I’ve been having a conversation with Angela in fits and starts, turning around, among other things, what the sense of ‘nonpolitical’ could mean.
I stumbled across a quote a moment ago related to this while looking for something connected to the Doctrine of National Security. Agamben quotes Schmitt: “[P]recisely the decision concerning whether a fact or a kind of thing is apolitical is a specifically political decision.” Agamben then writes “Politics is now literally the decision concerning the unpolitical”. (Homo Sacer, 173. The Schmitt quote is from p17 of “Staat, Bewegung, Volk,” in the collection Die Deigliederung der politischen Einheit. I don’t know if that’s been translated or not, I’ll look later.)
One way to read this is to say that the determination of something being political or not only ever occurs from a political location (from ‘within’ the political). The obvious question is “from what (type of) location is this determination made on the nature of determining whether something is political or not?” The only answer can be “a political one.” This always-already political position makes sense insofar as Schmitt thinks the political is an existential condition. This slides easily into “everything is political” which can be quite flattening. I prefer a formulation of this as not alles ist political but rather that the determination of political status is a frequent and useful move for political maneuvering. That way one avoids ascribing an a priori political status.
I also should note that Agamben identifies the (decision on the) unpolitical with the (decision on) bare life. The unpolitical is a sequestering form the political which within the political - a confinement, an enclosure.
Agamben also comments on the etymology of exception, derived from “ex-capere” - “taken outside” - those who enter the camp, as spatial locale of the exception, enter “a zone of indistinction between outside and inside”, HS 170. Another way to put this might be that the political is always decision over bodies: the decision constitutive of the political body, in the sense of a corporate entity, is a decision on which bodies are normal, which abnormal, and the different ways those assigned to abnormality will be treated. Life is is not a part of any “properly scientific concepts” or ensemble thereof “but rather political concepts, which as such acquire a political meaning precisely only through a decision. (HS164. Look up Agamben’s comments on Marx and biologism, I believe in Means Without End.) In any case, this is stuff to return to later.
Among said stuff for said return:
a piece by JL Nancy
http://archive.blogsome.com/2006/12/11/j-l-nancy-political/#more-469
a post by Brett on Esposito
http://aldiqua.blogspot.com/2006/10/categories-of-impolitical.html
a post by Angela on Esposito
http://archive.blogsome.com/2006/10/13/esposito-impolitical/
extracts from an article by Nancy
http://archive.blogsome.com/2006/10/12/jean-luc-nancy-rights/
article by Angela and Brett
http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Articles/neilson.htm
an article by Werner Hamacher
http://archive.blogsome.com/2006/09/09/hamacher-rights-arendt/
Far too much material to read any time soon but to peruse at leisure
http://del.icio.us/s0metim3s/im-political?setcount=50
My own assorted notes on Schmitt in relation to Marx, Negri etc
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/06/06/is-a-depoliticalization/
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/06/26/is-relatively-political/
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/06/20/is-detheologization/
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/06/14/is-the-political/
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/05/31/218/
Also potential starting points for a discussion of the relation between the laboring body and the collective bodies of (or, which operate in the name of) workers -
notes on Sewell’s book on French labor history
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/06/19/is-a-corps/
On Marx’s 1844 Manuscripts and the rather Schmitt-esque reduction of the political to the national and statist
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/05/22/is-political-economy/
Hey Nate–
I think one of the passages in which Agamben identifies Marxism with a kind of biologism is in Infancy and History. I wish I remembered the quote. It might be from Engels, and it might be something to the effect that the most basic form of production is human reproduction
Comment by Colin — December 16, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
Thanks Colin. I’ve got a copy of that (I think that’s one we photocopied together at Staples) but it’s been a long time since I looked at it and I never read it closely. I’ll see if I can chase up the reference. I hope you’re remembering correctly, as that would interact nicely with the stuff I want to do in relation to that Servius Tullius stuff - the proletarii as basically viruses, the class that does nothing but reproduce itself - as a resource for the criticism of much marxism. Feminist criticisms of Engels would likely be useful here, as might be looking at Malthus and Marx’s comments on him.
If only I had that superpower of freezing time, or that necklace that Professor McGonagall gave to Hermione.
Comment by Nate — December 16, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
The Schmitt is available in a collection called Four Articles from Plutarch Press. It is translated as “State, Movement, People.” I have come into possession of a copy recently and will scan it at some point.
Comment by Craig — December 16, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
Damn Nate, those are a lot of interesting looking links. And Craig, can you drop an email or something if you get that article scanned? Or should I look for the book as well - anything else of interest in it?
This conversation on the political reminds me to ask that anyone interested feel free to participate on a seminar we’re doing over at http://the.aetet.us/ on the concept of the political, and I’m sure we could use more folks interested in the Schmittian angle on this.
Comment by Kenneth Rufo — December 18, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Thanks for the heads up Ken. I’m swamped and behind on a lot right now but that reading list looks quite good. I’ll plan to read along with at least some of it and read and comment on the posts.
take care,
Nate
Comment by Nate — December 18, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.
Comment by Rosie — April 30, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Comment by Nate — May 1, 2007 @ 1:15 am