1

!"# %&''&()*+ #,,-. /. 0)&1+)& 2+-3/#* ), /-,#4 &* - '#5671# +)8#* )* 5#*61-' 91-*5#
)* 6"# ,733#1 &% :;<=> ?#,@&*4)*+ 4)1#56'. 6& 1#5#*6 &557@-6)&*, -*4 )*,711#56)&*, A
%1&3 B-)1& -*4 C,6-*/7' 6& D&*4&* -*4 E#( F&1G B)6. A 2+-3/#* /7)'4, 7@&* "),
#H),6)*+ (&1G )* &14#1 6& 4#8#'&@ -*4 5'-1)%. "), 7*4#1,6-*4)*+ &% 6"# @&')6)5-'I -*4 )*
@-16)57'-1I 6"# *&6)&* &% 4#,6)67#*6 @&(#1 J@&6#*K- 4#,6)67#*6#L> C* 5&*61-,6 6&
-66#3@6, 6& -%%)13 - 5&*,6)67#*6 @&(#1 )*4#@#*4#*6 &% - 1#'-6)&* 6& 5&*,6)676#4 @&(#1I
(")5" %&1 2+-3/#* /&6" 1#@1&475# 6"# +&8#1*3#*6-' ,6175671# &% 6"# #H5#@6)&* -*4
1#@1#,#*6 6"# -@#H &% 3#6-@".,)5,I 4#,6)67#*6 @&(#1 &76')*#, - %&15# 6"-6I )* )6, 8#1.
#'-/&1-6)&*I 4#-56)8-6#, 6"# +&8#1*3#*6-' 3-5")*#> 9&1 2+-3/#*I )6 ), )* 6"# ,#*,)/'#
#'-/&1-6)&* &% 6"# /#'&*+)*+ 6&+#6"#1 &% ')%# -*4 %&13I /#)*+ -*4 -56)&*I /#.&*4 -''
1#'-6)&*I 6"-6 6"# )3@-,,# &% 6"# @1#,#*6 ()'' /# &8#15&3#> M'6)3-6#'.I 2+-3/#* @&)*6,
*&6 &*'. 6&(-14, ("-6 )6 3#-*, 6& /# M*+&8#1*-/'#I /76 6"# @&6#*6)-' &% ,6-.)*+ ,&>


"#"$"%&' ()* + &,")*- )( ."'&/&0"%& 1)2"*
3

uioigio Agamben (tianslateu by Stephanie Wakefielu)

1. What was my intention when I began the aicheology of politics that uevelopeu
into the N&3& O-5#1 pioject. Foi me it was not a question of ciiticizing oi coiiecting
this oi that concept, this oi that institution of Westein politics. It was, iathei, fiist
anu foiemost a mattei of shifting the veiy site of politics itself. (Foi centuiies,
politics iemaineu in the same place wheie Aiistotle, then Bobbes anu Naix, situateu
it.)

The fiist act of investigation was theiefoie the iuentification of baie life as the fiist
iefeient anu stake of politics. The oiiginaiy place of Westein politics consists of an
#HP5#@6)&, an inclusive exclusion of human life in the foim of baie life. Consiuei the
peculiaiities of this opeiation: life is not in itself political, it is what must be
excluueu anu, at the same time, incluueu by way of its own exclusion. Life, that is,
the Impolitical (l'C3@&')6)5&), must be politicizeu thiough a complex opeiation that
has the stiuctuie of an exception. The autonomy of the political is founueu, in this
2
sense, on a uivision, an aiticulation, anu an exception of life. Fiom the outset,
Westein politics is biopolitical.

2. The stiuctuie of the exception was iuentifieu in N&3& O-5#1 < staiting fiom
Aiistotle. The exception is an inclusive exclusion. Wheieas the example is an
exclusive inclusion (the example is excluueu fiom the set to which it iefeis, in as
much as it belongs to it), the exception is incluueu in the noimal case thiough its
exclusion.

It is this inclusive exclusion that uefines the oiiginaiy stiuctuie of the -15"Q.
2
The
uialectic of the founuation that uefines Westein ontology since Aiistotle cannot be
unueistoou if one uoes not unueistanu that it functions as an exception in the sense
that we have seen. The stiategy is always the same: something is uiviueu, excluueu,
anu iejecteu at the bottom, anu, thiough this exclusion, is incluueu as the founuation.
This is tiue foi life, which is saiu in many ways vegetative life, sensitive life,
intellectual life, the fiist of which is excluueu to function as the founuation foi the
otheis but also foi being, which is also saiu in many ways (6& &* '#+#6-) @&''-G&,),
one of which will act as founuation.

In the soveieign exception that founus the juiiuical-political system of the West,
what is incluueu thiough its exclusion is baie life. It is impoitant not to confuse baie
life with natuial life. Thiough its uivision anu its captuie in the 4),@&,)6)% of the
exception, life assumes the foim of baie life, life that was uiviueu anu sepaiateu
fiom its foim. It is in this sense that one must unueistanu the asseition at the enu of
N&3& O-5#1 < that "the funuamental activity of soveieign powei is the piouuction of
baie life as the oiiginaiy political element," Anu it is this baie life (oi "sacieu" life, if
,-5#1 uesignates piimaiily a life that can be killeu without committing muiuei) that,
in the juiiuical-political machine of the West, acts as a thiesholu of aiticulation
between K&R anu /)&,, natuial life anu politically qualifieu life. Anu it will not be
possible to think anothei uimension of life if we have not fiist manageu to
ueactivate the 4),@&,)6)% of the exception of baie life.
S

(If we ielate the 4),@&,)6)% of the exception to anthiopogenesis, it is possible that it
will be claiifieu thiough the oiiginal stiuctuie of the event of language. Language, in
its taking place, both sepaiates fiom itself anu incluues in itself life anu the woilu. It
is, in the woius of Nallaim, a beginning that is baseu on the negation of eveiy
piinciple, on its own situation in the -15"Q. The #HP5#@6)&, the inclusive exclusion of
the ieal fiom the logos anu in the logos is thus the oiiginal stiuctuie of the event of
language.)

S. Fuithei ieseaich on the function of the civil wai in classical uieece has helpeu to
claiify the mechanism thiough which life is "politicizeu." Chiistian Neiei has shown
how in fifth centuiy uieece theie occuiieu a tiansfoimation of the constitutional
concept iealizeu thiough what he calls a "politicization" (S&')6),)#17*+) of citizenship.
Wheieas befoie social belonging was uefineu piimaiily by conuitions anu statuses
of vaiious kinus (nobles anu membeis of ieligious communities, peasants anu
meichants, heaus of householus anu ielatives, inhabitants of the city anu of the
countiysiue, loius anu clients) anu only seconuaiily by citizenship with the iights
anu uuties it implieu, now citizenship as such becomes the political ciiteiion of
social iuentity. "Thus was boin," he wiites,

a specifically uieek political iuentity of citizenship. The expectation that
citizens woulu behave 'as citizens' (/T1+#1')5"), that is, in the uieek sense,
'politically,' founu an institutional foim. This iuentity was not significantly
iivaleu by othei gioup loyalties, such as those that constituteu economic,
piofessional, woik, ieligious oi othei communities. To the extent that they
woulu uevote themselves to political life, citizens in the uieek uemociacies
saw themselves piimaiily as paiticipants in the @&'),; anu the @&'), itself was
constituteu essentially by theii shaieu inteiest in oiuei anu justice, which
was the basis of theii soliuaiity.S&'), anu @&')6#)- in this sense uefineu each
othei. Politics thus became foi a ielatively wiue spectium of citizens a vital
content (D#/#*,)*"-'6) anu a foim of life. The @&'), became a spheie of
4
citizens cleaily uistinguisheu fiom the home anu politics a spheie sepaiate
fiom the "iealm of necessity" (-*-*G-)-) (Neiei, 1979, pp. 2u4).

Accoiuing to Neiei, this piocess of politicization of citizenship is specifically uieek
anu has been tiansmitteu fiom uieece, with alteiations anu betiayals of vaiious
kinus, to Westein politics. In the peispective that conceins us heie, it shoulu be
noteu that the politicization of which Neiei speaks came to be situateu in a fielu of
tension between &)G&, anu @&'),, uefineu by the polai opposite piocesses of
politicization anu uepoliticization.

4. Fiom Nicole Loiaux's investigations in "La uueiie uans la Famille" anu !"#
U)8)4#4 B)6.
=
it is possible to unueistanu the function of civil wai in uieece.
Politics piesents itself heie as a fielu of tensions that go fiom the &)G&, to the @&'),,
fiom the impolitical home as the uwelling of K&R, to the city as the sole place of
political action. Loiaux's iuea is that ,6-,), has its oiiginal place in the family, is a
wai between membeis of the same family, of the same &)G&,. I have aiiiveu insteau
at the conclusion that the place of ,6-,), is the thiesholu between &)G&, anu @&'),,
family anu city. O6-,),, civil wai, constitutes a thiesholu, passing thiough which
uomestic belonging is politicizeu in citizenship anu, inveisely, citizenship is
uepoliticizeu in familial soliuaiity.

0nly fiom this peispective can we unueistanu that singulai uocument that is the
law of Solon, which punisheu with -6)3)- (that is, with the loss of civil iights) the
citizen who hau not fought foi one of two siues in a civil wai (as Aiistotle says,
ciuuely: "he who when the city finus itself in a civil wai (,6-,)-K&7,#, 6#, @&'#&,),
uoes not take up aims (6"#6-) 6- &@'-) foi one of the two siues is punisheu with
infamy (-6)3&, #)*-)) anu is excluueu fiom politics (6#, @&'#&, 3# 3#6#5"#)*)."
(Ciceio V@),6. -4 266, X, 1,2 tianslating 5-@)6# ,-*H)6, aptly evokeu 5-@)6),
4)3)*76)&, which coiiesponus to the uieek -6)3)-.)

S
This law seems to confiim beyonu any uoubt the position of civil wai as the
thiesholu of politicizationuepoliticization in the uieek city. Although this
uocument is mentioneu not only by Plutaich, Aulus uellius anu Ciceio, but also with
paiticulai piecision by Aiistotle (26"> B&*,6>, vIII, S), the meaning of ,6-,), that it
implies is appaiently so uisconceiting to mouein histoiians of politics that it has
often been left asiue (so too foi Loiaux, who, although she alluues to it in the book,
uoes not mention it in the aiticle).

Not to take pait in civil wai is equivalent to being expelleu fiom the @&'), anu
confineu to the &)G&,, to leave citizenship to be ieuuceu to the impolitical conuition
of piivate life. This uoes not mean, obviously, that the uieeks thought of civil wai as
a goou thing: but iathei that ,6-,), woiks like a ieagent that uiscloses the political
element in the final instance, as a thiesholu of politicization that itself ueteimines
the political oi nonpolitical chaiactei of a paiticulai being. Since the tensions
(politicalnonpolitical, @&'),&)G&,) aie, as we have seen, contempoianeous, the
thiesholu in which they aie tiansfoimeu anu inveiteu, joineu oi uisjoineu, becomes
uecisive.

