Radical Philosophy Review Volume 14 number 1 (2011) 85-100

From Inoperativeness to
Action: On Giorgio Agambens
Anarchism
Lorenzo Fabbri
Discussed in this Essay:
uioigio Agamben, What is An Apparatus? and other
Essays. Tians. Baviu Kishik anu Stefan Peuatella.
Stanfoiu, CA: Stanfoiu 0niveisity Piess, 2uu9. 8u pp.
$1S.9S,papeiback.ISBN:u8u4762Su9.
Lelanu ue la Buiantaye, Giorgio Agamben: A Critical
Introduction. Stanfoiu, CA: Stanfoiu 0niveisity
Piess, 2uu9. 448 pp. $24.9S, papeiback. ISBN:
978u8u47614S7.
T
heiecentpublicationbyStanfoiu0niveisityPiessofuioigioAgambens
What Is an Apparatus and Other Essays anu Lelanu ue la Buiantayes
massiveintiouuctiontoAgambenswoiksconstitutesaveiywelcome
occasion. TheessaysincluueuinWhat Is an Apparatus? offeiaveiyaccessible
pan ovei Agambens latest inuings they give the English ieaueis an
anticipation of the move fiom soveieignty to goveinmentality peifoimeu
spectaculaily by Agamben in his 2007 Il Regno e la Gloria: Homo sacer II.2,
as well as pioviuing some hints on the vectois that the announceu Homo
Sacer epilogue on foims-of-life will puisue. So while What In an Apparatus?
in a ceitain sense is a piojection into the futuie of Agambens ieseaich, in
hisCritical IntroductionuelaBuiantayeislookingbackwaiu,inaveiybiave
attempttoieconstiuctthetiajectoiyofAgambensthoughtuptothepiesent
Lorenzo Fabbri

86
uay.Yet,theimpoitanceofthesetwobooksieacheswellbeyonuAgamben
scholaiship they aie also an oppoitunity to ielect on the status anu on the
mutation of ciitical theoiy touay, as Fiench can no longei claim hegemony
oveiitanuasitsmostlivelycenteisaienowlocateubeyonutheAlps,acioss
theRhine,anuontheotheisiueoftheAtlanticiatheithaninRueu0lmoi
Saint-Benis. I will say something about the futuie of ciitical theoiy at the
enu of my essay. Foi now, I woulu like to stait by suiveying what was left
unuei-exploieubyuelaBuiantayeinhistieatmentofAgambenswoik,not
tobelittlehisenteipiisewhichissuielyimpiessivebutonlytosketcha
ieauingpiotocolcomplementaiytotheonehesosuccessfullyueploys.
I. Beyond Politics
Aftei meticulously ieconstiucting the political value uioigio Agamben
attiibutes to the piactice of piofanation anu lawless use, Lelanu ue la
Buiantaye coniimsfoi the last time in his ciitical intiouuctionthat
the pioposals of the authoi of Homo Sacer cannot simply be unueistoou
as anaichic This is not the iist instance of such a gestuie in ue la
Buiantayes book, which constitutes an invaluable iesouice foi anyone
lookingfoiaioaumaptoventuieintothemazeofAgambensthought.
Commenting on Agambens claim fiom The Man Without Content that
onlyauestiuctionofaestheticscanleautoanecessaiyie-conceptualization
ofait,uelaBuiantayeasseitsthatwhat|Agamben]iscallingfoiisnotmeiely
anaichic(27).BelaBuiantayeaiiivesatthesameconclusionwhenhegoes
ovei Agambens uefense of Benjamin fiom Auoinos chaiges of anaicho-
messianic incoheiency: Beie, as elsewheie, Agambens call |the call foi an
unueistanuing of tempoiality uiffeient fiom that pioposeu by uialectical
mateiialism] shoulu not, howevei, be mistaken foi anaichic ones (11u),
sincetheinteiiuptionofthemateiialistconceptionofhistoiyisnotachieveu
thioughananaichicactivity|that]hassabotageuitsmachineiy(12u).Anu
again: To auvance an iuea of means without enu is not to champion |]
anaichy(118).TheuownplayingoftheanaichicthiustinAgambensthought
isamoveuelaBuiantayeinsistentlypeifoims.Noieovei,itisagestuiethat,
inaceitainsense,putsthebookinmotionanusetsitsoveiallpace.
The intiouuction of ue la Buiantaye book, The Iuea of Potentiality,
beginswithasnapshotfiomLeThoi.Itis1966.uioigioAgambenis24anuhe
isinsoutheinFiancewithaveiyselectgioupofscholaistoattenuBeiueggeis
seminaionBeiaclitus.BelaBuiantayeiecountsthatitisuuiingthissummei
that Agamben uiscoveieu philosophy: his vocation foi philosophy anu
philosophyasavocation.BefoietheencounteiwithBeiueggei,Agambenwas
stuuyinglawatthe0niveisityofRome.YettheexpeiienceinLeThoiwoulu
changehisminu,convincinghimthatphilosophywashistiuevocation.But
whatuowemeanbytheteimvocation1WhatuiuAgambenuiscoveithat
From Inoperativeness to Action

