When did biopolitics begin? : Actuality and potentiality in historical events

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ When did biopolitics begin? : Actuality and potentiality in historical events © 2022 the Author Published version Prozorov, Sergei Prozorov, S. (2022). When did biopolitics begin? : Actuality and potentiality in historical events. European Journal of Social Theory, 25(4), 539-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310221077198 2022 Article When did biopolitics begin? Actuality and potentiality in historical events Sergei Prozorov University of Jyva ¨skyla ¨, Jyva ¨skyla ¨, Finland Abstract The article addresses the ongoing debate about the origins of biopolitics. While Foucault’s analysis of biopolitics approached it as a modern rationality of government, Agamben’s Homo Sacer series presented biopolitics as having a longer provenance, dating back to the antiquity. These polar positions are not mutually exclusive but coexist in these and other theories of biopolitics, which approach its object as both modern and ancient, having its chronological origin in the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries yet also possessing a prehistory of precursors. The article interprets this dual origin in terms of Paolo Virno’s theory of historical temporality, which distinguishes between the chronological past of historical events and their potential past, which accompanies and is negated in them. Coexisting with its own unrealized potential, every historical event remains incomplete and extends itself both backwards and forwards, positing its precursors and prefiguring its future outcomes. While modern in the chronological sense, biopolitics is retrospectively inscribed in a longer historical lineage, its antecedents easily identifiable in the history of political thought. Finally, we apply this approach to Virno’s own account of the history of biopolitics, questioning his identification of past potential with labour-power. Keywords Biopolitics, Giorgio Agamben, Michel Foucault, Paolo Virno, potentiality, Roberto Esposito, temporality Corresponding author: Sergei Prozorov, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyva ¨skyla ¨, 40014, Jyva ¨skyla ¨, Finland. Email: [email protected] European Journal of Social Theory 1–20 ªThe Author(s) 2022 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/13684310221077198 journals.sagepub.com/home/est Introduction One of the most persistent debates in the studies of biopolitics concerns the question of its origin. Is biopolitics a modern phenomenon, coextensive with industrial capitalism, nationalism or liberalism, or does it have a longer historical lineage, perhaps even dating back to the antiquity? While the original articulation of the problematic in the work of Michel Foucault approached biopolitics as a specifically modern rationality of government, Giorgio Agamben’s attempt to ‘correct or at least complete’ Foucault in his Homo Sacer series (Agamben, 1998, p. 9) posited biopolitics as ‘at least as old as the sovereign exception’ (ibid.: 6). These approaches form two polarities, between which the debate has unfolded, its participants not merely subscribing to either of these positions, but also developing their own interpretations of the origin of biopolitics, which could be found in economic liberalism (Collier, 2011), Darwinism (Tarizzo, 2017), Spinoza (Gratton, 2013), colonialism (Weheliye, 2014), sentimentalism (Schuller, 2018) and romanticism (Mitchell, 2021). The question of when biopolitics began is important for understanding its specificity as rationality of government. If biopolitics is modern, then it can be understood on par with capitalism, the rise of nation states, urbanization and so on as one of the transformations defining the modern era. If it is ancient, then it must then be understood in a more overarching way as the essence of political power as such, its specific difference from other governmental rationalities becoming occluded. Thus, the proponents of the modernity of biopolitics tend to highlight its ongoing transformations in late or postmodernity, thinking in terms of periods measured in decades: welfarism, neoliberalism, post-Fordism and so on (see Dean, 2010, pp. 117–153, 175–203). In contrast, the proponents of the ancient or at least premodern origins of biopolitics understandably think in terms of continuities across centuries (Meloni, 2020). By the same token, the proponents of modernity of biopolitics are rather more likely to argue that this modern invention is soon to be obsolete, to be replaced by something new and postmodern (e.g. ‘psychopolitics’; see Han, 2017, Stiegler, 2008) than the proponents of the ancient origin of biopolitics, whose views of what could possibly lie beyond biopolitics tend to be as radical as they are vague (Agamben, 2016, pp. 263–279). In short, where one stands on the question of the origins of biopolitics has important implications for one’s very concept of biopolitics and theoretical approach to it. And yet, while the debate is ongoing, its opposing positions well-rehearsed, it increasingly appears to be futile and fruitless. No amount of evidence offered by the proponents of the modern origins is likely to convince those who believe the evidence should rather be sought in a different millennium entirely. Conversely, no amount of references to Aristotle would convince those who define biopolitics as conditioned by specifically modern innovations in both power and knowledge, be it biology and statistics, economics and public health. Both sides appear to be correct in the thesis they advance yet incorrect in dismissing the theses advanced by their adversaries. Could the problem be simply a matter of different definitions of biopolitics? Depending on one’s theoretical orientation, biopolitics could then have different chronological origins. For instance, biopolitics defined in the more economic terms could be dated to the emergence of industrial capitalism (Collier, 2011), while biopolitics defined in terms 2European Journal of Social Theory XX(X) of the foundation of state power on the biological features of the population could be dated back to the later emergence of nationalism and state racism (Weheliye, 2014). The debate on origins is then a debate between different conceptions of biopolitics and hence need not be resolved in any definitive way, since it is a laudable example of theoretical pluralism. Convenient as it might be, this solution remains too simplistic. This is not merely because it would be difficult to study something whose very origin remains disputable. More importantly, the dispute in question takes place not between theoretical schools or approaches but within them. As we shall demonstrate in the following section, the origin of biopolitics is always double, its usually modern chronological dating accompanied by another, usually earlier ‘pre-history’ that remains ambiguous yet essential to it. In the analyses of biopolitics after Foucault, biopolitics is neither ancient nor modern but always in some sense both: ancient but only revealed in modernity or modern but prepared by centuries of political thought. In section ‘The double past: Chronological actuality and past potential’, we shall further elucidate this double past by engaging with Paolo Virno’s theory of historical temporality. Virno approaches historical events as always involving both chronological and actual origins and a potential past which cannot be fitted into chronological history but rather coexists with every chronological ‘now’ as the latent ‘not now’, simultaneously negated and preserved in it. This approach permits us to reframe the debate on the origins of biopolitics as a debate between two no longer mutually exclusive perspectives based on the coexistence of chronological and potential modalities of the past in every historical event. While the perspective of prefiguration moves from the chronological moment into the future, focusing on how its potential is realized and negated in new configurations of biopolitics, the perspective of retrospection moves from the chronological moment back into the past in order to find its antecedents that were not fully realized in the past and thus coexist virtually with this moment. In section ‘Duality of the origin: Retrospection and prefiguration’, we apply this approach to Virno’s own analysis of biopolitics, which interprets it as the rise of the past potential of capitalism, which he defines in terms of labour-power, to appearance within the chronological moment itself. In contrast to Virno, we shall interpret labourpower in Foucauldian terms, not as the past potential conserved and negated by capitalism but rather as the effect of the capitalist organization of labour. The potential that is negated by this organization is not labour-power but life as such, whose entry into history conditions the rise of capitalism without being reducible to it. In the conclusion, we address the implications of our reframing of the debate on origins for the studies of biopolitics. Modern, ancient or both: Dating biopolitics Michel Foucault’s introduction of the problematic of biopolitics in The History of Sexuality clearly presents it as a modern phenomenon, ‘starting in the seventeenth century’ (Foucault, 1990, p. 138). The shift from the sovereign power of death to power over life took two forms, still ‘clearly separate in the eighteenth century’ (ibid., p. 140): the anatomo-politics of the body emerging in the disciplinary institutions and the biopolitics Prozorov 3 of the population exemplified by the