K - Agamben

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

1/386

Shit you really need to fx- Perm blocks- Get specifc links to Foucault

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

2/386

1NC – Legal Reorm

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

3/386

1NC Short

The 1AC’s instance of legal reform fails and legitimizes apermanent state of emergency. This has three implications:

1. No Solvency: The sovereign ill alays !e a!le to "ustiyextralegal surveillance in the name o necessity ithin thestate o exce#tion – the 1$C is a useless attem#t tomani#ulate the la in a #lace here it has !een deactivated

%. &io#olitics: The state o exce#tion guarantees the inevita!le#roduction o !are lie

'. Turns Case: The #remise o restraining the state mas(sdisci#linary domination hile alloing the sovereign to

sus#end the la to institute more insidious orms osurveillance at illFrost 10 [Tom, Proessor o Legal Theory at the University o Susse an! Ph" rom the University oSouthampton, #$gamben%s Sovereign Legali&ation o Foucault', Oxford Legal Studies, (olume )*, +ssue ), pp -.-/-001 2 3ebron $"45 $gamben, La6 an! 5are Lie $gamben buil!s upon this &o78bios opposition at the start o 3omo Sacer to !evelophis ormulations o ho6 la6 an! biopo6er interact 9hilst Foucault :oine! together both !isciplinary po6er an!biopo6er at the micro an! macro levels, respectively, 6ith !isciplinary po6er a;ecting the in!ivi!ual an! biopo6eroperating at the level o populations,-) $gamben replaces this !istinction, 6ith biopo6er being tie! !irectly to thein!ivi!ual Po6er acts in both creating an! maintaining bios, political lie, by !irectly acting upon &o7 an! grantingnatural lie the political rights that transorm it into bios-. $gambenian biopo6er thereore subsumes !isciplinarypo6er Unlike Foucault, 6ho sa6 both orms o po6er as attempting to cover all o lie, $gamben%s biopo6er can be!escribe! as totali&ing in its operation This biopolitics, ar rom complimenting the !isciplines, or eisting in a tensionalrelation 6ith normative operations o po6er, is to!ay causing !isciplinary institutions to retreat in their

in there ca n be no human actions that are outsi!e o biopolitical regulation an! control +n this manner biopo6er an! the biopolitical :uri!ical or!er maintain the fction o ?immanentism%-@ Sergei Pro&orov!escribes immanentism as having the aim to recast the social or!er a s a close! universal s el/propelling system 6ithout an outsi!e +mmanentism !enies that there can be a ny human action ?outsi!e% o the o r!er, as it !enies thatsuch an ?outsi!e% eists +t is a fction because such a vie6 pre/supposes an all/encompassing social or!er that is al6ays alrea!y encapsulating acts that have not yet happene!Athe or!er is given omnipotent an! omniscient po6ersas it is able to subsume any act 6ithin itsel The a nalogy nee!s to be mo!ife! slightly here as $gamben !eals primarily 6ith a :uri!ical or!er, rather than a social o r!er The !istinction ma!e bet6een legality an! illegality may notnecessarily correlate 6ith Foucaul!ian concepts o normality an! abnormality !evelope! in "iscipline an! Punish $gamben sees human actions as constraine! not by !enotations o normality, but by !enoting them as legal orother6ise 4evertheless, Pro&orov%s conception o immanentism is helpul here in analogi&ing the structure o $gambenian biopo6er $gamben%s totali&ing biopo6er ties in !irectly to his notion o bare lie, the necessary yetcontra!ictory element o his ormulation o biopo6er, by ocusing upon, an! mo!iying, Barl Schmitt%s concept o the sovereign !ecis ion-0 For Schmitt, sovereignty 6as not i!entifable through statutes, or!inances or co nstitutions,but instea! reste! on one concrete political act, namely 6hich in!ivi!ual or bo!y coul! !eclare a state o eception an! thus suspen! the eisting legal or!er +t 6as thereore the !ecis ion, rather than any pre/or!aine! po6er, that!eci!e! 6ho 6as sovereign $!opting an! mo!iying Schmitt%s !efnition o sovereignty, $gamben conten!s that the sovereign an! sovereign po6er ca n be i!entife! through the creation o bare lie > the in!ivi!ual or bo!y thatcreates bare lie 6ill be by !efnition imbibe! 6ith sovereign po6er This sovereign !ecision is tie! !irectly to the operation o la6 +n State o Cception $gamben posits bare lie not only being create! through a sovereign !ecision,but also through the operation o the la6, an! specifcally through the state o eception, 6hich eists as a &one o in!istinction bet6een la6 an! anomie, la6%s beyon!-D B The State o Cception The state o eception is not a trueeception as un!erstoo! by the theorists o eme rgency po6ers, as $gamben !enies that the eception can be temporally or spatially separate! rom the norm +nstea! the eception is a &one o in!istinction 6here la6 an! actcompletely coinci!e +n his 6ork on the eception $gamben !istinguishes bet6een the :uri!ical or!er Eil !iritto an! the la6 Ela legge The :uri!ical or!er maintains the fction o immanentism> the abstract notion o ?la 6% pre/supposesthat it applies to all o reality, to all o lie itsel 9hilst the la6 Ela legge o a State may be unprinciple! an! contain lacunae in certain areas,- the :uri!ical or!er maintains that there are no lacunae, in the sense that the :uri!icalor!er covers all lacunae a n! all situations that arise The fction o immanentism is maintaine! even 6hen the la6 seems con

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

4/386

the act o necessity is a &one o in!istinction that is subsume! into the la6 an! consi!ere! legal in character, !espite the act that

the actual necessary act !efes all logical subsumption into either act or la6 Cvery interpretative act thus becomes aninstance o the eception, trying to contain ithin the la6 that act 6hich is neitherla6 nor act, an! in !oing so legitimi)ing the act o bare po6er that has occurre! in the ?necessary% act The la6 thereore becomes completelyin!istinct an! is eercise! solely through a concrete prais in the eception, a &one o in !istinction $gamben conclu!es that the eception is the opening o a fctitious lacuna in the :uri!ical or!er +t is fctitious as the lacuna is notreal an! there is no ?gap% in the la6 that the :u!ge has to fll +nstea! the lacuna is fctitious as it suspen!s the or!er that is in orce, ?sa eguar!ing the eistence o the norm an! its a pplicability to the normal situation%@0 Throughsuspen!ing the norm the eception guarantees the norm%s pre/eminence or uture cases> only by !emarcating 6hen the norm !oes not apply can it be possible to constitute an! give the norm its content This lea!s to the eceptionhaving some curious characteristics First, in the &one o in!istinction all legal !eterminations are !eactivate!, @D but this !oes not mean that there is no la6 in the eception The eception is ull o legality, an!, perhaps even morecuriously, this means that potentially any action taken in the eception can gain legal orce@ =et the eception is not part o the la6, or the :uri!ical or!er To pre/suppose this 6oul! be to re!uce the eception to a unction o la6,an! misses the key point about the actions that occur in the state o eception, namely their ra!ical !is/location to the :uri!ical or!er an! the potential or any act to gain legal status T he legal norm is suspen!e! but still in orce, butin thus suspen!ing the norm the norm%s ?orce/o/la6% is also separate! rom its application 5y ?orce/o/la6% $gamben reers to the constitutive essence o the la6, the element that literally gives la6s, !ecrees an! other measures

their ?orce%0* 9ith the norm remaining in orce but not being applie!, acts that !o not have the value o la6 can acJuire the ?orce/o/la6% that is separate! rom the norm%s application Such acts are characteri&e! by $gamben ashaving the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6, the norm still being i n orce but not being applie! The orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6 can be claime! by b oth the State an! non/State groups not :ust to :ustiy their actions, but to give them theorce/o/la6, to make their actions legal0H The eception is tie! by $gamben !irectly to both the operation o the sovereign !ecision to create bare lie an! the eercise o la6 "ra6ing upon his analysis o the relationship o thenorm to its application, $gamben argues that it is through the eception that the bare lie that the political or!er reJuires to operate is create! 5e cause bare lie is create! through the eception, it is create! through a &one o

in!istinction that is neither act nor la6 +n this 6ay, !ra6ing upon $gamben%s analysis, it is possible to conclu!e that the creation o bare lie in the eception cangain the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6 This allo6s an action that may contra!ict legalnorms to suspen! those norms an! at the same time be !eclare! as legal +n this 6ay the la6 canremain in orce yet not be applie! to bare lie Such an analysis calls into Juestion the eMcacy o all legal rights in protecting thein!ivi!ual against the po6er controlle! by the State " $gamben, 5en:amin an! the Cception To help support these arguments$gamben !ra6s upon the 6ork o 9alter 5en:amin, an! specifcally his BritiJue o (iolence, ?Nur Oritik !er Ge6alt% in the originalGerman0I Ge6alt signifes legitimi&e! orce or :u!icial po6er an! also carries the meanings o authority, !ominion, might an!control0) +n this tet, 5en:amin ma!e eplicit the connection bet6een la6 an! violence EGe6alt For 5en:amin, la6 an! violenceare intert6ine! an! cannot be separate! (iolence is the oun!ation o la6, although to!ay the la6 seems not to recogni&e itsviolent past 5en:amin argue! that mo!ern la6 has !evelope! out o the violent revolutions an! 6ars o the past an! it preservesitsel through violence by stopping challenges to the la6 an! legitimi&ing its o6n actions 5en:amin posite! t6o orms o violence toillustrate the connection the violence has to la6 ?la6/making violence%, violence use! against the eisting la6s an! con!itions 6iththe e;ect o constituting ne6 la6s, an! ?la6/preserving violence%, 6hich maintains the authority an! la6s o the current system"espite the !i;erences bet6een the t6o types o violence, Saul 4e6man argues that they both lea! to a perpetuation o the la6

an! po6er as neither type o violence a;ects the la6%s position> la6/making an! la6/preserving violence are use! every!ay by thela6 in or!er to perpetuate itsel0. +n other 6or!s, every legal act can be classife! as using la6/making violence or la6/preserving

violence $gamben argues that the eception eten!s the legal violence 5en:amin eplore! beyon! its o6nboun!aries by making it possible or etra/legal actions to acJuire legal status, to gain orce/o/la60- The eception as a &one o in!istinction !eactivates the la6 that is containe!ithin it +n !oing so it pro!uces a violence that has ?she! every relation to la6%,0@ making it appropriable byanyone, potentially allo6ing any action to acJuire legal orce through this legal violence that has she! itsrelation to la6 +t is as i the suspension o la6 ree! a orceQ that both the ruling po6er an! its a!versaries, the constitute! po6eras 6ell as the constituent po6er, seek to appropriate00 The para!o $gamben i!entifes is that suspen!ing la6 only increases itsviolent activity> the eception pro!uces la6/making violence through the la6%s suspension 5uil!ing upon this para!o, 6hich$gamben states is representative o the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6, $gamben argues that the biopolitical la6 is caught 6ithin a

!ialectic akin to 5en:amin%s !ialectic o violence $ny legal attem#t to subsume or contain theexce#tion ithin the la does not or( !ecause the exce#tion !y its verydefnition is a &one o in!istinction 6here legal terms are deactivated, thus 

esca#ing the very la that sought to contain it Thereore the sovereigndecision creating !are lie ill alays alrea!y !e legal, allo6ing $gamben to pre!ict that Thenormative aspect o la6 canQ be obliterate! an! contra!icte! 6ith impunity by a governmental violence that 2 6hilst ignoringinternational la6 eternally an! pro!ucing a state o eception internally 2 nevertheless claims to be applying the la60D C Foucault,Post/Structuralism an! La6 +n Foucault%s La6, 5en Gol!er an! Peter Fit&patrick reinterpret Foucault%s 6ritings on la6 an! !evelop aFoucaul!ian approach to la6 that is marke!ly similar to $gamben%s o6n !irection Their approach !oes not have the theoretical!ra6back o eisting 6ithin a violent !ialectic 6here po6er subsumes political resistance 6ithin itsel This post/structuralist accounto la6 !oes not get subsume! by relations o po6er, although it is susceptible to !omination by po6er0 +t is Gol!er an!Fit&patrick%s argument that Foucault !i! not !o a6ay 6ith either sovereignty or la6 in mo!ernity but on the contrary, the t6opersiste! in an integral relationD* +n act, it is !isciplinary po6er that is !epen!ent upon the la6, a la6 6hich acts as a constituent

po6er in relation to the !isciplinesDH +t is through the la6 acting as a restraint to !isciplinary po6er thatthe la6 actually constitutes !isciplinary po6er, rather than being subsume! un!er !isciplinary po6er asthe epulsion thesis argues 5y acting in a su#ervisory "urisdiction over the a!uses an!ecesses o the !isciplines, la6 im#licitly confrms the claim at the heart o disci#linary#oer to ad"udicate on *uestions o normality and social cohesionDI 5y the la6

confning its :uris!iction to the periphery o the !isciplines the core o !isciplinary po6er is let reinorce!, 6hilst at the same timethe !isciplines remain constituently reliant upon la6 to curb their abusesD) +n this 6ay, the la6 masks the!isciplinary !omination through o;ering the veil o legality> la6 an! the !isciplines eist 6ithin arelation 6here they are !epen!ent on one another 

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

5/386

The alternative is to em!race hatever+!eing to create thecoming community – a reusal to recogni)e categoricalidentities in order to to re"ect the a!ility o the sovereign toisolate !are lie. ,nly the dissolution o identity #olitics cansolve or the 1$C and the state o exce#tion.

Ro!inson 11 [$n!re6, is a political theorist an! activist at Beasefre, Beasefre, #+n Theory Giorgio $gamben!estroying sovereignty', H8IH8HH, https88ceasefremaga&inecouk8in/theory/giorgio/agamben/!estroying/sovereignty81 2 3ebron $"4$gamben proposes ?6hatever/singularity% as an alternative basis or political action, 6hich escapes the logic o sovereignty Takenrom "eleu&e an! Guattari%s thought, a singularity is something 6hich is uniJue an! 6hich can%t be re!uce! to a measurement or

representation $gamben likes it because it avoi!s his having to choose bet6een universality an! particularity #9hatever' inCnglish has unortunate overtones o in!i;erence E#6hatever, talk to the han!' 6hich is not at all 6hat $gamben means Kather, he

is reerring to something mattering 6hatever it is, al6ays mattering regar!less o 6hat it is 2as oppose! to the sovereign !ecision to !ivi!e lie into things 6hich matter an!things 6hich !on%t $ #6hatever/singularity'  is neither re!ucible to its attributes nor epressible as anabstract generality such as universal humanity> rather, it is something 6hich has general value as it is, 6ith all o its attributes Ean!

especially, as potentiality or possibility +t !oes not !epen! on any stan!ar! o conormity orsub:ectifcation or normality, or on belonging to the people or masses +t also !enies that there is anyparticular essence 6hich makes people human  2 instea!, being human is a scattering o singularities9hatever/singularity is also a kin! o being 6hich people are assume! to alrea!y have, 6hich or instance motivates resistance tobeing normalise! +n a sense, this is a ra!icalise! version o human rights !iscourse, since anyone, 6hatever they are an! 6hateverthey !o, is recognise! as having a kin! o autonomous ethical value This is un!amentally an ethics o ?letting be% E6ith overtones o ?being 6ho you are% +t entails !oing a6ay 6ith normativity as usually !efne!, 6ith stan!ar!s o goo! an! evil 6hich !eclare certainpeople to be valueless because o some particularly heinous !eviant act they%ve committe! Ein contrast to the more commonapproach o either contracting normativity to cover a smaller range o acts, or altering it to ocus on oppressive abuses Forinstance, $gamben argues that i!eas such as guilt an! responsibility are !erive! rom legal thought an! hence rom sovereignty

 The ethical challenge $gamben poses is to still vie6 every person 2 an!, in line 6ith the !iscussion in TheRpen, every animal 2 as un!amentally valuable in their o6n lie, as having orms o lie an! particularity6orthy o respect an! autonomous eistence, regar!less o ho6 ?ba!% they are or 6hat ?crimes% they commit +n e;ect,

$gamben aims to take a6ay, through choices in terms o language, ethics an! philosophy, the threatpose! by others% ethical :u!gements in constituting a person or being as vulnerable This !oesnot remove human vulnerability per se, but !oes remove the particular risk o being ma!e into homo sacer +t !oes, ho6ever, leavea particular ethical problem are agents o sovereignty also to be treate! as ?6hatever/singularities%, or as the negation o al l suchsingularities The ?coming community% correspon!s on a collective level to ?6hatever/singularity% +t is relate! to the ?people tocome%, a concept "eleu&e an! Guattari borro6 rom 5ergson, an! to messianic i!eas o a coming liberation $gamben reers to the

coming community as a orm o social togetherness 6hich is also a ?non/state% an! is counterpose! to the logic o sovereignty Thecoming community is !efne! in $gamben as a kin! o post/consumerist con!ition, emergingrom a passage through current orms o lie, such as the in!i;erence o mass me!ia images an! ocommo!ities through 6hich one can reshape one%s i!entity +t passes through an! beyon! such ormso lie by ra!icalising their challenge[s1 to normativity an! sovereignty +t is not a hybri! space 2 hybri!ity isalrea!y actualise! in homo sacer an! the sovereign 2 but rather, a negation, the ?un/man% +t is base! on ?6hatever/singularities% intheir antagonism 6ith the state an! sovereignty Ehence it cannot seek to sei&e state po6er $gamben believes that 6hatever/

singularities can orm communities 6ithout aMrming ?representable con!itions o belonging% Esuch as la6s, norms, etc +t also!oes not rest on categories o i!entity Eeven the i!entity o  eclu!e! or marginalise!groups, 6hich or $gamben, remain trappe! 6ithin ol! orms o politics 6hich repro!ucesovereignty Emainly because the recognition o an i!entity is necessarily separate rom the processes o lie 6hich constituteit +n con!itions o sovereignty, lie has to separate itsel rom the or!ers o sub:ects an!ob:ects, to ree itsel  rom biopo6er an! rom hierarchical relations 6ith living things, to become6hatever/singularity an! to attain ra!ical immanence +n Potentialities, $gamben argues or an almost 5u!!hist stance ocontemplative separation 6hich preserves instea! o !eci!ing $gamben%s stance also has a revolutionary aspect Kather thanstarting rom i!entity, $gamben%s ethical theory starts rom the stan!point o bare lie +n Kemnants o $usch6it&, $gamben arguesthat the ethical stan!point rom 6hich one shoul! start is provi!e! by the eperience o concentration camp inmates oreprecisely, it shoul! start rom the stan!point o the most ab:ect sub/group o inmates, the so/calle! usselmanner 6ho 6ere near!eath an! ha! lost the 6ill to live, 6ho hence embo!ie! !irectly the i!ea o bare lie This is because o a particular moment oinversion The moment o catastrophe is taken also to contain the moment 6here salvation becomes possible, 6ith passage throughthe lo6 point o the current epansion o sovereignty acting as a transition to liberation This is a rather strange argument, butbase! on a viable observation that only 6hen the logic o sovereignty is ully unol!e! Eonly 6hen 6e are ace! 6ith a giant treeinstea! o a sapling !oes the nature o the problem 2 or the nature o 6hat nee!s to be got r i! o 2 become clear This also meansthat, in $gamben%s vie6, liberation is ambiguously tie! to sovereignty, as its negation +n a sense, thereore, $gamben remains6ithin a arist mo!el o historical becoming Kichar! "ay has epan!e! $gamben%s argument, claiming that social net6orks omarginalise! groups are alrea!y ?coming communities%, an! also that the term shoul! al6ays be kept plural 3e vie6s the arist

https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-destroying-sovereignty/https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-destroying-sovereignty/https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-destroying-sovereignty/https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-destroying-sovereignty/

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

6/386

element in $gamben%s thought as unhelpul, arguing that post/consumers are not the most likely source o the coming communities$nother aspect o the coming community is that, on one level, it is a very small shit +nspire! by e6ish theology an! authors suchas 9alter 5en:amin, $gamben !ra6s on messianic i!eas o a total transormation o the eisting 6orl! into a !i;erent 6orl! througha small gesture, the a!!ition o an aura, or a ne6 6ay o seeing +n a sense, everything stays as it is, an! yet is ren!ere! !i;erent bythe removal o the transcen!ent moment o sovereignty

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

7/386

1NC Long

The 1AC’s instance of legal reform fails and legitimizes apermanent state of emergency. This has three implications:

1. No Solvency: The sovereign ill alays !e a!le to "ustiyextralegal surveillance in the name o necessity ithin thestate o exce#tion – the 1$C is a useless attem#t tomani#ulate the la in a #lace here it has !een deactivated

%. &io#olitics: The state o exce#tion guarantees the inevita!le#roduction o !are lie

'. Turns Case: The #remise o restraining the state mas(sdisci#linary domination hile alloing the sovereign to

sus#end the la to institute more insidious orms osurveillance at illFrost 10 [Tom, Proessor o Legal Theory at the University o Susse an! Ph" rom the University oSouthampton, #$gamben%s Sovereign Legali&ation o Foucault', Oxford Legal Studies, (olume )*, +ssue ), pp -.-/-001 2 3ebron $"45 $gamben, La6 an! 5are Lie $gamben buil!s upon this &o78bios opposition at the start o 3omo Sacer to !evelophis ormulations o ho6 la6 an! biopo6er interact 9hilst Foucault :oine! together both !isciplinary po6er an!biopo6er at the micro an! macro levels, respectively, 6ith !isciplinary po6er a;ecting the in!ivi!ual an! biopo6eroperating at the level o populations,-) $gamben replaces this !istinction, 6ith biopo6er being tie! !irectly to thein!ivi!ual Po6er acts in both creating an! maintaining bios, political lie, by !irectly acting upon &o7 an! grantingnatural lie the political rights that transorm it into bios-. $gambenian biopo6er thereore subsumes !isciplinarypo6er Unlike Foucault, 6ho sa6 both orms o po6er as attempting to cover all o lie, $gamben%s biopo6er can be!escribe! as totali&ing in its operation This biopolitics, ar rom complimenting the !isciplines, or eisting in a tensionalrelation 6ith normative operations o po6er, is to!ay causing !isciplinary institutions to retreat in their

in there ca n be no human actions that are outsi!e o biopolitical regulation an! control +n this manner biopo6er an! the biopolitical :uri!ical or!er maintain the fction o ?immanentism%-@ Sergei Pro&orov!escribes immanentism as having the aim to recast the social or!er a s a close! universal s el/propelling system 6ithout an outsi!e +mmanentism !enies that there can be a ny human action ?outsi!e% o the o r!er, as it !enies thatsuch an ?outsi!e% eists +t is a fction because such a vie6 pre/supposes an all/encompassing social or!er that is al6ays alrea!y encapsulating acts that have not yet happene!Athe or!er is given omnipotent an! omniscient po6ersas it is able to subsume any act 6ithin itsel The a nalogy nee!s to be mo!ife! slightly here as $gamben !eals primarily 6ith a :uri!ical or!er, rather than a social o r!er The !istinction ma!e bet6een legality an! illegality may notnecessarily correlate 6ith Foucaul!ian concepts o normality an! abnormality !evelope! in "iscipline an! Punish $gamben sees human actions as constraine! not by !enotations o normality, but by !enoting them as legal orother6ise 4evertheless, Pro&orov%s conception o immanentism is helpul here in analogi&ing the structure o $gambenian biopo6er $gamben%s totali&ing biopo6er ties in !irectly to his notion o bare lie, the necessary yetcontra!ictory element o his ormulation o biopo6er, by ocusing upon, an! mo!iying, Barl Schmitt%s concept o the sovereign !ecis ion-0 For Schmitt, sovereignty 6as not i!entifable through statutes, or!inances or co nstitutions,but instea! reste! on one concrete political act, namely 6hich in!ivi!ual or bo!y coul! !eclare a state o eception an! thus suspen! the eisting legal or!er +t 6as thereore the !ecis ion, rather than any pre/or!aine! po6er, that!eci!e! 6ho 6as sovereign $!opting an! mo!iying Schmitt%s !efnition o sovereignty, $gamben conten!s that the sovereign an! sovereign po6er ca n be i!entife! through the creation o bare lie > the in!ivi!ual or bo!y thatcreates bare lie 6ill be by !efnition imbibe! 6ith sovereign po6er This sovereign !ecision is tie! !irectly to the operation o la6 +n State o Cception $gamben posits bare lie not only being create! through a sovereign !ecision,but also through the operation o the la6, an! specifcally through the state o eception, 6hich eists as a &one o in!istinction bet6een la6 an! anomie, la6%s beyon!-D B The State o Cception The state o eception is not a trueeception as un!erstoo! by the theorists o eme rgency po6ers, as $gamben !enies that the eception can be temporally or spatially separate! rom the norm +nstea! the eception is a &one o in!istinction 6here la6 an! actcompletely coinci!e +n his 6ork on the eception $gamben !istinguishes bet6een the :uri!ical or!er Eil !iritto an! the la6 Ela legge The :uri!ical or!er maintains the fction o immanentism> the abstract notion o ?la 6% pre/supposesthat it applies to all o reality, to all o lie itsel 9hilst the la6 Ela legge o a State may be unprinciple! an! contain lacunae in certain areas,- the :uri!ical or!er maintains that there are no lacunae, in the sense that the :uri!icalor!er covers all lacunae a n! all situations that arise The fction o immanentism is maintaine! even 6hen the la6 seems con

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

8/386

the act o necessity is a &one o in!istinction that is subsume! into the la6 an! consi!ere! legal in character, !espite the act that

the actual necessary act !efes all logical subsumption into either act or la6 Cvery interpretative act thus becomes aninstance o the eception, trying to contain ithin the la6 that act 6hich is neitherla6 nor act, an! in !oing so legitimi)ing the act o bare po6er that has occurre! in the ?necessary% act The la6 thereore becomes completelyin!istinct an! is eercise! solely through a concrete prais in the eception, a &one o in !istinction $gamben conclu!es that the eception is the opening o a fctitious lacuna in the :uri!ical or!er +t is fctitious as the lacuna is notreal an! there is no ?gap% in the la6 that the :u!ge has to fll +nstea! the lacuna is fctitious as it suspen!s the or!er that is in orce, ?sa eguar!ing the eistence o the norm an! its a pplicability to the normal situation%@0 Throughsuspen!ing the norm the eception guarantees the norm%s pre/eminence or uture cases> only by !emarcating 6hen the norm !oes not apply can it be possible to constitute an! give the norm its content This lea!s to the eceptionhaving some curious characteristics First, in the &one o in!istinction all legal !eterminations are !eactivate!, @D but this !oes not mean that there is no la6 in the eception The eception is ull o legality, an!, perhaps even morecuriously, this means that potentially any action taken in the eception can gain legal orce@ =et the eception is not part o the la6, or the :uri!ical or!er To pre/suppose this 6oul! be to re!uce the eception to a unction o la6,an! misses the key point about the actions that occur in the state o eception, namely their ra!ical !is/location to the :uri!ical or!er an! the potential or any act to gain legal status T he legal norm is suspen!e! but still in orce, butin thus suspen!ing the norm the norm%s ?orce/o/la6% is also separate! rom its application 5y ?orce/o/la6% $gamben reers to the constitutive essence o the la6, the element that literally gives la6s, !ecrees an! other measures

their ?orce%0* 9ith the norm remaining in orce but not being applie!, acts that !o not have the value o la6 can acJuire the ?orce/o/la6% that is separate! rom the norm%s application Such acts are characteri&e! by $gamben ashaving the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6, the norm still being i n orce but not being applie! The orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6 can be claime! by b oth the State an! non/State groups not :ust to :ustiy their actions, but to give them theorce/o/la6, to make their actions legal0H The eception is tie! by $gamben !irectly to both the operation o the sovereign !ecision to create bare lie an! the eercise o la6 "ra6ing upon his analysis o the relationship o thenorm to its application, $gamben argues that it is through the eception that the bare lie that the political or!er reJuires to operate is create! 5e cause bare lie is create! through the eception, it is create! through a &one o

in!istinction that is neither act nor la6 +n this 6ay, !ra6ing upon $gamben%s analysis, it is possible to conclu!e that the creation o bare lie in the eception cangain the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6 This allo6s an action that may contra!ict legalnorms to suspen! those norms an! at the same time be !eclare! as legal +n this 6ay the la6 canremain in orce yet not be applie! to bare lie Such an analysis calls into Juestion the eMcacy o all legal rights in protecting thein!ivi!ual against the po6er controlle! by the State " $gamben, 5en:amin an! the Cception To help support these arguments$gamben !ra6s upon the 6ork o 9alter 5en:amin, an! specifcally his BritiJue o (iolence, ?Nur Oritik !er Ge6alt% in the originalGerman0I Ge6alt signifes legitimi&e! orce or :u!icial po6er an! also carries the meanings o authority, !ominion, might an!control0) +n this tet, 5en:amin ma!e eplicit the connection bet6een la6 an! violence EGe6alt For 5en:amin, la6 an! violenceare intert6ine! an! cannot be separate! (iolence is the oun!ation o la6, although to!ay the la6 seems not to recogni&e itsviolent past 5en:amin argue! that mo!ern la6 has !evelope! out o the violent revolutions an! 6ars o the past an! it preservesitsel through violence by stopping challenges to the la6 an! legitimi&ing its o6n actions 5en:amin posite! t6o orms o violence toillustrate the connection the violence has to la6 ?la6/making violence%, violence use! against the eisting la6s an! con!itions 6iththe e;ect o constituting ne6 la6s, an! ?la6/preserving violence%, 6hich maintains the authority an! la6s o the current system"espite the !i;erences bet6een the t6o types o violence, Saul 4e6man argues that they both lea! to a perpetuation o the la6

an! po6er as neither type o violence a;ects the la6%s position> la6/making an! la6/preserving violence are use! every!ay by thela6 in or!er to perpetuate itsel0. +n other 6or!s, every legal act can be classife! as using la6/making violence or la6/preserving

violence $gamben argues that the eception eten!s the legal violence 5en:amin eplore! beyon! its o6nboun!aries by making it possible or etra/legal actions to acJuire legal status, to gain orce/o/la60- The eception as a &one o in!istinction !eactivates the la6 that is containe!ithin it +n !oing so it pro!uces a violence that has ?she! every relation to la6%,0@ making it appropriable byanyone, potentially allo6ing any action to acJuire legal orce through this legal violence that has she! itsrelation to la6 +t is as i the suspension o la6 ree! a orceQ that both the ruling po6er an! its a!versaries, the constitute! po6eras 6ell as the constituent po6er, seek to appropriate00 The para!o $gamben i!entifes is that suspen!ing la6 only increases itsviolent activity> the eception pro!uces la6/making violence through the la6%s suspension 5uil!ing upon this para!o, 6hich$gamben states is representative o the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6, $gamben argues that the biopolitical la6 is caught 6ithin a

!ialectic akin to 5en:amin%s !ialectic o violence $ny legal attem#t to subsume or contain theexce#tion ithin the la does not or( !ecause the exce#tion !y its verydefnition is a &one o in!istinction 6here legal terms are deactivated, thus 

esca#ing the very la that sought to contain it Thereore the sovereigndecision creating !are lie ill alays alrea!y !e legal, allo6ing $gamben to pre!ict that Thenormative aspect o la6 canQ be obliterate! an! contra!icte! 6ith impunity by a governmental violence that 2 6hilst ignoringinternational la6 eternally an! pro!ucing a state o eception internally 2 nevertheless claims to be applying the la60D C Foucault,Post/Structuralism an! La6 +n Foucault%s La6, 5en Gol!er an! Peter Fit&patrick reinterpret Foucault%s 6ritings on la6 an! !evelop aFoucaul!ian approach to la6 that is marke!ly similar to $gamben%s o6n !irection Their approach !oes not have the theoretical!ra6back o eisting 6ithin a violent !ialectic 6here po6er subsumes political resistance 6ithin itsel This post/structuralist accounto la6 !oes not get subsume! by relations o po6er, although it is susceptible to !omination by po6er0 +t is Gol!er an!Fit&patrick%s argument that Foucault !i! not !o a6ay 6ith either sovereignty or la6 in mo!ernity but on the contrary, the t6opersiste! in an integral relationD* +n act, it is !isciplinary po6er that is !epen!ent upon the la6, a la6 6hich acts as a constituent

po6er in relation to the !isciplinesDH +t is through the la6 acting as a restraint to !isciplinary po6er thatthe la6 actually constitutes !isciplinary po6er, rather than being subsume! un!er !isciplinary po6er asthe epulsion thesis argues 5y acting in a su#ervisory "urisdiction over the a!uses an!ecesses o the !isciplines, la6 im#licitly confrms the claim at the heart o disci#linary#oer to ad"udicate on *uestions o normality and social cohesionDI 5y the la6

confning its :uris!iction to the periphery o the !isciplines the core o !isciplinary po6er is let reinorce!, 6hilst at the same timethe !isciplines remain constituently reliant upon la6 to curb their abusesD) +n this 6ay, the la6 masks the!isciplinary !omination through o;ering the veil o legality> la6 an! the !isciplines eist 6ithin arelation 6here they are !epen!ent on one another 

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

9/386

The #aradox o sovereignty is the inclusive exclusion o !arelie in a state o exce#tion + the construction o s#aces herethe exce#tion !ecomes the rule- and here the sovereigncommits legitimate mass murder.Taylor 10 [Mark “Today’s State of Exception: Abu-Jamal A!amben Janmo"amed and T"e #emocraticState of Emer!ency$ Mark %e&is Taylor is Max&ell M' (pson )rofessor of T"eolo!y and *ulture at )rincetonT"eolo!ical Seminary' April +,,http88markle6istaylornet86pcontent8uploa!s8I*HI8H*8PoliticalTheologyCssayumia$gambenp! . / 0ebron A1#5are lie' is a stripping a6ay o a person%s sub:ectivity, their humanity, such thatthey are barely eisting beings> they are in act those 6hose !eath can be or!ere! bythe po6erul an! 6hose !eath 6oul! register neither as a homici!e nor as a sacricevaluable in some sense Eor themselves or or the social or!er Sovereign is the po6er that !eci!es the state o eception an!rules over a gro6ing sphere o bare lie  This is the state o eception to!ay This is a crucial trait o sovereign po6er in the politicalor!er to!ay The state o eception 6hich 6as instantiate! in the 4a&i concentration camps, then, is seen by $gambento be a generali&e! mo!e o rule that prepares a !eath camp or the entire 9est  an! its environs, creating &ones o aban!onment or those re!uce! to bare lie, a !omain o #the killable,' those6hose lives are !eeme! so bare, they can be !ispatche! to !eath by sovereign po6er, routinely an! sometimes en masse viamassacre an! holocaust 9e shoul! have learne! rom #the tra!ition o the oppresse!,' $gamben suggests ollo6ing 5en:amin, that

6hen po6er !eci!es the eception un!er con!itions o emergency an! epan!s its po6ers, the eception becomesthe rule an! 6e all enter the sphere o violence, an! as sub:ect to that violence, 6e all enterthe tra!ition o the oppresse!, tasting the bitterness o bare lie 9hat $gamben !oes nothighlight so much is the ull meaning o the 5en:amin Juote, about the #tra!itions o the oppresse!' 3e too Juickly assumes that#the oppresse!' being reerence! by 5en:amin are only the su;erers o the !eath camp, an! then all o us caught up in a coming

#global civil 6ar in the 9est' 3e rarely treats as eception those speci / cally targete! an! raciali&e! populations thathave been crucial to the very ormation o the 9est + think here especially o the su;erers o slaveryan! coloni&ation, o in!igenous peoples% loss o lie an! lan!, as 6ell as others 6ho have long live!, an! oten still live, the eception

as the rule These communities, so crucial to the rise o the 9est, have live! the eception as therule an! are still being re!uce! to bare lie To be sure, $gamben !oes make brie reerence to some o thecolo/ ni&e! on the un!ersi!e o the 9estern mo!ernity 6hen he ackno6le!ges a link bet6een 9estern !eath camps an! the#campos !e concentraciones create! by the Spanish in Buba in HD@' to Juell popular insurrection in that colonyH0 +n this 6ay,$gamben points to #colonial 6ar' as the birthplace o the states o eception an! o the martial la6 that are so !estructive no6,even or the 9estHD 3o6ever, other scholars an! theo/ rists have ma!e similar claims beore $gamben an! these claims haveprovi!e! the central animating theoretical ais or un!erstan!ing the !evelopment o mo!ern political po6er The artinican poet,politician, an! political theorist $ imV BVsaire argue! in his "iscourse on Bolonial/ ism that 4a&ism an! the #eceptional' holocaust

6ere visitations upon Curopean soil o the spirit an! practice o slaughter an! sub:ugation that Curope ha! long visite! upon colonial#others'H Similarly, 9 C 5 "u 5ois, in his "ark6ater, pointe! out at the conclusion o 9orl! 9ar + that the slaughter o 6ar onCuropean soil 6as a comple legacy o Curope%s colonial sub:ugation o its colonies #Little 5elgium,' su;ering slaughter in 9orl!9ar +, shoul! have remembere!, "u 5ois intone!, the ate it mete! out to peoples o the Bongo !uring 5elgium%s ruthless colonialrule over themI* Rne nee! not posit any metaphysical payback E#6hat goes roun! comes aroun!' to eplain the 9est%s su;eringa state o eception as rule that it ha! mete! out to the peoples it coloni&e!, nor even a historical blo6back E#they, the coloni&e!,are coming back at us in the 9est to take their revenge' Kather, in or!er to !evelop a better comprehension o the political

organi&ation o the contemporary 6orl! an! its theoretical logics an! legacies, the 9est%s o6n patterns an! habitso sovereignty must be contetuali&e! 6ithin the histories o racial slavery, colonial6ar an! a!ministration, an! capitalist imperialism so that these patterns are vie6e! as near re eresponses o sovereign rule 6ithin the 9est, as 6ell as bet6een the 9est an! its Rthers

The alternative is to em!race hatever+!eing to create thecoming community – a reusal to recogni)e categorical

identities in order to to re"ect the a!ility o the sovereign toisolate !are lie. ,nly the dissolution o identity #olitics cansolve or the 1$C and the state o exce#tion.Ro!inson 11 [$n!re6, is a political theorist an! activist at Beasefre, Beasefre, #+n Theory Giorgio $gamben!estroying sovereignty', H8IH8HH, https88ceasefremaga&inecouk8in/theory/giorgio/agamben/!estroying/sovereignty81 2 3ebron $"4$gamben proposes ?6hatever/singularity% as an alternative basis or political action, 6hich escapes the logic o sovereignty Takenrom "eleu&e an! Guattari%s thought, a singularity is something 6hich is uniJue an! 6hich can%t be re!uce! to a measurement or

representation $gamben likes it because it avoi!s his having to choose bet6een universality an! particularity #9hatever' in

http://marklewistaylor.net/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/Political.Theology.Essay_.Mumia_.Agamben.pdfhttps://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-destroying-sovereignty/https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-destroying-sovereignty/http://marklewistaylor.net/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/Political.Theology.Essay_.Mumia_.Agamben.pdfhttps://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-destroying-sovereignty/https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-destroying-sovereignty/

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

10/386

Cnglish has unortunate overtones o in!i;erence E#6hatever, talk to the han!' 6hich is not at all 6hat $gamben means Kather, he

is reerring to something mattering 6hatever it is, al6ays mattering regar!less o 6hat it is 2as oppose! to the sovereign !ecision to !ivi!e lie into things 6hich matter an!things 6hich !on%t $ #6hatever/singularity'  is neither re!ucible to its attributes nor epressible as anabstract generality such as universal humanity> rather, it is something 6hich has general value as it is, 6ith all o its attributes Ean!

especially, as potentiality or possibility +t !oes not !epen! on any stan!ar! o conormity orsub:ectifcation or normality, or on belonging to the people or masses +t also !enies that there is anyparticular essence 6hich makes people human  2 instea!, being human is a scattering o singularities9hatever/singularity is also a kin! o being 6hich people are assume! to alrea!y have, 6hich or instance motivates resistance tobeing normalise! +n a sense, this is a ra!icalise! version o human rights !iscourse, since anyone, 6hatever they are an! 6hateverthey !o, is recognise! as having a kin! o autonomous ethical value This is un!amentally an ethics o ?letting be% E6ith overtones o ?being 6ho you are% +t entails !oing a6ay 6ith normativity as usually !efne!, 6ith stan!ar!s o goo! an! evil 6hich !eclare certainpeople to be valueless because o some particularly heinous !eviant act they%ve committe! Ein contrast to the more commonapproach o either contracting normativity to cover a smaller range o acts, or altering it to ocus on oppressive abuses Forinstance, $gamben argues that i!eas such as guilt an! responsibility are !erive! rom legal thought an! hence rom sovereignty

 The ethical challenge $gamben poses is to still vie6 every person 2 an!, in line 6ith the !iscussion in TheRpen, every animal 2 as un!amentally valuable in their o6n lie, as having orms o lie an! particularity6orthy o respect an! autonomous eistence, regar!less o ho6 ?ba!% they are or 6hat ?crimes% they commit +n e;ect,

$gamben aims to take a6ay, through choices in terms o language, ethics an! philosophy, the threatpose! by others% ethical :u!gements in constituting a person or being as vulnerable This !oesnot remove human vulnerability per se, but !oes remove the particular risk o being ma!e into homo sacer +t !oes, ho6ever, leavea particular ethical problem are agents o sovereignty also to be treate! as ?6hatever/singularities%, or as the negation o al l such

singularities The ?coming community% correspon!s on a collective level to ?6hatever/singularity% +t is relate! to the ?people tocome%, a concept "eleu&e an! Guattari borro6 rom 5ergson, an! to messianic i!eas o a coming liberation $gamben reers to the

coming community as a orm o social togetherness 6hich is also a ?non/state% an! is counterpose! to the logic o sovereignty Thecoming community is !efne! in $gamben as a kin! o post/consumerist con!ition, emergingrom a passage through current orms o lie, such as the in!i;erence o mass me!ia images an! ocommo!ities through 6hich one can reshape one%s i!entity +t passes through an! beyon! such ormso lie by ra!icalising their challenge[s1 to normativity an! sovereignty +t is not a hybri! space 2 hybri!ity isalrea!y actualise! in homo sacer an! the sovereign 2 but rather, a negation, the ?un/man% +t is base! on ?6hatever/singularities% intheir antagonism 6ith the state an! sovereignty Ehence it cannot seek to sei&e state po6er $gamben believes that 6hatever/

singularities can orm communities 6ithout aMrming ?representable con!itions o belonging% Esuch as la6s, norms, etc +t also!oes not rest on categories o i!entity Eeven the i!entity o  eclu!e! or marginalise!groups, 6hich or $gamben, remain trappe! 6ithin ol! orms o politics 6hich repro!ucesovereignty Emainly because the recognition o an i!entity is necessarily separate rom the processes o lie 6hich constituteit +n con!itions o sovereignty, lie has to separate itsel rom the or!ers o sub:ects an!ob:ects, to ree itsel  rom biopo6er an! rom hierarchical relations 6ith living things, to become6hatever/singularity an! to attain ra!ical immanence +n Potentialities, $gamben argues or an almost 5u!!hist stance ocontemplative separation 6hich preserves instea! o !eci!ing $gamben%s stance also has a revolutionary aspect Kather thanstarting rom i!entity, $gamben%s ethical theory starts rom the stan!point o bare lie +n Kemnants o $usch6it&, $gamben arguesthat the ethical stan!point rom 6hich one shoul! start is provi!e! by the eperience o concentration camp inmates oreprecisely, it shoul! start rom the stan!point o the most ab:ect sub/group o inmates, the so/calle! usselmanner 6ho 6ere near!eath an! ha! lost the 6ill to live, 6ho hence embo!ie! !irectly the i!ea o bare lie This is because o a particular moment oinversion The moment o catastrophe is taken also to contain the moment 6here salvation becomes possible, 6ith passage throughthe lo6 point o the current epansion o sovereignty acting as a transition to liberation This is a rather strange argument, butbase! on a viable observation that only 6hen the logic o sovereignty is ully unol!e! Eonly 6hen 6e are ace! 6ith a giant treeinstea! o a sapling !oes the nature o the problem 2 or the nature o 6hat nee!s to be got r i! o 2 become clear This also meansthat, in $gamben%s vie6, liberation is ambiguously tie! to sovereignty, as its negation +n a sense, thereore, $gamben remains6ithin a arist mo!el o historical becoming Kichar! "ay has epan!e! $gamben%s argument, claiming that social net6orks omarginalise! groups are alrea!y ?coming communities%, an! also that the term shoul! al6ays be kept plural 3e vie6s the aristelement in $gamben%s thought as unhelpul, arguing that post/consumers are not the most likely source o the coming communities$nother aspect o the coming community is that, on one level, it is a very small shit +nspire! by e6ish theology an! authors suchas 9alter 5en:amin, $gamben !ra6s on messianic i!eas o a total transormation o the eisting 6orl! into a !i;erent 6orl! througha small gesture, the a!!ition o an aura, or a ne6 6ay o seeing +n a sense, everything stays as it is, an! yet is ren!ere! !i;erent bythe removal o the transcen!ent moment o sovereignty

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

11/386

x#lanation:

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

12/386

1NC – /egemony

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

13/386

1NC

The drive or hegemony is ounded in a #aranoid desire to fndthreats against hich to defne ourselves – thus the im#erial

state can legitimi)e its sovereign #oer !y fnding imaginaryenemies to "ustiy the escalation o the military colossus0cClintoc(  [$nne, Bhaire! Proessor o Cnglish an! 9omen%s an! Gen!er Stu!ies at the University o9isconsin2a!ison, Phil rom Bambri!ge University, Ph" rom Bolumbia University, #Paranoi! Cmpire Spectersrom GuantWnamo an! $bu Ghraib,' in Small $e, arch I**, +ssue ID, p -*/0.,http88smallaenet8repository8fle8sXI*ID8-/S$IDXI-I*cBlintockXI-I*XID-*/0.XIp! 1 2 3ebron $"45y no6 it is air to say that the Unite! States has come to be !ominate! by t6o gran! an! !angeroushallucinations the promise o benign US globali&ation an! the permanent threato the #6ar on terror' + have come to eel that e cannot understand theextravagance o the violence to 6hich the 2S government has committed itsel ater 8HHAt6o countries inva!e!, thousan!s o innocent people imprisone!, kille!, an! torture!Aunless 6e grasp a !efning eature o our moment, that is, a !eep an! !isturbing !oubleness 6ithrespect to po6er Taking shape, as it no6 !oes, aroun! antasies o global omnipotence ERperation +nfnite ustice, the 9ar to Cn! $ll Cvil coinciding ith nightmares o im#endingattac(- the 2nite! States has entere! the !omain o paranoia !ream 6orl! an!catastrophe For it is only in paranoia that one fnds simultaneously an! in such con!ense! orm bothdeliriums o  absolute po6er an! orebo!ings o perpetual threat. 3ence the spectral an!nightmarish Juality o the #6ar on terror,' a limitless  ar against a limitless threat, a 6arvaunte! by the US a!ministration to encompass all o space an! persisting 6ithout en! 5ut the 6ar on terror is not a real 6ar,or #terror' is not an i!entifable enemy nor a strategic, real/6orl! target The 6ar on terror is 6hat 9illiam Gibson calls

else6here #a consensual hallucination,' . an! the 2S government can

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

14/386

relation to violence D Let me be clear + !o not see paranoia as a primary, structural cause o US imperialism nor as itsstructuring i!entity 4or !o + see the US 6ar on terror as animate! by some collective, psychic agency, submerge! min!, or3egelian #cunning o reason,' nor by 6hat Susan Falu!i calls a national #terror !ream' 4or am + intereste! in evokingparanoia as a kin! o psychological !iagnosis o the imperial nation/state 4ations !o not have #psyches' or an #unconscious'>only people !o Kather, a social entity such as an organi&ation, state, or empire can be spoken o as #paranoi!' i the !ominantpo6ers governing that entity cohere as a collective community aroun! contra!ictory cultural narratives, sel/mythologies,practices, an! i!entities that oscillate bet6een !elusions o inherent superiority an! omnipotence, an! phantasms o threat an!engulment The term paranoia is analytically useul here, then, not as a !escription o a collective national psyche, nor as a!escription o a universal pathology, but rather as an analytically strategic concept, a 6ay o seeing an! being attentive to

contra!ictions 6ithin po6er, a 6ay o making visible Ethe better politically to oppose the contra!ictory any plausible eternalthreat ha! simply cease! to eist Prior to 8HH, General Peter Schoomaker, hea! o the US $rmy, bemoane! the enemy !efcit#+t%s no use having an army that !i! nothing but train,' he sai! #There%s got to be a certain appetite or 6hat the hell 6e eistor' "ick Bheney like6ise complaine! #The threats have become so remote So remote that they are !iMcult to ascertain'Bolin Po6ell agree! #Though 6e can still plausibly i!entiy specifc threatsA4orth Oorea, +ran, +raJ, something like thatAthe realthreat is the unkno6n, the uncertain' 5eore becoming presi!ent, George 9 5ush like6ise rette! over the post2col! 6ar!earth o a visible enemy #9e !o not kno6 6ho the enemy is, but 6e kno6 they are out there' +t is no6 6ell establishe! thatthe invasion o +raJ ha! been a long/stan!ing goal o the US a!ministration, but there 6as no clear rationale 6ith 6hich to sellsuch an invasion +n H0 a group o neocons at the Pro:ect or the 4e6 $merican Bentury pro!uce! a remarkable report in6hich they state! that to make such an invasion palatable 6oul! reJuire #a catastrophic an! cataly&ing eventAlike a ne6 Pearl3arbor' HI The 8HH attacks came as a !a&&ling solution, both to the enemy !efcit an! the problem o legitimacy, o;ering the5ush a!ministration 6hat they 6oul! claim as a political casus belli an! the military unimaginable license to epan! its reachGeneral Peter Schoomaker 6oul! publicly a!mit that the attacks 6ere an immense boon #There is a huge silver lining in thisclou! 9ar is a tremen!ous ocus 4o6 6e have this ocusing opportunity, an! 6e have the act that Eterrorists haveactually attacke! our homelan!, 6hich gives it some oomph' +n his book $gainst $ ll Cnemies, Kichar! Blarke recalls thinking!uring the attack, #4o6 6e can perhaps attack Rsama 5in La!en' $ter the invasion o $ghanistan, Secretary o State Bolin

Po6ell note!, #$merica 6ill have a continuing interest an! presence in Bentral $sia o a kin! 6e coul! not have !reame! obeore' Bharles Orauthammer, or one, calle! or a !eclaration o total 6ar #9e no longer have to search or a name or thepost/Bol! 9ar era,' he !eclare! #+t 6ill henceorth be kno6n as the age o terrorism' H)

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

15/386

The 1AC’s instance of legal reform fails and legitimizes apermanent state of emergency. This has three implications:

1. No Solvency: The sovereign ill alays !e a!le to "ustiyextralegal surveillance in the name o necessity ithin the

state o exce#tion – the 1$C is a useless attem#t tomani#ulate the la in a #lace here it has !een deactivated

%. &io#olitics: The state o exce#tion guarantees the inevita!le#roduction o !are lie

'. Turns Case: The #remise o restraining the state mas(sdisci#linary domination hile alloing the sovereign tosus#end the la to institute more insidious orms osurveillance at ill

Frost 10 [Tom, Proessor o Legal Theory at the University o Susse an! Ph" rom the University oSouthampton, #$gamben%s Sovereign Legali&ation o Foucault', Oxford Legal Studies, (olume )*, +ssue ), pp -.-/-001 2 3ebron $"45 $gamben, La6 an! 5are Lie $gamben buil!s upon this &o78bios opposition at the start o 3omo Sacer to !evelophis ormulations o ho6 la6 an! biopo6er interact 9hilst Foucault :oine! together both !isciplinary po6er an!biopo6er at the micro an! macro levels, respectively, 6ith !isciplinary po6er a;ecting the in!ivi!ual an! biopo6eroperating at the level o populations,-) $gamben replaces this !istinction, 6ith biopo6er being tie! !irectly to thein!ivi!ual Po6er acts in both creating an! maintaining bios, political lie, by !irectly acting upon &o7 an! grantingnatural lie the political rights that transorm it into bios-. $gambenian biopo6er thereore subsumes !isciplinarypo6er Unlike Foucault, 6ho sa6 both orms o po6er as attempting to cover all o lie, $gamben%s biopo6er can be!escribe! as totali&ing in its operation This biopolitics, ar rom complimenting the !isciplines, or eisting in a tensionalrelation 6ith normative operations o po6er, is to!ay causing !isciplinary institutions to retreat in theirin there ca n be no human actions that are outsi!e o biopolitical regulation an! control +n this manner biopo6er an! the biopolitical :uri!ical or!er maintain the fction o ?immanentism%-@ Sergei Pro&orov!escribes immanentism as having the aim to recast the social or!er a s a close! universal s el/propelling system 6ithout an outsi!e +mmanentism !enies that there can be a ny human action ?outsi!e% o the o r!er, as it !enies thatsuch an ?outsi!e% eists +t is a fction because such a vie6 pre/supposes an all/encompassing social or!er that is al6ays alrea!y encapsulating acts that have not yet happene!Athe or!er is given omnipotent an! omniscient po6ers

as it is able to subsume any act 6ithin itsel The a nalogy nee!s to be mo!ife! slightly here as $gamben !eals primarily 6ith a :uri!ical or!er, rather than a social o r!er The !istinction ma!e bet6een legality an! illegality may notnecessarily correlate 6ith Foucaul!ian concepts o normality an! abnormality !evelope! in "iscipline an! Punish $gamben sees human actions as constraine! not by !enotations o normality, but by !enoting them as legal orother6ise 4evertheless, Pro&orov%s conception o immanentism is helpul here in analogi&ing the structure o $gambenian biopo6er $gamben%s totali&ing biopo6er ties in !irectly to his notion o bare lie, the necessary yetcontra!ictory element o his ormulation o biopo6er, by ocusing upon, an! mo!iying, Barl Schmitt%s concept o the sovereign !ecis ion-0 For Schmitt, sovereignty 6as not i!entifable through statutes, or!inances or co nstitutions,but instea! reste! on one concrete political act, namely 6hich in!ivi!ual or bo!y coul! !eclare a state o eception an! thus suspen! the eisting legal or!er +t 6as thereore the !ecis ion, rather than any pre/or!aine! po6er, that!eci!e! 6ho 6as sovereign $!opting an! mo!iying Schmitt%s !efnition o sovereignty, $gamben conten!s that the sovereign an! sovereign po6er ca n be i!entife! through the creation o bare lie > the in!ivi!ual or bo!y thatcreates bare lie 6ill be by !efnition imbibe! 6ith sovereign po6er This sovereign !ecision is tie! !irectly to the operation o la6 +n State o Cception $gamben posits bare lie not only being create! through a sovereign !ecision,but also through the operation o the la6, an! specifcally through the state o eception, 6hich eists as a &one o in!istinction bet6een la6 an! anomie, la6%s beyon!-D B The State o Cception The state o eception is not a trueeception as un!erstoo! by the theorists o eme rgency po6ers, as $gamben !enies that the eception can be temporally or spatially separate! rom the norm +nstea! the eception is a &one o in!istinction 6here la6 an! actcompletely coinci!e +n his 6ork on the eception $gamben !istinguishes bet6een the :uri!ical or!er Eil !iritto an! the la6 Ela legge The :uri!ical or!er maintains the fction o immanentism> the abstract notion o ?la 6% pre/supposesthat it applies to all o reality, to all o lie itsel 9hilst the la6 Ela legge o a State may be unprinciple! an! contain lacunae in certain areas,- the :uri!ical or!er maintains that there are no lacunae, in the sense that the :uri!icalor!er covers all lacunae a n! all situations that arise The fction o immanentism is maintaine! even 6hen the la6 seems con

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

16/386

la6 nor act, an! in !oing so legitimi)ing the act o bare po6er that has occurre! in the ?necessary% act The la6 thereore becomes completelyin!istinct an! is eercise! solely through a concrete prais in the eception, a &one o in !istinction $gamben conclu!es that the eception is the opening o a fctitious lacuna in the :uri!ical or!er +t is fctitious as the lacuna is notreal an! there is no ?gap% in the la6 that the :u!ge has to fll +nstea! the lacuna is fctitious as it suspen!s the or!er that is in orce, ?sa eguar!ing the eistence o the norm an! its a pplicability to the normal situation%@0 Throughsuspen!ing the norm the eception guarantees the norm%s pre/eminence or uture cases> only by !emarcating 6hen the norm !oes not apply can it be possible to constitute an! give the norm its content This lea!s to the eceptionhaving some curious characteristics First, in the &one o in!istinction all legal !eterminations are !eactivate!, @D but this !oes not mean that there is no la6 in the eception The eception is ull o legality, an!, perhaps even morecuriously, this means that potentially any action taken in the eception can gain legal orce@ =et the eception is not part o the la6, or the :uri!ical or!er To pre/suppose this 6oul! be to re!uce the eception to a unction o la6,an! misses the key point about the actions that occur in the state o eception, namely their ra!ical !is/location to the :uri!ical or!er an! the potential or any act to gain legal status T he legal norm is suspen!e! but still in orce, butin thus suspen!ing the norm the norm%s ?orce/o/la6% is also separate! rom its application 5y ?orce/o/la6% $gamben reers to the constitutive essence o the la6, the element that literally gives la6s, !ecrees an! other measurestheir ?orce%0* 9ith the norm remaining in orce but not being applie!, acts that !o not have the value o la6 can acJuire the ?orce/o/la6% that is separate! rom the norm%s application Such acts are characteri&e! by $gamben ashaving the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6, the norm still being i n orce but not being applie! The orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6 can be claime! by b oth the State an! non/State groups not :ust to :ustiy their actions, but to give them theorce/o/la6, to make their actions legal0H The eception is tie! by $gamben !irectly to both the operation o the sovereign !ecision to create bare lie an! the eercise o la6 "ra6ing upon his analysis o the relationship o thenorm to its application, $gamben argues that it is through the eception that the bare lie that the political or!er reJuires to operate is create! 5e cause bare lie is create! through the eception, it is create! through a &one o

in!istinction that is neither act nor la6 +n this 6ay, !ra6ing upon $gamben%s analysis, it is possible to conclu!e that the creation o bare lie in the eception can

gain the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6 This allo6s an action that may contra!ict legalnorms to suspen! those norms an! at the same time be !eclare! as legal +n this 6ay the la6 canremain in orce yet not be applie! to bare lie Such an analysis calls into Juestion the eMcacy o all legal rights in protecting thein!ivi!ual against the po6er controlle! by the State " $gamben, 5en:amin an! the Cception To help support these arguments$gamben !ra6s upon the 6ork o 9alter 5en:amin, an! specifcally his BritiJue o (iolence, ?Nur Oritik !er Ge6alt% in the originalGerman0I Ge6alt signifes legitimi&e! orce or :u!icial po6er an! also carries the meanings o authority, !ominion, might an!control0) +n this tet, 5en:amin ma!e eplicit the connection bet6een la6 an! violence EGe6alt For 5en:amin, la6 an! violenceare intert6ine! an! cannot be separate! (iolence is the oun!ation o la6, although to!ay the la6 seems not to recogni&e itsviolent past 5en:amin argue! that mo!ern la6 has !evelope! out o the violent revolutions an! 6ars o the past an! it preservesitsel through violence by stopping challenges to the la6 an! legitimi&ing its o6n actions 5en:amin posite! t6o orms o violence toillustrate the connection the violence has to la6 ?la6/making violence%, violence use! against the eisting la6s an! con!itions 6iththe e;ect o constituting ne6 la6s, an! ?la6/preserving violence%, 6hich maintains the authority an! la6s o the current system"espite the !i;erences bet6een the t6o types o violence, Saul 4e6man argues that they both lea! to a perpetuation o the la6an! po6er as neither type o violence a;ects the la6%s position> la6/making an! la6/preserving violence are use! every!ay by thela6 in or!er to perpetuate itsel0. +n other 6or!s, every legal act can be classife! as using la6/making violence or la6/preserving

violence $gamben argues that the eception eten!s the legal violence 5en:amin eplore! beyon! its o6nboun!aries

by making it possible or etra/legal actions to acJuire legal status, to gain orce/

o/la60- The eception as a &one o in!istinction !eactivates the la6 that is containe!ithin it +n !oing so it pro!uces a violence that has ?she! every relation to la6%,0@ making it appropriable byanyone, potentially allo6ing any action to acJuire legal orce through this legal violence that has she! itsrelation to la6 +t is as i the suspension o la6 ree! a orceQ that both the ruling po6er an! its a!versaries, the constitute! po6eras 6ell as the constituent po6er, seek to appropriate00 The para!o $gamben i!entifes is that suspen!ing la6 only increases itsviolent activity> the eception pro!uces la6/making violence through the la6%s suspension 5uil!ing upon this para!o, 6hich$gamben states is representative o the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6, $gamben argues that the biopolitical la6 is caught 6ithin a

!ialectic akin to 5en:amin%s !ialectic o violence $ny legal attem#t to subsume or contain theexce#tion ithin the la does not or( !ecause the exce#tion !y its verydefnition is a &one o in!istinction 6here legal terms are deactivated, thus esca#ing the very la that sought to contain it Thereore the sovereigndecision creating !are lie ill alays alrea!y !e legal, allo6ing $gamben to pre!ict that Thenormative aspect o la6 canQ be obliterate! an! contra!icte! 6ith impunity by a governmental violence that 2 6hilst ignoringinternational la6 eternally an! pro!ucing a state o eception internally 2 nevertheless claims to be applying the la60D C Foucault,Post/Structuralism an! La6 +n Foucault%s La6, 5en Gol!er an! Peter Fit&patrick reinterpret Foucault%s 6ritings on la6 an! !evelop aFoucaul!ian approach to la6 that is marke!ly similar to $gamben%s o6n !irection Their approach !oes not have the theoretical!ra6back o eisting 6ithin a violent !ialectic 6here po6er subsumes political resistance 6ithin itsel This post/structuralist accounto la6 !oes not get subsume! by relations o po6er, although it is susceptible to !omination by po6er0 +t is Gol!er an!Fit&patrick%s argument that Foucault !i! not !o a6ay 6ith either sovereignty or la6 in mo!ernity but on the contrary, the t6opersiste! in an integral relationD* +n act, it is !isciplinary po6er that is !epen!ent upon the la6, a la6 6hich acts as a constituent

po6er in relation to the !isciplinesDH +t is through the la6 acting as a restraint to !isciplinary po6er thatthe la6 actually constitutes !isciplinary po6er, rather than being subsume! un!er !isciplinary po6er asthe epulsion thesis argues 5y acting in a su#ervisory "urisdiction over the a!uses an!ecesses o the !isciplines, la6 im#licitly confrms the claim at the heart o disci#linary#oer to ad"udicate on *uestions o normality and social cohesionDI 5y the la6confning its :uris!iction to the periphery o the !isciplines the core o !isciplinary po6er is let reinorce!, 6hilst at the same time

the !isciplines remain constituently reliant upon la6 to curb their abusesD) +n this 6ay, the la6 masks the!isciplinary !omination through o;ering the veil o legality> la6 an! the !isciplines eist 6ithin a

relation 6here they are !epen!ent on one another

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

17/386

The alternative is to em!race hatever+!eing to create thecoming community – a reusal to recogni)e categoricalidentities in order to to re"ect the a!ility o the sovereign toisolate !are lie. ,nly the dissolution o identity #olitics cansolve or the 1$C and the state o exce#tion.Kobinson HH 5$ndre- isa #olitical theorist and activist at Ceasefre- Ceasefre- 67n Theory 8iorgio $gam!en: destroyingsovereignty9- 1%111- htt#s:ceasefremaga)ine.co.u(in+theory+giorgio+agam!en+destroying+sovereignty; – /e!ron $

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

18/386

$nother aspect o the coming community is that, on one level, it is a very small shit +nspire! by e6ish theology an! authors suchas 9alter 5en:amin, $gamben !ra6s on messianic i!eas o a total transormation o the eisting 6orl! into a !i;erent 6orl! througha small gesture, the a!!ition o an aura, or a ne6 6ay o seeing +n a sense, everything stays as it is, an! yet is ren!ere! !i;erent bythe removal o the transcen!ent moment o sovereignty

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

19/386

x#lanation:

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

20/386

1NC +

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

21/386

1NC Short

The 1AC’s democratic idealism ignores the fact that democracyand totalitarianism are indistinguishable within the contet of

biopolitics. Cven so/calle! !emocracies buil! their oun!ation upon theeclusion o bare lie $ttempts to epan! !emocracy resinscribe the in!ivi!ual6ithin the state an! mask the un!amentally totalitarian nature o all mo!ernstates, taking out solvency an! turning caseAgamben !" [$gamben, G EHD Sovereign po6er an! bare lie Epp HIH/I Stanor!, Bali Stanor!University Press1 2 3ebron $"4

Oarl Lo6ith 6as the frst to !efne the un!amental character o totalitarian states as a politici&ation o lie an!, at the same time,to note the curious contiguity bet6een !emocracy an! totalitarianism Since the emancipation o the thir! estate, the ormation obourgeois !emocracy an! its transormation into mass in!ustrial !emocracy, the neutrali&ation o politically relevant !i;erences an!postponement o a !ecision about them has !evelope! to the point o turning into its opposite a total politici&ation o everything,even o seemingly neutral !omains o lie Thus in arist Kussia there emerge! a 6orker/state that 6as more intensively state/oriente! than any absolute monarchy> in ascist +taly, a corporate state normatively regulating not only national 6ork, but alsoater/6ork ["opolavoro an! all spiritual lie> an!, in 4ational Socialist Germany, a 6holly integrate! state, 6hich, by means oracial la6s an! so orth, politici&es even the lie that ha! until then been private The contiguity bet6een mass !emocracy an!totalitarian states, nevertheless, !oes not have the orm o a su!!en transormation Eas Lo6ith, here ollo6ing in Schmitt\s

ootsteps, seems to maintain> beore impetuously coming to light in our century, the river o biopolitics that gave homo sacer hislie runs its course in a hi!!en but continuous ashion +t is almost as i, starting rom a certain point, every !ecisivepolitical event 6ere !ouble/si!e! the spaces, the liberties, an! the rights 6on byin!ivi!uals in their con

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

22/386

The 1AC’s legitimizes so#ereignty and normalizes a permanentstate of emergency. This has three implications:

1. No Solvency: The sovereign ill alays !e a!le to "ustiyextralegal surveillance in the name o necessity ithin the

state o exce#tion – the 1$C is a useless attem#t tomani#ulate the la in a #lace here it has !een deactivated

%. &io#olitics: The state o exce#tion guarantees the inevita!le#roduction o !are lie

'. Turns Case: The #remise o restraining the state mas(sdisci#linary domination hile alloing the sovereign tosus#end the la to institute more insidious orms osurveillance at ill

Frost 10 [Tom, Proessor o Legal Theory at the University o Susse an! Ph" rom the University oSouthampton, #$gamben%s Sovereign Legali&ation o Foucault', Oxford Legal Studies, (olume )*, +ssue ), pp -.-/-001 2 3ebron $"45 $gamben, La6 an! 5are Lie $gamben buil!s upon this &o78bios opposition at the start o 3omo Sacer to !evelophis ormulations o ho6 la6 an! biopo6er interact 9hilst Foucault :oine! together both !isciplinary po6er an!biopo6er at the micro an! macro levels, respectively, 6ith !isciplinary po6er a;ecting the in!ivi!ual an! biopo6eroperating at the level o populations,-) $gamben replaces this !istinction, 6ith biopo6er being tie! !irectly to thein!ivi!ual Po6er acts in both creating an! maintaining bios, political lie, by !irectly acting upon &o7 an! grantingnatural lie the political rights that transorm it into bios-. $gambenian biopo6er thereore subsumes !isciplinarypo6er Unlike Foucault, 6ho sa6 both orms o po6er as attempting to cover all o lie, $gamben%s biopo6er can be!escribe! as totali&ing in its operation This biopolitics, ar rom complimenting the !isciplines, or eisting in a tensionalrelation 6ith normative operations o po6er, is to!ay causing !isciplinary institutions to retreat in theirin there ca n be no human actions that are outsi!e o biopolitical regulation an! control +n this manner biopo6er an! the biopolitical :uri!ical or!er maintain the fction o ?immanentism%-@ Sergei Pro&orov!escribes immanentism as having the aim to recast the social or!er a s a close! universal s el/propelling system 6ithout an outsi!e +mmanentism !enies that there can be a ny human action ?outsi!e% o the o r!er, as it !enies thatsuch an ?outsi!e% eists +t is a fction because such a vie6 pre/supposes an all/encompassing social or!er that is al6ays alrea!y encapsulating acts that have not yet happene!Athe or!er is given omnipotent an! omniscient po6ers

as it is able to subsume any act 6ithin itsel The a nalogy nee!s to be mo!ife! slightly here as $gamben !eals primarily 6ith a :uri!ical or!er, rather than a social o r!er The !istinction ma!e bet6een legality an! illegality may notnecessarily correlate 6ith Foucaul!ian concepts o normality an! abnormality !evelope! in "iscipline an! Punish $gamben sees human actions as constraine! not by !enotations o normality, but by !enoting them as legal orother6ise 4evertheless, Pro&orov%s conception o immanentism is helpul here in analogi&ing the structure o $gambenian biopo6er $gamben%s totali&ing biopo6er ties in !irectly to his notion o bare lie, the necessary yetcontra!ictory element o his ormulation o biopo6er, by ocusing upon, an! mo!iying, Barl Schmitt%s concept o the sovereign !ecis ion-0 For Schmitt, sovereignty 6as not i!entifable through statutes, or!inances or co nstitutions,but instea! reste! on one concrete political act, namely 6hich in!ivi!ual or bo!y coul! !eclare a state o eception an! thus suspen! the eisting legal or!er +t 6as thereore the !ecis ion, rather than any pre/or!aine! po6er, that!eci!e! 6ho 6as sovereign $!opting an! mo!iying Schmitt%s !efnition o sovereignty, $gamben conten!s that the sovereign an! sovereign po6er ca n be i!entife! through the creation o bare lie > the in!ivi!ual or bo!y thatcreates bare lie 6ill be by !efnition imbibe! 6ith sovereign po6er This sovereign !ecision is tie! !irectly to the operation o la6 +n State o Cception $gamben posits bare lie not only being create! through a sovereign !ecision,but also through the operation o the la6, an! specifcally through the state o eception, 6hich eists as a &one o in!istinction bet6een la6 an! anomie, la6%s beyon!-D B The State o Cception The state o eception is not a trueeception as un!erstoo! by the theorists o eme rgency po6ers, as $gamben !enies that the eception can be temporally or spatially separate! rom the norm +nstea! the eception is a &one o in!istinction 6here la6 an! actcompletely coinci!e +n his 6ork on the eception $gamben !istinguishes bet6een the :uri!ical or!er Eil !iritto an! the la6 Ela legge The :uri!ical or!er maintains the fction o immanentism> the abstract notion o ?la 6% pre/supposesthat it applies to all o reality, to all o lie itsel 9hilst the la6 Ela legge o a State may be unprinciple! an! contain lacunae in certain areas,- the :uri!ical or!er maintains that there are no lacunae, in the sense that the :uri!icalor!er covers all lacunae a n! all situations that arise The fction o immanentism is maintaine! even 6hen the la6 seems con

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

23/386

la6 nor act, an! in !oing so legitimi)ing the act o bare po6er that has occurre! in the ?necessary% act The la6 thereore becomes completelyin!istinct an! is eercise! solely through a concrete prais in the eception, a &one o in !istinction $gamben conclu!es that the eception is the opening o a fctitious lacuna in the :uri!ical or!er +t is fctitious as the lacuna is notreal an! there is no ?gap% in the la6 that the :u!ge has to fll +nstea! the lacuna is fctitious as it suspen!s the or!er that is in orce, ?sa eguar!ing the eistence o the norm an! its a pplicability to the normal situation%@0 Throughsuspen!ing the norm the eception guarantees the norm%s pre/eminence or uture cases> only by !emarcating 6hen the norm !oes not apply can it be possible to constitute an! give the norm its content This lea!s to the eceptionhaving some curious characteristics First, in the &one o in!istinction all legal !eterminations are !eactivate!, @D but this !oes not mean that there is no la6 in the eception The eception is ull o legality, an!, perhaps even morecuriously, this means that potentially any action taken in the eception can gain legal orce@ =et the eception is not part o the la6, or the :uri!ical or!er To pre/suppose this 6oul! be to re!uce the eception to a unction o la6,an! misses the key point about the actions that occur in the state o eception, namely their ra!ical !is/location to the :uri!ical or!er an! the potential or any act to gain legal status T he legal norm is suspen!e! but still in orce, butin thus suspen!ing the norm the norm%s ?orce/o/la6% is also separate! rom its application 5y ?orce/o/la6% $gamben reers to the constitutive essence o the la6, the element that literally gives la6s, !ecrees an! other measurestheir ?orce%0* 9ith the norm remaining in orce but not being applie!, acts that !o not have the value o la6 can acJuire the ?orce/o/la6% that is separate! rom the norm%s application Such acts are characteri&e! by $gamben ashaving the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6, the norm still being i n orce but not being applie! The orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6 can be claime! by b oth the State an! non/State groups not :ust to :ustiy their actions, but to give them theorce/o/la6, to make their actions legal0H The eception is tie! by $gamben !irectly to both the operation o the sovereign !ecision to create bare lie an! the eercise o la6 "ra6ing upon his analysis o the relationship o thenorm to its application, $gamben argues that it is through the eception that the bare lie that the political or!er reJuires to operate is create! 5e cause bare lie is create! through the eception, it is create! through a &one o

in!istinction that is neither act nor la6 +n this 6ay, !ra6ing upon $gamben%s analysis, it is possible to conclu!e that the creation o bare lie in the eception can

gain the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6 This allo6s an action that may contra!ict legalnorms to suspen! those norms an! at the same time be !eclare! as legal +n this 6ay the la6 canremain in orce yet not be applie! to bare lie Such an analysis calls into Juestion the eMcacy o all legal rights in protecting thein!ivi!ual against the po6er controlle! by the State " $gamben, 5en:amin an! the Cception To help support these arguments$gamben !ra6s upon the 6ork o 9alter 5en:amin, an! specifcally his BritiJue o (iolence, ?Nur Oritik !er Ge6alt% in the originalGerman0I Ge6alt signifes legitimi&e! orce or :u!icial po6er an! also carries the meanings o authority, !ominion, might an!control0) +n this tet, 5en:amin ma!e eplicit the connection bet6een la6 an! violence EGe6alt For 5en:amin, la6 an! violenceare intert6ine! an! cannot be separate! (iolence is the oun!ation o la6, although to!ay the la6 seems not to recogni&e itsviolent past 5en:amin argue! that mo!ern la6 has !evelope! out o the violent revolutions an! 6ars o the past an! it preservesitsel through violence by stopping challenges to the la6 an! legitimi&ing its o6n actions 5en:amin posite! t6o orms o violence toillustrate the connection the violence has to la6 ?la6/making violence%, violence use! against the eisting la6s an! con!itions 6iththe e;ect o constituting ne6 la6s, an! ?la6/preserving violence%, 6hich maintains the authority an! la6s o the current system"espite the !i;erences bet6een the t6o types o violence, Saul 4e6man argues that they both lea! to a perpetuation o the la6an! po6er as neither type o violence a;ects the la6%s position> la6/making an! la6/preserving violence are use! every!ay by thela6 in or!er to perpetuate itsel0. +n other 6or!s, every legal act can be classife! as using la6/making violence or la6/preserving

violence $gamben argues that the eception eten!s the legal violence 5en:amin eplore! beyon! its o6nboun!aries

by making it possible or etra/legal actions to acJuire legal status, to gain orce/

o/la60- The eception as a &one o in!istinction !eactivates the la6 that is containe!ithin it +n !oing so it pro!uces a violence that has ?she! every relation to la6%,0@ making it appropriable byanyone, potentially allo6ing any action to acJuire legal orce through this legal violence that has she! itsrelation to la6 +t is as i the suspension o la6 ree! a orceQ that both the ruling po6er an! its a!versaries, the constitute! po6eras 6ell as the constituent po6er, seek to appropriate00 The para!o $gamben i!entifes is that suspen!ing la6 only increases itsviolent activity> the eception pro!uces la6/making violence through the la6%s suspension 5uil!ing upon this para!o, 6hich$gamben states is representative o the orce/o/la6 E6ithout la6, $gamben argues that the biopolitical la6 is caught 6ithin a

!ialectic akin to 5en:amin%s !ialectic o violence $ny legal attem#t to subsume or contain theexce#tion ithin the la does not or( !ecause the exce#tion !y its verydefnition is a &one o in!istinction 6here legal terms are deactivated, thus esca#ing the very la that sought to contain it Thereore the sovereigndecision creating !are lie ill alays alrea!y !e legal, allo6ing $gamben to pre!ict that Thenormative aspect o la6 canQ be obliterate! an! contra!icte! 6ith impunity by a governmental violence that 2 6hilst ignoringinternational la6 eternally an! pro!ucing a state o eception internally 2 nevertheless claims to be applying the la60D C Foucault,Post/Structuralism an! La6 +n Foucault%s La6, 5en Gol!er an! Peter Fit&patrick reinterpret Foucault%s 6ritings on la6 an! !evelop aFoucaul!ian approach to la6 that is marke!ly similar to $gamben%s o6n !irection Their approach !oes not have the theoretical!ra6back o eisting 6ithin a violent !ialectic 6here po6er subsumes political resistance 6ithin itsel This post/structuralist accounto la6 !oes not get subsume! by relations o po6er, although it is susceptible to !omination by po6er0 +t is Gol!er an!Fit&patrick%s argument that Foucault !i! not !o a6ay 6ith either sovereignty or la6 in mo!ernity but on the contrary, the t6opersiste! in an integral relationD* +n act, it is !isciplinary po6er that is !epen!ent upon the la6, a la6 6hich acts as a constituent

po6er in relation to the !isciplinesDH +t is through the la6 acting as a restraint to !isciplinary po6er thatthe la6 actually constitutes !isciplinary po6er, rather than being subsume! un!er !isciplinary po6er asthe epulsion thesis argues 5y acting in a su#ervisory "urisdiction over the a!uses an!ecesses o the !isciplines, la6 im#licitly confrms the claim at the heart o disci#linary#oer to ad"udicate on *uestions o normality and social cohesionDI 5y the la6confning its :uris!iction to the periphery o the !isciplines the core o !isciplinary po6er is let reinorce!, 6hilst at the same time

the !isciplines remain constituently reliant upon la6 to curb their abusesD) +n this 6ay, the la6 masks the!isciplinary !omination through o;ering the veil o legality> la6 an! the !isciplines eist 6ithin a

relation 6here they are !epen!ent on one another

8/18/2019 K - Agamben

24/386

The alternative is to em!race hatever+!eing to create thecoming community – a reusal to recogni)e categoricalidentities in order to to re"ect the a!ility o the sovereign toisolate !are lie. ,nly the dissolution o identity #olitics cansolve or the 1$C and the state o exce#tion.

Ro!inson 11 [$n!re6, is a political theorist an! activist at Beasefre, Beasefre, #+n Theory Giorgio $gamben!estroying sovereignty', H8IH8HH, https88ceasefremaga&inecouk8in/theory/giorgio/agamben/!estroying/sovereignty81 2 3ebron $"4$gamben proposes ?6hatever/singularity% as an alternative basis or political action, 6hich escapes the logic o sovereignty Takenrom "eleu&e an! Guattari%s thought, a singularity is something 6hich is uniJue an! 6hich can%t be re!uce! to a measurement or

representation $gamben likes it because it avoi!s his having to choose bet6een universality an! particularity #9hatever' inCnglish has unortunate overtones o in!i;erence E#6hatever, talk to the han!' 6hich is not at all 6hat $gamben means Kather, he

is reerring to something mattering 6hatever it is, al6ays mattering regar!less o 6hat it is 2as oppose! to the sovereign !ecision to !ivi!e lie into things 6hich matter an!things 6hich !on%t $ #6hatever/singularity'  is neither re!ucible to its attributes nor epressible as anabstract generality such as universal humanity> rather, it is something 6hich has general value as it is, 6ith all o its attributes Ean!

especially, as potentiality or possibility +t !oes not !epen! on any stan!ar! o conormity orsub:ectifcation or normality, or on belonging to the people or masses +t also !enies that there is anyparticular essence 6hich makes people human  2 instea!, being human is a scattering o singularities9hatever/singularity is also a kin! o being 6hich people are assume! to alrea!y have, 6hich or instance motivates resistance tobeing normalise! +n a sense, this is a ra!icalise! version o human rights !iscourse, since anyone, 6hatever they are an! 6hateverthey !o, is recognise! as having a kin! o autonomous ethical value This is un!amentally an ethics o ?letting be% E6ith overtones o ?being 6ho you are% +t entails !oing a6ay 6ith normativity as usually !efne!, 6ith stan!ar!s o goo! an! evil 6hich !eclare certainpeople to be valueless because o some particularly heinous !eviant act they%ve committe! Ein contrast to the more commonapproach o either contracting normativity to cover a smaller range o acts, or altering it to ocus on oppressive abuses Forinstance, $gamben argues that i!eas such as guilt an! responsibility are !erive! rom legal thought an! hence rom sovereignty

 The ethical challenge $gamben poses is to still vie6 every person 2 an!, in line 6ith the !iscussion in TheRpen, every animal 2 as un!amentally valuable in their o6n lie, as having orms o lie an! particularity6orthy o respect an! autonomous eistence, regar!less o ho6 ?ba!% they are or 6hat ?crimes% they commit +n e;ect,

$gamben aims to take a6ay, through choices in terms o language, ethics an! philosophy, the threatpose! by others% ethical :u!gements in constituting a person or being as vulnerable This !oesnot remove human vulnerability per se, but !oes remove the particular risk o being ma!e into homo sacer +t !oes, ho6ever, leavea particular ethical problem are agents o sovereignty also to be treate! as ?6hatever/singularities%, or as the negation o al l suchsingularities The ?coming community% correspon!s on a collective level to ?6hatever/singularity% +t is relate! to the ?people tocome%, a concept "eleu&e an! Guattari borro6 rom 5ergson, an! to messianic i!eas o a coming liberation $gamben reers to the

coming community as a orm o social togetherness 6hich is also a ?non/state% an! is counterpose! to the logic o sovereignty Thecoming community is !efne! in $gamben as a kin! o post/consumerist con!ition, emergingrom a passage through current orms o lie, such as the in!i;erence o mass me!ia images an! ocommo!ities through 6hich one can reshape one%s i!entity +t passes through an! beyon! such ormso lie by ra!icalising their challenge[s1 to normativity an! sovereignty +t is not a hybri! space 2 hybri!ity isalrea!y actualise! in homo sacer an! the sovereign 2 but rather, a negation, the ?un/man% +t is base! on ?6hatever/singularities% intheir antagonism 6ith the state an! sovereignty Ehence it cannot seek to sei&e state po6er $gamben believes that 6hatever/

singularities can orm communities 6ithout aMrming ?representable con!itions o belonging% Esuch as la6s, norms, etc +t also!oes not rest on categories o i!entity Eeven the i!entity o  eclu!e! or marginalise!groups, 6hich or $gamben, remain trappe! 6ithin ol! orms o politics 6hich repro!ucesovereignty Emainly because the recognition o an i!entity is necessarily separate rom the processes o lie 6hich constituteit +n con!itions o sovereignty, lie has to separate itsel rom the or!ers o sub:ects an!ob:ects, to ree itsel  rom biopo6er an! rom hierarchical relations 6ith living things, to become6hatever/singularity an! to attain ra!ical immanence +n Potentialities, $gamben argues or an almost 5u!!hist stance ocontemplative separation 6hich preserves instea! o !eci!ing $gamben%s stance also has a revolutionary aspect Kather thanstarting rom i!entity, $gamben%s ethical theory starts rom the stan!point o bare lie +n Kemnants o $usch6it&, $gamben arguesthat the ethical stan!point rom 6hich one shoul! start is provi!e! by the eperience o concentration camp inmates oreprecisely, it shoul! start rom the stan!point o the most ab:ect sub/group o inmates, the so/calle! usselmanner 6ho 6ere near!eath an! ha! lost the 6ill to live, 6ho hence embo!ie! !irectly the i!ea o bare lie This is because o a particular moment oinversion The moment o catastrophe is taken also to contain the moment 6here salvation becomes possible, 6ith passage throughthe lo6 point o the current epansion o sovereignty acting as a transition to liberation This is a rather strange argument, butbase! on a viable observation that only 6hen the logic o sovereignty is ully unol!e! Eonly 6hen 6e are ace! 6ith a giant treeinstea! o a sapling !oes the nature o the problem 2 or the nature o 6hat nee!s to be got r i! o 2 become clear This also meansthat, in $gamben%s vie6, liberation is ambiguously tie! to sovereignty, as its negation +n a sense, thereore, $gamben remains6ithin a arist