What do you think?
Rate this book
Homo Sacer #II.2
Stasis: La guerra civil como paradigma político
En los últimos años, ante el recrudecimiento de guerras que no podían ser definidas como internacionales, se han multiplicado, sobre todo en Estados Unidos, las publicaciones concernientes a las así llamadas internal wars; pero, incluso en estos casos, el análisis no se orientaba a la interpretación del fenómeno, sino a las condiciones que volvían posible una intervención internacional. El paradigma del consenso, que actualmente domina tanto la praxis como la teoría política, no parece compatible con la investigación seria de un fenómeno que es al menos tan antiguo como la democracia occidental. Una posible razón del desinterés por la guerra civil radica en la creciente popularidad (por lo menos hasta finales de los años setenta) del concepto de revolución, que a menudo sustituye al de guerra civil, aunque sin nunca coincidir con él.
En Stasis, ensayo que complementa a Estado de excepción y que junto a El uso de los cuerpos cierra el conjunto denominado Homo sacer, Agamben presenta el tema de la guerra civil en ciertos momentos de la historia del pensamiento político occidental.
En Stasis, ensayo que complementa a Estado de excepción y que junto a El uso de los cuerpos cierra el conjunto denominado Homo sacer, Agamben presenta el tema de la guerra civil en ciertos momentos de la historia del pensamiento político occidental.
124 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2015
18 people are currently reading
458 people want to read
About the author
Giorgio Agamben
234 books978 followersGiorgio Agamben is one of the leading figures in Italian and contemporary continental philosophy. He is the author of Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life; Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive; Profanations; The Signature of All Things: On Method, and other books. Through the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s he treated a wide range of topics, including aesthetics, literature, language, ontology, nihilism, and radical political thought.
In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.
He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.
In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.
He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
March 22, 2017
Part III of author’s Homo Sacer project.
The outworks proclaim that this text arises out of two seminars given in October 2001 and tasks readers to “determine to what extent these theses advanced here – which identify the fundamental threshold of politicization in the West in civil war and the constitutive element of the modern state in ‘ademia’ (that is, the absence of a people) – still apply” (ix).
Two essays. The first examines the classical concept stasis, the civil war as imagined within the Greek polis, whereas the second meditates upon some aspects in Hobbes.
The point of departure for the first essay is the observation that there’s been a general absence of theory on civil war even while civil war advanced globally (1). (Author laments that though we have a “polemology” and “irenology,” we nevertheless lack a “stasiology” (2).) Author suggests that “the increasing popularity of the concept of revolution” substitutes for civil war "yet without ever coinciding with it” (3), citing Arendt for the proposition that
The primary locus of interrogation is the argument of Nicole Loraux, who situated stasis at the nexus of oikos and polis (5 ff.). Loraux notes, awesomely, that Plato’s Menexenus deploys oikeios polemos to describe civil war, which expression “is, to the Greek ear, an oxymoron” (6): “polemos designates external conflict and, as Plato will record in the Republic (470c), refers to the allotrion kai othneion (alien and foreign), while for the oikeios kai syggenes (familiar and kindred) the appropriate term is stasis” (7). “Insofar as civil war is inherent to the family – insofar as it is, that is to say, an oikeios polemos, a ‘war within the household’ – it is, to the same extent […] inherent to the city, an integral part of the political life” therein (8).
Loraux’s three theses: stasis “calls into question the commonplace that conceives Greek politics as the definitive overcoming of the oikos in the polis”; stasis is “a war within the family which comes from the oikos and not from outside”; oikos is “essentially ambivalent,” both “a factor of division and conflict” but also “the paradigm that enables the reconciliation of what has been divided” (10-11). Stasis is the “Revealer of the oikos” (11), i.e., a signifier of the household.
Author finds that Loraux’s conclusions work well with “my investigations” in Homo Sacer Part I (12), linking the oikos to zoe and the polis to bios; he does not disagree regarding her point on the ‘overcoming’ of the former in the latter, but rather “what is at issue is not an overcoming, but a complicated and unresolved attempt to capture an exteriority and to expel an intimacy” (13). (This will connect directly to the excellent argument about intimacy in Volume IX.)
Civil war “assimilates and makes undecidable brother and enemy, inside and outside, household and city. In the stasis, killing of what is most intimate is indistinguishable from the killing of whay is most foreign” (14-15). The stasis is accordingly not of the household, but is rather “a threshold of indifference between the oikos and the polis” (15), a confusion of “what is intimate with what is foreign.” Author accordingly concludes that the stasis is a ZoI “between the unpolitical space of the family and the political space of the city” wherein transgression of the threshold results in “the oikos is politicized; conversely the polis is economized” (16).
One curiosity of the stasis is that the Solonian constitution required the citizens to take one side or the other therein, lest the non-participant be afflicted with atimia (no-honor, or so? i.e., ‘dishonor’) “the loss of civil rights”—“not taking part in the civil war amounts to being expelled from the polis and confined to the oikos” (17). The corollary curiosity is that the constitution furthermore prohibits prosecution of crimes committed during the stasis--the amnestia, less a forgetting and more a refusal to make use of memory (21).
Gears shift two thousand years in order to look at Hobbes for the rest of the essay, which is less interesting, but develops the ‘ademia’ thesis.
One might usefully compare the theory of civil war developed in this text with the ideas arising out of the confrontation of Foucault with Coke, as noted in my review of Love in the Time of Cholera, which appear to run the other way.
Recommended for those whose necessities maintain a secret solidarity, readers who live in a condition of perennial ademia, and persons who locate the theory of the state in the katechontic tradition.
The outworks proclaim that this text arises out of two seminars given in October 2001 and tasks readers to “determine to what extent these theses advanced here – which identify the fundamental threshold of politicization in the West in civil war and the constitutive element of the modern state in ‘ademia’ (that is, the absence of a people) – still apply” (ix).
Two essays. The first examines the classical concept stasis, the civil war as imagined within the Greek polis, whereas the second meditates upon some aspects in Hobbes.
The point of departure for the first essay is the observation that there’s been a general absence of theory on civil war even while civil war advanced globally (1). (Author laments that though we have a “polemology” and “irenology,” we nevertheless lack a “stasiology” (2).) Author suggests that “the increasing popularity of the concept of revolution” substitutes for civil war "yet without ever coinciding with it” (3), citing Arendt for the proposition that
modern revolutions have little in common with the mutation rerum of roman history or the stasis, the civil strife which disturbed the Greek Polis. We cannot equate them with Plato’s metabolai, the quasi-natural transformation of one form of government into another, or with Polybius’ politeion anakyklosis, the appointed recurring cycle into which human affairs are bound. (id.)With that in mind, author avers that “a theory of civil war is not among the possible objectives of this text [!]” (4), but rather wants to examine “a single political paradigm, which manifests itself, on the one hand through the assertion of the necessity of civil war, and on the other, through the assertion of the necessity of its exclusion” (id.).
The primary locus of interrogation is the argument of Nicole Loraux, who situated stasis at the nexus of oikos and polis (5 ff.). Loraux notes, awesomely, that Plato’s Menexenus deploys oikeios polemos to describe civil war, which expression “is, to the Greek ear, an oxymoron” (6): “polemos designates external conflict and, as Plato will record in the Republic (470c), refers to the allotrion kai othneion (alien and foreign), while for the oikeios kai syggenes (familiar and kindred) the appropriate term is stasis” (7). “Insofar as civil war is inherent to the family – insofar as it is, that is to say, an oikeios polemos, a ‘war within the household’ – it is, to the same extent […] inherent to the city, an integral part of the political life” therein (8).
Loraux’s three theses: stasis “calls into question the commonplace that conceives Greek politics as the definitive overcoming of the oikos in the polis”; stasis is “a war within the family which comes from the oikos and not from outside”; oikos is “essentially ambivalent,” both “a factor of division and conflict” but also “the paradigm that enables the reconciliation of what has been divided” (10-11). Stasis is the “Revealer of the oikos” (11), i.e., a signifier of the household.
Author finds that Loraux’s conclusions work well with “my investigations” in Homo Sacer Part I (12), linking the oikos to zoe and the polis to bios; he does not disagree regarding her point on the ‘overcoming’ of the former in the latter, but rather “what is at issue is not an overcoming, but a complicated and unresolved attempt to capture an exteriority and to expel an intimacy” (13). (This will connect directly to the excellent argument about intimacy in Volume IX.)
Civil war “assimilates and makes undecidable brother and enemy, inside and outside, household and city. In the stasis, killing of what is most intimate is indistinguishable from the killing of whay is most foreign” (14-15). The stasis is accordingly not of the household, but is rather “a threshold of indifference between the oikos and the polis” (15), a confusion of “what is intimate with what is foreign.” Author accordingly concludes that the stasis is a ZoI “between the unpolitical space of the family and the political space of the city” wherein transgression of the threshold results in “the oikos is politicized; conversely the polis is economized” (16).
One curiosity of the stasis is that the Solonian constitution required the citizens to take one side or the other therein, lest the non-participant be afflicted with atimia (no-honor, or so? i.e., ‘dishonor’) “the loss of civil rights”—“not taking part in the civil war amounts to being expelled from the polis and confined to the oikos” (17). The corollary curiosity is that the constitution furthermore prohibits prosecution of crimes committed during the stasis--the amnestia, less a forgetting and more a refusal to make use of memory (21).
Gears shift two thousand years in order to look at Hobbes for the rest of the essay, which is less interesting, but develops the ‘ademia’ thesis.
One might usefully compare the theory of civil war developed in this text with the ideas arising out of the confrontation of Foucault with Coke, as noted in my review of Love in the Time of Cholera, which appear to run the other way.
Recommended for those whose necessities maintain a secret solidarity, readers who live in a condition of perennial ademia, and persons who locate the theory of the state in the katechontic tradition.
August 26, 2025
يقدم أغامبن نصا قصيرا ومكثفا يفكك فيه مفهوم "الحرب الأهلية" ليس بوصفها حالة شاذة تقع على هامش السياسة، بل كمنطق تأسيسي يكشف تخوم السياسة ذاتها. يعود إلى ثوسيديديس وأرسطو ليتتبع معنى stasis في المدينة الإغريقية، حيث تتشوش الحدود بين الخاص والعام (oikos/polis) وتتبدل الهوية السياسية: المواطن يصير عدوا داخل حدود المدينة. من هذه العتبة تبنى قراءته لمفاهيم لاحقة مثل "الحالة الاستثنائية" وتمييز كارل شميت بين الصديق والعدو، ليقترح أن الحرب الأهلية هي اختبار القواعد المؤسسة للنظام السياسي وليست مجرد تعثر مؤقت لها. اختيار عنوان "فتنة" لترجمة stasis ذكي ومحمّل بدلالات عربية-إسلامية؛ فهو يقرّب المفهوم إلى سياقات مألوفة للقارئ العربي حيث "الفتنة" تاريخيا تشير إلى اقتتال داخلي يهز شرعية السلطة والمعنى. مع ذلك، هذا الاختيار يفتح أيضا سؤال الانزياح الدلالي: stasis عند الإغريق أقرب إلى توقف/تصلب يفضي إلى انقسام جسد المدينة، بينما "الفتنة" في اللسان العربي تستدعي طبقات أخلاقية ولاهوتية قد لا يقصدها أغامبن. تحافظ الترجمة، إجمالا، على اتساق المصطلحات الأساسية (المدينة/السياسة، البيت/الاقتصاد المنزلي، الاستثناء، السيادة) وتقدّم نثرا عربيا واضحا لا يفرّط في كثافة الأصل. كثافة تركيب أغامبن التي تميل إلى الجمل الطويلة محفوظة دون ترهل، وهو خيار موفق لمنح القارئ شعور "التراكم الحجاجي" الذي يميز أعماله.
قراءة مقاطع محددة من ثوسيديديس لا تأتي كاستطراد تاريخي، بل كحجة على أن الحدود بين القانون والعنف، الداخل والخارج، تصنعها لحظة الحرب الأهلية. كما أن استعادة أطروحة شميت حول الصديق/العدو لا تتم كاقتباس تقني، بل كعدسة يختبر عبرها أغامبن هشاشة النظام السياسي حين تتشابه وجوه المواطنين والأعداء داخل الفضاء الواحد. هذا كله يصاغ في بنية مدمجة تقريبا بلا حشو، ما يجعل كل صفحة محمولة بالدلالة. مع ذلك، يترك الكتاب مساحات تحتاج تعميقا: التحويل من المدينة الإغريقية إلى الدولة الحديثة يمر بسرعة أكبر مما ينبغي، وبعض الاستعارات (العتبة، العراء السياسي) تحتاج أمثلة اجتماعية معاصرة أكثر تماسكا لتفادي الانزلاق إلى التجريد. للقارئ القادم من فانون وتقاليده التحليلية حول الاستعمار والعنف المحرِّر، سيبدو الكتاب أقل انشغالا بالذات المستعمَرة وأكثر التفاتا إلى التكوينات القانونية والسيادية؛ المقارنة هنا مفيدة لأنها تذكّر بأن "الداخل/الخارج" عند أغامبن يتحدد بنحو مفهومي، بينما عند فانون يتحدد بنحو تاريخي-استعماري ملموس. على صعيد القراءة العربية، تمنحنا كلمة "فتنة" جسرا لغويا وثقافيا ثمينا لفهم كيف يشتغل الانقسام الداخلي كمختبر للسيادة، لكنها تتطلب من القارئ يقظة دلالية حتى لا يردّ المفهوم كله إلى ذائقة تراثية جاهزة.
لماذا نجمتان فقط ؟
لأن النص، رغم كثافته، يظل تجريديا إلى حد يضعف صلته بأمثلة اجتماعية معاصرة؛ ولأن انتقاله من المدينة الاغريقية إلى الدولة الحديثة اختزالي ولا يسند الادعاءات بنماذج تحليلية كافية؛ ولأن شبكة إحالاته الفلسفية تفترض قارئا متمرسا بأغامبن وشميت، ما يجعل القيمة المضافة محدودة لمن قرأ أعمال أغامبن السابقة عن الاستثناء والسيادة؛ ولأن ترجمة stasis إلى "فتنة" تحمل حمولة لاهوتية وأخلاقية قد تربك المقصود وتشوّش المعادل التحليلي
Read
November 7, 2024جنگ داخلی: استاسیس به مثابه پارادایم سیاسی /جورجو آگامبن /سیدمحمدجواد سیدی / فرهنگ نشر نو
.
1. استاسیس
(به عربی: فتنه)
استاسیس نه در اویکوس (خانه) رخ میدهد نه در پولیس (شهر): بلکه جنگ داخلی مقوم ناحیهی عدم تمایزیست بین فضای غیرسیاسی خانواده و سیاسی شهر. عدول و تخطی از این آستانه به معنای سیاسی شدن اویکوس است و برعکس ، اقتصادی شدن پولیس است، یعنی فروکاسته شدن آن به اویکوس. این بدان معناست که در نظام سیاسی یونانی جنگ داخلی همچون آستانهی سیاسی سازی و غیر سیاسی سازی عمل میکند. آستانهای که از طریق آن منزل به درون شهر تجاوز میکند و شهر در قالب خانواده سیاستزدایی میشود. (27)
آمنستای یا عفو یونانی صرفاً فراموش کردن یا سرکوب گذشته نیست؛ بلکه ترغیب به این است که از خاطره استفادهی بد و نادرست نشود. استاسیس از این جهت که مقوم پارادایم سیاسی ست که در ذات شهر جای دارد و نشان سیاسی شدن امر غیرسیاسی (اویکوس) و غیرسیاسی شدن امر سیاسی (پولیس) است، امری ست که هرگز نه فراموش تواند شد نه سرکوب: جنگ داخلی امری فراموش ناشدنیست که باید در شهر امکانپذیر بماند، اما در عین حال نباید از طریق محاکم و کینهتوزیها به یاد آورده شود. درست برعکس آن تصوری که مدرنها از جنگ داخلی داشتند: یعنی وضعیتی که باید بکوشیم آن را به هر قیمتی که شده ناممکن گردانیم، اما همواره آن را از طریق محاکم و تعقیب قضایی به یاد همگان بیاوریم. (34)
2. لویاتان و بهیموت
تز اشمیت که به موجب آن مفاهیم سیاسی مفاهیم الهیاتی سکولار شده هستند تزی آشناست. این تز باید تخصیص بیشتری پیدا کند بدین معنا که آنچه امروز سکولار میشود عبارت از مفاهیم اسکاتولوژیکی (فرجام شناختی) بدین معنا سیاست معاصر متکی بر سکولار سازی اسکاتولوژی است. هیچ چیز نمیتواند تا این حد با اندیشهی هابز بیگانه باشد که به اسکاتولوژی انضمامیت و جایگاه خاص خود را عطا کند. معرف سیاست هابز نه خلط امر اسکاتولوژیکی با امر سیاسی که نسبتی تکین است بین دو قدرت خودآیین. ملکوت لویاتان و ملکوت خداوند دو واقعیت به لحاظ سیاسی خودآیین هستند که هر گز نباید خلط شوند؛ ولی به لحاظ اسکاتولوژیکی پیوند دارند، بدین معنا که اولی بالضروره در پی تحقق دومی محقق شود... نزد بنیامین نیز ملکوت خداوند تنها همچون اسکاتون (Eschaton) معنا دارد نه همچون عنصری تاریخی (:از نظرگاه تاریخ، ملکوت خدا نه غایت بلکه پایان است). و نزد بنیامین نیز قلمرو سیاست ناسوتی کاملاً در نسبت با آن مستقل است. با وجود این، نه نزد بنیامین و نه هابز، سیاست ناسوتی در نسبت با ملکوت هیچ نسبت «کاتخونیکی» (مانع) ندارد: بنیامین مینویسد که سیاست ناسوتی نه فقط مانع ظهور ملکوت خدا نیست بلکه برعکس مقوله���ای است که به نزدیکی نامشهود آن اشاره دارد. (88-89)
.
در پایان زمان بهیموت (جنگ داخلی) با شاخهای خود، لویاتان (دولت) را به زیر خواهد کشید و خواهد درید و لویاتان با بالههای خود بهیموت را به زیر خواهد کش��د و تنش خواهد سُفت. تنها در این نقطه است که عادلان در ضیافت مسیانیک شرکت خواهند کرد، آنان که تا ابدالآباد از بندهای قانون رها گشتهاند.
.
1. استاسیس
(به عربی: فتنه)
استاسیس نه در اویکوس (خانه) رخ میدهد نه در پولیس (شهر): بلکه جنگ داخلی مقوم ناحیهی عدم تمایزیست بین فضای غیرسیاسی خانواده و سیاسی شهر. عدول و تخطی از این آستانه به معنای سیاسی شدن اویکوس است و برعکس ، اقتصادی شدن پولیس است، یعنی فروکاسته شدن آن به اویکوس. این بدان معناست که در نظام سیاسی یونانی جنگ داخلی همچون آستانهی سیاسی سازی و غیر سیاسی سازی عمل میکند. آستانهای که از طریق آن منزل به درون شهر تجاوز میکند و شهر در قالب خانواده سیاستزدایی میشود. (27)
آمنستای یا عفو یونانی صرفاً فراموش کردن یا سرکوب گذشته نیست؛ بلکه ترغیب به این است که از خاطره استفادهی بد و نادرست نشود. استاسیس از این جهت که مقوم پارادایم سیاسی ست که در ذات شهر جای دارد و نشان سیاسی شدن امر غیرسیاسی (اویکوس) و غیرسیاسی شدن امر سیاسی (پولیس) است، امری ست که هرگز نه فراموش تواند شد نه سرکوب: جنگ داخلی امری فراموش ناشدنیست که باید در شهر امکانپذیر بماند، اما در عین حال نباید از طریق محاکم و کینهتوزیها به یاد آورده شود. درست برعکس آن تصوری که مدرنها از جنگ داخلی داشتند: یعنی وضعیتی که باید بکوشیم آن را به هر قیمتی که شده ناممکن گردانیم، اما همواره آن را از طریق محاکم و تعقیب قضایی به یاد همگان بیاوریم. (34)
2. لویاتان و بهیموت
تز اشمیت که به موجب آن مفاهیم سیاسی مفاهیم الهیاتی سکولار شده هستند تزی آشناست. این تز باید تخصیص بیشتری پیدا کند بدین معنا که آنچه امروز سکولار میشود عبارت از مفاهیم اسکاتولوژیکی (فرجام شناختی) بدین معنا سیاست معاصر متکی بر سکولار سازی اسکاتولوژی است. هیچ چیز نمیتواند تا این حد با اندیشهی هابز بیگانه باشد که به اسکاتولوژی انضمامیت و جایگاه خاص خود را عطا کند. معرف سیاست هابز نه خلط امر اسکاتولوژیکی با امر سیاسی که نسبتی تکین است بین دو قدرت خودآیین. ملکوت لویاتان و ملکوت خداوند دو واقعیت به لحاظ سیاسی خودآیین هستند که هر گز نباید خلط شوند؛ ولی به لحاظ اسکاتولوژیکی پیوند دارند، بدین معنا که اولی بالضروره در پی تحقق دومی محقق شود... نزد بنیامین نیز ملکوت خداوند تنها همچون اسکاتون (Eschaton) معنا دارد نه همچون عنصری تاریخی (:از نظرگاه تاریخ، ملکوت خدا نه غایت بلکه پایان است). و نزد بنیامین نیز قلمرو سیاست ناسوتی کاملاً در نسبت با آن مستقل است. با وجود این، نه نزد بنیامین و نه هابز، سیاست ناسوتی در نسبت با ملکوت هیچ نسبت «کاتخونیکی» (مانع) ندارد: بنیامین مینویسد که سیاست ناسوتی نه فقط مانع ظهور ملکوت خدا نیست بلکه برعکس مقوله���ای است که به نزدیکی نامشهود آن اشاره دارد. (88-89)
.
در پایان زمان بهیموت (جنگ داخلی) با شاخهای خود، لویاتان (دولت) را به زیر خواهد کشید و خواهد درید و لویاتان با بالههای خود بهیموت را به زیر خواهد کش��د و تنش خواهد سُفت. تنها در این نقطه است که عادلان در ضیافت مسیانیک شرکت خواهند کرد، آنان که تا ابدالآباد از بندهای قانون رها گشتهاند.
April 28, 2017
Just over a decade ago the work of Giorgio Agamben shot to prominence on the back of his provocative claim that the camps of Nazi Germany have today become nothing less than ‘the new biopolitical nomos of the planet’, the grim and terrifying paradigm of modern political rule. In Stasis, the penultimate study in his sprawling Homo Sacer series, Agamben turns no longer to the camp, but to the condition of civil war as the political paradigm best suited to shedding light on the politics of modernity. Much like in Homo Sacer (the book), in which the life itself was identified as occupying a paradoxical status both within and without the political order ('included by means of an exclusion'), so too is civil war - 'stasis' in Greek - here identified as that which is both necessary and proscribed within the Greek polis ('city') so as to constitute the demos ('people').
While Stasis is thus a significant extension of Agamben's long running project, its original and signal contribution to political thought thus lies in its identification of the constitutive link between the body politic of the state and civil war - a link that, to my knowledge, has been very rarely explicitly thematised in the literature on the subject. That said of course, even Agamben at his most explicit tends to proceed somewhat obliquely, and his thesis is advanced by way of two studies that, at first glance, seem to be connected by the most tenuous of thematic threads. Of the two small essays that comprise the book (both of which themselves are reproductions of seminars first given at Princeton in 2001), the first is a critical (if very sympathetic) reading of Nicole Loraux's historical anthropology of the place of 'stasis' in ancient Greece, while the second is a wonderfully intricate iconographic analysis of the frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan ('the most famous visual image in the history of modern political philosophy' - as indeed it is).
While it's only fair to let the prospective reader follow the delicately woven threads that lead from these investigations to the thesis mentioned above, what links them both is precisely the way in which each presents the unstable status of civil war as at once belonging to the very heart of the constitution of the political order, while at the same time remaining firmly at its edges. For long time readers of Agamben, Stasis fills a curious gap in the Agambenian universe insofar as for a theorist of sovereignty, Agamben has - until now - been fairly quiet about his relationship to perhaps 'the' early-modern thinker of sovereignty (Hobbes). Indeed, given Agamben's rather idiosyncratic approach to political thought - I have in mind his recent and massive excavation of medieval Christian theology - a turn toward more 'classical' references here (the ancient Greek polis being the other) ought to be welcome by anyone seeking to situate Agamben among more familiar territory.
And even then Agamben's creativity and originality shine through - who would have thought that it would take an investigation into Hobbesian symbolism to get right to the heart of his otherwise much discussed theory of the state? And who, other than Agamben, would have the gall to attempt to rehabilitate the relevance and affirm the importance that eschatology plays in Hobbes's political thought (an element of which Agamben acknowledges as to be 'so embarrassing for Hobbes's modern readers that they have often simply repressed it'). Trust Agamben, with his usual brashness, to confront it head-on (I realize I've given the first essay on Loraux short shrift here, but it's good too!). Anyway, at this point it should be clear though, that the brashness is question firmly placed within the realm of 'theory'. Anyone looking for a political anthropology of civil war will not find it here; not blood, violence and tragedy, but sovereignty, eschatology and biopolitics are the name of the game. I don't say this as a critique, but simply as a signpost for expectations. Set them accordingly, and Stasis will make for an excellent - and quick - lunchtime read.
While Stasis is thus a significant extension of Agamben's long running project, its original and signal contribution to political thought thus lies in its identification of the constitutive link between the body politic of the state and civil war - a link that, to my knowledge, has been very rarely explicitly thematised in the literature on the subject. That said of course, even Agamben at his most explicit tends to proceed somewhat obliquely, and his thesis is advanced by way of two studies that, at first glance, seem to be connected by the most tenuous of thematic threads. Of the two small essays that comprise the book (both of which themselves are reproductions of seminars first given at Princeton in 2001), the first is a critical (if very sympathetic) reading of Nicole Loraux's historical anthropology of the place of 'stasis' in ancient Greece, while the second is a wonderfully intricate iconographic analysis of the frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan ('the most famous visual image in the history of modern political philosophy' - as indeed it is).
While it's only fair to let the prospective reader follow the delicately woven threads that lead from these investigations to the thesis mentioned above, what links them both is precisely the way in which each presents the unstable status of civil war as at once belonging to the very heart of the constitution of the political order, while at the same time remaining firmly at its edges. For long time readers of Agamben, Stasis fills a curious gap in the Agambenian universe insofar as for a theorist of sovereignty, Agamben has - until now - been fairly quiet about his relationship to perhaps 'the' early-modern thinker of sovereignty (Hobbes). Indeed, given Agamben's rather idiosyncratic approach to political thought - I have in mind his recent and massive excavation of medieval Christian theology - a turn toward more 'classical' references here (the ancient Greek polis being the other) ought to be welcome by anyone seeking to situate Agamben among more familiar territory.
And even then Agamben's creativity and originality shine through - who would have thought that it would take an investigation into Hobbesian symbolism to get right to the heart of his otherwise much discussed theory of the state? And who, other than Agamben, would have the gall to attempt to rehabilitate the relevance and affirm the importance that eschatology plays in Hobbes's political thought (an element of which Agamben acknowledges as to be 'so embarrassing for Hobbes's modern readers that they have often simply repressed it'). Trust Agamben, with his usual brashness, to confront it head-on (I realize I've given the first essay on Loraux short shrift here, but it's good too!). Anyway, at this point it should be clear though, that the brashness is question firmly placed within the realm of 'theory'. Anyone looking for a political anthropology of civil war will not find it here; not blood, violence and tragedy, but sovereignty, eschatology and biopolitics are the name of the game. I don't say this as a critique, but simply as a signpost for expectations. Set them accordingly, and Stasis will make for an excellent - and quick - lunchtime read.
September 30, 2025
Im typically wary of predominately Christian themes used in anything but poetry (or the bible itself), but there is supreme relevance here. Im particularly invested in the distinction between Leviathan (Marine) vs Behemoth (Terrestrial, also a pretty band band). How the two will inevitability destroy each other until the much anticipated parousia (who else crazy depressed the rapture didnt happen september 23rd :| ). I just think that when you take into account total civil war has never occurred but only the mere THREAT of it possibly happening... that there is a certain capacity for civil war blatant and dormant in all of our gorgeous little hearts, the stakes are raised. or sword and scepter shall i say! no yeah great read though, definitely did not almost light the entire printed pdf on fire by accident i mean what !!!!!
August 29, 2022
Три рассуждения, частично связанных с политической философией гражданской войны. Русское издание, по сравнению с английским переводом, дополнено одним текстом Агамбена, а также содержит обширное и толковое послесловие переводчика, который иногда ловит автора на неточностях и натяжках.
January 27, 2018
Agamben in these two essays, explicates the role of civil war in the production of the political. In the second essay, he draws upon the image of the Leviathan from Hobbes, and uses it to suggest that the Leviathan itself shows the biopolitical turn. The people come to dissolve into the multitude that is the sovereign or the Leviathan. This takes place in a paradoxical space that it outside the city/political, on the bare life of the people. This is similar to the stasis developed in the first essay, which provides a foundation for the political or polis in a space outside the political on the basis of the family oikos. In both cases, the biopolitical in Foucault can already be seen in the relationship between oikos, polis and stasis, or between the multitude and the people. Takes place when the external and internal coincide –this is a threshold at which place something new can occur. The latter essay also brings forth an understanding of political theology, suggesting that “the political philosophy of modernity will not be able to emerge out of its contradictions except by becoming aware of its theological roots” (p. 69).
November 19, 2015
For as sparse as Introduction to Civil War by Tiqqun is in its dense aphorisms and index, I thought it did a better job fleshing out what is at "stake" in the taking of a stand within civil war. This book, if anything, confused me on these points. Civil war within the Greek context is seen as the necessary tension between the oikos and the polis, which allows for an ethics to take shape, where bonds form outside of the blood and management of the family (oikonomia) and outside of the politics and organization of the city.
The section on Hobbes lost me a bit. I honestly need to reread it. But from my reading it would seem that government is a necessary stage to pass through, in a similar way that orthodox marxists will say that the progressive development of capitalism is a necessary stage toward achieving communism. This may just be a misunderstanding, but it seems strange coming from him.
Even still, I find whatever he has to say to be much more thought provoking than a lot else, so I'll still rate it pretty high while still having major problems with it.
The section on Hobbes lost me a bit. I honestly need to reread it. But from my reading it would seem that government is a necessary stage to pass through, in a similar way that orthodox marxists will say that the progressive development of capitalism is a necessary stage toward achieving communism. This may just be a misunderstanding, but it seems strange coming from him.
Even still, I find whatever he has to say to be much more thought provoking than a lot else, so I'll still rate it pretty high while still having major problems with it.
July 18, 2016
Marvel did it better.
December 8, 2020
Questo volumetto di saggi - originariamente due, ai quali, dopo la presentazione definitiva dell’intero opus intitolato alla figura del Homo Sacer nel 2018, ne viene aggiunto un ultimo – più che costituire una opera a sé stante, ha le dimensioni di una postilla di approfondimenti delle tematiche aperte da parte dei primi due libri della serie. In questo senso, va letto senz’altro con la giusta misura di propedeuticità. Ragione per la quale, Agamben inserisce “Stasis” nel secondo gradino della complessa architettura del Homo Sacer (II, 2), spostando in tale modo il volume dal titolo “Il sacramento del linguaggio”, godente di quella posizione fino appunto alla pubblicazione della presente raccolta di saggi.
Presenti in “Stasis” rimangono gli stessi nomi e tradizioni celebri del pensiero filosofico e teologico-politico che Agamben utilizza in chiave di lettura già nei primi due volumi. Infatti, il primo saggio è dedicato al concetto di guerra civile presso i Greci al momento del trapasso dalla fase arcaica a quella classica, facendosi scudo delle preziose osservazioni di studiosi del calibro di Vernant e Loraux. In esso, memore della sua ricerca iniziale nel “Homo sacer. Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita” (1995) - la quale riportava in auge la presenza del ζωή nella polis, antecedentemente alla premessa aristotelica fra la stessa polis e βῐ́ος – Agamben discute del rapporto mellifluo fra l’οἶκος, ovvero la sfera familiare delle relazioni, e quella pubblica, rappresentata appunto dalla polis. Nell’incontro fra queste, o più esattamente nella spinta verso la politicizzazione della prima e, per inversa, nella necessità alla depoliticizzazione della seconda, l’autore vorrebbe trovare il punto di analisi per comprendere il significato della guerra civile nella cultura greca.
Un significato il quale, continua Agamben nel terzo saggio, assume presso la relazione intra-ellenica in età arcaica delle dimensioni robustamente ludiche (sulla scia degli studi paradigmatici di Huzinga, ed in seguito di Vernant sulla nozione generale di guerra presso la civiltà ellenica). Centrale in questo scritto rimane il rapporto contiguo fra politica e guerra di Schmitt, tesi che, fra l’altro, Agamben sembra seguire attraverso un approccio molto più critico di quanto avrebbe fatto nei confronti di questo autore diversi anni prima. Non mi ha convinto, tuttavia, la sua contestazione finale alla tesi schmittiana sull’avvicendarsi di guerra e politica (ovvero di inimicizia e politicizzazione), la quale sembra tralasciare – in una erroneità filologica alquanto stucchevole – le fondamenta moderne dell’associazione che fa Schmitt fra i due fattori.
In ultimo, il secondo saggio si concentra sulla teologia politica di Hobbes – con una acuta attenzione alle parti più neglette del “Leviatano”, dunque i due capitoli finali – e facendo tesoro, attraverso molte citazioni e riferimenti, a delle tesi di lettura del famoso frontespizio di Abraham Bosse, già avanzate da Malcolm, Ginzburg, Bredekamp e Falk. La tesi già annunciata da parte di Agamben nell’avvertenza, ovvero dell’assenza di un popolo (l”’ademia”) come elemento costitutivo dello Stato in epoca moderna, viene esplicata in questo saggio attraverso la contrapposizione fra Hobbes e Schmitt.
In definitiva, si tratta di un volumetto abbastanza interessante e pieno di spunti, sicuramente prezioso per l’elegante ricerca che lo sostiene e i diversi riferimenti presenti; sebbene non consiglierei – come d’altronde già affermato inizialmente – una sua lettura come primo passo verso una conoscenza del suo autore.
Presenti in “Stasis” rimangono gli stessi nomi e tradizioni celebri del pensiero filosofico e teologico-politico che Agamben utilizza in chiave di lettura già nei primi due volumi. Infatti, il primo saggio è dedicato al concetto di guerra civile presso i Greci al momento del trapasso dalla fase arcaica a quella classica, facendosi scudo delle preziose osservazioni di studiosi del calibro di Vernant e Loraux. In esso, memore della sua ricerca iniziale nel “Homo sacer. Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita” (1995) - la quale riportava in auge la presenza del ζωή nella polis, antecedentemente alla premessa aristotelica fra la stessa polis e βῐ́ος – Agamben discute del rapporto mellifluo fra l’οἶκος, ovvero la sfera familiare delle relazioni, e quella pubblica, rappresentata appunto dalla polis. Nell’incontro fra queste, o più esattamente nella spinta verso la politicizzazione della prima e, per inversa, nella necessità alla depoliticizzazione della seconda, l’autore vorrebbe trovare il punto di analisi per comprendere il significato della guerra civile nella cultura greca.
Un significato il quale, continua Agamben nel terzo saggio, assume presso la relazione intra-ellenica in età arcaica delle dimensioni robustamente ludiche (sulla scia degli studi paradigmatici di Huzinga, ed in seguito di Vernant sulla nozione generale di guerra presso la civiltà ellenica). Centrale in questo scritto rimane il rapporto contiguo fra politica e guerra di Schmitt, tesi che, fra l’altro, Agamben sembra seguire attraverso un approccio molto più critico di quanto avrebbe fatto nei confronti di questo autore diversi anni prima. Non mi ha convinto, tuttavia, la sua contestazione finale alla tesi schmittiana sull’avvicendarsi di guerra e politica (ovvero di inimicizia e politicizzazione), la quale sembra tralasciare – in una erroneità filologica alquanto stucchevole – le fondamenta moderne dell’associazione che fa Schmitt fra i due fattori.
In ultimo, il secondo saggio si concentra sulla teologia politica di Hobbes – con una acuta attenzione alle parti più neglette del “Leviatano”, dunque i due capitoli finali – e facendo tesoro, attraverso molte citazioni e riferimenti, a delle tesi di lettura del famoso frontespizio di Abraham Bosse, già avanzate da Malcolm, Ginzburg, Bredekamp e Falk. La tesi già annunciata da parte di Agamben nell’avvertenza, ovvero dell’assenza di un popolo (l”’ademia”) come elemento costitutivo dello Stato in epoca moderna, viene esplicata in questo saggio attraverso la contrapposizione fra Hobbes e Schmitt.
In definitiva, si tratta di un volumetto abbastanza interessante e pieno di spunti, sicuramente prezioso per l’elegante ricerca che lo sostiene e i diversi riferimenti presenti; sebbene non consiglierei – come d’altronde già affermato inizialmente – una sua lettura come primo passo verso una conoscenza del suo autore.
October 30, 2017
Testo per chi ha già avuto modo di leggere le principali opere di Agamben, come "Homo Sacer" e "Stato di eccezione". Per quanto risulti essere molto chiaro e di facile accesso a tutti, queste riflessioni sono delle interessanti precisazioni di un discorso che ha origine in altri testi. Di fatto, questo è un testo che consiglio a chi vuole approfondire il pensiero di Agamben.
Il testo è composto da due saggi: nel primo si analizza la guerra civile nella democrazia ateniese, nel secondo caso si fa un'analisi della rappresentazione del Leviatano nell'omonimo testo di Hobbes.
Nel mondo ateniese c'è una contrapposizione tra l'impolitica famiglia a la politica cittadinanza: la guerra civile è il momento in cui la vita familiare si politicizza e quella cittadina si depoliticizza. In sostanza, nella guerra civile interessi particolari acquistano un peso politico, mentre la gestione dello stato diventa affare di interessi particolari. La legge ateniese, inoltre, condanna chi, nella guerra civile, non prende parte ai combattimenti: la neutralità viene vista come una non partecipazione alla vita politica, gesto quindi da condannare. Coerentemente con ciò, alla fine di ogni guerra civile c'è un'amnistia in cui tutti i partecipanti vengono perdonati: l'amnistia è l'atto di non usare male la memoria, cioè di non ricordare i delitti della guerra civile per mettere a repentaglio il nuovo stato di pace.
Nel secondo saggio si analizza la distinzione tra popolo e moltitudine: la prima ha potere politico, il quale viene concesso al rappresentante; la seconda, al contrario, non ha potere politica e risulta essere una mera massa umana. Il popolo sovrano, però, confluisce nell'immagine di colui che governa, il quale viene rappresentato come un corpo formato dai vari cittadini. Il sovrano è il capo, letteralmente, del corpo politico. Il popolo è sempre scisso in due, quindi la guerra civile è sempre possibile: essa accade quando la moltitudine decide di attaccare il corpo politico. Quando quest'ultimo non ha più la forza di difendere i propri cittadini, allora ogni uomo può lecitamente difendersi da solo e rappresentare il proprio partito durante la guerra civile. Essa termina quando un nuovo rappresentante formato da un nuovo popolo prende il potere. Il popolo, quindi, non è un'entità storica, ma una forza "assolutamente" presente e di conseguenza mai storicamente presente. Questa, infatti, è la moltitudine. L'uso, inoltre, del termine Leviatano fa sì che tale figura possa essere accostata a quella dell'Anticristo, cioè quella forza che deve essere "tolta di mezzo" affinché possa succedere il Regno di Dio. Quindi, Hobbes vede nello Stato ciò che deve essere rimpiazzato dal Regno di Dio, una fase che preannuncia la fine dei tempi e il Giudizio Universale.
Il testo è composto da due saggi: nel primo si analizza la guerra civile nella democrazia ateniese, nel secondo caso si fa un'analisi della rappresentazione del Leviatano nell'omonimo testo di Hobbes.
Nel mondo ateniese c'è una contrapposizione tra l'impolitica famiglia a la politica cittadinanza: la guerra civile è il momento in cui la vita familiare si politicizza e quella cittadina si depoliticizza. In sostanza, nella guerra civile interessi particolari acquistano un peso politico, mentre la gestione dello stato diventa affare di interessi particolari. La legge ateniese, inoltre, condanna chi, nella guerra civile, non prende parte ai combattimenti: la neutralità viene vista come una non partecipazione alla vita politica, gesto quindi da condannare. Coerentemente con ciò, alla fine di ogni guerra civile c'è un'amnistia in cui tutti i partecipanti vengono perdonati: l'amnistia è l'atto di non usare male la memoria, cioè di non ricordare i delitti della guerra civile per mettere a repentaglio il nuovo stato di pace.
Nel secondo saggio si analizza la distinzione tra popolo e moltitudine: la prima ha potere politico, il quale viene concesso al rappresentante; la seconda, al contrario, non ha potere politica e risulta essere una mera massa umana. Il popolo sovrano, però, confluisce nell'immagine di colui che governa, il quale viene rappresentato come un corpo formato dai vari cittadini. Il sovrano è il capo, letteralmente, del corpo politico. Il popolo è sempre scisso in due, quindi la guerra civile è sempre possibile: essa accade quando la moltitudine decide di attaccare il corpo politico. Quando quest'ultimo non ha più la forza di difendere i propri cittadini, allora ogni uomo può lecitamente difendersi da solo e rappresentare il proprio partito durante la guerra civile. Essa termina quando un nuovo rappresentante formato da un nuovo popolo prende il potere. Il popolo, quindi, non è un'entità storica, ma una forza "assolutamente" presente e di conseguenza mai storicamente presente. Questa, infatti, è la moltitudine. L'uso, inoltre, del termine Leviatano fa sì che tale figura possa essere accostata a quella dell'Anticristo, cioè quella forza che deve essere "tolta di mezzo" affinché possa succedere il Regno di Dio. Quindi, Hobbes vede nello Stato ciò che deve essere rimpiazzato dal Regno di Dio, una fase che preannuncia la fine dei tempi e il Giudizio Universale.
November 16, 2018
To σύντομο δοκίμιο χωρίζεται σε δύο άνισα μέρη.
Το μικρότερο, πρώτο, ασχολείται με την έννοια του εμφυλίου στην Αρχαία Ελλάδα. Χωρίς να γίνεται ιδιαίτερα διεξοδικό, ξεκινάει πρώτα με τη θέση της Nicole Loraux, η οποία φαίνεται να είναι η πιο ενδελεχής μελετήτρια του εμφυλίου στην Αρχ. Ελλάδα και την ανατρέπει (για να πω την αλήθεια, βρήκα τα αποσπάσματα από το βιβλίο της Loraux βερμπαλιστικά και μάλλον όχι καλά τεκμηριωμένα). Άποψη του Agamber είναι ότι ο εμφύλιος παρουσιάζει την τάση να αποπολιτικοποιείται η πόλη και να "πολιτικοποιείται" η οικογένεια (με τους δεσμούς αίματος να διαλύονται, κάποιες φορές). Ενδιαφέρον έχει η πληροφορία που παρέχει σχετικά με τους νόμους του Σόλωνα στην Αθήνα για τη συμμετοχή σε εμφύλιο και την συμφιλίωση - νομίζω ότι θα μπορούσαν να γραφτούν διάφορα για τους νόμους αυτούς.
Το δεύτερο μέρος, ασχολείται με την έννοια του εμφυλίου στο έργο του Χομπς, έχοντας ως αφετηρία την αποκρυπτογράφηση των συμβολισμών στο εξώφυλλο της 1ης έκδοσης του Λεβιάθαν και προχωρώντας στο ίδιο το όνομα του βιβλίου.
Ο Agamben υποστηρίζει πολύ πειστικά, χρησιμοποιώντας στοιχεία απο τη ζωή και άλλα έργα του Χομπς, ότι η πολιτική ανάλυση του "Κράτους" ξεκινάει από θεολογικές έννοιες: συγκεκριμένα, υποστηρίζει ότι ο Χομπς έγραφε έχοντας ως απώτατο στόχο τη Βασιλεία του Θεού ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ ΓΗΣ, ως ένα πραγματικό Βασίλειο που θα έρθει με το τέλος της Ιστορίας και όχι ως ένα υπερβατικό "βασίλειο" [στοιχείο που αντιμετωπίζουν διστακτικά και αποσιωπώντας το οι οπαδοί της νεωτερικής "δημοκρατίας" που προτιμούν μια συμβολική ανάγνωση του Χομπς].
Κατ' αντιστοιχία, ο Λεβιάθαν είναι το κοσμικό, ατελές κράτος που τελικά θα καταλυθεί για τη Βασιλεία του Θεού. Μέχρι τότε, ο Χομπς υποστηρίζει ότι ο μονάρχης είναι ο λαός (ως πολιτικό υποκείμενο), ενώ οι πολίτες ουσιαστικά δεν έχουν πολιτική βούληση, αλλά αποτελούν το σώμα της Πολιτείας, ενώ "κεφαλή" είναι ο μονάρχης. Στο Λεβιάθαν, ο εμφύλιος οδηγεί τους κατοίκους στο να διαλύσουν τη σχέση με τον μονάρχη, αποτελώντας το "διαλυμένο πλήθος" που με τον εμφύλιο επιλέγουν νέο μονάρχη για να συμβεί επανάληψη του κύκλου της διακυβέρνησης.
Το μικρότερο, πρώτο, ασχολείται με την έννοια του εμφυλίου στην Αρχαία Ελλάδα. Χωρίς να γίνεται ιδιαίτερα διεξοδικό, ξεκινάει πρώτα με τη θέση της Nicole Loraux, η οποία φαίνεται να είναι η πιο ενδελεχής μελετήτρια του εμφυλίου στην Αρχ. Ελλάδα και την ανατρέπει (για να πω την αλήθεια, βρήκα τα αποσπάσματα από το βιβλίο της Loraux βερμπαλιστικά και μάλλον όχι καλά τεκμηριωμένα). Άποψη του Agamber είναι ότι ο εμφύλιος παρουσιάζει την τάση να αποπολιτικοποιείται η πόλη και να "πολιτικοποιείται" η οικογένεια (με τους δεσμούς αίματος να διαλύονται, κάποιες φορές). Ενδιαφέρον έχει η πληροφορία που παρέχει σχετικά με τους νόμους του Σόλωνα στην Αθήνα για τη συμμετοχή σε εμφύλιο και την συμφιλίωση - νομίζω ότι θα μπορούσαν να γραφτούν διάφορα για τους νόμους αυτούς.
Το δεύτερο μέρος, ασχολείται με την έννοια του εμφυλίου στο έργο του Χομπς, έχοντας ως αφετηρία την αποκρυπτογράφηση των συμβολισμών στο εξώφυλλο της 1ης έκδοσης του Λεβιάθαν και προχωρώντας στο ίδιο το όνομα του βιβλίου.
Ο Agamben υποστηρίζει πολύ πειστικά, χρησιμοποιώντας στοιχεία απο τη ζωή και άλλα έργα του Χομπς, ότι η πολιτική ανάλυση του "Κράτους" ξεκινάει από θεολογικές έννοιες: συγκεκριμένα, υποστηρίζει ότι ο Χομπς έγραφε έχοντας ως απώτατο στόχο τη Βασιλεία του Θεού ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ ΓΗΣ, ως ένα πραγματικό Βασίλειο που θα έρθει με το τέλος της Ιστορίας και όχι ως ένα υπερβατικό "βασίλειο" [στοιχείο που αντιμετωπίζουν διστακτικά και αποσιωπώντας το οι οπαδοί της νεωτερικής "δημοκρατίας" που προτιμούν μια συμβολική ανάγνωση του Χομπς].
Κατ' αντιστοιχία, ο Λεβιάθαν είναι το κοσμικό, ατελές κράτος που τελικά θα καταλυθεί για τη Βασιλεία του Θεού. Μέχρι τότε, ο Χομπς υποστηρίζει ότι ο μονάρχης είναι ο λαός (ως πολιτικό υποκείμενο), ενώ οι πολίτες ουσιαστικά δεν έχουν πολιτική βούληση, αλλά αποτελούν το σώμα της Πολιτείας, ενώ "κεφαλή" είναι ο μονάρχης. Στο Λεβιάθαν, ο εμφύλιος οδηγεί τους κατοίκους στο να διαλύσουν τη σχέση με τον μονάρχη, αποτελώντας το "διαλυμένο πλήθος" που με τον εμφύλιο επιλέγουν νέο μονάρχη για να συμβεί επανάληψη του κύκλου της διακυβέρνησης.
May 23, 2018
"La stasis non ha luogo né nell'oikos né nella polis, né nella famiglia né nella città: essa costituisce una zona di indifferenza tra lo spazio impolitico della famiglia e quello politico della città" [p. 19]
Per Agamben la stasis - la guerra civile - è la zona spazio-temporale in cui la dimensione pubblica e quella privata si incontrano e si scontrano, determinando una politicizzazione del privato e una privatizzazione del pubblico.
Fra i Greci questo momento di tensione è stato più avvertito, tanto che già nella legge di Solone vi era la pena dell'atimia (perdita dei diritti civili) per colui che durante una guerra civile non avesse combattuto per una delle due fazioni. Tucidide così ci narra la guerra civile a Corcira del 425 a.C..: "il legame di parentela [syggenes] divenne più estraneo della fazione politica [etairikou]".
E' invece a Nakone che la stasis viene risolta nel modo sicuramente più emblematico. Le fazioni che hanno diviso il legame di sangue sono dissolte e, insieme a esse, sono dissolte le famiglie: la riconciliazione avvenne estraendo a sorte i nomi in modo da dividere i cittadini in gruppi di 5, che sarebbero diventati "fratelli di sorteggio".
Oggi dove si avverte maggiormente la guerra civile?
"La forma che la guerra civile ha assunto oggi nella storia mondiale è il terrorismo. […] Il terrorismo è la «guerra civile mondiale» che investe di volta in volta questa o quella zona dello spazio planetario. Non è un caso che il «terrore» abbia coinciso col momento in cui la vita come tale - la nazione, cioè la nascita - diventava il principio della sovranità. La sola forma in cui la vita come tale può essere politicizzata è l’incondizionata esposizione alla morte, cioè la nuda vita." [p.26]
September 16, 2020
In this very short and very straight to the point text, Agamben, in furthering his Homo Sacer series, shows how stasis (defined in its original Greek as 'civil strife' or 'civil war') is both elephant in the room and also foundational concept of Western Civilization.
One thing I like about Agamben's series is its genealogy-type of investigation. And particularly where he points out how many of the intractable political issues we are facing today were also faced by the Greeks, and how their answers to those crises (however inadequate) echo through the ages and shape how we answer them today.
Agamben defines stasis as the irreconcilable line dividing oikos (meaning family, private propery, and home, as well as the root word for economy) and polis (meaning city, civic-mindedness, and the root word for political). In other words, in a democracy civil war is the dividing line between public and private interests (or 'politicization' and 'depoliticization'), and is a constant. In the warp and weft of history, sometimes oikos gains ascendence, drownding out the polis, and sometimes the reverse is true, where amnesty is found and the polis takes hold once again.
Taken from a seminar at Princeton Agemben gave in 2001, and perhaps anticipating our currently fluid political situation here in the US with eerie clarity, it looks like we have a much larger vat of political precedence then we thought we did.
One thing I like about Agamben's series is its genealogy-type of investigation. And particularly where he points out how many of the intractable political issues we are facing today were also faced by the Greeks, and how their answers to those crises (however inadequate) echo through the ages and shape how we answer them today.
Agamben defines stasis as the irreconcilable line dividing oikos (meaning family, private propery, and home, as well as the root word for economy) and polis (meaning city, civic-mindedness, and the root word for political). In other words, in a democracy civil war is the dividing line between public and private interests (or 'politicization' and 'depoliticization'), and is a constant. In the warp and weft of history, sometimes oikos gains ascendence, drownding out the polis, and sometimes the reverse is true, where amnesty is found and the polis takes hold once again.
Taken from a seminar at Princeton Agemben gave in 2001, and perhaps anticipating our currently fluid political situation here in the US with eerie clarity, it looks like we have a much larger vat of political precedence then we thought we did.
July 26, 2024
Short read, but worthwhile.
Two sections, on the lack of theorizing about civil war in philosophy, looking at the Greeks and Hobbes as "they represent the two faces, so to speak, of a single political paradigm, through the assertion of the necessity of civil war, and on the other, through the assertion of the necessity of its exclusion," trying to find the common ground between the two points.
1st section: civil wars as "a threshold of politicisation and depoliticisation, through which the house is exceeded in the city and the city is depoliticised in the family," stasis (civil war) being the threshold between the home (oikos) and the city (polis). This means that civil war can never be fully eliminated in the political scene of the West (and yet, must be hidden!)
2nd section: on the Leviathan. Hinges on the differentiation between the people (citizens) and the multitude (think people vs. population of Foucault's biopower) and their relation with the sovereign. Gods kingdom (which is literal to Hobbes, and is used as a literal, actual thing in argumentation) is both the paradigm of this city as Leviathan and also its terminus. End point: "the political philosophy of modernity will not be able to emerge out of its contradicting roots except by becoming aware of its theological roots".
Two sections, on the lack of theorizing about civil war in philosophy, looking at the Greeks and Hobbes as "they represent the two faces, so to speak, of a single political paradigm, through the assertion of the necessity of civil war, and on the other, through the assertion of the necessity of its exclusion," trying to find the common ground between the two points.
1st section: civil wars as "a threshold of politicisation and depoliticisation, through which the house is exceeded in the city and the city is depoliticised in the family," stasis (civil war) being the threshold between the home (oikos) and the city (polis). This means that civil war can never be fully eliminated in the political scene of the West (and yet, must be hidden!)
2nd section: on the Leviathan. Hinges on the differentiation between the people (citizens) and the multitude (think people vs. population of Foucault's biopower) and their relation with the sovereign. Gods kingdom (which is literal to Hobbes, and is used as a literal, actual thing in argumentation) is both the paradigm of this city as Leviathan and also its terminus. End point: "the political philosophy of modernity will not be able to emerge out of its contradicting roots except by becoming aware of its theological roots".
December 13, 2018
Deceptively deep. I like the idea of everyone fighting in the streets every 3 years to keep the population down with the war having nothing to do with morals or ethics. Then they just went back to their lives. Its kind of a fresh (although very old) alternative to the sanctimonious genocide machine of the 21st. You can extrapolate his writing and apply it to modern American election cycles, especially after reading the second part with Hobbes. He has written at length previously about the public/private divide in Greek culture and how it has dissipated to the dismay of many.
Uses a deceptive amount of machismo kind of cloaked in sort of a sheep's clothing, like many of his other books. Despite all the negativity that could be drawn, I'd say the guy is certainly a believer.
Uses a deceptive amount of machismo kind of cloaked in sort of a sheep's clothing, like many of his other books. Despite all the negativity that could be drawn, I'd say the guy is certainly a believer.
July 31, 2020
Resulta curiosa la inclusión de este libro en la serie de Homo Sacer, puesto que se toca solo tangencialmente la cuestión biopolítica (básicamente en el capítulo I dedicado a la Stasis y la genealogía de este concepto), y más bien se desarrollan lecturas de fenómenos singulares, como la guerra civil y el Leviathan de Hobbes. Sin embargo, resultan lecturas bastante iluminadoras en torno a la filosofía política, en particular a la obra de Thomas Hobbes, donde se rastrean las posibles lecturas, tanto clásicas como modernas, que pudieron haber influido en la composición del libro y que dotaron al Leviathan de un sustrato teológico-escatológico de gran importancia.
January 7, 2022
Una profonda riflessione circa la necessità della guerra civile (e del suo contrario) all'origine della filosofia politica occidentale. Interessantissimo l'esercizio di iconologia filosofica sul frontespizio del "Leviatano" e geniale l'intuizione hobbesiana prima e agambeniana poi di leggere nei dottori della peste inserite tra le vie della città deserta il seme dell'approccio biopolitico all'integrità dello stato. Lezioni sull'assolutismo e sulle società del controllo più che mai oggi utilissime.
June 12, 2020
Una riflessione sulla guerra civile nella antica Grecia ed un'analisi del Leviathan di Hobbes Thomas 1588-1679. Interessanti come studi storici, però senza nessuna applicazione pratica in una stasiologia contemporanea. Peccato.
October 19, 2025
Leans very heavily on the scholarship of Nicole Loraux and Schmitt's monograph on Hobbes, saying very little original himself (except from needlessly pointing out how Schmitt's antisemtisim colours his interpretation of the Leviathan symbol, a fact that should be obvious to all readers of the Schmitt).
December 12, 2019
Um livro bom em definição de coisas demasiado específicas. Mas para quem se interessar na origem da amnistia e da guerra civil e as suas implicações familiares, ou a simbologia oculta da capa do livro do leviatã, é fantástico.
May 7, 2025
Lettura impegnativa: un condensato di concetti e nozioni. Interessante, ma mi ero fatta un'altra idea sul contenuto del libro e quindi sono rimasta con la necessità di approfondire degli argomenti mancanti.
August 29, 2025
This gets really silly, and I did not really get anything out of this except an unconventional interpretation of the image of the Leviathan, which was admittedly very interesting, but didn't have much actual meat to it.
September 26, 2017
รีวิว:
หนึ่งในซีรีส์ 'มนุษย์ศักดิ์สิทธ์' ของอากัมเบนที่สั้นมากๆ ใครอยากอ่านอากัมเบนก็ไม่ควรพลาด
จบการรีวิว :p
หนึ่งในซีรีส์ 'มนุษย์ศักดิ์สิทธ์' ของอากัมเบนที่สั้นมากๆ ใครอยากอ่านอากัมเบนก็ไม่ควรพลาด
จบการรีวิว :p
November 20, 2021
Informative on the Leviathan part.
March 26, 2022
Some interesting comments but quite slim.
April 3, 2022
The Hobbes chapter is really, really fun
December 7, 2020
Estas conferencias son encomiables. De lenguaje sencillo, Giorgio Agamben logra sacar de estos dos textos un hilo inconsútil que permite parar en la siguiente tesis: la guerra civil es el gran control social que pone todo en su lugar, que mantiene apolítico lo privado y lo público como político.
Gracias a lo anterior queda claro que las fronteras entre lo privado y lo público tienden a diluirse y eso lleva a Agamben a cuestionarse el carácter polemológico de la guerra; al final la conclusión a la que llega lo dejará a uno perplejo.
¡Magnífico trabajo!
Gracias a lo anterior queda claro que las fronteras entre lo privado y lo público tienden a diluirse y eso lleva a Agamben a cuestionarse el carácter polemológico de la guerra; al final la conclusión a la que llega lo dejará a uno perplejo.
¡Magnífico trabajo!
April 13, 2016
Another entry of Agamben's "Homo Sacer" series, this book contains two relatively short, yet very dense articles. The first article is about the concept of "civil war" (stasis) in Greek polis and complements the first book of the series “Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life” perfectly. It is basically on the introduction of “civil war” into Agambenian bio-politics via Nicole Leroux’s article on how the interaction between oikos and polis takes place during civil war. The “zone of indifference” that civil war unleashes between oikos (literally, home) and polis (city) is not extremely suprising for the readers of Agamben. But the piece fills an important gap in the Homo Sacer series. It takes the question of civil war in ancient Greece and juxtaposes it with modern understanding of “civil war” although in a very limited space.
The better part of the book was on Hobbes and “the most famous visual image in the history of modern political philosophy”, the frontispiece of “Leviathan”. In this article, Agamben displays the best of his tool-box: eschatalogy, political theology and a close reading of Hobbes’ own work alongside his biography. With the help of the frontispiece, Agamben dives into a discussion of “Hobbesian sovereignty” which he did not go into detail in his previous books. But both of the pieces are relatively short when one thinks about how the subject matter of the articles is crucial for the complexity of “Homo Sacer” series. But in merely 65 pages, Agamben explains a lot of things. It is a good, very short (easily under 2 hours) read for anyone who is interested in political philosophy and especially Agamben’s body of work.
The better part of the book was on Hobbes and “the most famous visual image in the history of modern political philosophy”, the frontispiece of “Leviathan”. In this article, Agamben displays the best of his tool-box: eschatalogy, political theology and a close reading of Hobbes’ own work alongside his biography. With the help of the frontispiece, Agamben dives into a discussion of “Hobbesian sovereignty” which he did not go into detail in his previous books. But both of the pieces are relatively short when one thinks about how the subject matter of the articles is crucial for the complexity of “Homo Sacer” series. But in merely 65 pages, Agamben explains a lot of things. It is a good, very short (easily under 2 hours) read for anyone who is interested in political philosophy and especially Agamben’s body of work.
October 14, 2015
Way too short, in my opinion, to really constitute a full book in the Homo Sacer series. I feel like there's so much more that could have been written about with regards to Civil War.
The first piece on Greek civil war and the dual character of politicization of the oikos and depoliticization of the polis is excellent.
The second piece on Hobbes' Leviathan I don't know how I feel. It seems like Agamben basically comes to the conclusion that when the Kingdom of Heaven arrives (which he is in favor of), the State ("Leviathan") will of necessity be destroyed. Until I read Leviathan in depth I can't come to a full conclusion, but everything I know of Hobbes makes him a detestable character whose singular motive seems to be to create a strong state that doesn't allow for an outside.
I think this fits well into the II.2 spot (thus moving The Kingdom and the Glory to II.4), but it's clear that Agamben's thoughts have changed considerably since Homo Sacer and State of Exception (especially with regards to Schmitt), so I'm curious how the whole series will read through numerically.
Very much looking forward to the English translation of The Usage of Bodies!
The first piece on Greek civil war and the dual character of politicization of the oikos and depoliticization of the polis is excellent.
The second piece on Hobbes' Leviathan I don't know how I feel. It seems like Agamben basically comes to the conclusion that when the Kingdom of Heaven arrives (which he is in favor of), the State ("Leviathan") will of necessity be destroyed. Until I read Leviathan in depth I can't come to a full conclusion, but everything I know of Hobbes makes him a detestable character whose singular motive seems to be to create a strong state that doesn't allow for an outside.
I think this fits well into the II.2 spot (thus moving The Kingdom and the Glory to II.4), but it's clear that Agamben's thoughts have changed considerably since Homo Sacer and State of Exception (especially with regards to Schmitt), so I'm curious how the whole series will read through numerically.
Very much looking forward to the English translation of The Usage of Bodies!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews