Campbell Esposito

7/27/2019 Campbell Esposito

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/campbell-esposito 1/22



Bios, ImmunIty, LIfethe thought of RobeRto esposIto

TimoThy CampBell

t a Rr ei i larl kw i us. oid a w Rac

sdi dar w kw i riaril r Cunt: orgn dtn d

cuntà (Cunt: T orgn nd Dtn f t Cunt), wrk i

Italian philosopher over the past twenty-ve years remains completely untranslated into

eli. ta i irdci a Al-Arica adic ak lac da wi

a vl Dcrtc ddicad i iki i i all ar d crr

(bio)political situation in which we nd ourselves: the ever-increasing concern of power

wi li il i jc, i us i ri, idd rci, wrkr

r aciv icall a av al-car c, r us vr’

attempts in the “war on terror” to endanger the lives of foreign nationals, “ghting them

r” a “rc” us liv r.1 y i liicizai il, iliic

a r jc ei’ rc d, B: Btc nd p,

a a l ad rril ir i wi cr. Idd, B ad wi i ei’

rvi wrk, iunt: prtzn ngzn d vt ( iunt: T prtctn

nd Ngtn f lf), may be protably read as nothing short of a modern genealogy of

iliic a i ad d i il.

I llwi a I wa kc arar i al ad ei-

’ crii r crr dradi iliic, ariclarl a rla ccal cric B, wa ei call “aradi iizai.”

Ii cr a a l ad wll-kw ir i rc criical . nikla

La, r iac, lacd ii a ar i r i i 1984

sc st; Da harawa dld “a i dicr” i r

ial radi dr di r 1988, wil Ja badrillard i arl

1990s spoke of articial sterilization compensating for “faltering internal immunological

d” [85]. fr ad r a wrii da ii, r qickl ld

i aii, ci lia riz i wic crar liic i-

cri il. or cid dic ii r 1990—A hllr

ril, a wll a mark C. talr— lacd i r rcll a cr crar liic did Jacq Drrida i a ri irviw

ad wrii ar “v” sr 11. saki aii ari

and suicidal autoimmunity, Derrida afliates the gure of immunity with trauma and a

rii cli [“A-Ii”]. A radr will dicvr, c

aar ei’ ii r a Drrida a wll a r id

av, ciall a i rla ei’ radical ivri ii i i cal

antinomy and its effects on our understanding of biopolitics. In the rst part, therefore, I

rac wr ei’ ii aradi cvr ad divr wi a

Drrida ad r.

1. or, wn nt “xng” rud trrrt, t Us gvrnnt frc-fd t t r-

tct tr v [mtc 9]. an ntrn t W-mrt uggt, n rdr “t dcurg un-

t jb cnt,” tt “W-mrt rrng fr ‘ jb t ncud c ctvt

(.g., cr d crt-gtrng)’” [Grnu nd Brbr].

dcrtc 36.2: 2–22



diacritics / summer 006

I cd ar I ia ei’ r radl wii crr Arica

ad era iki iliic. hr micl fcal’ iar r 1975 ad

1976 iliic ad raci ri cidral ai, ic i i rcil

these discourses that Esposito will draw his own reections in B. t I r a

cari ei’ ccalizai iiar aradi wi wrk

ar Ialia ilr, giri Aa, ad i ariclar wi Aa’ lara-

i a xci r i rii i Carl sci ad Walr bjai. A I

ar r, ei’ larai ii i B a a afrmative iliic—ailiic ad a liic li (btnz, i ei’ r) a d a

liic vr li (btr)— l call Aa’ aiv aali i-

liic, al call i qi aiirical v a caracriz Aa’

aciai iliic wi a xci.2 ei iad will ar r

dr rii iliic i iizi ar vri, rr, ad li-

r a r i wrii h ad Lck. eiall, ei ar a

an afrmative biopolitics can emerge only after a thoroughgoing deconstruction of the

irci il ad liic a riia i ii.3 havi kcd a-

rameters of immunity within the horizon of an afrmative biopolitics, I discuss the princi-

al l ei’ ccalizai c a iliic ad ccld wia dici il ara cac w ei’ ad crar

lic clr i uid sa.

Cunt/iunt

In order to appreciate the originality of Esposito’s understanding of biopolitics, I rst

wa rar ci’ rlai ii a ei kc i i B a wll

a i w arlir wrk, Cunt ad iunt. Radi r dialcicall, e-

i ak i rlai w ci ad ii i lial cra

ad jxaii, r rar i rlai i’ ar a larr v i wic ac r

is inscribed reciprocally in the logic of the other. The launching pad for his reections

ccr ricil wic cii ar dd. ticall cr w

w ik ci, w idial ik c, a wic i ard

among the members of a group. So too for Esposito: community is inhabited by the com-

al, a wic i w, idd a wic i wr “ w” d.

I i wa l all r ad i rr “lic i jxaii ‘riva,’ r

‘ral’ ( al ‘cllciv’) i cra ariclar” [Cunt xii]. y ei

2. T “Wrk Ctd” cntn n xtnv bbgr f et’ wrk n tc -

.3. i wud b f i ddn’t nt t ctng ntn f btc tt rg n m-

c hrdt nd antn Ngr’ eir nd Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.

In fact one might well argue that Esposito’s project of an afrmative biopolitics shares a number

f nt f cntct wt hrdt nd Ngr, c n tr rd ntrt n t nng-

cal category of esh as one basis for thinking a future biopolitics. Still, their differences may be

ubud rund et’ ct crg tt hrdt nd Ngr’ rdng f t uttud nd

t ntn f t cn rvn b t untr r tt crctrz agbn’

ngtv btc. et nt k, n wt w d t btc uttud c

t untr r tt rd t t rt f n crtn f t cn? h nwr, nvr

ttd xct, tt fdng bwr nt t c n n w v hrdt nd Ngr fr t

ng nd dd gng f btc n wc f rtctd nd trngtnd trug dt,

n wt et c t “ng” f btc. i dv t n f nqur n t xtndd

ntrductn i rvd t bi. on t nt, t rdr drctd t ctr 2 f bi nd t

g dvt t bwr nd btc n Fucut.



r rr ai cunt, all aciad wi r r wic i

originates: the Latin unu. tw ai unu—nu ad ofcium—rai

obligation and ofce, while the third centers paradoxically around the term dnu, wic

ei l a a r i a ci ar rvi w. Draw-

ing on the classic linguistic studies of Benveniste and Mauss, Esposito marks the specic

ali i cal dnu ii il a i a car i

a rqir, v dad, a xca i rr. “oc a accd unu,”

ei wri, “ i lid rr nu, i r ir d rrvic (ofcium)” [xiii]. munu i, rr, a c r i r dnu, ic

i rqir a r r rcivr.

A i i ei ca diill liical cai unu. ulik d-

nu, unu ql ark “ i a iv, i a rciv,”

“the contractual obligation one has vis-à-vis the other,” and nally “the gratitude that

dnd w dai” ar rcii [xiv; ai i riial]. hr

Esposito’s particular understanding of community becomes clear: thinking community

r cunt will a i a k ivi, a rcirci i ivi

a i a d’—idd, ca—l l. A i (ii) rii, c-

unt i crcd ard a a i, a r a ci cak r lv. Accrdi ei, i d r liai i-ivi ra

a a kid riiar dc r all li a ci. t dc rvlv

ard rici c rcircal dai idividal idi. Acci

unu dircl dri caaci idividal idi il r rl a

c ad a ar ci.

I wa ld dciv ar cunt i rrv r ad

rirdc qi ii ic i i rcil iiar cai a

will lik ci iliic.4 fr ei, ii i cri wi c-

i. I d il a cunt iii rci r wa i id,

rar i icrid i riz cal unu. I i —ad i-

i i clarl drd a acli i xal r claical R a ei

ci—w i xrad r a rcivd a dnt r rcircal i-ivi. h

w a rd r cal liai r w j a riiar a r

cciv ri r a rvil cracd d j cdii unt.

t rlaii ii aiai wi idividal idi r clarl r. I-

i c a wic idividal i ddd r “xrriaiv

c” ci, rci w carri i r rik cac wi

w d ( rik i rcil l idividal idi) [ B 47]. A a

rl, rdr arai wa i ’ w r cal ar riid w

“ii riva r idividaliic dl r ciaria r rai-

zation” takes place [47]. It follows that the condition of immunity signies both “not to ad av i c” [48]. s r i rciv, ii r

ci, al a i, a rar a crd il rcirci, c-

i dl ack il, rci il r a rd xc cal

i-ivi. fr ei, ccli ca l a “ rviv, a ci, vr

ci i rcd irjc aivi i w i, v i a i

rai a craiv ad lacki d ci il” [49]. I i i irjc-

i aivi r ii a will r ai ei’ radi dr

iliic. ei will ar a ida dr jc w j civil ad

liical ri i il a a aai ii r cai iili

4. Cf. ctr 2 n Cia, dedicated to guilt: “Community is denable only on the basis

f t ck fr wc t drv nd tt nvtb cnnt t rc n bnc r dfct f

cunt” [33].




ci. sc a a iiz idividal r wa i c d

i ci a rik a ii r il ad i ci l.

iunt nd mdrnt

t ailiar wi Ja-Lc nac’ wrii iraiv ci r Al-

so Lingis’s reections on the shared nothingness of community will surely hear echoes i c av i.5 Wa ei’ aali aar r

i dr wic rad ii a a irical car ixrical likd

dri.

Tt tc w n w bn rccud wt dfndng f

dn’t dtrct fr t fct tt bgnnng fr crtn nt tt cn-

cd xct wt t rgn f drnt, uc f-dfnv rqurnt

was identied not only and simply as a given, but as both a problem and a stra -

tgc tn. T n tt cvztn t nd rnt fcd nd n

w t t nd f tr wn unztn, but tt n n t drn nd unztn cnttut t cr nt. on gt c t rt tt

t wn’t drnt tt rd t qutn f t f-rrvtn f f, but

tt f-rrvtn r tf n drnt’ bng [r], wc t

t nvnt drnt trc nd ctgrc rtu tt cb f

cng [rilvr] wt t. [ B 52]

fr ei, dri d’ i rl i iii vri wr ad

i rizai i h a fcal ar. Rar, dri aar rcil w

i c il riz a rlai w ciaria unu, wic e-

posito associates with a Hobbesian state of generalized conict, and the institution of

vri wr a ac rc r, r, iiz ci r a ra-

ened return to conict.

I w wr xd ei’ ar, i wld r arria ak

vri w iiz ci r ci’ w ilici

excesses: the desire to acquire the goods of another, and the violence implicated in such

a rlai. W i idividal r c jc vri wr—a i,

w i i lr il acc r ra ci il

ad i idividal r— ci iiz il iii vri

power. With the risk of conict inscribed at the very heart of community, consisting as

i d i iraci, r ra r, i qali w i r, iiza-

i ir rcd r llw ci, aar ilala i c. t w iiar aria ci i rcizd a

5. Wt et dn, t t , t v t drwn n Nnc’ rgunt n t

Iraiv Ci rgrdng rc t xcv ntur f cunt v-à-v t t-

c ubjct. Nnc wrt tt “cunt d nt wv urr, rt, r trnr-

t f btwn ubjct . . . but t cnttutv, t t xtnt tt t ttr f ‘cnttutn’

r, cbrtd n t dt f t w w c, r, wrng, t ‘br’ (nuc

t nt qutn f rgn)” [14]. et dntrt ntd tt t cbrtn f

wc Nnc k dn’t jut nvv t futur dt f t cunt’ “br,” but

rvv rund t rt trt tt t tr br rrnt fr c tr. it rc

t trt nd t c fr unztn fr t tt xn w n v n fct d t

question of community “a question of organism.” Or better, it is precisely the unreected nature of

cunt rgn tt rqur dcntructn. on n t w w t btc rgn

f cunt b d cr v cunt’ r n unt.



6

raic rl r ac era ai-a ial adv dri,

ic i i a vri wr i likd ricall cal l-rrvai

ad l-ai.6

Two further reections ought to be made at this point. First, by focusing on the im-

izi ar vri a i r i dri, ei ak i wi

a diici fcal ak w aradi vri ad a vr-

ali. W rcall a r fcal, vrali ark “acic vr

which make possible the continual denition and redenition of what is within the com-c sa ad wa i , lic vr riva, ad ” [“gvr-

ali” 103]. t acic ar likd rc lai a a jc

wr, wic clia a d i cr, ariclarl rardi

campaigns to reduce mortality [see Dean]. A full-edged regime of governmentality for

fcal ca aral r rc iwr a ak crl

“li i ral—wi d a l ad lai a r” i i-

cr [sct mut B Dfndd 253]. ei, wvr, w w fcal

cilla w vri ad vrali rcil ca i ailr

riz iiar dcli r. b ar icrid i a dr i-

liical riz ak a dri a r xiall i w iiarcaracriic.

scd, ei’ c ii card rc a,

al Jdi blr, crc a ccal laa r dcrii dr ad

xali a d rlai, a wld “rvid a wa iki a w w

ar l cid r rlai al did a wll” [ pr-

cru lf 24].7 ei’ laa a alwa alrad iizd ad iizi

unu suggests that while Butler is clearly right in afrming the importance of rela-

iali r iaii ci, a d-r r ci crcd “

cial vlraili di” will dr ilici ra caid i a rlai

a a ciall cid di [prcru lf 20]. I r wrd, a cl-

ciall irdd di d’ caril r vlraili, i

acall a call r rci— rq i ii i blr

w d aar i all i vlraili r ra cai i licall

rdcd rd .8 fr i ar, ei i ai i dir-

ent: the articulation of a political semantics that can lead to a nonimmunized (or radically

ciizd) li [“Irdzi” 1].9

6. R Bnt ov’ n f t unztn rdg r: “T rut f

tur drnt . . . unbnd t rgnrt f t rtn [btwn z nd t tc] nd

k nnt t rn f “vng wt” [c-vivr], wc w ud ub-

qunt nd trutc t fr t cndtn f tud nd t ncurt f t ndvdu” [78].7. s w Butr’ dcun f t ct f t ubjct: “T ct f t ubjct

b cnqunc f t bng cncvd rtn bng, n w r nd rr

rtn r nt w vb t cncu knwdg. mnt f unknwngn but n-

f tnd t rg n t cntxt f rtn t tr, uggtng tt t rtn c un

primary forms of relationality that are not always available to explicit and reective thematization”

[givi a Acc ol 20].

8. Butr d c c t et’ tn wn dcrbng t vnt, f-cntrd ub-

jct: “it ctn cnttut t budng f ubjct tt k t rtr nd ntn t tr

trug t ttc dtructn f t uttr rtn. . . . it r tf u, k t rcn-

ttut t gnd wn, but n t t rc f dnng t wn vunrbt, t dndnc,

t xur, wr t xt t vr ftur n tr, trb kng t ftur ‘tr t’

tf” [prcari Li 41].

9. lt i r t rduc tr rctv tn t hbbn dcnn f btc n

et nd hgn rc fr rcgntn n ubjct tn n Butr, c d rcgnz




autunt ftr stbr 11

y ei’ diai crr iliical c d’ r xclivl a

radi aii ci i ii r r a ar dr

r iizai i iii vri. I B ad iunt, ei

kc li a lal aii crii a rw r lal da.

t ra, ei ar, a riaril d wi r cii iaili arci-

a w c r crr liical crii i rl a cllciv ailr irr-a iiar lic aciad wi dr liical . I wa iilar

ai, Drrida al rd rward a aii diai crr liical

, ii i i wrii rlii wi giai Vai, i T ptc f

Frnd, ad al i i irviw i ara sr 11. I wa

to summarize briey how Derrida conjoins politics to autoimmunity so as to distinguish

ei’ w r r Drrida’. si ir dirc i a car

dradi r ll crar rai wr ad wa ra-

i ar availal rlv crr liical aii crii.

I “fai ad Kwld,” i crii i ad giai Vai’ vl R-

gn, Drrida iliz ic ii dcri a iai i wic rliirr rr liical dicr. Iril, ca will d i

rlii’ rlai ii. fr Drrida (a)ii a d wic

rlii ad cic ar rcircall icrid i ac r. Ad a crar

aali rlii i wi rcii a rlii a d ill-

i “accai ad rcd” wa call “criical ad l-ccic ra,”

r r, cli a dcra diac ad icra d c-

icai lall, wic lik caiali ad Al-Arica idi [44]. t

a v a ak rlii ad l-ccic cxiv rl i a c-

rv ii. Drawi lical r rgn i rg, wic

acia wi rii ad wi rrac, Drrida w w rlii’

iraili r aaic ad acilik; i r wrd, r a

ciq a ark iili ai. Dlivri ciq (cl) vr

a ai i iraili ard wi rlii allw i idi aiiar lic

underpinning the current moment of religious revival and crisis. He writes: “It [the move-

ment that renders religion and tele-technoscientic reason] secretes its own antidote but

al i w wr a-ii. W ar r i a ac wr all l-rci

cad, a ad d, acrd (g, l) rc il aai

i w rci, i w lic, i w wr rjci, i r aai i w,

wic i a, aai i w ii” [44].10

the need to muster some sort of new understanding of the changing conditions of what qualies f. Fr Butr tt rc rd n t nd t nrg “t dffrnt ctn f

grvbt tt dcd wt knd f ubjct nd ut b grvd”; nc t rtnc

c n nrrtv f uttr nd cngng t nrtv c f wt r n’t

un rffrd b t d [prcari Li xv]. Fr rt, et c t fcu n t

rc f ndvduztn tt ccur t bt t ndvdu nd cctv v, rgung tt “f

t ubjct w tugt wtn t fr f i, i n turn ncrbd n t rzn f

c [wt] tt k t n wt t bng f n” [bi 199]. T tt bi c nt t wn

r tr tt rk t vt xrnc tt t ndvduzd ubjct r nd “n

cn” tc wt tr. et’ xcuru n f fr f brt tt brt

in the fth chapter may in fact be read as a necessary preface for the kind of changed recognition

rtc rtd t grvng tt Butr rf kng.10. Cf. n t rgrd t g Fucut dvt t t t n t hric

sjc, c 120–21; 182–85. m tnk t ad stz fr ntng ut t rtnt cn-

nctn btwn t ctgr f btc nd t nr.



In the context of the overlapping elds of religion and tele-technoscientic reason,

ii i alwa aii r Drrida ad c alwa drciv. I i i-

al ca ad, rlii— will i r ft radl r

i—ca allw il ar rraivi wi l-ra a c a a

ra ivial lad a drii ai r rlii i radii, a i, i

aiaii a l ac aar r i iral ar. frrr, i i aial

dr a rci acrd ac, “cad” rvi

q, i crad ak a iraili, a ar rrac a ishares with tele-technoscientic reason. The result is a protective attack against protec-

i il, r a crii i aii.

n rriil, rlii (a)ii al a a iliical dcli r Dr-

rida, vr rr i a c. t i caical ricil wic

rlii a val li, d l rivili a racdal r li.

“Life” for many religions, Derrida writes, “is sacred, holy, innitely respectable only in

a wa i wr r a i ad wa i rricd aral

the bio-zoological (sacriceable)” [51]. In this, biological life is repeatedly transcended

r ad l rlii rvid li. s di, racdc

ci, ciivl rd ard livi, “ac da a i likdto the automaton [. . .] to technics, the machine, prosthesis: in a word, to the dimensions

of the auto-immune and self-sacricial supplementarity, to this death drive that is silently

a wrk i vr ci, vr ut-c-unt” [51; ai i riial]. fr

Drrida (a r ei) aria ii ra i vr ci, ad

upon “a principle of sacricial self-destruction ruining the principle of self-protection”

[51].11 A rii rlii ii li diici w i-zlical

or anthropo-theological life and transcendental, sacred life that calls forth sacrices in

al araiical r a rc i w dii. I r i a iliical

d i Drrida’ aali rlii ad aii, i will d i i

dirc w ilical li ad racdal li a will ciall rqir a

i dirc aiaid. Di crar cx a ir Drrida’

aali, i ccal aria rcd dici caiali, li, ad la w-

i-cr cl. Wrii i “fai ad Kwld,” Drrida r

ca, dr a i aali rrc rlii i a a

liical dicr, aii criia wi rlii i W.

Wr a ld r i liical dii, Drrida d’ acall

awr, a la i i ira wrk r 1997, T ptc f Frnd. tr

iad, ar rqii arki d w blac, baaill, ad

nac, Drrida aiz a dir liical dcli (liical) ci,

ad a ridi arai drirdi ilical a ik a r

community of solitary friends. He writes:

Tu nnuncd t ncrtc cunt f t w v n rtn.

. . . T nvttn c t u fr t w cn lv l a a diac,

i arai. . . . T w v n n cuttng t r t uncrng

frnd f tr ngurt. T nvt u t ntr nt t cunt f

c dggrgtn [déliai], wc nt ncr crt ct,

cnjurtn, t ccut rng f trc r crt-tc knwdg. T c-

c cnct f t crt bng t tugt f t cunt, drt, r

t ct—nttn r rvt c wc rrnt t vr tng t frnd

11. Cf. Tn’ rcnt ntrvntn n Drrd nd tc, nttd “Wt’ t Bc f

‘Dcrc t C’”?




w k t u frnd f tud v rbd gnt. [35; ai i

riial]

hr a dir r liical rlaii r, likd baaill’ “c-

i wi ci,” ad a la iiiall diic r ai-

izi ar rlii. Drrida a c wi i r r

ara ii, w vr ara ci a iviai c. 12

A a i Drrida d rac rark wi adjciv ncrtc, raciai r dia lv ardd w av widraw r rlii ra-

r wrld wi a liical dii. Drrida a i ara

ilari i a il avid iizi ar ci

a rd wi i dici ai.

I I av cd iiiall w ic i a irdci ei’ ,

it is because they inform much of Derrida’s important reections on global autoimmunity

i wak sr 11. Wi rari r all iricaci i aali,

rirdci i aii i a r rrl liical dicr,

both in his interviews with Giovanna Borradori after September 11 and in his later reec-

i dcrac i Rgu, w Drrida xdi ai rc wrelated fronts: rst, to a constituent “pervertibility of democracy” at the heart of dening

dcrac, ad cd, icidal, ai crii a a arkd Arica

foreign policy since the 1980s. As for the rst, democracy for Derrida appears to have at

i ar a aradxical ai, i wic i ciall

w i ca ll ralizd a liical vr i wic a rl ad

ilal iili a w c a v c, a a rcil

v d dcrac. Wrii wi rc xric 1990 Alria i id,

Drrida ar a “dcrac a alwa icidal” ca r ar alwa

w d r ar a ad w xcldd r [ Rgu 33]. t

rl, ad i i a w k i id w ai ik ei’ -

dradi ci/ii, i a “ ai l alwa dica

a dcrac nt ff [rnvr] lwr, a i xcldd r rjcd, xlld

dr rx rci i iid xlli, rjci, r di

id dic i dcrac” [36]. fr Drrida, aii i i-

crid “ri cc dcrac” a “dcrac i vr rrl wa

i i, vr tf. fr wa i lacki i dcrac i rr ai, vr [ê]

ai la [ê] . . . i-l [-ê] , la, rrl

selfsame of the itself” [36–37]. A fundamental, constitutive lack of the proper marks de-

crac.

