agamben / form of life

agamben / form of life

About these ads

5 Responses to “agamben / form of life”

  1. Movements, financial crisis, and the theory of the multitude « Bourgeois Sociology Says:

    […] One recurrent problem encountered by this theoretical tradition, however, is the problem of agency. Much of the theory is an attempt to account for the divergent particularities of power relations under capitalism (or ‘empire’), and it is difficult to see where or rather how there is room for collective projects except for the forms of ’swarming’ and ‘networked resistance’ that we discussed in class so far. This is a major problem. I think as an ontology of specificity (of that which shapes bodies, subjects, and inter-subjectivity, thus community, at the micro level), the theory works in a descriptive sense, but it also undermines more collective understandings of politics through its refusal of older forms of commonality. Or, rather, theory does not seem to be being used to enrich our understandings of actually-existing forms of commonality besides generic notions of the ‘multitude.’  Isn’t there room here for using this theory for unpacking, but also in some ways affirming, the forms of commonality present in classic categories of social thought at the level of organization or at the level of identity beyond just very generic instances of ‘multitute’: ie, at level of the ‘party,’ the ‘collective,’ the ‘movement,’ or the ‘indigenous,’ ‘the worker,’ ‘women,’ ‘queer,’ or even perhaps ’species’ (but that is perhaps getting too generic, and indeed some of the theory is focused on unpacking notions about ‘forms of life‘)? […]

  2. Homework « Imperfect Composition Says:

    […] One recurrent problem encountered by this theoretical tradition, however, is the problem of agency. Much of the theory is an attempt to account for the divergent particularities of power relations under capitalism (or ‘empire’), and it is difficult to see where or rather how there is room for collective projects except for the forms of ’swarming’ and ‘networked resistance’ that we discussed in class so far. This is a major problem. I think as an ontology of specificity (of that which shapes bodies, subjects, and inter-subjectivity, thus community, at the micro level), the theory works in a descriptive sense, but it also undermines more collective understandings of politics through its refusal of older forms of commonality. Or, rather, the theory does not seem to be being used to enrich our understandings of actually-existing forms of commonality besides generic notions of the ‘multitude.’ Isn’t there room here for using this theory for unpacking, but also in some ways affirming, the forms of commonality present in classic categories of social thought at the level of organization or at the level of identity beyond just very generic instances of ‘multitude’: ie, at level of the ‘party,’ the ‘collective,’ the ‘movement,’ or the ‘indigenous,’ ‘the worker,’ ‘women,’ ‘queer,’ or even perhaps ’species’ (but that is perhaps getting too generic, and indeed some of the theory is focused on unpacking notions about ‘forms of life‘)? […]

  3. JohnRQ Says:

    классный у вас блог, мне очень нравится

  4. Whatever Future: Interview with Alexander R. Galloway Says:

    […] own contribution to an older political discourse by evolving existing concepts such as the “form-of-life” or the “whatever singularity,” in addition to developing new ones such as the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: