Search results

Poses of the World develops a theory of the pluralistic coexistence of politics with aesthetic, scientific, ethical and economic procedures that have sought to influence, dominate or even replace politics. We are accustomed to saying that everything is political. It is true that politics has throughout history ventured into the domains that used to be non-political, be they art, science or economy. However, rather than being totally dominated by politics, our societies are marked by the coexistence of diverse procedures, whose logics are distinct but nonetheless remain in contact, ranging from frontal conflict to lasting syntheses. This book develops a theory of this pluralistic coexistence. It builds upon the findings of the first two volumes of Void Universalism to outline an account of pluralism that affirms the incommensurable character of the procedures that regulate the manners of our being and acting in the world. Neither reducible to nor insulated from each other, politics, ethics, art, economy, science and numerous other procedures persist in errancy without ever cohering into any overarching unity. The book demonstrates how the abandonment of the aspiration for such coherence opens up new perspectives on the key sociopolitical debates of our time, from the critique of neoliberalism to concerns over cancel culture. Systematic and accessible, this volume will be of interest to students and scholars of political science, philosophy, sociology, anthropology and cultural studies as well a wider readership beyond academia.

Critically re-examines canonical theories of biopolitics in the post-truth contextArgues for a positive role of truth-telling in the democratisation of biopolitical governanceUndertakes a genealogical investigation of the origins of the contemporary post-truth regime in early post-communist politicsPuts forward an innovative theory of the speech act of truth-telling in democratic biopoliticsDraws on familiar examples from contemporary politics such as Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Greta Thunberg and BrexitWhat makes post-truth politics so difficult to resist is its apparently democratic character that claims to challenge bureaucratic depoliticisation, the rule of experts and the disappearance of alternatives to the hegemonic policy. Sergei Prozorov refutes this interpretation, arguing that the post-truth ideology leads to the degradation of the public sphere that is essential to democratic governance. Rather than enable resistance to expertise-based biopolitical governmentalities, truth denialism dissolves the only framework where their contestation and transformation could take place. In contrast, Biopolitics after Truth argues for a positive role of truth-telling in the democratisation of biopolitical governance

A critical introduction to Giorgio Agamben's political thought that highlights its affirmative dimensionGBS_insertPreviewButtonPopup(['ISBN:9780748676200','ISBN:9780748676217','ISBN:9780748676224','ISBN:9780748676248']);Tracing how the logic of inoperativity works in the domains of language, law, history and humanity, Agamben and Politics systematically introduces the fundamental concepts of Agamben's political thought and a critically interprets his insights in the wider context of contemporary philosophy.Agamben's commentators and critics tend to focus on his powerful critique of the Western political tradition in the Homo Sacer series. But this narrow focus serves to obscure the overall structure of Agamben's political thought, which is neither negative nor critical but affirmative. Sergei Prozorov brings out the affirmative mood of Agamben's political thought, focusing on the concept of inoperativity, which has been central to Agamben's work from his earliest writings.Key FeaturesThe first critical introduction to focus on Agamben's political thoughtShows Agamben's political thought to be primarily affirmative rather than criticalReads Agamben's politics in the context of his first philosophical works on ontology and ethicsCovers all of Agamben's published work, introducing the full variety of themes and concepts he addresses"

Contemporary studies of biopolitics assume that the rise of biopolitical governance entails the eclipse of democracy. The abstract egalitarianism of democratic government appears to be incompatible with the concrete, particularist and individualising operations of biopower. Sergei Prozorov challenges the assumption that the biopolitical governance means the end of democracy, arguing for a positive synthesis of biopolitics and democracy. He develops a vision of democratic biopolitics where diverse forms of life can coexist on the basis of their reciprocal recognition as free, equal and in common. He demonstrates how this vision can be realised and sustained by using examples of our lived experience --

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- CONTENTS -- Notes on contributors -- Introduction -- SECTION I Biopolitics: History of the concept -- 1 Biopolitics in the political thought of classical Greece -- 2 'The government of a multitude': Hobbes on political subjectification -- 3 Nietzsche and biopolitics: Four readings of Nietzsche as a biopolitical thinker -- 4 Biopolitics before Foucault: On Benjamin's critique of bare life and Agamben's theological genealogy of the 'apparatus' -- SECTION II Contemporary theoretical controversies -- 5 Foucault, biopolitics and aesthetics

"Prozorov reinterprets the familiar principles of community, equality and freedom in ontological terms as attributes of pure being, subtracted from all positive determinations, and presents them as axioms of universalist politics valid in any world whatsoever"--

"A theory of the emergence of the subject of world politics"--

AbstractThe paper focuses on two problems with Alexander Wendt's unification of physical and social ontology on the basis of quantum theory. Firstly, by endowing social phenomena with an ontological foundation in physical reality defined in quantum terms Wendt risks reducing a plurality of worlds as 'fields of sense', ordered by their immanent rules, to the physical world ordered by the laws of quantum theory. Secondly, by defining his quantum social science as an ontology Wendt risks excluding from consideration all that which violates ontological laws, yet may still be said to exist or take place: event, potentiality, and alterity. Although the advantages of a scientific ontology are indisputable, the price we pay for it is a sense of ontological captivity, whereby everything that is definitely is so, being and non-being rigorously distinguished and separated with nothing between them. This captivity may be escaped by supplementing quantum ontology with ethics in the Levinasian sense of 'otherwise than being'.

The article addresses the ongoing debate about the origins of biopolitics. While Foucault's analysis of biopolitics approached it as a modern rationality of government, Agamben's Homo Sacer series presented biopolitics as having a longer provenance, dating back to the antiquity. These polar positions are not mutually exclusive but coexist in these and other theories of biopolitics, which approach its object as both modern and ancient, having its chronological origin in the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries yet also possessing a prehistory of precursors. The article interprets this dual origin in terms of Paolo Virno's theory of historical temporality, which distinguishes between the chronological past of historical events and their potential past, which accompanies and is negated in them. Coexisting with its own unrealized potential, every historical event remains incomplete and extends itself both backwards and forwards, positing its precursors and prefiguring its future outcomes. While modern in the chronological sense, biopolitics is retrospectively inscribed in a longer historical lineage, its antecedents easily identifiable in the history of political thought. Finally, we apply this approach to Virno's own account of the history of biopolitics, questioning his identification of past potential with labour-power.

The article addresses the ongoing debate about the origins of biopolitics. While Foucault's analysis of biopolitics approached it as a modern rationality of government, Agamben's Homo Sacer series presented biopolitics as having a longer provenance, dating back to the antiquity. These polar positions are not mutually exclusive but coexist in these and other theories of biopolitics, which approach its object as both modern and ancient, having its chronological origin in the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries yet also possessing a prehistory of precursors. The article interprets this dual origin in terms of Paolo Virno's theory of historical temporality, which distinguishes between the chronological past of historical events and their potential past, which accompanies and is negated in them. Coexisting with its own unrealized potential, every historical event remains incomplete and extends itself both backwards and forwards, positing its precursors and prefiguring its future outcomes. While modern in the chronological sense, biopolitics is retrospectively inscribed in a longer historical lineage, its antecedents easily identifiable in the history of political thought. Finally, we apply this approach to Virno's own account of the history of biopolitics, questioning his identification of past potential with labour-power. ; peerReviewed

The article critically engages with Giorgio Agamben's reading of Rousseau in order to explore the affinities between the two authors' subtractive approach to political subjectivation. In The Kingdom and the Glory. Agamben argues that Rousseau's Social Contract reproduces, in a secularized manner, the providential paradigm of government, whose origins Agamben finds in early Christianity. This paradigm establishes a fictitious articulation between transcendent sovereignty and immanent government, presenting particular acts of government as emanating from general divine laws. We shall demonstrate that Rousseau was neither unaware of the problematic character of this paradigm nor did he venture to conceal its problems, but, on the contrary, he highlighted them throughout the Social Contract, whose key motif was the danger of the contamination of general will by particular acts, identities or interests. The same wariness of particularism characterizes Rousseau's Reveries of the Solitary Walker, often read as entirely heterogeneous to the political project of the Social Contract. By reading these two works together as the affirmation of generic existence against all forms of particularism, we bring Rousseau's analysis closer to Agamben's own attempts to rethink politics as subtracted from all identity predicates and contained in the affirmation of 'whatever being'. The elucidation of affinities between Rousseau and Agamben will permit us to identify the limits of this subtractive approach to politics and outline an alternative to it. ; peerReviewed

The article addresses Giorgio Agamben's critical commentary on the global governance of the Covid-19 pandemic as a paradigm of his political thought. While Agamben's comments have been criticized as exaggerated and conspiratorial, they arise from the conceptual constellation that he has developed starting from the first volume of his Homo Sacer series. At the centre of this constellation is the relation between the concepts of sovereign power and bare life, whose articulation in the figure of homo sacer Agamben traces from the Antiquity to the present. We shall demonstrate that any such articulation is impossible due to the belonging of these concepts to different planes, respectively empirical and transcendental, which Agamben brings together in a problematic fashion. His account of the sovereign state of exception collapses a plurality of empirical states of exception into a zone of indistinction between different exceptional states and the normal state and then elevates this very indistinction to the transcendental condition of intelligibility of politics as such. Conversely, the notion of bare life, originally posited as the transcendental condition of possibility of positive forms of life, is recast as an empirical figure, whose sole form is the absence of form. We conclude that this problematic articulation should be abandoned for a theory that rather highlights the non-relation between sovereign power and bare life, which conditions the possibility of resistance and transformation that remains obscure in Agamben's thought.