S. In the couise of my ieseaich it emeigeu that the funuamental concepts of politics
aie no longei piouuction anu piaxis, but )*&@#1-6)8)6. anu 7,#. A philosophical
ieflection on the concept of "use" is missing. 40se" anu "to use" aie teims that
moueinity has investeu with a stiong "utilitaiian" connotation, tiansfoiming theii
oiiginal sense. An examination of the uieek veib that we tianslate with "to use" -
5"1#,6"-) shows that it uoes not seem to have a meaning of its own, but ueiives its
meaning fiom the teim that follows it, that it is founu in the uative oi in the genitive,
anu nevei, as we woulu expect, in the accusative.

5"1#,6"-) 6"#&)I liteially "to make use of gou" = to consult an oiacle
5"1#,6"-) *&,6&7 I lit. "to use (the) ietuin" = to expeiience nostalgia
5"1#,6"-) '&+&) I lit. "to use language" = to speak
5"1#,6"-) ,.3@"&1-) I lit . "to use misfoitune" = to be unlucky
6
5"1#,6"-) +.*-)G) W lit. "to use a woman" = to have sexual ielations with a woman
5"1#,6"-) .&7 @&'#) W lit . "to make use of the city" = to paiticipate in political life
5"1#,6"-) G#)1) , lit. "to use the hanu" = to stiike with the fist
The veib 5"1#,6"-) is a veib that giammaiians classify as "miuule," that is neithei
active noi passive, but the two togethei.
4
Benveniste's ieseaich on the miuule
shows that, wheieas in the active, the veibs uenote a piocess that is iealizeu
staiting fiom the subject anu outsiue of it, "in the miuule. the veib uenotes a
piocess centeiing in the subject: the subject is inteiioi to the piocess" (Benveniste,
1971, p. 168). Examples of the veibs that have only a miuule voice (3#4)- 6-*673)
illustiate well this peculiai situation of the subject insiue of the piocess of which it is
agent: +)+*&3-), Lat. *-,5&1, be boin; Lat. 3&1)&1, uie; @#*&3-), Lat. @-6)&1, to suffei;
G#)3-), lie; @"-6&, Lat. '&X7&1, speak; %7*+&1, %17&1, +&4#1#, etc.: in all of these cases,
"the subject is the place of the piocess, even if this piocess, as in the case of Latin
%17&1 oi Sanskiit 3-*.-6#, iequiies an object; the subject is the centei anu at the
same time the agent of the piocess: he accomplishes something which is being
accomplisheu in him" (Ibiu).

The opposition with the active is cleai in those miuule voice veibs that also allow an
active voice: G&)3-6-), "he sleeps," in which the subject is inteinal to the piocess,
then becomes G&)3-, "he puts (someone oi something) to sleep, makes one sleep,"
in which the piocess, no longei having its place in the subject, comes to be
tiansfeiieu tiansitively to anothei teim that becomes the object. Beie the subject,
"placeu outsiue of the piocess, now stanus above it as actoi," (Ibiu) anu,
consequently the action must take an exteinal object as its enu. A few lines latei,
Benveniste specifies, uiscussing them in ielation to the active voice, the paiticulai
ielation that the miuule assumes between the subject anu the piocess of which it is
both the agent anu the site: "0ne uebates eveiy time about situating the subject with
iegaiu to the piocess, uepenuing on whethei it is exteinal oi inteinal to it, whethei
it qualifies as agent, uepenuing on whethei it effects an action, in the active, oi
whethei it effects in being affecteu |)' #%%#567# #* ,Y-%%#56-*6j, in the miuule" (Ibiu).
7
Let us ieflect on the singulai foimula thiough which Benveniste tiies to expiess the
meaning of the miuule voice: it effects in being affecteu ()' #%%#567# #* ,Y-%%#56-*6). 0n
the one hanu, the subject that completes the action, foi the veiy fact of completing it,
uoes not act tiansitively on an object, but fiist anu foiemost implies anu affects itself
in the piocess; on the othei hanu, piecisely foi this ieason, the piocess supposes a
singulai topology, in which the subject uoes not stanu above the action, but is itself
the place of its occuiience. As implieu in the uenomination 3#,&6#,, the miuule itself
is situateu, that is, in a zone of inueteimination between subject anu object (the
agent is in some mannei also object anu site of the action) anu between active anu
passive (the agent is being affecteu in its own act).

We can bettei unueistanu, in this "miuule" peispective, the ieason why the object of
the veib 5"1#,6"-) cannot be in the accusative, but is always in the uative oi the
genitive. The piocess uoes not tiavel fiom an active subject towaiu the sepaiate
object of its action, but implicates in itself the subject, in the same measuie in which
it itself implieu in the object anu "is given" to it.

We can now tiy to uefine the meaning of 5"1#,6"-): )6 #H@1#,,#, 6"# 1#'-6)&* 6"-6 &*#
"-, ()6" &*#,#'%I 6"# -%%#56)&* 6"-6 &*# 1#5#)8#, )* -, 375" -, &*# ), )* 1#'-6)&* ()6" -
,@#5)%)5 /#)*+> Be who ,.*@"&1-) 5"1#6-)I expeiiences himself as unlucky, constitutes
anu shows himself as unlucky; he who 76)671 "&*&1# pioves himself anu uefines
himself in the fulfilling of an office oi uuty; he who *&,6"&) 5"1#6-)I expeiiences
himself as affecteu by the uesiie of ietuin.

