Search

In Foucault's Futures: A Critique of Reproductive Reason, Penelope Deutscher explores the "suspended reserves" in Foucault's writing, "absent concepts and problems [that] can be given a shape in potentially transformative ways within philosophical frameworks which have omitted them Deutscher (Deutscher 2017, p. 5)." Deutscher pays particular attention to neglected figures of children in Foucault's works and she develops the notion of "responsibilization," processes of dividing populations into legible and illegible reproductive moral agents. This review of Foucault's Futures considers Deutscher's methodological innovation as it relates to Foucault's own method of genealogy. While the notion of "suspended reserves" risks privileging the academic over the "wide cultural surfaces" of power, Foucault's Futures provokes a queer critical ethics against ongoing violence of responsibilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new wave of publications attempts to bring together theory and history in order to reconsider the past, present, and future in light of a looming catastrophe. Whether in political theory, sociology, anthropology, or intellectual history, scholars are attempting to reflect about the present beyond the old boundaries that separate left and right, inner and outer, civilian and solider, friend and enemy. Three recent publications, by Catherine Mills, Didier Fassin, and an anthology edited by Devin Pendas, Mark Roseman, and Richard Wetzel, do so by considering the growth of biopolitical critique in their respective disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews the book "Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy," by Roberto Esposito and translated by Timothy Campbell.

The article reviews the book "Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy," by Roberto Esposito, and translated by Timothy Campbell.

The article reviews the books "Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy," by Roberto Esposito, translated by Timothy Campbell, and "The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century," by Nikolas Rose.

This article discusses several books, "Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life," by Giorgio Agamben and "Bios: Biopolitica e filosofia/Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy," by Roberto Esposito. This article was translated by Clarissa Clò.

This article discusses several books, "Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life," by Giorgio Agamben and "Bios: Biopolitica e filosofia/Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy," by Roberto Esposito.

In his recent book L’uso dei corpi, Giorgio Agamben investigates the philosophical genealogy of his central concept of inoperosità through a reconsideration of the classical notion of chresis or ‘use’. According to Agamben, the latter points to an alternative constitution of human nature, one that would not be guided by a principle of necessary actualisation (energeia), would not exhaust itself in the realisation of an end (ergon), but would rather preserve its potentiality in a thoroughly non-subjective (‘contemplative’) relation of the body to itself. For Agamben, it is only through the recognition and mobilisation of this alternative foundation of the human, that the pervasive division of life (between natural and political, ‘bare’ and ‘autarchic’, zoe and bios) upon which modern politics is premised, can be overcome. In this article, I propose to read in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein an instructive rehearsal of these fundamental concepts, focusing on the possible meanings that the notion of monstrosity may acquire when placed against the backdrop of modernity’s commitment to energeia and its associated biopolitical mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews the book "Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy," by Roberto Esposito.

This article reviews the book "Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy," by Roberto Espositio.