87
was so ciucial uuiing his 1966 Fiench summei1 The pieuictable answei is
that Agamben at Le Thoi met his uestiny Be la Buiantaye cleais the ielu
of this misinteipietation with piecision anu coniuence by explaining that
foiAgamben,thepuiestvocationisnothingmoiethantheievocationofany
calling whatsoevei the uiscoveiy what is tiuly human within humankinuits
oiiginalcallingistheabsenceofanypieueteimineuuutyanuunavoiuable
uestiny. As Agamben obseiveu thiity yeais latei in La potenza del pensiero:
Dasein uoes not have a speciic natuie oi a pieconstituteu vocation
1
Beie
we inu summaiizeu the funuamental uiscoveiy that Agamben maue in Le
Thoi: uiscoveiing Beiueggei, Agamben also uiscoveieu that man, in ieality,
is a Dasein, that is to say a being absolutely without content, a being whose
piincipal featuie is the possibility of being. The assumption of this veiy
fact constitutes the point of uepaituie foi Agambens ielection on human
acting. In fact, theie woulu be neithei actions noi uecisions weie humanity
embeuueu with some task to assume oi some uestiny to absolve. 0uoting a
passagefiomThe Coming Community, uelaBuiantayeieminususthatethics
anu politicsanu these two teims aie inextiicably linkeu in Agambenaie
only possible since theie is no essence, no histoiical oi spiiitual vocation,
no biological uestiny that humans must enact oi iealize (7). It is piecisely
againstthebackuiopofhumankinusiauicalinueteiminacythatanyconciete
ueteimination must be theoiizeu: If we have no collective vocation, the
question becomes, what, inuiviuually anu collectively, aie we to uo1 Anu it
is this question that Agamben fiom his iist expeiiences of philosophical
vocationinthe196ustothepiesentuay,hauenueavoieutoanswei(7).
Foi Agamben, the answei to this questionWhat aie we to uo1is
simultaneously philosophical, ethical, anu political foi one simple ieason:
philosophy, ethics, anu politics have theii conuition of possibility in the
abyssalvoiu,which,asviituality,ueteiminesthepaiauoxicalessenceofman.
Theiefoie, philosophy, ethics, anu politics can be tiue to themselves only if
theyaieabletotakeup,uevelop,anusafeguaiuthefunuamentalpotentiality
founu at the heait of Dasein Anu foi Agamben suipiisingly at iist glance
theycanabsolvesuchiesponsibilityonlythankstoinopeiativeness.
Inopeiativeness,commentsuelaBuiantayeeailyon,istheteimthatis
themostoftenmisunueistoouinAgambenscoipus(18).Thisissuielytiue,
butpeihapsthismisunueistanuingisnotalwaysamatteiofmisieauing:the
confusionisalsomotivateubyaceitaintensioninthewayAgamben,inuiffeient
phases of his thought coniguies inopeiativeness but also the potential not
to,impotentiality).Insomecases,impotentialityanuinopeiativenessiefeito
apotentialitythatisneveiexhausteuinanact:anactionthatcanalwaysbe
otheithanitselfbecauseitholusontothepotentialitynottobeanymoieanu
1. Agamben, La potenza del pensiero: Saggi e conferenze (Milan: Neri Pozza, 2005), 326;
quoted by de la Durantaye, 2.
Lorenzo Fabbri

88
tofallinopeiative.
2
Inotheicasesinsteau,inopeiativenessanuimpotentiality
seem to appioach iuleness anu passivity: take foi example Baitleby, oi
0n Contingency fiom Potentialities anu ue la Buiantayes uiscussion of it
(169). In oiuei to avoiu the equation of inopeiativeness anu inactivity, it is
impoitanttostiessthatfoitheAgambenofThe Coming CommunityBaitleby
uoesnotstoliulyiefusetoconveithispotentiality(towiite)intoact,asue
la Buiantaye insteau suggests (168). Baitleby uoes not simply stop wiiting:
he wiites, but he wiites nothing othei than his potentiality to not wiite
to iefuse to woik, in othei woius. Rathei than focusing on the sciiveneis
iuleness, the point woith emphasizing theieby is that Baitleby uoes live in
actuality he is actually ueeply engageu but his acts uo not take place in the
symbolicspaceWallStieetinhabiteubytheotheichaiacteisofthestoiy.
Agambens Baitleby is not seeking unueistanuing, iecognition, oi an ally to
foimaihizomaticcommunitywith.Atthepiesent,nooneisalloweuinhis
woilu:notevenNelvillesnaiiatoi,notevenus,theieaueis.
3
In this light, it is easiei to unueistanu why in The Coming Community
Baitleby stanus close to the Tiananmen piotesteis anu Robeit Walseis
cieatuies: iiiemeuiably lost, without a uestiny anu without iuentity, they
joyfully live theii abanuon. Abanuon (iespectively fiom Capital, State, anu
uou) is in fact what they actively puisue. They uo not neeu ieuemption,
salvation, oi help. They aie not looking foi new phantasmatic iuentities to
coveiuptheiiessentialinueteimination.Theyjustwanttobeleftaloneanu
enjoy theii iiiepiesentable inopeiativeness. Anu wheievei this happens,
theiewillbeaTiananmen,anusooneioilatei,asitwasthecasefoiBaitleby,
TheSciivenei,thepolicewillappeai.
Twoimpoitantconnectionsgetoveilookeuintheuiscussionoftheiole
thatinopeiativenessplaysinAgambensthought.Fiistofall,uelaBuiantaye
uoes not iegistei that Agamben, by uepicting inopeiativeness both as the
essentialfeatuieofhumankinuanuthegiounufoiapoliticstocome,isalso
ueveloping a ciitique to Toni Negiis piouuctivist paiauigm, which insteau
assumes the being-at-woik of man as the obligatoiy staiting point foi any
theoiization of the political.
4
Seconuly, ue la Buiantaye uoes not note the
2. Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 62.
S. Herman Melville, Bartleby, The Scrivener. A Wall Street Story, in The Silence of
Bartleby, ed. Dan McCall (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 174.
4. See for example Agamben, The Work of Man, in Giorgio Agamben: Sovereignty
and Life, ed. Matthew Calarco and Steven DeCaroli, trans. Kevin Attell (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2007), 10: it will be necessary to put aside the emphasis
on labor and production and to attempt to think of the multitude as a figure, if not of
inaction, at least of a working that in every act realizes its own shabbat and in every
work is capable of exposing its own inactivity and its own potentiality. For an acute
analysis of the differences between Agamben and Negri, see Attells forthcoming
From Inoperativeness to Action

89
anaichic oveitones that cleaily infoim Agambens elaboiation of a politics
giounueuonmansinopeiativeness.BelaBuiantayeuoeshoweveipointout
thatAgambenselectionofinopeiativenessasthepaiauigmfoihumanpolitics
has something to uo with the iefusal to woik that chaiacteiizeu the most
iauicalfiingesoftheItalianuecaue-long1968.Neveitheless,hepioceeusto
statethatevenifAgambensinopeiativenessalluuestosuchaiefusaltowoik,
thisteimuenotesfaimoiethanthepiacticalpossibilitiesavailabletoagioup
ofwoikeis(18).IsuelaBuiantayeimplyingthatAgambensinopeiativeness
iefeis to piactical possibilities available to humanity as such anu not only
to woikeis1 0i iathei that Agambens use of the teim extenus well beyonu
the political1 Agamben is obviously uoing both: thiough inopeiativeness,
Agamben attempts to iethink politics as such but inopeiativeness is also the
guiuing concept in his philosophical inquiiy into the ontology of man. Be la
Buiantayeanuthisisanabsolutelylegitimate,almostobligatoiychoiceis
moieinteiesteuinexploiingAgambensphilosophy,atthecostofmissingthe
oppoitunitytohighlightthelessabstiactsiueofhiswoik.Inotheiwoius:a
ceitain insensibility foi the piactical possibilities anu conciete politics that
Agambenswoiksopentooiiesonatewithoiganizestheieauingpiotocolset
upbyuelaBuiantaye.Giorgio Agamben: A Critical Introduction inus in fact its
bioauei genealogical context in a veiy authoiitative inluential yet speciic
ieception of Euiopean philosophy in the 0niteu States a tiauition whose
founuing woik is Ionathan Culleis On Deconstruction. It woulu be a blunt
mistake to ueine this tiauition unpolitical but we aie obviously uealing
withafiamewoikthatislessmilitantthantheonesetup,say,byIuuithButlei
oi uayatii Chakiavoity Spivak.
5
It is no acciuent then that in a book so iich
with quotations anu iefeiences, Agambens anaichist piophecy is left out:
The novelty of the coming politics is that it will no longer be a struggle for the
conquest or control of the State, but a struggle between the State and the non-
State (humanity), an insurmountable disjunction between what ever singularity
and the State organization.
6
It is no acciuent that ue la Buiantaye uoes not
takeaueepeilookintoAgambensanaichismevenuuiinghisveiythoiough
ieconstiuctionofThe Coming CommunitysuebttouuyBeboiu,thealcoholic
anaichist (17S) who hau anaichically attackeu (82) the society of the
spectacle.InmyownieauingofAgambenstexts,bycontiast,Iaminteiesteu
inuiscussingwhatuelaBuiantayeueciueu,foithemostpait,nottotackle:
diacritics article Potentiality, Actuality, Constituent Power.
S. See Jonathan Culler, Preface to the 25
th
Anniversary Edition, in On Deconstruction:
Theory and Criticism After Structuralism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007).
6. Agamben, The Coming Community, trans. Michael Hardt (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1993), 86. Agamben repeats this prophecy almost verbatim in
Marginal Notes on The Commentaries On the Society of the Spectacle, in Means Without
End: Notes on Politics, trans. Vincenzo Binetti and Cesare Casarino (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 88.
Lorenzo Fabbri

90
theiipoliticalpositioning.ThisiswhatIwilluoinmyanalysisofAgambens
iecent What is an Apparatus?. But befoie getting to that, let me lingei a bit
moieonuelaBuiantaye.
AfteinotingthatinopeiativenessinAgambenisfaimoiethanapolitical
pioposal,uelaBuiantayegoesontomentiontheuiffeientpassagesinwhich
Agamben has employeu such a teim (The Coming Community, Homo Sacer,
The Open, anu so foith) anu suggests a genealogical linkage between it anu
Batailles dsoeuvrement inopeiativity in English). Yet he uoes not spenu
much time claiifying the ielationship between Agamben anu Batailles
inopeiativeness.Tiue,weaiestillintheintiouuctionanuonecannotexpect
toomuchinteipietiveuepthanuclosenessofieauinginthiscontext.Bowevei
somethingsimilaihappensthioughoutthebook:asthoughmoveubyasoitof
aichivefevei,uelaBuiantayeneveitiiesintellingusofalltheplacesinwhich
Agamben uealt with a given pioblem oi uevelopeu a ceitain concept noi
uoeshetiieofiepoitingwhatAgambensaiuaboutthisoithattopicinbooks,
essays,anueveninteiviews.Suchanabunuanceofiefeienceshasauownsiue:
The iisk of this oveiloau of infoimation is uttei fiustiation. We know what
Agamben stateu about inopeiativeness anu wheie he stateu it but it is uificult
togiaspwhatistiulyatstakeintheaigument,thepioblemsconnecteuwith
it, anu the iole it plays in the geneial economy of Agambens thought. Be la
Buiantayes ciitical intiouuction might then not be intiouuctoiy enough foi
thenoviceslookingfoiaciashcouiseinAgamben,whileatthesametimenot
ciiticalenoughfoithoseieaueiswhoaiealieauyfamiliaiwithhiswoik.The
pagesuelaBuiantayeuevotestoAgambensconfiontationwithBeiiiua,foi
example woulu have gieatly beneiteu fiom a moie caieful appioach
191). Beie as well as elsewheie in the book, ue la Buiantaye pays the piice
foiasoitofmethouologicalinuecision.0ntheonehanu,hisintiouuctionis
achionologicallyaiiangeuseiiesofcloseieauingsthatstaitswithThe Man
Without ContentanuenuswithProfanations(anuitisnotcleaiwhyLanguage
and DeathisleftoutofuelaBuiantayesaichive,giventheimpoitanceofthistext
foitheciystallizationofAgambensthought).WheneveiuelaBuiantayewoiks
on shoitei essays oi on speciic conceptual aiticulations his ieconstiuctions
aieamazinglyacuteanuilluminating.
7
Yet,hisexplications de textesaieoften
upset by the iiiuption of histoiy anu the uiachionic. If with one hanu ue la
BuiantayescoutsthephilosophicalspaceaiiangeubyeachofAgambenstext,
with the othei he pioviues a conceptual histoiy of uiffeient keywoius anu
pioblematics.Thisappioachiunstheiiskofoveilookingboththesynchionic
stiuctuial tensions that upset the aichitectuie of each of Agambens woiks
anu the uiachionic shifts in his thought. Foi example, on the uiachionic
7. See de la Durantayes discussion of The Prince and the Frog from Infancy and
History (104-110), State of Exception (335-351), What is a Paradigm? from The
Signatures of All Things (223-226).
From Inoperativeness to Action

91
level, how to ieconcile the Beiueggeiian tianscenuental anthiopocentiism
of Foim-of-Life anu Homo Sacer with the BeleuzianSpinozist vitalism
infoiming Absolute Immanence1 The failuie to ask this anu othei similai
questions leaus ue la Buiantaye to the constitution of a conceptual plane in
which all of Agamben can coexist but at the piice of eiasing the speciicity of
eachtext.Itisnotacoinciuencethatanalmostiuenticalobjectionwasmaue
againsttheHomo Sacerfianchise:whatAgambensgenealogyleavesuswith
isanimmobilizeuhistoiyinwhichtheveiysamestiuctuieisstuckiepeating
itself, allowing no space foi synchionic anu uiachionic uiffeiences, noi foi
local anu tempoial uiscontinuities.
8
In What is the Contempoiaiy1, one of
the essays incluueu in What is an Apparatus?, Agamben states that theie is
a seciet afinity between the aichaic anu the mouein because the key to
the mouein is hiuuen in the immemoiial anu in the piehistoiic (S1). But
uoesntthisclaimnecessaiilycaiiywithinitselfaneiasuieofhistoiyaswell1
A similai eiasuie is cieateu in ue la Buiantayes book by the contamination
of close ieauing anu histoiy of concepts, by the collapse of synchionic anu
uiachionic appioaches Anu it is this veiy conlation that sometimes loses me
inuelaBuiantayesbook,caughtinafiustiationveiysimilaitothatpiovokeu
byAgambenseiuuitionasitisueployeumostuiamaticallyinHomo SaceroiIl
Regno e la Gloria(2uu7).PeihapsthisintiouuctiontoAgambenisstiuctuially
tooAgambenian(seethenumeiousscholiamiiioiingAgambensubiquitous
use of glosses), as in the 198us anu 199us so many goou books on Beiiiua
weieaiguablytooueconstiuctive.Inotheiwoius:uelaBuiantayesometimes
givesintoAgambensstylisticstiategyofoveicomplicatingtheaigumentative
low anu enus up making it both too exhaustive anu elusive
The geneial question I woulu pose to ue la Buiantaye woulu then be:
wouluntitbemoieoppoitunetosimplifytheihetoiicalstiategyinoiueito
ensuie ieauability anu unueistanuing, especially given the fact that we aie
uealingwithaieauingguiue1Isntthispaiticulailyso,sincefoiAgambenas
ue la Buiantaye statesthe task of the philosophei isnot only to iealize
thatthingsmightbeuiffeient,buttoconceiveofhowthingsmightleavethe
iealm of the conuitional anu entei the actual woilu of human affaiisnot
as abstiact theoiy but as ieal potentiality (17)1 What is peculiai in ue la
Buiantayes aumiiable book is that while it uemonstiates full awaieness of
thepiacticalanupublicimplicationsofAgambensthought,italsoiepeateuly
uownplays the iesonances between Agambens pioposals anu less esoteiic
political positions. To put it quite abiuptly: peihaps it woulu be a mattei of
tianslatingAgambenswoiksinoiueitomaketheiipoliticsmoieeviuent.Foi
8. See for instance Dominick LaCapra, Approaching Limit Events: Siting Agamben,
in Giorgio Agamben: Sovereignty and Life, 126-142: the most convincing passages of
LaCapras critique are those addressing Agambens reliance on etymology as a
substitute for historical analysis and argument.
Lorenzo Fabbri

92
instance,insteauofuismissingtheanaichicinAgambenanutheiebyfailing
tonoticetheconnectionwithwhatAkimBayhasuubbeupost-anaichismanu
Touu Nay post-stiuctuial anaichism, it woulu be a mattei of showing that
a call foi an anaichic sabotage of the machinesthe machine of histoiy,
of soveieignty, of goveinmentalitylies at the heait of Agambens vocation
to philosophy anu of his election of inopeiativeness as the paiauigm foi the
comingpolitics.What is an Apparatus? makestheseclaimsunueniable.
II. The Touch of Evil
What is an Apparatus? incluues thiee essays wiitten by Agamben between
2uu6 anu 2uu8. In What is the Contempoiaiy1the most epistemological
essay of the gioupAgamben claiiies the iole anu the task of the contempoiaiy
intellectual. uoing back to Nietzsches 1874 Untimely Meditations, Agamben
explains that in oiuei to tiuly be contempoiaiy, you must inhabit youi own
timewithoutbelongingtoitcompletely.Infact,thosewhoaietooclosetothe
age in which they live anu aie completely tieu to it in eveiy iespect (41),
aienotinthepositiontogiaspthestiuctuieoftheiipiesent.Itisapioblem
ofpositioninganupeispective,ofuistanceanuneainess,exactlyasitwasfoi
Beiueggei in Being and Time anu The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics.
An excessive closeness pievents some fiom seeing wheie they live otheis
insteau,collocateuatthesametimebothneaianuafaifiomtheiiowntime,
can take a look at its funuamental featuies, at the uaikness hiuuen beneath
the lashy lights which holu the iest in uull captivation This uaikness foi
Agamben is nothing else than the past: to be contempoiaiy then means
lookingbacktothepastinoiueitouiscoveitheoiiginsofonespiesent,the
arch oiganizingitsstiuctuie.TheconnectionwithFoucaultsOrder of Things
iscleai:thecontempoiaiyisanaicheologist.Beoisheisableinfacttosheu
a new light on the piesent by putting it in ielation to ieminueis fiom othei
times.
Cuiiously, in What is an Appaiatus1 Agamben uoes not mention
the pasts ieminuei whose uiscoveiy skyiocketeu his acauemic status aftei
199S. Sacieuness is not mentioneu in the 2uu6 What is an Appaiatus1, an
essay wiitten ten yeais aftei Homo Sacer Fuitheimoie we uo not inu any
of the esoteiic teiminology to which Agamben has maue us accustomeu.
No baie life, no bios, no . I say cuiiously, because one cannot ueny that
the sex-appeal of Agambens jaigon has, to a ceitain uegiee, contiibuteu to
his success, having by now imposeu itself as an almost obligatoiy language
foi any uiscouise on cultuie anu politics. It is almost as if, auapting to oui
caseRobeitNozicksfamousiemaikonTheory of Justice,cultuialciiticsnow
must woik within Agambens vocabulaiy oi explain why they uo not. I saiu
cuiiously also anu especially because What is an Appaiatus1 staits by
noting that teiminological questions aie essential in philosophy, since they
From Inoperativeness to Action

