Agamben's political theory primarily focuses on revealing the mechanisms of sovereign power, particularly how it defines who is included within the legal order and, simultaneously, maintains the power to exclude individuals or groups from that same order.
Agamben's work, deeply influenced by Walter Benjamin and Michel Foucault, explores the concepts of homo sacer, the state of exception, and bare life to critique modern political power. Here's a breakdown of key elements:
-
Homo Sacer: This concept, borrowed from Roman law, refers to a person who is excluded from the legal protection of the state but also cannot be sacrificed in a religious ritual. They exist in a zone of indistinction between law and nature, outside legal protection but vulnerable to anyone. Agamben argues that the homo sacer is not an anomaly but a fundamental figure in Western political thought, revealing the inherent violence of law.
-
State of Exception: Agamben argues that the "state of exception," originally conceived as a temporary suspension of the rule of law in times of crisis, has become a permanent paradigm of governance. The sovereign declares a state of exception, suspending legal norms and acting outside the law to maintain order. This blurring of the lines between legality and illegality allows the sovereign to exercise arbitrary power.
-
Bare Life (Zoē): This refers to biological existence, the life shared by all living beings, in contrast to "bios," which is a qualified, politically active life. Agamben contends that modern politics increasingly focuses on the management and control of bare life. The sovereign power determines who is included in the political community (with bios) and who is reduced to mere biological existence (zoē) and therefore subject to abandonment.
In essence, Agamben's theory suggests that modern political power operates by constantly defining and policing the boundaries between inclusion and exclusion, law and exception, bios and zoē. He argues that the power to define these boundaries is the essence of sovereignty and that it carries inherent risks of dehumanization and violence. He emphasizes the precariousness of legal and political status, arguing that even within seemingly secure legal frameworks, the potential for exclusion and the reduction to "bare life" always exists.