The iesult is thus a iauical tiansfoimation of the ontology (an ontology in the
miuule voice) of the concept of "subject." Not a subject that uses an object, but a
subject that constitutes itself only thiough the using, the being in ielation with an
othei. Ethical anu political is the subject that constitutes itself in this use, the subject
that testifies of the affection that it ieceives in so fai as it is in ielation with anothei
bouy. M,#I )* 6"), ,#*,#I ), 6"# -%%#56)&* 6"-6 - /&4. 1#5#)8#, )*-,375" -, )6 ), )*
1#'-6)&* ()6" -*&6"#1 /&4. J&1 ()6" &*#Y, &(* /&4. -, &6"#1L>
8

6. 0n the concept of inopeiativity. Inopeiativity uoes not mean ineitia, but names an
opeiation that ueactivates anu ienueis woiks (of economy, of ieligion, of language,
etc.) inopeiative.
S
It is a question, that is, of going back to the pioblem that Aiistotle
fleetingly poseu in the E)5&3-5"#-* V6")5, (1u97 b, 22 sqq), when, in the context of
the uefinition of the object of #@),6#3# @&')6)GQ, of political science, he wonueieu if,
as foi the flute playei, the sculptoi, the caipentei anu eveiy aitisan theie exists a
piopei woik (#1+&*), theie is also foi man as such something like an #1+&* oi if he is
not insteau -1+&,, without woik, inopeiative.

V1+&* of man means in this context not simply "woik," but that which uefines
l'#*#1+#)-, the activity, the being-in-act piopei to man. The question conceining the
woik oi absence of woik of man theiefoie has a uecisive stiategic impoitance, foi
on it uepenus not only the possibility of assigning him a piopei natuie anu essence,
but also, as we have seen, that of uefining his happiness anu his politics. The
pioblem has a wiuei meaning, theiefoie, anu involves the veiy possibility of
iuentifying l'#*#1+#)-I the being-in-act of man as man, inuepenuently anu beyonu the
conciete social figuies that he can assume.

Aiistotle quickly abanuons the iuea of an -1+)-, of an essential inopeiativity of man.
I have sought on the contiaiy, iepiising an ancient tiauition that appeais in
Aveiioes anu in Bante, to think man as the living being without woik, which is to
say, uevoiu of any specific vocation: as a being of puie potentiality (@&6#*K-), that no
iuentity anu no woik coulu exhaust. This essential inopeiativity of man is not to be
unueistoou as the cessation of all activity, but as an activity that consists in making
human woiks anu piouuctions inopeiative, opening them to a new possible use. It is
necessaiy to call into question the piimacy that the leftist tiauition has attiibuteu to
piouuction anu laboi anu to ask whethei an attempt to uefine the tiuly human
activity uoes not entail fiist of all a ciitique of these notions.

9
The mouein epoch, staiting fiom Chiistianity -whose cieatoi uou uefineu himself
fiom the oiigin in opposition to the 4#7, &6)&,7, of the pagans is constitutively
unable to think inopeiativity except in the negative foim of the suspension of laboi.
Thus one of the ways in which inopeiativity has been thought is the feast |'- %#,6-j,
which, on the mouel of the Bebiew Shabbat, has been conceiveu essentially as a
tempoiaiy suspension of piouuctive activity, of 3#'-5"-.

But the feast is not only uefineu by what in it is not uone, but piimaiily by the fact
that what is uone which in itself is not unlike what one uoes eveiy uay becomes
unuone, is ienueieu inopeiative, libeiateu anu suspenueu fiom its "economy," fiom
the ieasons anu aims that uefine it uuiing the weekuays (anu not uoing, in this sense,
is only an extieme case of this suspension). If one eats, it is not uone foi the sake of
being feu; if one gets uiesseu, it is not uone foi the sake of being coveieu up oi
taking sheltei fiom the colu; if one wakes up, it is not uone foi the sake of woiking;
if one walks, it is not uone foi the sake of going someplace; if one speaks, it is not
uone foi the sake of communicating infoimation; if one exchanges objects, it is not
uone foi the sake of selling oi buying.

Theie is no feast that uoes not involve, in some measuie, a uestitutive element, that
uoes not begin, that is, fiist anu foiemost by ienueiing inopeiative the woiks of men.
In the Sicilian feast of the ueau uesciibeu by Piti, the ueau (oi an olu woman
nameu Stiina, fiom ,61#*-, the Latin name foi the gifts exchangeu uuiing the
festivities at the beginning of the yeai) steal goous fiom tailois, meichants, anu
bakeis to then bestow them on chiluien (something similai to this happens in eveiy
feast that involves gifts, like Balloween, in which the ueau aie impeisonateu by
chiluien). In eveiy cainival feast, such as the Roman satuinalia, existing social
ielations aie suspenueu oi inveiteu: not only uo slaves commanu theii masteis, but
soveieignty is placeu in the hanus of a mock king (,-671*-')5)7, @1)*5#@,) who takes
the place of the legitimate king. In this way the feast ieveals itself to be above all a
ueactivation of existing values anu poweis. "Theie aie no ancient feasts without
uance," wiites Lucian, but what is uance othei than the libeiation of the bouy fiom
1u
its utilitaiian movements, the exhibition of gestuies in theii puie inopeiativity. Anu
what aie masks which play a iole in vaiious ways in the feasts of many peoples
if not, essentially, a neutialization of the face.

0nly if it is consiueieu in this peispective can the feast fuinish a paiauigm foi
thinking inopeiativity as a mouel of politics.

An example will allow us to claiify how one must unueistanu this "inopeiative
opeiation." What is a poem, in fact, if not an opeiation taking place in language that
consists in ienueiing inopeiative, in ueactivating its communicative anu infoimative
function, in oiuei to open it to a new possible use. What the poem accomplishes foi
the potentiality of speaking, politics anu philosophy must accomplish foi the powei
of acting. Renueiing inopeiative the biological, economic anu social opeiations, they
show what the human bouy can uo, opening it to a new possible use.

7. If the funuamental ontological question touay is not woik but inopeiativity, anu if
this inopeiativity can, howevei, only be ueployeu thiough a woik, then the
coiiesponuing political concept can no longei be that of "constituent powei" |@&6#1#
5&*,6)67#*6#j, but something that coulu be calleu "uestituent powei " |@&6#*K-
4#,6)67#*6#j. Anu if ievolutions anu insuiiections coiiesponu to constituent powei,
that is, a violence that establishes anu constitutes the new law, in oiuei to think a
uestituent powei we have to imagine completely othei stiategies, whose uefinition
is the task of the coming politics. A powei that was only just oveithiown by violence
will iise again in anothei foim, in the incessant, inevitable uialectic between
constituent powei anu constituteu powei, violence which makes the law anu
violence that pieseives it.

It is a mattei of a concept that is only just beginning to appeai in contempoiaiy
political ieflection. Along these lines, Tionti alluues in an inteiview to the iuea of a
"poteie uestituente" without managing in any way to uefine it.
6
Be, who came fiom
a tiauition in which the iuentification of a subjectivity was the funuamental political
11
element, seems to link it to the twilight of political subjectivities. Foi us, who begin
fiom that twilight, anu fiom the putting into question of the veiy concept of
subjectivity, the pioblem piesents itself in uiffeient teims.

It is a "uestitution" of this type that Benjamin imagineu in the essay B1)6)X7# &%
Z)&'#*5#, tiying to uefine a foim of violence that escapeu this uialectic: "on the
bieaking of this cycle that plays out in the spheie of the mythical foim of law, on the
uestitution (V*6,#6K7*+) of law with all the poweis on which it uepenus (as they
uepenu on it), ultimately theiefoie on the uestitution of state violence, a new
histoiical epoch founus itself" (Benjamin, 1977, p. 2u2). Now what uoes "to uestitute
law" mean. Anu what is a uestituent violence that is anu not only constitutive.

0nly a powei that is maue inopeiative anu ueposeu is completely neutializeu.
Benjamin locateu this "uestituent powei" in the pioletaiian geneial stiike, which
Soiel opposeu to the simply political stiike. While the suspension of woik in the
political stiike is violent, "because it causes (8#1-*'-,,6, "occasions," "inuuces") only
an extianeous mouification of woiking conuitions, the othei, as puie means, is
without violence" (Ibiu, p. 194;). Inueeu, this uoes not entail the iesumption of woik
"following exteinal concessions anu some mouifications to woiking conuitions," but
the uecision to iesume only a woik completely tiansfoimeu anu non-imposeu by the
state, that is, an "upheaval that this kinu of stiike not so much causes (8#1-*'-,,6) as
iealizes (8&''K)#"6)" (Ibiu). The uiffeience between 8#1-*'-,,#*, "to inuuce, to
piovoke," anu 8&''K)#"*, "to accomplish, to iealize," expiesses the opposition
between constituent powei, that uestioys anu always iecieates new foims of law,
without evei completely uestituting it, anu uestituent powei, which, in ueposing law
once anu foi all, immeuiately inauguiates a new ieality. "It follows that the fiist of
these opeiations is lawmaking but the seconu anaichic" (Ibiu).

An example of a uestituent stiategy that is neithei uestiuctive noi constituent is that
of Paul faceu with the question of law.

Paul expiesses the ielationship between the
messiah anu the law with the veib G-6-1+#)*, which means to ienuei inopeiative
12
(-1+&,), to ueactivate (Estienne's !"#,-717, suggests, 1#4& -#1+&* #6 )*#%%)5-5#3I
%-5)& 5#,,-1# -/ &@#1# ,7&I 6&''&I -/&'#&). Thus Paul can wiite that the messiah "will
ienuei inopeiative (G-6-1+#,#) all iule (@&6#1#), all authoiity, anu all powei
(@&6#*K-)" (1 B&1)*6")-*, 1S,24) anu, at the same time, that "the messiah is the telos
that is the enu anu fulfillment of the law" (?&3-*, 1u:4): inopeiativity anu
fulfillment coinciue heie peifectly. In anothei passage, he says of the believeis that
they "have been ienueieu inopeiative (G-6-1+#6"#3#*) with iespect to the law"
(?&3 7, S-6). The customaiy tianslations of this veib with "to uestioy, to abolish"
aie not coiiect (the vulgate expiesses it moie cautiously with #8-57-1)), all the
moie so because Paul in a famous passage ueclaies to want "to holu fiim the law"
(*&3&* ),6-*&3#* -?&3 S: S1). Luthei, with an intuition whose impoitance must
not have escapeu Begel, tianslates G-6-1+#)* with -7%"#/#*, that is, with a veib that
means as much "to abolish" as "to conseive."