93
aieas an unnameu gieat philosophei once saiu (Waltei Benjamin)the
poeticmomentofthinking.Theteiminologicalshiftofthisessayshouluthen
be taken seiiously. Ny impiession is that it maiks Agambens move fiom
soveieignty to goveinmentality In the iist installments of the Homo Sacer
pioject,Agambenhauexploieutheconuitionsofpossibilityofsoveieignpowei,
concluuing that it is founueu on the biopolitical splitting of the inuiviuual
bouy anu the bouy politic into bios anu , authentic anu inauthentic life.
FoiAgamben,oncethelinebetweenwho,insofaiasbios,piopeilylivesanu
that which meiely exist as is uiawn, the fiontiei keeps moving foiwaiu,
tiansfoiming the camps into the paiauigmatic spaces of moueinity anu
cieating an evei moie inclusive gioup of people that can be sent to uie in
them. It is this pieoccupation that leau Agamben to ask, at the enu of Homo
Sacer,howtooveicomethiscatastiophicsituationanulibeiatethelivingfiom
theuemanuingblackmailofsoveieignpowei.Homo Sacer IIIanuHomo Sacer
II.1iespectively, the 1998 Remnants of Auschwitz anu the 2uuS State of
Exceptionpick up fiom wheie the iist installment enueu the analysis of the
campsstiuctuieanutheattempttofoimulateanalteinative,effectivestateof
exception which woulu oveituin the ictive one piouuceu by soveieign powei
In the ictive state of exception the foimal suspension of a law is actually a
waytopieseivethegiipofthejuiiuicaloiueionlife.Theeffectiveexception
Agambenfollowing Benjaminhas in minu woulu insteau suspenu the
foice,thebeinginfoice,notofthisoithatlaw,butofthejuiiuicaloiueiitself.
Suchasuspensionwillhopefullybiingfoithawoilulibeiateufiomsoveieign
poweianucamps.Bowevei,thepioblemwiththeseanalysesisthat,peihaps,
they aie still tiying to cut off the kings heau: they aie stuck at the level of
soveieign powei incapable of fiaming speciic goveinmental pioceuuies
which subject humanity. But the Agambenian tieatment of soveieign powei
mustnecessaiilyiesultinastuuyofgoveinmentalityfoiastiuctuialieason:
onceithasbeenueteimineuthattheexceptionisnotsomethingthathappens
sometimes anu somewheie in speciic anu localizeu contexts but insteau
the way in which the law itself opeiates since the application of a noim is
in no way containeu within the noim anu cannot be ueiiveu fiom it,
9
then
the question cannot concein the law anymoie, but the authoiities anu the
appaiatuses that govein in the geneializeu state of exception which is uaily
life. The aicane of soveieign powei is that theie is no soveieign powei in
itself,theieaieonlygoveinmentaltechniques.Nothavingaccomplisheuthis
movebeyonusoveieigntyiswhatmakesBeiiiuaueseivetheanathemathat
AgambenieseiveshiminHomo Sacer: Woetoyou,whohavenotwanteuto
enteiintotheuooioftheLawbuthavenotpeimitteuittobecloseueithei.
10
9. Agamben, State of Exception. Homo Sacer II.1, trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2005), 40.
1u. Agamben, Homo Sacer, 54.
Lorenzo Fabbri

94
Theiefoie, the only way to confiont soveieign powei is to engage its
conciete emanations. The uooi of the Law neeus to be closeu because the
house of Law is empty, but this also means that the man fiom the countiy
cannot be satisieu of having tiickeu the uooikeepei into closing it Aftei
theuooigetscloseu,themanfiomthecountiyneeustoietuintohisvillage
anustaitueactivatingalltheappaiatusesgoveininghisfellowcitizenslives
in oiuei to make the emeigence of elusive foims-of-life possible. It is in the
context of the shift fiom soveieignty to goveinmentality that Agambens
What Is an Appaiatus1 anu his 2uu7 Il Regno e la Gloria. Homo sacer II.2
abanuon sacieuness The contempoiaiy ciitic neeus to inu anothei iemnant
fiomthepasttoilluminatetheuaiknessofouigoveinmentalizeupiesentanu
highlightanexitstiategy.Whatthencansheulightontogoveinmentality1Itis
theoikonomia,stupiu.AnuitisnosuipiisethatWhatisanAppaiatus1gets
theiefiomFoucaultswoiksonthegoveinmentofmen.
The iist gestuie peifoimeu by Agamben in this essay is to highlight the
iole that the woiu dispositifappaiatus in Englishplays in the stiategy
ofFoucaultsthought(1).AccoiuingtoAgamben,Foucaultstaiteuusingthis
teimwithaceitainiegulaiityfiomtheseconuhalfofthe7us,inconjunction
withhisincieasingconceinfoigoveinmentality.
As Foucault notes in his 1979 What is Ciitique1, staiting fiom the
ifteenth centuiy Euiope witnesseu an explosion of knowleuge conceineu
withthequestionofhowtogoveinthemultituuesthatfoimeuanation:how
to govein chiluien, how to govein the pooi anu beggais, how to govein a
family, a house, how to govein aimies, uiffeient gioups, cities, States.
11
The
uemogiaphic boom of the ifteenth centuiy was one of the main ieasons foi
whichtheattempttogoveinsoulsanubouiesshifteufiomaieligiouspiactice
to a political pioject, moving fiom the Chuich to the State. State powei, by
seculaiizingtheChiistiansalvationtheology,suppoiteutheiueathatinoiuei
to live a goou life, to avoiu guilt anu be saveu, a human being, whatevei hei
age oi status, hau to let heiself be goveineu. But since the population was
incieasing exponentially, the State neeueu new anu moie effective methous
of goveining its evei multiplying anu uiveise bouy politic. The uemanus of
the post-feuual foimations with theii vast teiiitoiies anu uiveise subjects
iequiieu a new way of exeicising its powei. Punishment was not enough.
Techniquesweieneeueutoshapethecitizenslivesinoiueitocontioltheii
natuial inuocility anu exploit theii bouily poweis in view of a piesumeu
commongoou.
ItisinthisfiamewoikthatFoucault,accoiuingtoAgamben,uevelopshis
notionofdispositif an appaiatus is a iesponse to the emeigence of a speciic
uigency in a play of foices it is a conciete inteivention in such a ielu which
11. Michel Foucault, What is Critique?, in The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvane Lotringer,
trans. Lysa Hochroth (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
From Inoperativeness to Action

95
has the stiategic function of blocking, stabilizing, uefusing some of them
at the expense of the otheis. As examples of dispositifs, Foucault mentions:
uiscouises,institutions,cityplanning,policeoiuinances,laws,auministiative
measuies scientiic oi philosophical enunciations moial oi philanthiopic
pioposals.Inbiief,foiFoucaultadispositifisanypiacticeoimechanismthat
canbeemployeutoestablishaceitainpoweiielation.FoiAgamben,howevei,
itismuchmoie:he,infact,linksFoucaultsdispositifwiththeBegeliannotion
ofPositivittasitisfounuinThePositivityoftheChiistianReligion(14).
Totiackuownthemeaningofpositivity,AgambentuinstoRaison and
histoire. Les ides de positivit et de destin, wheie Iean Byppolite uiscusses
Begels uistinction between natuial anu positive ieligion: the uistinction
between the immeuiate ielation with the uivine anu its meuiation thiough
contingent institutions anu piactices. Following Byppolitewho was
Foucaults teachei both in high school anu at univeisity, anu whose chaii at
the Collge de France Foucault woulu inheiitAgamben suggests that foi
the young Begel, positivity is an obstacle to the exeicise of human fieeuom.
WhatisimpoitantheieisthatByppolitesuggeststhatPositivitt isthename
given to the histoiical element itself, the aiiay of iules, iituals, anu beliefs
whichaieimposeuonthelivingbyexteinalauthoiitiesanutheninteiioiizeu
asamodus vivendi.uiventhefactthatFoucaulthaualieauystateuattheenu
of The Archeology of Knowledge that his object of inquiiy was the ielu of
positivit,giventheetymologicalpioximitybetweenthetwoteims,anugiven
thatFoucaulthasoftentalkeuofByppoliteashismatre,Agambenconcluues
thatFoucault,byiaisingtheissueofthedispositif,isthematizingtheielation
between inuiviuual as living beings anu the set of institutions, piocesses
of subjectiication anu iules in which powei ielations become conciete
While Begel wanteu iist to oppose anu then to ieconcile Positivitt anu
fieeuom, Foucault is inteiesteu in stuuying the conciete ways appaiatuses
function in paiticulai powei games anu the conciete effects they have on
inuiviuuallivingbeings.Anuitisatthispointthatoikonomia stepsonstage:it
isonlybyiefeiiingtosuchacontextthatthemoueinuispositifscanbefully
unueistoou.
In uieek, oikonomia signiies the auministiation of the oikos (the
home) anu, moie geneially, management, but Agamben is moie inteiesteu
in the speciic function such a teim plays in theological uiscouises The
tieatmentofoikonomiainWhatIsanAppaiatus1isiatheielusive,butthe
pointAgambenmakesheieisthesameasthatinIl Regno e la Gloria:Chiistian
uogmaspostulateasplitbetweenthecieationanutheauministiationoflife
because uou uiu not assign woiluly beings a uestiny when cieating them.
TheLoiuisanaichic,concluuesAgambeninIl Regno e la Gloria Bis giip on
living is not founueu in being, but it is something that neeus to be asseiteu
continuouslyinpiactice.Thissituationisobviouslyanalogoustothatfaceuby
soveieignpowei.Theauthoiityofthesoveieignonthelivingisnotestablisheu
Lorenzo Fabbri

96
with the cieation of homines sacri, but it neeus to be enfoiceu thiough a
seiiesofcapillaiyinteiventions:Our research has in fact showed that the real
problem, the central arcane of politics is not sovereignty, but government, not
God, but the angel, not the king, but the minister, not the law, but the police
that is, the governmental machine that they create and keep in movement.
12
As
uou neeus angels, soveieign powei neeus the police. Not only uou but also
living beings aie in fact maikeu by an ontological anaichythe living is the
0ngoveinable,notesAgambenattheenuofWhatIsanAppaiatus1but
foi this veiy ieason they neeu to be goveineu at all costs: the oikonomical
machine succeeus when it is able to captuie humankinus inopeiativeness
anuputittowoikfoiitsowngoou.Dispositio,notesAgambeninWhatIsan
Appaiatus1,istheteimtheFatheisoftheChuichiesoiteutofoitianslating
theuieekoikonomiaintoLatinanupointingoutthenecessityofaieuemptive
goveinanceofthewoiluanuofhumanhistoiy.Anuitiswithinthefiamewoik
ofthistheologicallegacythatonemustsituateFoucaultsdispositifs:Theteim
appaiatusuesignatestheuevicethioughwhich,anuinwhichoneiealizesa
puieactivityofgoveinanceuevoiuofanyfounuationinbeing,agoveinance
thatseekstooiientanuguiuecieatuiestowaiutheapiesumeugoou(11-12).
The uisconnection between being anu goveinance leaus Agamben to
piopose a massive paititioning of ieality in two: on the one hanu, we have
living beings on the othei we have the appaiatuses which incessantly captuie
them.Oikonomia againstontology.Anuthesubjectistheiesultoftheielentless
hanu-to-hanuconfiontationbetweenlivingbeingsanuappaiatuses.Subjects,
in othei woius uo not exist in natuie they aie the aitiicial foim in which a life
iscaptuieubyviitueofitsassociationwithaceitaingoveinmentalappaiatus.
Agambens emphasis heie on the goveinmental uimension of anthio-
pogenesissuielyiefeisbacktohis2uu2The Openanuevenmoieuecisivelyto
his2uu8Homo sacer II.3,Il sacramento del linguaggio.Bowevei,inWhatIsan
Appaiatus1atleastatthebeginningtheuistinctionisnotbetweenmen
anu animals, but between living beings anu subjects: man is not piouuceu
out of the animal, iathei a subject is piouuceu out of a living being. Boes it
mean that animals aie also subjects in as much as they aie the iesult of the
contactbetweenceitainlivingbeingsanuceitaingoveinmentalappaiatuses1
ItisasifthestuuyofthegoveinmentofthelivingwouluobligeAgamben
consciously oi unconsciously, willingly oi unwillinglyto put asiue foi a
moment his Beiueggeiian anthiopocentiism anu assume the ontological
uiffeiencebetweenmenanuotheilivingbeingsashistoiicanucontingent,
iathei than natuial anu necessaiy. The ontological uiffeience coulu itself
be consiueieu the effect of oikonomia, anu living being as such coulu be
awaiueuinopeiativeness:notonlyman,butalsothelivingiswithoutcontent.
12. See Agamben, Il Regno e la Gloria: Per una genealogia teologica delleconomia e del
governo. Homo Sacer II. 2 (Milan: Neri Pozza, 2007), 217-304, here 303.
From Inoperativeness to Action

