The philosophy of Giorgio Agamben delves into the margins that cannot be marginal anymore. This is especially salient when he sets the zone of indistinction as the paradigm of state power. Considering this is also the matter of human beings, it seems relevant that we examine whether his paradigm can be applied for the contemporary lives and how we can achieve the freedom of being as it is within this paradigm. In response to this scepticism, this essay argues that the “bare life,” the point on which exception becomes normalized, also functions as an earthly space for strategical operations of various apparatuses. Which allows individuals finally to bring out the resisting force against the power of apparatuses that promotes separation of actions from being. In doing so, the first part of this paper elaborates how the “bare life” becomes the alternative concept with political effectivity which replaces the standards of exception as opposed to inclusion, and of zoe vis-a-vis bios. In “What Is an Apparatus?” Agamben throws a light on the Ungovernable that the mechanism of the contemporary apparatuses intrinsically embraces, by geneologically analyzing the Foucauldian “dispositif.” It is for the reason that the apparatus, while functioning as the subjectifying machine on the one hand, paradoxically involves desubjectification on the other, as a result of the living being’s encounter with its humanizing desire. This essay argues this counter-apparatus potentiality ultimately resonates with the individual’s capability to resist that is revealed by the recognition of “homo sacer” in our society. The contemporary individuals who accept the power of apparatuses in all parts of their lives, but who at the same time cannot but precludes the account of their beings as they are, are the docile citizens but considered as potential resisters. The paradox lies in the indistinction: that is, the apparatus can actualize such potentiality, allowing the individuals to appropriate the machine for their own use in the act of “non-action.” In short, the Ungovernable points to the possibility of profanation, being faithful to our bare desires, mocking the logic of usefulness which operates the divine apparatuses.

The philosophy of Giorgio Agamben delves into the margins that cannot be marginal anymore. This is especially salient when he sets the zone of indistinction as the paradigm of state power. Considering this is also the matter of human beings, it seems relevant that we examine whether his paradigm can be applied for the contemporary lives and how we can achieve the freedom of being as it is within this paradigm. In response to this scepticism, this essay argues that the “bare life,” the point on which exception becomes normalized, also functions as an earthly space for strategical operations of various apparatuses. Which allows individuals finally to bring out the resisting force against the power of apparatuses that promotes separation of actions from being. In doing so, the first part of this paper elaborates how the “bare life” becomes the alternative concept with political effectivity which replaces the standards of exception as opposed to inclusion, and of zoe vis-a-vis bios. In “What Is an Apparatus?” Agamben throws a light on the Ungovernable that the mechanism of the contemporary apparatuses intrinsically embraces, by geneologically analyzing the Foucauldian “dispositif.” It is for the reason that the apparatus, while functioning as the subjectifying machine on the one hand, paradoxically involves desubjectification on the other, as a result of the living being’s encounter with its humanizing desire. This essay argues this counter-apparatus potentiality ultimately resonates with the individual’s capability to resist that is revealed by the recognition of “homo sacer” in our society. The contemporary individuals who accept the power of apparatuses in all parts of their lives, but who at the same time cannot but precludes the account of their beings as they are, are the docile citizens but considered as potential resisters. The paradox lies in the indistinction: that is, the apparatus can actualize such potentiality, allowing the individuals to appropriate the machine for their own use in the act of “non-action.” In short, the Ungovernable points to the possibility of profanation, being faithful to our bare desires, mocking the logic of usefulness which operates the divine apparatuses.

, , , , , ,

헐벗은 생명, 호모 사케르, 비식별역, 생명정치(생체통치권력), 장치, 세속화, 통치 불가능성