Levinas

“Are there not, somewhere in the world, wars and carnage which result from these advatages? (of the West) Without us others, inhabitants of our capitals – capitals certainly without equality, but protected and plentiful – without us others having wanted to harm anyone? Does not the avenger/or the redemer of blood ‘with heated heart’ lurk around us, in the form of people’s anger, of the spirit of revolt or even of deliquency in our suburbs, the result of the social imbalance in which we are placed?” (Levinas, Cities of Refuge, Beyond the Verse, 40)

 

Returning

The life of this blog began just over a year ago, but unfortunately had a short burst of activity followed by a long silence. This was in part because of my employment situation at the time, in the initial post-phd casual work cycle. I spent a lot of time working on other folks’ research projects and did some teaching as well. But, importantly, I put together a postdoc application on the climate change-human migration nexus. The project I am currently working on is called “The Politics of Hospitality in the Era of Climate Change”. I am now located at the University of Technology in Sydney. I plan on using this blog as a way of exploring initial ideas to do with this project, as well as any other side writings that I decide to pursue.

 

 

 

Biocracy II

Biocracy II: a short and sweet theory post

“How are we to comprehend a political government of life? In what sense does life govern politics or in what sense does politics govern life? Does it concern a governing of or over life?” (2008, p. 15)

I am reading Esposito’s Bios from San Francisco and wondering how this changes my interpretation and frames of reference. While I have been here numerous serious events and issues have taken centre stage in the political and media scapes. Most recently the Haiti earthquake, the health reform bills, America’s relationship with China, and the ongoing economic crisis are notable for the ways in which the US has been positioned, and for the response of the government. These example each warrant long analyses in relation to this intersection of life and politics: for example, in the case of the Haiti earthquake how has the US ensured military control over the region? How has it regulated the possible migratory flows? How has it fostered and disabled attempts to provide medical assistance on the ground? How has the international community and the UN responded? In this state of emergency what role does nation-state sovereignty play? Is the response a governing of or over life? These are questions I hope to return to once I have conducted further research. But here is a link to a Washington Post article to begin this thinking: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/17/AR2010011701893.html .

Returning to Esposito. Chapter One of Bios traces the development of ‘biopolitics’, arguing that is emerges at three noteworthy times in the 20^th century. The first is around the 1920s, extending into World War Two. Witnessed here is the development of thinking of the nation-state as a natural organism comparable with the human body. (This is biopolitics specifically – the metaphor of the body has been part of political philosophy for a long time, at least dating back to Thomas Hobbes). “Organic risks” (2008, p. 18) threaten the health of the body-politic, thus making it necessary to have a protective apparatus, committed to health and purity. The protective apparatus is where the notion of the immunity paradigm comes into play. But this immunization has an explicitly racialised agenda. This, Esposito points out, is a racialised agenda and supports the development of Nazism.

The second revival of biopolitics occurs in France in the 1960s, taking on a “neohumanistic declension” (2008, p. 19). Biopolitics is forgiven for its historical pairing with eugenics and exclusion, and coupled instead with a positive goal to promote life and the health of the citizenry. It is redeemed and redeployed as part of a healthy governing system. Within this schema, we have learnt from the horrors of history, thus biopolitics increasing life.

What characterises the development of American biopolitics in the 1970s, the third wave of thinking around biopolitics, according to Esposito, is “the sphere of nature as a privileged parameter of political determination” (2008, p. 22). I will quote at length before discussing any possible implications and applications:

“While political philosophy presupposes nature as the problem to resolve (or the obstacle to overcome), through the constitution of the political order [for example, Hobbes' political theory is predicated on excluding the dreaded 'state of nature'], American biopolitics sees in nature its same condition of existence: not only the genetic origin and the first material, but also the sole controlling reference. Politics is anything but able to dominate nature or “conform” to its ends and so itself emerges “informed” in such a way that it leaves no space for other constructive possibilities” (p. 22).

Thus, politics is the extension of nature, a logic that excludes the examination of events in terms of historical context, in favour of “dynamics that are tied to evolutive demands of a species such as ours” (p. 23).  Consequently, “politics remains in the grip of biology” without being able to reply” (p. 24) How then is biology defined? Is it recognised as culturally and historically informed – “biocultural” (see Leonard Davis’ Biocultural Manifesto)? Or is it reduced to the Social Darwinism mantra ‘survival of the fittest’?

In some ways I am critical of Esposito’s all-encompassing evaluation of “American biopolitics”. I think this is because he doesn’t offer detailed reference points to American political structures and institutions, events and examples. But, if we shift our attention to the biopolitical condition in the US, perhaps we can more easily adapt Esposito’s discussion regarding life and politics. Two particular issues strike me as fruitful for discussion here: the consolidation of America and the US-Mexico Wars 160 years ago, and the comparatively recent alignment of neo-liberalism/economic rationalism and politics, beginning in the US context with the Chicago School in the 1960 onward. While historically disparate examples, they both point to the notion of manifest destiny and US geo-political and economic power.

For the next two posts I am going to think through American biopolitics in relation to these two examples.

 

Hybrids and Hummers

Hybrids and Hummers: A short rant that has very little to do with cars

They say that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. I have been having an interesting conversation with a friend, Christina, about social welfare and poverty in the US. Her partner, Roland, apparently refers to the US as a ‘third world country with pockets of wealth’. I think this is a very apt description. My experience of the US is limited to a few visits, the longest of which will be three months. I have been living in the East Bay of San Francisco in a little town where the trees that line the main streets are permanently decorated with pretty little lights that dazzle the eye once the sun drops. I thought these were a Christmas treat, but alas, my partner (a local of sorts) assures me not. New dining venues have opened and boomed in Walnut Creek despite the fact that the US is in the middle of a serious recession which has seen a rise in people whose sole income is food stamps ($200 a month, to feed the whole family) unemployment levels have risen, and there is visible and increasing levels of homelessness (see this excellent New York Times article for more information:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03foodstamps.html?scp=2&sq=Food%20Stamps&st=cse ). University education is in absolute crisis in California, with fees rising by 30%, staff furloughs enforced and stacks of lay-offs.

A lot has been written about America and its mythology: the home to immigrants far and wide who have come to make a better life for themselves and their families; a melting pot where everyone has a chance at bettering their circumstances; the innovators; the educators; the great civil rights revolutions of the 60s; the music, the movies, the chance for instant fame … What a great capitalist experiment! While other nation-states attempt to emulate the neo-liberal structures of the United States by reducing the welfare state and promoting privatization, conditions here continue to resemble a rotting apple: rosy on the outside with a nasty surprise at the inner core, spreading outwards.

This may sound cynical or sweeping in its criticism. There is no doubt that America is a complex political, social and cultural web, with resistances as well as complicities and exploitations. For example, San Francisco has universal health for its residents, and is a Sanctuary City, meaning that it will not search for or arrest residents who are not legal US citizens. Obama is attempting with all his might to “harness” (a word he is terribly fond of) the energy of all Americans in an effort to rebuild, take responsibility and resume the position as innovators, creators and global leaders. There is also no doubt that companies, consumers, farmers and industries in general have jumped on board new and necessary initiatives. For example, the environmental and fair trade causes. In California the organics market is amazing, with Organics ranges reasonably priced at the local Safeway. I have found it easier and more affordable to eat organics in San Francisco than I do in Sydney.  However, where there is capitalism there is exploitation (Marx, how indebted I am to you for this insight!).  These well-intentioned causes have been turned into profitable businesses with swanky slogans. My coffee, part of the Rainforest Alliance (a  counter to fair trade that has been labeled ‘fairtrade lite’) tells me about the local benefits of the indigenous Mayan community. But looking more closely, only 5% of net profits are given over to the local community.

