A che punto siamo?: L'epidemia come politica

by Giorgio Agamben

Agamben ha raccolto in questo libro tutti i suoi interventi sull’emergenza sanitaria che stiamo attraversando. Al di là di denunce e descrizioni puntuali, i testi propongono in varia forma una riflessione sulla Grande Trasformazione in corso nelle democrazie occidentali. In nome della biosicurezza e della salute, il modello delle democrazie borghesi coi loro diritti, i loro parlamenti e le loro costituzioni sta ovunque cedendo il posto a un nuovo dispotismo in cui i cittadini sembrano accettare limitazioni delle libertà senza precedenti. Di qui l’urgenza della domanda che dà il titolo alla raccolta: a che punto siamo? Fino a quando saremo disposti a vivere in uno stato di eccezione che viene continuamente prolungato e di cui non si riesce a intravedere la fine?

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Essays, Theory, Sociology, Journalism

112 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 9, 2020

About the author

Giorgio 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.

Reviews

[Mansoor · Rating 3 out of 5]

The [pandemic] transformation, in this light, presents similarities with what happened in Germany in 1933, when the new Chancellor Adolf Hitler, without formally abolishing the Weimar Constitution, declared a state of exception that lasted for twelve years and effectively invalidated the constitutional propositions that were ostensibly still in force. While in Nazi Germany it was necessary to deploy an explicitly totalitarian ideological apparatus in order to achieve this end, the transformation we are witnessing today operates through the introduction of a sanitation terror and a religion of health. What, in the tradition of bourgeois democracy, used to be the right to health became, seemingly without anyone noticing, a juridical-religious obligation that must be fulfilled at any cost.
...
another element to consider is the evident collapse of any commonly shared belief and faith. We might say that people no longer believe in anything, except in a bare biological existence which should be preserved at any cost. But only tyranny, only the monstrous Leviathan with his drawn sword, can be built upon the fear of losing one’s life.
...
for a totalitarian government such as China’s, the epidemic was the ideal tool for confirming the possibility of isolating and controlling an entire region. And the fact that in Europe it is possible to refer to China as a model to follow only goes to show the degree of political irresponsibility to which fear has reduced us.
...
How did we accept, purely in the name of an indeterminable risk, that our dear ones—and human beings in general—should not only die alone, but that their bodies should be burned without a funeral—something that, from Antigone to the present day, has never happened?
...


This country is always on the verge of falling back into Fascism, and there are many signs today that this is something more than a risk. Suffice to say that the government has appointed a committee that has the power to decide which news is true and which should be considered fake. As far as I myself am concerned, most major Italian newspapers refuse to publish my opinions.
...
People consent to limitations on their personal freedoms when they accept the uncorroborated data and opinions conveyed by the media.
...
citizen no longer has a right to health (‘health safety’) but is instead forced by law to be healthy (‘biosecurity’).
...
The pandemic has shown clearly that an undoubtedly global strategy like the one planned by the World Health Organisation and Bill Gates—from whom the WHO, in reality, emanates—cannot be achieved without the crucial intervention of nation states: they are the only ones who can take, as indeed they did, the coercive measures that such a strategy requires.
...
It is certain that our universities had reached such a level of corruption and specialistic cluelessness that it is almost impossible to mourn their loss.
...

screenshot source: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...

[tout · Rating 3 out of 5]

Certainly not his best. Maybe his worst. Though even his worst is better than many other books. I agree with Agamben that it is essential to articulate a critique of the pandemic as a form of governance, as Foucault would be doing if he were alive still, however, so much of this feels repetitive, overly cranky and hyperbolic (like when he talks jokingly about wanting to imprison people who use cellphones in What is an Apparatus?). I want a deeper engagement that won't so easily be discarded and written off. The anti state "left" has largely failed to critique this new state of exception as it takes shape during the pandemic and it has ceded this territory to the right. This is an utter shame and needs to change.

[David McGrogan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps the only important thing that has really been written during the pandemic period. Agamben returns again and again to the crucial question: how is it that humanity was willing to sacrifice everything that makes life worth living in the name of maintaining bare life, when it had never done so before in the face of much worse diseases? It is an unpalatable and awkward question that will touch nerves and make many readers uncomfortable as a result. As a consequence they will hate and dismiss the book, and refuse to engage with its content. They are missing out. The book is short and has some repetitions of content, but the essays 'What is Fear?' and 'Gaia and Chthonia' are worth the price of admission alone.

[michal k-c · Rating 1 out of 5]

not gonna waste your time with a long review but a highlight for me was when Agamben, in an interview, basically said that the black death was handled better than covid because people could still go outside and be social. amazing brain

[Alexis · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Series of very short essays that make for an easy and smooth read. Rushed through most of it tbh.

His constant use of terms like "so called experts" may sound unsavory for some (it was for me) but if you let it stop you or taint your reading you'll miss on some genuinely interesting questions

Agamben asks us to reflect not just on how easily we forfeit our rights over the sanctity of bare life but on the kind of life propper did we have that we so easily gave it up. To reflect on how our spaces have been transformed by economic interests and have not been suitable for dwelling but for tourists for a long time (something I had noticed in my own city was how entire neighborhoods got reduced to housing complexes and restaurants/souvenir shops.)

This book is not in any way an anti-scientific/intellectual treatise but a plea by a clearly very concerned philosopher and historian that we do not simply let ourselves continue down a path of further isolation and to rebuild a public life, one that is worth defending, and a life that is worth living above and beyond the mere fact of existing.

Wish he had more data and more seriously engaged with the consequences not locking down (overloaded hospitals etc) but he clearly thinks we have too much of that and merely suggests that instead of blaming your neighbour maybe look at who allowed your public health system to decay or otherwise become insufficient and now so conveniently jump at the opportunity to expand their powers on that basis.

Not nearly as controversial as politically engaged ppl make it sound but then again nothing is ever as politically engaged ppl make it sound like.

[Mason Masters · Rating 4 out of 5]

Slightly repetitive since it is a collection of essays on the same topic, but is short enough to not be a big issue. It is true Agamben probably overstated how mild covid was as a disease, and yet here we are in 2022 and only 1 percent of recorded cases in NSW, Australia, are hospitalised, with the number falling. He was proven correct that the authorities overplayed their hand. On purpose? Undoubtedly. His entire lifes work was centred on Homo Sacer and the State of Exception, and yet his allies on the left rejected him because they were scared of what is amounting to be not much more than a cold (with exceptions). To reject his message is to remain ignorant.

My first reading of Agamben, and I will be going back to read his larger works of philosophy.

[Jack Lively · Rating 5 out of 5]

Giorgio Agamben was perhaps THE pre-eminent philosopher darling of the radical left in the 90s and early 2000s. When COVID hit he was cancelled by the very same people who had taken a ride on his coat tails for that time. Of course, Agamben's whole schtick was always about "Bio-Power", and his post Foucault take on it. So I was always surprised by the vilifications of his position.

I found the condemnation of Agamben's position disgusting on many levels.

This book is a collection of his writings on COVID and the pandemic response more generally. I consider it a very important read.

[Λένα Βλασταρά · Rating 5 out of 5]

Αυτό ακριβώς που λέει ο υπότιτλος. Πού σταματά η προστασία της υγείας και πού ξεκινά η πολιτική. Σκέψεις για την κοινωνικοπολιτική χροιά της επιδημίας, που όλους μας έχουν απασχολήσει από τότε ο κόσμος τέθηκε σε «κατάσταση εξαίρεσης»

[sologdin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Perhaps I'm not convinced by his predictions yet, as it may be too early to know how the world will develop. For instance, it may well be true that "'social distancing' (as it has been euphemistically termed) will be society’s new organising principle." But perhaps not. Perhaps medicine is a new religion, such that

The cultic practice no longer concerns taking medications, being visited by a doctor, or undergoing surgery. Rather, the entire life of human beings must become, at every instant, the site of an uninterrupted cultic celebration. The enemy (the virus) is omnipresent and must be fought constantly and ceaselessly.

Or perhaps not. Changes to universities could be "the end of student life as a form of existence," or maybe not. Time will be the test.

He makes some uncautious remarks, normally in defending himself from interlocutors who mistake his nuanced approach for straight trumpian mendacity. That said, I'd advise against saying "The instructors who agree—as they have done en masse—to subject themselves to the new online dictatorship and to hold all their classes remotely are the exact equivalent of those university professors who, in 1931, pledged allegiance to the Fascist regime." That's a bit much.

Definitely some useful preliminary analysis of the political significance of Covid pursuant to his normal concepts.

[Pisquanobreakdown · Rating 4 out of 5]

One-day reading providing a clear viewpoint on how illiberal Italy (and Europe) have become in 2020, taking advantage of the pandemic. How long will it last?

[Lourens Van Hoorn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eh, voelt beetje wappie achtig.

[Borislava Velkova · Rating 2 out of 5]

Repetitive and overly simplistic at times, putting stronger accent on human agency rather than on the complex nature of reality (or on "conspiracy" rather than on "chance") and seeing the future in the form of some preindustrial ideal, this is not the critic on the state of things I was hoping for. Still, it is important to note that "What we are now living through is more than just a staggering imposition on everybody’s freedoms; it is also a massive campaign to falsify the truth. People consent to limitations on their personal freedoms when they accept the uncorroborated data and opinions conveyed by the media. Advertising has long gotten us used to a discourse that works better when it does not pretend to be true. And for some time, even political consent has been given without the presence of actual conviction—the assumption being that truth is not at stake in electoral speeches. What is currently happening before our eyes is something new, however, if only because we are passively accepting a discourse on whose veracity depends our everyday existence and our entire way of life."

[Ronaldo Lima · Rating 2 out of 5]

O Agamben fala muita merda sobre as consequências da covid para a vida das pessoas, coisas como só 4% da população vai precisar de atendimento, não é nada demais. O que é muito curioso haja visto que o seu país é um dos mais afetados e ele pôde ver em primeira mão o efeito de "só 4%".

Dito isso, há um alerta importante de Agamben para o mundo pós-pandemia onde, muito provavelmente, as liberdades individuais vão ser ainda mais lesadas e uma nova organização social mais cruel ainda irá se formar. A política do medo e a transformação do outro num terrorista ambulante vão se fazer muito presentes.

Um mundo de terror nos espera.

[Steph Mostav · Rating 1 out of 5]

Que ensaios irresponsáveis e superficiais foram esses? Além de resumir toda a questão da pandemia a uma discussão a respeito de liberdade individual, ainda desmereceu as formas de combate ao vírus e a própria epidemia em si. Ninguém pode ser livre se estiver morto, cara.

[Sophia K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Μια διεισδυτική ματιά στην πανδημία και τις επιπτώσεις της απο φιλοσοφικής πλευράς. Απο τα λίγα βιβλία που ήθελα να υπογραμίσω μετά μανίας και σίγουρα θα ξαναδιαβάσω. Σε βάζει σε σκέψεις και το συζητάς.

[Mario D'Andreta · Rating 5 out of 5]

C'è ancora un intellettuale vero in Italia. Un libro breve ma essenziale per riflettere sullo stato delle cose correnti, con momenti di rara poesia. Per un'analisi critica della realtà sociale.

[bunnygirlhomicide]

Old Man Yells At Cloud Whilst Having Some Very Obvious Points That Are Sometimes Correct

[Vanessa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Io ancora mi intestardisco a prendere in considerazione il parere di gente (non dire maschi bianchi etero non dire maschi bianchi etero) che ha superato i 70 anni e ancora mi sorprendo di rimanere delusa (Walter Siti escluso da questa rassegnata presa di coscienza).

Agamben stava per confermare il mio sospetto di aver vissuto tutta la mia vita (o una delle porzioni più importanti di essa) in una bugia. Poi però ha fatto due scivoloni, che magari non ho capito io, dato che la prima reazione che ho avuto è stata di sentirmi offesa. Di solito quando mi spiegano la vita, mi accusano di essere cieca/sorda perché rincoglionita da un'offesa che in realtà non c'è (tante grazie e scusami se sono stupida).

Comunque Agamben non fa che offendersi per tutta la durata della raccolta.

Sono combattuta, ma rimango comunque fedele al mio sentire (non alla mia angoscia o alla mia paura, al mio desiderio di essere controllata dallo Stato perché percepisco l'esaurimento della nostra società, come penserebbe lui). Abbiamo vissuto l'inimmaginabile, ma questa sofferenza non l'ho letta né minimamente percepita negli interventi qui raccolti. Credo sia una grande pecca che va a sfavore del filosofo, che sembra mosso solamente dal suo delirio intoppante.

Due cose, dicevo, mi hanno fatto rivalutare e ridimensionare la sua tesi ("non cielo dikono"):
- Sulla scuola e sull'università: niente giustifica la sua equiparazione dei professori che hanno accettato la DAD ai professori che non si sono opposti al fascismo e al nazismo per convenienza. Niente. E in che modo poi gli studenti avrebbero dovuto rifiutarsi di iscriversi a queste presunte scellerate aziende-università per crearne delle nuove, di universitates, caratterizzate dall'incontro e dallo scambio sociale? Ma tutt'appost?
- Sul capitalismo: definisce "religioni" Chiesa, capitalismo e scienza, ma si concentra a smontare solo l'istituzione più antica (Chiesa) e quella più nuova (scienza), liquidando gli scempi che abbiamo visto compiuti da aziende e padroncini piagnoni in questo modo: "Il capitalismo da parte sua, pur con qualche (??????) protesta (?????), ha accettato perdite di produttività (???????) che non aveva mai osato mettere in conto, probabilmente sperando di trovare più tardi un accordo con la nuova religione (??????)". Ignora forse volutamente che ci siamo trovati in questa situazione di profonda mistificazione proprio per proteggere il capitale di pochi, e che siamo tornati a come stavamo prima, senza una vera presa di coscienza di quanto abbiamo permesso e del perché siamo arrivati (neanche tanto improvvisamente) a sopportare tanto, perché il capitale è una religione più forte della scienza, la ingloba al suo servizio.

Vedere Agamben pubblicato in Italia solo da testate come "La verità" è stato veramente triste, ma non so se la ragione stia da una parte sola. Di certo non ce l'hanno i media, ma gli errori di comunicazione, consapevoli o meno, non stanno da una parte sola. La classe (sì, parliamo ancora di classi) intellettuale italiana continua a latitare. Forse a causa del suo privilegio (ma cosa vai a pensare, sciocchinaaa hihi)?

È evidente che non siamo ancora pronti per una riflessione sulla pandemia e che anche le grandi menti che l'hanno vissuta nel mentre non abbiano saputo dare contributi significativi con la giusta disposizione d'animo. Comprensibile. Sciocca io che mi aspettavo di più. Purtroppo a questo punto devo rispondere alla domanda del titolo con un'altra domanda: "Cosa lo chiedi a fare se sai già tutto, come sempre?". Il titolo, più che una domanda, un invito a prenderci un momento, mi suona più come un "gnegne, te l'avevo detto".

A chiosa di questa recensione molto boh perplessa di tutto, lascio un'ultima citazione di Agamben e un appello. Andiamo con la prima:
"La tessera verde costituisce coloro che ne sono privi in portatori di una stella gialla virtuale (va da sé che l'analogia è puramente formale e non implica alcun accostamento alla persecuzione degli ebrei)". Ah, ok, meno male che mi ha avvisato.

E la seconda, l'appello: sto cercando diari scritti durante la pandemia. Bellissimo ma troppo breve "Arresti domiciliari" di Alan Bennett. Avete consigli?

[Attasit Sittidumrong · Rating 4 out of 5]

รวมข้อเขียนขนาดสั้นและบทสัมภาษณ์ที่น่าจะถือกันว่า controversial ที่สุดของจอร์จิโอ อกัมเบน นักปรัชญาชื่อดังขาวอิตาเลี่ยน ที่บอกว่า controversial ที่สุดนั้น ก็เพราะข้อเขียนและบทสัมภาษณ์ในหนังสือเล่มนี้ได้บรรจุความเห็นต่อประเด็นการแพร่ระบาดของไวรัสโควิดซึ่งสะท้อนความเป็นอนุรักษ์นิยมถึงขั้นที่ทำให้ใครหลายๆคน ผิดหวังกับทัศนะและจุดยืนของอกัมเบนไปตามๆกัน

แน่นอน แม้อาจวางอยู่บนทัศนะทางการเมืองที่ "โคตรเบียว" แต่อกัมเบนก็คืออกัมเบน กล่าวคือวิธีการทีอกัมเบนครุ่นคิดถึงแนวทางการรับมือของรัฐจากการแพร่ระบาดของเชื้อไวรัสโควิดนั้น ลุ่มลึกและน่าสนใจไม่น้อย โดยเฉพาะการตั้งต้นด้วยการชี้ให้เห็นถึงการใช้อำนาจแบบไม่ได้สัดส่วนระหว่างข้อมูลทางสถิติของการระบาดและจำนวนผู้เสียชีวิตจากเชื้อโควิด กับมาตรป้องกันจากรัฐ ซึ่งอกัมเบนเห็นว่าดูผิดสัดส่วนอย่างมีนัยยะสำคัญ เพราะในชณะที่ข้อมูลเชิงสถิติจะระบุถึงจำนวนร้อยละของผู้เสียชีวิตจากเชื้อโควิดว่ามีระดับที่ต่ำมาก แต่มาตรการต่างๆของรัฐโดยเฉพาะคำสั่งในการยกเลิกสิทธิ-เสรีภาพของพลเมืองตามรัฐธรรมนูญ กลับเพิ่มระดับอย่างเข้มข้น จนนำมาสู่ข้อเสนอของอกัมเบนว่ารัฐกำลังใช้โอกาสจากการแพร่ระบาดของเชื้อไวรัสโควิด เป็นข้ออ้างขยายอำนาจของตน ภายใต้กระบวนทัศน์ใหม่ที่เรียกว่า biosecurity หรือชีวะความมั่นคง นั่นก็คือกระบวนทัศน์ที่กำกับการรับรู้ของสังคมผ่านกระบวนการทำเชื้อโรคและความป่วยไข้ให้กลายเป็นศัตรูของประเทศ ซึ่งกระบวนทัศน์ดังกล่าวนี้ได้เปลี่ยนความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างมนุุษย์กับร่างกายและสุขภาพของตนจากสิทธิเป็นหน้าที่ หรือก็คือ จากการที่สุขภาพที่ดีเป็นสิทธิของพลเมืองแต่ละคน มาเป็น สุขภาพที่ดีคือหน้าที่ที่พลเมืองทุกคนต้องมีเท่านั้น

