Suchergebnisse

His collection of essays by one of medieval studies' most brilliant historians argues that the analysis and critique of biopower, as conventionally defined by Michel Foucault and then widely assumed in much contemporary theory of sovereignty, is a sovereign mode of temporalization caught up in the very time-machine it ostensibly seeks to expose and dismantle. For Michel Foucault, biopower (epitomized in his maxim "to make live and to let die") is the defining sign of the modern, and he famously argued that the task of political philosophy was to cut off the head of the classical (premodern) sovereign, the one "who made die and let live." Entrapped by his supersessionary thinking on the question, Foucault argued that the maxim of "to make live and let die" of modern sovereignty superseded a premodern sovereignty characterized by the contrasting power "to make die and let live." The essays collected in Biddick's book (some reprinted and some published here for the first time) argue that Foucault spoke too soon about the supposed "then" of the classical sovereign and the modern "now," and this became painfully apparent in his analysis of Nazism in his later lectures, Society Must be Defended. There Foucault groped to articulate an anguishing paradox: How could it be that the Nazis, as the ultimate biopolitical sovereign machine, would insist on an archaic (premodern) mode of sovereignty in their death camps? Here is how he posed the question in that lecture: "How can the power of death, the function of death, be exercised in a political system centered upon biopower?" Foucault left this question hanging

AbstractCentered on the opening scene of reading staged by Giorgio Agamben in his study of reading machines, The Open: Man and Animal, this article considers how Agamben's own messianic reading of an illuminated page from a medieval Ashkenazi Bible (Biblioteca Ambrosiana MSS B 30–32) erases the entangled biopolitical histories of medieval Ashkenazi Jews and their Christian sovereigns. What happens if we read the distinctive animal-headed Jews peopling medieval Ashkenazi manuscripts of Bibles and Haggadot dated to the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, not in a messianic mode but in the temporal mode of biopolitical bare life? What is the temporal structure of precarious life? Furthermore, how does this Ashkenazi figural tradition of animal-headed Jews point to forms of resistance to the biopolitics of medieval Christendom? How is messianic theory now unconsciously entangled in modes of temporality of precarious life, then?

his collection of essays by one of medieval studies' most brilliant historians argues that the analysis and critique of biopower, as conventionally defined by Michel Foucault and then widely assumed in much contemporary theory of sovereignty, is a sovereign mode of temporalization caught up in the very time-machine it ostensibly seeks to expose and dismantle. For Michel Foucault, biopower (epitomized in his maxim "to make live and to let die") is the defining sign of the modern, and he famously argued that the task of political philosophy was to cut off the head of the classical (premodern) sovereign, the one "who made die and let live." Entrapped by his supersessionary thinking on the question, Foucault argued that the maxim of "to make live and let die" of modern sovereignty superseded a premodern sovereignty characterized by the contrasting power "to make die and let live." The essays collected in Biddick's book (some reprinted and some published here for the first time) argue that Foucault spoke too soon about the supposed "then" of the classical sovereign and the modern "now," and this became painfully apparent in his analysis of Nazism in his later lectures, Society Must be Defended. There Foucault groped to articulate an anguishing paradox: How could it be that the Nazis, as the ultimate biopolitical sovereign machine, would insist on an archaic (premodern) mode of sovereignty in their death camps? Here is how he posed the question in that lecture: "How can the power of death, the function of death, be exercised in a political system centered upon biopower?" Foucault left this question hanging.

Debate over the rise of agrarian capitalism in Europe has established the historiographic chronology, locus, and conceptualization of European development. Proponents of contending schools (the "commercial" or the "political") have focused on the late medieval through early modern period in England as the crucial time and place of the transformation but argue whether agrarian capitalism derived from economic or political structures (Ashton and Philpin 1985).' Neither school has questioned the common methodology of mapping social and cultural transformation onto a structural matrix. Steps taken by historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists to decenter the European narrative of development have faltered at this same structuralist dilemma.

This paper uses a taxation assessment to analyze the relations between taxable peasant wealth and regional marketing geography. The results show cashcropping patterns for different grains and livestock. The selectivity of market involvement poses broader questions concerning economic vulnerability at the household and community levels among the English peasantry, and strategies used to contain vulnerability.

his collection of essays by one of medieval studies' most brilliant historians argues that the analysis and critique of biopower, as conventionally defined by Michel Foucault and then widely assumed in much contemporary theory of sovereignty, is a sovereign mode of temporalization caught up in the very time-machine it ostensibly seeks to expose and dismantle. For Michel Foucault, biopower (epitomized in his maxim "to make live and to let die") is the defining sign of the modern, and he famously argued that the task of political philosophy was to cut off the head of the classical (premodern) sovereign, the one "who made die and let live." Entrapped by his supersessionary thinking on the question, Foucault argued that the maxim of "to make live and let die" of modern sovereignty superseded a premodern sovereignty characterized by the contrasting power "to make die and let live." The essays collected in Biddick's book (some reprinted and some published here for the first time) argue that Foucault spoke too soon about the supposed "then" of the classical sovereign and the modern "now," and this became painfully apparent in his analysis of Nazism in his later lectures, Society Must be Defended. There Foucault groped to articulate an anguishing paradox: How could it be that the Nazis, as the ultimate biopolitical sovereign machine, would insist on an archaic (premodern) mode of sovereignty in their death camps? Here is how he posed the question in that lecture: "How can the power of death, the function of death, be exercised in a political system centered upon biopower?" Foucault left this question hanging.