97
AgambeninWhatIsanAppaiatustakesinsteautheoppositeioute,atouus
with what he claimeu in the Beleuze-uiiven 1994 Absolute Immanence. In
thatoccasion,Agambenattiibuteuuesiieanupotentialitynottohumanlife,
buttolifeinitsbasilaistageofthreptich psych.
13
WhatIsanAppaiatus1,
ontheotheihanu,claimsthatpotentialityisintiouuceuinthelivingthanks
totheappaiatus:appaiatusesuiviuethelivingbeingfiomitselfanufiomthe
uull captivation with its enviionment Language the iist dispositif in which
apaiticulaispeciesoflivingbeingsstumbleuupon,mauetheminopeiative,
while all the othei living beings weie left without potentiality. A piimate
Agambens stoiy goesinauveitently let himself be captuieu in language,
piobably without iealizing the consequences that he was about to face,
anuinthiswaythepiocessofhumanizationstaiteu(16).Yet,iflivingbeings
befoiebeingtoucheubyappaiatusesexistinthetotalabsoiptionwiththeii
enviionment uoes it make sense to afiim that the piimate piobably uiu not
iealizetheconsequencesoflanguage1Ifthecapacitytoiealizeisassigneu
to the pie-human, then potentiality must be a featuie of the living as such,
inuepenuently fiom its inteiaction with appaiatuses. Also, Agamben states
thattheconuitionfoithepossibilityofeachappaiatus,istheall-too-human
uesiie foi happiness. But how is it possible that appaiatuses aie both the
conuitionfoihumanizationanuitseffect1Ifappaiatusespie-uatehumankinu,
theiiexplanationanuoiiginmustbelocateuintheiealmoftheliving.
It is cleai that Agamben is solely inteiesteu in ieconstiucting the
ights anu the piocesses of subjectiication which affect human livingbeings.
Neveitheless,Iamsuggestingthathisbi-paititionoftheiealuoesnotpievent
but actually authoiizes the bioauening of his fiamewoik to animal subjects
aswell.Ahistoiyofthegoveinmentofmencouluthenbesupplementeuby
ahistoiyofthegoveinmentofanimals.0necoulucombinetheaicheologyof
piisons,schools,hospitals,mentalasylums,anufactoiies,withthatofbatteiy
faiming, kennel clubs, slaughteihouses, anu tiaining schools. In this way, it
woulubemoieeviuentthatthecaptivityofanimallivesisueeplyinteitwineu
withthatofhumanlivingbeings.Thelivingassuchiscaptivateuinadispositif
histoiy the living as such is contiolleu by oikonomia.Theiefoiethepiojectof
alibeiationofthelivingcannotonlyauuiessus.Yet,Agambenuoesembaik
on the line of thought his own fiamewoik momentaiily launcheu anu the
uivisionbetweenmenanuanimalsissoonsupeiimposeuoveithatbetween
subjects anu living beings piouucing all soits of inteipietative uificulties
As it happeneu in The Open, Agamben ultimately falls within the specism
chaiacteiizing political theoiy at laige. In fact, he only takes into account
the haimful effects of appaiatuses on men the ight between living beings
anu appaiatuses uiu not go too well foi us if the foims of subjectiication at
1S. Agamben, Absolute Immanence, in Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy,
ed. and trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford U.P., 1999), 237.
Lorenzo Fabbri

