Dear Koray,
Isn't the problem regarding the hunger strikers that if we conceive of their
struggle as an issue of rights, then we immediately concede to the Turkish state
a duty to guaranteee its subjects' right to life, so it has a duty to intervene
in their lives in order to save them from themselves, ie. force feeding. The
state would thus have prevented deaths by acting humanely. The situation seems
very similar to that in the UK in the late 70s-early 80s, when Irish Republican
prisoners interned under suspicion under anti-terrorist legislation went on
hunger strike demanding the status of political prisoners, a struggle that led
to numerous of their deaths.
it seems to me that this is the kind of issue Foucault addressed in his work on
biopower and governmentality, rather than in Disciplne and Punish. The question
faced by the prisoners is that of how those who are powerless in terms of
domination can nevertheless find immense power through the extra-dominatory
regime to which they are subjected. Thus, the Turkish state seeks to deploy
'humane' modes of government of opponents (ie. imprisonment rather than
execution), which operates upon the premis that the imprisoned have an interest
in their own survival. Government can offer a prison regime which corresponds
to this interest, thereby rendering the imprisoned complicit in that prison
regime, which seems to meet at least this very basic interest. This also, of
course, effects power through individualizing each prisoner- constituting an
individual interest in personal survival rather than a collective one in
political or cultural survival. Indeed, if the prisoners are isolated and
dispersed, then the individual becomes the bearer of cultural or ideological
identity, and so must keep him/herself alive for the cause, and self-sacrifice
is thereby precluded as a tactic of resistance.
The only way that such a regime can be resisted is by refusing this interest,
refusing the imperative interest of personal survival. In so doing, however, the
hunger strikers are not opposing power in the name of something which abjurs it,
but rather are realising the enormous power which this particular regime of
government of political opposition has imbued them with. They are engaging in an
act of violence, as was frequently pointed out to the Irish hunger strikers by
radical liberals who could not handle their refusal of the regime of prison
government -but this is the only power that is left to them. If they simply
attacked their guards they would simply affirm judgements of their criminality
or insanity, or would be killed 'in restoring order' or 'in self-defence' by the
guards, and attempts to engage in discourse over specific demands would always
be outflanked by the concession of human rights, enabling the authorities to
simply ignore them. Such apparently alternative tactics would be
counter-productive, depoliticising the issue.
To couch this struggle in terms of human rights would thus disempower the hunger
strikers, if I have the details correctly, ie. if it is analogous to that of the
Irish prisoners. There was some success over their struggle, I forget the
details but I hope someone else can supply them, or I'll look it up if you're
interested. i think the key point is that this strategy can work, if the object
is not an abstract recognition, but a particualr one, which can simultaneously
constitute a focus and a reinvigoration for action outside the prison. The
funeral of Bobby sands, one of the Irish hunger strikers, was absolutely
massive, a huge political event constituted around his dead body not as a
sacrifce, which is a merely passive role, but as an active focus for political
remobilisation in the funeral itself. The way that the power of resistance was
deployed that time, and the particular context in which it that power was
constituted, made it possible for the hunger strikers to continue to operate as
political agents beyond death.
The point is that struggles such as these find power where the discourse of
rights radically disempowers, by restoring politics to the particular and to the
tactical options available to it under particular regimes, using the very
premises of the regime against it.
Mick Drake
UEA
Norwich UK
Isn't the problem regarding the hunger strikers that if we conceive of their
struggle as an issue of rights, then we immediately concede to the Turkish state
a duty to guaranteee its subjects' right to life, so it has a duty to intervene
in their lives in order to save them from themselves, ie. force feeding. The
state would thus have prevented deaths by acting humanely. The situation seems
very similar to that in the UK in the late 70s-early 80s, when Irish Republican
prisoners interned under suspicion under anti-terrorist legislation went on
hunger strike demanding the status of political prisoners, a struggle that led
to numerous of their deaths.
it seems to me that this is the kind of issue Foucault addressed in his work on
biopower and governmentality, rather than in Disciplne and Punish. The question
faced by the prisoners is that of how those who are powerless in terms of
domination can nevertheless find immense power through the extra-dominatory
regime to which they are subjected. Thus, the Turkish state seeks to deploy
'humane' modes of government of opponents (ie. imprisonment rather than
execution), which operates upon the premis that the imprisoned have an interest
in their own survival. Government can offer a prison regime which corresponds
to this interest, thereby rendering the imprisoned complicit in that prison
regime, which seems to meet at least this very basic interest. This also, of
course, effects power through individualizing each prisoner- constituting an
individual interest in personal survival rather than a collective one in
political or cultural survival. Indeed, if the prisoners are isolated and
dispersed, then the individual becomes the bearer of cultural or ideological
identity, and so must keep him/herself alive for the cause, and self-sacrifice
is thereby precluded as a tactic of resistance.
The only way that such a regime can be resisted is by refusing this interest,
refusing the imperative interest of personal survival. In so doing, however, the
hunger strikers are not opposing power in the name of something which abjurs it,
but rather are realising the enormous power which this particular regime of
government of political opposition has imbued them with. They are engaging in an
act of violence, as was frequently pointed out to the Irish hunger strikers by
radical liberals who could not handle their refusal of the regime of prison
government -but this is the only power that is left to them. If they simply
attacked their guards they would simply affirm judgements of their criminality
or insanity, or would be killed 'in restoring order' or 'in self-defence' by the
guards, and attempts to engage in discourse over specific demands would always
be outflanked by the concession of human rights, enabling the authorities to
simply ignore them. Such apparently alternative tactics would be
counter-productive, depoliticising the issue.
To couch this struggle in terms of human rights would thus disempower the hunger
strikers, if I have the details correctly, ie. if it is analogous to that of the
Irish prisoners. There was some success over their struggle, I forget the
details but I hope someone else can supply them, or I'll look it up if you're
interested. i think the key point is that this strategy can work, if the object
is not an abstract recognition, but a particualr one, which can simultaneously
constitute a focus and a reinvigoration for action outside the prison. The
funeral of Bobby sands, one of the Irish hunger strikers, was absolutely
massive, a huge political event constituted around his dead body not as a
sacrifce, which is a merely passive role, but as an active focus for political
remobilisation in the funeral itself. The way that the power of resistance was
deployed that time, and the particular context in which it that power was
constituted, made it possible for the hunger strikers to continue to operate as
political agents beyond death.
The point is that struggles such as these find power where the discourse of
rights radically disempowers, by restoring politics to the particular and to the
tactical options available to it under particular regimes, using the very
premises of the regime against it.
Mick Drake
UEA
Norwich UK