zoe bios philebus wha?
February 15, 2010 5:16 PM Subscribe
Can AskMe help me "get" Agamben?
I'm really interested in Giorgio Agamben, especially Homo Sacer and State of Exception. However, I don't feel like I'm really getting it. Can anyone help, or point to a resource that will clarify things for me?
I understand the concept of the homo sacer—an individual who can be killed but not sacrificed—and the idea of the exception. I gather that Agamben reads this figure as paradoxical, because the homo sacer's identity is constituted by the law that marks him/her as outside the law. Beyond this wikipedia-esque knowledge, I'm pretty lost.
Part of my problem, I think, is that I'm not well-versed in the philosophy that Agamben rattles off so easily. My knowledge of critical theory and philosophy consists of a first-year undergraduate philosophy course and a couple survey-style literary theory courses.
If it makes any difference, I'm especially interested in the chapter in Homo Sacer on "The Ban and the Wolf."
I'm really interested in Giorgio Agamben, especially Homo Sacer and State of Exception. However, I don't feel like I'm really getting it. Can anyone help, or point to a resource that will clarify things for me?
I understand the concept of the homo sacer—an individual who can be killed but not sacrificed—and the idea of the exception. I gather that Agamben reads this figure as paradoxical, because the homo sacer's identity is constituted by the law that marks him/her as outside the law. Beyond this wikipedia-esque knowledge, I'm pretty lost.
Part of my problem, I think, is that I'm not well-versed in the philosophy that Agamben rattles off so easily. My knowledge of critical theory and philosophy consists of a first-year undergraduate philosophy course and a couple survey-style literary theory courses.
If it makes any difference, I'm especially interested in the chapter in Homo Sacer on "The Ban and the Wolf."
de la Durantaye's book would make a pretty good primer, although it's meant as an overview of his thought, goes through a lot of the non-Homo Sacer, more messianic stuff as well. Catherine Mills has a pretty good, although much shorter, book on Agamben as well.
I'm not sure which aspects of that chapter you're looking at or what you'd like explicated; you could memail me a section or page number, if you'd like.
posted by experiencing a significant gravitas shortfall at 8:58 PM on February 15, 2010
I'm not sure which aspects of that chapter you're looking at or what you'd like explicated; you could memail me a section or page number, if you'd like.
posted by experiencing a significant gravitas shortfall at 8:58 PM on February 15, 2010
It's difficult. I'm rereading, tried to tell you from memory and got all confused. I'd say reread carefully the intro chapter to "Homo Sacer."
Something tells me finding a copy of "Remnants of Auschwitz" could be very useful in keying in on some of his major concepts and what happened, historically, as a consequence of a specific division in the Western political tradition that sets a boundary beyond which, life itself is excluded.
posted by citron at 10:20 PM on February 15, 2010
Something tells me finding a copy of "Remnants of Auschwitz" could be very useful in keying in on some of his major concepts and what happened, historically, as a consequence of a specific division in the Western political tradition that sets a boundary beyond which, life itself is excluded.
posted by citron at 10:20 PM on February 15, 2010
Best answer: Man, that Wikipedia article on Agamben will break your brain trying to read it. Not the most clearly written introduction, is it? Anyway, I'll give it a shot. Please anyone correct me if/when I'm off base. Agamben was difficult as hell for me and I last read him closely over five years ago.
Agamben is preoccupied by life itself as subject of political power. Think about today in the US where we have the death penalty - there is a boundary that the state oversteps when the death penalty is carried out - the state can rule not just to imprison someone, but to impose power on biological life (bare life) itself, by taking it away.
There is something very particular about the 'homo sacer'. He is alive, but no longer a subject. The crime called 'homicide' is a matter of law and the state - for everyone who is a subject, taking his/her life intentionally is a crime called 'homicide' by the state, and prosecuted accordingly. The 'homo sacer' is an exception - his biological life is no longer protected because he is no longer a subject, so killing him is not homicide. It's just killing. It can be done with no legal consequence. What's interesting is that designating this person's existence as outside of a boundary shows us that there is such a boundary, at the very heart of the political system.
I wonder if an equivalent might be, today, if we convicted a person of homicide and simply threw him or her out in the street and said, this person is alive but has no rights, anyone who kills this person will not be prosecuted. Maybe someone will, maybe not, but the state will have nothing to do with the matter of whether or not the person's biological life is taken from him or her. You can see how this could go even further, by eliminating the requirement that such a person be convicted of a certain crime - now that there's a boundary established, on the other side of which a person's biological life is not protected - what if a state determines that a person even suspected of something can be thrown out in the street and said to have no rights, not even to have his/her biological life protected? (Of course, there have been lynchings of innocent people, with no consequences, not so far in this country's past...)
And Nazism would be an extreme event that can be looked on in a new way now that you see this boundary. The 'homo sacer' was one designated exception in ancient times, who was not a subject of the state and thus, though alive, could be killed by anyone without it being considered a homicide. Now that the boundary is drawn, now that the state is involved in exerting power over life itself, so that some persons can be pushed outside that boundary and their lives taken away by anyone.. What happens if an entire population is considered to be outside that boundary, only within which life is protected and homicide is a crime? What if there are no universal human rights, only the rights of those who are citizens of a nation-state? For a totalitarian/Nazi state which decides that groups of people are outside the boundary, not citizens, and therefore have no rights at all, they don't even have the right to their biological lives. There can be mass killings of such people, the taking of millions of biological lives, and in the eyes of a totalitarian/Nazi state, it is not legally a crime. These millions of people have no legal existence and can be treated any way at all.
posted by citron at 11:06 PM on February 15, 2010 [4 favorites]
Agamben is preoccupied by life itself as subject of political power. Think about today in the US where we have the death penalty - there is a boundary that the state oversteps when the death penalty is carried out - the state can rule not just to imprison someone, but to impose power on biological life (bare life) itself, by taking it away.
There is something very particular about the 'homo sacer'. He is alive, but no longer a subject. The crime called 'homicide' is a matter of law and the state - for everyone who is a subject, taking his/her life intentionally is a crime called 'homicide' by the state, and prosecuted accordingly. The 'homo sacer' is an exception - his biological life is no longer protected because he is no longer a subject, so killing him is not homicide. It's just killing. It can be done with no legal consequence. What's interesting is that designating this person's existence as outside of a boundary shows us that there is such a boundary, at the very heart of the political system.
I wonder if an equivalent might be, today, if we convicted a person of homicide and simply threw him or her out in the street and said, this person is alive but has no rights, anyone who kills this person will not be prosecuted. Maybe someone will, maybe not, but the state will have nothing to do with the matter of whether or not the person's biological life is taken from him or her. You can see how this could go even further, by eliminating the requirement that such a person be convicted of a certain crime - now that there's a boundary established, on the other side of which a person's biological life is not protected - what if a state determines that a person even suspected of something can be thrown out in the street and said to have no rights, not even to have his/her biological life protected? (Of course, there have been lynchings of innocent people, with no consequences, not so far in this country's past...)
And Nazism would be an extreme event that can be looked on in a new way now that you see this boundary. The 'homo sacer' was one designated exception in ancient times, who was not a subject of the state and thus, though alive, could be killed by anyone without it being considered a homicide. Now that the boundary is drawn, now that the state is involved in exerting power over life itself, so that some persons can be pushed outside that boundary and their lives taken away by anyone.. What happens if an entire population is considered to be outside that boundary, only within which life is protected and homicide is a crime? What if there are no universal human rights, only the rights of those who are citizens of a nation-state? For a totalitarian/Nazi state which decides that groups of people are outside the boundary, not citizens, and therefore have no rights at all, they don't even have the right to their biological lives. There can be mass killings of such people, the taking of millions of biological lives, and in the eyes of a totalitarian/Nazi state, it is not legally a crime. These millions of people have no legal existence and can be treated any way at all.
posted by citron at 11:06 PM on February 15, 2010 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks. If nothing else, it is reassuring to hear that others find him as frustrating as I do.
My questions are starting to group around two things: 1) the nature of the homo sacer as one who may be killed but not sacrificed and 2) the stuff in "The Ban and the Wolf" where he starts to talk about the ban versus the social contract as being the foundation of the City. Well, those and a few dozen other things that I can't even seem to articulate.
posted by synecdoche at 5:39 PM on February 16, 2010
My questions are starting to group around two things: 1) the nature of the homo sacer as one who may be killed but not sacrificed and 2) the stuff in "The Ban and the Wolf" where he starts to talk about the ban versus the social contract as being the foundation of the City. Well, those and a few dozen other things that I can't even seem to articulate.
posted by synecdoche at 5:39 PM on February 16, 2010
I'm not sure if the reason why this person cannot be sacrificed is explained - I don't think Agamben can figure out precisely what was the historical explanation - from what I've read here it remains enigmatic.
I wonder if it might have something to do with.. whatever ritual sacrifices were made then (my historical knowledge is nil on this), I suppose it would be best for the state that religious/ritualistic practices are unified with the state, sanctioned by the state, or at the very least don't risk to disrupt its function in any way. You could see how a person who is cast out by the state, and no longer protected, would become elevated and significant again by being central to a religious ritual. This might be politically disruptive. It means these persons belong to something, which might create another center of power outside the domain of the sovereign, which is dangerous. (This is all speculation on my part, ymmv.)
In Germanic law when someone had committed certain crimes this person was similarly banned from the community - he is, like the 'homo sacer,' one who had belonged to the community and was then cast out. And the figure of the werewolf is brought up (in fact this might be its origin?).. there's nature, and then there's the community, and then there's one who is cast out but still human and thus cannot belong entirely to the world of nature, but cannot return to the community either, and exists entirely on the threshold between the two. A werewolf is half-human, because that link is still there to the community even though it's one that has been ruptured. I haven't quite figured out what Agamben is saying about Hobbes "state of nature" and the modern city, it seems to be something along the lines of: the "state of nature" isn't nature, it's a threshold, that space occupied by figures like the werewolf, or the homo sacer.. Maybe?
posted by citron at 5:07 PM on February 18, 2010
I wonder if it might have something to do with.. whatever ritual sacrifices were made then (my historical knowledge is nil on this), I suppose it would be best for the state that religious/ritualistic practices are unified with the state, sanctioned by the state, or at the very least don't risk to disrupt its function in any way. You could see how a person who is cast out by the state, and no longer protected, would become elevated and significant again by being central to a religious ritual. This might be politically disruptive. It means these persons belong to something, which might create another center of power outside the domain of the sovereign, which is dangerous. (This is all speculation on my part, ymmv.)
In Germanic law when someone had committed certain crimes this person was similarly banned from the community - he is, like the 'homo sacer,' one who had belonged to the community and was then cast out. And the figure of the werewolf is brought up (in fact this might be its origin?).. there's nature, and then there's the community, and then there's one who is cast out but still human and thus cannot belong entirely to the world of nature, but cannot return to the community either, and exists entirely on the threshold between the two. A werewolf is half-human, because that link is still there to the community even though it's one that has been ruptured. I haven't quite figured out what Agamben is saying about Hobbes "state of nature" and the modern city, it seems to be something along the lines of: the "state of nature" isn't nature, it's a threshold, that space occupied by figures like the werewolf, or the homo sacer.. Maybe?
posted by citron at 5:07 PM on February 18, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by pkuras at 7:33 PM on February 15, 2010