Introduction The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the writing of Giorgio Agamben as it relates to the course theme in regard to the placement of the body in contemporary social theory. More specifically this paper will address Agamben’s writing of Sovereign Power and Bare Life and the distinction between the natural being and the legal existence of a person. First in Part I, I will provide a summary of Sovereign Power and Bare Life, and identify Agamben 's central thesis. In Part II, I will critically analyze how this literary work relates to the course theme and discuss the biopolitics of the body in relation to Roberto Esposito 's theory of immunization. I will also provide an applied contemporary analysis of how the immigration
…show more content…
This figure is called homo sacer, and in Agamben 's theory, it is a person whom one could kill with impunity (without consequences) (Agamben, 8). He compares this person to the living dead because although they are physically alive, they could be killed at anytime (theoretically) as they have been regulated by sovereign power to be outside the law (Agamben, 8). These individuals, although they can be killed because they are not a citizen, cannot be sacrifices in religious ceremonies because they are not seen as socially and politically alive (Agamben, 8).
Focaultian Biopower In his analysis, Agamben refers to the theory of biopower put forward by social theorist Michael Foucault. In Foucaultian terminology when sovereignty ended, biopolitics began (Foucault, 142). With biopolitics, human life becomes the target of the organizational and institutional power of the State (Foucault, 143). Foucault expresses that sovereign power was the power to “take life & let live” contrasted to that of biopower in which contained the power to “make live & let die” (Foucault, 143). Agamben expands upon this concept and in some aspects rejects Foucault 's theory of …show more content…
He argues that there is a thin distinction between the two forms of government because in a state of exception, the rights of the “citizen” are denied and dictated by those in power. However, as previously discussed this state of exception has become the rule. Those who are were excluded during the exception, now become permanently excluded in society (outside of the law). There is no longer a democratic state. He expresses “why democracy, at the very moment in which it seemed to have finally triumphed over its adversaries and reached its greatest height, proved itself incapable of saving zoe, to whose happiness it had dedicated all its efforts, from unprecedented ruin”(10). In this writing, he questions why democracy has not continued operate and “save” those who are considered bare life from the degradation, and exclusion from society. If democracy did succeed, those bodies would become a member of the polic, the political
This figure is called homo sacer, and in Agamben 's theory, it is a person whom one could kill with impunity (without consequences) (Agamben, 8). He compares this person to the living dead because although they are physically alive, they could be killed at anytime (theoretically) as they have been regulated by sovereign power to be outside the law (Agamben, 8). These individuals, although they can be killed because they are not a citizen, cannot be sacrifices in religious ceremonies because they are not seen as socially and politically alive (Agamben, 8).
Focaultian Biopower In his analysis, Agamben refers to the theory of biopower put forward by social theorist Michael Foucault. In Foucaultian terminology when sovereignty ended, biopolitics began (Foucault, 142). With biopolitics, human life becomes the target of the organizational and institutional power of the State (Foucault, 143). Foucault expresses that sovereign power was the power to “take life & let live” contrasted to that of biopower in which contained the power to “make live & let die” (Foucault, 143). Agamben expands upon this concept and in some aspects rejects Foucault 's theory of …show more content…
He argues that there is a thin distinction between the two forms of government because in a state of exception, the rights of the “citizen” are denied and dictated by those in power. However, as previously discussed this state of exception has become the rule. Those who are were excluded during the exception, now become permanently excluded in society (outside of the law). There is no longer a democratic state. He expresses “why democracy, at the very moment in which it seemed to have finally triumphed over its adversaries and reached its greatest height, proved itself incapable of saving zoe, to whose happiness it had dedicated all its efforts, from unprecedented ruin”(10). In this writing, he questions why democracy has not continued operate and “save” those who are considered bare life from the degradation, and exclusion from society. If democracy did succeed, those bodies would become a member of the polic, the political