Agamben and the Politics of Human Rights

8/11/2019 Agamben and the Politics of Human Rights

1/214

-


2/214


3/214

AGAMBE AD THE POLITICOF HUMA RIGHT

ttssss, Igs, Vioc

John Lechte and Saul Newman


4/214

Jon Lechte and Saul Newman 2013

Edburgh Universiy Press Ltd

22 George Square Einburg EH8 9LF

w.euppubishingcom

Typeset 11/13 Paatino Light by

Sers Fimseting td Stockpor Cheshire

and prnted ad bound n reat Britain by

CPI Group K) Ltd Croydon CRO 4Y

A CIP record for ths book is availabe om the Brtis Library

ISBN 978 0 7486 4572 5ISBN 978 0 7486 7772 6 (weready PDF)

ISBN 978 0 7486 7774 0 ( epub)

The ght of John Lechte and Saul Newman o be identied as authors

of his work has been asserted in accordace with the Copright

Designs and Patents Act 1988


5/214

Pree iN i

1 Human Rigs and aelessness Tody

2 Human Rigs in Hisory 23

3 Agamben and e Rise o are Lie' 49

4 Language, e Human and are Lie : om Ungroundednesso Inoperaiiy 77

5 Niilism or Poliis? Inerrogaion o Agamben 96

6 Poliis, Power and Violence in Agamben 119

7 Agamben, e Image and e Human 139

8 Liing Human gs 163

ibliograp 189Index 199


6/214

PREFAE

Today may aknowledge a e mode uman rgs prje, wgrew ou o e smoulderng runs o e eond orld ar, s now nrss espe uma rgs an aeed remarkable promneneoer e ollowg deades w e proleraon o neaonal reaes and legal srumens, e mos asual glae a e world aroudus reeals ounless suaons were uman gs are olaed, oenby e ery soeregn powers wo lam o upold em

Te ongong olene n yra a e ands o a despo wo asdelared war on s own peope a deasang amne n omala aas dren nearl one mllon o seek reuge n negourng oun res boaloads o asylum seeker drownng n e oasal waers oAusrala and e eemngly nermnable war on error' pursued bye es - a war w was ug osensbly n e name o umanrgs and ye w as been aompaned by oer rendon, ndene deenon and orure, as well as drone rkes resulng n numer

ous lan deas e look ou elplessly on a world o uerg,olee and oppresso e also gaze on a world o amps reugeeamps n srken pars o e world mgra deenon amps beyonde borders o wealy naos and e now apparenly permanen errors deenon amp a Guannamo ay - peraps e mos srkngand gomnous symbol oday o e deradaon o uman rgs

y s , en, a e promnene o uman rgs dsoursesseems o onde w er appare mpoene? e an pon o

arous aors ere nadequae means o uman rgs enoremenand, o ourse, e yporsy o goernmens wo use uman rgsnorms as a playng o oregn poly, ee o legmse wars, pouslyokng em wen sus er neress o do so and gnorng emwen does no


7/214

Prefae ii

Tere is, no doubt, a fundamental and peraps irreonilable tensionbetween te priniple of national soereignty and tat of umanrigts, wi neessarily imply a limitation on state power Tis is a

tension tat we explore in tis book oereignty embodies a desirefor autonomy, for wat migt be alled ipsei (see errida 2005) - aselfenlosed solipsisti identity tat refuses to reognise or answerto anyting oter tan itself Human rigts, wi in teory seek toall soereignty to aount, to make it answer to uniersal priniplesof justie, terefore inoking an alternatie ontology of te uman,wi exeeds te order of te state, are tus an anatema to it At

its eart, state soereignty is about seurity or wat Roberto Espositoalls immunity 2011) ; it is about soring up its borders, bot real andoneptual, against wateer treatens to ontaminate it oereigntyultimately implies iolene Tus, uman rigts, een were tey areat least formally part of te onstitutional order, must always gie wto te exigenies of seurity; transendene is always trumped by ftand te situation

Noting better illustrates te undamental dilemma aing uman

rigts today tan te situation of statelessness : wen stateless people,wose numbers are growing exponentially, laim rigts in te abseneof reognition by nationstates, upon wat basis do tey do so? If, asmany - inluding, most famously, Hanna Arendt - ontend, umanrigts an only be reognised witin a national polity and an onlybe realised alongside itizensip or membersip witin an establised politial ommunity, ten were does tis leae tose wo are

exluded om su arrangements? As we arge in tis book, umanrigts mean noting if tey are only te rigts of itizens, te rigts oftose witin reognised and establised politial boundaries Humanrigts, in oter words, mean noting if tey are not also te rigtsof te stateless, te rigts of te oter beyond te borders of te state,te rigts of tose wo, as rent put it, ae not een te rigt toae rigts'

Howeer, in making tis laim, we open up a series of omplia

tions and ambiguities onerning uman rigts and teir ontologialbasis Tese must neerteless be inestigated and workd trougif we are to ae any ope of understanding te roots of te urrentrisis of uman rigts and of retinking and renewing tem todayTe problem, as reealed by statelessness, is atually twofold First,uman rigts ae teir basis in a European tradition of tinking tat


8/214

iii Agambn and h Poliis of Human Rigs

priileges te idea o te publi spae, wi is seen as te genuinespere o politis Tis goes bak to anient Greek tougt, partiularly to te original distintion between pois and oikos (te ouseold,

domesti eonomy, priate lie) and to te diision between bis (apartiular fo or wy o lie politial lie, or instane) and zo (lieas mere biologial existene; te at o being alie) Te ormer wasregarded as preeminent oer te latter: man was, or Aristotle, zoonpoitikon, a politial animal, someone wose existene was dened andexalted by a ertain atiity or orm o lie politis rater tan simplyby is biologial existene

Tis distintion is entral to Arendt' s tougt For er, it is only inte polis, only by appearing in te publi realm, only by partiipatingin politial lie and te olletie aairs o te ommunity tat one anbe ll uman y ontrast, te atiiy o labour and te spere opriate lie and domesti eonomy - upon wi, o ourse, te erypossibiliy o publi lie depended were neerteless onsigned tote realm o neessiy' and gienness' to a orm o existene, wi,depried o t digniy o ull politial lie, was tereore barely uman

Tus a diision is set up in Arendt' s tinking between te idea o politial ommuniy and publi lie, on te one and, and existene outsidetis spere - tat o neessiy' and saageness' -wi does not, asyet, quali or ll umaniy Tis diision maps onto te distintiobetween te nationstate - wi, in our times, as beome te onlapparent expression o politial ommuniy - and tose exluded romit Tus, rendt, wile lamenting te pligt o regees and statelesspeople beeen te orld ars, is able to say tat beause tey areexluded om eery ommuniy and tus ll bak on teir bare'umaniy, teir ery umaniy as su is in question It seems tat aman wo is noting but a man as lost te ery qualities tat make itpossible or oter people to treat im as a ellowman' (endt 1968300) For Arendt, noting onirms tis better tan te impotene ouman rigts or te Rigts o Man in giing protetion and suour totose expelled om eery poliy

Yet te problem wit tis position, we arge, is tat it seems, againstits intentions, only to arm te degradations and iolene to wistateless people are subjeted; tey are, aer all, ollowing Arendt'slogi, only barely uman, and teir laim to rigts is tus disqualiied inadane Te solution, we suggest, is not to simply arge or teir integration into te nationstate order and establised identities o itizen


9/214


10/214


11/214

Prefae xi

Rater, in tis book, we deelop a dierent ontological approac topolitics, ormulated troug notions o inoperatieness, impotentialityand te realisation o te reedom and community in wic we already

lie Human rigts play an important part ere, not in te sense tattey prescribe particular norms and conditions o lie norms tat seekrecognition witin te ormal arrangements o power and law - butrater in te sense tat tey reeal someting essential o te umanqua uman

e do not pretend to ae soled te problems o uman rigtsere Indeed, suc a pragmatic, projectoriented, meansends approacwould be against te book's intentions Instead, we ope to aeopened up new lines o tougt and enquiry, new ways o tinkigabout politics and te uman, wic may, one day, allow us to escapete tangled, iolent morass tat currently besets uman rigts

OTES

ohn ehe and Saul NewmanNovember

1 Here Costas Douzinas makes the rather obious, yet vital, point that themodern era, particularly the entieth century, which ushered in the idea ofuniversal human rights, was witness to more genoides, massares, iolenceand human rights abuses than at any preious time (see 2000 : 2)

2 As Foucault says about biopolitis in the modern age: 'entire populationsare mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life

necessity massacres have become ital. It is as managers of life and surival,of bodies and rae, that so many remes have been able to wage so manywars, causing so many men to be killed (1998: 137)


12/214

Unless oerse saed, all ranslaons om orgnal Frenc exs areby on Lece


13/214

Chapter 1

HUMN RIGHTS ND STTELESSNESS TODY

ITROUCTIO: HUMA RIGHTS AS A PROBEM

Today i is impossible o aoid e onlusion a i abuses su asorure, sae iolene and oppression in general are o be preened,en e implemenaion o uman rigs alls or a radially new poino deparure In is regard, i is ruial a we ae up o e problemso e pas a ae oen rendered uman rigs impoen

Despie being ompromised, so a ey are, as oen as no,

onoured more in e brea an in e obserane, we sill need oonsider wy uman rigs are a e same ime impliaed in manyaspes o global poliis oday Wy is i sill possible o embarrassnaions wi regard o eir uman rigs reord? Wy is i a umanrigs are used as a spearead or global eonomi expansion? yare ey sill used as a jusiaion or one naionsae iolaing esoereigny o anoer, as was e ase wi e Amerian inerenionin Iraq? y did Nelson Mandela one say a uman rigs were

enral o ineaional relaions?A possible and pragmai response mig be a uman rigs,

wi are really only enoreable wiin naionsaes, also onirm epriileging o e indiidual oer soiey and e sae oer e broadolleiiy, in oer words eing ied o e priniple o indiidualismimplies a uman rigs enane e expansion o marke relaions,as indiiduals seem o slip neay ino e soes o e onsumerIndiidual rigs, i an us be laimed, are de ao onsumer rigs,

and i is e esern marke sysem wi sands o gain mos ere endy rown, summarising Miael Ignaie' s sane on uman

rigs, us igligs e ollowing poin: He [Ignaie laims [ ]a rigs as iil and poliial eedoms are e neessary ondiion

1


14/214

2 Agamben and he Poliis of Human Righs

or te eentual attanment o soal and eonom seurty"' (rown2004 454) Ts leads rown to te ew tat: Wat Ignate s reearsng, o ourse, s not an ontologial aount o wat uman bengs need

to enjoy le, but rater a poltaleonom aount o wat marketsneed to tre' 2004 45 7) . Here, rown s reteratng te rtqueo poltal lberalsm, w orgnates wt Marx, to te eet tatuman rgts are entrey ntonal to te aptalst eonom systemron's rtque and oters lke t also empasses te globalsng dreo aptalsm and ow te pursut o a uman rgts agenda, wt tsnddualst ous and ts proteton o prate property, tends to altate te emergene o a global market

Seuriisaion!Immunisaion

oreoer, seurtsaton', emerng n a mu more ntense rm ae9/11 and te prolamaton o te war on terror', s a lear treat touman rgts Indeed, t s te dea o seury', we arge, tat, aboeall, renders uman rgts mplementaton neete Tus, n te

name o seury, uman rgts must be sared Guantnamo aywould be te most strkng exemplar o ts sare

Indeed, te seurtsaton o naton states and all te border ontroland surellane measures tat ts entals s wat Roberto Esposto asdented under te term mmunty' 2008 9; see also Esposto 2011He ponts to moments n te story o mode poltal tougt weremmunty beomes te entral tenet o Western polts Hobbes' deao a Leatan' a poltal body ounded on ear s a key example ots (see Esposto 2009) Fear ompels people to seek proteton n tearms o te soeregn; tey ome to see tat te ndamental purposeo te polty s to prode seurty to ensure te preseraton o teommunty, nludng proteton om external and nteal ores,wose ntentons are to approprate te poltal body or ter ownbenet and enjoyment As a metapor, mmunty nludes te deatat te otagon' n te mdst o te poltal body an be used to

stmulate antbodes' to gt and rd te body o te ntruderWateer te termnology osen, oweer, and watee meapors are noked, Esposto enables us to see tat te poltal lmateo te seond deade o te tentyrst entury oen mposes a starkoe: seurty or uman rts; preseraton o te exstng orm ote natonstate or open demorat ommuny; a system based on


15/214

Human Rights and Saelessness Today 3

exlusion or ilusion As logi would ae it, oe a eore umarigts, but only at te expense o seurity; one a ae seurity, butonly at te prie o giig up on uman rigts

ut i all tis is true, ow is it tat te ioation o uma rigts oenaompanies laims tat it is eessary to go to war to deed umanrigts ( te Iraq War)? Tat it is neessary to impose seurity in teinterest o deeding a people's uman rigts? Esposito's explaationis tat politial ation as beome augt up i a paradox wereby, iorder to presere lie, it is eessary to destroy lie iopolitis is tusalways sadowed by tanatopolitis Te projet o seuring lie, oprotetig te lies o some - itizes o a atiostate, or istae - is

always at te expese o oters, weter troug teir exlusion oreen teir elimiatio Tereore, to get at te rux o te problemsrelated to deeding uma rigts requires a engagemet wit teissues raised by bot Esposito and Agambe As Giorgio Agambeas argued in a mureited deuiatio, uma rigts, rater tanlimitig biopolitis and soereig iolene, atually partiipate i teprodutio o bare lie', wi is power's ery basis ad terrain ointerentio A key part o tis book will be deoted to explorig tis

allegatio ad to seeig weter or ot uman rigts are redeemablei ligt o tisAs Agambe suggests, law - as it relates to lie as eer been

etirely separate rom at Tus, te ius soli (plae o birt') and iussaninis (birt om itize parets') alreay i Roma law impliedte primary isriptio o lie i te state order' (Agambe 1998 129) Tis implies tat te law as su as, or a ery long time, made waor its own suspensio i ligt o an arisig situatio (or example, a

state o emergey) Or, more broadly, wat is true i at as neerbee separate om wat is true by rigt Te igure o homo saer(sared man - te one wo is pure lie and a be killed witout teperpetrator ommittig omiide') beomes te real basis o a totallyotrasendet sared As tis aient - ad yet still preset gureo homo saer sows, te terrain o biopolitis, wi reers to power'sregulatio o lie itsel, is ot simply a eature o moderity as Fouaultontended, but goes bak to earliest atiquity

Neerteless, Agambe indiates tat te proess o lie beingisribed witin law aelerates eormously i modernity, as is sigalled by te itesiiation o te logi o seurity ad immuitie te era o Nazism, i partiular, te appliatio or suspesio o


16/214


17/214

Huma Rigs ad Saelessess Today 5

(Agambn 1998: 133) caus uman rigts supportrs also a aralist and faual iw of t uman and bcaus ty, too, lik tstat, rduc bis to , ty bcom complicit wit t powr ty arsupposdly opposing

THE HUMATARA HORZO

On of t problms igligtd by Agambn is t way tat umanrigts ar incrasingly subsumd witin t discours of umanitarianism in wic ty ar circumscribd and dpoliticisd il it isimportant, of cours, to concptually distinguis btwn uman rigts

and umanitarianism, w must also rcognis t way tat t formras, in practic, largly bn rducd to t lattr Wn on tinks ofuman rigts iolations today, on usually tinks of t umanitarianspctacls of suring and catastrop tat w s rgularly on ourT scrns - t pitiful imags of t raggd, arrid ictims of wars,massacrs and famins, togtr wit t appals for umanitarianaid and Wstrn intrntion T fac of uman rigts today is, asAgambn puts it: [t] imploring ys" of t Rwandan cild, wos

potograp is sown to obtain mony ' (1998: 133) Suc umanitarian imags projctd instantanously around t world bcom tfocal point for uman rigts ty ar situations in wic t iolationof uman rigts - t massacring of nnocnts, t sring of limbs,forcd staration - could not b clarr W ar calld upon to act - tostop t atrocitis and to dfnd t innocnt Clbritis lad campaigns for umanitarian aid, isit rg camps in Darr and Somalia,a potos takn wit maciatd cldrn and lobby politicians

T idology of umanitarianism also bcoms a lgitimising discours for actual military intrntions, wic ar today conductdin t nam of umanity T NATO oprations in Kosoo in t1990s, t US wars in Afganistan and Iraq and t rcnt intrntion in Libya wr all at last partially justd on umanitariangrounds protcting t ls and uman rigts of ciilians againstgnocidal dictators and rprssi rms Tr as bn a blurringof t distinction btwn t principls of umanitarianism and t

principls of warfar: not only as war bcom umanitarian' (in tmost cynical sns of t trm, wit, for instanc, t rtoric of targtd or surgical striks dsignd to spar ciilian casualtis), but also,umanitarianism as bcom militarisd Indd, today, t conduct


18/214


of military campaigns is ofn indistinguisabl om umanitarianoprations (or ic rsa) aid parcls ar droppd, along wit bombsand guidd missils, and umanitarian aid workrs accompany soldirs

into war zons Military campaigns dlir bot lif and dat, confirming Foucault's tsis on modrn biopolitics - tat it is t powrto fostr lif or to disallow it' (1998: 138) Indd, t indiffrncof t powrful towards mass sufring in som situations and tirradinss to intrn in otrs is not mrly illustrati o tir slfintrstdnss and ypocrisy Mor prcisly, it rals t prrslogic of biopowr, in wic t impuls to scur and fostr lif nds iscountrpart in t production of dat - somting wic can b snin t zons of indirnc wic prail or larg parts of t plant,in wic millions of pndabl popl' ar simply allowd to di War not suggsting, of cours, tat suc suffring is ignord by umanitarian NGOs and uman rigts groups On t contrary, ts groupswork ard to bring ts situations to t attntion of t world andto rt prssur on gornmnts to act Ratr, it is t ambialncof stats tat is at issu r, along wit t wa in wic umanitar

ian idolog concals a igly inconsistnt policy of intrntion ont part of stats T discours of umanitarianism wit umanrigts in tow bcoms part of a global biopolitical rgim, wicallows powr to intrn in crtain slct situations in t nam ot prsration of lif, wil turning a blind y to otr injustics andatrocits

For arious aid agncis around t world, uman rigts abcom anotr tool in t attmpt to cang t matrial situationof popl Imags of catastrops turn t ictims into t objcts oour compassion Yt tis is not t sam as gting for uman rigtsuman rigts a to b undrstood as mor tan a mans to an ndTus it is nt a mattr of bing mod by imags of t opprssdAfgan woman, t Somali rfg in Knya or a rap ictim in tCongo It is not a mattr of rsponding to a situation wr t poplinold ar prcid to b noting otr tan ictims of circum

stancs, albit trribl circumstancs Ratr, it sould b a mattr orcognising t uman qua uman, dspit t situationT problm of t rduction of uman rigts to umanitarianism

and uman protction cntrs on t gur of bar lif', or lif strippddown to its mr biologica istnc, and surial In t syntagmMan and t Citizn' from t Frnc Dclaration, Man', giing way


19/214

Human Righs and Saelessness Today 7

to t mor contmpora uman', was tougt to b ntirly xtrnalto ciil socity and, in cnt tims, spcially sinc t wo of Arndt,it was tougt, as a rsult, to b impossibl to do justic to t umanas uman In Agambn' s scnario, owr, it is prcisly t factof t uman as ssntially t biological body (t biological bingquialnt to a pur, matrial, nontranscndnt lif) tat qualifis itto b includd in t ciil spr Yt paradoxically, wil it is trougrigts tat w ar includd in t ciil spr as citizns, tis inclusioncoincids wit t growing wanss of rigts and t radinss on tpart of t stat to sacrific tm in t nam of scurity

Agambn's fundamntal point (wic oftn dos not pursu

rigorously or unquocally noug) is not, tn, tat t wol ofdmocrati socity is idntical to a concntration camp or tat tuman is, in trut, noting but a body, but ratr tat t absolutprimacy of act and situation and t total rasur of transcndncwic gis prcdnc to sorigny, rndrs t uman similar tot boy in t camp; tis body is t absolut incarnation of tis nontranscndnt raliy Fact, to ritrat, dominats rigt And tis ntailstat sorigny or powr (not law or rigts) is to b always protctd

at watr costIs it rally, tn, Agambn' s point tat rigts as suc ar complicitwit powr? Lt us again acnowldg tat Agambn is on ambiguous r and tat tis issu will nd frtr attntion at a latr stagowr, Aytn Gndou blis tat tr is, in Agambn'sargmnt, a clar complicity btwn powr and rigts: t mor wino rigts, t mor ntangld w bcom wit sorign powr ' (2012: 9)

Indd, it is tru, as Gndodu points out, tat at on point Agambnplicitl writs in Homo Saer tat i is almos as if' (our mpasis)rigts and libis only won in a battl wit sorign powrs

simultanously prpard a tacit but incrasing inscription of indiiduals' lis witin t stat ordr, tus oring a nw and mordradful foundation for t ry sorign powr from wic tywantd to librat tmsls (1998: 121)

It is prcisly tis point tat will rquir frtr analysis at a latrstag For now, w not t following First of all, tr is t almost asif' qualifir prfcing Agambn' s rmar, suggsting uncrtainy as to


20/214


t point bing mad Scond, if rigts ar implicatd in t powr tatty oppos, tis is, at bst, in a igly ompl, tnuous and paradoical way - indd, only in t sns tat t suspnsion of t law isitslf forsadowd by t law Tis is foundd on a parado, bcaust suspnsion of t law - as in a stat of mrgncy occurs, for tmost part, in ordr to protct t populac from disordr, inscurity andiolnc - t ry aspcts, as popular opinion would a it, tat ndto b controlld if t njoymnt of rigts is to tak plac at all Tproblm, of cours, is tat trats can b prsntd as ongoing, so tatt point wr rigts ar njoyd is nr actally racd Tird, wy

dos t law nd to b suspndd if rigts ar alrady implicatd insorign powr? It just dos not mak any sns to claim, on t onand, tat t stat of cption and t suspnsion of t law, including t normal' rspct of uman rigts, is quialnt to t assrtionof sorign powr and, on t otr and, tat rigts ar implicatdin tis powr tat somow t dfnc of uman rigts frtrs tintrsts of powr Tis is simply to attribut an omnipotnc to sorign powr, an omnipotnc wic is igly qustionabl At worst, w

could say tat t discours of rigts is usd or, ratr, misusd - bysorign powr in an idological wy to lgitimis itsl n as itgos about suspnding and curtailing tos ry rigts in otr words,gornmnts say, prrsly, tat it is bcaus ty rspct rigts andadr to t rul of law tat t a t moral autority to suspntos rigts wn fcd wit a trat to scurity (t obbsian justication) tat, in otr words, ty can curtail rigts witout losing tirmoral lgitimacy as good libral dmocratic rgims, wic otrisrspct rigts and law undr normal circumstancs (t problm bing,of cours, tat t mrgncy is omniprsnt and tat w ar nr ina normal' situation) or tat in an qually prrs logic of t tradof som rigts a to b sacricd so tat otrs can b protctdEitr way, t problm rlats to t wy tat t discours of umanrigts is misusd, manipulatd and traducd by sorign stats, rattan an actual complicit tat t ida of uman rigts itslf sars

wit powrIt is nrtlss tru tat Agambn is ofn ambiguous on tis point,as is on t rlationsip btwn and bis Wn argus tat is actually a form of lif = bios), is consistnt wit t positiontat tr is no lif distinct fom a form of lif owr, tr ar timswn gis t imprssion tat is sparabl from bis and tat, as


21/214

Humn Rigts nd Sttelessness Tody 9

suc i can be appopiaed by soeeign powe Similaly wi igs:wen ese ae aken in and by insiuions closely aligned wi esae ey end o see e ineess of e sae as e abinge of

soeei powe Howee wen igs ae linked o e exposue ofe uman (someing we sall eploe lae in e book) igs eeca fom of life - one a as we sall sugges esiss powe

Fuemoe as we will sow e wole agmen egading e pioiy of immuni is boug ino quesion if oo muc weig is aacedo claims a igs ae complici wi powe Ta is Agamben wouldneed o age a e defence of uman igs is eniely compliciwi concens abou e secuiy of e sae - a e sae of excep

ion would no be abou e wdawal of igs - an agumen aseems o be igly implausible Insead i is moe impoan o agea agencies wic fig fo ese igs ae complici because epaicipae so fully in e scenaio of nonanscendence - someinga is no doub exemplied and afmed by Micael Ignaieff' s pagmais appoac o uman igs (see Ignaie 2003)

Tus in acceping a Agamben as idenied a genuine poblemfo e defence of uman igs Anony uke as aged a i is

only by eaming a saced as anscenden a e cause fo umanigs can be enewed I is pecisey is eme a we will addess inlae capes Fo now we will fe examine e gowing ensionbeween uman igs and secuiy as well as is implicaions fo osewo ae saeless ose wo ae no een e ig o ae igs'

Humn Seurity

Te opeaon of excepional spaces oday as well as e geneal ubiqui of mecanisms of secuiy and sueillance clealy as impoanconsequences fo uman igs igliging ei appaen ineffecieness in e face of an inceasingly powefl sae Te quesionaising ee is wee e eical legal and poliical eain can beeclaimed fo uman igs One possible appoac o is is e discouse of uman secuiy wic claims a e naowe adiionallogic of naional secui (dened pimaily in is police and milia

ncions) sould be boadened o include umaniaian and umanigs concens Ye om ou pespecie e pominence oday ofis discouse of uman secuiy een if wellinenioned is sympomaic no of e iump of uman igs bu ae of ei weakness


22/214

10 Agmbn and h Poliis of Human Righs

and ambiguiy Te poje of moulding seuiy aound uman igsonens does no signi e peeminene of uman igs bu aee enaliy and egemony of seuiy o as we saed aboe e

dominane of e die fo immuniy (Esposio) and e dominane offa oe ig (Agamben) Tis as aised e quesion wee eeis a onegene beween ese wo piniples and us a lak of agenuinely auonomous poliis of uman igs

May Kaldo one of e ief aademi exponens of umanseuiy alks abou a new paadigm of inenaional poliis a isemeging - one based aound umaniaian ineenion umaigs global iil soiey and inenaional law Tis is e paadigm ouman seuiy wi se defines as being abou e seui of indiduals and ommuniies ae an e seuiy of saes and i ombines bo uman igs and uman deelopmen' (Kaldo 2007: 182Te aim ee is o eink seuiy beyond e adiional sae enipaadigm of naional seuiy and siuae i aound indiiduals inopoaing eonomi food eal and pesonal and poliial seuiyelemens Seuiy in is inepeaion is abou ononing exeme

ulneabiliies no only in was bu in naual and manmade disasesas well - famines sunamis uianes' (2007: 1 83) Aoding oKaldo uman igs ae pimay and seious uman igs iolaionsae gounds fo aious foms of umaniaian and een miliay ineenion aloug ee se is aefl o say a miliay ineenionsould ony be used as a las eso Fo Kaldo i is impoan amiliay ineenion if i is used sould be oneied of in ems ofpoliing and uman igs enfoemen ae an in ems of adiional wafae and i sould be aied ou in a mulilaeal fasion one basis of boad inenaional onsen

In allengng e saeeni (= soeeign powe) appoa oseuiy and in aing as is fous e seuiy of e peson as indiidual beyon is o e membesip of a naionsae e uman seuiy pespeie would seem like a woy aspiaion fo inenaionalpolicymaking In alling fo a iial ineogaion of is onep

we eainly ae no inenion of easseing e supemay of esae eni ealis' paadigm o of suppoing e aious iiques ouman seuiy on e gounds of is idealism' Te poblem as wesee i is moe omplex an a and elaes o e powe elaionsipsobsued beind e idea o uman seuiy as well as e onologialbind a seuiy imposes on life Seuiy - wee imposed by saes


23/214

Human Righs and Saeessness Today 11

o inenaional oganisaions onsains and limis e auonomy andpoenialiy of being uman, losing off is possibiliies and subeing io biopoliical goenmen Human seuiy eefoe suffes om esame pifalls as umaniaian aion geneally in caing fo e icimin a gien siuaion o se of iumsanes, i esablises a powe elaionsip oe e iim, eduing im o e o a poliially ieleanfom of bae life', inapable of poliial agency and auonomous acionFoucaul as aug us o be auious of e idea of ae' - o be aleo is danges and e suble foms of dominaion a i inoles Teseemingly innouous cae of doos oe paiens, psyiaiss oee menaly il social wokes oe e needy and eaes oe pupils

ae al peaps ineiably, powe elaionsips, wi, aoding oFouaul sould be bo ineogaed and allenged A e ey leaswe sould be onsanly awae of ei poenial danges Indeed,we mig see uman seuiy as a onmpoay globalised pasoapowe a fom of powe wi Foucaul aes fom e oigins of eCisian pasoae oug o moden aionaliies of goenmen (seeFoucaul 2007: 13585) Te goenmen of e one and e many' oof e seped oe is ok, as Foucaul desibes i, no longe con

siss of e salaion of souls, bu of e secuiisaion of bodiesSeuiisaion in poecing bodily inegiy and peseing umanlife a e same ime consains e auonomy of e uman We souldbe awae of e poenial damage a seuiisaion does o e ina is being seued As Miael Dillon pus i: seuing is an assaulon e inegiy of waee is o be seued' (1996 : 122) Human seuiy, in is sense, is depoliicising No ony does i esablis a poweelaionsip in e fom of salaion and ae, bu i isks suing down

e onsiuiely open onological spae a is necessay fo poliisWile poponens of uman secuiy would age a one s as oae secuiy befoe one can ae poliics, is pus us bak ino eHobbesian paadigm, weeby e onologial pimay of secuiy oepoliis leads o consains and limiaions on poliics Once again, weae no suggesing a poponens of uman secuiy do no desieaying less an e possibiliy of ll poliical lies fo e suffeingmasses of e plane, and indeed, we gie em ll edi fo seekin

o ansend e naow, saecened, soeeign concepion of seuiy Howee, e onologial pioiy gien o secuiy is, a e sameime, a dange o poliis As Jaques Deida agues, demoai poliis, in paiula, neessaily implies openness o isk and e danges


