>Michael Hardt and I have just exchanged emails apologizing for our
>initially harsh tones, and resolving to be constructive.
well, that's good. I was not at all sure that there were serious differences...
Michael wrote:
>>My purpose is to understand
>>what is really behind the discourse on human rights. My point in this
>>essay is that the only right that is acted on here is not any economic,
>>political, or social right, but merely the right to life. One of the
>>things to understand about this is that guaranteeing the right to life
>>acts as a cover for the campaign to deny other rights, economic,
>>political, and social.
this relates to the concept of bio-power? which I am still unclear about...
so, granting misunderstandings: how is the separation b/n 'right to life' and other (political, economic, etc) rights distinguishable or distinguished?
but, more specifically, isn't there an important sense in which the configuration of this 'bio-power' is an extension/reformation of Euro nationalism as globally civilising?
Michael wrote:
>Its object is thus not tied to the interest of any
>particular people but concerned instead with the life of the entire global
>population, or really, with human life itself.
in which case, isn't it slightly amiss to talk about it as so deterritorialised that it is no longer possible to talk about (and resist) the ways in which it is, at the same time, more territorialised: border controls being a prime example?
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au