In any case, it is ceitain that foi Paul it is not a question of uestioying the law, which
is "holy anu just," but of ueactivating its action with iegaiu to sin, because it is
thiough the law that the people know sin anu uesiie: "I woulu not have known
uesiie, if the law hau not saiu: 'uo not uesiie: taking impulse fiom the
commanument, sin has maue opeiative (G-6#)1+-,-6&, has activateu) in me eveiy
uesiie" (?&3 7:8).

It is this opeiativity of the law that the messianic faith neutializes anu ienueis
inopeiative, without theieby abolishing the law. The law "helu fiim" is a law
uepiiveu of its powei of commanu - that is, it is a law no longei of the
commanuments anu of woik (*&3&, 6&* #*6&'&* -V@"#,)-*, 2,1S; 6&* #1+&* -?&3
S:27), but of faith (*&3&, @),6#&, -Ibiu.). Anu in its essence, faith is not a woik, but
an expeiience of the woiu ("faith fiom the heaiing anu heaiing thiough the woiu" -
?&3 1u:17).

0n the othei hanu, Paul, in a uecisive passage of 1 B&1)*6")-*, 7, uefines the
Chiistian foim of life thiough the foimula "[, 3\ (as not): "But this I say, biethien,
1S
time contiacteu itself, the iest is, that even those having wives may be as not having,
anu those weeping as not weeping, anu those iejoicing as not iejoicing, anu those
buying as not possessing, anu those using the woilu as not using it up. Foi passing
away is the figuie of this woilu."
7


The "as not" is a uestitution without iefusal. To live in the foim of the as-not means
to ueactivate eveiy juiiuical anu social piopeity, without establishing a new iuentity.
A foim-of-life is, in this sense, that which unielentingly ueposes the social
conuitions in which it finus itself living, without negating them, but simply using
them. If, wiites Paul, in the moment of the call you founu youiself in the conuition of
the slave, uo not woiiy: but if you woulu also be maue fiee, use (5"1#,-)) youi
conuition of the slave (1 B&1. 7:21). "0se" names heie the ueposing potentiality in
the Chiistian foim of life, which uestitutes "the figuie of this woilu (6& ,5"#3- 6&7
G&,3&7 6&76&7)".

It is this uestituent potentiality that both the anaichist tiauition anu 2u
th
centuiy
thought sought to uefine without evei actually succeeuing. The uestiuction of
tiauition by Beiueggei, the ueconstiuction of the -15"Q anu the fiactuiing of the
hegemonies by Schimann, anu what, on the tiail of Foucault, I have calleu
"philosophical aichaeology," they aie all peitinent, but insufficient, attempts to
ietuin to an histoiical - @1)&1) in oiuei to uestitute it. But also a goou pait of the
piactice of the aitistic avant-gaiue anu of the political movements of oui time can be
seen as the attempt so often miseiably faileu to caiiy out a uestitution of woik,
that has enueu insteau with the iecieation of poweis even moie oppiessive in as
much as they hau been uepiiveu of any legitimacy.

The uestitution of powei anu of its woiks is an aiuuous task, because it is fiist of all
anu only in a foim-of-life that it can be caiiieu out. 0nly a foim-of-life is
constitutively uestituent.

14
The Latin giammaiians calleu ueponents (4#@&,)6)8-I oi, also, absolutive oi supine)
those veibs that, similai in this iegaiu to the miuule veibs, cannot piopeily be
calleu active oi passive: ,#4#&I ,74&I 4&13)&I )-5#&I-'+#&I ,)6)&I #,71)&I +-74#&. What
uo the miuule oi ueponent veibs "uepose". They uo not expiess an opeiation, iathei
they uepose it, neutialize anu ienuei it inopeiative anu, in this way, expose it. The
subject is not meiely, in the woius of Benveniste, inteinal to the piocess, but, having
ueposeu its action, it is exposeu anu put in question togethei with it. In this sense,
these veibs can offei the paiauigm to think in a new way not only action anu piaxis,
but also the theoiy of the subject.

8. Benjamin once wiote that theie is nothing moie anaichic than the bouigeois
oiuei. In the same sense, Pasolini makes one of the +#1-15") in Salo say that the tiue
anaichy is that of powei. If this is tiue, one unueistanus then why the thought that
tiies to think anaichy iemains tiappeu in apoiia anu contiauictions without enu.
Since powei (']-15"Q) constitutes itself thiough the inclusive exclusion (the #HP
5#@6)&) of anaichy, the only possibility of thinking a tiue anaichy coinciues with the
exhibition of the anaichy inteinal to powei. Anaichy is that which becomes possible
only in the moment that we giasp anu uestitute the anaichy of powei. The same
goes foi eveiy attempt to think anomy: it becomes accessible only thiough the
exhibition anu the ueposition of the anomy that law has captuieu within itself in the
state of exception. This is tiue as well foi the thought that seeks to conceive 6"# "a-
uemy," the absence of a 4#3&, oi people that uefines uemociacy (I use heie the teim
"auemy" because a people that must be iepiesenteu is by uefinition absent). 0nly
the exhibition of the -4#3. inteinal to uemociacy allows us to uepose the fiction of
a people that it pietenus to iepiesent.

In all of these cases, constitution coinciues without iemainuei with uestitution;
positing has no othei consistency than in ueposing.

Befining the 4),@&,)6)% of the exception as a stiuctuie of the -15"Q yielus an
impoitant consequence. Since powei functions thiough the inclusive exclusion of
1S
anaichy, of anomie, of inopeiativity, etc., it is not possible to access these
uimensions uiiectly: it is necessaiy fiist to exhibit the foim in which they aie
captuieu in powei. Something is "excepteu" in the state anu, in this way,
"politicizeu": but, foi that to happen, it is necessaiy that it be ieuuceu to the state of
"nuuity" (baie life, anaichy as wai of all against all, anomie as being-in-foice
|8)+#*K-j without application, auemy as foimless multituue). We know of life only
baie life (seeing that the meuicalization of life is an integial pait of the political
4),@&,)6)%), of anomy we see only chaos anu the state of exception, of anaichy we
unueistanu only the wai of all against all, etc.

Bence the impoitance of ieseaich such as that of Illich, of Clasties, anu of Sigiist,
showing that theie aie veinaculai figuies of anomic communities that have a
completely uiffeient chaiactei. When one wants to iecovei life, anaichy, anomie anu
auemy in theii tiuth, it is necessaiy theiefoie fiist to ielease oneself fiom the foim
that they have ieceiveu in the exception. This is not howevei only a theoietical task:
it can occui only though a foim-of-life.

By the teim %&13P&%P')%#I we mean a life that can nevei be sepaiateu fiom its foim, a
life in which it is nevei possible to isolate something like a baie life. A life that
cannot be sepaiateu fiom its foim is a life foi which, in its way of living, what is at
stake is living itself, anu, in its living, what is at stake above all else is its moue of
living. What is at stake5 then, is a life in which the single ways, acts anu piocesses of
living aie nevei simply %-56,, but always anu above all @&,,)/)')6)#, of life, always anu
above all potentiality |@&6#*K-j.

Tiqqun has uevelopeu this uefinition in thiee theses, stating that, 1) !"# "73-*
7*)6. ), *&6 6"# /&4. &1 6"# )*4)8)47-'I /76 6"# %&13P&%P')%#I that 2) #-5" /&4. ), -%%#56#4
/. )6, %&13P&%P')%# -, /. - 5')*-3#*I -* -661-56)&*I - 6-,6#I anu that S) 3. %&13P&%P')%#
1#'-6#, *&6 6& ("-6 C -3I /76 6& "&( C -3 ("-6 C -3.
8


16
Beie it is necessaiy to ieplace the ontology of ,7/,6-*5# with an ontology of "&(, an
ontology of mouality. The uecisive pioblem is no longei "what" I am, but "how" I am
what I am. It is necessaiy, in this sense, to iauicalize the Spinozan thesis accoiuing
to which theie is only being (substance) anu its moues oi mouifications. Substance
is not something that pieceues the moues anu exists inuepenuently fiom them.
Being is not othei than its moues, substance is only its mouifications, its own "how"
(its own X7&P3&4&).

Noual ontology makes it possible to go beyonu the ontological uiffeience that has
uominateu the Westein conception of being. Between being anu moues the ielation
is neithei of iuentity noi of uiffeience because the moue is at once iuentical anu
uiffeient oi, iathei, it implies the coinciuence that is the falling togethei |5-4#1#
)*,)#3#j of the two teims. In this sense, the pioblem of the pantheist iisk is bauly
put: the Spinozist syntagma U#7, ,)8# (oi) *-671- uoes not mean "uou=natuie": the
,)8# (whethei ,)8# ueiives fiom the conuitional anu concessive ,) oi the anaphoiic
,)5) expiesses the moualization, that is, the neutializing anu the failuie as much of
iuentity as of uiffeience. What is uivine is not being in itself, but its own ,)8#, its own
always alieauy mouifying anu 4natuiing"being boin in the moues.
Noual ontology means iethinking fiom the stait the pioblem of the ielation
between potentiality anu act. The mouification of being is not an opeiation in which
something passes fiom potentiality to act, iealizes anu exhausts itself in this. What
ueactivates opeiativity in a foim-of-life is an expeiience of potentiality oi habit, it is
the habitual use of a potentiality that manifests itself as powei of not (Aiistotle calls
it uouvulu, )3@&6#*6)-')6., foimulating the axiom accoiuing to which, "all
potentiality is, on the basis of the same anu with iespect to the same, impotentiality"
(^#6.1u46, Su-S1). The uestitution of the being-in-woik of the woik (of its
#*#1+#)-) cannot be caiiieu out by anothei woik, but only by a potentiality that
iemains as such anu shows itself as such. Aiistotle (Be Anima 429 b 9-1u) wiote
that thought, when it thinks in act each of the intelligibles, iemains in some way in
potentiality anu is thus able to think itself. It is only this iiieuucible iemainuei of
17
potentiality that makes the uestitution of woik possible. To uestitute woik means in
this sense to ietuin it to the potentiality fiom which it oiiginates, to exhibit in it the
impotentiality that ieigns anu enuuies theie.

All living beings aie )* a foim of life, but not all -1# (oi aie not always) a foim-of-life.
In the moment that the foim-of-life constitutes itself, it ueactivates anu ienueis
inopeiative not only all the inuiviuual foims of life, but fiist of all the 4),@&,)6)% that
sepaiates baie life fiom life. It is only in living a life that a foim-of-life can constitute
itself as the inopeiativity immanent in eveiy life> The constitution of a foim-of-life
coinciues, that is, completely with the uestitution of the social anu biological
conuitions into which it finus itself thiown. The foim-of-life is, in this sense, the
ievocation of all factical vocations, which ueposes anu puts in tension fiom within
the same gestuie by which it is maintaineu anu uwells in them> It is not a question of
thinking a bettei oi moie authentic foim of life, a supeiioi piinciple oi an elsewheie,
which aiiives fiom outsiue the foims of life anu the factical vocations to ievoke anu
ienuei them inopeiative. Inopeiativity is not anothei woik that appeais to woiks
fiom out of nowheie to ueactivate anu uepose them: it coinciues completely anu
constitutively with theii uestitution, ()6" ')8)*+ - ')%#. Anu this uestitution is the
coming politics.

0ne unueistanus, then, the essential function that the tiauition of Westein
philosophy has assigneu to the contemplative life (to 6"#&1)-) anu to inopeiativity:
piaxis, the piopeily human life is that which, ienueiing inopeiative the specific
woiks anu functions of the living, makes them, so to speak, spin iule |+)1-1# - 87&6&j,
anu, in this way, opens them to possibility. Contemplation anu inopeiativity aie, in
this sense, the metaphysical opeiatois of anthiopogenesis, which, fieeing the living
being fiom eveiy biological oi social uestiny anu fiom eveiy pieueteimineu task,
ienueis it open foi that paiticulai absence of woik that we aie accustomeu to
calling "politics" anu "ait." Politics anu ait aie neithei tasks noi simply "woiks":
they name, iathei, the uimension in which the linguistic anu coipoieal, mateiial anu
18
immateiial, biological anu social opeiations aie maue inopeiative anu contemplateu
as such.

!"#"$"%&"'

Benjamin, W 1977 "_71 Kiitik 4)# 0#(-'6" in 0#,-33#'6# O5"1)%6#* II, 1, Fiankfuit am
Nain, Suhikamp. English tianslation: "Ciitique of violence" in ?#%'#56)&*, Eu. P
Bemetz, Tians. E }ephcott (Baicouit, New Yoik), pp. 277-Suu.

Beveniste, E 1971 S1&/'#3) 4) D)*+7),6)5- 0#*#1-'# (Nilano, Saggiatoie); Benveniste,
E 1971 S1&/'#3, )* 0#*#1-' D)*+7),6)5,, Tians. N E Neek (0niveisity of Niami Piess,
Coial uabes, FL).

Neiei, C 1979 "Bei Wanuel uei politisch-sozialen Begiiffswelt im v }ahihunueit v.
Chi." in N),6&1),5"# O#3-*6)G 7*4 `#+1)%%,+#,5")5"6# Eu. R Koselleck (Klett-Cotta,
Stttgait) pp. 19S-227. Foi a ieviseu anu expanueu veision of this aiticle in English,
see Neiei, C 199u "Changing Politicosocial Concepts in the Fifth Centuiy B.C." in !"#
01##G U),5&8#1. &% S&')6)5, (Baivaiu 0niveisity Piess, Cambiiuge) pp. 1S7-18S.



3
S&6#*K- 4#,6)67#*6# is tianslateu heie as "uestituent powei" in oiuei to emphasize
the sense of an act in the miuule voice, a powei that is, in its elaboiation, uestituting,
iathei than the action of a subject &* an object (see section S, below). Thanks to
Setiag Nanoukian anu Robeit Builey foi suggesting impiovements to the
tianslation.
2
Agamben uses the teim -15"Q (oiigin, founuation) not to inuicate a single point
localizable in the past, but to iuentify a 'uouble aiticulation' of goveinment as at
once cieation anu auministiation, theieby conseiving that which is cieateu. Cf.
Agamben, u 2u11 "What is a Commanument." Lectuie given at Kingston 0niveisity
Naich 28. Tiansciipt available at http:
waltenuewalt.woiupiess.com2u11u4u1uioigio-agamben-what-is-a-
commanument-uouvov. See also Agamben, u 2u11 !"# a)*+4&3 -*4
6"# 0'&1.b 9&1 - !"#&'&+)5-' +#*#-'&+. &% V5&*&3. -*4 0&8#1*3#*6 (Stanfoiu
0niveisity Piess, Stanufoiu)
19

S
Loiaux, N 1997 "La gueiie uans la Famille", B')&, S, 21-62; Loiaux, N 2uu1 !"#
U)8)4#4 B)6.b c* ^#3&1. -*4 9&1+#66)*+ )* 2*5)#*6 26"#*, Tians. C Pache, C anu }
Foit (one Books, Biooklyn, NY. 0iiginally publisheu as 2uuS, D- B)6Q U)8),Q#b DY&7/')
4-*, '- ^Q3&)1# 4Y26"R*#,, Payot, Paiis.
4
The miuule voice no longei exists in the English language.
S
Poitions of section 7 also appeai in Agamben, u. 2uu9, E74)6)#,, Tians. Kishik, B
anu Peuatella, S, Stanfoiu 0niveisity Piess, Stanfoiu. The tianslation has been
slightly alteieu.
6
Tionti, N 2uu8 "Sul Poteie Bestituente. Biscussione con Naiio Tionti" in S&78&)1
U#,6)67-*6b D#, ?Q8&'6#, ^Q61&@&')6-)*#,dS&6#1# U#,6)67#*6#b D# 1)8&'6# 3#61&@&')6-*#
(Nimesis: 0uine) pp. 2S-S2
7
As tianslateu in Agamben, u, 2uuS, !"# !)3# !"-6 ?#3-)*,b 2 B&33#*6-1. &* 6"#
D#66#1 6& 6"# ?&3-*,, Tians. Bailey, P, Stanfoiu 0niveisity Piess, Stanfoiu, p. 2S
6
Agamben heie is iefeiencing Tiqqun, 2u1u, C*61&4756)&* 6& B)8)' e-1, Los Angeles,
Semiotext(e))