Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sam Thielman's avatar

This is a really good piece, John. I wonder if you'll have time to write more about how this intersects with contemporary essentialist attitudes on the right. I mean, they're historical attitudes but they're resurging as the more multiculti Star Trek-with-drone-strikes neocon movement is in retreat and the Britishized paleocons are continuing to advance, as are their politics of purification. It seems to me that there's some interaction between the notion that the libtards are using science as a stick to beat down the True American and the notion that the True American must protect his genetically European heritage; the latter seems like a far more direct and insidious mandate to protect the general welfare from interlopers than vaccine mandates, but maybe I don't grasp all the ins and outs.

Expand full comment
Jeremy Bemak's avatar

I agree! I loved this piece. Also, I think you're right that Agamben is probably more correct than Foucault in his assertion that biopower has always been a constitutive feature of societies. Control over women's "chaos inducing" sexuality seems to have been pervasive since pre-modern times (Daniel Boyarin in "Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture" has some great readings on this point).

I think what you say here sums it up for me, "It’s not always easy to draw the line or decide what is really taking place in a given situation, but continuing to think about biopolitics might sometimes provide us with a good place to start." Anyone who tries to invoke "biopower" as some dispositive principle is probably not thinking in a very careful way about the current political scene. Reminds me of what you wrote about with the Arendt center with their invitation to the AFD politician. Invoking principles of free speech is mostly meaningless without good judgment.

Also John, where did Rorty write what you quoted?

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts