Comments on: Bare life, zones of social abandonment and an activist anthropology http://www.spaceandculture.org/2007/02/09/bare-life-zones-of-social-abandonment-and-an-activist-anthropology/ Welcome to Space and Culture - the international journal and weblog dedicated to social spaces of all kinds. Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:07:05 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Anne http://www.spaceandculture.org/2007/02/09/bare-life-zones-of-social-abandonment-and-an-activist-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-248 Anne Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:22:00 +0000 http://www.spaceandculture.org/?p=617#comment-248 <em>There is the enduring problem that we are all potentially 'bare' [...] and so we need to find today more properly how life also over-flows the boundaries constructed to constrain it.</em><br/><br/>Yes! There is the enduring problem that we are all potentially ‘bare’ [...] and so we need to find today more properly how life also over-flows the boundaries constructed to constrain it.

Yes!

]]> By: nOtoften http://www.spaceandculture.org/2007/02/09/bare-life-zones-of-social-abandonment-and-an-activist-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-247 nOtoften Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:22:00 +0000 http://www.spaceandculture.org/?p=617#comment-247 Nice post Anne. I haven't read any of the texts, but I will propose something here in relation to Agamben's idea of 'bare life' in Homo Sacer and other works. <br/>There are a few important elements or at least key points at play. Here is what i think you are saying:<br/><br/>1) That bare life has something to do with being human, and that it is not restricted to national boundaries or particular places. Rather, life is embedded in 'place' only loosely defined; and<br/><br/>2) that this observation has particular repurcussions for how community 'really' operates, or is 'inoperative' all the while providing connections and influences that we might not initial have thought in a purposive sense. Community is more than intentionality.<br/><br/>I think this is interesting because you point to the ways in which we might be able to conceive of "life" beyond the reach of sovereign power, which is historically and currently concerned with national borders, and specific jurisdictions of hegemony. However we might like to remain within the law-sovereign understanding of political power, for practicality, dogma methods, or other reasons; nonetheless, there is this whole 'other-side' of power. There is the enduring problem that we are all potentially 'bare'. From the perspective of the sovereign, as Agamben claims, life and law become nearly indistinguishable today. In a word, life becomes law. Yet, if we are to understand life from the perspective of life, things look much different. There is always a surplus of life over law, of life over the instrumentality of sovereign power, and state representation.<br/>However, as you ask, what does this mean for our understanding(s) of community? This is a very difficult question. I think if we work with the idea of 'absolute immanence' it may provide some answers. Yet, I think there is something else 'operating' here beyond the usual dichotomy between transcendent/immanent conceptualizations. Perhaps, we should (re)turn to Foucault, and especially his work that searches to inquire into how power operates through both sovereignty and discipline. Discipline does not replace sovereignty, but they tend to become interpenetrated in modernity.<br/>Power traverses the boundaries we construct, and so we need to find today more properly how life also over-flows the boundaries constructed to constrain it. Nice post Anne. I haven’t read any of the texts, but I will propose something here in relation to Agamben’s idea of ‘bare life’ in Homo Sacer and other works.
There are a few important elements or at least key points at play. Here is what i think you are saying:

1) That bare life has something to do with being human, and that it is not restricted to national boundaries or particular places. Rather, life is embedded in ‘place’ only loosely defined; and

2) that this observation has particular repurcussions for how community ‘really’ operates, or is ‘inoperative’ all the while providing connections and influences that we might not initial have thought in a purposive sense. Community is more than intentionality.

I think this is interesting because you point to the ways in which we might be able to conceive of “life” beyond the reach of sovereign power, which is historically and currently concerned with national borders, and specific jurisdictions of hegemony. However we might like to remain within the law-sovereign understanding of political power, for practicality, dogma methods, or other reasons; nonetheless, there is this whole ‘other-side’ of power. There is the enduring problem that we are all potentially ‘bare’. From the perspective of the sovereign, as Agamben claims, life and law become nearly indistinguishable today. In a word, life becomes law. Yet, if we are to understand life from the perspective of life, things look much different. There is always a surplus of life over law, of life over the instrumentality of sovereign power, and state representation.
However, as you ask, what does this mean for our understanding(s) of community? This is a very difficult question. I think if we work with the idea of ‘absolute immanence’ it may provide some answers. Yet, I think there is something else ‘operating’ here beyond the usual dichotomy between transcendent/immanent conceptualizations. Perhaps, we should (re)turn to Foucault, and especially his work that searches to inquire into how power operates through both sovereignty and discipline. Discipline does not replace sovereignty, but they tend to become interpenetrated in modernity.
Power traverses the boundaries we construct, and so we need to find today more properly how life also over-flows the boundaries constructed to constrain it.

]]>