<nettime> the necropolitics of the BLM uprising?

[Kurtz@mx.kein.org, Steven <sjkurtz@buffalo.edu>]

Way back in the day this list was used as a site to get feedback on
papers due for publication and/or presentation. If I can, I would like
to somewhat resurrect this function, by asking the collective
intelligence of this list for some help on a presentation I am trying to
structure. I need it. Those of you familiar with the work of Critical
Art Ensemble (CAE) know that for the past few years we have been
examining the very difficult and underdeveloped topic of necropolitics
(mostly through an environmental lens). Recently we were asked to
comment on what necropolitics means in relation to the current uprising
in the US. We are finding this request to be a tough task.

 

As always the biopolitical/biopower answer to the question of the
uprising is rather easy: In order to make the social environment
habitable for people of color major structural revisions in the
institutional justice system must be made, and an uprising will help to
force and expedite these necessary changes. However wherever biopower
expresses itself, necropolitics is going to do so as well. They are
inseparable. The necropolitical is much harder to analyze and discuss,
because we are not asking who should live and how, but who should die
and how. We are asking, how do we produce a social environment that is,
for some, uninhabitable. When there is an uprising part of the
collateral damage is that innocent people are killed and maimed, and/or
general misery within impacted areas is increased. How do we speak about
this human sacrifice given the belief (that CAE certainly holds) that an
uprising is a tactic that can be called upon to resist oppression, and
the sacrifice of the innocent in this case is acceptable?

 

Unlike with biopolitics, we believe we cannot make an appeal to justice.
One cannot argue for the "just" killing of innocent people. This debate
of just killing of the innocent is centuries old in the guise of can
there be a just war? CAE tends to fall on the side of "No, there can't
be a just war." But there can be an acceptable war-from the point of
view of the defenders, WWII is, even though some of the most horrific
atrocities of all time were committed by those very same defenders. As
with uprisings, although on a far greater scale, wars kill and maim
innocent civilians who want no part of the combat nor deserve any.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are again promoting the idea of a just
war. George W. Bush and the Neocons resurrected this concept for the
Middle East wars. It's fine for the innocent to die if the cause is
Just; we will mourn their loss. That was combined with the belief that
those who are on the side of Justice cannot commit murderous crimes
(perverse American exceptionalism). Certainly, Trump and the evangelical
mafia with which he surrounds himself believe this about policing.
Speaking of necropolitics through the lens of Justice is a very fraught
road to walk down.

 

Nor do we want to put on our quant hat and use the necropolitical
language of insurance adjusters-add up the value of lives, and choose
the lower of the two numbers. Even if such things as the "value of a
life" could be measured, this form of utilitarian quantitative analysis
is only wonderful if you are in the greatest good for the greatest
number set, but not so much if you are in the minority set. The current
model of policing in the US seems to have been using this model for at
least 50 years now, and is part of the reason we find ourselves in the
middle of an uprising in the first place.

 

The medical necropolitical language of triage could be used if done so
in the peacetime sense. Those with the greatest need get the greatest
amount of resources. Such a means to set policy on asset distribution
could solve some problems. However, what happens if the model reverts to
wartime? The US has done precisely this during the pandemic. Triage then
means those with simplest maladies to cure, and thereby those who amass
the greatest amount of future life years get the resources, and those
who are badly wounded or sick with few life years are abandoned. This
model would bode especially badly for the elderly during a pandemic, and
for minorities all the time.

This is currently the model for distribution of medical resources in the
US, and in turn has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ultimately, the
triage model does not explain why innocent deaths are acceptable. It's a
limited, pragmatic model for organizing death in emergency and
nonemergency situations.

 

So what makes blood sacrifice of the innocent acceptable (not justified)
during an uprising? Is it an emergent cultural groupthink? Or is it a
nonrational individual impulse? A combination thereof?  I know that
after I finish this post I am going drink some alcohol. If I am so
concerned about human sacrifice and particularly that of the innocent,
how can I not be supporting the prohibitionists trying to make alcohol
illegal? After all, it is a substance that is responsible for so much
premature death, illness and addiction, accidents, and alcohol fueled
violence of all kinds. Yet I find these casualties perfectly acceptable,
and want alcohol to be cheap, plentiful, and readily available.

 

To CAE, when it comes to necropolitics reason is insufficient, and
necropolitics is a part of the nonrational realm, where like most things
nonrational, it will be ignored by the vast majority . I hope  someone
here can tell us different, because I don't want to believe this. Many
thanks, Steve


-->


#  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: