Biopolitics, biopower, and the return of sovereignty
Biopolitics, biopower, and the return of sovereignty
复制标题
DOI：
10.1068/d3508
复制
发表时间：
2009-06-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Grove, Kevin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Coleman, Mathew;Grove, Kevin
在本文中，我们希望开放讨论什么是“生物政治”-一个经常被评论家和信徒使用的术语，用来描述布雷顿森林体系，冷战和9/11之后的世界中政治权力和权威的组织。我们在两个方面这样做。一方面，我们比较了福柯关于战争和正常化社会的观点，阿甘本关于死亡政治的观点，哈特和奈格里关于生命潜能的观点。我们在这里的目标是提请注意生物政治学的多种竞争性定义，并在这样做的过程中，将这个术语作为一个包罗万象的类别来描述“非主权”或“后主权”的权力运作。另一方面，在拒绝对什么是生物政治学的一些基本定义的同时，我们对阿甘本、哈特和奈格里关于生物政治学的主题提出了我们自己的具体的地理批评。继Sparke最近对后基础思想的审问，因为它经常被埋葬的形而上学的存在，我们认为，阿甘本以及哈特和Negri部署在形而上学和形而上学的方式生物政治学。我们对比这与福柯的归纳，系谱，特定时间和特定地点的概念使用。
In this paper we want to open up for discussion what counts as 'biopolitics'-a term frequently used by critics and devotees alike to describe the organization of political power and authority in a world after Bretton Woods, the Cold War, and 9/11. We do so on two fronts. On the one hand, we contrast Foucault on war and the normalizing society, Agamben on thanatopolitics, and Hardt and Negri on biopotenza. Our goal here is to draw attention to multiple competing definitions of biopolitics, and in so doing problematize the term as a catchall category to describe either the 'nonsovereign' or the 'postsovereign' operation of power. On the other hand, while refusing some baseline definition of what counts as biopolitics, we develop our own specifically geographical criticisms of Agamben and Hardt and Negri on the topic of biopolitics. Following Sparke's recent interrogation of postfoundational thought on account of its oftentimes buried metaphysics of geopresence, we submit that Agamben as well as Hardt and Negri deploy biopolitics in both metaphysical and metagcographical ways. We contrast this with Foucault's inductive, genealogical, and time-specific and place-specific use of the concept.