stuff for sanjay

8/13/2019 Stuff for Sanjay

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stuff-for-sanjay 1/3

The affirmative uses death as a method of control—each contention is a new wayin which the State has infiltrated your every day lives in a way that makes deathimmanent.Hall 07 (Lindsey Anne, “Death, Power, and the Body: A Bio-political Analysis of Death and Dying”)

In exploring this exposure to death in modern culture, Benjamin Noys has examined features of our modern society that enforce Agambenís

claims. Modernity, he points out\, has an ambiguous relationship towards death. In modernity

death is visible and invisible, meaningful and meaningless, both horrific and banal. While inthe West the rate at which we are dying has declined, we are increasingly shown images ofdeath through the media. While science may have reduced the risk in Western states ofuntimely death due to disease and famine, any of us could still die at anytime from a nuclearattack or an ecological disaster. Moreover, all of us are exposed to death as we completeeveryday tasks like driving a car. In 2000 more than 116,000 people died in car crashes in the26 OECD countries, an average of 320 deaths a day (Noys 2005, 4). While it is certainly true that in modern culture

death has become invisible in certain ways, we have to account for the new ways in which it has also been made more visible. We nolonger attend public hangings or autopsies as entertainment, however, television has broughtthe staged autopsy into every possible living room. After the Holocaust and during a centuryof genocides and mass exterminations, from Cambodia to Rwanda,î Noys argues that ìit is

difficult to claim that death is now invisible or forbidden. Instead our exposure to death takeson the form of being exposed to the possibility of death organized politically, through bureaucratic planning and governmental intervention (2005, 4-5). These new forms of death rely precisely on the

bio-political mechanisms that Foucault claim promote life planning, statistical calculation, population control. Thus for Agamben, whilepolitics is, more and more a politics of the body and life (bio-politics), we must also considerthe fact that in every modern state there is a line marking the point at which the decision onlife becomes a decision on death, and bio-politics can turn into thanatopoliticsî (Agamben1995, 122).\

Ignore their impact scenarios—their tactic of fear mongering, body pilingreduces the judge to the homo sacer. By inducing terminal anxiety they exercise

sovereign power over the ballot— you have an a priori obligation to reject thismodern thanatopoliticsHall 07 (Lindsey Anne, “Death, Power, and the Body: A Bio-political Analysis of Death and Dying”)

For Agamben it is not possible to understand the mechanisms of power at work in thecontemporary modern state over the last two centuries unless one understands that what liesat its basis is not man as a free conscious political subject but, above all, mans bare life (1995,

128). Democracy began as a challenge to the powers of the sovereign; however, ironically, it would not put an end to sovereign power but instead offered a new and more dreadfulfoundation for sovereign power (Agamben 1995, 121). The writers of the American Declaration of Independence (1776)

stated that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. This text links together rights with

the body (life) and its needs (liberty and the pursuit of happiness). This formulation of rightcenters not on what the Greeks distinguished as bios, the qualified life of the citizen, but the bare, anonymous life, what is ignored in this declaration is that it is bare life where sovereignpower exercises its authority in this formulation because it is at the moment of birth that one becomes a citizen (Agamben 1995, 124). The concept of bare life, life exposed to death, is central to Agambens analysis of power, and

can best be understood in relation to an obscure figure of archaic Roman law, in which human life is included in the juridical order[ordinamento] solely in the form of its exclusion (that is, of its capacity to be killed), this figure is that of the sacred man (1995, 8). To bedefined as the sacred man was an act of punishment, Roman law defines the sacred man [homo sacer] as someone who may be killed and yet

not sacrificed. According to Agamben, anyone can kill the sacred man without being punished for it, thusto be a sacred man is to be placed outside the protection of the law. At the same time,



however, the sacred man cannot be sacrificed in a religious ceremony, thus the sacred man isexcluded from the religious domain as well. We are used to thinking of the idea of life as being sacred as meaning that life is to be preserved at all costs. However, what Agambensuggests is that when life was defined as sacred under Ancient Roman law, it was actually leaving oneslife totally exposed to death. Thus for Agamben, the decision to define someone as the sacred man is an act of power and a

fundamentally political decision. In particular, ìthe inclusion of bare life in the political realm constitutes the original if concealed nucleus of

sovereign power (Agamben 1995, 6). Thus, according to Agamben, it is an act of sovereign power that places the

sacred man outside of the law. To be excluded from the political order in this way is an act of banning, what Agamben sees as being first marked by sovereign power and then excluded byit. This exclusion, for Agamben, creates bare life, for though through the act of being excludedthe sacred man is included within the space of power, he is also, at the same time, excludedfrom all protection. This inclusion-exclusion, Agamben claims, is included in modern mechanisms of power. Every society,he argues, necessarily draws a distinction between citizens and sacred men. According to Agamben, it is as if every valorization and every politicization of life necessarily implies a newdecision concerning the threshold beyond which life ceases to be politically relevant, thethreshold beyond which life becomes only sacred life, and as such can be eliminated withoutpunishment (Agamben 1995, 139). If there is no clear figure of the sacred man in modern law it is because today, Agamben will argue, we all share the fate of the sacred man for we are all left exposed to death by power situation that he calls the thanatopolitics of modernity(1995, 115).

Apocalypse has changed; postnuclear threats permeate society because it is thethreat of extinction that allow the State to control the mass and securitize itssurroundings. This securitization inevitably results in the genocide of the 'Other'in the name of the security of the 'Same'.Peter Coviello, Asst Prof of English – Bowdoin, ‘1 (Queer Frontiers, ed. Boone, author‟sitalics)

Perhaps. But to claim that American culture is at present decisively postnuclear is not to saythat the world we inhabit is in any way post-apocalyptic. Apocalypse, as I began by saying,

changed – it did not go away. And here I want to hazard my second assertion: if, in thenuclear age of yesteryear, apocalypse signified an event threatening everyone and everything with (in Jacques Derrida‟s suitably menacing phrase) “remainderless and a-symbolicdestruction,”6 then in the postnuclear world apocalypse is an affair whose parameters aredefinitively local in shape and in substance, apocalypse is defined now by the affliction it brings somewhere else, always to an “other” people whose very presence might then be written as a kind of dangerous contagion, threatening the safety and the prosperity of acherished “general population.” This fact seems to me to stand behind Susan Sontag‟s incisiveobservation, from 1989, that, “ Apocalypse is now a long-running serial: not „Apocalypse Now‟ but „Apocalypse from Now On.‟”7 The decisive point here inthe perpetuation of the threat ofapocalypse (the point Sontag goes on, at length, to miss) is that apocalypse is ever present

because, as an element in a vast economy of power, it is ever useful. That is, through theperpetual threat of destruction – through the constant reproduction of the figure ofapocalypse – agencies of power ensure their authority to act on and through the bodies of aparticular population. No one turns this point more persuasively than Michel Foucault, who inthe final chapter of his first volume of The History of Sexuality addresses himself to theproblem of a power that is less repressive than productive, less life-threatening than, in his words, “life-administering.” Power, he contends, “exerts a positive influence on life … [and]endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls andcomprehensive regulations.” In his brief comments on what he calls “the atomic situation,”



however, Foucault insists as well that the productiveness of modern power must not bemistaken for a uniform repudiation of violent or even lethal means. For as “managers of lifeand survival, of bodies and the race,” agencies of modern power presume to act “on the behalfof the existence of everyone.” Whatsoever might be construed as a threat to life and survivalserves to authorize any expression of force, no matter how invasive or, indeed, potentiallyannihilating. “If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power,” Foucault writes, “this is not because of a recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated andexercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena ofpopulation.”8 For a state that would arm itself not with the power to kill its population, but with a more comprehensive power over the patterns and functioning of its collective life, thethreat of an apocalyptic demise, nuclear or otherwise, seems a civic initiative that can scarcely be done without.

Local movements are key to generate solvency —operating in the world of fiatdoes nothing but inspire political apathyColebrook 2002 (Claire, Understanding Deleuze, Pg. xxxviii)

Human freedom became the problem. If human beings are free, does this mean that there is

some ultimate „man‟ who can be liberated from the forces of production; or does radicalfreedom mean that there is no longer any human essence to which politics can appeal? Allthis came to a head in the student sit-ins and disruptions of 1968. There were proteststhroughout Europe in the late 1960s which were random, unthought out, and motivatednot by the economically defined class of workers so much as by students and intellectuals.In the aftermath of these disruptions it was realised that politics was no longer the affair ofeconomic classes and large or „molar‟ groupings. Local disruptions at the level ofknowledge, ideas and identity could transform the political terrain. Deleuze and others opened

the politics of the virtual: it w as no longer accepted that actual material reality, such as theeconomy, produced ideas. Many insisted that the virtual (images, desires, concepts) wasdirectly productive of social reality. This overturned the simple idea of ideology, the idea

that images and beliefs were produced by the governing classes to deceive us about our realsocial conditions. We have to do away with the idea that there is some ultimate politicalreality or actuality which lies behind all our images.Images are not just surfaceeffects of some underlying economic cause; images and the virtual have their ownautonomous power. This is where structuralism and post-1968 politics intersected. We need to see ourlanguages and systems of representation not just as masks or signs of theactual, but as fully real powers in their own right. The way we think, speak,desire and see the world is itself political; it produces relations, effects, andorganises our bodies.

stuff for sanjay

Documents