Hi,
I have recently been doing some work on biopower, particularly using
Giorgio Agamben's book called 'Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life'.
In the introduction to this book, Agamben claims that Foucault
overemphasises the historical distinction between sovereignty and
biopolitics and goes on to argue that 'the inclusion of bare life
[Aristotle's zoe] constitutes the original - if concealed - nucleus of
sovereign power...the production of the biopolitical body is the original
activity of sovereign power' (p6). I would be interested to know what
other people who have read this book think of Agamben's critique of
Foucault and of his own arguments regarding biopower, especially around the
generalisation of the exception in modern politics.
Thanks, Catherine
I have recently been doing some work on biopower, particularly using
Giorgio Agamben's book called 'Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life'.
In the introduction to this book, Agamben claims that Foucault
overemphasises the historical distinction between sovereignty and
biopolitics and goes on to argue that 'the inclusion of bare life
[Aristotle's zoe] constitutes the original - if concealed - nucleus of
sovereign power...the production of the biopolitical body is the original
activity of sovereign power' (p6). I would be interested to know what
other people who have read this book think of Agamben's critique of
Foucault and of his own arguments regarding biopower, especially around the
generalisation of the exception in modern politics.
Thanks, Catherine