98
ouiuisposalaiethecell-phoneusei,thewebsuifei,thewiiteiofstoiies,the
tango aicionauo oi the antiglobalization activist
14
Bowevei, the bleakness
ofthesituationshoulunotmakehumankinufeaianutiemble.Anythingbut.
Agamben has taught us all too well that wheie theie is uangei, the saving
poweialsogiows.
As if scaieu by theii funuamental inopeiativeness anu lack of content,
living beings inu happiness in becoming a subject anu acquiiing a ixeu
iuentity. Anu in the past, appaiatuses anu oikonomia weie able to inteicept
thisall-too-humanuesiiebypioviuinglivingbeingswithsatisfactoiymoues
of subjectiication the woikeis the bouigeoisie the ievolutionaiy anu so
foith).Now,insteau,goveinmentalityisfacingaciisisofoveipiouuction:we
aieinteicepteubysomanyappaiatusesanutheiefoiesomanyalteinativelines
of subjectiication that we cannot commit to any subjectivity in paiticulai No
matteitheintensityoftheuesiiewhichhasuiivenusintoanappaiatus,we
will not be able to acquiie a new subjectivity anu we will not be satisieu by the
laivalsubjectwewillhavebecome:theiecannotbejoyinbeinganFacebook
pioile oi a guitai heio This unhappiness plays the iole of a histoiicalcosmic
eventinAgambensnaiiative:itisthea posterioriinwhichonecaneventually
uiscovei the a priori, the fact that a living being is not a subject, anu in the
piocess of subjectiication one can inu only a tempoiaiy uistiaction fiom
ones own lack of content. To the eyes of authoiity, nothing looks moie like
a teiioiist than the oiuinaiy man, because no one is moie unhappy with
his life than the man that has suiienueieu all his living potentialities to the
goveinmentalappaiatuses:Themoieappaiatusespeivaueanuuisseminate
theii powei in eveiy ielu of life the moie goveinment will inu itself faceu
with an elusive element, which seems to escape its giip the moie it uocily
submitstoit(2S).
The time has then come to take action against the voluntaiy seivituue
togoveinmentalappaiatusesanutoieclaimwhatuntilnowhumankinuhas
contiacteuouttothem:itsinopeiativeness.Whatweaieuealingwithwiites
Agambenis the libeiation of that which iemains captuieu anu sepaiateu
by means of appaiatuses, in oiuei to biing it back to a possible common
use (17). The powei to act anu to live awaits us beyonu goveinance. While
goveinmental oikonomia iemoves potentiality fiom oui contiol, politics is
thecountei-appaiatuswhichietuinstohumankinuwhathaubeenalienateu
fiomit:itspoweitobe.Suchapoliticsisananaichicfoitwoieasons:onthe
14. The inclusion of the no-global in this list might be interpreted as an indirect
attack against the hegemonic role of Negrism in recent anti-globalization movements
in Italy and France. For a discussion of the oblique dialogues and polemics taking
places What Is an Apparatus?, see Timothy Campbell, Improper Life: Technology
and Biopolitics from Heidegger to Agamben (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
2012).
From Inoperativeness to Action

99
onehanu,itismoveubytheuesiietonotbegoveineuanuitcanoccuionly
thanks to the sabotage of the machines iesponsible foi the enfoicement of
goveinmentality anu foi the put to woik of mans inopeiativeness. Yet it is
anaichicalsobecauseituoesnotassignaniuentityoiasubjectivitytoliving
beings,butbyueactivatingtheiipiesumeusocialoibiologicaluestinylet
themenjoytheiiownbounulessinopeiativeness.Atstakeinthisueactivation
is the contemplation of being anu life in theii puiest foim: eventually, once
the sabotage of the puie activity of goveinance is activateu, one will be
able to peiceive being anu life as puie potentiality. Anu this sensation,
Agamben concluues following Aiistotle in The Fiienuthe seconu essay
fiom What Is an Apparatus?is itself sweet The payoff of the light
fiomappaiatusesconsiststheiefoieinamoieauthentichappinessthanthe
alienateu,iepiessiveoneinuuceubyoikonomia.Thefoim-of-lifethatbegins
oneaithafteithelastuayofpioviuentialgoveinance is,foiAgamben,simply
gooulife.Butsinceappaiatusesaieamachineofgoveinanceonlybecausethey
aie piimaiily a subjectifying uevice the ight against appaiatuses also implies
a stiuggle against the piocesses of subjectiication caiiieu out by each of them
Foi Agamben, uiffeiently fiom Negii, it is not a mattei of pioviuing, to use
Foucaultswoius,theconfuseuanuanonymousWesteinmanwhonolongei
knows himself, the possibility of alteinative iuentities, moie inuiviuualizeu
anu substantial than his own.
15
Fiom within the fiamewoik elaboiateu in
What Is an Appaiatus1, the attempt to ieconstitute a new political subject
appeaisapaialyzingcapitulationtothelogicofgoveinmentality.Thefoim-of-
lifeemeigingfiomthejammingofthegoveinmentalmachinewillthenhave
tobeaman,yetamanwhoisnotasubject.Weaieimpatientlywaitingfoithe
announceu,conclusiveHomo Sacerinstallmenttogettoknowbetteisucha
life.
In 2uu1 the collective Tiqqun publisheu an aiticle calleu 0ne
mtaphysique ciitique pouiiait natie comme science ues uispositifs
in the seconu issue of its shoit liveu ieview. Such an essaywhich heavily
infoims What Is an Appaiatus1 anu was uiscusseu by Agamben in a 2uu9
PaiispiesentationisintiouuceuasthefounuinguocumentoftheSocietyfoi
the Auvancement of Ciiminal Science a nonpioit oiganization ueuicateu to
the anonymous collection classiication anu uiffusion of knowleugepoweis
usefultoanti-impeiialwaimachines.
16
Afteiuesciibingciitiqueasaiesentful
1S. Foucault, Nietzsche, genealogy, and history, in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice:
Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, trans. Donald F. Bouchard and
Sherry Simon (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 160.
16. See Tiqqun, Une mtaphysique critique pourrait natre comme science des
dispositifs, in Tiqqun 2. Zone dOpacit Offensive (2001), online at http://www.
bloom0101.org/tiqqun.html. A rough, anonymous, English translation can be found
at http://www.bloom0101.org/tiqqun.html. David Kishik one of the translators of
What Is an Apparatus? had made available on his blog the videorecording of Agambens
Lorenzo Fabbri

100
uenunciation of contempoiaiy life that enus up shelteiing what is so ieicely
attackeu fiom any conciete inteivention, Tiqqun concluues: A science of
appaiatuses,aciiticalmetaphysics,isthusinueeunecessaiy,butnottouepict
some appealing ceitainty behinu which one coulu hiue oneself, noi even to
auu to life the thought of itself. We uo neeu to think about oui lives, but in
oiueitouiamaticallyintensifythem.
Peihaps heie theie is a lesson to be leaineu foi ciitical theoiy as well.
Ciitical theoiy will be a science of appaiatuses oi will not be An intensiication
of nonimpeiial foimsoflife an antigoveinmental wai machine
public remarks on Tiqqun: see http://notesforthecomingcommunity.blogspot.
com/2009/04/agamben-apropos-of-tiqqun.html; an English translation of the lecture
can be found at http://anarchistwithoutcontent.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/tiqqun-
apocrypha-repost.