developments in statistics and demography as well as the innovations in economic science. The articulation of these two forms ‘would go on to make up the great technology of power in the nineteenth century’ (ibid.), which was ‘an indispensable element in the development of capitalism’, which ‘would not have been possible without the controlled insertion of bodies into the machinery of production and the adjustment of the phenomena of population to economic processes’ (ibid.: 141). Thus, from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, we observe ‘nothing less than the entry of life into history’, whereby ‘methods of power and knowledge assumed responsibility for the life processes and undertook to control and modify them’ (ibid., pp. 141–142). Foucault concludes that a society’s ‘threshold of modernity’ has been reached when the life of the species is wagered on its own political strategies. For millennia, man remained what he was for Aristotle: a living being with the additional capacity for a political existence; modern man is an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being into question. (Ibid., p. 143) A similar diagnosis is ventured in Foucault’s 1975–1976 lecture course Society Must be Defended: biopolitics is traced back to seventeenth century techniques of power centred on the body, the eighteenth-century technology of power focused on the population and its vital processes and the nineteenth-century innovations in the government of social problems and urban areas (Foucault, 2003, pp. 242–245). As a result of these processes, ‘power’s hold over life’ was firmly established during the nineteenth century. Biopolitics thus appears to be a clearly and unequivocally modern phenomenon. And yet, in the final lecture of the course Foucault adds a twist to this diagnosis by raising the question of racism. As a ‘[way] of introducing a break into the domain of life between what must live and what must die’ (ibid., p. 254), racism reinscribes the old sovereign power of death in the modern apparatus of biopolitics, permitting states to kill in order to protect life: ‘if the power of normalization wished to exercise the old sovereign right to kill, it must become racist’ (ibid., p. 256). Foucault analyses Nazism as the extreme form of this reinscription, in which ‘the classic, archaic mechanism that gave the State the right of life and death over its citizens, and the mechanism organized around discipline and regulation, or in other words, the mechanism of biopower – coincide exactly’ (ibid., p. 260). Racism is thus a way of letting the premodern or even ‘archaic’ form of power into the modern one through the backdoor (see Foucault, 1990, p. 149). Biopolitics both marks the very threshold of modernity and permits archaic forms of power to persist within its apparatuses. While Foucault thereby opened the backdoor to let sovereign power into the biopolitical regime, Giorgio Agamben kicked this door down in his rejection of any relationship of succession between sovereign and bio-power altogether: the inclusion of bare life in the political realm constitutes the original – if concealed – nucleus of sovereign power. It can even be said that the production of a biopolitical body is the original activity of sovereign power. In this sense, biopolitics is at least as old as the sovereign exception. (Agamben, 1998, p. 6, emphasis original) 4European Journal of Social Theory XX(X) How old is the sovereign exception, then? While most conceptual historians would date the concept of sovereignty to the sixteenth century and the thought of Jean Bodin (Bartelson, 1995; Hinsley, 1986), Agamben’s account of sovereign power goes far back to the antiquity so that the first paradigm of sovereign power is claimed to be formulated in Pindar’s fragment Nomos Basileus (ibid., p. 30–35). Biopolitics is thus at least as old as sovereign power, but sovereign power is much older than most political theorists would be prepared to argue. While Agamben has been criticized for de-historicizing and even ‘ontologizing’ both biopolitics and sovereignty (Lemke, 2011, p. 62–64; Passavant, 2007), these accusations miss the mark: Agamben’s search for the origin of biopolitics does not lead him outside but only ever further back into history. This does not mean that there were no substantial transformations in modernity of the kind addressed by Foucault. Yet, for Agamben these transformations did not produce a new constellation of power but rather brought to light the constellation that has remain oblique or concealed for centuries: Biopolitics is at least as old as the sovereign exception. Placing biological life at the centre of its calculations, the modern State therefore does nothing other than bring to light the secret tie uniting power and bare life, thereby reaffirming