The summary of the complex problem of Homo Sacer as described by Agamben is absolutely spot on. The use of animation makes the quite difficult text of Agamben's Homo Sacer come alive. The amazing thing is that Soro accomplished this in under ten-minutes. When I tried to do the same with my own graduate students it took me nearly an hour to get the point across. Bravo Tommie Soro!
Thank you so much for this! I was stumbling through Agamben haphazardly, and your very clear stating of the ways that sacred and sacrifice were linked but separate, made the text suddenly click together for me. Thanks for this explainer!
Great stuff! I got into Agamben this spring thanks to the jacket of The Kingdom And The Glory catching my eye at my town's main library. On the third reading I actually started to understand something and subsequent readings as well as watching his lectures on TH-cam and reading other texts on the web have really made me think he's the most important philosopher of our times. Social distancing, mandatory face masks, tracking apps on your phone... and probably mandatory vaccinations with some biometric tracking component coming up. His philosophy could not be more timely.
Thank you very much! I think I can include Agamben in my undergrad level courses now because of this video, just excerpts of Agamben's homo sacer. Democracy and Totalitarianism go hand in hand.
Thank you so much! Your explanation was very enlightening and helped me a lot. I am brazilian and I had some trouble understanding you accent, so I think that you would reach more people if you put subtitles (even in english). Nevertheless, I really thank you, it is really good!
As I understand it, "bios" means qualified life. Bios politkos means political life. Homo sacer is situated "in between" - a site which is the zone of indistinction and between bios ___ and zoe. I have not read anything from Agamben which defined the function of homo sacer and the space this individual occupies as "releasing pressure" like the space in the puzzle does and don't really feel this is the point of Homo Sacer as a text. I also think that he did not mean biology is totalitarianism as you have stated. I think the idea of animation of the Homo Sacer is excellent and could prove helpful. Naturally it is challenging to illustrate with precision. At this stage, I do not think I could do what you have endeavored here.
Hi Rachel, thanks for the post! I feel the need to again state the context for which I made this video was a casual reading group, and that I am not well versed in Agamben’s theories. As such, the video is extremely reductive; it is what I personally managed to draw from the text in the time that I had. Having said that, I will, with no claim to authority on the subject, happily respond to your points! The idea that the space homo sacer occupies serves as an overflow valve for society I am pretty sure I got from Catherine Malabou (pretty sure not really sure!). I believe it is a good postulation on the role of homo sacer in society, although it may not be the point of the text. I did not intend to suggest that biology is in and of itself totalitarian, rather I meant to suggest that biology, superseding religion, instituted a subjectivity that allowed for a totalitarian ideology to develop in modern democratic states; that if you consider life as a material component of a system rather than as the property of god then it is a short step for a state to consider itself responsible for the absolute control of that life. That is what I got from the text; I am not steadfast in my opinions and welcome any criticism of my account! Perhaps one day I will find time to do a more complete and informed version of the animation! Thanks for the post! :)
I recently saw the Film by Bresson "Au Hasard Balthazar" and Agambens book came to mind. The film is about a donkey which we see the life of bios from a zoe view basically. But it turns out that in this society people are living a life with no political intentions and throughout people are mistreated by each other because they are all equals and reduced to zoe. Its barbarism basically. What they do to the donkey they do on each other. But they do not kill the donkey because of his nature the donkey becomes kind of not sacraficable but killable without punishment. In the last scene the donkey dies in a field of sheep which they leave the corpse and in death he is excluded from the middle of the sheep. Is it possible that Bresson foretook Agambens work 1966? Or am I overinterpreting things?
i really liked this. i haven't read agamben's book... i have only read about it in some of zizek's works. your video makes me want to read it even more.
Thanks for pointing that out! Yes, that's what I meant to say. The French declaration of the rights of man and the citizen. But the same is true of the United States declaration of Independence - the natural right to equality fractured sovereignty. The video was hurriedly made for a presentation to a MFA reading group and should be considered a VERY rough description of Agamben's complicated theory! Thanks for watching and posting your question!
Great video! Thank you! Below you may find the translation in Greek. Κεντρικό ερώτημα του κειμένου είναι γιατί οι μοντέρνες δημοκρατικές κοινωνίες μετατρέπονται σε ολοκληρωτικά κράτη. Προτού προχωρήσουμε σε αυτό, θα πρέπει πρώτα να αναφερθούμε στην κεντρική έννοια του όρου χόμο σάκερ ή αλλιώς ιερός άνθρωπος. Για να κατανοήσουμε αυτή την έννοια, θα πρέπει πρώτα να καταλάβουμε τη διαφορά μεταξύ ζωής και βίου, όπου η ζωή, ή αλλιώς γυμνή ζωή, αναφέρεται στο απλό γεγονός της ζωής στην οποία μετέχουν όλα τα έμβια όντα (ζώα, άνθρωποι ή θεοί) και το βίος στον τρόπο ζωής ενός ατόμου ή μια ομάδας, ή αλλιώς την πολιτική ζωή. Στην αρχαία Ελλάδα, κάθε πολίτης είχε αυτές τις δύο ιδιότητες ζωής, του βίου, ο οποίος καθοριζόταν από την ύπαρξη του ατόμου στην κοινωνία και της γυμνή ζωή, η οποία δινόταν από τον Θεό και έτσι θεωρούνταν ιερή και καθορίζονταν από το γεγονός ότι ο άνθρωπος είναι ένα ζώο που έπρεπε να φάει, να κοιμηθεί, κτλ. Ενδιαφέρον αποτελεί το γεγονός ότι εκείνη την εποχή η οικιακή ζωή δεν είναι πολιτική λειτουργία και θεωρούνταν ως γυμνή ζωή. Οι γυναίκες και τα παιδιά είχαν μόνο γυμνή ζωή καθώς δεν λάμβαναν μέρος στην πολιτική ζωή. Ο διαχωρισμός μεταξύ γυμνής ζωής και βίου είναι σαν το διαχωρισμό μυαλού και σώματος. Είμαι το μυαλό που ελέγχει το σώμα μου ή είμαι το σώμα μου που βιώνει το μυαλό μου. Στη Ρωμαϊκή εποχή, χόμο σάκερ ήταν κάποιος που είχε τιμωρηθεί και εξοριστεί από την κοινωνία και επιτρεπόταν να σκοτωθεί από οποιονδήποτε αλλά όχι να θυσιαστεί με την θρησκευτική έννοια. Αυτό σήμαινε ότι είχε εξοριστεί από τον κόσμο των ανθρώπων και είχε αφεθεί μόνο με την έννοια του ζώου (λάιφ άνιμαλ), της γυμνής ζωής. Εδώ θα πρέπει να σημειωθεί ότι ο χόμο σάκερ δεν είναι το ίδιο με τη γυμνή ζωή. Ο χόμο σάκερ είναι κάποιος που έχει περιοριστεί με τη βία στη γυμνή ζωή και θα πρέπει να κρατήσουμε αυτές τις δύο έννοιες χωριστά.
Thank you for this video. i have used it a few times to explain, in part, Ernest Gaines' excellent short story "Three Men." Students find it a compelling connection to that work. Writing now after Trump's election to the US presidency last week, this work has more urgency. Thank you for this clarifying document. It is a very useful reference.
Thanks for your comment. Indeed, once again the specter of nationalism is rearing its ugly head across the Western world, and the work of Agamben, and others, such as Arendt, certainly have a lot to say about why we are here again. I have not read Gaines, but will definitely have a read of the short story you mention.
It would have helped big if you had put subtitles. It is hard to understand some parts, specially for non-speakers, Do you have the whole thing as a text to paste it here?
Thanks a lot for this interesting video. One point is not clear to me. Around 5:53 comes the notion that biology sanctions the killing of the other, as it reduces people to bare life. But the point is also being made that biology, through excluding the abnormal, is the reason why killing people without citizenship is not sanctioned. Isn't there a contradiction here, as reducing people to bare life is, at the same time, a reason to sanction the killing of the other, and a reason not to sanction the killing of the other? What have I not understood? :)
If the stripping of rights, to leave only the Zoe, is necessary for the expulsion of a population or individual as referenced in the video, then where do the various expulsions of the Jews under various monarchs fit in with history? Specifically I’m thinking of the pogroms under the czars. Genuine question.
Hi Joshua. Good question. I think we have to draw a distinction between the modern nation-state and forms of government such as monarchies, where sovereignty is constituted in a king, emperor, czar, etc. It is precisely because all citizens are equal sovereigns that denationalisation becomes important in the nation-sate. This is likely an unsatisfying answer because I am sure it would be interesting to examine the expulsion of various groups throughout history using the concept of Homo Sacer. Thanks for the comment!
i dont think thinkers like agamben and michel foucault that coined biopolitics are revolutionalist. So yes they strive more to explain and analyse political discourses
Hey, great video! Made it much easier to understand Agamben than the unstructured slides of my professor :D I have a problem understanding a specific part though: "The state of exception is simply constituted when the sovereign acts beyond the law" and "The implementation of the state of exception is a normal thing that states do" contradict in my mind. If states implement states of exception, e.g. by stripping prisoners of voting rights, then they do not go beyond the law, as this IS the law they implemented. One could argue that this is against human rights, but the civil laws that apply are made by the state itself.
Hi Waffe, thanks for your comment and your question. The way I see it, prisoners, for example, are in a state of exception (e.g. no right ot vote) that has become normalised and legalised, to put it bluntly. A better example would be the Patriot Act, where there was an 'emergency', so the law was changed to allow infringement on rights guaranteed by the US constitution. Another example is Covid vaccine mandates, which is an exercise of biopower, I am not taking a position here on government responses to the Covid crisis but when there is an 'emergency', then laws can be quickly changed or ignored, meaning you have rights, but they are not inalienable. The state of exception is often enacted using the term emergency in contemporary political discourse. One might argue that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was legitimated under the pretence of a state of emergency. That is, Putin claimed Russian separatists were being illegally discriminated against and so 'had to' break some international law to meet his national obligations to them. That's how I think about state of exception. Civil laws are not set in stone, so neither are your rights. Human rights, in general and in particular for Western states, have even less legitimacy. If you check who has been prosecuted in the Hauge, you won't find Westerners (excepting some Serbs). So, in my opinion, national rights are the locus of all legitimate right to violence and human rights are a nice idea but are very difficult to implement because rights are really national by defination (for citizens). That is why refugees and undocumented migrants are in such a tough position. No nation really HAS TO protect them so most don't most of the time. Hope this helps.
@Tommie Sorro Can I please have a transcript too? I'm not much of an audio learner & coronacation is driving me nuts. Thanks! If you can, please email me @ momojubaline@gmail.com
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8
Unfortunately, it seems TH-cam keeps deleting the comment, perhaps because it contains terms which their algorhytms incorrectly code as hatespeech. If you send me your email, I will send you the transcript and then delete the comment containing your email address. That's all I can do for now.
The fact that so many graduate students need this video to understand Agamben demonstrates how unnecessary the book is. I found the book more relevant to European democracies than American democracies.
Hi, I cannot remember where in the video I talk about biology and do not have time right now to watch the video again but biology relates to biopolitics in a relatively straightforard way. Biology is key to the establishment of biopolitics because it helps to measure and organise human life processes - sex, reproduction, health - for the purposes of controlling the population. That is not to say that biologists are trying to control everyone. Simply that biology is a form of knowledge on the basis of which disciplinary power is exerted on the bodies of citizens, thus allowing for them to be made into particular types of subjects - subjects which are observed, measured, compared, examined, and so on to distinguish between, and thereby create, the normal and abnormal subject. From this norm, the state can decide who should be sustained, sterilised, euthanised, and so on, depending on its interests. Biology is a form of knowledge that provides a basis for disciplinary power over the body - biopolitics. I hope this answers your question.
