Negative governance: vulnerability, biopolitics and the origins of government

Abstract

This paper develops the concept of negative governance, an idea that describes (1) a unique and specific modality of governance and (2) a way to think about the concept of governance in general. In terms of the former, negative governance describes a way of governing that works by refusing to govern. This refusal is not simply a denial of state provision (since this assumes a governing agent), but a denial of state management. Negative governance is a system of governing paradoxically predicated on the withdrawal of all positive procedures of state and a delegation of power to those forces that are by definition outside the state's capacities. It governs by allowing ‘life itself’ – life in all is chaotic unpredictability – to rule. In terms of the latter, negative governance raises questions about the origins of governance. Specifically, it asks ‘what is it that calls for governance?’ My answer is that the ‘call to govern’ emanates from a place wholly outside the state and the state's own representational logic. Expanding upon Levinas’ concept of the elemental, I argue that the state is not the agent that makes subjects vulnerable. On the contrary, vulnerability is a human condition: the body demands food, our loved ones come and go, death is always present. It is this basic vulnerability that calls for governance. And government is a response to this negative condition.

Geography, ontological politics and the resilient future

“…From one angle, in reference to governmental interventions and security controls, authors have argued that what we as critics need to emphasize is that life itself is fundamentally vulnerable and uncertain (e.g. Amoore, 2013;Rose, 2014). Here, the enchantment of becoming, or the ultimate inability to capture and harness the uncertain unfolding of life, is held onto as a foothold for crafting more just political futures.…”

A Place for Other Stories: Authorship and Evidence in Experimental Times

“…This statement is evidenced not only by the proliferation of self-consciously creative work (Wylie 2005;Edensor 2008;Lorimer and Lund 2008;M. Rose 2010;DeSilvey, Ryan, and Bond 2014;Parr and Stevenson 2014), but also by the rise of special issues (Leeuw and Marston 2013;Lorimer and Parr 2014) and the emergence of this very journal, whose remit is to "showcase a wealth of creative and experimental work being undertaken by geographers" (Cresswell et al 2015, 3).…”

Voicing Concerns: (Re)Considering Modes of Presentation

“…Notwithstanding the inclusion of lengthier excerpts from ethnographic field diaries (such as that demonstrated by Rose [2014]) or the presence of multiple scholarly citations (such as in Allan Pred's [1995] montage), quotes from participants are almost always displayed as single lines integrated into sentences, or as entirely separate indented paragraphs if they are approximately 40 words or more (as dictated by the author guidelines by publishers). Such a prescriptive nature of writing may well hamper the author's ability to fulfil Immy Holloway's requirements of a piece of qualitative research: that is, to "reconstruct a vivid picture of the world of the participants … and tell a compelling story" (2005,270).…”