MARC Record from marc_oapen

LEADER: 02943namaa2200325uu 450
001 http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25489
005 20190326
020 $aP3.0136.1.00
024 7 $a10.21983/P3.0136.1.00$cdoi
041 0 $aEnglish
042 $adc
072 7 $aHPCF$2bicssc
100 1 $aBiddick, Kathleen$4auth
700 1 $aJoy, Eileen A.$4edt
700 1 $aJoy, Eileen A.$4oth
245 10 $aMake and Let Die: Untimely Sovereignties
260 $aEarth, Milky Way$bpunctum books$c2016
300 $a1 electronic resource (258 p.)
506 0 $aOpen Access$2star$fUnrestricted online access
520 $ahis collection of essays by one of medieval studies’ most brilliant historians argues that the analysis and critique of biopower, as conventionally defined by Michel Foucault and then widely assumed in much contemporary theory of sovereignty, is a sovereign mode of temporalization caught up in the very time-machine it ostensibly seeks to expose and dismantle. For Michel Foucault, biopower (epitomized in his maxim “to make live and to let die”) is the defining sign of the modern, and he famously argued that the task of political philosophy was to cut off the head of the classical (premodern) sovereign, the one “who made die and let live.” Entrapped by his supersessionary thinking on the question, Foucault argued that the maxim of “to make live and let die” of modern sovereignty superseded a premodern sovereignty characterized by the contrasting power “to make die and let live.” The essays collected in Biddick’s book (some reprinted and some published here for the first time) argue that Foucault spoke too soon about the supposed “then” of the classical sovereign and the modern “now,” and this became painfully apparent in his analysis of Nazism in his later lectures, Society Must be Defended. There Foucault groped to articulate an anguishing paradox: How could it be that the Nazis, as the ultimate biopolitical sovereign machine, would insist on an archaic (premodern) mode of sovereignty in their death camps? Here is how he posed the question in that lecture: “How can the power of death, the function of death, be exercised in a political system centered upon biopower?” Foucault left this question hanging.
540 $aCreative Commons$fhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/$2cc$4https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
546 $aEnglish
650 7 $aWestern philosophy, from c 1900 -$2bicssc
653 $abiopolitics
653 $amedieval history
653 $apolitical theology
653 $ahistoriography
653 $acriticial theory
856 40 $awww.oapen.org$uhttps://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/e41d707a-0b0a-4c58-a4f5-1b531a59baf9/1004606.pdf$70$zOAPEN Library: download the publication
856 40 $awww.oapen.org$uhttp://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25489$70$zOAPEN Library: description of the publication