ei’ aali ii aria ci d, c lik Drrida’

aali dcrac, ilicil vk i ci i lik dcrac, w carl i liki w dici aii cll. ei

clarl r clla rc iizai i a ll-lw ai

icidal dc a ar ci. ta d’ a d riaril wi

larr rjc wic B ad iunt are a part, namely how to think an afrmative

iliic r l ii. ei’ larai a iiv ii

vidcd r ad i iunt i r a ii d’ caril

dra—ad a i ardl avidal i Drrida’ dici—i a icidal

autoimmunity crisis. In this, Esposito sketches the outlines of an afrmative model of

12. “Tu Duz’ utt rn t hg’ rgunt gnt t ‘rcn’ f -

diacy is that the signicance of the singular—‘this,’ ‘here,’ ‘now’—is only grasped within the con-

txt f rb, ‘dr’ f tugt tt gv t n, n t bnc f wc t ffctv

vrd” [stv 47].



10

iliical ii, wra rarl, i vr, d Drrida ak xlici ccal

laa iliic a drird i aali.

b a I id av, Drrida ak aii i a dir cx,

a caracriz Arica ri lic ar sr 11 a iall a ai-

mune reaction to previous cold war policy that armed and trained former freedom ghters

during the cold war’s hot phase in Afghanistan in the early 1980s. He says:

igrtd, trnd, rrd fr tr ct n t Untd stt b t Untd stt, t ijackr ncrrt t k, tw ucd n n; tr wn

(nd n w rn frvr dfn n t fc f ucd, utun-

tr ggrn—nd tt wt trrrz t) but t ucd f t

w wcd, rd nd trnd t. [“Aii” 95; ai i

riial]

t l-arci a brii i r i i Ld i -

r 2005 i clarl r crrc Drrida’ aali; i us a iilar

aal i d wi oklaa Ci i ( r wa clarl

less reection in the US on the elements that contributed to that instance of suicidal im-i a i uid Kid). I a ca liki Arica ri lic

icid via aii, Drrida l ackwld a ira irical c-

x r dradi sr 11 ilicil lik “ jckr” cical

prociency and “high-tech” knowledge and so, it would seem, to his earlier analysis of

l-ra ad cl a rcircall ilicad i rlii iraili. I i

l r rr vrdrid cci “rlii” i radical I-

laic daali wi j c a clical rw. fr r dici,

wvr, wa ar i a Drrida liv a sr 11 ca

independently of the gure of immunity; indeed that as long as the US continues to play

rl “arar r ardia ir wrld rdr,” aiiar ari

will ci, rvkd i r r raaizi v a a ar wr a

sr 11.

hw, , d ei’ radi a ilical lxic i iliic di-

r r Drrida’? fir, wr Drrida’ ai all radl aii a

rivild c Arica liic i rid rcdi sr 11,

Esposito carefully avoids conating immunity with autoimmunity; instead he repeatedly

rr qi unu ad dri’ a iiz il aai

vr-r ra, r i rciv, ii’ rvral i cal; r

iizai cizai.13 Wrii a l i iunt iraiv

cri a aail all crar cial ad rc wic rik ad

rci r ac r rcircall, dcri aii crii iliic ad wi i iili a dialcical rvral i ci. “evidl,

w ar dali,” ei wri, “wi a lii i d wic ir iliical

horizon risks entering into a lethal contradiction with itself.” He continues:

T dn’t n tt w cn turn bck t cck, r rctvtng t n-

cient gures of sovereign power. Today it’s impossible to imagine a politics that

dn’t turn t f uc, tt dn’t k t t ctzn fr t nt f vw

13. Tt d, t tru tt wt dffrnt t f txt n nd r “cun-t” rdng

f Drrd rg, n Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and

nw Iraial w Drrd’ tr txt n tt, n rtcur o hiali.

hnt d Vr nz Drrdn tugt nd tt w n t t ctr f Rlii

and Violence: Philosophical Perspectives from Kant to Derrida. m tnk t mgu Vttr fr

drwng ttntn t t r cuntrn txt.



diacritics / summer 006 11

f vng bd. But t cn n rcrc n t fr tt ut

nt t dffrnt nng f btc: n t n nd t f-dtruc-

tv rvt f unt gnt tf r t nng t t rvr n cunt.

[170]

Lki ack da a ri a ar sr 11 i us iiz

“lad” r r aack— r il a wrl iizi rar—i

i’ ard iai a w ar i id a ll-cal aii crii wal Drrida dia.

y a liical aii crii i’ l il iliical c

r . ei a ar iili xi, wic i w

radi iliic i dircd, al crai cdii i wic i c

il idi ad dcrc ricial wi-cr iliical, r r,

aaliical dtf a av iricall caracrizd dr iiar

paradigm. Only after we have sufciently understood the extent to which our political

cari ra iiz cllciv liical d r a dir ca-

egories associated with community can we reorient ourselves to the afrmative biopoliti-

cal i rd crr crii i ii. ti i ci athe site in which an afrmative biopolitics can emerge is the result of a dialectical reversal

at the heart of the immunitary paradigm: once we recognize that immunization is the

d wic iliic a dclid ic daw dri, qi

c w rr jcr w il ad liic, w b ad -

tk. The necessary rst step is moving away from a rationale of bodies when attempting

lca jc liic, ad ii ccal rd wic iiza-

tion depends. An afrmative biopolitics thought through the unu ci i

wi rcii a a w lic i rqird ccaliz ad rr a w

ci, a ci “viral” ci, ei will a wi Dlz, caracrizd

by its impersonal singularity or its singular impersonality, whose connes will run “from

la, aial idd arial ir idividai” [ B 214].

Btc nd Cntrr itn Tugt

t rrc a viral, r ci idial rcall w r crar

ikr r Ial w ar dl ad wi i iliic i i c-

porary conguration. Of course I am speaking of Antonio Negri and Giorgio Agamben.

ta dr Ialia liical il a rd a ra riar lc r

rarc rlad iliic i aac. fw lac av a ril r

Foucault’s teachings, few places so well primed historically and politically to reect onad xd i wrk. t ra, i , av d riciall wi a ric ra-

dii liical il i Ial—w d l rr maciavlli, Vic, d

Sanctis, Croce, and Gramsci, for instance—associated with the specicity of the Italian

ir ad a liical c caracrizd iizi ci-a.14 ma r

ra a l xlai i, r wa ll i a i a i

Ial wi liic i a iliical k.15

14. Cf. andr Cvtt’ rcnt La cià iliica, wr ct nvk t f f t

ct n rqurng rtctn. s w ntrvw wt et n t u f Diacriic.

15. Cf. t t rcnt, brnt cntrbutn f sn Frt t dcun f btc

rgntng n it. in ddtn t r grundbrkng wrk fr 2001 nttd taliariai,

r tunnng “T Btc f su: Rc, Nz, nd pt.” Tr xn “t

bvnc tt cnnct f t utn f ur c trdtn t Nz tttr-

n” [10].



1

ta aid, r rad rc Ialia crii iliic, r w

diverging lines appear to characterize them: one associated with the gure of Agamben

and the negative tonality he awards biopolitics; the other a radically afrmative biopoli -

ic iv i i wrii mical hard ad ti nri [ 3]. I llwi

ci I wa c ilici dial a r r ei’ wrii

wi Aa ciall. Wa r i i aali i a r criiq Aa-

, ciall i larai iliic a riciall aiv. ta ei

and Agamben begin their reections from essentially the same series of texts—Foucault’sri lcr cllcd i eli i sct mut B Dfndd and the fth chapter

T htr f sxut—suggests that we ought to begin there for an initial denition

iliic r ri ir rciv arriai fcal.

fr fcal, iliic i ar a r a cl wr, a iwr,

wic i diiid r cai dicili a r a d

the eighteenth century. This new conguration of power aims to take “control of life and

ilical rc a a ci ad ri a ar dicilid

rlarizd [sct mut B Dfndd 246–47]. The biopolitical apparatus includes

“rca, aiical ia, ad vrall ar,” i a wrd, “cri cai

[a] av ialld ard rad l ir i a lai livii a iiz a a li” [246]. A c, iliic i jxad i f-

cal’ aali wr vri, ladi ira diici w

them: “It [biopower] is the power to make live. Sovereignty took life and let live. And

w w av rc a wr a I wld call wr rlarizai, ad

i, i cra, ci i aki liv ad li di” [247]. biwr i a wic

ara ci livi a ci. Wa r al

rar irac r Aa ad ei, wvr, i rlai fcal will draw

w a ri iwr a d i cr, i ii

idividal diciliar cai, ad i cliai i nazi. fr fcal, wa

lik i-cr iwr nazi iwr i ir ard ii i liii

alar l li ad da. t, “[C]rlli rad l ir

i ilical rc wa ri’ idia jciv” [246]. ti i

a a nazi il rad -diiall d liic; a fcal

radl, nazi ad rcr aai ad aai diciliar wr; i ac “

sa cld av r diciliar wr a nazi ri,” ral ca

a ali iwr ddd crai ccrr diciliar l [259].

For Foucault, the specicity of the Nazis’ lethal biopower resides in its ability to combine

ad r ii wr dircd idividal ad cllciv d.

Crail r vcr cri-cr iliic i fcal’ aali, ad a r

of scholars have done remarkable jobs in locating them, but the above outline is suf-

ci r dcrii ai wic Aa ad ei ra ir rcivaal.16 t Aa’ i iliic i crail idd kcd

av— iri a dri rdc a crai r iliical d i i-

caal radi Aa, a i i ilici i fcal. b Aa’ ricial ii

r iki iliic ccr rcil diici w b ad zōē ad

rc wic lik vri xci rdci a iliical, r

r, a zliical d. Idd, h scr opens with precisely this distinction:

T Grk d n ng tr t xr wt w n b t wrd ‘f.’ T

ud tw tr tt, tug trcb t cn tgc rt, r

ntc nd rgc dtnct: zōē, wc xrd t fct f vng cn t vng bng (n, n, r gd) nd i, wc

ndctd t fr r w f f rr t n ndvdu r gru. [1]

16. s c Vrn, Dn, Grng nd Wnckr, nd Cutr.




Lavi aid r wr i ac r xa grk lxic r

li, Aa a dra rdrac zōē r rdci

iliical d.17 t ra will d i wa Aa llwi Carl sci

call vri xci, a i rc wic vri wr i rid

xcli w ar il aliv w r rciv

.18 t Aa ak a icliv xcli zōē r liical li, “al

a i liic wr lac i wic li ad rar il i d ad i wic

wa ad liicizd wr alwa alrad ar li” [7]. A r acr cr cdii liic a i xcli, ci a i rl

laa, wic a “ara ad il i w ar li ad, a

a i, aiai il i rlai a ar li i a icliv xcli”

[8]. h cr is precisely the political gure that embodies what is for Agamben the

originary political relation: it is the name of the life excluded from the political life (b)

a vri ii; c a l xcldd (ad rr

ari a cdiial caaci killd), r rdc rlai i

wic b i rid ar r li, rar zōē (ic zōē i

by denition such a form) and its principal characteristic of being merely alive and hence

killal.I c a c, wi ardd claical a xci i ra idd,

ad a la iiiall iliic r Aa i alwa alrad icrid i vr-

i xci. t Aa will daiz fcaldia aali r-

c iwr i la i cr, ic i rr l a radical rr

wi vri r r a ar a diciliar ci, ad will iad rrd

means by which biopolitics intensies to the point that in the twentieth century it will be

rard i aaliic r aliaria ad dcraic a. Crail a

r dirc rai w claic ad dr dl iliic—-

al diral vri wr icia ad cii a

cr i lr il a aal vri—ad cr Aa will

i wa w w liical ac dri i i ac a iliical ac

likd “ ir ca” [174].19 b vrwli iri i a kid

of attening of the specicity of a modern biopolitics in favor of a metaphysical read -

ing of the originary and innite state of exception that has since its inception eroded the

liical dai cial li. fr Aa, a aicall liical b alwa

widraw i avr rl ilical.20 t rl i a liic a i iall

rvr i ri, i marc Rvlli’ dcrii, r a liic a i alwa alrad d-

clid aivl a iliical.

17. on t nt lurnt Dubru’ “lvng ptc: Bios, Zōē, lf” n t u f Diacriic.

18. agbn dcu t ngt t rtn ng sctt, Bnjn, nd t tt f xc-

tn n sa exci.

19. in t n i gr wt erk Vgt’ vw tt agbn “crrct” Fucut’ n-

. s rcnt ntrvntn n Politics, Metaphysics and Death: Essays on Giorgio Agamben’s

h scr.

20. agbn d tk u n f drn btc gn n t o, wr wt

c t ntrgc cn bgn rducng “t tt f xctn” t dtrn

t trd btwn t un nd t nun. yt t t dgr t tc v ng t r-

zn f t tt f xctn, drnt nd, wt t, nntnt-cntur ntrgc dcur

rn wddd t tc (nd tc) r: “indd, rc bcu t un

rd rud vr t, t cn ctu rduc knd f tt f xctn, zn

f ndtrnc n wc t utd ntng but t xcun f n nd nd t nd n

turn n t ncun f n utd” [37].



1

Iril, ei’ r Aa, idd iiial ak al

the path to an afrmative biopolitics, begins not at the level of cr, rar

with the gure of gn, i ariclar ei’ riki radi dtf nazi

aaliic. Idd car ccl gn i nazi rad lik a xlici

dial wi Aa ad i iliical irrai nazi, a wll a a i-

plicit critique of Agamben’s biopolitics. To see why, we need to rehearse briey the chief

li ar ei dvl r wrki r crdia nazi ili-

tics. Signicantly, Esposito rst pinpoints an oscillation in Foucault’s reading of Nazism.o ad, nazi r fcal ar a iliical valc wi a r

of modern regimes, specically socialist, which Foucault links to a racist matrix. On the

r ad, d wic fcal ra i irrai nazi rivil

ilar ar “nazi v,” a ei call i. t rl i a drli

inconsistency in Foucault’s reading: either Nazi biopolitics is inscribed along with social-

i a raci, ad c i lr a ilar v, r i aiai i ilari w

c r i rlai dri.21

t cd li will d i ei’ ricial qi ccri i-

i li i nazi iliic. “W, lik all r liical r a ad r,”

ak, “did nazi icidal ai iliic ir ll raliza-i?” [45]. ta i awr will v r car iizai

a ei r ri nazi aaliic dircl vr crar

iliic.22 Rather, he attempts to inscribe the most signicant elements of the Nazi

iliical aara i larr rjc iizi li r rdci

da. I di, da c jc ad raic ir r

cri gra d liic; ilal ca ad rd “ill.”

Esposito dedicates much of the nal third of B larai iizi ar

nazi iliic i rdr rcrc v r a dr iliic a nazi

aaliic. t nazi iiar aara, riz, i caracrizd a-

l raivizai li, dl clr d, ad aiciar

ri li. sac d’ allw lara rr,

clli a B will d r. mr l i ak wr ei’ vr-

all rraal nazi iliic divr r a Aa i iizai. fir,

ci wa i wic b c a jridical car ad n (law) a

ilizd , ei d’ dircl call Aa’ radi a

exception as an aporia of Western politics, one the Nazis intensied enormously so that

the state of exception becomes the norm. Rather, he privileges the gure of immunization

a lia riz wii wic drad nazi liical, cial, jridical, ad

dical lici. I i ld a xci i r lal radi

dr ii dtf.

Ilici i ic ii i a criiq cari wic nazi a drd, w wic ar vri ad a xci.23 b rivil-

21. in rcnt , et u rdng f Fucut t gb rvutn f t

tr aliariai. “Rcgnzng t ttt n Nz, t n knd f t gnr, t brt t

ntur ftur f xtnc fr tr irical curt, n rvrng t arndtn t

f t tttrn urtn btwn f ntur nd f tr. indd

t n dtngung t bnd t n tr ntbt nd trfr n t c

rctcbt f t ntn f tttrn” [“Tttr btc” 62–63].

22. W ugt t nt tt uc f et’ crtqu f Fucut d tru fr ag-

bn. But wr Fucut nk c t Nz v rc, agbn jn Nz btc t

drn dcrc trug t tt f xctn. T rut , wvr, t : t ggt Nz’ rd btc ftur wt cntrr dcrc nd t n t ngur-

t.

23. in t rgrd, t ntr fr vrgnt n et’ nv iri lla liica.




i iiar aradi r a dradi nazi iliic, ei r

Aa’ ldi vri i iliic (ad a uun a

di wi-cr cr), ci iad icraic l-

nazi dicari. h r iac rqir a dcr ad

aci nazi liical dcii, wic rvil ad ralad i Ric’

w lal cd, a wll a rqir a a icia r i all ac

wrki ccrai ca r lci craria. ei’ aali

l draw Rr Li’ claic dcrii nazi sa a a “ic-rac,” r iral r rward vrarci rl a iizai la

i nazi’ dradi ir w liical al; idd nazi liicizai

dici ca ll drd aar r a iiz Ara rac.24

Cral, rr, ei’ radi iliical ali nazi dicar-

ship is the recognition of the therapeutic goal the Nazis assigned the concentration camp:

l xriai Jw did nazi liv a gra gn cld

strengthened and protected. And so for Esposito the specicity of the Nazi experience for

dri rid i acalizai il, w “ racdal nazi”

c li, i jc, rac, ad i lxic, ilical [ B 117].25

A Fortied bi?

I ar crdia ei’ dradi nazi iizai, w

then can we set about reversing the current thanatopolitical inection of biotechnics and

iliic a caracriz r w “rld dri,” rrw fcal’

rlai? B rvid a r arac r ira a

larai r ad iac, r r, ia r. Clarl ei i

ai rik rlai w r ad li i ii nazi aic

dvli ar aic i wic daal r xi r wic

r ca drivd. ti i ca “vr kid avir ri wi i r

a lac i wii r ral aral rdr. ta r ar a a lil i-

dividuals as innite modes of substance will also mean that the norms will be multiplied

a crrdi r” [206]. oc i idividal lr ark a

idividal jc rc idividai likd ir all r li,

r ai will i rdci a lilici r wii r

law. t idividal will lr a il i i wic rvi ic

rrai i xcd, r ardwar r a ic war, iad ac

i wic idividai ak lac ak vr livi r’ irddc wi

r livi r. nr r idividal will iv wa idividalizi r a

24. “on cn k f t Nz tt ‘bcrc.’ T d r tcrc, t

f ru b rt f crd rdr undr t c f dvn rrgtv. in t c f t Nz

biocracy, the divine prerogative was that of cure through purication and revitalization of the

arn rc” [lftn 17]. lftn g n t k f bgc ctv n t urdru cg

f aucwtz, wc d t t cncun tt t “Nz vn f tr” cnnt b undr-

td rt fr urdr [18].

25. in Iia et k xct ttt t fd t ntn f xctn nt tt

f unztn. audng t agbn, et nt tt “t rrducb ntnc tructur

f t ail—fundd n t ntrrztn r bttr t ‘ntrnnt’ f n xtrr-

t— c vdnt n t c f xctn tt Cr sctt tut n t ‘t xtrn

r’ f w” [37]. hr et ttt t tnk unt trug Bnjnn rdng f

w nd vnc, but wr nt tt uc td n fct Btn. s Cari

dll’iliic fr t dbt uc tdg w Grg Bt nd t tr ara: t

n crnc f rtn nd cnctntn [xx].



16

respect the fact that the human body “lives in an innite series of relations with others”

[206]. hr, a lwr, ei i drawi siza r i larai a w,

iiar aic a lilici r, i wic r ca

id “v li,” i wic val vr r i likd i ra-

dciili r ar. t rl i cial dcrci a

al raiv , i nazi aaliic r crar caiali i-

iri a. t rl i a d dirc a li r wi

ir aciad r ad a xlici criiq r, wic r ei ivialcall r iizai r ilici ra cai ad da.26 t ai

dirc (ad r) a li r i cli a B i likd

ca, wic ei l a a rraiv livi, a ai r

larai a radical lrac ward a wrld drd a a lilici dir

livi r.

The question, nally, is how to fortify a life’s opening to other lives without at the

a i icrii i i a iiar aradi. fr ei awr li i d-

ailizi al iac idividal li, daizi idividal li

in favor of an “indenite life.” The reference to Deleuze’s last essay, “Pure Immanence,”

allw ei cr al iac idividal li alsingularity of a “life.” Deleuze writes:

T f f t ndvdu gv w t n rn nd t ngur f tt

r ur vnt frd fr t ccdnt f ntrn nd xtrn f, tt

, fr ubjctvt nd bjctvt f wt n: “h tntu” wt

w vrn tz nd w ttn rt f bttud. it cct n

ngr f ndvdutn but f ngurztn: f f ur nnc, nutr

bnd gd nd v, fr t w n t ubjct tt ncrntd t n t dt

f tng tt d t gd r bd. T f f uc n ndvdut fd w n

fvr f t ngur f nnt t n w n ngr n, tug

cn b tkn fr n tr. a ngur nc, f. [28–29]

ei’ xcr i B idividai ad ir a wll a i arriai

esh from Merleau-Ponty spells out the conditions for the appearance of just such a

ilar tntu; implicit in the gure of the tntu i a “r li a

d’ jc li racdc r, ak r ia

impulse of life” [214]. If we were to express such a gure biopolitically, the category of

b will a iliical a i al ik li acr all i aia-

i r r a a i. tr i zōē a ca arad r b ic “vr li

i a r li ad vr r i rrrd li” [215]. ei r rala

Dlz’ ilar li a rvral aaliic drii naziraiv rjc, i wic liv wr cidrd r ad c cld

r b. The opening to an afrmative biopolitics takes place when we recognize that

ari ar li r li ar all liv. t radical lrai li r

a iiz ei’ radi crar iliic i rr ad

cvici a vr li i icrid i b.

n rar acl rii b xi da a iliical racic

a ara zōē r b, racic a ad i ad wi wrki i-

munization paradigm. Esposito seems to be suggesting that our opening to an afrmative

iliic c ikal l w a crai a racd w a

26. Cf. et’ rdng f arnd Gn n Iia: “Fr Gn, t tr, r tn

n alr r dffrnt ubjct nt nd bv nng; t ‘nn’ tt w

t g t dntf wt t n w rc tr fr wn tr” [123].




il li aar il i ld a l da; w i-

munitary mechanisms of the twenty-rst century reach the point of no return. In such

a v, w iiar aara aack b rdci zōē, a ac

i wic i c il i b i ii zōē a i lia

riz. t jc B is life at the beginning of the twenty-rst century, its

fortunes inextricably joined to a ductile immunitary mechanism ve hundred years or so

i rai. fiv drd ar i a l i, cdii, ei ar, a

ri r a daal ad l vrd rariclai r ricrii b i aill---cld liical lxic a i radicall aiic dr a r

ca zōē a i’ alrad b. o rad ei r i B r

iki dirc will d i jxaii w a “liic ar

and the negation of life” and another future, afrmative politics of life.27

lf bi

These are, it seems to me, the most signicant elements of Esposito’s genealogy and

l crar iliic. Wa I wld lik d i raii ai il ara cac w B ad crar lic clr

i i cr. fir, ei’ cvri rcirci w ci ad

ii car rillial ala a ci caracriz da i i

cr ad lwr a cic w cri ad rd. o d l

recall the Patriot Act and the justication for its attacks on civil liberties in the name of

“lad cri” wr diar c xciv iizai a

community will be registered: precisely in immunity’s closing to community. Once we

ii/ci a a ci w ca drad rci ai “

war rrr i a ” a dircd aai radical i cial rlai

a ar ilici i i ad liai unu, lall ad lcall. W ar

livi, ei , i lal iiar cai d-

r rid, lal r lal rlai, wic w ar riciall ad war r

ccrr rri acid cri ccr. A I’v d radl, rc-

izi dar iizai r ail ad rdciv rlai w

idividal r ad a cii d’ i a wa lad ei, wvr,

ar r a rr rivild rii ci. A lca c a

rii ar dd a laclic arc r ci a ca vr . A

a i, rcizi ili c a arc cra a ri, ak

crar ii crii, ik aai wa ai r ci i .

Wa d ak lac, rr, i iki r a dialcic w ilariz

“w.” ei’ iirar, wic v r iii a ri ilar “w’”ak idividai, l ca ak r aiv r cr wi -

r ad r, al ca l xai r dl kid ivai

a drird kid cr.

ovil ri r iki aw ai wic ci-

i c r will av a rd iac kid lic clr w wi

27. i w t tnk mgu Vttr fr t trng. Fr dcun f t dffrnc b-

twn bwr nd btc, wc t ct n t bv dtnctn, lzzrt:

“Fucut’ wrk ugt t b cntnud un t frcturd n btwn rtnc nd crtn.

Fucut’ tnrr w u t cncv t rvr f bwr nt btc, t ‘rt f

gvrnnc’ nt t rductn nd gvrnnt f nw fr f f. T tb cnctu

nd tc dtnctn btwn bwr nd btc t v n t wt Fucut’ tnk-

ng.”



1

r rlv. Wa kid lic clr, r iac, i caal vializi all r

li? I r alrad ilici i i lic clr a riva ac a ca

av rck wi kid rld rlai ei i dcrii? t kid

qi ar ail akd i crr war rrr, a war dd rcil

xcldi “rrri” r riz b, a i, a r--li (w c-

batants) who do not merit any political qualication. Thus when President Bush speaks of

rrri a rri “a ral dar all ai” r w dcri “

rdr” dr aal, ilici cci a iiar aradi c -vi [“prid b Dic War trrr”]. I i ca rrri rr

a war ai, a war aai li il, a rdr ddd ad r-

ened. Not simply geographic borders, but more signicantly the borders of the kind of

li a ca ad ca icrid i b. t rl i c aai liicizai

li ad wi i darcai liv id b. t c liii b

l id rdr i il ark, wvr, w ca

sacriced as cr, a Aa wld av i, rar aack wi vilc

unu ii ar wi ci. Iril, i a c

I cid av, b al ak lir a vial caal r irvi “ liv

all”; lavi aid j wa id r lir, clarl da lir i dicld vrr radil a a c ii dali, c a ei dcri i i

a ddicad Lck.28 I ra r vi ai a a ccrrd i rc

r, lir i caclarl rdcd cri jc; a jc w -

lir i cr(d) ciiz. Al ei d’ lara rlai

dr jc ciiz—a cli a B ak clar, i rarc

i vi caril ward a al “ r” r iral—

d xlicil a a aic idividal r ciiz a alwa c-

id wii a iiar aradi.29 A i a i i rad lir a a

vial lilir ci i ii ii, c a ra i dd

ailr a wll, iv lir’ irical ailr aiai a a wi rard

rci li.

If we read Esposito carefully, the rst step to a public culture made vital by cu-

nt i wi rcii a liv “rrri” ca i wa dacd

from a political qualication that is originary to life. Rather than merely agreeing to their

xririzai b, wic aar a a ical ad a ilical ailr

r aid, wa w d d i drad ad racic dirl

i b ad liic i c a wa a w lr rirc liicizai

li (wic i rcil wa war rrr i idd d), iad cra

cdii r wa call a “vializai liic” [172]. n rar ak cr

da a iaii r c a vializd liic i ak, a a i rcil

dirci i wic a riiar ad i cunt rid.Crail ira av alrad ak. t aarac B il

is signicant precisely for this reason, in its disclosure of how profoundly modern (and

28. “a arcn, w bv tt vrwr—vrwr—rfr frd t v-

r, nd tt brt nc cn, rv t v f ” [“prdnt Bu Dcu t Wr n

Trrr”].

29. s Terza persona: Politica della vita e losoa dell’impersonale. on t nt

ac mbb’ dcun f t ndvdu d t t rn n dcun f

afrcn ct: “Fn, n t ct t ‘rn’ n rdnnt vr t ‘nd-

vdu,’ cndrd (t ddd) ‘ trct Wtrn crtn.’ intd f t ndvdu, tr r

ntt, ctv f gc gn, d n ncngd nd tru unvr n wc t wr

f nvctn nd vctn rc t wr f rductn, nd n wc fnt nd crc

cxt nt n wt t bt f dtr but wt t rt” [4]. m tnk t ad stz fr

ntng ut t d cnnctn btwn et nd mbb.




dr) cari liical il l lck rc a vial

liic, ci i a r dack l rirc a cri-ld iizai

aradi w ci i i iiz ci r j c a vial i

(i)liic. Ca i w r ccal laa iv hia

, wi i d liic, cii, ad Lviaa, i avr a dir rad

of political philosophy, declined in terms of esh, individuation, and a life immanent to

livi.

* * *

All a cllcd i i i lara ei’ r dvl r-

spectives indebted to it. Part One is dedicated to Esposito himself, with the rst English

ralai i wrii. tak r car 2 B: Btc nd p,

lci icld cric ei’ rc ilical irvi,

al, ariclai “ aradi ii” r daal d-

tf of immunity: sovereignty, property, and liberty. Next is an interview with Esposito

cdcd i 2005 i wic ccicl la a ra ii awll a ariz i crr iki iliic. I par tw ar rd r

“ilical” a wi ei’ . I wi mai Dà’

iv radi aivi i iunt. hr Dà, drawi i

crac ad rik, cvr i ii ar r ai, i wic x-

cluding and substituting features of traditional negation give way to afrmation. Rossella

bia-oliva ak a dir rciv i r ai ei’ iliical

iirar acr Cunt, iunt, ad B. Virl ai wi i

of esh as Esposito appropriates it from Merleau-Ponty, she argues against a “new absol-

izai” a rdc clari w r ad li a aial dii.

par tw ccld wi Lar Dril’ r rjidr ei ad Aa’

dl grk r r li, zōē ad b. fci i ariclar Aril’

Nccn etc, Dril ar aai a “ical” rcr rii, i zōē r

Aa r b r ei, ari iad r a i li a xcd i-

wr a a i. par tr cvr ard liical ak iki b

r crar xric. I wi giri giri ad Kar pik’ dici

lirali ad d rdr i ca qutr v a

riiad i Aria dri 1990 a wll a rc Cpt—t-

rar Cr prac—i Ial dri la ar. t w wa x

racr r lirali ak lac a lvl iliical. par

tr ccld wi Lara bazzical’ aali aivalc iliic.

tr a radi crr iliical racic i icl ad lalizai,bazzical dra w “ rvaiv ilical i ral

liical” v icld dcraizi ad cializi rc liic.

WoRKs CIteD

Aa, giri. h scr: svrgn pwr nd Br lf. tra. Dail hllr-

Roazen. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1998.________. T on: mn nd an. Trans. Kevin Attell. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2004.________. stt f exctn. Trans. Kevin Attell. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2005.

badrillard, Ja. T Trnrnc f ev: e n extr pnn. tra.James Benedict. New York: Verso, 1991.

bazzical, Lara. “t Aivalc biliic.” tra. Claria Clò. Dcrtc

36.2 (2006): 109–16.



0

bvi, eil. ind-eurn lngug nd sct. tra. eliza palr. Cral

Gables, FL: U of Miami P, 1973.

Bonito Oliva, Rossella. “From the Immune Community to the Communitarian Immunity:

On the Recent Reections of Roberto Esposito.” tra. ti Call. Dcrt-

c 36.2 (2006): 70–82.

blr, Jdi. Gvng n accunt f onf: a Crtqu f etc Vnc. Assen: Van

grc, 2003.________. prcru lf: T pwr f murnng nd Vnc. London: Verso, 2004.Cavalli, Adra. l cttà btc: mtg d curzz. Milano: Bruno Mon-

dadri, 2005.

Cr, Alla. Btc: str ttutà d un cnctt. Verona: Ombre Corte,

2005.

Da, micll. Gvrnntt: pwr nd Ru n mdrn sct. London: Sage,

1999.

Dlz, gill. pur innc: e n lf. Trans. Anne Boyman. New York:

Z bk, 2001.

Derrida, Jacques. “Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides.” p n T f

Trrr: Dgu wt Jürgn hbr nd Jcqu Drrd. ed. givaa br-radori. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2003.

________. “Faith and Knowledge: The Two Sources of ‘Religion’ at the Limits of Mere

Ra.” Rgn. Ed. Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo. Stanford: Stanford UP,

1998. 1–78.________. on htt. Trans. Rachel Bowlby. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2000.________. T ptc f Frnd. Trans. George Collins. New York: Verso, 1997. Trans.

ptqu d ’té. Paris: Galilée, 1994.________. Rgu: Tw e n Rn. Trans. Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Stanford:

sard up, 2005.________. sctr f mrx: T stt f t Dbt, t Wrk f murnng, nd t Nw in-

trntn. Trans. Peggy Kamuf. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Donà, Massimo. “Immunity and Negation: On Possible Developments of the Theses Out-

lid i Rr ei’ iunt.” tra. Lrdaa Car ad Adra

Rii. Dcrtc 36.2 (2006): 57–69.

Dubreuil, Laurent. “Leaving Politics: Bios, Zōē, Li.” tra. Claria C. eal wi

ar. Dcrtc 36.2 (2006): 83–98.

ei, Rr. B: Btc nd p. tra. ti Call. mi-

neapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. Trans. of Bios: Biopolitica e losoa. Torino:

eiadi, 2004.________. Ctgr d’tc. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1988.

________. Cunt: orgn dtn d cuntà. Torino: Einaudi, 1998.________. iunt: prtzn ngzn d vt. Torino: Einaudi, 2002.________. “t Iizai paradi.” tra. ti Call. Dcrtc 36.2 (2006):

23–48.________. “Introduzione: Termini della politica.” otr tc: antg d’tc.

Milano: Bruno Mondadori, 1996.________. l’rgn d tc: hnn arndt sn W? Rome: Donzelli, 1996.________. Nv nr u tc. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1993.________. Ordine e conitto: Machiavelli e la letteratura politica del Rinascimento italiano.

Napoli: Liguori, 1984.________

. Terza persona: Politica della vita e losoa dell’impersonale. Torino: Einaudi,2007.________. “Totalitarismo o biopolitica: Per un’interpretazione losoca del Novecento.” m-

crg 5 (2006): 57–66.




________. Vc Ruu drn stt brg. Bari: De Donato, 1976.

ei, Rr, ad ti Call. Irviw. tra. Aa paarc. Dcrtc

36.2 (2006): 49–56.

Forti, Simona. “The Biopolitics of Souls: Racism, Nazism, and Plato.” ptc Tr

34.1 (2006): 9–32.________. i tttrn. Roma: Laterza, 2001.

fcal, micl. “gvrali.” T Fucut effct: stud n Gvrnnt-

t. Ed. Graham Burcell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. Chicago: U of Chicago P,1991.

________. T hrnutc f t subjct: lctur t t Cg d Frnc 1981–82.

Trans. Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave, 2005.________. sct mut B Dfndd: lctur t t Cèg d Frnc, 1975–76. ed.

Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana. Trans. David Macey. New York: Picador,

2003.

Giorgi, Gabriel, and Karen Pinkus. “Zones of Exception: Biopolitical Territories in the

nliral era.” Dcrtc 36.2 (2006): 99–108.

gral, sa, ad edwi A. Wicklr, d. Gvrnng Cn’ putn: Fr

lnnt t Nbr Btc. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2005.gr, sv, ad mical barar. “Wal-mar m s Wa C e-

ployee Benet Costs.” Nw yrk T 26 ocr 2005.

harawa, Da.”biliic ad pdr bdi.” sn, Cbrg nd Wn:

T Rnvntn f Ntur. New York: Routledge, 1991. 203–30.

hard, mical, ad Ai nri. er. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2000.________. muttud: Wr nd Dcrc n t ag f er. New York: Penguin Press,

2004.

hllr, A. Tr f mdrnt. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999.

hllr, A, ad frc fér. Btc. Brookeld: Aldershot, 1994.

hllr, A, ad sja pcr Rika. T ptc f t Bd, Rc, nd N-

tur. Averbury: Aldershot, 1996.

Lazzarato, Maurizio. “From Biopower to Biopolitics.” Available at http://www.genera-

i-li.r/c/ciliic. [accd 15 sr 2007].

Li, Rr Ja. T Nz Dctr: mdc Kng nd t pcg f Gncd.

New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Lii, Al. T Cunt f T W hv Ntng n Cn. bli-

ton: Indiana UP, 1994.

La, nikla. sc st. Trans. John Bednarz, Jr., with Dirk Baecker. Stanford:

sard up, 1995.

ma, marcl. T Gft: T Fr nd Rn fr excng n arcc sct. tra.

W. D. Hall. London: Routledge, 2002.m, Acill. on t ptcn. Berkeley: U of California P, 2001.

micll, Lk. “gd md.” hrr 313 (August 2006): 9–11.

nac, Ja-Lc. T inrtv Cunt. ed. pr Cr. tra. pr Cr,

Lisa Garbus, Michael Holland, and Simone Sawhney. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota

p, 1991.

“prid b Dic War trrr.” naial edw r Dcrac, 5

ocr 2005. Availal a www.wi.v [Accd 15 sr 2007].

Rvlli, marc. l tc rdut. Torino: Einaudi, 2003.

sci, Carl. ptc Tg: Fur Ctr n t Cnct f svrgnt. tra.

George Schwab. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1985.sival, Carl J., d. G Duz: K Cnct. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UP,

2005.



talr, mark C. hdng. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1998.________. Nt. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993.

t, Alx. “Wa’ bc ‘Dcrac C’”? ptdrn Cutur

15.3 (2005).

Vir, pal. T Grr f t muttud. Trans. Isabella Bertoletti. New York:

six(), 2004.

V, erik. “s/Cii Ca.” ptc, mtc, nd Dt: e n Grg

agbn’ Homo Sacer. Durham: Duke UP, 2005. 74–101.Vri, h d. Rgn nd Vnc: pc prctv fr Knt t Drrd.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002.

Un trw ndctd, trntn r wn.

intrductn crgt 2008 b t Rgnt f t Unvrt f mnnt. Rrntd wt r-

n fr t Unvrt f mnnt pr.

Documents

Campbell Esposito