"This is literally the definition of sovereignty." - Please quote your sources. I have never experienced this "literal definition", as you call it, and since the word etymologically comes from Latin, I can clearly see the "super" part of it, which is what the world literally means, as attested by various sources. (www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sovereign; www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sovereignty; www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sovereign; en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soverain#Old_French). That being the "super", above the law, the ruler, the master, i.e. the sovereign, allows you to kill cannot be inferred from the inherent meaning of the word, but is rather a claim which needs to be argued, that is to say it cannot be said that it defines what being a sovereign is per definitionem.
Ken Cur Also, it is an extremely simplistic view of how sovereigns ruled, ignoring the great complexity between different types of sovereign (Emperor vs King, for instance), as well as the different implementations of monarchic rule and different Kings in different kingdoms. I assure you, the reality was not a simple pyramidical hierarchy with the King at the top.
Ken Cur Obviously you haven't read Agamben, he takes his definition of the sovereign from Schmitt, sovereignty is the ability to grant an exception to the law for instance.
79valis That hardly makes it the literal definition of sovereignty though, now does it? In fact, by your admission, it makes it Schmitt's definition of sovereignty, which was the whole point of my request: one must quote sources. The video uploader doesn't, which means that my initial position still holds. Thank you however for providing this information.
sovereignty is defined by the sovereign, it has no conceptual definition other than what power says. the video is rather good. the literal definition of sovereignty is impossible because it is defined by whoever possesses the power to define it. it is not intellectual.
I have learnt more in these 8 minutes than I have in three years of college. Thank you.
No wonder employers can’t find good workers
The summary of the complex problem of Homo Sacer as described by Agamben is absolutely spot on. The use of animation makes the quite difficult text of Agamben's Homo Sacer come alive. The amazing thing is that Soro accomplished this in under ten-minutes. When I tried to do the same with my own graduate students it took me nearly an hour to get the point across. Bravo Tommie Soro!
You don't have the right to have rights. You're merely allowed to.
Awesome.
Great summary and presentation of a philosopher who’s quite tricky to grip!
Wow you nailed it on the spot. Many thanks for your interpretation. It was great and accurate.
Vito O Thanks for your thanks. It is appreciated!
Thank you so much for making this. Struggling through this book but in light of our lockdown era its thesis seems more relevant than ever.
You deserve a Noble prize for this
Thank you so much for this! I was stumbling through Agamben haphazardly, and your very clear stating of the ways that sacred and sacrifice were linked but separate, made the text suddenly click together for me. Thanks for this explainer!
Your very welcome! Thanks for your comment!
This helped me clarify my reading for class, thank you so much!
such an awesome video. Thanks. Will make sure to visit your other videos
Thank you so much for this, I've had some trouble reading through his stuff. peace n respect
I'm reading this book for a theory class in grad school, and your explanation is so incredibly helpful. thank you!
how old are u??? are in hi school or academi???
Morteza Vaisi I’m 25 and I’m a PhD Student
I thought u are children but I understood now u are a filosofi. I am history student in Iran.nice to meet u.
Solid Tommie, as always.
This guy made it so much clearer! Thank you so much
Your welcome. Thanks for the comment!
Great stuff! I got into Agamben this spring thanks to the jacket of The Kingdom And The Glory catching my eye at my town's main library. On the third reading I actually started to understand something and subsequent readings as well as watching his lectures on TH-cam and reading other texts on the web have really made me think he's the most important philosopher of our times. Social distancing, mandatory face masks, tracking apps on your phone... and probably mandatory vaccinations with some biometric tracking component coming up. His philosophy could not be more timely.
Thank you very much! I think I can include Agamben in my undergrad level courses now because of this video, just excerpts of Agamben's homo sacer. Democracy and Totalitarianism go hand in hand.
more relevant than ever
Highly detailed and explanatory. Amazing job.
Even though I felt a had a decent grasp on the concept of bare life you do a great job of providing more context and depth here, thank you
This video is Gold!!! ty so much
thanks for clarifying the part about sacred/sacrifice. very helpful. animations were helpful and not distracting
Much much better than those slick Philosophy TH-camrs (you can probably guess who I mean)
simple but very well done
This helped me a LOT. Thanks.
Great. Thanks fo rthe comment!
Thank you so much! Your explanation was very enlightening and helped me a lot. I am brazilian and I had some trouble understanding you accent, so I think that you would reach more people if you put subtitles (even in english). Nevertheless, I really thank you, it is really good!
my first language is Portuguese also and I could follow him with ease
smart boy
thank you so much for this video!
really helpful
Very good explanation of this concept, thanks.
As I understand it, "bios" means qualified life. Bios politkos means political life. Homo sacer is situated "in between" - a site which is the zone of indistinction and between bios ___ and zoe. I have not read anything from Agamben which defined the function of homo sacer and the space this individual occupies as "releasing pressure" like the space in the puzzle does and don't really feel this is the point of Homo Sacer as a text. I also think that he did not mean biology is totalitarianism as you have stated.
I think the idea of animation of the Homo Sacer is excellent and could prove helpful. Naturally it is challenging to illustrate with precision. At this stage, I do not think I could do what you have endeavored here.
Hi Rachel, thanks for the post! I feel the need to again state the context for which I made this video was a casual reading group, and that I am not well versed in Agamben’s theories. As such, the video is extremely reductive; it is what I personally managed to draw from the text in the time that I had. Having said that, I will, with no claim to authority on the subject, happily respond to your points! The idea that the space homo sacer occupies serves as an overflow valve for society I am pretty sure I got from Catherine Malabou (pretty sure not really sure!). I believe it is a good postulation on the role of homo sacer in society, although it may not be the point of the text. I did not intend to suggest that biology is in and of itself totalitarian, rather I meant to suggest that biology, superseding religion, instituted a subjectivity that allowed for a totalitarian ideology to develop in modern democratic states; that if you consider life as a material component of a system rather than as the property of god then it is a short step for a state to consider itself responsible for the absolute control of that life. That is what I got from the text; I am not steadfast in my opinions and welcome any criticism of my account! Perhaps one day I will find time to do a more complete and informed version of the animation! Thanks for the post! :)
Thanks for the response Tommi :)
Thanks, it would be brilliant to see more of these videos Tommie!
Thanks for your comment Burbik. I am eager to make more videos but it is hard to find the time!
I recently saw the Film by Bresson "Au Hasard Balthazar" and Agambens book came to mind. The film is about a donkey which we see the life of bios from a zoe view basically. But it turns out that in this society people are living a life with no political intentions and throughout people are mistreated by each other because they are all equals and reduced to zoe. Its barbarism basically. What they do to the donkey they do on each other. But they do not kill the donkey because of his nature the donkey becomes kind of not sacraficable but killable without punishment. In the last scene the donkey dies in a field of sheep which they leave the corpse and in death he is excluded from the middle of the sheep. Is it possible that Bresson foretook Agambens work 1966? Or am I overinterpreting things?
Still don’t get it :/
i really liked this. i haven't read agamben's book... i have only read about it in some of zizek's works. your video makes me want to read it even more.
Thanks!
But clear and very helpful for beginners, especially now. Thank you.
Badiou has this theory simpler - nation as a some arbitrary idea that polices itself to its members.
This is great, thank you!
This is very helpful, but did you mean declaration of independence of declaration of rights of man and citizen at 3:26?
Thanks for pointing that out! Yes, that's what I meant to say. The French declaration of the rights of man and the citizen. But the same is true of the United States declaration of Independence - the natural right to equality fractured sovereignty. The video was hurriedly made for a presentation to a MFA reading group and should be considered a VERY rough description of Agamben's complicated theory! Thanks for watching and posting your question!
This is awesome! Thank you very much!
Be a sacred animal
Great video! Thank you! Below you may find the translation in Greek.
