| In this investigation the author discusses the very idea of biopolitics, both as a philosophical concept and as political practice in contemporary society. On the one hand, therefore, the question is one of comparative analysis of biopolitics in philosophical works of Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, while on the other hand, the application of this concept in contemporary political practices in Western and non-Western societies is what is at stake. The author argues that the concept of biopolitics is anti-politics proper and that, consequently, it is the very concept that disables the appearence of a new political subjectivity. In this context, Foucault's articulation of biopolics as neoliberalism, is given primacy over Agamben's and Negri's reflections, since the contemporary paradigmatic phenomena of biopolics cannot be comprehended coming from either the perspective of biopolitics as power of sovereignty or from the idea of "positive biopolitics" manifested in multitude as political subjectivity.;Arguing that biopolitics in the last two decades has most notably been practiced as political technique of dissolution and fragmentation of sovereignty, as Foucault had previously emphasized, the leading trace of the investigation focuses on the tranforming role of law in international relations, and on articulating how the doctrine of liberal interventionism emerges as a continuation of biopolitics. In conclusion the author addresses the issue of potentialities for a new political subjectivity, arguing in favor of democracy, as a name that should not be abandoned. The inner strength and motivating force of the concept of democracy is presented in its interrelation with the concept of the political, in the sense in which it is the place where the ideas of freedom, pluralism, otherness and the will of the people find their meaning and existence. |