the bond between modern power and the most immemorial of the arcana imperii. (Agamben, 1998, p. 6) Thus, biopolitics does not mark a threshold of modernity, separating this period from the ‘millennia’ in which man was what it was for Aristotle. Instead, modernity illuminates the biopolitical character that power had all along, but which was hitherto marginal and implicit: What characterizes modern politics is not so much the inclusion of zoe in the polis, which is, in itself, absolutely ancient – nor simply the fact that life as such becomes a principal object of the projections and calculations of state power. Instead, the decisive fact is that the realm of bare life – which is originally situated at the margins of the political order – gradually begins to coincide with the political realm, and exclusion and inclusion, outside and inside, bios and zoe, right and fact, enter into a zone of irreducible indistinction. (Ibid., p. 9) In short, while there has always been biopolitics, in modernity there is nothing but biopolitics. It is notable that Jacques Derrida, who has criticized Agamben’s argument in an uncharacteristically blunt and derisive manner, actually made a strikingly similar claim regarding the origin of biopolitics, finding its origin already in Aristotle but stopping short of rendering modern transformations irrelevant: [What] Aristotle says is that man is that living being who is taken by politics: he is a political living being, and essentially so. In other words, he is zoo-political, that’s his essential definition, that’s what is proper to him, idion; and therefore man is immediately zoopolitical, in his very life, and it’s obvious that already in Aristotle there’s thinking of what is today called ‘zoopolitics’ or ‘biopolitics’. Which does not mean, of course, that Aristotle had already foreseen, thought, understood, analysed all the figures of today’s zoopolitics or biopolitics: it would be absurd to think so. But as for the biopolitical or zoopolitical Prozorov 5 structure, it’s put forward by Aristotle, it’s already there, and the debate opens there. (Derrida, 2009, p. 349) While for Foucault the figure of Aristotle serves as the indicator of the prebiopolitical and hence premodern form of human existence, for both Agamben and Derrida biopolitics is ‘already there’, in Aristotle if not before. Whatever its modern transformations, biopolitics now casts its shadow far into antiquity. Roberto Esposito begins his own account of biopolitics by explicitly problematizing this dual origin, which he attributes to Foucault’s original formulations: If biopolitics is born with the end of sovereignty, this means that the history of biopolitics is largely modern and in a certain sense postmodern. If instead, as Foucault suggests on other occasions, biopolitics accompanies the sovereign regime, constituting a particular articulation or a specific tonality, then its genesis is more ancient, one that ultimately coincides with that of politics itself, which has always in one way or another been devoted to life. (Esposito, 2008, p. 52) This reading appears to subsume Agamben’s correction of Foucault under Foucault’s own theory. Yet, while Foucault certainly did recognize that biopolitics could accompany the sovereign regime (or, better, the other way round, as in state racism and Nazism), he did not view sovereignty as coinciding with politics itself, but emerging historically around two centuries before biopolitics (Foucault, 2003, pp. 43–46, 168–169). Thus, it would be difficult to extend Foucault’s approach to include Agamben’s claims: the former thinker’s concern with discontinuities and periodization being hard to reconcile with the latter’s affirmation of the persistence of the originary throughout history. Esposito’s own account of the origins of biopolitics appears to be located between these two contrasting perspectives. For Esposito, biopolitics only reaches a ‘threshold of modernity’ when it is approached from the perspective of immunity: Only when biopolitics is linked conceptually to the immunitary dynamic of the negative protection of life does biopolitics reveal its specifically modern genesis. This is not because its roots are missing in other preceding (they aren’t), but because only modernity makes of individual self-preservation the presupposition of all other political categories, from sovereignty to liberty. (Esposito, 2008, p. 9) The origin of the immunitary perspective is traced by Esposito back to Hobbes’s political thought: When Hobbes not only places the problem of the conservatio vitae at the center of his own thought, but conditions it to the subordination of a constitutive power that is external to it, namely to sovereign power, the immunitary principle has virtually already been founded. (Esposito, 2008, p. 46) