theorists articulates Marx’s intuition that the process of subjectivation as life can “authentic” only be explained by giving priority to the dimension of species-life (or: as a zoe) or life-in-common. In Negri, this priority of the dimension of species-life is visible in his emphasizing the capacity for creativity contained in living labor, and his focus on the of the “wealth” productive subjects which is generated in their autonomy with respect to the processes of capital accumulation. In Agamben, the priority of the dimension of species-life is visible in his neologism where refers to and not In Esposito, the priority zoe bios. “form-of-life,” “life” of the dimension of species-life is visible in his critique of the immunitary devices that separate the individual from its body and life, as well as from its communal obligations to others. Although this family of theories assign a relative priority of over it would be zoe bios, a mistake to reduce them to forms of vitalism or naturalism as ordinarily conceived. Indeed, my second hypothesis is that all of these theories of biopolitics share the fundamental belief that as species-life is identical to the activity of thinking by an intellect that is never zoe individual or personal but or In other words, what characterizes Italian “common” “general.” biopolitics is a common Averroistic background that offers a way to conceive of power in an affirmative way as the potential or power (dynamis, for thought. For Italian potentia, potenza) biopolitics only a life (zoe) allows subjectivity to discard its Cartesian and thinking attachment to personal identity and become in its overcoming of “authentic” individual self-consciousness thanks to the communitary and communicative dimensions rooted in the power of thought. Negri, Living Labor, and General Intellect
theorists articulates Marx’s intuition that the process of subjectivation as “authentic” life can only be explained by giving priority to the dimension of species-life (or: zoe) as a or life-in-common. In Negri, this priority of the dimension of species-life is visible in his emphasizing the capacity for creativity contained in living labor, and his focus on the “wealth” of the productive subjects which is generated in their autonomy with respect to the processes of capital accumulation. In Agamben, the priority of the dimension of species-life is visible in his neologism “form-of-life,” where “life” refers to zoe and not bios. In Esposito, the priority of the dimension of species-life is visible in his critique of the immunitary devices that separate the individual from its body and life, as well as from its communal obligations to others. Although this family of theories assign a relative priority of zoe over bios, it would be a mistake to reduce them to forms of vitalism or naturalism as ordinarily conceived. Indeed, my second hypothesis is that all of these theories of biopolitics share the fundamental belief that zoe as species-life is identical to the activity of thinking by an intellect that is never individual or personal but “common” or “general.” In other words, what characterizes Italian biopolitics is a common Averroistic background that offers a way to conceive of power in an affirmative way as the potential or power (dynamis, potentia, potenza) for thought. For Italian biopolitics only a thinking life (zoe) allows subjectivity to discard its Cartesian and attachment to personal identity and become “authentic” in its overcoming of individual self-consciousness thanks to the communitary and communicative dimensions rooted in the power of thought. Negri, Living Labor, and General Intellect
vatter_community_and_subjectivity_in_italian_biopolitics_5.docx