2009
DOI: 10.1068/d3508
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biopolitics, Biopower, and the Return of Sovereignty

Abstract: The concept of biopolitics has recently become fashionable: it is often, and enthusiastically, invoked in every kind of context. We should avoid this automatic and unreflective use of the term. Let us ask ourselves, then, how and why life breaks through the center of the public scene, how and why the State regulates and governs it.'' Virno (2004, page 81)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
50
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
50
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In its original usage, the homo sacer was a category of person who could be killed by anyone, with no punishment, but at the same time could not be honored with sacrifice. In contemporary societies, Agamben (1998) argues, the category of homo sacer is epitomized by the prisoner in the concentration camp, who is at once both within and outside of a society—nakedly vulnerable to its power, but with no right to protection, and no defense or recourse other than the physical resistance and struggle for survival that any animal in captivity would exercise (Coleman and Grove 2009). The homo sacer occupies a ‘zone of indistinction’ (Diken and Lausten 2002), not recognized by political institutions as a constituency, but rather seen as a kind of deficit or problem to be controlled, managed, or corrected, as Scheper-Hughes (1997) has argued of ‘people who get rubbished.’…”
Section: The War On Drugs and The State Of Exceptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In its original usage, the homo sacer was a category of person who could be killed by anyone, with no punishment, but at the same time could not be honored with sacrifice. In contemporary societies, Agamben (1998) argues, the category of homo sacer is epitomized by the prisoner in the concentration camp, who is at once both within and outside of a society—nakedly vulnerable to its power, but with no right to protection, and no defense or recourse other than the physical resistance and struggle for survival that any animal in captivity would exercise (Coleman and Grove 2009). The homo sacer occupies a ‘zone of indistinction’ (Diken and Lausten 2002), not recognized by political institutions as a constituency, but rather seen as a kind of deficit or problem to be controlled, managed, or corrected, as Scheper-Hughes (1997) has argued of ‘people who get rubbished.’…”
Section: The War On Drugs and The State Of Exceptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rygiel, 2010;Topak, 2014;Vaughan-Williams, 2015a). For Foucault, biopolitics is a generalised form of governing, which involves a rationality or modality of power that manages or regulates populations through a series of calculative mechanisms that render life productive (Coleman and Grove, 2009). That is, biopolitics refers to a governmental regime whereby life becomes an object of calculation, with knowledge-power therefore actively operating on life itself.…”
Section: Governing Migration Through Deathmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, it tends to make "bare life" into a transhistorical condition that is universally present (Coleman & Grove, 2009). Put differently, "bare life" helps understand how vulnerability works as the focal point of an apparatus of security without considering the historical conditions that guide that shift, much less the processes that make some populations more vulnerable than others.…”
Section: Indeterminate Interventions: Security and Humanitarianismmentioning
confidence: 98%