Roberto Esposito - Immunization Paradigm

7/30/2019 Roberto Esposito - Immunization Paradigm

1/27


2/27

diacritics / summer 2006 23

The ImmunIzaTIon

ParadIgm

RobeRto esposito

in h fllwng xcr frm Bis,e kch h mla f mmuny a a r-n Fucaul nn f lc. Fr e w dvrgng ln characrzFoucault and the engima of biopolitics. In the rst, Esposito notes how Foucault ap-

pears to characterize biopolitics positively, especially when discussing the police func-tion. Thus in Omnes and Singulatim, life becomes the object of the police, when

they are charged with providing and regulating the indispensable, the useful, and the

superuous in life. Not only does Foucault implicitly link the function of the police asit emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to a new form of power over life,

biopower, but Foucault contrasts it with the sovereign regime, which unlike biopower

crc lf [321].In this narrative of power over life, life is always stronger than the(sovereign) power that seeks to capture it. Thus an afrmative biopolitics is precisely the

n ha r vrgn wr.th cnd nrrv ln aar whn w ak h dcv qun: f l-

c rf lf rngr han vrgn wrhn hw d w xlan ha hculmnan f a lc f lf gnrad a lhal wr ha cnradc h rducvmul [f h lc]? [Bis 37]. Drawng n Fucaul 197576 mnar n war

and racism, Esposito shows Foucault painting a far different and negative picture of bio-politics, particularly when the subject turns to a Nazi politics over life. Rather than mark-ing a constitutively afrmative character of biopolitics, Foucault implies that biopolitics

cnnually hran rvr lf n a hanalc; h clar cnclun ngthat biopolitics is hardly distinct from sovereign power and as such cannot be afrmative.

A e wr:

W csii t ni Stt, w c sy iifftly s Fclt islf

s, tt it ws t l svi pw tt pts bilicl cis, cis

b i ppsiti t it. o, t cty, tt it is t w bipliticl pw

tt s f t svi it f t i t iv lif t stt cis.

Now, if we have recourse to the rst interpretive model, biopolitics becomes an

itl ticlti f svity; if pivils t sc, svity is

c t fl sk f biplitics. [42]

The resulting antinomy, what Esposito will call a hermeneutic block in our under-standing of biopolitics, sets the scene for his own response to Foucault, namely, the im-munzan aradgm. tranlar n

* * *

dacrc 36.2: 2348


3/27

24

immuny

1. How and in what sense can immunization ll that semantic void, that interval of mean-

i tt ps i Fclts txt btw t cstittiv pls f t ccpt f bipli-

tics, ly, bily plitics? Lts bi by bsvi tt t cty f i-

ity, v i its ct i, iscibs itslf pcisly i ti itscti, tt is,

t ttil li tt liks t sp f lif wit tt f it. Wil i t biicl

sp t t mmuny fs t citi f tl ic fctiss tpt f livi is w fc wit iv iss, i pliticl-jiicl l

mmuny alludes to a temporary or denitive exemption on the part of the subject with t cct blitis spsibilitis tt l cicstcs wl

bi t ts. at tis pit, wv, w ly t t fis f t qsti: y

pliticl ts f bilicl ivti ( t lst f ssc) sc s ts f by,

ti, cstitti c t i. Yt i t ti f iiti sti

more determines its specicity when compared with the Foucauldian notion of biopoli-

tics, tis ccs t ftl cct tt fcs tt t tw lts

tt tt k p biplitics. rt t bi spips jxtps i

xtl f tt wl sbjct t t t, i t iity pi, nomos, lif plitics, s t tw cstitt lts f sil, iivisibl

wl tt tks i f ti itlti. nt siply t lti tt jis

lif t pw, iity is t pw t psv lif. Cty t wt is pspps i

t ccpt f bipliticsst s t slt f ct tt iss t cti

t btw t tw cptsi tis pspctiv pw xists tsi f

lif, jst s lif is v iv tsi f ltis f pw. F tis l, plitics is

ti t t t pssibility t istt f kpi lif liv [n va la va].Yt t cty f iiti ks it pssibl f s t tk t stp f-

w ( pps btt, ltlly) t t bifcti tt s btw t tw picipl

elaborations of the biopolitical paradigm: one afrmative and productive and the other

tiv ltl. W v s w t tw ts t t cstitt tslvs i

ltti cipcl f tt st llw pits f ctct. Ts, pw ts

lif cs its vlpt; vilts lif xcls it; ptcts pcs

life; and objectivizes and subjecties life without any terms that might mediate between

t. nw t tic vt f t iity l lis pcisly i t ci-

cstc tt ts tw litis, ts tw ffcts f sspsitiv tiv,

protecting and destructiveultimately nd an internal articulation, a semantic juncture

tt is t it csl lti (lbit f tiv ki). Tis s tt t

ti st tk t f f t vilt sbiti tt pw ipss lif

f t tsi, bt t is t itisiclly tiic by wic lif psvs

itslf t pw. F tis pspctiv, w c sy tt iiti is -tiv [f] f t ptcti f lif. It svs, iss, psvs t is, it

iivil cllctiv, bt it st s ictly iitly; t cty it

sbjcts t is t citi tt siltsly ts cs its pw t

xp. Jst s i t icl pctic f vcciti t iivil by, s t i-

iti f t pliticl by fctis siilly; itci witi it ft f t

s pt tt it wts t ptct itslf f, by blcki cticti tl

vlpt. I tis ss w c ctily tc pttyp bck t hbbsi pliti-

cl pilspy: w hbbs t ly plcs t pbl f t cnrva va t tt f is w tt, bt citis it t t sbiti f cstittiv pw

tsi it, ly t svi pw, t iity picipl s sstilly lyb f.

of cs w st t cfs t bjctiv sis f ty wit its slf-it-

ptti, wic bvisly ccs lt. hbbs, wit i l pt f


4/27


political philosophy, isnt completely aware of the specicity (and therefore also of the

ctfctl csqcs) f t ccptl pi wic i pit f fct i-

ts. I f t pw f t cticti tt is iplicit i iity lic

t c t lit, w t t wy f t lvl f cscis lbti t tt

of conscious reection. In other words, we need to introduce Hegel into our discussion.

It has been noted that Hegel was the rst to assume the negative not just as the pricean

wt si, cssy pltypi f t psitiv t b li, bt t s

t t f t psitiv; t fl tt llws it t fcti. of cs hl st ptt t t ccpt f iiti s sc. T lif t wic t hli ilctic

fs ccs tt f lity f tt i ti cstittiv iistictss t

t tt f il- ss s iivil s spcis (v if t cstitti f

sbjctivity i s f is ftl txts ccs tks t ct wit t

tt is ls bilicl).1 The rst to deploy such a meaning knowingly is Nietzsche. When

nitsc tsfs t ct f t lysis f t sl t t by btt, w

psits t sl s t iity f tt bt ptcts ipiss t byt

paradigm acquires its specic critical weight. Here we are dealing not only with the meta-

p f vilt vcciti tt nitsc ipts t i l, ctiti

i wit s w ss, bt ls wit t itptti f ti civilitii ts f slf-ptcti iity. all f kwl pws df plyt l f ptctivly ctii vitl pw [nza] tt xps witt liits.Wt nitscs jt it b bt sc pcl cccbl, biv-

ltw will s stly. T fct is, wv, tt wit nitsc t cty

f iiti s ly b cpltly lbt.

2. F tt t t st ivtiv pt f twtit-cty clt bis

t k iplicit s f t pi. T tivtt wic cticts , s,

vlsis s t ly s iispsbl lt i isty i ll t sil

or social congurations that it periodically assumes, but indeed as historys productive

ipls. Witt tt bstcl lck pst by t tiv, t lif f t ii-

vidual and of the species would never nd enough energy to develop on its own. Instead

it wl i it by t jbl f tl iplss f wic it s t f

itslf i t b bl t p t t pssibility f t pfc [razn].Ts eil dki fs pcisly t ily w csii istc-

tibl fctil plity f bvi tt pp s ptlicl i scil

vit:

Smallpox, a vaccine of which we use to inoculate ourselves, is a true disease that

we give ourselves voluntarily, yet it increases our chance of survival. There may

be many other cases where the damage caused by the sickness is insignicant

cmard wh h mmun ha cnfr un u. [73]

Yt pps it is wit t pilspicl tply vlp i gy i t il

f t lst cty tt t lxicl i i wic t ilcticl ti fcmnacqis its st xplicit iiti vlc. F mx Scl t hlt Plss,

ccli wit al gl, t cnd humana is litlly cstitt by t -tivity tt spts it f itslf.2 Tis is pcisly t s wy t is plc

bv t spcis tt spss t t lvl f ts tl lts qi

t liv. I wys ifft f mx, t ly c t liti f t b it-

1. On the communitarian motif in Hegel, see Bonito-Oliva 6364.

2. See Scheler, Ps Slf-Vl andPbls f Scily f Kwl; Plessner,Citi andLiits f City; and Gehlen, m, his nt Plc i t Wlandusc Sptklt.


5/27

26

t, bt i it psts t iispsbl citi f w itity. Ts t

man whom Herder had already dened an as invalid of his superior forces can be trans-

f it t cbtt f is ifi fcs, it Pts f sts

w is bl t vs is w iitil lck it i [Plss, Cnd humana 72]. Itis exactly these transcendences in the here and nowwhat Gehlen denes as institu-

tistt sti t ii s f t xcss f sbjctivity t bjc-

tiv cis tt siltsly libts pivs [duc] s [4445].

Yt if w t ci t iity stics t t ct f slf-pstti, w t v t t pit f itscti btw tw t ifft

(albeit converging) hermeneutic lines. The rst is that which extends from Freud to Nor-

bt elis l tticl li k by t kwl f civilitis cssily

iibiti cct. W elis spks f t tsfti f tcstictis it

slf-cstictis tt ccti t v f t lt-clssicl pi t t

, st siply ll t pssiv iliti f vilc, bt t t

its enclosure within the connes of the individual psyche. Thus, while physical conict

is sbjct t scil lti tt bcs v sv, t t s ti t

battleeld, is, in a sense, moved within. Part of the tensions and passions that were earlier

ictly ls i t stl f , st w b wk t witi thuman being [453]. This means that on one side the negative, in this case conict, is

tli wit spct t its st isptiv ffcts; t t tt t qilibi -

iv t i sc wy is f its pt k by tiv tt is it f witi.

T lif f t , ivi btw t ivi pw f t cscis t iibit-

i f t sp, is t sit i wic sc iity ilctic is xpss i

its st cctt f.

T sc st c if w sift ttti t t tsi. as w ly

noted, this is what results when other lines intersect with the rst (albeit less critically).

I fi t t citicl t tt ls s t Tlctt Pss fctilis

nikls Ls systs ty. Tt Pss islf lik is w sc t t

hbbsi pbl f is i tis ss bly iictiv f its iity cl-

sion: rst because it directly joins up with the philosopher with whom our genealogy

b, ly, hbbs; sc, f t stic ccptl slipp tt ccs

vis--vis hbbs, ltiv t t vci f t ct lttiv btw

conict and the regulated assumption of conict within order. Just as society needs to

integrate that individual which negates its essence, so too is order the result of a conict

tt is bt iti w.3

L is t w s w t st icl csqcs f ii-

ti, pticlly i tily. T sy, s s, tt t syst s t

ii itslf ist t bt wit t lp f t t pt tis i ts f

l isticti, it ptcts t ti ist iilti, s tti it tt t f t qsti, lvi si t pltic t lst t tl cttis

i wic t t fs it [37172]. his tsis tt systs fcti t by jcti

conicts and contradictions, but by producing them as necessary antigens for reactivat-

i ti w tibis, plcs t ti Li iscs i t stic bit

f iity.4 Luhmann afrms that a series of historical tendencies point to a growing

cc t ly wit lii scil ily f t st f ity, p-

ticularly from the eighteenth century onwards, but to see societys specic immunitary

syst s t ll syst itslf [374]. W t vlpt f t ilicl

3. For this reading of Parsons, see Bartolini.4. [Esposito deals more at length with Luhmann and immunity, particularly in the juridical

sense, in Iits 5261. tran.]


6/27


scicbii t lst wit t wk f Btst jst pvi ly

t tis cplx f ttis, tt is t t w t iity pi

cs t cstitt t lic pict btw itllctl xpics ti-

tis f tiki tt t ifft.5 W citiv scitists lik d Spb

ti tt cltl yics c b tt s bilicl p tf

sbjct t t s piilicl lws tt lt livi iss, d hwy,

i citicl il wit Fclt, cs t tt t i syst is pl f

ifl cti t cstct iti t bis f wt y ct s slf t i t ilctics f Wst biplitics [204]. Siilly, wil o mq

f is pt itpts t stticiti f pst lity s f f pvtiv

sttiti, wi lbliti pvis s wit t f sc

rather the denitive background to our paradigm. Just as communicative hypertrophy

bt by tltics is t vs si f li iiti, s t t

clls f ii ititis f sll stts ti bt t ctffct t cisis

f llic cti t lbl ctiti.6

3. T w lt tt I v itc i tis bt ccs wt pps t

me to be the rst systematic elaboration of the immunitary paradigm held on one side by

t ctstiv syty wit t ccpt f cityitslf i t lit f itsoriginal meaningand on the other by the specically modern characterization of im-

ity.7 T tw qstis qickly sw tslvs t b ittwi. Tci t t

bck t its tylicl ts, mmuna is vl s t tiv lcki [rva-va] f fcmmuna. Ifcmmuna is tt lti, wic i bii its bst bliti f cipcl ift-ivi, jpis iivil itity, mmuna ist citi f ispsti f sc bliti tf t fs ist

t xppiti fts fcmmuna. Dna is pcisly tt wic livst num f wity bliti, jst s it fs t xpt [lnr] ftt s, wic i ii is tcbl t t stics f cipcl munu.8 nw tpit f ipct bcs cl btw tis tylicl tticl vct t

isticl pply licl . W c sy tt lly immunitas, t t

it ptcts t w cis it f isky ctct wit ts w lck it, sts

its w bs tt w jpi by t c. Bt if iiti iplis sb-

stitti ppsiti f pivt iivilistic ls wit f f city

itiwtv i w y wis t ttibt t sc xpssit

stctl ccti wit t pcsss f iti is cl.

of cs, by istitti stctl ccti btw ity ii-

ti, I t wt t tt ity it b itptbl ly t

iity pi, tt it is cibl ly t t . I t ws, I

t y t istic pctivity f cslit xticl ls f s sc

s tiliti (Wb), scliti (Lwit), lititi (Blb).It ss t , t, tt ll t c i f ctiti wit xplictiv

cty, wic is t t s ti cplx pf, tt csti-

tts its lyi pis. Tis spls f ss wit spct t t bv-ti

models is attributable to two distinct and interconnected aspects. The rst has to do with

t fct tt wil t pcs slf-itptiv cstctist qsti f

5. See in this regard Napier.

6. On this last point see Brossat and Gasparotti. On globalization more generally, see Mar-rama.

7. in h rgard h Iits andCits. Gu Canaran ha rcnly wr-n a wll n m f h am hm.

8. brun Accarn ha drawn ann h ng lary f Blst/etlst(d/xnran) [ . 1748].


7/27

28

tcly [cnca] in the rst case, that of the sacred in the second, and that of myth int tiiit i cicscib ttic ct t sitt slii

xis, t iiti pi fs s t stic i tt itslf is pllistic;

f istc pcisly w t munu is cc. Ivsti sis f lxicl s fifft pvc stiti, t dff t tliti f t munu willturn out to have internal articulations, as is testied even today by the polyvalences that

t t f iity still itis.

Bt tis itl icss st xst t tic pttil f t ct-y. It ls s t b ivstit tis is t sc lt t bvby

lki t t pticl lti tt t cty, iity, itis wit its ty,

city. W v ly s w t st icisiv i f mmuna is i-scib i t vs lic fcmmuna: i is t bi t t-viyti i c [s cpt 1 fb]. Yt it is pcisly sc tiv iplic-ti wit its cty tt iicts tt t ccpt f iiti psppss wt

it ls ts. nt ly s it pp t b iv liclly, bt it ls pps t b

ibit by its ppsit. Ctily, c lwys bsv tt t pis f isil-

lsi, scliti, lititit i wit ts cit bvss i

cti wy ti w ltity, tt is, illsi, t ivi, tscc, spctivly.Bt ty ls pspps pcisly tt wic f ti t ti is cs, wic t

lsss t lst cs it sti ifft. F its pt, t tiv f mmun-a (wic is t wy f syi cmmuna) st ly ispp, bt cstittssiltsly its bjct t. Wt is ii, i bif, is t s city

i f tt bt psvs ts it, btt psvs it t t ti f

its iil i f ss. F tis pit f viw, it sy tt t t

fsiv ppts spips t city, iiti is its itl c-

is [ngranagg]: t fl tt i s wy spts city f itslf, slt-i it f bbl xcss. T ifftil i tt pvts t city

f cicii wit itslf tks t p stic itsity f its w ccpt. T

sviv, t cityvy cityis fc t itjct t tiv lity

f its ppsit, v if t ppsit is pcisly lcki ctstiv f

bi f t city itslf.9

4. Bt t stctl ccti btw ity iiti llws s t

tk t stp fw wit fc t t ti f biplitics. I t bv w

Fclt islf scillts btw tw pssibl piitis ( tf itp-

ttis) f t pi tt islf itc.10 If biplitics is b w sv-

ity cs t sppsi tt it s lly c t tis s tt t

isty f biplitics is lly i cti ss pst. If ist, s

Fclt ssts t ccsis, biplitics ccpis t svi i, c-

stituting a particular articulation or a specic tonality, then its genesis is far older, one thatltitly cicis wit tt f plitics itslf, wic s lwys i wy t

b vt t lif. Wit t t sc, t qsti is: wy i Fclt p p

a new site of reection? The semantics of immunity can provide us with an answer to this

qsti t t tt iity plcs biplitics witi isticlly ti

i. Wit iity i i, wl pps v t spk bt biplitics bi-

i wit t cit wl. W s pw ptt st ply it bilicl lif

if t i t l ps i wic t bis f slvs w flly vilbl t t c-

9. Wh rgard h ara and h nal f h dalcc (r nndalcc) wnimmunity and community, see the intelligent essay that Massimo Don has dedicated to the cat-egory of immunization, using a key that productively pushes it towards a different logic of negation.

[th ay cllcd n h vlum ].10. s Bis 3239.


8/27


tll iti f ti sts, w piss f w cl b lititly

t wit sw by t vict? a w c t pw f lif t xcis

by rarfamla wit spct t ti w cil b st if t bipliti-clly?11 Wt istiiss t eypti i plitics t plitics f yi

lt f r f ptctiv pcs t vlpt f lif st i ti by

bipw? T ly plsibl sps wl, it ss t , v t f t t

ftlly iiti cttis f t ltt, wic w bst i t cit

wl.If w v f t isticl t t ccptl lvl, t iffc pps v

vit. Csi t tst pilsp f tiqity, Plt. I pps

t Plt c w itify vt f tt tt wl s t b it

tw biplitics. nt ly s csi s l ts ic pctics tt

Spt pt wit spct t fil bbis lly wit t ts t

s s sitbl f pblic lifi, ss t v s qit cssybt,

tis is wt tts , ls t scp f pliticl tity t icl t -

pctiv pcss s wll, i s f s t c tt ts f bi f

s t stic ils b ppli t t pcti f ffspi (ada

kna) f citis t lst t t is [guardan].

i fllw frm ur cnclun far ha x huld rfraly ak lac -tween men and women who are outstandingly good, and should occur as little as

l wn mn and wmn f a valy nfrr am. i al fllw hathe offspring of the rst group shouldnt [reproduce]. This is how to maximize

the potential of our ock. And the fact that all this is happening should be con -cealed from everyone except the rulers themselves, if the herd of guardians is to

be as free as possible from conict. [173]

S v t tt psss f tis styti bt if t lwys s xplic-

ity wll v ctibt t bipliticl i tt ni pp tk t

xt.12 Witt wti t itc t tis f Bs gbl i

t pllls btw Plt hitl, w ly f t t sccss f hs F.

K. gts plan al Hr d Ln i t itify t itsti tcf ticl li tt ls icls ts sc s Wilb.13 W gt

itpts t Pltic klg i ts fAul Zuch (f zchn), tt is, sslcti, w ct lly spk f t--t btyl f t txt, bt t f

ki f bilicl fci tt Plt islf i swy tis t ii

llws (t lst iRepublic, i Politics, iLaws, wic is qit ifft f t

vwly listic ils). ubtly, v if Plt st ictly spcify

t stiy f fctiv bbis wit xplicit fc t iftici t ti b-t, vtlss w s i t ctxt f is iscss, c clly if

Plts isitst tw t; t s ls t f t icbly ill, f w its t

wtwil vti slss xpsiv c [Rulc 174]. ev if aisttl tst t t ply ic ttpliticl ss f ts txts, it is t

cs tt Plt vl islf s ssitiv t t f kpi p t gn f

11. [e clarly rfrrng Agamn dcun f ptfilis n h Sc:Svi Pw Lif. tran.].

12. s n h rgard smna Fr nvalual ay.13. s a wll Gnhr hits, whch mv n h am drcn. th fllwng ar

the authors Gnther cites in the third edition of his book on Plato [1966, 910]; Taylor, Stenzel,

Friedlnder, Ritter, Jaeger, Robin, Krger, and Hoffmann. [The bibliography contains all publish-ng nfrman. tran.]


9/27

30

t is lly f t vs f tl cci t ii Sptcsts w by Citis Sp [88].

Sl w tf ccl f Plts clsss t bipliticl stics tt

gk sis f biplitics c i fct b tc? I wl b cfl i spi

yes to the question and not only because Platonic selection does not have a specic

ethno-racial inection, nor more precisely a social one, but instead an aristocratic and

ptitil . mv, ist f vi i iity icti, tt is

it t t psvti f t iivil, Plts iscs is clly ict t citi ss, xt, ly, t t f t knn. It is tis cllctiv,pblic, cl, i iity tt kps Plt t ti p

clt lly tsi ply bipliticl i. I is iptt stis

cit ici, mi Vtti s sw w Plt sly citicis t ittics f

hics di, pcisly f tis lcki, iivilistic tf cssily

ipliticl tcy.14 Cty t t bictic f iclii plitics,

Plt stps st f pliticii ici.

5. hvi si tis, f cs its t y itti t tt bf ity

v ps qsti f iity. o typlicl lvl t f slf-ps-

vti, stictly spki, is f l t t pc. I cl plsiblycli tt it is cxtsiv wit t ti isty f civiliti f t t tt

immunity constitutes the ultimate precondition, or better the rst condition, in the sense

tt scity c xist witt fsiv ppts, wv ity it it

b, tt is cpbl f ptcti itslf. Wt cs, wv, is t t tt

bcs w f t qsti, tf f t ki f spss t. Tt

plitics s lwys i s wy b pccpi wit fi lif st tct t

ll f t fct tt, bii f cti pit tt cicis xctly wit t i-

gins of modernity, such a self-defensive requirement was identied not only and simply

s iv, bt t s bt pbl sttic pti. By tis it is st tt

ll civilitis pst pst fc ( i s wy slv) t s f ti w

iiti, bt tt it is ly i t s tt iiti cstitts t

most intimate essence. One might come to afrm that it wasnt modernity that raised the

qsti f t slf-psvti f lif, bt tt slf-psvti is is i itys

w bi [r], wic is t sy, it ivts ity s isticl cticl p-pts bl t cp wit it. Wt w st by ity, tf, i its cplx-

ity its ist bi c b st s tt tl tt f b f

ctis v xpssi t qst tt iits i lif itslf t t lbti

f sis f tis cpbl f spi t lif i wys tt bc ffctiv

spistict v ti. Tis cc w tl fss w iiis;

w fss tt p t cti pit cstitt t syblic, ptctiv sll f

xpic w lss, iptt t t tsctl ttws lik t t tlicl tix. It is t t tt sly ps i t il f

t lst illi i tt li iiti wppi, wic tis t f

a different defensive apparatus of the articial sort that can protect a world that is con -

stittivly xps t isk. Pt Sltijk ss t bl cticty ppsity

f iiti : t si ptct f xtiity witt

y- slt, t t, pcisly bcs f tis, fc t k p f sc

lck wit t lbti f w v st iity blcis; w fc

wit lif t ly ly xps [dnudaa] bt cpltly liv v t itslf.15

14. With regard to these problems and with an implicit attention to the immunitary paradigm,

an mran ay y Gnnar Carll wa rcnly ulhd.15. on ugh k n mnd h hr mran vlum ha aard undr h l

Sp, in which Sloterdijk traces the lines of a true and actual social immunology.


10/27


If tt is t, t t st iptt pliticl ctis f ity t t b

itpt i ti bsltss, tt is, f wt ty cl tslvs t b, t

exclusively on the basis of their historical conguration, but rather as the linguistic and

istittil fs pt by t iity lic i t sf lif f t

risks that derive from its own collective conguration (and conagration). That such a

logic expresses itself through historical and conceptual gures signies that the modern

iplicti btw plitics lif is ict bt t iit. I t b ctli

ffctivly, lif qis sis f itis cstitt pcisly by ts ctis.S tt lif c b psv ls vlp, tf, it s t b by pc-

s cpbl f svi it f tl isks. h psss t bl li tt sts

plitics pt; si, f wt cs bf it, t t, f t ci-

ti tt fllws it.

With regard to the rst, modern politics already had a clear biopolitical tendency in

t pcis ss tt psi t pbl fcnrva va. Yt lik wt willpp i ps tt w will cll f w sc ity, t ltisip btw

plitics lif vs t t pbl f t isticl ccp-

tl ctissvity, ppty, libty, pwi wic it is ivt. It is tis

psppsiti f wit spct t livi sbjctivity f wic it bjctivly ist tt tis t ptic stct f pliticl pilspy; i

t fct tt its sps t t qsti f slf-psvti f wic it is b s

t ly s viti f bt, s w will s s , s ls slf-cticty,

is t slt t xpssi f ilctic tt is ly i itslf tiic s is t i-

ity ilctic. If pliticl pilspy is tsk wit ptcti lif (wic is

lwys ti tivly), t t pliticl ctis i t xpss it will

p ci p ist ti w pp is, twisti ist tslvs. a

this despite their specic contents: the pretense of responding to an immediacythe

qsti fcnrva vais cticty t t itis, wic pcisly tccpts f svity, ppty, libty. Tt ll f t t cti pit i ti

isticl-stic pbl c t t scity f t sbjct w pps t b

the owner or beneciary, is not to be understood either as a contingent derivation or as

a destiny xed somehow beforehand, but rather as the consequence of the modality of

immunity through which the Modern thinks the gure of the subject.16 m t y

else, Heidegger understood the essence of the problem. To afrm that modernity is the

pc f pstti, tt is, f t subjectum tt psitis itslf s n n u-analr cmlum vis--vis its w bjct, tils bii it bck pilspiclly tt i f iity:

Representation is now, in keeping with the new freedom, a going forthfrom

out of itselfinto the sphere, rst to be made secure, of what is made secure.[. . .] th sbjct, the fundamental certainty, is the being-represented-to-ghr-whmad cur a any mf rrnng man ghr wh hentity represented, whether something human or non-human, i.e. together with

the objective. [T a f t Wl Pict 14950]

Yt t lik t sbjct t sc i f iity ls s cii

t pi i wic t s xpic is tt: tt f ski t slt lif i

t s pws [nz] tt blck its vlpt.

16. This reading of modernity has for some time been the object of discussion for Paolo Flores

dArcais. See his important essay, Il sv il issit: L ci ps sl si, and hda ha nud n mic 23 (2004).


11/27

32

svrgny

1. T ccpt f svity st ctly xpsss sc pw. Wit t t

lysis iitit by Fclt, svity is st t s cssy cps-

ty ily vis--vis t itsivss f ctl df s ptstic plyof the ancient power of death of the new biopolitical regime, but as the rst and most

inuential gure that the biopolitical regime assumes. This accounts for its persistence

i ep jiicl-pliticl lxic: svity st c bf ft bi-plitics, bt cts css t ti i, fisi t st pwfl sps t t

pbl f t slf-psvti f lif. T iptc f hbbss pilspy,

v bf is isptiv cticl ivtis, sis i t bslt istictivss

by wic sc tsiti is flt. ulik t gk ccptiwic lly tiks

plitics i t pitic isticti wit t bilicl isit ly s t

qsti fcnrva va i hbbs bc flly pt f t pliticl sp, btit cs t cstitt by f its st pvlt isi. I t qlify s sc, t

ply i pliticl fs, lif st bv ll b iti s lif, b ptct s sc,

and be protected from the threat of dissipation. Both the denition of natural right, that

is, wt c , tt f tl lw, tt is, wt st , cct f tisiil cssity:

The Right of Nature, which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale, is the Liberty

each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of

his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any

thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, hee shall conceive to the aptest

man hrun. [Lvahan 87]

as f tl lw, it is Pcpt, ll rl, f t by rs, by wic

is fbi t tt, wic is stctiv f is lif, tkt wy t s f p-

svi t s, t it, tt, by wic tikt it y b bst psv [87].

T ts cstcti ly sitts it i clly bipliticl f. Its

t by cc tt t t w hbbs ts is ttti is t ccti

sstilly by t by, by its s, by its iplss, by its ivs. a w t

jctiv pliticl is , tis st qlittivly ify t sbjct t wic it

fs. Wit spct t t clssic aisttli ivisi, t by, csi pliticlly,

is cls t t is fzt t tt f; btt, it is sitt pcislyt t pit t wic sc isticti fs lss i. Wt is t stk,

pcisly, wt is i cstt f xticti, is lif st i its tility,

i its iit pysicl itsity. It is f tis s tt s lw cv

the same point dened by the pressing demands of preserving life. But what sets in mo-ti t ttiv hbbsi ci is t cicstc tt it t

t is bl by itslf t civ sc bjctiv witt cplx ppts

bl t t it. T iitil ttpt t slf-psvti [cnau rarvand]i is sti t fil iv t cbi ffcts f t t tl iplss tt

accompany and precisely contradict the rst, namely the inexhaustible and acquisitive

desire for everything, which condemns men to generalized conict. Although it tends to

slf-pptti, t fct is tt lif ist cpbl f i s its w. o t cty,

it is sbjct t st, ctfctl vt sc tt t lif pss i t

icti f slf-psvti, t fsiv ffsiv s bili t

tis , iv t ftl qlity , ll f w cpbl f killic t ts f t s s, ll cpbl f bi kill:


12/27


And therefore, as long as this naturall Right of every man to every thing en-dureth, there can be no security to any man, (how strong or wise soever he be),

of living out the time, which Nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. [8788]

It is tt t iity cis bis t pt. If lif is b t its

itl pws, t its tl yics, lif is sti t slf-stct bcs it

cis witi itslf sti tt ilctbly plcs it i cticti wit itslf. ac-

cily, i t sv itslf, lif s t stp t itslf t cstitt tsctlpit f wic it civs s slt. It is i tis itvl bli f lif

with respect to itself that the move from nature to artice is to be positioned. It has the

s f slf-psvti s t, bt i t ctli it, it s t t itslf

wy f t, by fllwi stty tt is pps t it. oly by ti itslf

c t sst its w will t liv. Psvti pcs t t sspsi

t liti [ranazn] f tt wic s t b ptct. Tf t pliticlstt ct b s s t ctiti t ifct f t, bt t s its

tiv cvs. Tis st tt plitics cs lif t its sipl bilicl

lytt it s it f vy qlittiv f, s it , bt ly by sift-

i hbbs it t, isli lxic. Its t by ccit tt v spks fb lif, bt t cty i ll is txts, iplis it i ts tt wll by si-

ply itii lif. If iD cv s tt [B]t by sfty st b st, tt sl psvti f lif i wt citi sv, bt i t its ppiss [158],

ielmn stsss tt wit t jt (salu ul urma lx ) st bunderstood, not the mere preservation of their lives, but generally their benet and good

[178], t ccl i Lvit tt by sfty is t t b psvti, bt

ls ll t cttts f lif, wic vy by lwfl isty, witt

t t t Cwlt, sll cqi t islf [240].

n s tis tt t cty f lif i t pi plcs tt f

plitics, wit pssiv pliticiti s its slt. o t cty, c t ctlity

f lif is stblis, it is pcisly plitics tt is w t spsibility f svi

lif, bt is t cisiv pit i t stct f t iity piit

ccs t tiic dftt pcs vi t ctivti f its cty. I t b sv, lif s t iv p sti tt is itl t itslf, wt i fct c-

stitts its picipl vct its w pw t xp, ly, t cqisitiv si

f vyti tt plcs itslf i t pt f ltl pisl. I it is t tt vy

livi is s witi it st f tl iity syststt fs

it from the attack of an external agent. But once its deciencies or rather its counterpro-

ctiv ffcts v b scti, it is sbstitt wit ic iity, wic

is to say an articial one that both realizes and negates the rst. This occurs not only

bcs it is sitt tsi t iivil by, bt ls bcs it w is iv t tskf fcibly ctii its piil itsity.

2. Tis sc iity ( btt, tiity) dispositif, wic is sti

to protect life against an inefcient and essentially risky protection, is precisely sover-

ity. S c s b si bt its pctil iti bt its ptivs

tt t is t s t . Wt pps st lvt f pspc-

tiv is t cstittivly ptic lti tt tis it t t sbjcts t w it is ict.

nw t i tis cs is t t t b st i its bl i:

ty sbjcts f svity t t xtt t wic ty v vltily istitt it

t f ctct. Bt ty sbjcts t svity s wll, bcs, c it s

b istitt, ty ct sist it f pcisly t s s: twis ty wlb sisti tslvs. Bcs ty sbjcts f svity, ty sbjct t it.

Ti cst is sk f ly c, ft wic ty c l tk it bck.


13/27

34

h w c bi t k t t cstittivly tiv cct f svi

immunization. It can be dened as an immanent transcendence situated outside the con-

tl f ts tt ls pc it s t xpssi f ti w will. Tis is pcisly

t cticty stct tt hbbs ssis t ccpt f pstti: t

pst, tt is t svi, is siltsly iticl ifft wit spct

t ts tt psts. h is iticl bcs sts i ti plc, yt ifft

f t bcs tt plc is tsi ti f cti. T s sptil

tiy is s tplly, tt is, tt wic t istitti sbjcts cl t vpt i plc ls t bcs it liclly pcs t s ti w s psp-

psiti.17 F tis pit f viw, cl sy tt t iiti f t

sbjct lis pcisly i tis xc btw cs ffct: , t sbjct, c b

psppsslf-isi islf i his tsbcs is ly ct

i psppsiti tt pcs tis i. It is t s lti iti

btw svi pw iivil its. as Fclt xplis it, ts tw l-

ts st t b s i ivsly pptil ltisip tt citis t

strengthening of the rst to the shrinking of the second or vice versa. On the contrary,

they mutually implicate themselves in a form that makes the rst the complementary

vs f t t: ly iivils w csi ql wit ts c istitt svi tt is cpbl f lititly psti t. at t s ti, ly

bslt svi c f iivils f sbjcti t t sptic pws. as

ct isciiti istipy s cl, bsltis iivilis,

t t xcli cticti t, iplict c t i lti

tt is scibbl t t s tic pcss.18 It is t bsltis tt iivi-

ls li tslvs t t s ti t tslvs; psppsi ti w

psppsiti, ty piv tslvs isf s ty cstitt s sbjcts f

t t tt t tc f sc fi is ti t t tt wic i t

cstcts t.

Bi t slf-lititi cct f iiti, t l bipliticl

fcti tt iivilis pfs is cl. Pst s t iscvy

t ipltti f t sbjcts ty, iivilis i lity fctis s t

iity il t wic svity iplts t ptcti f

lif. W slt ls sit f y itit stp i tis ilctic. W kw tt i

stt f t ls lt t c t cci t lity f t iivil tt

leads to generalized conict. But such a conict is still always a horizontal relation that

bis t t cl isi. nw it is xctly tis clityt

that derives to each and every onethat is abolished through that articial individualiza-

ti cstitt pcisly by t svi df. mv, t s c is t b i t t absolutism, t ly i t ipc f pw f vy xtl

liit, bt bv ll i t isslti pjct t : ti tsfti it i-ivils, qlly bslt by sbtcti f t t munu tt kps t bclly. Svity is t t-bi [l nn r]-i-c f iivils; tpliticl f f ti sciliti.

3. T tiv f mmuna already lls our entire perspective: in order to saveitself denitively, life is made private in the two meanings of the expression. It is priva-

ti -piv f tt lti wic xpss it t its cl k. evy xt-

l ltisip t t vticl li tt bis vy t t svi c is ct

t t t.indvdual litlly s tis: t k iivisibl, it i slf, by ts li tt ivis f vy ls. T iivil pps ptct f t

tiv b tt ks i islf t t ( t f t psitiv pw

17. See in this regard Galli, Biral, and Duso.

18. i am rfrrng n arcular schnur.


14/27


of the sovereign). One might come to afrm that sovereignty, in the nal analysis, is noth-

ing other than the articial vacuum created around every individualthe negative of the

lti t tiv lti tt xists btw lt titis.

Yt it ist ly tis. T is sti ls tt hbbs st sy ply, s

liits islf t ltti it f t css t itl sifts f t iscs

itslf. It ccs t f vilc tt t iity ppts ct it

bcs it s pc it itslf. F tis pspctiv, Fclt sis iptt

pit tt is t lwys li wit t cssy psis i t hbbsi lit-ture: Hobbes is not the philosopher of conict, as is often repeated in regard to the war

f vy ist vy , bt t t pilsp f pc, btt, f t

neutralization of conict, from the moment that the political state needs preemptively to

is ist t pssibility f itci wf [Fclt, Society Must be Defended

90]. Yet the neutralization of conict doesnt completely provide for its elimination, but

ist f its icpti i t ii is s ti cssy f t

ctis fti f tibis. nt v t ptcti tt t svi sss is

sbjcts is xpt. h spcilly is ifst t st stit f f tiby. C-

ctly, i t f istts pt t itit t f f vilt t tt ll

fl tw t t, it is f tt is ccptbl bcs it is cctt bjctiv (t t f tis s sstilly ifft f t ly

overcome). In a certain sense, the asymmetric condition intensies this fear, a condition

i wic t sbjct [udd] nds himself vis--vis a sovereign who preserves thattl it psit by ll t t ts f t tc it t civil stt. Wt

ccs f tis, s slt, is t cssy liki f t psvti f lif wit t

pssibilitylwys pst v if ly tilif t tki wy f lif by t

w is ls c wit isi it. It is it pcisly f lif t, st

s t svi ptiv tt ct b ctst pcisly bcs it s b t-

i by t s sbjct tt s it. T px tt sppts t ti lic lis i

the circumstance that the sacricial dynamic is unleashed not by the distance, but on the

contrary, by the assumed identication of individuals with the sovereign who represents

t wit ti xplicit will. Ts ti t Svi rpsttiv c t

sbjct, wt pts sv, c pply b cll Ijstic, Ijy: bcs

vy Sbjct is at f vy ct t Svi t [Lvahan 149]. It is xctlytis spipsiti btw ppsits tt itcs t i t iscs f lif:

And therefore it may and does often happen in Common-wealths, that a Subject

may be put to death, by the command of the Soveraign Power and yet neither doe

the other wrong: As when Jeptha caused his daughter to be sacriced: In which,

and the like cases, he that so dieth, had Liberty to doe the action, for which he

is neverthelesse, without Injury put to death. And the same holdeth also in aSoveraign Prince, that putteth to death an Innocent Subject. [150]

Wt s wit svity tt is ly bly cti by t xcptil c-

ct i wic t vt pps cicscib is t cstittiv tiy f t sv-

i iiti, wic is t ly bs t lwys ts ltisip btw

xcpti , bt its l cct f xcpti (bcs ticipt by t

s tt ss t xcl it). Tis xcptit liil cicic f ps-

vation and capacity of life to be sacricedrepresents both a remainder that cannot be

it, s wll s t stctl tiy wic t ci f iity -

iti sts. at t s ti, it is t si f tscc tt ic ctbsbt pic f t pliticl wit spct t t jiicl wit wic it is

also identiedand the aporetic motor of their dialectic. It is as if the negative, having


15/27

36

b kpt t its iity fcti f ptcti lif, sly vs tsi t f

its ty stiks lif wit ctllbl vilc.

prry

1. T s tiv ilctic tt its iivils t svity by spti t

ivsts ll t pliticl-jiicl ctis f ity s t ivitbl slt f tiiity clsi. Tis ls t f tt f ppty. I w c sy tt

pptys cstittiv lvc t t pcss f iiti is t i

wit spct t t ccpt f svity. a tis f tw ss. Fist, tks t t

iiy titsis tt jxtpss c t s w [rr], which by deni-tion signies not common, ones own is as such always immune. And second because

the idea of property marks a qualitative intensication of the entire immunitary logic.

as w jst cc t bsv, wil svi iiti s s tsc-

t wit spct t ts w ls ct it, tt f ppity iiti s t

themor better, remains within the connes of their bodies. It concerns a process that

liks ki it [mmannzzazn] spciliti: it is s if t ptctivapparatus that is concentrated in the unitary gure of sovereignty is multiplied to the de-

tt sil iivils istll i ti bilicl iss.

At the center of the conceptual transition we nd the work of John Locke. Here just

s i hbbs, wt is t stk is t psvti f lif (psvti f islf, si

f slf-psvti [ts: i elis]), wic Lck cls f t tst t b t

rst and strongest God Planted in Men [tw tra 224]; bt i f tt ks itcitil, sti ls, pcisly t res propria, tt bt iss f ifcs

it.

For the desire, strong desire of Preserving his Life and Being having been Plant-ed in him, as a Principle of Action by God himself, Reason, which was the Voice

of God in him, could not but teach him and assure him, that pursuing that natu-ral Inclination he had to preserve his Being, he followed the Will of his Maker,

and therefore had the right to make use of those Creatures, which by his Reason

or Senses he could discover would be serviceable thereunto. And thus Mans

Property in the Creatures, was founded upon the right he had, to make use of

those things, that were necessary or useful to his Being. [223]

T it f ppty is tf t csqc s wll s t fctl pciti

f t pc f lif. T tw ts iplict c t i cstittiv cc-

ti tt ks f t cssy pciti f t t: witt lif i wict i, ppty wl t b iv; bt witt sti f s w, i by

pli itslf i ppty, lif wl t b bl t stisfy its w s ts

it wl b xtiis. W stt ls sit f t sstil stps i t t.

Lck st lwys icl lif t pptis f t sbjct. It is t tt i

general he unies lives, liberties, and estates [trans: in English] within property, so that

c sy tt civil s lif, libty, bily lt f f pi,

t pssssi f tw tis, sc s ls, y, fit, t lik [ela67].19 Bt i t psss ppty sss stict ss, tt is liit

t t til s t wic lif st bl.

19. Cf. the following: And tis not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to joyn

in Society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual Psvti

of their Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by their general name, Ppty [Tw Ttiss368].


16/27


hw s xpli sc icc? my w fli is tt t st

t i lss bvis fsi, ts tw citiv litis sl t b jxtps

bt itt spips i sil ffct f ss: lif is ctpsly

isi tsi ppty. It is itl f t pit f viw f vis pt f t

s wit wic vy is w. Bt by tt, lif is ls t ll f t sb-

jct, if lks t it f t pit f viw f bi. I, i tis cs it is ppty,

y ki f ppty, tt is, pt f lif. W c sy tt Lcks ti pspctiv is

dened by the relationship and the exchange that he now and again institutes betweents tw ptics. Lif ppty, bi vi, ps ti pss p

tt i tl lti tt ks f bt t ctt t cti f t

t. W cls tt t tl stt is stt f Libty t isps, ,

s lists, is Ps, actis, Pssssi, is wl ppty, witi t allwc

f ts Lws wic is; ti t t b sbjct t t bity Will f

t, bt fly t fllw is w [tw tra 324], t iscibsppty i f f lif xpss i t psl cti f cti sbjct; t

other hand, he logically includes subject, action, and liberty in the gure of ones own.

I tis wy it s s isi tt is iclsiv f tsi tt i t sbss

it its isi.The resulting antinomy is identiable in the logical difculty of placing property

bf t i tt istitts it. ulik hbbs (bt ls ifftly t gtis

Pf), Lcks ti f ppty pcs svity, wic is t

f it.20 It is t psppsiti ( t t slt) f scil iti. Yt

pps t qsti wit wic Lck islf xplicitly biswt if ppty

is not rooted in a form of interhuman relation, in which property nds its own foundation

witi wl i wic it is iv i c? hw c t c k itslf s

w s w sbivi t c? Wt is t ii f i, f ys,

f is i ivs f vy? h is w Lck ipsss tt bipliticl

inection on his own discourse that moves it in an intensely immunitarian direction:

Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every

Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but him-self. The Labour of his Body and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are prop-erly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided,

and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is

his own, and thereby makes it his Property. [tw tra 30506]

2. Lcks si vls t cctic cicls tt t v pliticl-

jiicl picipl t ti ct, bt t ict bilicl ki. T xclsi f

s ls ct b stblis xcpt s pt f t csqtil ci tt ii-t i t tpysicl sspti f bily iclsi. Ppty is iplicit i t wk

that modies what is naturally given as work, which in turn is included in the body of the

ps w pfs it. Jst s wk is xtsi f t by, s is ppty xt-

si f wk, st f pstsis tt t t pti f t ccts it t t

by s pt f t s vitl st; t ly bcs ppty is cssy t ti-

lly sppt lif, bt bcs it is ict t cpl fti. h t tsiti

bcs cl, i v sift i t tjcty wit spct t t sbjctiv slf-i-

surance identied by Heidegger in the modern rrana: t pic v tbjct ist stblis by t istc tt spts it f t sbjct, bt by t vy

20. With regard to the dialectic of property in modern political philosophy, I have drawn

mran ngh frm Ca and D sanc. Gr rman crucal fr undrandng h r-mdrn radn.


17/27

38

vt f its icpti. T by is t piy sit f ppty bcs it is t

location of the rst property, which is to say what each person holds over himself [ha u ]. If t wl ws iv t s by g i c, t by bls slly t tiivil w t t s ti is cstitt by it w psssss it bf y t

pppiti, wic is t sy i iiy f. It is i tis xctt bt

splitti blibtw bi ( by) vi s w by tt t

Lockian individual nds its ontojuridical foundation for every appropriation that follows.

Pssssi s w cpl f [rna], is t w f ll is ctis, bi-i wit t tsfti f t til bjct, wic pppits s tsitiv

ppty. F tt t vy t iivil lss t it v it, sc tt

c b lititly kill i t cs f tft. Si w t pppit bjct is ic-

pt t wk it t ws by, it t bcs iticl t t bilicl

lif, is f t t vilt sppssi f t tt tts it [s] t

bjct s w bc itl pt f is lif.

aly t iity lic bs l f tks v t ti Lcki

ttiv fwk: t pttil isk f wl iv i c f tis

s xps t liit iistictiis tli by lt tt is psp-

ps by its iiy ifstti bcs it is xpssiv f t lti tt pcs tis ll t ts: t lti f vy wit islf i t f f p-

sl itity. Tis is t kl t sll, t ctt t wppi, t b-

jct t sbjct f t iity ptcti. as ppty is ptct by t sbjct

tt ws it, slf-ptcti cpcitypsv by t sbjct t is rrum f ttrrum t islf (t t s sbjctiv sbstc)xts,stts, ifcs it. oc t ppity lic is w t sli pi-

i sc s bli t s w by, it c w xp it cl spc. Tis

is t ictly t, w icpt ct i ivisi tt ts it it its

ppsit, i ltiplicity f tis tt v i c ly t fct f bi ll f s

w t t ty v b pppit by ti spctiv ws:

From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in com-mon, yet Man (by being Master of himself, andPpit f is Ps, and h

Actions or Labour of it), had still in himself the great foundation of Property;

and ha whch mad u h gra ar f wha h allyd h sur rComfort of his being, when Invention and Arts had improved the conveniences of

Life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others. [31617]

eli I t tt w li wit iity pc tt is c

ptt t tt f hbbs bcs it is i t s ft cl sy

i t tilf t iivil. T ict f fctility tt ivs f itnonetheless comes with a corresponding intensication of the contradiction on which

t ti syst sts. Tis is l sitt i t pit f ccti tsi

btw iivils t svi s i t hbbsi l, bt i t cplx -

lti tt vs btw sbjctivity ppty. Wt is t stk ist ly qsti

f itity f iffct ivc tt is p i t ss cvc

btw t tw plsbt bv ll i t isplct f ti pvili lti. It

is dened generally as follows: if the appropriated thing depends on the subject who pos-

ssss it sc tt it bcs wit t by, t w i t is s sc ly

by t ti tt bls t i tf ps p it. o t , t

subject dominates the thing specically when he places it within his domain. On the other, t ti i t its t sbjct t t i wic it cstitts t c-

ssy bjctiv f is cqisitiv si [nn]. Witt pppiti sbjct,


18/27


pppit ti. Bt witt y pppit ti, pppiti sbjctf

t t tt it st v tsi f t cstittiv lti wit it. Tis is w

Lck ls tt ppty is t ctiti f sbjctiv itity t xtsi f

sbjctiv itity tsi itslf s lt c sp tt wit pivt pp-

ty bi icpt i islf wit islf bi ci s its s-

sc . . . cis t its licl cclsi t il f , sic islf l

sts i xtl lti f tsi t t xtl sbstc f pivt ppty, bt

s islf bc t ssc f pivt ppty [mx 12829]: its sipl pp-. W st t ls tck f t vsibl fts tt it bt citis i

vt. It is pcisly t iisticti btw t tw tss Lck stbliss

ittt ks t t dmnu f t t, wic tf cstitts t iti cipcl sbjcti.

T pit f tsiti ivsi btw t tw pspctivsf t s-

ty f t sbjct t tt f t tiis lct i t pivt [rva] cct fpppiti.21 It is t it tt t pppiti ct bcs t t s ti xcl-

siv f vy t ct tks t t ti itslf: t pivcy [rvazza] f pssssi is wit t sbtcti [rvazn] that species in whom privacy is not shared with

t litit w, wic s t ti city f ws. F tis pitof viewnot alternative to but speculative of the rstthe negative clearly begins to

pvil v t psitiv; btt, t ifst itslf s its itl tt. os w

is t c s t bl t ts. T pssiv ss f vy pppi-

ti vs t pppitivjus f vy ls tw t ti tt s ly

b pppit i t f f pivt ppty: bt t ls i t ctiv ss, sc

tt t pssiv ics i iivil ppty css pssiv cs i t

goods that are at the disposition of others. Internecine conict, exorcised from within the

proprietary universe, is thus clearly transferred outside its connes, in the formless space

f ppty. It is t tt Lck i picipl sts p bl liit t t ics f

ppty i t bliti t lv f ts t tis cssy f ti itc

[cnrvazn] i t pibiti f pppiti f slf wt ist pssiblt cs. Bt t csis it iptiv t t t w s bc

commutable into money and therefore innitely capable of being accumulated without

fi tt ty it b lst.22 F tt pit , pivt ppty cclsivly bks

w t lti f pptility tt lts t lti f t t. Bt it

ls wks ist tt wic its t ppty w t islf. Tis ccs w

ppty, bt pivt sbtctiv [rvava], bis t b cipt (f tbody from which it seems to depend) to assume a conguration that is purely juridical.

T itit pit f tis l pcss is cstitt by t bki f t cc-

ti, itc by Lck, btw ppty wk. as w kw, it ws pcisly

tis lik tt jisrrum within the connes of the body. When such a connection isconsidered no longer necessaryaccording to a reasoning rst launched by Hume and

t pfct by pliticl cyw witss cl sbsttiliti f

ppty, ti i its st ccplis f i t Kti isticti btw- hanmnn [piicl pssssi] numnn [itlliibl ps-session], or, as it is also dened, dn [pssssi witt pssssi]. at tis pit,what will be seen truly, even denitively, as ones own is only that which is distant from

t by f i w jiiclly psssss it. Pysicl pssssi st k cplt

jiicl pssssi. Ppty, wic ws iilly tt witi bkbl lik

with the body that works, is already dened by its extraneousness to its own sphere.

21. s n h n barcllna.22. on h ranfrman Cavarr.


19/27

40

I can only call a corporeal thing or an object in space mine, when even though

in physical possession of it, I am able to assert that I am in possession of it in

another real non-physical sense. Thus, I am not entitled to call an apple mine

mrly cau i hld n my hand r hycally; u nly whn i amentitled to say, I possess it, although I have laid it out of my hand, and wherever

may l. [Kt 6465]

distc is t citi f tplity tt vs wll by t psl lif.h ly t cticti iplicit i ppity lic bcs cpltly cl.

Spt f t ti tt it ls ilibly psssss, t iivil ppit -

is xps t isk f bi pti t tt is f sis t wt it

ti t ii islf f t t cqisiti f ppty (pcisly bcs

produced by it). The appropriative procedure, represented by Locke as a personication

f t tiits icpti i t ppits byls itslf t b itpt s

the reication of the person, now disembodied of its subjective substance. It is as if the

tpysicl istc f pstti w st t t titi f

t icpti f t bjct, bt w t t tit f sbjct w is islt

bsb by t ts pw f t ti. mt t t t sbjct, t ppi-etary logic inaugurates a path of inevitable desubjectication. This is a wild oscillation in

lic: t vt f slf-ftti tt bs l f ll t bipliticl ctis f

ity. h t i tis cs, bt i ifft f ( wit slt tt cvs

wit tt f svi iiti), t ppity pis iity pc

is bl t psv lif ly by clsi it i wy tt is b t w w its vitl-

ity. W bf t iivil ws isplc [du] by t svi pw tt islf istitt, s w t s t iivil ppit pp xppit by t

s pppitiv pw.

Lry

T ti iity wppi f ity is cstitt by t cty f libty

[libert].23 as ws ly t cs f ts f svity ppty (t pps

kly), t isticl-ccptl sqc f libty is xpss by t l

pcss f iiti, i t l ss tt it pcs its f cti

wil plifyi its lic. Tis y s st f t s bvisly cstitt

t pps y ki f fsiv cti, if yti it i t ss f bi

open without difculty to the mutability of events. But it is precisely in relation to such

bt f istill ptct i its tytt it bcs pssibl t s

t pcss f stic titi ls t lss f i [rcugamn] ttks its sccssiv isty.24 Bt t t luh ludhf wic iits tgk luhra t Lti lra t Sskit tfrya, wic fs istt t elisfrdm t g Freiheit, f s t sti tt s t wit ics, clsi [dchudmn], indeed a owering, in the typically vegetativei f t xpssi. If w w csi t bl stic ci tt scs

f itwic is t sy tt f lv (Lieben, lief, love, s wll s ifftly, lld) tt f fisip (friend, Freund)we can conrm the original afrmativectti: t ccpt f libty, i its il cls, lls t cctiv pw

23. [i hav chn ranla h ialan libt a libty (and nf) n nly cauthe passages Esposito cites from Locke include the term, but also to mark the assonances that Es-posito hears between liberty, deliberation, libtts, and f cur lralm. tran.].

24. Cf. Nestle, Benveniste, and Onians.


20/27


tt ws vlps cci its w itl lw, t xpsi tt its

its bs i s isi.

It is with respect to such an originary inection that we should interrogate the nega-

tiv cvsi tt t ccpt f libty s i its flti. Its

ctily t tt f t bii t i f f [ lr] liclly iplicts tctstiv fc t t citi, tt f t slv, st pcisly s -

f.25 Bt, t t psppsiti v t pvili ctt f t ti f

libty, sc ti cstitts its xtl liit: v t it is lik t tsyty, it ist t ccpt f slv tt pvis i t tt f t f , bt

t t vs. as it fs bt t t bli t istict ppl t ity

in general, what has dominated the qualication ofluhr s lwys b t psi-tiv ctti wit spct t wic t tiv cstitts st f bck tt

lcks ipt stic c. a s s ptly b iscss, tis lti

is ivt i t pi, w it bis t ss v t fts f

so-called negative liberty, with respect to that dened instead as positive, as in free-

f. Wt vtlss is xi i t pl litt is t fct tt

bt is st i tis wyw cp t ti iitil ii fct

witi tiv i f i. If w ss t cicl isticti sIsiah Berlin elaborates it, not only does the rst libertyunderstood negatively as an

bsc f itfcbt ls t sc, wic s psitivly, pp qit

distant from the characterization, both afrmative and relational, xed at the origin of the

ccpt:

th v n f h wrd lry drv frm h wh n h ar fh ndvdual h wn mar. i wh my lf and dcn dnd unmyself, t n xrnal frc f whavr knd. i wh h nrumn f myown, t of other mens, acts of will. I wish to be a subject, t an object. . . . I

wish to be somebody, t by. [130, psis y w]

The least that we can say about such a denition is that it is manifestly unable to think lib-

erty afrmatively in the modern conceptual lexicon of the individual, in terms of will and

sbjct. It is s if c f ts ts still w plc ttisistibly

pss libty cls t its t, t t pit f i it witi itslf. Qlifyi lib-

tyst s t sty f t iivil sbjct v islfis is t bi

isps tw, is t bi vilbl f ts. Tis scillti icliti f

libty tw its tiv ivs wit t bsvti f his,

cci t wic t ly t iivil ccptis f psitiv f ifft

and ambiguous, but the concept of positive freedom as such is indenite, especially if by

psitiv f w pvisilly st t t-tiv [nch ngav] f[th enc f Human Frdm 13]. T s f sc lxicl xc, wicmakes the positive, rather than afrmative, simply a nonnegative, ought to be sought

i t bk, wic is iplicit i t iivilistic pi, f t cstittiv lik

btw libty tss ( ltti).26 It is tt wic clss libty i t l-

ti f t sbjct wit islf: is f w bstcl is plc btw i

is will ls btw is will its liti. W Ts f aqis tslt

t aisttlirar s lc ( boulsis s vluna), t pitic v islly i pti: libty will pily bc t cpcity t li tt wic is p-

25. in h rgard prnar dn fac h ranlan f Cnan L libtli tici, pt qll i i.

26. [e unnng hr n h ananc wn ltit (hrhd) andlti(alran). tran.]


21/27

42

spps i t pssibility f t sbjct t b islf; t t b t t islf: f

will s t slf-stblist f sbjctivity tt is bsltly st f its w will.

F tis pspctiv t isticl-ccptl lti cs flly it viw, wic

jis sc ccpti f libty wit t pliticl ctis f ity, f tt

f svity t tt f qlity. o t , ly f sbjcts c b ql

by svi w lititly psts t. o t t , sc sbjcts

tslvs cciv s qlly svi witi ti w iivilitybli t

by t svi bcs ty f t c tslvs vic vs.2. T iity tcbt w it ls sy t psppsitif sc

v ct b vi: t t i wic libty is l st s

f bi, bt t s it t v sti f s w pcisly

t cplt pic f slf i lti t ts. T sbtctiv ( siply

t tiv) ss is ly b t ccti it v . W tis tpic

pcss is ji t t slf-psvi sttis f scity, t vti

ptyi t f cit cl libty [lra] it its i ppsit will bcplt. If t ivti f t iivil cstitts t il st f tis ps-

s tf t svi f i wic it is iscibits bsltly pvil-

i l is tt f ptcti. F tis pit f viw w t b cfl t tistt t l ss f t bttl ist iivil cllctiv mmuna tt twhole modernity ghts. It isnt that of reducing but of intensifying and generalizing the

iity pi. Witt lsi its typiclly plyvlt lxic, iity ps-

sivly tsfs its w stic ct f vity f t ss f pivil t tt

f scity. ulik t cit lra, cf t t iscti f sis f p-ticl titisclsss, citis, bis, cvts libty csists sstilly i

t it f vy sil sbjct t b f f ts tt i ty

v bf tt, ist lif itslf. I t st l ts, libty is tt wic

iss t iivil ist t itfc f ts t t vlty sbi-

ti t pwfl tt ts it. It is tt t tiicl lti

wit cssity iits tt will by vsi t i f libty it its ppsits f

lw, bliti, cslity. I tis ss it is istk t tik tt t sspti f

csticti lts is s itl cticti ccptl f t

titi f libty. Ist it is ict csqc: cssity is ti t t

t lity tt t sbjct sss i t ctptl ilctic f its w lib-

ty, btt, f libty s t f pppiti f s w. T fs xpssi

cci t wic t sbjct i cis is f is t b st tsly, t i spit f

bt i s f, ly, s t slf-isslvi ffct f libty tt is vc by its

ply slf-psvi fcti.

If f mcivlli sll pt f t ppl wis t b f i t c,

bt ll t ts w ctlss, si libty i t liv i sfty [64], hbbsis t st csqtil icl ttici f tis v: libty is psv

f psvs fs t sbjct tt psssss it, is lst s cs-

qc lss l f t sbjct t t xtt t sbjct is sbjct f libty.Tt libty

for Hobbes is dened as the absence of all impediments to action, that are not contained

i t t t itisic qlity f t t s tt it is t tiv slt f

cicl f fc witi wic its vt is iscib wic tf

ltitly cicis wit its w cssity [of Libty ncssity 273]. Ts, if

w pts libty t t tst c ti t t wt s is -libti

[d-lrazn] s t litl ss f ci itit libty wil bii

it t its w ptiti:


22/27


evry Dlran hn ayd nd whn ha whrf hy Dlra either done, or thought impossible; because till then wee retain the liberty of do-ing, or omitting according to our Appetite, or Aversion. [Lvahan 37]

as f Lck, t iity kt bcs stictiv sstil: s w v

s, it st ictly sbit iivils t t svisic ty v t

it t sistbt t t t ilctic f psvi slf-pppiti. It is

t tt, wit spct t t hbbsi s, libty f Lck is ilibl, btxctly f t s s s w f i hbbs, wic is t sy bcs it is iis-

psbl t t pysicl xistc f t w psssss it.

Ts libty s s ji i iisslbl tiptyc f wit ppty

lif. m t c hbbs jis lif libty (vam vl lram), making the rst t f t pc f t sc. Lck pss v sltly i tis

icti. I libty is s cssy t, clsly jy wit ms Psv-

ti, tt ct pt wit it, bt by wt ffits is Psvti Lif tt

[tw tra 302]. Ctily libty ist ly fs ist t ifits fts; it is ls t sbjctiv it tt csps t t bilicl tl bli-

ti t kp slf liv t bst pssibl citis. Tt it is l t iclll t iivils cci t t pcpt tt t t t i is

Lif, hlt, Libty, Pssssis st lt t stictly iity lic tt -

pis t ti t: t cti f libty t psvi lif is st s t

ilibl ppty tt c s i islf [289].

W sc stic stic sii ccswic ks libty t bipliti-

cal coincidence between property and preservationits meaning tends to be xed ever

cls t t iptiv f scity, til it cicis wit it. If f mtsqi pliticl

libty csists i scity, , t lst, i t pii tt w jy scity [206], it

is Jeremy Bentham who takes the denitive step: What means liberty? [. . .] Security

is t pliticl blssi I v i viw; scity s ist lfcts, t ,

scity s ist t istts f vt t t [Rationale of Judicial

evdnc 522]. Already here the immunization of liberty appears as denitively actual-i i fs by t Stt ist [t Stt]. Bt wt is v iptt i

its tiicl ffcts is t lti it s wit its licl ppsit, ly cci. T

pit f st btw t xpssi f libty wt ts it f witi

cl sy btw xpsiti ipsitiis cstitt xctly by t f

isc [acurava]: it is wt clls ft tt ppts f lws wic, t tictly pci libty, cstitt tlss t cssy vsl: W t is

cci, it is t scity. . . . Tt wic lis t f Libty, wic

is so magnicent, as the inestimable and unreachable work of the Law, is not Liberty but

scity [Manuscripts 56]. F tis pit f viw Bts wk ks ccilt i t iity cvsi t wic pliticl ctis s t

tst ti w svivl. T pliiy citi f libty will b f i ctl

cis tt blcks vy cticy i t dftt picts it bf. Tsi f t fs Pptic xpsss st spctclly tis scillti i i

xcvt i t t f libl clt.

3. W kw s wll tt it ws Fclt w fis bipliticl itptti

f liblis tt wt t bi t lit t ftl tiy wic it

sts wic pcs its pw. T t tt liblis ist liit t t

sipl citi f t iptiv f libty bt iplicts t iti f ci-

tis tt k tis ffctivly pssibl, liblis cticts its w piss. nit cstct cl libty i stctiv icti f ll f scity, liblis

ctilly isks styi wt it sys it wts t ct.


23/27

44

Liberalism, as I understand it, this liberalism that can be characterized as the

new art of governing that is formed in the eighteenth century, implies a fun-damnal rlan f rducn/drucn wh rgard lry. [. . .] Whone hand it has to produce liberty, but this same gesture implies that with the

other hand it must establish limitations, checks, coercions, obligations based on

threats, etc. [L qsti l liblis 160]

Tis xplis t tcy witi t fwk f t libl vt t itvlisltivly, wic s ctfctl slt wit spct t t iil ittis: it

isnt possible to determine or dene liberty except by contradicting it. The reason for

such an aporia is obviously to be found in libertys logical prole. But it also emerges

tllily w w csi t bipliticl f i wic Fclt plc it

f t tst. eli h at si t ftl ts: F plitics,

cci t t s pilspy [f liblis], st b cc lst xclsivly

wit t itc f lif t sfi f its itsts. nw, w lif is t

stake all action is by denition under the sway of necessity, and the proper relation to take

c f lifs cssitis [Wt Is F? 155]. Wy? Wy s pivili lif

fc libty it t jws f cssity? Wy s t blli f libty v tt c f lif? ats sps, wic clsly fllws t Fcli it-

ptiv sci, fllws t vs witi t bipliticl pi, f t i f

iivil psvti t tt f t spcis:

th r f h lcal and cal cnc n h nnnh and wnh cn-ur ha vn wdnd h rach wn frdm and lc: fr gvrn-ment, which since the beginning of the modern age had been identied with the

total domain of the political, was now considered to be the appointed protector

not so much of freedom as of the life process, the interests of society and its

individuals. Security remained the decisive criterion, but not the individuals

security against violent death, as in Hobbes (where the condition of all liberty

is freedom from fear), but a security which should permit an undisturbed devel-mn f h lf rc f cy a a whl. [150]

of pticl itst is wt at stiplts: it is t s clt f t iivi-

lc is i t w i f slf-psvtitt pcs sti

tt vs by it i ts f vitl cplx pcss. Bt at st k t

cisiv v tt Fclt s, wic is si t lti btw iivil

ttlity i ts f tic tiy. W Fclt ts tt t fil f p-

liticl tis is w it t ty t plitics bt t tility tt fcs itslf

t itt iivils witi t ttlity f t Stt, tcs t t f t qs-ti [tchnlg f h slf152]. If w spips is iscs tt lbtby t tplist Lis dt i t t stiy f iivil -

ernism, we have that conrmation that moves us further along in our discussion. Asking

after the reason rst for the nationalistic and then the totalitarian orientation [cc] flibl iivilis (wic psts ft jp i qlity), dt ccls tt

t pliticl ctis f ity fcti, wic is t sy, ty isc t slf-

psvi fcti f lif t wic ty sbit, icli ti w ppsit

vic vs, bi icpt it it. at cti pit, t clt f t iivil

ls icpts wt i picipl is pps t it, wic is t sy t picy f ll

t pts t wic it ivs t f lis. T ptic ffct tt icsilyivs f it is, cci t dt, t t fct tt, w plc ist ppsit


24/27


pis (sc s ts f iivilis lis), t ilicl fc f ti w

psttis ws t sc tt xplsiv ix is ct.

Tcqvill ss t v st st tly tis slf-isslvi pcss.

all f is lyss f aic ccy ccti by lity tt c-

is bt t ivitbility t pcl isk f sc pcss. W lcts t

gure of the hm dmcracu i t pit f itscti ficti btw t-ism and massication, solitude and conformity, and autonomy and heteronomy, he does

ti t t ci t tpic slt f pbl tt s t its ppstpit pcisly tt slf-iiti f libty i wic t w qlity f citis

reects itself in a distorted mirror.27 T s s wit t plll itsity

f sti ptstt ccy spts f is ctpis . . . it

throws him back forever upon himself alone, and threatens in the end to conne him

tily witi t slit f is w t [121] tt qlity plcs si by

si, cct by y c ti [124] s t v ist cpltly (

with reference to its origin) the immunitary loss of meaning that aficts modern politics.

I t istc w t ctic iivil, ffl f t kwi w t f t

particular interests that move him, ends up surrendering to the rst master who appears

[169], t itiy is ly st, t s ifft f t wic will ps bi-plitics cls t its ppsit, tt f ttplitics: t , pptisticlly sti-

ct, is st t ci its willi sp. at t f t s cty, nitsc

will b t st ssitiv witss t sc pcss. as f f [libert] ccpt

tt s t nitsc t b yt pf f istictl ti [68],

l s y bt: T is ivtt t i i f

t libl istittis [64].

tranlad y tmhy Camll

WorKS CITed

acci, B.La ragione insufciente: Al conne tra autorit e razionalit. r:

mifstlibi, 1995.

ab, gii.Hm sacr: svrgn pwr and Lf. Ts. dil hll-r-. Stf: Stf uP, 1998.

at, h. Wt Is F?bwn pa and Fuur: egh exrc n p-lcal thugh. nw Yk: Viki Pss, 1961.

aisttl. th plc. Ts. Tv J. Ss. nw Yk: Pi Clssics, 1981.Bs, J.Hlr und plan. Bli-Lipi: W. gyt, 1933.Bcll, Pit.Lndvdualm rrar. Ti: Bllti Biii, 1987.Btlii, Stf. I liiti ll pllit. Cti ll plitic i Tlctt Pss.

Quadrn d ra cal 2 (2002): 3360.Bt, Jy.Manuscripts. uivsity Cll f L.________.Rationale of Judicial Evidence. Vl. 7 fThe Works of Jeremy Bentham. Vl. 7.

eib: J Bwi, 1843.

Bvist, eil.ind-euran Languag and scy. Ts. elibt Pl. L-: Fb, 1973.

Bli, Isi. Tw Ccpts f Libty. Fur Cnc f Lry. nw Yk: oxfuP, 1970.

Bil, alss. hbbs: L scit s v.Il contratto sociale nella losoa

lca mdrna. e. gispp ds. mil: Fcali, 1993. 51108.

27. For the gure of the cticsi rfr h radr h mran ag haCacciari dedicates to it [11718]. See too Pulcini 12728. On Tocqueville more generally, cf. De

Sanctis, Tp i ci: alxis Tcqvill: Sll cii .


25/27

46

Bit-oliv, rssll. Lindividuo moderno e la nuova comunit. npls: gi,

1990.

Bsst, ali.La dmcra mmunar. Pis: dispt, 2003.Cccii, mssi.Larclag. mil: alpi, 1997.Ct, gispp.La comunit impolitica. Ti: Citt apt, 2003.

Cill, g. Katechein: Uno studio sulla democrazia antica. npli: eitil Sci-

entica, 2003.

Cv, ai. L ti ctttlistic i Tttti sl v i Lck.il cn-tratto sociale nella losoa politica moderna. e. gispp ds. Bl: Il m-

li, 1987. 14990.

Cst, Pit.il rg gurdc: Rcrch ulla gurrudnza dl lralm cla-c. mil: giff, 1974.

dacis, Pl Fl.il vran l ddn: La dmcraza ra ul r. mil:gti, 2004.

d Sctis, Fcsc. Problemi e gure della losoa giuridica e politica. r: Bl-

i, 1996.________. tm d dmcraza: Alx d tcquvll: sulla cndzn mdrna. npli:

Editoriale Scientica, 1986.d, mssi. Iity nti: o Pssibl dvlpts f t Tss ot-

li i rbt espsitsimmuna.Dacrc 36.2 (2006): 5769.dt, Lis. Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in an Anthropological Per-

cv. Cic: u f Cic P, 1986.dki, eil. The Rules of Sociological Method. Ts. W. d. hlls. nw Yk: F

Pss, 1982.

ds, gispp.La lgca dl r. r-Bi: Lt, 1999.elis, nbt. th Cvlzng prc. Ts. e Jpctt. oxf: Blckwll,

1994.

espsit, rbt.Bios: Biopolitica e losoa. Ti: eii, 2004.________. Communitas: Origine e destino della comunit. Ti: eii, 1998.________.immuna: przn ngazn dlla va. Ti: eii, 2002.Fti, Si. T Biplitics f Sls. plcal thry 34.1 (2006): 932.Fclt, micl. L qsti l liblis.blca lralm: D cr

u r d ca 19751984. Ts. ottvi mcc. mil: ms, 2001.________. os t Silti: Tws Citiq f Pliticl rs. pwr. e.

Js Fbi. nw Yk: nw Pss, 1997.________. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collge de France 19751976. Ts.

dvi mcy. nw Yk: Pic, 2003.________. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar With Michel Foucault. e. Lt h. mti.

ast: u f msscstts P, 1988.Fil, Pl. plan. Bli: gyt, 192830.gbl, a. plan und dr Fhrr. Bli: gyt, 1934.glli, Cl. oi cti: Li i ltt l Lvit. prcr dlla l-

ert: Scritti in onore di Nicola Matteucci. Bl: Il mli, 1996.

gsptti, r. i m dlla glalzzazn: Gurra rvnva lgca dllimmunit. Bi: dl, 2003.

gl, al. Man, His Nature and Place in the World. nw Yk: Clbi uP,

1988.________. Urmensch und Sptkultur: Philosophische Ergebnisse und Aussagen. B: at-

-Vl, 1956.gssi, Pl.il dmn l c: prczn mdval mdrn d dr ral. mi-l: giff, 1992.


26/27


gt, hs F. K.Hitlers Kampf und Platons Staat: Eine Studie ber den ideologischen

Aufau dr nanalzalchn Frhwgung. Bli: gyt, 1933.________.Humana. mc: J. F. L, 1937.________. plan al Hr d Ln: plan Zuch und erzhunggdankn und drn

bduung fr d Ggnwar. mc: J. F. L, 1928.hwy, d. T Biplitics f Pst Bis: dtitis f Slf i I-

Syst discs. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.

L: rtl, 1991.hi, mti. T a f t Wl Pict. th Qun Cncrnng tchnl-

gy and ohr eay. Ts. Willi Lvitt. nw Yk: hp rw, 1977.________. th enc f Human Frdm: An inrducn phlhy.Ts. T Sl.

nw Yk: Cti, 2002.

hbbs, Ts.D cv. 1651. L: r. ryst, 1843.________. th elmn f Law. L: Tis, 1889.________.Lvahan. e. Fcis B. rll. nw Yk: Wsit Sq Pss, 1976.________. of Libty ncssity. Vl. 4 fth englh Wrk f thma H. L-

: J B, 1890.

hff, est. plan. zic: atis-Vl, 1950.J, W Will. Paideia: Die Formung des Griechischen Menschen. Bli:

gyt, 1936.

Kt, Il. th phlhy f Law: An exn f h Fundamnal prnclof Jurisprudence as the Science of Right. Ts. W. hsti. eib: T. & T. Clk,

1887.

K, gt. ench und Ldnchaf: Da Wn d lanchn Dnkn.Fkft mi: Klst, 1939.

Lck, J.ela d tlrana: A Lr n tlran. Ts. J. W. g. oxf:Cl, 1968.

________. tw tra f Gvrnmn. Cbi: Cbi uP, 1967.L, nikls. scal sym. Ts. J B, J., wit dik Bck. Stf:

Stf uP, 1995.

mcivlli, niccl.Dcur n Lvy. Ts. Jli Cwy Pt e. Bll.oxf: oxf uP, 1997.

mq, o.Ahca und Anahca: phlhch rlgungn. Pb:Sci, 1989.

m, gic. Passaggio a Occidente: Filosoa e globalizzazione. Ti: Bllti

Bliii, 2003.

mx, Kl.Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. e. dik J. Stik. Ts.

mti milli. nw Yk: Ittil Pbl., 1964.

mtsqi, B [d Sct, Cls]. sr f Law. Ts. Ts nt.Kitc, on: Btc, 2001.

npi, a. d. th Ag f immunlgy. Cic: u f Cic P, 2003.nstl, dit.Eleutheria: Studien zum Wesen der Freiheit be den Griechen und im Neuen

tamn. Tbi: m, 1967.nitsc, Fiic. Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize With a Hammer.

Ts. d L. oxf: oxf uP, 1998.

ois, ric B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the

Soul, the World, Time, and Fate: New Interpretations of Greek, Roman and Kindred

Evidence also of some Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs. Cbi: Cbi

uP, 1988.Plt.Rulc. Trans. Robin Watereld. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993.Plss, hlt. Cnd humana. Fkft mi: Skp, 1983.


27/27

________.Limits of Community: A Critique of Social Radicalism. Trans. Andrew Wallace.

New York: Humanity Books, 1999.

Portinaro, Pier Paolo. Postfazione. La libert degli antichi, paragonata a quella dei

moderni. By Benjamin Constant. Torino: Einaudi, 2001.

Pulcini, Elena.Lindividuo senza passioni: Individualismo moderno e perdita del legame

sociale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 2001.

Ritter, Constantine. Die Kerngedanken der platonischen Philosophie. Mnchen: Rein-

hardt, 1931.Robin, Lon. Platon. Paris: Alcan, 1935.

Scheler, Max. Person and Self-Value: Three Essays. Trans. M. S. Frings. Boston: Kluwer,

1987.________. Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge. Trans. Manfred Frings. London: Rout-

ledge, 1980.

Schnur, Roman.Individualismus und Absolutismus: Zur politischen Theorie vor Thomas

Hobbes, 16001640. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1963.

Sloterdijk, Peter. Sphren. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2004.

Sperber, Dan.Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.

Stenzel, Julius. Platon der Erzieher. Leipzig: Meiner, 1928.Taylor, Alfred E. Plato: The Man and His Work. New York: Dial, 1927.

Tocqueville, Alexis de.Democracy in America. Ed. Francis Bown. Trans. Henry Reeve.

Cambridge: Sever and Francis, 1862.

Vegetti, Mario. Quindici lezioni su Platone. Torino: Einaudi, 2003.

Windelband, Wilhelm. Platon. Stuttgart: Frommann, 1928.

Originally published in Italian in Bos: Biopolitica e Filosofa. Copyright 2004 by Giulio Einaudi

Editore. English translation copyright 2008 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. Re-

printed with permission from the University of Minnesota Press.

Roberto Esposito - Immunization Paradigm

Documents

Transcript of Roberto Esposito - Immunization Paradigm