Is capitalism to be held responsible for the vast discrepancies that characterize American life? Or is capitalism just not working properly? In the 1950s and 60s, with the development of shopping malls and the creation of the consumer, capitalism became aligned with lifestyle and aspiration. This logic continues to operate making the commodity the outcome and the goal. Within this context, Hybrids and Hummers both represent forms of capitalist excess. The hybrid Prius, which costs on average US $25,000, has been criticized for being as bad environmentally as a Hummer (this is not necessarily true however – at the end of the article I have linked to both sides of the argument). $25000 US is a lot of money, and makes this car inaccessible to many. Moreover, its image is linked with middle class folk who want to claim the higher moral ground when it comes to environmental matters (disregarding the fact that much of the lifestyle they take for granted is enabled through a variety of levels of violence). Meanwhile, a Hummer will set you back US $ between 39,000 and $60, 000. In this way the Hummer, a car with a beefy aesthetic and a reputation as a major polluter, represents arrogance. Unlike the Hybrid, which tries to pretty America’s image and show it as a world leader in sustainable change, the Hummer spits in the face of such notions, flaunting unlimited capitalist choice and freedom. When the weather starts getting even nastier, the Hummer will continue to drive through the middle of the hurricane, sure of its indestructibility.

There are loads of Hummers and Hybrids in Walnut Creek. In a way these two cars represent two faces of America and the continuation of the American dream as bound up with the automobile. But both of these faces require a future in which capitalism provides the way ‘forward’. One assumes the necessity of market-driven solutions to climate change and global relations of power, while the other continues to hold on to the ruthlessness of unfettered enterprise without conscience. What connects these two cars is their status as middle to upper class commodities.

Capitalism, however, doesn’t exclude the poor or disadvantaged per se. To the contrary, it requires them in order to operate more efficiently.  I won’t rehearse the arguments regarding the global economies of exploitation on which western middle-class lifestyles rely, but what I do want to quickly end on is the development of ‘Slum Tourism’ within the US. What this example highlights is the way in which the poor and disadvantaged are roped back into the very structures of capitalism that exploit them.  My friend Christina and I got into a discussion about this which prompted my current rant. Slum Tourism is exactly what is sounds like: people pay a sum ($100) to L.A Gang Tours in order to be safely carried through the ‘ganglands’, witnessing suburban slums up close and personal. On the tour they stop by the local gaol (Los Angeles County) and a detention centre, both of which house tens of thousands of inmates. The organization has well-intentioned goals: it is aimed at creating more jobs and opportunities for locals, and will see that the money made will go back into rebuilding the shattered structures of the community. In other words it is a market-based solution to problems which cannot be separated out from neo-liberal capitalism (for example, the privatization of gaols and detention centres means that it is profitable to imprison people).

What worries Christina and I is: firstly, that the Nation-State is so negligent that community organizers and leaders have to think up these sorts of solutions. This illuminates the degree to which the social welfare state does not operate in the US.  And secondly, as Christina put it, the possibility that at some point the tourist industry will develop such programs, only without the social agenda. This really isn’t that radical a notion under neoliberal capital. Perhaps when this happens they will transport the tourists though these streets in Hummers…

For more information on Hybrids and Hummers, and the debate regarding environmental credibility, go to http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9750840-1.html .  This site names both of the articles regarding the Prius and the Hummer, and provides links to the Pdf.

 

Biocracy I

Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy by Italian theorist Roberto Esposito has recently been taken up in English-dominated academic circles, following its translation into English in 2008. The book contributes to a growing literature concerned with the manner in which “biopolitics” – the politicisation of biological life, its categorisation, hierarchisation and utilisation, as Foucault defined it – has come to determine or preoccupy politics.

For this first blog post, I want to take Esposito’s introduction (p3-12) and think with and around it. To do so, I will briefly provide an overview, followed by some more in-depth unpacking and analysis of several compelling points. It won’t be a long post, but in the following weeks I will develop it in relation to the chapters of the book.

The term “biocracy” comes up on page 10 of Esposito’s introduction. To my mind it describes the chiasmatic relationship between bios – life – and the development of forms of governance from the time of western modernity onward. In other words, a particular conception of “life” has been tied to political structure, intervention, action and discourse. We are familiar with this in terms of the promise that the state will look to retain and enhance the health and life of its citizens (in Hobbes this was motivated by the cynical view of humanity as one against the other unless order is externally imposed; in other liberal theories the state may mediate relations in the social body in order to ensure a preexisting equality). Indeed, here the notion of governmentality demonstrates the ways in which the government is invested in the management of risk for the future. This can lead to an optimistic application of the biopolitical paradigm: that the management of bodies is for a greater social purpose.

The recognition that Western politics has ‘life’ at its centre is not a new thought, but Esposito promises to think beyond Foucault’s work and address the question Foucault grappled with but did not get to answer: “Why does a politics of life always risk being reversed into a work of death?” (Esposito 2008, 8 ) This is a challenging presupposition and somewhat counter-intuitive: that any politics with ‘life’ as its focus risks in its very structures and institutions, turning into the very thing in declares itself to be guarding against. Esposito provides some confronting examples of what he diagnoses as the “acute oxymoron of humanitarian bombardment” (2008, p. 4 ): for example, the bombing of Afghanistan in the name of the future of Afghani peoples. He summarises this phenomena in the following way: “To keep them alive at all costs, one can even decide to hasten their death” (2008, p. ). Achilles Mbembe and Giorgio Agamben have made similar arguments in relation to biopolitics, examining the ease with which it turns into “necropolitics” (Mbembe), or thanatopolitics (Agamben). Mbembe provides a critical analysis which does reverse the stated intentions of biopolitical models of power by revealing the selective work of ‘enhancing and maintaining’ life under colonial regimes, and indeed, the fact that some life is maintained at the expense of other life. Agamben, however, notes the overarching philosophical structures that determine contemporary expressions of sovereign power, and ties these to biopolitics in order to argue that sovereign power places life at its core, and decides upon its fate, creating the figure of “bare life”, life that can be killed without constituting sacrifice. At one point in Homo Sacer (1998), he claims that everyone is potentially “bare life” because we are all subject to sovereign power.

In Agamben the relationship between sovereign power and biopolitics is, I think, mutually constitutive in that the management of peoples serves sovereign imperatives: it arranges the relationship between the state and its peoples. Where Agamben uses the concept of bare life to implicate both totalitarian and democratic systems of power in violence, and to make ‘humanitarian’ categorisation (for example, the concept of the ‘refugee’) responsible for its biopolitics, Esposito uses the model of immunity to discuss the manner in which both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ uses of biopolitical categorisations are inherently about exclusion. This is because, as the term immunity suggests, an organism divides itself (power proliferates) in order to fight itself in the work of maintaining or restoring a ‘healthy body’. Using this medical terminology is interesting, as the body’s ability to fight infection, virus and so on, is usually considered in positive terms. However, if we transfer this to the realm of politics, it begs a series of questions: even ‘good’ examples of bioplitics contain an immunity response: this means that the concept of the ‘healthy body politic’ is predicated on the exclusion of those elements deemed unhealthy.

Esposito wants to situate biopolitics with modernity historically: he asks, “Does biopolitics precede, follow or coincide with modernity?”(2008, p. 8 ) The immunity model of power is his link, as it is the figure of the vulnerable individual in need of protection, or the self-interested, self-preserving subject, that instantiates, or placed as structurally necessary, the immunity response. Esposito writes: “Only modernity makes of individual self-preservation the presupposition of all other political categories, from sovereignty to liberty” (2008, 9).

Closing his introduction, Esposito makes some very contentious claims about the role of philosophy in political action. Biopolitics cannot be reformed or applied in the name of progression because it is not radical enough. I can’t help but think of this in relation, again, similar claims made by Agamben. Agamben argues that expanding and developing further categories – even those made with the best of intentions – still places life at the mercy of sovereign.

And yet, Esposito gestures toward an “affirmative biopolitics”. What this looks like will be fascinating to learn.