ในสายตาของอกัมเบน การขยายตัวของกระบวนทัศน์แบบชีวะความมั่นคงนี้ เป็นผลมาจากชัยชนะของวิทยาศาสตร์โดยเฉพาะการแพทย์ที่มีอยู่เหนือคริสต์ศาสนจักรและทุนนิยม จนสามารถสถาปนาตนเองเป็นจิตวิญญาณทางศาสนาแห่งยุคสมัยปัจจุบัน โดยเฉพาะการที่ความก้าวหน้าของเทคโนโลยีทางการแพทย์ได้เข้ามากำกับวิถีชีวิตและวิธีปฏิบัติที่มนุษย์กระทำต่อร่างกายของตน อย่างเ่ช่น การตรวจสอบและเข้าวินัยร่างกายที่พลเมืองแต่ละคนจะต้องปฏิบัติอย่างเคร่งครัดภายใต้คำสั่งของแพทย์ในนามของการควบคุมและรักษาร่างกายของตนให้แข็งแรง ราวกับว่าจิตวิญญาณที่สมบูรณ์พร้อมที่สุดนั้น จะไม่ใช่อะไรเลยนอกจากการเป็นบุคคลผู้มีร่างกายแข็งแรง มีความระแวดระวัง และพร้อมบูชายัญเสรีภาพของตนเพื่อรักษาความสมบูรณ์ของรางกายและ "ชีวิต" ที่มาพร้อมกับร่างกายเหล่านั้น (แม้ว่าชีวิตดังกล่าวจะปราศจากความหมายอื่นๆนอกจากการมีแค่ร่างกาย/สุขภาพที่ดีดังกล่าว)

ในแง่นี้ โลกใน (และหลัง) ยุคการแพร่่ระบาดเชื้อโควิด จึงเป็นภาคขยายของค่ายกักกันหรือ the camp ที่องค์อธิปัตย์สามารถปรากฏตัวผ่านการยกเว้นรัฐธรรมนูญและการคุ้มครองทางกฏหมายซึ่งทำให้พลเมืองกลายเป็น "ชีวิตที่เปลือยเปล่า" ได้เสมอ ถ้าสงครามคือสภาวะยกเว้นที่เป็นภาพสะท้อนการปรากฏตัวขององค์อธิปัตย์ การระบาดของเชื้อโรคเช่นที่เกิดในกรณีของโควิด ก็คือการปรากฏตัวของสงครามที่เรียกว่ากันว่า สงครามกลางเมือง นั่นก็คือการปรากฏของสงครามที่พลเมือง (ซึ่งสมควรได้รับการปกป้องจากองค์อธิปัตย์) อาจกลายเป็นพาหะของโรคร้ายจนกลายเป็นข้าศึกที่องค์อธิปัตย์--ในนามของการปกป้องรัฐและพลเม���องอื่นๆ--ต้องทำสงครามและลบล้างออกไปให้หมด หรือก็คือ สงครามที่พลเมืองทุกคนจะถูกแปรรูปจากผู้มีศักดิ์และสิทธิ์ตามกฏหมายในฐานะสมาชิกขององคาพยพทางการเมือง ให้กลายเป็นเพียงร่างกายเปล่าเปลือยในชีวิตที่เปลือยเปล่าภายใต้สภาวะยกเว้นที่ถูกทำให้เป็นกฏอย่างถาวร

[Riclaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Letto - volutamente a distanza di oltre due anni dai fatti che l’hanno determinato - il libro, una raccolta di interventi di A. sui media attorno alla pandemia del Covid 19, forse può essere meglio compreso, scontando gli accenti fortemente allarmistici che lo caratterizzano. L’allarme è quello per un sovvertimento, ormai compiuto secondo A., di alcuni dei principi della vita politica e sociale nelle democrazie contemporanee. La critica a queste ultime, incarnazioni della religione capitalistica, convive con la preoccupazione per la loro sostituzione con un regime planetario oppressivo di tipo biopolitico. La pandemia, sarebbe stata sfruttata come un’occasione, se non addirittura inventata, dagli attuali detentori del potere, per sostituire con la religione della scienza, e in particolare della medicina, la religione del capitale e la religione tout-court, attraverso un perpetuo stato di eccezione. Il discorso di A. poggia su elementi e dati parzialmente smentiti dai fatti e dagli eventi successivi; tuttavia è ben riconoscibile la continuità con le sue trentennali teorizzazioni sulla biopolitica e, depurato per quanto possibile dagli accenti più apocalittici e dagli allarmi più scomposti, risulta essere un testo tutto sommato organico alla sua visione critica spesso premonitrice. Quando i filosofi affrontano l’attualità, giocoforza la deformano fino a farla entrare nella loro teoria. Hegel diceva, grosso modo, che se la teoria non corrispondeva alla realtà, allora tanto peggio per la realtà. Vale la pena leggerlo, in ogni caso.

[Tara Brabazon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I knew I'd finish here. Having re-read Agamben's career, I wanted to finish with the book that damaged his reputation.

Look. We have cranky Agamben. He has recognized - correctly - his state of exception. His Homo Sacer arguments about life were emerging before his eyes.

But the matter of death - through the medicalization of health - was unanswered for him. Predictably through 2020, the comparison to Hitler and the Nazis emerged...

Yeah. Nah.

But just as when Foucault, Baudrillard and Virilio were wrong, there is something important in the wrongness. Reading this book 5 years after the pandemic, we see that Agamben was able to recognize there was a problem. But he misread the symptoms and the consequences.

He logs three systems of belief in 'the modern West.' Christianity. Capitalism. Science.

He argued that Science as a belief system defeated the other two...

Yeah. Nah.

What is clear is that capitalism has appropriated the shape and language of Christianity and beaten science.

Evidence. Rigour. Expertise. Gone.

Vibe. Arbitrariness. Feelings. Prioritized.

Agamben got the shape of the battle right - but picked the wrong side. And the wrong enemy.

We are living with the consequences of a techbros, hypercapitalism and christianity without content..

[Andrea Delfino · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Il paradigma della biosicurezza non è temporaneo. Le attività economiche riprenderanno e stanno già riprendendo e le misure di limitazione dei movimenti cesseranno, almeno in buona parte. Quello che resterà è il "distanziamento sociale". Occorre riflettere su questa formula singolare, che è apparsa contemporaneamente in tutto il mondo come se fosse stata preparata in anticipo. La formula non dice "distanziamento fisico" o "personale", come sarebbe stato normale se si fosse trattato di un dispositivo medico, ma "distanziamento sociale". Non si potrebbe esprimere più chiaramente che si tratta di un nuovo paradigma di organizzazione della società, cioè di un dispositivo essenzialmente politico. Ma che cos'è una società fondata sulla distanza? Si può ancora chiamare politica una tale società?" (pag. 84).
I filosofi, i sociologi, gli psicologi e in generale gli esperti di scienze sociali come Giorgio Agamben, Andrea Miconi, Byung-Chul Han, il collettivo Wu Ming con gli articoli nel blog Giap, sono i grandi esclusi dal dibattito mediatico in corso sulla pandemia. Eppure sono abbastanza certo che fra qualche anno guarderemo a loro come uniche menti capaci di una visione a medio e lungo termine sulle trasformazioni in atto nella società contemporanea, che del resto erano già state profetizzate nel 1979 da Franco Basaglia nel concetto di "medicalizzazione della società".

[Kathleen O'Neal · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was eager to check out this book after learning about some of the controversy around the ideas promulgated within it. I'm still sort of bemused by scholars who were shocked - shocked I tell you - that someone like Giorgio Agamben who grounds his ideas in a Foucauldian approach to biopolitics would be critical of the ways in which states handled the response to COVID-19. It's weird to me that it wouldn't strike anyone cursorily familiar with Agamben that these sorts of ideas wouldn't fall out of the sort of analysis he does. Honestly, I found this perspective refreshing in light of the sacred cow that draconian COVID-19 policies were for many on the left for a while there. It says concerning things that instead of engaging with the message, too many people apparently wanted it to be silenced.

[Braiden Touchette · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the book intellectually stimulating. At many moments throughout the read, I found myself putting the book down to truly let the words rattle in my brain.

The book challenged my preconceived notions about government, liberty, and health pandemics. The best part of the book is his abrasiveness towards liberalism, resulting in 'disastrous implications' like identity politics and bio politics.

However, at some points the book just felt like a brazen attempt to discredit any safety measures or practices during the pandemic. I think his coverage of concepts like state of exceptions were insightful but lacked depth and nuance. The government is not going to revert to authoritarianism because there were safety mandates during the pandemic. He treads this line of a black and white approach to assessing politics and liberalism.

[Santiago]

Es interesante el ejercicio de leer este libro desde una distancia (social) prudente, siendo una antología de artículos escritos al calor de los primeros meses del covid. En primer lugar, tengo que decir que me dio nostalgia. Después, debates que en su momento parecían tajantes y que dejaban a Agamben bastante mal parado hoy se atemperaron y vale la pena volver a revisar, sobre todo la cuestión acerca de qué vida queremos y qué costo estamos dispuestos a pagar para sostenerla, que anudan fuertemente la ética y la noción de comunidad.
Es un libro áspero y escrito desde un presente que demandaba ser interrogado, a riesgo de errar, cosa que muchas veces le pasa. Creo que sobrevive el mérito de haber tomado ese riesgo.

[Virga · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stebint, ką kaimyninėse šalyse išdarinėja tikroji politinė diktatūra, neatrodo rimtai Agambeno virkavimai, kad oi, kokia žiauri yra medicininė diktatūra, verčianti rūpintis sveikata. Demokratinis pasaulis tipo nusibaiginėja dėl pandemijos ir su ja susijusios prievartos (nesiplėsiu, nes iki skausmo pažįstami jau tie "prievartos" detalizavimai ir vizualizavimai). Šiaip Agambenas visus savo, tikrai labai gerus, politinės filosofijos atradimus naudoja tam, kad pagrįstų šitą demokratinio pasaulio pabaigos viziją. Bet kažkaip net nesmagu vietom skaityti, nes taip naudojamos tos koncepcijos pradeda atrodyti kaip pigūs pagąsdinimai. Žodžiu, tiksliausia būtų pasakyti - nuliūdino.

[Leo · Rating 3 out of 5]

not going to finish this book. this appears to be a frustrated old mans ramblings about being told to stay inside. at least for the first half of the book (that which i read) he fails to acknowledge that many accepted social distancing and lockdown for the safety of others - the elderly, the autoimmune, so on - instead of fearing themselves. the nazi analogies were just nasty and his accusations towards the church were ridiculous. unfortunately this is the first agamben ive read and it has painted him as a self-centred, inconsiderate, bitter man. i am not excited to read anymore of his works.

[Simone Zanette · Rating 3 out of 5]

Di fatto non è un saggio singolo ma una raccolta di articoli ed interviste. Quindi il grado di approfondimento dei concetti è quello che può trovare spazio in un articolo e non in un piccolo trattato. Interessante e condivisibile il contenuto ma lettura piuttosto inutile se uno si mantiene aggiornato nel dibattito quotidiano.

[mohave · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ridicolo e patetico sotto tutti i punti di vista. L'autore si lamenta che ormai non ci interessa che la "nuda" vita e che siamo disposti a cedere tutte le nostre libertà pur di sopravvivere. Non ha senso: morire di covid vuol dire esattamente perdere la libertà. Il non sense si spiega da un semplice dettaglio, una premessa sbagliata: che il covid non esiste, o se esiste è un raffreddore.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite many insightful reflections, it is both too short and too repetitive. It could have been a fascinating, richly informed book, but it is mostly a collection of short articles/blog posts, many of which are redundant and few of which bother to document its claims or question others. Speculative at times. That said, I found it refreshing and a welcome provocation.