24/214


of feedom So in ealuaing e emancipaoy poenial of umansecuiy we sould enquie as o e ulimae compaibiliy bewenuman igs and secuiy and ask wy e cause of uman igs

oday seems accepable only if i is aaced o consuced aound andpackaged wiin e signifie of secuiy Ou claim would be a fouman igs o be exploed o ei ll adical poenial ey musulimaely exceed e langage and pacices of secuiy

THE PARAIGM OF STATEESSESS

So we ae suggesed a uman igs ae become poblem aic in wo key senses: e fis is a ey ae been used as a coefo naional selfinees paiculaly fo e dominan powes Tispus o defend uman igs ofen occus in e conex of less isiblenaional aemps o bing abou a global makeplace and e aendandominance of make elaions a is enails Te second poblem asigliged by Agamben is e dominance of fac and siuaion oeigs Hee e sae of excepion is pedominan and e siuaion

comes o subsume e popely anscenden dimension of igs Teuman as suc as fallen ino is oally nonanscenden abyssas poposed y secula modeni ecause wa is essenially umanis deeme o be e biological body we see a if undesood in isway e body becomes e pue playing of soeeign powe wiie eain of biopoliics

I is in is conex a we mus exploe e poblem of saelessnessand e ambigous quesion of e igs of e saeless Te condiion a saeless people nd emseles in aound e wold oday asey languis in deenion camps migae fom place o pace o liea pecaious and clandesine exisence unde consan fa of depoion seems o conjue up all e ambiguiies and ensions confoninguman igs a we ae us fa eoked Te geneally appallingeamen by saes of asylum seekes and illegal' migans and eicious measues of bode conol policing and sueillance ae a

conceisaion of e dominance of fc and siuaion oe anscendenigs in ineaional poliics In oe wods e babaic eamenof saeless people is a condiion o sympom of e immolaion ofanscendence on e ala of soeeign exigency

In addiion saeless people seem o consiue a ceain blindspofo naionsaes and public opinion wic fail o acknowledge e


25/214

Humn Righs nd Selessness Tody 13

ll catastrope tat is currently taking place. Te Afgan asylumseekers rowne in te coastal waters off Australia or incarcerate ina etention camp in te Australian esert or te Iraqi Iranian Afganor Suanese migrants forcelly cleare by Frenc police from teirmakesi camp (te Calaisis jungle') or te image of two rowneRoma Gypsy girls wo a recently been ngerprinte by te Italianautorities an wose boies wase up onto a Naples beac ignoreby te sunbaters sitting calmly by - all of tese images soul not justraise feelings of inignation in support of te ictims' but soul alsoacknowlege te nonrecognition of te transcenence of te umanta takes place at te same time.

Tese situations are brutal an socking an yet tey o not seem toeoke eep reection or concern about te uman as uman Altougtis catastrope is closer to ome it is someow less isible an lesslikely to elicit compassion inee quite te opposite Suc is teperersity of tis situation tat te ery ictims escaping opressieregimes tat we in te West eclare war on - in te name let itnot be forgotten of uman rigts n temseles barre om entryinto our societies an incarcerate in etention camps were teir

rigts - wic again we supposely efen are now enie to tem.Te perception of statelessness as a treat takes preceence oer teefence of uman rigts. Wile uman rigts form te post ieologicalieolo of Western societies many in tese societies are orrie byte spectre of statelessness illegal' migration an emonstrations inetention centres a result tere is an acceptance of uman rigtsiolations were force is inicte on oters in orer to protect tesocial orer an national ientity.

Troug tese fears an concerns oer security we must recognise te biopolitical orizon of statelessness. ile soereign powerwereer it is enforce tens to reuce eeryone citizen an noncitizen - to a kin of biological entity (to a natural fact) in relation towic a tecnocracy manages teir nees an beaiours te statelessperson as noncitizen is at te foreont of tis eelopment. Forrefgees asylum seekers an il legal' migrants ue to teir lack of legalan political status are precisely reuce to bare life'; tey are anony

mous nameless celess an tey wait in many cases for years wileteir fate is etermine by goernments an tribunals like te manom te countrysie in Kafka's parable wo waits eternally outsiete oor of te law only to ae it nally sut in is ce. Moreoer te


26/214

14 Agmben and he Poliis of Human Rights

subjection of stateless people to an array of emeaning an intrusieexaminations an sueillance - suc as fingerprinting an meicalinspections points to te biopolitical management of illegal' migra

tion in te interest of security, so tat te boy of te stateless personbecomes te site for state sureillance an control. Furtermore, ifwe unerstan biopolitics as operating on te terrain of immunisation, ten we can see borer controls as a strategy of immunising tefearl boy politic troug te exclusion of te boy of te reateningoutsier te boy wo may not only pose te treat of contamination in a pysical sense troug isease, but also weaken te culturalintegrity of te nation, spreaing te irus of Islam or terrorism.

Perceie securi treats are tus attribute to te asylum seeerwo not only treatens to isturb te ientity of te national community, but migt pose a risk to state security Inee, we ae seen agrowing securitisation of migration, particularly in te years followinSeptember 11, an te spilling oer of concerns about terrorism intoconcerns about illegal' migration a growig zone of inistinction', asAgamben migt put it, between te two Te entirely ungroune fea

tat some asylum seekers migt be Islamic terrorists' as been use,for instance, by te Australian Goement in orer to proie a rationale for rutless borer control measures. Similar fears are obserable inte Unie States following 9/11 (see Tirman 2006) Inee, a sense ofinsecurity about terrorism, immigration an oter perceie treatsto natonal ientity all seem to blur into te same abstract fear afear wic is eliberately manipulate in te meia an exploite bygoements. Statelessness becomes a site of (in)security for nationalgoernments, tus autorising more intense borer controls. Newpowers of searc an etention en to borer agencies, raconianlaws an restrictions on asylum seeking, te centralisation of sureilance an iformationgatering systems at a Europeanwie leel,te clearing of makesift camps by police an te ofsoring of spacesof etention are all instances of tis attempt to contain an controlstatelessness. Diier igo escribes te efect of measures suc as tose

entaile in te Scengen Agreement to create an internal securiy zonewitin te EU

Te conseuence of tis extension of te efinition of internal security at te European leel is tat it puts wiely isparate penomenaon te same continuum te gt on terrorism, rugs, organize


27/214

Human Righs and Selessness Today

crime cross borer criminaliy illegal immigration an tofurter control te transnational moement of persons wetertis be in te form of migrants asylum seekers or oter borercrossers an een more broaly of any citizen wo oes not correspon to te a priori social image tat one ols of is nationalientiy (eg. te cilren of firstgeneration immigrants minoriygroups). (2008: 19)

15

Te most isible manifestation of tese immunising practices is temigrant etention camp wic occupies as we ae pointe out aspace of biopolitical exception in wic soereign power fnctions in

excess of te law (an in tanem wit it) an were tose etaine insuc spaces are enie te rigts an legal protections normally giento citizens. It is argue tat te situation emans suc measures. Tustese camps an fcilities operate as sites of exclusion were te logcof borering an te conition of statelessness in all its precariousness an ulnerabiliy are mae concrete To frter empasise tisexclusion an policy of te exception as if te barbe wire prison likewalls an sueillance cameras were not enoug some of tese camps

are locate ofsore an are outsource to te management of priatesecurity frms For instance we ae te etention centres tat aebeen opene on islans in te Sout Pacifc wic are run on bealfof te Australian Goernment or te camps an borer zones situatein ibya Tunisia an Morocco wic are esigne to control te owof illegl' migration om subSaaran Africa into te EU. Spain orinstance as reiscoere a use for its colonies in Morocco constructing a borer fence aroun Ceuta so as to preent borer crossings into

Spanis territory We can also point to te use of a oc temporaryspaces for etention suc as transit zones in airports Te proliferationof tese extraterritorial processing zones aroun te worl is emblematic of te conition of statelessness an te increasing lengts towic states will go to control tis situation

Moreoer te aily life of tose etaine in suc spaces combineste inteention on a minute leel of te isciplinary regime of soereign power wit te irtual absence of legal protection an rigts rec

ognition Detainees wo often languis in suc places for years onlyto ae teir asylum claims rejecte sometimes on a tecnicality liean existence were enforce boreom is combine wit te constantanxiety of eportation as well as wit pety aministratie cruelties an


28/214

16 Agmben and he Poliis of Human Righs

arbitrary rules A firstan account escribes tis isciplinary reme,wic is all te more terrorising, in a Kakaesque way, for its lack ofregularity an normality:

All te rles are enrce arbitrarily, witout ay ryme or reason.Te rules cange all te time, an te inmates are not tol aboutte canges, because if tey know te rules tey migt consiertemseles to ae some rigts (ICFI 2002)

Being in fore wihout signane' is ow Agamben caracteriseste situation of te law in te soereign ban (1998: 51 [empasis inoriginal]) someting wic aptly captures tis anomic conition ofte etaine asylum seeker an, inee, te conition of statelessnessin general

THE RIGHTS OF THE STATEESS

Te question tat arises ere, in all its urgency, concerns te sort of

protections tat are aailable to people in suc circumstances. Teyare oere little or no protection uner national laws, an, inee, tepractices of etention tat we ae escribe are esigne to eliberately isolate an exclue te stateless person an to remoe im or efrom suc protections. Terefr, te stateless person as noting toll back on but uman rigts principles, as well as arious internationalameworks an conentions. An, nee, many current practces ofetention an borer control not only iolate uman rigts principlesas set out in te 1 948 Declaration - wic, for instance, forbis subjecting people to cruel, inuman or egraing treatment' an wic grantspeople te rigt to asylum - but also contraene arious internationalprotocols on te treatment of regees, especially te 1951 RegeeConention. Yet, for te most part, suc practices continue in a seemngly unrestrcte fason, ren by te exgences an prerogatesof state power. We are rcelly confronte ere wt te apparent

impotence of uman rigts an een of international lw in te faceof state soereignty. At te ery least, tere is major tension betweente principles of uniersal uman rigts an tose of state soereignty.As Seyla enabib puts it: Tere is not only a tension, but often anoutrigt contraiction, between uman rigts eclarations an states'soeregn clams to control ter borers an to montor te qual


29/214

Human Righs and Saelessness Today 17

of an quantty of amttees' (2004 2) , as as been ncate, nmost cases, natonal soeregnty preals

Here we are remne of Hanna rent' s pognant llustraton n

The Origins of Toaliarianism of te ftlty of refgees an statelesspeople seekng protecton on te bass of te rgts of man:

If a uman beng loses s poltcal status, e soul, accorng tote mplcatons of te nborn an nalenable rgts of man, comeuner exactly te stuaton for wc eclaratons of suc generalrgts proe. Actually te opposte s te case. It seems tat aman wo s notng but a man as lost te ery qualtes wc

make t possble for oter people to treat m as a fellowman.(1968 : 300)

Arent's crual callenge to uman rgts s an essental startngpont for any serous stuy of uman rgts an wll be ealt wt atgreater len n te followng capter. Howeer, wat s reealeere s te tenson between two ferent orers of rgts - unersaluman rgts, bestowe on mankn n general, an te rgts of ct

zens wtn boune poltcal communtes, n oter wors, betweenuman rgts an cc rgts. Arent' s pont s tat only te latteroffer genune protecton, n so far as one s nclue wtn a partcularpoltcal communty. y contrast, te former orer of unersal umanrgts exsts only n te abstract, oerng no real protecton an,nee, conrmng one's ery excluson from communy an, trougts, om umanty tself; for umany s ene ere as essentallyte poltcal communty. Inokng te abstract rgts of man smply

reuces te clamant to bare lfe', to te smple fact of bologcal exstence, leang m ulnerable to be marke as an outser an less tanuman.

Tere s real conflct beween tese two ontologcal orers of rgtsan two ferent unerstanngs of belongng one wc s ntrnscto te traton of Western poltcal plosopy tself. For not only sts traton nebte to Arstotle's stncton between an bis,were bos nclues memersp an partcpaton n poltcs as a con

ton of a goo lfe', but te poltcsaton of as te fact of bologcallfe s mplct n te teory of te socal contract, wc s so nuentaln te moern era. regars te stateless person, t s not tat e oes not ae rgts;


30/214


rater tat witin te orer of soereign states suc rigts becomemeaningless because political life is ominate by te fact of situations an tere is little interest or concern in giing te transcen

ence tat is te basis of rigts its ue. In tis regar we nee to fllyinestigate te conition of wat we ae escribe as biopoliticalexceptionalism' were it may be tat te iision between stateooan statelessness belonging an exclusion rigts an rigtlessness isless clearcut to te point were it coul be tat we are all increasinglyreuce to a conition of statelessness

Were te claim mae by Arent correct tat te only rigts wortaing are tose bestowe by a political community as oppose toabstract uniersal uman rigts we woul ten be force to cononta number of essential questions. Can it be tat te uman is only fullexpresse an conrme witin a po litical community? We beliee tatte answer to tis question is no For political community ineitablmeans at least currently te community establise by te nationstate an we beliee tat tis is as muc part of te problem as it ispart of te solution. If political community is not an aequate inication

of te essential uman wat is te ontological status of te umanqua uman as te bearer of uman rigts? I for instance ElspetGuil is correct in er contention tat refgees are neiter ictims noHomo Sacer; tey are struggling for teir rigts' (2010: 25), we neeto better unerstan te ontological basis of tis struggle for rigts.If we want to insist on an unerstaning of uman rigts wic transcens te iea of particular political communities ten ow can teseuman rigts be enforce in te absence of aequate internationamecanisms of enforcement? Moreoer if we are to efen te iea ouniersal uman rigts or rigts tat transcen te particularities onationstates an if we are also to insist on a conception of umanittat is alwas alreay politically ali ten tis raises te callengeo tinking te uman an community entirely iferently. Humanityan communit an te relationsip between tem are gien newresonance an meaning troug te conition of statelessness Can

tere be a conception of umaniy tat on te one an transcensbare life' an n te oter ns its flflment in forms of community an collectie political life tat no longer take te form of tenation state?

In tis ligt one of te objecties of our examination is to exploreAgamben's eniatic claim tat:


31/214

uman Righs and Saelessness Today

gien te by now unstoppable ecline of te NationState ante general corrosion of traitional politicaljuriical categorieste refgee is peraps te only tinkable figure for te people ofour time an te only category in wic one may see toay atleast until te process of issolution of te NationState an itssoereignty as aciee full completion - te forms an limits ofa coming political community (1996: 158-9)

19

For Agamben wo raicalises upates an goes beyon rent' sproblematic te gre of te regee or stateless person precisely byirtue of is or er raical exclusion from te nationstate an om te

categories of citizensip an rigts tat erie from it in oter worsprecisely because of wat rent saw as is abject an politically isqualiie existence is te arbinger of a new orizon of political exisence. Howeer te question we are le wit is wat migt tis neform of political life tis coming political community' actually be?An moreoer woul it be a form of politics in wic uman rigtsae any role to play? Agamben is notoriously ague about te sapeof tis coming political community' an it is unclear from is allusie

writings weter e beliees uman rigts can be reeeme - wetertey can be raically reformulate an etace om soereignty - orweter tey woul simply be transcene an mae superuous inture forms of community

COCUSION

Waeer te case we suggest tat it is necessary to reconsier te

ery being of te uman if a new form of community is to be enisage Tis as as been reiterate as to be te uman as transcenentnot as te natural' biological boy te boy of te Greek . In tiscontext uman rigts woul be a way of encountering tis transcenent uman an woul mark te space troug wic te umanas suc is articulate In tis way rigts coul be unerstoo as atresol troug wic we must tink in orer to imagine new formsof political existence


32/214

20 Agambe ad he Poliis of Huma Righs

Noes

1 See Marxs mous rque o he Rghs o Man n On he Jewsh ques

on (1843), where he sad ha None o he supposed rghs o man,hereore, go beyond he egos man, man as he s, as a member o vlsoe; ha s, an ndvdual separaed rom he ommuny, whdrawnno hmsel wholly preouped wh hs prvae neres and ang naordane wh hs prvae apre (n Tuker 1978: 26-52, 43

2 See Baalles noon o ommuny as wha dees sel-preservaon (abologally drven noon) (1988: 10-30) See also Esposos dsusson oBaalle (2011: 134) .

3 O ourse, anoher queson o b e posed here s wheher he soalled 'waon error and he seury measures mples have, n realy, nreasedour seurty or le us more vulnerable Indeed, man seury expers haverased serous queres abou hs, belevng ha, anyhng, suh exrememeasures have only anagonsed many around he world and have seredas erle rerung ground or errorsm. However, our general pon sha even suh measures ee eeve, he sare o human rghsnvolved would sll no be jused

4 For Esposo, oreover, he mmunsng paradgm always ends up desroyng or sarng par o wha seeks o proe In hs sense, we an pono he wa, or nsane, ha seury measures agans errorsm supposedly mplemened o proe our lberal demora way o le end uponsranng mporan elemens o hs way o le See Derrdas noon o'auommuy he seldesruve mpulse a he hear o demoray,whh desroys demoray n he very aemp o proe (2005: 40)

5 The supreme rony o Shms poson s ha, begnnng wh heology, ends up prvlegng he nonransenden onngen momen,

whh s he exepon as suaon Le be armed here ha everyorm o polal pragmasm onrms Shms hess prlegng hesuaon, whh, n he end, s always geared o he deene o soveregnpower

6 In 1999, Tony Blar announed a new moral dorne o he humanaran'jus war, o whh he ampagns n Kosovo, and laer n Aghansan andIra, were seen as examples.

7 Here we should remember, as Dder Fassn and Marella Pandoln

ounsel us o, ha 'Even dressed up n he loak o humanaran moralty,nerenon s always a mary aon n oher words, war (2010: 22 See also Eyal Wemans analyss o he way ha humanaran law, whhosensbly seeks o lm harm and suerng, a he same me provdesa normalsng dsourse o mlary operaons ha are now onduedaordng o he dubous moraly o he lesser el Weman 2011)


33/214


34/214


35/214


36/214

24 Agmben and he Poliis of Humn Righs

Howeer espite tis loosening of te grip of positiist law in ligtof uniersal principles te Nuremberg Trials as many ae pointeout were conucte by te Unite States as te occupying power in

Germay not by any supranational autority a fact wic reinforceste primacy of nationstates as te cief agents for proteting umanrigts It as emerge ten tat te protection of te uman rigtsof iniiuals epens entirey on te goo will of goernments teirony being tat it is almost inariably goernments as te icarnationof soereign power wo are te main iolator of uman rigts . Wilete latter ae been cast as aing an essentially legal basis it is tisery basis wic is part of te problem because it assumes te primacof te nationstate as cief enforcer . noter way of putting it a waywic accors wit gamben' s insigts as outline in Capter 1 is tosay tat soereign power as bot te iolator an enforcer of umanrigts tus etermines te nature an moe of implementation oftese rigts Tus soereign power is oubleege in te most negatie sense For een wen uman rigts are protecte it can only be atte beest of soereign power

Stuies wic ae faile to take into account te absolute natureof soereign power an te problematic legal empasis p lace on tenotion of rigts' ae eneaoure to n istorical precursors touman rigts most often in te context of ancient Greece an RoeIn suc stuies it is sometimes pointe out tat altoug te worrigt' may not ae come into existence in Europe until between tetwel or fourteent centuries oter terms (suc as te Greek dike,ofen translate as justice' or te atin ius referring to law' rigtor justice' existe wic coney a similar meaning so te absence ofte wor rigts' oes not entail te absence of te concept. Howeegien te current legal empasis it seems to be streting tings inte extreme t argue tat in fact te origins of uman rigts go backto Greece an Rome. Moreoer if it is juge tat te legal basis ofrigts ils to eoke te ull sense in wic rigts iolations nee to bepreente suc a genealo is emonstrably inaequate. For it equates

te eolution an emergence of te nation state most notably in tenineteent century wit te emergence of te protection of umanrigts a iew wic sets out to proe wat is alreay accepte as true

If inee we were to follow nrew Vincent's call an refuse toreuce uman rigts to a morl spere wic transcens politics (2010:31-2), it beoes us neerteless to keep actual macro political struc


37/214

Human Righs in Hiso 25

tures in iew an to point out teir limitations. Wile Vincent to iscreit recognises tat genocie is embee witin te ery structureof te nationstate (2010: 1068), tere is a certain sense tat e like

many oters oes not go far enoug in analysing te origins an natureof tis Western moe of political an social organisation Here it iswort noting Antony Smit's caracterisation of te centrality of tenationstate in moern political organisation Te nation state [now]is te norm of moern political organization an it is as ubiquitous as itis recent. Te nation state is te almost unispute founation of worlorer te main object of iniiual loyalties' (1971 : 2, cite in Vincent2010: 116 [Vincent's insert])

Wile it is clear tat rigts eclarations an legislation since 1945 bearno formal resemblance to wat as gone before in tis el wile asa matter of current practice uman rigts efences ten to be aboutte iniiual citizen self (tus a self or subject witin a nationstate)wo may claim uman rigts insofar as tey are recognise witin aparticular legal system (as is te case for example wit te EuropeanConention on Human Rigts) - tere is a istory (or more accuratelya genealo) in te Western traition wic can sere as an important

lineage for eepening our unerstaning of uman rigts To pick uptis genealo oweer requires tat te notion of te uman returnto centre stage in te ebate No oubt scolars like Vincent woulsee tis as an attempt to retu to a ersion of natural rigts base onte necessary concomitant of uman nature. Howeer to return to teuman is not to retu to a notion of uman nature nor inee toany fixe uman essence; it is also to reuse to reuce te uman to itsbiological being (Greek or as as become familiar aer Agamben

to bare life'. To begin on te pat inicate it is only necessary toeoke te most popular enition of uman rigts (een if tis also isan almost wilfl misrecognition of te preominance of te legal statusof rgts) wic is: te rigts one as simply because one is a umanbeing' (see Donnelly 2003: 1) Wat we may ask oes it mean to bea uman being'? An wat are te implications of tis for an unerstaning of uman rigts?

ATURA RIGHTS AS A PRECURSOR TO HUMA RIGHTS?

It is sometimes suggeste tat te real orign of te contemporarynotion of uman rigts is te seenteent an eigteentcentury


38/214

26 Agmben n he Poliis of Humn Righs

iea of natural law an natural rigts. Te plausibility of tis nooubt eries from te fact tat, in bot contexts, tere is eeme tobe a gien an essential umanness calle uman nature, wic is

expresse in uman rigts. Tere are rigts pertaining to a gien annatural umanness, weter tis be foune on te iea of umannature (wic woul inclue a capacity for reason an language) or onte iea of an essential biological being In bot cases, it coul be saitat suc rigts always alreay exist in irtue of being uman; tey arenot in any way acquire. Te newborn are just as muc te bearers ofnatural or uman rigts as any ault uman.

Despite appearances, oweer, tere is, as Vincent sows (201:37-103), a funamental iscontinuity between two categories of rigtsnatural rigts (base in te iea of nature) an uman rigts (base inte iea of ciil sociey an te nationstate) . Tis is not to eny tat,in uman rigts ebates, it can often seem, especially as ecoe inte prase in irtue of being uman', tat wat is at issue are rigtstat erie om te mere act of being born, tat tere is someow anatural imension tat clings on in te moern era. As Vincent puts

it Wat e ae in te late twentiet century are gostly ecoes of alargely reunant ocabulary or, alternatiely, o transmutations oan oler terminoloy (2010 : 37)

Tus, afer Hanna Arent, many oters (incluing Agamben, albeitom a critical perspectie) ae claime tat ny articulation of umanrigts in te posEnligtenment era is only possible in te context ote institutions of te nationstate. Tis is wy stateless people areofen unable to fin reress for teir situation. y contrast, we areproposing an alternatie reaing of uman rigts one tat is baseneiter on natural rigts, nor on te ciic instantiation of uman rigtswitin a state orer as propose by Vincent but wic transcens tisaltogeter reealing someting about te ontology of te umaniself.

Anoter ecisie reason wy natural law an natural rigts no longerae any ral connection to contemporary uman rigts campaigns is

tat suc rigts were foune in teism. Een Rousseau guarian ote secularly oriente Frenc Reolution subscribe to eist principles wen it came to te origin of nature. Famousy, Rousseau writes,in is Profession of ith of Svoyr Vir, as is rst article of fait'I beliee, terefore, tat a will gies motion to an animates nature'(1969 : 576) An later, e as Tis eing wo can o wat e wills,


39/214


40/214


a member of a political community, was to be in a position in wicone a noting but one's umanity to call upon as a justificatonfor aing one's uman rigts recognise ent points out tat te

Rigts of Man', in te absence of citizensip, were, in effect, unenforceable because no one knew precisely wat rigts someone a wowas no longer a member of ay soereign state Tis leas to ent' swelknown conclusion tat only tose wo are members of a politicalcommunity (of a public spere) can ae teir rigts protecte On tisbasis, it is clear tat stateless people are also rigtless' people:

Te calami of te rigtless is not tat tey are eprie of life,liberty an te pursuit of appiness, or of equality before te lawan eeom of opinion formulas wic were esigne to soleproblems within gien communities - but tat tey no longerbelong to any political community watsoeer Teir pligt is nottat tey are not equal before te law, but tat no law exists fortem; not tat tey are oppresse, but tat noboy wants een tooppress tem (Arent 1968 : 175-6 [empasis in original])

For ent, toug, a for te traition of European tougt, statelessness oes not just mean te absence of te means for protecting umanrigts; in oter wor, it is not just a pragmatic situation wic is atissue Rater, to not be part of a political community is to be expelleom umanity itself it is to cease to be flly uman:

Not te loss of pecic rigts, ten, but te loss of a communitywilling an able to garantee any rigts watsoeer, as been tecalamity wic as befallen eerincreasing numbers of peopleMan, it tus out, can lose all socalle Rigts of Man witoutlosing is essential quality as a man, is uman ignity. Only teloss of a polity itself expels im om umanity (1968 : 177)

Tere is an ambialence (if tis is te term) in Arent' s tinkig wen

it comes to te p ligt of stateless people Tis is eient wen ent,on te one an, arges tat stateless people are unaoiaby at temercy of iniiual nationstates Protection for tem can only comeom tis source For te fact is tat tere is no supranational or oterinstitutional arrangement aailable in te era of moernity to lensuccour to te stateless to tose wo cannot claim any link wit a


41/214

Human Rights in Histo 29

political community Tis is wy for stateless people between te twoWorl Wars it was often better to commit a crime an tus be inserteinto a national legal system tan to remain in a conition of stateless

ness an lie uner te continual treat of expulsion from wiceercount one appene to be in at te time (Arent 1968 : 166-7) To bepart of te legal system is to be te beneciary of wateer rigts areintegral to tat system access to a lawyer te rule of habas ous, terigt to a speey trial an so on

ut for Arent on te oter an te nationstate altoug inecline ue to international power imbalances an to te rawingupof national borers tat took no account of te iferences between

peoples wo were entrappe witin suc borers is neerteless anentity to be reere an sustaine at all costs as te only iable eicleof political community Tus te faut d miux argment - werestateless people can only ae recourse to te nationstate for protection een if ieally it woul be better to ae a way of efeninguman rigts in irtue of one's umanity inepenently of te nationstate gies way to te argment tat alorises te nationstate as teeicle of political community An it is te latter aboe all wic is

important for it is wat constitutes te uman as uman As we aeseen one cannot be fully uman outsie of a political community. Ontis basis te real ecline an isappearance of te nationstate woulbe a terrible tragey

It is wort returning to te wors tat Arent uses to reinforce erargment regaring te importance of political community for beinguman because none of rent' s commentators ae picke up onte fll signicance of te position eresse at te en of part two

of Th Origins of Totalitarianism. Weter or not Arent later in erouvr, continue to subscribe to wat se writes ere is less important tan te fact tat se puts into wors a position tat as becomeugely inuential toucing as it oes on te role of te public spere inmoernity an on te importance in European tinking of te opposi tion between eeom an necessity'.

Wat ten are we to make of tose wo are part of a social or cultural setup were in te commonly el European iew tere is no

iable political community? Or were people are unable to escape tetraail of necessity an remain roote in a struggle for seer pysicalsurial?

In a number of passages Arent sets out te implications for tose


42/214

30 Agmben and he Poliics of Human Righs

in tis preicament tose wose claim for protection in te absence ofpolitical community consigns tem to noting but te abstract nakness of being uman' (1968 : 179) - of being noting but bare life'. Suc

people also exist in te spere of wat Arent efines as te merelygien' (or wat in oter places will be calle necessi') . Te merelygien' - wic is also zo is in fact a permanent treat to te publicspere' (181) Te public spere' is equialent to political communityIt is tus base in te legal structure of society an is constitutie oformal equality wereas te spere of zo is one of natural ierencesan ineqalities . It is only in te public spere tat political life propercan take place an actors can experience freeom. Arent also calls tisspere pure artifce an creatiity. Wat is crucial ere is tat te publicspere must be clearly emarcate if not totally cut o fom te priatespere lest te realm of necessity comes to estroy te public spere'sbasis in equality an feeom.

Here we soul also recall rent' s criticism of te FrencReolution - tat it brougt questions of surial an necessiy ontote centre of te political stage Drien by te boily nees of te poor

an pity for teir pligt te Frenc Reolution - unlike te AmericanReolution wic presere a properly political omain in te form oa stable constitutional ramework le to te omination of te political by social an moral concerns someting tat ultimately proucete Terror (Arent 2009) Tis enigration of te social as a omainof necessity of bare life tat must be resolutely separate om teomain of te political forms te backgroun to Arent' s scepticismregaring te reolutionary Frenc Declarion of he Righs of Man: sucrigts were not properly political as tey were rien by te emotionof pity for te suering masses. Tey tus expresse te illetimaeintrusion of bare life into te worl of politics (see Ranire 2004: 298)

Te problm particularly if one is not part of te Western traitionis at political communiy an feeom relatie to all tose wo migtmake a claim on tem are in sort supply A ery signicant proportion of te worl's population tus cannot quali as being fully uman

on Arent' s account just as a slae wo aing no cil status (andoen not een a name) an existing entirely in te spere of necessitcannot be fully uman. As toug recognising te possible implications for te slae populations of te past Arent makes te followingconcession:


43/214

Hman Righs in Hisor

[I] n ligt of recent eents it is possible to say tat een slaes stillbelonge to some sort of uman community; teir labou wasneee, use an exploite, an tis kept tem witin te pale ofumanity To be a slae was after all to ae a istinctie caracter, a place in society - more tan te abstract nakeness of beinguman an noting but uman (1968 : 177)

31

As we can rea in e Hman Condiion oweer, tere was contempttowar te slae, wo a been espise because e sere only life'snecessities' (rent 1958: 316) Een toug it is possible to say tatArent erself migt ae a a waering attitue towars te slae

an was prepare to amit im into umanity, tere is no oubt tat,on a broaer plane, public life te life of te polis an political community; te life of eeom an te via aciva; tis life raise out of allnecessity - is te only truly uman life Human rigts, terefre, can onlybe base on his life an are so for essential, not contingent, reasons

Furtermore, Arent says tat rigts eriing om te fact of beinguman are istruste on te gouns tat suc rigts are gante eento saages' (1968: 180) Moreoer, not to be part of a political community

(an tis is wy it nees to be brougt to eeryone) means - as we aepointe out elsewere (see ecte an Newman 2012) tat te arkbackgroun mere gienness' risks breaking into te political scene aste alien wic in its all too obious ifference remins us of te limitations of uman actiity' (Arent 1968: 181) Suc a panoply of termsremins us of wat treatens to unermine an usurp our umanityas establise in te polis: iference'; mere gienness'; saageness';necessity'; te abstract nakeness of being uman'; nature; mere

existence' Aboe all, te geat anger', says ent, is tat people willbe trown back, in te mist of ciilization, on teir natural gienness,on teir mere iferentiation' (182) As suc, people will forfeit all tecilising aspects of political community most notaby, a cance toexperience eeom As suc, tey begin to belong to te uman racein muc te same way as animals belong to a specic animal species'(182) Finally, te anger is tat umanity migt prouce barbariansrom its own mist by forcing millions of people into conitions wic,

espite all appearances are te conitions of saages' (182) Moreoer,for ent, existence for saages' is existence witout istory lieslie witout aing left anyting to te common worl'; peopletrown back into a peculiar state of nature' (180)


44/214

32 Agmben nd he Poliis of Humn Rigs

Te question is : in wat sense can saages' be uman - if at all?Tey woul seem to be tat part of umanity wic is exclue fromumanity. Here we migt ask: is it simply a question of seeing tese

exclue people as inclue in te catego of umanity? Or perapsmore interestingly is it precisely teir exclusion tat constitutes teirumanity in a positie (an political) sense contra ent? re teseexclue people to put it in Agamben' s terms a remnant neitermajority nor minority but a subject irreucible to tese categories annot coinciing wit itself (2005b: 5 7) ? Here we can recall Rancire' siea of politics as te issonance create by te claim by some excluegoup to inclusion an equality on te basis of a uniersality wic isparaoxically enie to tem (see Rancire 1999)

Tus on one leel suc people are exclue because tey simlyexist an aciee no more tan a subsistence leel prouction wicbarely enables tem to reprouce Tis in Arent's terms is necessitwrit large te omain wic counts for noting oter tan pysicalsurial but wic must be conquere if feeom an fll umanityare to be realise Te key oint is tat for Arent an te European/

Western traition wic se represents tere can be no eeom orpolitical action no umanity in te fllest sense an no equality inte realm of necessity Te latter is always to be transcene ent' sclearest statement of tis is to be foun in er iscussion of ancientGreece in te capter of The Humn Condiion eote to te istinction between te public an priate realms Here public' equates witpolis' or politics an priate' equates wit te oikos or economy asouseol. As Arent explains:

[In Ancient Greece] te ery term political economy' woul aebeen a contraiction in terms: wateer was econmic' relateto te life of t iniiual an te suivl of he speies was anonpolitical ouseol aair by efnition (1958: 29 [empasisae])

Of course witout attening to pysical nees suc as selte terealm of surial no political life is possible: witout owning a ousea man coul not participate in te affairs of te worl because e ano location in it wic was properly is own' (29-30) y way of bringing tis point to a close our autor goes on to say tat: Wat all Greekpilosopers no matter ow oppose to polis life took or grante is


45/214


tat freeom is exclusiely locate in te political realm tat necessityis primarily a prepolitical penomenon' (31)

Wile muc continental tinking as now begun to tae a iferent

tack on te notion of oios (see Agamben Derria an Monzain forexample) seeing in it te ieas of relation istribution an aministration as well as te ery basis of political life Arent's tinking is partof a generation for wom reeom an necessity were opposing polesTere can neer be any eeom in necessity

If a public spere base in a political community can ony eer bete enpoint in uman estiny an neer its beginning an if in orerto arrie at tis enpoint one must rst enure necessity clearly some

(weter iniiuals peoples or groups) are not going to make it.Arent' s saages' are not going to make it. Atoug it was tougtin te abstract an in particular at te time of te Frenc Declarationtat te uman as uman was a relatiely unproblematic notionpossibly because it implie a egree of transcenence te aent ofmoernity as sown tat tis is no longer te case For moernity teprimitie in all of us must be cage an gien succour before politicsproper can be realise an before uman rigts can in any sense be

implemente

A EVAUATIO OF ARET'S EUROPEA ARGUMET

efore moing on to examine slae as an example of te uman in aconition of absolute seritue an necessity we raw attention to teproblematic nature of seeral points raise by Arent in er iscussionof public an priate' in ancient Greece (Atens) .

First let us aress te claim tat it is pointless beginning wit a notionof te uman as suc in efening uman rigts because suc a being isnot fully uman One must start wit te campaign r te rigt to aerigts' tat is to be amitte into a political community On wat basisoweer can suc a campaign take place? Presumably ony on te basistat tose wo esere te rigt to ae rigts' are in some essentialsense uman Tere is a cruel circularity ere a catc22 werebystateless people are trappe in an ontological (an real) noman's lan

between umanity an nonumanity Contra rent we arge tatunless te notion of te uman inepenent of te polis is aresse tewole iea of te rigt to ae rigts' oes not makes sense

Secon for Arent - an no oubt te traition of wic se is a


46/214


47/214

uman Righs in Hiso 35

Scolars in te el of uman rigts researc almost inariablytake as ali Arent' s ersion of te relation between necessity anfeeom as unerstoo since Aristotle as te basis of politics an

te nationstate. In oter wors tis wole el of scolarsip moreor less takes oer olusbolus te iea tat politics only becomespossible once basic nees ae been satise een if it is acknowlege tat te attempt to realise te rigt to ae rigts' raises aproblem regaring te status of stateless people (see Vincent 2010:173-5)

SAVERY OR FREEOM A ECESSITY REVISITE

Natural community in te ouseol terefore' rent sys wasborn of necessity an necessity rule oer all actiities performe in it'(1958: 30) An to continue te summary se as:

Te realm of te polis on te contrary was te spere of eeoman if tere was a relationsip between tese two speres it was amatter of course tat te mastering of te necessities of life in te

ouseol was te conition for freeom of te polis (1958: 31)

Te issue raise ere wit regar to te question of uman rigts istat wile many contemporary analysts want to n a formal lineaein te eolution of legal rigts suc as may be possible wit te istoryof citizensip te legal basis of rigts as we ae seen is of a strictlyrecent origin. Howeer wat is eient from a surey of te istoricalrecor is tat situations le cattel slaery wic raises te question

of te nature of te uman are not ificult to in. In oter worswile a istory of political community will almost certainly not beformally speaking about te istory of rigts uman istory neerteless inclues many substantie situations situations wic wereconsiere too unignie to be accore any proximity to te omainof politics - were te protection of uman rigts woul ae beenreleant If uman rigts cannot be flly unerstoo witout an appreciation of te nature of te uman ten it will at least in part be witin

te realm of wat European tougt calls necessity' tat te truenature of te uman will emerge. In sort te istory of te uman iste best inicator of te eolution of uman rigts. Tis is wy we neeto tu to slaery as it occurre in ancient Atens an Rome.


48/214


Ahenian and Roman Slavery

Te general consensus is tat slaery in Atens an Rome sere bot

an economic (in te moern sense) an social function Economicallyte societies in question coul not witout slaery ae been able toprouce te wealt necessary to enable eucate men to ae te timeaailable to engage in politics Moreoer broa cultural acieement(for example in te arts) was only possible on te basis of slae labourSocially slaery (or unfee labour) sustaine te key formal iision insociety between ee an unee members terefore constitute tebasis of social status As it is generally presente labour itself was olow social status an te slae was te incarnation of tis On te oteran to own slaes (istotle aparently owne tirteen) was also amark of eleate social status

Accoring to Yon Garlan: Te ct is tat in te eyes of te Greeksslaery was releant only to te economic spere tat is to te art ofmanaging a family unit an oikos' (988: 5) A slae was consiere tobe uman (anthropos), but was also a possession te main point being

tat an unee person coul neer become a citizen an tus a politicalactor In sum te rule was: once unee foreer unee At least tis mayae been te case in Greece Wen te Roman situation is cosieremanumitte slaes coul apparently ote in Roman assemblies (seeFinley 980 83 citing iy 767) Tis seres as a reminer tat eei eeom is no realise te man is essentially ineste wit tepotential to become ee Tis is because slaery cannot be unerstooto be an essential qualit of te uman but is always a contingent tingConsequently tere is no slaery witout enslaement ere is no slaenature' espite istotle (an Nietzsce) (ristotle 995: 29a 8)

Almost inariably i is mae to appear tat as te iision betweenee an unee is te ke to Atenian an Roman society slaerybecomes te incarnation of uneeom as citizensip becomes temark of eeom Furtermore uneeom an a conce for necessiare also inextricably linke

If we tu to te wor of M I Finley a key point fr tis istorian ofgenerally recoise formiable eruition in te el is tat Atenianan Roma societies were slae societies' Tat is unlike te situationin te soute Unite States were slaery was but one element inte economy slaery in Atens an Rome was bot integral an essential to te ery structure of tese societies We are talking if Finley is


49/214


o be beliee abou socieies foune on slaery (980: 6792) Someimporan implicaions follow from is:

y far e mos signican labour in e proucieprocess is one by slaes (e exisence of some ee labournowisaning)

2 Suc slae labour canno be iewe as labour power' (werelabour as suc becomes a commoiy) bu is o be unersooas equialen o e boy of e slae - fr e slae an no islabour is owne by e maser an is erefore an objec o beboug an sol

3. Slae labour is uner e complee conrol of e maser wois no subjec o any exernal monioring or impeimen wiregar o wa e requires of is slae

4 Slae labour is enirely labour for oers' an no o anyexen labour for oneself'

Finley reieraes e key poin a in all Greek or Roman esablismens larger an e family uni weer on e lan or in e ciy

e peanen work force was compose of slaes' (980 8 [empasisin original]) Te implicaions of e laer poin are as ollows: slaes are presen

in Aenian economy an sociey no as for example crafsmanare sill incienally presen in e capialis economy bu as wiecollar labour is now e ominan form of labour in os capialiseconomy base in e serice an informaion ecnology inusriesMoreoer e ominan social iision in ancien sociey is beween

ose wo are ee an ose wo are unee Unersoo in is waye ery noion of e polis mus eoke e noion of slae - someingwic is almos uniersally oerlooke wen consiering is opicWa conenional wisom aemps o o is o acknowlege aere were slaes bu a e laer were an incienal isorical cwic i no cange e rue qualiy of e polis as base in eeoman equaliy Tis en is o go beyon e simplisic iea a slaesproie e leisure ime a mae i possible for eucae men o

engage in poliics For labour proie by ebbonage - or ineeee labour - coul equally proie is oucome Te polis was no eincaaion of eeom because any eeom wor e name mus beuniersal (as Hegel sai)


50/214

38 Agmben nd he Politis of Human Rights

The ambiguity of being a slae is captre by the following statementby Finley:

If a slae is a property with a soul [Aristotle] a nonperson anyet inubitably a biological human being institutional proceresare to be expecte that will egrae an unermine his humanityan so istingish him from human beings who are not property.(980 : 95)

In another text Finley ies a more crptic ut still reealing characterisation: a slae is both a person an property. As a person slaes werehuman in the eyes of the gos at least to the extent that their murerrequire some orm of puriication an that they were themselesinole in ritual acts such as baptism' (Finley 985: 62) . The scanal ofslaery then is that a person (human) can be treate as property. Theparaox of slaery is that this property is also a person an thereforelly human. The preailing an wiely hel contemporary iew that fullhumanness can only be achiee in the polis thus breks own.

To the extent that someone is a person thy can be iniiuateientifie hae a personality an of course be punishe an ictimise. Personhoo inee is a ery signicant element in being human.When it comes to labour in Graeco-Roman times then a personwhether slae or ee performe the labour. Not only as we hae seenis there no abstract concept of labour-power but as Finley points outNeither in Greek nor in atin was there a wor with which to expressthe general notion of labour" or the concept of labour as a generalsocial fnction"' (985: 8).

ARISTOTE A SAVERY

As is wellknown - witout te l signicance being ullyappreciate Aristotle eotes a large portion of ook I of the Politisto a consieration of slaery as it exists within the state apparatus. Here

it is acnowlege that the househol is iie into a number of partsincluing the iision between slaes an eemen (995: 253b) anthat there is a argument that slaery is foune on conention not onthe natural preisposition of those who en up as slaes. Aristotle willlater make quite clear that fr his part this argment is fllacious anthat some are born slaes while others are born ee.


51/214

Humn Rights in Histor 39

Quickly, Aristotle arries at the point where the necessaries of lifeare crucia so that without the necessaries being satisfie, nothing ofsignifcance can be achiee, least of all politics. In this context, theslae is that form of property which is an instrument an crucial toprouction. ife in the ll (bis), of course, is action an not prouction, an therefore the slae is the minister of action [not the subject/author of action]' (254a7-8). In terms of belonging, the slae belongsto the master, while the master can neer belong to the slae. Anthis occurs accoring to nature: he who is by nature not his own butanothe's man, is by nature a slae; an he may be sai to be another'sman who, being a slae is also a possession' (254a35). Thus, we

see, an istotle is moe to rther conrm this (3254a203), thatas one is essentially an by nature a slae, one is also a possession anan instrument to be use to satis the nee for the necessaries' of life.In other wors, for istotle, it is impossible for a slae to eer becomeee. Inee, it woul be going against nature to try to bring about sucha thing.

A oubt then seems to creep into Aristotle's thinking. For althoughnature woul lie to istinguish between the boies of freemen an

slaes, so that slaes woul hae boies appropriate for work aneemen woul hae boies appropriate for a life in the polis, the opposite ofen happens', so that slaes oen hae the boies an souls offreemen (254b33-4) . Perhaps unsuprisingy, Aristotle manages to getaroun this problem by pointing out that it is a natural fact that boyierences in humans (an the slae is still human) are not extreme,but that, in any case, the real ifferences occur with the sou whichremains inisible. his is where natural inferiority is locate. ereas

the soul of a freeman is ery pronounce, that of a slae is irtuallynonexistent. So Aristotle can still conclue that: It is clear, then, thatsome men are by nature ee, an others slaes, an that for these latterslaery is both expeient an right' (255c-2) .

In his hierarchy of categories at the en of ook I, istotle raisesthe question of the /excellence' that a slae might hae, as compare toa eeman. Househol management, to be sure, attens more to menthan to things an to human excellence more than to the excellence o

property which we call wealth an to the excellence of freemen morethan to the excellence of slaes' A question, says Aristotle, may ineebe raise, whether there is ay excellence at all in a slae beyon thoseof an instrument an of a serant' (259b202) .


52/214


Here, Aristotle as to o some ery fancy footwork, for e wantsto attribute minimal excellence to te slae, so tat te slae can beefine as uman, but, at te same time, be as close as possible to

necessity, aing no eliberatie faculty at all' (260a23) So teslae is qualitatiely unable to rule oer a eeman, just as e is qualitatiey mire in necessity an can neer attain to te realm of freeomor eliberatie tougt, yet, espite all tis, e is funamentally umanan as a soul Te slae is te lowest category of te man anconstitutes a necessary element of te qualitatie ierarcy, wic, foistotle, is te ery conition of te possibility of conceptualising teuman as uman.

Malcolm ull as ae a rter imension to te argument bysuggesting tat te issue turns on te incomplete nature of a slae'ssoul - a act wic enables im to be rule by anoter, but at tesame time be ene as uman, albeit an incomplete uman, becauseenowe wit an incomplete soul. As ull says If slaery is te rle ofte slae's boy by a soul of anoter, ten te ery possibility of slaeryepens upon te slae's boy not being goee by te slae's own

soul' (998 0) Te problem, as ull well sows, is to know ow aslae's soul can ae te necessary autonomy tat it must ae in oreto be uman, wile at te same time being naturally ispose to begoerne by a master.

Clearly, te issue of slaery in Aristotle woul be of little more tanexotic interest if te Poliis was not suc an inuential text in teistory of Western political tougt an if, rtermore, slaery wasnot so intimately connecte to te istinction between eeom annecessity, wic seres as te Enligtenment an post Enligtenmentenition of politics as essentialy locate in te public spere ofnationstates. It nees to be mae clear tat we ae not sougt tointerpret te eaning of slaery oer te wole of ristotle's oeuvremost notably in te Niomahean Ehis an te Eonomis Our tasas simply been to interpret te meaning an signicance of slaeryin ook I of te Poliis n tis regar, an altoug te analogy is not

absolutely perfect, it is important to recognise tat especially in terms oflife cances an social status, toay's stateless people closely approximate yesteray's slaes as te latter wic are escribe in te PoliisTus, if istotle's text is founational, it is so in te sense tat it marksa istinction tat goes to te ery eart of te problem of contemporary politics, wic concerns ow it migt be possible to efen te


53/214

Hman Rghts n Hsto 4

uman rigts of tose bere of te rigt to ae rigts' Tus far, ourpresentation inicates tat a total retinking of te Western traitionin political an social teory is require if any eaway is to be mae

in improing te situation of tose wo are external to, an exclueom, eery possible poyWile many reaings of ook I of te Poltcs are reay to concee

tat Aristotle's is an ieological presentation of slaery, few ae notete exact basis on wic a slae was consiere a slae, namely, tat eministere to te pysical nees of te community an, in particular,te ouseol; for, so it goes, one must first sole te problem of pysical surial before actual eeom is possible From a Western perspec

tie, woeer is force to work to sole te problem of mere surialtens to assume te lowly status of a slae. In te nineteent century,te surial problem was seen to be sole troug ree labour orlabour power. Neiter Ma nor ristotle ifer one iota on tis pointFor bot of tem, te solution to te problem is essentially prior to terealisation of eeom er

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hodie-csilla
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

Agamben and the Politics of Human Rights

Documents