What Is an Apparatus? and Other Essays (Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Agamben's latest, "What is an Apparatus?", is problematic for a number of reasons.

The first reason has to do with it as a commodity. It has become common in academic book publishing to print what are essentially essays in book form, and then to ask for an unequal price in exchange. This book is a collection of three essays. But even that is generous. The essays, so-called, are extremely short and resemble more notations than anything else. They have very little to do with each other thematically, which gives the suspicion that they were chosen haphazardly to put out this book. The 80 pages is generous, seeing the page is the size of an index card, and the font is extremely large. I venture to guess that it could have been a 30 page book. However, Stanford is asking almost $16 for it. The decision to move forward with the publication of this book owes to one of two reasons: either, the press feels Agamben's name is so recognizable that it can get away with it, or, Agamben or his associates feels he is so important that there is a clamor for his latest rough drafts.

The second real problem is theoretical. The title essay wants to make one point. Biopolitics is an analysis that has on one hand "living substance" and on the other hand "apparatuses." The application of appartassuses to living substance produces a third category "subject," but the application itself is inherently violent and trecherous. Theoretically, to believe in something called "living substance" is to point to an ahistorical phenomenon. Such a thing does not exist. Life was never this "living substance." From the moment God put Adam in the Garden of Eden, life was always "formed." Life is always itself an apparatus. If biopolitics is ultimately a justification and defense of "living substance," then it is difficult to see why anyone should get involved.

The third problem is Agamben's opinion that the worst apparatus in history is not the concentration camp or the asylum, but rather, the cell phone. Agamben admits he has murderous desires whenever he sees someone using a cell phone. This is the worst kind of argument. Only a highly compensated, globe trodding, academic would utter such ridiculous nonsense. It is indeed sad that the man who came to fame by being the most astute analyst of the camp has been reduced to a grumpy old man complaining about the new generation and their noisy technology.

Save your money, and support your local library.

First off, I've always enjoyed reading Agamben's work. But something's off here.

I heard the first essay "What is an Apparatus?" when Agamaben "read" it for a lecture 3 years ago. (A work in progress, etc, so I suppose everyone cut him a lot of slack for the sketchiness of the idea. At least, I did.)
It was exciting to hear at the time because some of the ideas seemed fresh and cogent. Since hearing the lecture, I've looked forward to reading a fully developed version later in a book form. Well, this is exactly the same lecture, not a fully fleshed out version. What a disappointment!
Agamben's ideas here are not put forward as arguments. The logic is either weak or non-existent. No footnotes, no citations. At best, there is the beginning of an attempt at an "archeology" with regard to the notion of Oikonomia/economy. "Are ya ready to rock!? A one, a two, three, and... goodnight!!"

Here, Agamben begins to, and only begins to, say something about the word 'dispositif' that Foucault used without ever explicitly defining. So, Agamben translates it into English as 'apparatus'. The word, as Foucault used it, more or less means -- if I may translate -- something like a 'reticule/web/net of conduits of power distribution/circulation'. Like a net(work), it is used to trap and entangle one in a complex web of obligations, submissions, etc. In a word, it is precisely that which makes one unfree, while giving one the means to figure that fact out.

'Dispositif' is not a thing but a webbing of things that artificially creates a system of relationship among things as Power sees fit. Thus, 'dispositif' includes just about anything and everything mad-made, and used to construct civilization: laws, architecture, religion, morality, education, etc. Not surprisingly, language itself is the first, and the most universal dispositif. In that sense, 'dispositif' is something like Power "Meridians" (as in acupuncture) that courses through the Political Body of the State. All well and good, but all that was Foucault. (Nor is the word all that mysterious if one thinks about it. Just because some Frenchmen made their careers out of being obfuscating does not mean we all must wallow in the same turgid turbidity.)

OK, so, where does Agamben want to take this? That we must figure out how to free ourselves from all forms of entrapment that dispositif has to offer. One more to add to the list of the "political tasks of the future". (Roll eyes. WTF? Didn't people like Jesus and Siddhartha do this gig already?)

Agamben, by way of expressing his hatred for the ubiquitous cellphone, introduces the idea that 'Economy' as such is the most extensive and dominant form of 'dispositif' today.
Enter the Church Fathers who coined the term 'Oikonomia' -- as a theological concept to explain how God "manages" his "household" consisting of the Trinity. It is this word, and the "Globalatinized" world that came to be structured accordingly, that ultimately came to be transmogrified into our world's obsession with "It's the Economy, stupid!" over all other concerns that affect the possibility of a well-lived life as a mortal.

Agamben is skillful with words: he pulls out obscure concepts from classical texts, and often stacks the deck to weave a story that 'seem' convincing because he tells it so well. That's first time around. But upon more critical reading, you can see that what he has to offer are 'Wouldn't-it-be-great-IF' sort of scenarios. The same kind of "fireside chat" can be found in his 'Profanations'.

My feeling is that people who like Agamben's work are now so favorably tilted to agree with him on just about everything that he and his publisher think he can get away with this sort of publication. Or he's just tired, needs the money, etc.

As an aside: Among musicians, instrumentalists tend to get better with age. Vocalists, on the other hand, must endure the humiliation of failure that bodily decay brings. Perhaps this is the price that must be paid by all whose fame was obtained through the sorcery of (insincere use of) words.

And now for something entirely irrelevant:

This whole 'Theory business' ("radical" thinking, etc) is in itself a 'dispositif', and of a rather insidiously deleterious kind. So many people cling to it as if it were a religion. So many people make a point of being "radical"... about thinkin' -- so they can land a university job, and collect a check every month. Sheesh, how liberating is that?

My 2 cents: Theory as a road map? OK, but where to? Roads all look like lines on a map, whatever part of the map. One line is as good as another. Stop clinging to "professional thinkers" to show you the way. BE the path YOU want to be on.