VERNON W. CISNEY AND NICOLAE MORAR
JEFFREY T. NEALON
DAVID M. HALPERIN
Nicolae and Vernon would like to express their gratitude to the following people, without whom this project would never have been possible.
First, we would like to thank our contributors for their excellent essays. They have continually supported our ambitious project and truly shaped this volume. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers. Their generous advice and suggestions for topics and contributors were indispensable in strengthening this work into a solid and rounded collection.
In addition, there are three people to whom we are deeply indebted. To Arnold Davidson, we greatly appreciate your support. You expressed faith in this project from its inception and helped us secure outstanding contributors whom, lets face it, we otherwise would not have gotten. Thank you. Next, Daniel W. Smith, you have been with us since this projects inception. In addition to your guidance, you have been and remain a genuine friend and an inspiration. Thank you. To Leonard Lawlor, few words can capture the gratitude that we feel for your constant support and friendship. You introduced Vernon to the concept of biopower and have advised us through the development of this project. Thank you.
Thank you to the editorial staff at the University of Chicago Press. To Elizabeth Branch Dyson, thank you for your willingness in 2010 to take a chance on two graduate students from Purdue University. Thank you also to Nora Devlin, Kelly Finefrock-Creed, Lisa Wehrle, Ryo Yamaguchi, and the countless typesetters, designers, marketers, and folks behind the scenes who have helped us bring this project to fruition.
Nicolae would like to thank Ted Toadvine, Colin Koopman, and all the members of the Critical Genealogies Collaboratory for their constant encouragements and feedback on early drafts of this book project. Special thanks also to Sebastian Big for having initiated me into reading Michel Foucault.
Vernon would like to thank Steve Gimbel, Kerry Walters, Lisa Portmess, Gary Mullen, Dan DeNicola, and Carol Priest for their support, encouragement, and friendship.
Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to thank our families. Vernon would like to thank his wife, Jody, and their two children, Jacob and Hayley. Jody, for your strength, your unwavering encouragement, love, and support, I thank you; I would not be me without you. Jacob and Hayley, in addition to being two amazing people, you give me countless reasons to smile and are my constant reminders as to why I do what I do; thank you.
Nicolae is always reminded that few things in his life would have been possible without Ancas love and endless support. Words are often poor and bounded to capture my wholehearted thank you.
Vernon W. Cisney and Nicolae Morar
(which is always, at the same time, a thought of the future). Biopower exposes the structures, relations, and practices by which political subjects are constituted and deployed, along with the forces that have shaped and continue to shape modernity. But it is untimely in that its relevance is necessarily dissimulated and maskedthe mechanisms of power always have a way of covering their tracks. Before we can elaborate on this concept of biopowerthe very etymology of which already points us toward the emergence of life into politicsit would behoove us to look at what power itself is, or what we typically think power itself is. For the traditional model of power is precisely what Foucaults concept of biopower assimilates and ultimately surpasses.
An Analytics of Power
What comes to mind when we think of power? Traditionally power was conceived as a commodity or a badge of honor supervening on life and the living, something one either has or lacks. Operating in a top-down manner, the bearer of power dictates, on possible penalty of death, what those not in power may and may not do. In other words, power is strictly delimiting, the conceptual model being that of the sovereign who rules over his (or her) subjects with greater and lesser degrees of legitimacy and severity. To guarantee its legitimacy, power must produce its own bodies of knowledge, its truths. Power, Foucault claims, cannot be exercised unless a certain economy of discourses of truth functions in, on the basis of, and During the mid- to late middle ages, as tensions between the limits of secular authority and those of religious authority began to escalate, the rediscovery of the Corpus Iurus Civilis in about 1070 CE reanimated the Roman codes of juridicality and right, and served to adjudicate matters regarding the expanses and limitations of sovereign power. But whether the concepts of law and right were employed for the purposes of justifying the absolute power of the sovereign or drawing strict limits to it, and whether the sovereign is one, as in a monarchy, or many, as in a representational government, what is never in question is the nature of power relations themselves as a form of delimitation or deduction.
On this model, the relation between the sovereign and the life of his subjects is a dissymmetrical one of permissiveness and seizure. The sovereign is in a position to endanger the lives of his subjectsin cases when society is threatened, he may put them in harms way to defend its (or his) security; and he is also in a position to terminate their livesin extreme cases when they blatantly transgress the laws of the sovereign or directly (or indirectly) threaten his life and the lives of his subjects. The sovereigns power over life is thus the power to