tendency o$ these same e>perts to e>cl#de' stigmati"e' and pathologi"e those they are not able to 1normali"e+3 Yygm#nt Bauman has presented the same case with a particular clarity' concluding that since modernity is 0about1 order' and order always implies its opposite' chaos' 1intolerance is + + + the nat#ral inclination o$ modern practice+ .onstr#ction o$ order sets the limits to incorporation and admission+ <t calls $or the denial o$ rights' and o$ the gro#nds' o$ e erything that cannot be assimilatedR $or the delegitimation o$ the other+3,0, )t its simplest' this ie& o$ the politics o$ e>pertise and pro$essionali"ation is certainly pla#sible+ >istorically speaking' howe er' the further con?ecture that this 0micropolitical1 dynamic creates authoritarian' totalitarian' or homicidal potentials at the le el of the state does not seem ery tenable* Historically' it appears that the greatest ad ocates o$ political democracy Rin Cermany le$tliberals and *ocial Democrats Rha e been also the greatest ad ocates o$ e ery %ind o$ biopolitical social engineering' $rom p#blic health and &el$are programs thro#gh social ins#rance to city planning and' yes' e en e#genics+,0- The state they b#ilt has inter ened in social relations to an E#ntil recentlyF e er-gro&ing degreeP pro$essionali"ation has r#n e er more rampant in Western societiesP the prod#ction o$ scientistic and technocratic e>pert %no&ledge has proceeded at an e er more $renetic pace+ )nd yet' $rom the perspecti e o$ the $irst years o$ the millenni#m' the second hal$ o$ the t&entieth cent#ry appears to be the great age o$ democracy in precisely those societies &here these processes ha e been most in e idence+ What is more' the inter entionist state has steadily e+panded both the rights and the resources of irtually e ery citizen 2 including those who were stigmatized and persecuted as biologically defecti e under National ,ocialism* 4erhaps these processes ha e created an e er more restricti e 0iron cage1 of rationality in =uropean societies* But if so' it seems clear that there is no necessary correlation between rationalization and authoritarian politics5 the opposite seems in fact to be at least equally true*

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

A#$ Calculation
Cour calculation of a theory of indi idual resistance also uses calculati e logic
-ickinson' History Pro$+ D U-.incy &ith a PHD $rom (er%ely' "##. p+ online 8d&ard ?oss' Central European History ol+ 0; no+ , F This is o$ co#rse a point that Fo#ca#lt ma%es &ith partic#lar clarity+ The power of discourse is not the power of manipulati e elites' which control it and impose it from abo e* <anipulati e elites always face resistance' often effecti e' resistance* <ore important' the power of discourse lies precisely in its ability to set the terms for such struggles' to delineate &hat they are abo#t' as m#ch as &hat their o#tcomes are+ )s Fo#ca#lt p#t it' power 2 including the power to manage life 20comes from e erywhere +3,05 (iomedical %no&ledge &as not the property only o$ technocrats' and it co#ld be #sed to achie e ends that had little to do &ith their social-engineering schemes+,09 <odern biopolitics is a multifaceted world of discourse and practice elaborated and put into practice at multiple le els throughout modern societies+ )nd o$ co#rse it is often no less economistic2no less based on calculations of cost and benefit 2at the le el of the indi idual or family than it is in the technocrats7 isions of national efficiency*

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

Foucault Answers
!oucault7s claims create a system of totalizing biopower from which there is no escape- this renders us incapable of relati e e aluation of claims of ethics
4hilp' philosophy pro$+ D Jes#s Uni ersity' $BJ; p+ J*tor EMar%' Political Theory ALl+ ,, !o+ , 1Fo#ca#lt on Po&er3F

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin

WFU 05 PJ

Districts K Hatin