Ned Rossiter on Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:01:26 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Agamben: No to Bio-Political Tattooing

[via Brett Neilson]

  No to Bio-Political Tattooing
  By Giorgio Agamben
  Le Monde

  Saturday 10 January 2004

  The newspapers leave no doubt: from now on whoever wants to go to
the United States with a visa will be put on file and will have to
leave their fingerprints when they enter the country. Personally, I
have no intention of submitting myself to such procedures and that's
why I didn't wait to cancel the course I was supposed to teach at New
York University in March.

  I would like to explain the reasons for this refusal here, that is,
why, in spite of the sympathy that has connected me to my American
colleagues and their students for many years, I consider that this
decision is at once necessary and without appeal and would hope that
it will be shared by other European intellectuals and teachers.

  It's not only the immediate superficial reaction to a procedure
that has long been imposed on criminals and political defendants. If
it were only that, we would certainly be morally able to share, in
solidarity, the humiliating conditions to which so many human beings
are subjected.

  The essential does not lie there. The problem exceeds the limits of
personal sensitivity and simply concerns the juridical-political
status (it would be simpler, perhaps, to say bio-political) of
citizens of the so-called democratic states where we live.

  There has been an attempt the last few years to convince us to
accept as the humane and normal dimensions of our existence,
practices of control that had always been properly considered
inhumane and exceptional.

  Thus, no one is unaware that the control exercised by the state
through the usage of electronic devices, such as credit cards or cell
phones, has reached previously unimaginable levels.

  All the same, it wouldn't be possible to cross certain thresholds
in the control and manipulation of bodies without entering a new
bio-political era, without going one step further in what Michel
Foucault called the progressive animalization of man which is
established through the most sophisticated techniques.

  Electronic filing of finger and retina prints, subcutaneous
tattooing, as well as other practices of the same type, are elements
that contribute towards defining this threshold. The security reasons
that are invoked to justify these measures should not impress us:
they have nothing to do with it. History teaches us how practices
first reserved for foreigners find themselves applied later to the
rest of the citizenry.

  What is at stake here is nothing less than the new "normal"
bio-political relationship between citizens and the state. This
relation no longer has anything to do with free and active
participation in the public sphere, but concerns the enrolment and
the filing away of the most private and incommunicable aspect of
subjectivity: I mean the body's biological life.

  These technological devices that register and identify naked life
correspond to the media devices that control and manipulate public
speech: between these two extremes of a body without words and words
without a body, the space we once upon a time called politics is ever
more scaled-down and tiny.

  Thus, by applying these techniques and these devices invented for
the dangerous classes to a citizen, or rather to a human being as
such, states, which should constitute the precise space of political
life, have made the person the ideal suspect, to the point that it's
humanity itself that has become the dangerous class.

  Some years ago, I had written that the West's political paradigm
was no longer the city state, but the concentration camp, and that we
had passed from Athens to Auschwitz. It was obviously a philosophical
thesis, and not historic recital, because one could not confuse
phenomena that it is proper, on the contrary, to distinguish.

  I would have liked to suggest that tattooing at Auschwitz
undoubtedly seemed the most normal and economic way to regulate the
enrolment and registration of deported persons into concentration
camps. The bio-political tattooing the United States imposes now to
enter its territory could well be the precursor to what we will be
asked to accept later as the normal identity registration of a good
citizen in the state's gears and mechanisms. That's why we must
oppose it.


  Translated from Italian to French by Martin Rueff.

  Giorgio Agamben is a philosopher and professor at the University of
Venice and New York University.

  Translation: Truthout French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.


  Jump to TO Features for Tuesday 13 January 2004

 Copyright 2004 by

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: