Nicolas
Truong, Le Monde, 24/3/2020
Translated by Lena Bloch
In an interview with "Le Monde", the Italian philosopher criticizes the implementation of extraordinary security measures assuming that life must be suspended to protect it.
Internationally renowned Italian philosopher, Giorgio Agamben has notably elaborated the concept of "state of exception" as a paradigm of government in his great work of political philosophy Homo Sacer (Seuil, 1997-2005). In the wake of Michel Foucault, but also of Walter Benjamin and Hannah Arendt, he has conducted a series of archaeological investigations of the notions of "dispositif " and " command ", and has elaborated the concepts of " idleness ", " form of life " or " inactive power ". Giorgio Agamben, a leading intellectual of the " non-governable " movement, published an article in the newspaper Il Manifesto ("Coronavirus and a state of exception", February 26) which drew criticism because, based on the Italian health data of the time, it focused on the defense of public freedoms by minimizing the extent of the epidemic. In an interview with Le Monde, he analyzes "the extremely serious ethical and political consequences" of the security measures implemented to curb the pandemic.
In a text published by "Il Manifesto", you wrote that the global pandemic of Covid-19 was "a supposed epidemic", nothing more than "a kind of flu". In view of the number of victims and the rapid spread of the virus, especially in Italy, do you regret these words?
I am neither a virologist nor a doctor, and in the article in question, which dates back to a month ago, I was simply quoting verbatim what the opinion of the Italian National Research Center was then. But I am not going to enter into the discussions among scientists about the epidemic - what interests me, are the extremely serious ethical and political consequences.
It would seem that, since terrorism has been exhausted as a cause of emergency measures, the invention of an epidemic could offer the ideal pretext for extending (emergency measures) beyond all limits," you write. How can you argue that this is an "invention"? Can't terrorism, just like an epidemic, lead to security policies that are unacceptable, even though they are real?
When we speak of invention in a political field, we must not forget that this should not be understood in a solely subjective sense. Historians know that there are conspiracies that are objective, so to speak, that seem to function as such without being directed by an identifiable subject. As Michel Foucault showed before me, security governments do not necessarily function by producing the situation of exception, but by exploiting and directing it when it occurs. I am certainly not the only one to think that for a totalitarian government like China's, the epidemic was the ideal way to test the possibility of isolating and controlling a whole region. And that in Europe we can refer to China as a model to follow shows the degree of political irresponsibility into which fear has thrown us. We should ask ourselves about the strange fact that the Chinese government suddenly declares the epidemic closed when it suits them.
Why do you think the state of exception is unjustified, when containment is seen by scientists as one of the main ways to stop the spread of the virus?