Κεντρικό ερώτημα του κειμένου είναι γιατί οι μοντέρνες δημοκρατικές κοινωνίες μετατρέπονται σε ολοκληρωτικά κράτη. Προτού προχωρήσουμε σε αυτό, θα πρέπει πρώτα να αναφερθούμε στην κεντρική έννοια του όρου χόμο σάκερ ή αλλιώς ιερός άνθρωπος. Για να κατανοήσουμε αυτή την έννοια, θα πρέπει πρώτα να καταλάβουμε τη διαφορά μεταξύ ζωής και βίου, όπου η ζωή, ή αλλιώς γυμνή ζωή, αναφέρεται στο απλό γεγονός της ζωής στην οποία μετέχουν όλα τα έμβια όντα (ζώα, άνθρωποι ή θεοί) και το βίος στον τρόπο ζωής ενός ατόμου ή μια ομάδας, ή αλλιώς την πολιτική ζωή.
Στην αρχαία Ελλάδα, κάθε πολίτης είχε αυτές τις δύο ιδιότητες ζωής, του βίου, ο οποίος καθοριζόταν από την ύπαρξη του ατόμου στην κοινωνία και της γυμνή ζωή, η οποία δινόταν από τον Θεό και έτσι θεωρούνταν ιερή και καθορίζονταν από το γεγονός ότι ο άνθρωπος είναι ένα ζώο που έπρεπε να φάει, να κοιμηθεί, κτλ. Ενδιαφέρον αποτελεί το γεγονός ότι εκείνη την εποχή η οικιακή ζωή δεν είναι πολιτική λειτουργία και θεωρούνταν ως γυμνή ζωή. Οι γυναίκες και τα παιδιά είχαν μόνο γυμνή ζωή καθώς δεν λάμβαναν μέρος στην πολιτική ζωή.
Ο διαχωρισμός μεταξύ γυμνής ζωής και βίου είναι σαν το διαχωρισμό μυαλού και σώματος. Είμαι το μυαλό που ελέγχει το σώμα μου ή είμαι το σώμα μου που βιώνει το μυαλό μου. Στη Ρωμαϊκή εποχή, χόμο σάκερ ήταν κάποιος που είχε τιμωρηθεί και εξοριστεί από την κοινωνία και επιτρεπόταν να σκοτωθεί από οποιονδήποτε αλλά όχι να θυσιαστεί με την θρησκευτική έννοια. Αυτό σήμαινε ότι είχε εξοριστεί από τον κόσμο των ανθρώπων και είχε αφεθεί μόνο με την έννοια του ζώου (λάιφ άνιμαλ), της γυμνής ζωής. Εδώ θα πρέπει να σημειωθεί ότι ο χόμο σάκερ δεν είναι το ίδιο με τη γυμνή ζωή. Ο χόμο σάκερ είναι κάποιος που έχει περιοριστεί με τη βία στη γυμνή ζωή και θα πρέπει να κρατήσουμε αυτές τις δύο έννοιες χωριστά.
Thanks so much for your contribution!
This has helped me a lot. Thanks
Wow this is incredible!!!!
Fucking legend, thank you
really helpful.Essay due next week this saved me ,Cheers !
Thanks a lot for your work !!!
You're very welcome. Thanks for the comment!
i have aquestion. could you please help if possible?
Thank you for this video. i have used it a few times to explain, in part, Ernest Gaines' excellent short story "Three Men." Students find it a compelling connection to that work. Writing now after Trump's election to the US presidency last week, this work has more urgency. Thank you for this clarifying document. It is a very useful reference.
Thanks for your comment. Indeed, once again the specter of nationalism is rearing its ugly head across the Western world, and the work of Agamben, and others, such as Arendt, certainly have a lot to say about why we are here again. I have not read Gaines, but will definitely have a read of the short story you mention.
Thanks god Trump took over and not the Clinton family.
It would have helped big if you had put subtitles. It is hard to understand some parts, specially for non-speakers, Do you have the whole thing as a text to paste it here?
great great job! awesome! thank you!
thanks so much ! it is really descriptive :)
La gente come noi non molla mai
Mindblowing
Thanks a lot for this interesting video. One point is not clear to me. Around 5:53 comes the notion that biology sanctions the killing of the other, as it reduces people to bare life. But the point is also being made that biology, through excluding the abnormal, is the reason why killing people without citizenship is not sanctioned. Isn't there a contradiction here, as reducing people to bare life is, at the same time, a reason to sanction the killing of the other, and a reason not to sanction the killing of the other? What have I not understood? :)
If the stripping of rights, to leave only the Zoe, is necessary for the expulsion of a population or individual as referenced in the video, then where do the various expulsions of the Jews under various monarchs fit in with history? Specifically I’m thinking of the pogroms under the czars. Genuine question.
Hi Joshua. Good question. I think we have to draw a distinction between the modern nation-state and forms of government such as monarchies, where sovereignty is constituted in a king, emperor, czar, etc. It is precisely because all citizens are equal sovereigns that denationalisation becomes important in the nation-sate. This is likely an unsatisfying answer because I am sure it would be interesting to examine the expulsion of various groups throughout history using the concept of Homo Sacer. Thanks for the comment!
Thank you very much. It's very clear and helpful :)
This is SO helpful! Thanks!
Disagree slightly with the part about Biology but very good video. Thanks.
Thank you! Is Agamben's work only aimed at explanation or has he proposed any ideas about political change?
i dont think thinkers like agamben and michel foucault that coined biopolitics are revolutionalist. So yes they strive more to explain and analyse political discourses
while imo they are certainly grounded in certain traditions on the left this is more of an explanatory thing
thanks
brilliant thank you so much!
Tommie Soro, did you write the text yourself? I have translated it into portuguese for personal use. Thanks.
Hi Andre. Yes, I wrote the text. I'm really glad you made use of it and went to the touble to translate it. Thanks.
Hey, great video! Made it much easier to understand Agamben than the unstructured slides of my professor :D
I have a problem understanding a specific part though: "The state of exception is simply constituted when the sovereign acts beyond the law" and "The implementation of the state of exception is a normal thing that states do" contradict in my mind. If states implement states of exception, e.g. by stripping prisoners of voting rights, then they do not go beyond the law, as this IS the law they implemented. One could argue that this is against human rights, but the civil laws that apply are made by the state itself.
Hi Waffe, thanks for your comment and your question. The way I see it, prisoners, for example, are in a state of exception (e.g. no right ot vote) that has become normalised and legalised, to put it bluntly. A better example would be the Patriot Act, where there was an 'emergency', so the law was changed to allow infringement on rights guaranteed by the US constitution. Another example is Covid vaccine mandates, which is an exercise of biopower, I am not taking a position here on government responses to the Covid crisis but when there is an 'emergency', then laws can be quickly changed or ignored, meaning you have rights, but they are not inalienable. The state of exception is often enacted using the term emergency in contemporary political discourse. One might argue that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was legitimated under the pretence of a state of emergency. That is, Putin claimed Russian separatists were being illegally discriminated against and so 'had to' break some international law to meet his national obligations to them. That's how I think about state of exception. Civil laws are not set in stone, so neither are your rights. Human rights, in general and in particular for Western states, have even less legitimacy. If you check who has been prosecuted in the Hauge, you won't find Westerners (excepting some Serbs). So, in my opinion, national rights are the locus of all legitimate right to violence and human rights are a nice idea but are very difficult to implement because rights are really national by defination (for citizens). That is why refugees and undocumented migrants are in such a tough position. No nation really HAS TO protect them so most don't most of the time. Hope this helps.
Thank you!
I feel like I finally understand Agamben
I am happy to have helped. Thanks for your comment!
Great animatic philosophy videos. I really need the English subtitle/transcript. How can I get it?
Hey Gerardo. Thanks for your comment. I have posted the transcript in the comment above.
@@tommiesoro6063 thanks for your respond. But I cant find it. Can you send it to my email: ilcardinalem@gmail.com? Thank you so much
@Tommie Sorro Can I please have a transcript too? I'm not much of an audio learner & coronacation is driving me nuts. Thanks! If you can, please email me @ momojubaline@gmail.com
Thanks to you @Tommie I've get the transcript. May God bless you always.
@@gerardomayolla4968 can you sent me one to my Yahoo acct. At wang.jocelyn@yahoo.com & my school acct. jocelynwang@cpp.edu? Thanks!
excellent . It should have spanish transcrip. thank you
Very helpful!
Thank you!!!!!
Can you subscribe underlines in english . .?Many people could you understand...thanks a lot anywhere
Agree..
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8
Thanks
Spanish subtitles please!!
Covid 19 anyone?
i would like one covid 19 please :|
Hi, where can I find your scripts?
U r a legend
Cheers. Thanks for the comment!
bear loife
subtítulos en español por favor ...
Your explanation was very nice. Thanks
But try to change your voice tone (up and down)
Hukuk Sosyolojisinden geldim
So he knew about covid vaccination mandates 7 years ago?
The mandates are interesting in that they are certainly biopolitical measures imposed under the banner of a state of exception.
Plz anybody put some subtitles at least for English
Hi JK, I have added a trascript to the video in the comment section.
@@tommiesoro6063 Thank you. But I can't find it 😢
Am I a Homo sacer here? 😭
Sorry JK. TH-cam keeps deleting my comment. I have commented from another account so hopefully the transcript will appear now.
Unfortunately, it seems TH-cam keeps deleting the comment, perhaps because it contains terms which their algorhytms incorrectly code as hatespeech. If you send me your email, I will send you the transcript and then delete the comment containing your email address. That's all I can do for now.
Why was this video just talking about bears the whole time?
🫡
The fact that so many graduate students need this video to understand Agamben demonstrates how unnecessary the book is.
I found the book more relevant to European democracies than American democracies.
Instead of using the word biopoltical, you're using the word Biology. Why so. Please explain.
Hi, I cannot remember where in the video I talk about biology and do not have time right now to watch the video again but biology relates to biopolitics in a relatively straightforard way. Biology is key to the establishment of biopolitics because it helps to measure and organise human life processes - sex, reproduction, health - for the purposes of controlling the population. That is not to say that biologists are trying to control everyone. Simply that biology is a form of knowledge on the basis of which disciplinary power is exerted on the bodies of citizens, thus allowing for them to be made into particular types of subjects - subjects which are observed, measured, compared, examined, and so on to distinguish between, and thereby create, the normal and abnormal subject. From this norm, the state can decide who should be sustained, sterilised, euthanised, and so on, depending on its interests. Biology is a form of knowledge that provides a basis for disciplinary power over the body - biopolitics. I hope this answers your question.
@@tommiesoro6063 Thank you sir. I'm from India and for students like me, you're a great resource. Thanks again for spending time for my query.
@@AbdulRahman-ir5zn Your very welcome Abdul. Thanks for the question!
"This is literally the definition of sovereignty." - Please quote your sources. I have never experienced this "literal definition", as you call it, and since the word etymologically comes from Latin, I can clearly see the "super" part of it, which is what the world literally means, as attested by various sources. (www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sovereign; www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sovereignty; www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sovereign; en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soverain#Old_French).
That being the "super", above the law, the ruler, the master, i.e. the sovereign, allows you to kill cannot be inferred from the inherent meaning of the word, but is rather a claim which needs to be argued, that is to say it cannot be said that it defines what being a sovereign is per definitionem.
Ken Cur Also, it is an extremely simplistic view of how sovereigns ruled, ignoring the great complexity between different types of sovereign (Emperor vs King, for instance), as well as the different implementations of monarchic rule and different Kings in different kingdoms. I assure you, the reality was not a simple pyramidical hierarchy with the King at the top.
Ken Cur A good explanation nonetheless.
Ken Cur Obviously you haven't read Agamben, he takes his definition of the sovereign from Schmitt, sovereignty is the ability to grant an exception to the law for instance.
79valis That hardly makes it the literal definition of sovereignty though, now does it? In fact, by your admission, it makes it Schmitt's definition of sovereignty, which was the whole point of my request: one must quote sources. The video uploader doesn't, which means that my initial position still holds.
Thank you however for providing this information.
sovereignty is defined by the sovereign, it has no conceptual definition other than what power says. the video is rather good. the literal definition of sovereignty is impossible because it is defined by whoever possesses the power to define it. it is not intellectual.