Re: <nettime> Against Agamben: Is a Democratic Biopolitics Possible?

[Andreas Broeckmann <ab@mikro.in-berlin.de>]

folks, thanks for the repost of the thoughtful text by Panagiotis
Sotiris. For me an important question about this discourse of
responsibility and solidarity is, in how far it can be scaled to
larger populations, and transnationally. People need emotional
reference points for this...

On the question of "care", which he importantly raises, I have greatly
benefited from reading the essays in "To Mind Is to Care", published
by the V2 in Rotterdam last year (disclaimer: former colleagues of
mine):

'To Mind Is to Care', edited by Joke Brouwer & Sjoerd van Tuinen,
proposes ethico-aesthetical models of care, in which science does
not search for deterministic outcomes, technology does not lead to
abandonment, politics does not induce indifference, and art is not
marginalized.

https://v2.nl/publishing/to-mind-is-to-care

(currently only available as print, maybe contact the editors to see
whether they can make a digital version available; it is a nicely
designed and produced book, so well worth having as book-book...)

Regards,
-a



Am 22.03.20 um 20:14 schrieb nettime's avid reader:
> Against Agamben: Is a Democratic Biopolitics Possible?
> by Panagiotis Sotiris • 14 March 2020
>
> https://criticallegalthinking.com/2020/03/14/against-agamben-is-a-democratic-biopolitics-possible/

<snip>

> To put this question in a different way: Is it possible to have
> collective practices that actually help the health of populations,
> including large-scale behaviour modifications, without a parallel
> expansion of forms of coercion and surveillance?
>
> Foucault himself, in his late work, points towards such a direction,
> around the notions of truth, parrhesia and care of the self. In this
> highly original dialogue with ancient philosophy, he suggested an
> alternative politics of bios that combines individual and collective
> care in non coercive ways.
>
> In such a perspective, the decisions for the reduction of movement
> and for social distancing in times of epidemics, or for not
> smoking in closed public spaces, or for avoiding individual and
> collective practices that harm the environment would be the result of
> democratically discussed collective decisions. This means that from
> simple discipline we move to responsibility, in regards to others
> and then ourselves, and from suspending sociality to consciously
> transforming it. In such a condition, instead of a permanent
> individualized fear, which can break down any sense of social
> cohesion, we move to the idea of collective effort, coordination and
> solidarity within a common struggle, elements that in such health
> emergencies can be equally important to medical interventions.

<snip>

> And in the current conjuncture, social movements have a lot of room to
> act. They can ask of immediate measures to help public health systems
> withstand the extra burden caused by the pandemic. They can point to
> the need for solidarity and collective self-organization during such
> a crisis, in contrast to individualized “survivalist” panics.
> They can insist on state power (and coercion) being used to channel
> resources from the private sector to socially necessary directions.
> And they can demand social change as a life-saving exigency.
>
> Panagiotis Sotiris is an adjunct faculty member of the Hellenic Open
> University and editorial board member of the Historical Materialism
> Journal.
>
> Reposted from https://lastingfuture.blogspot.com/ with author’s permission.



#  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: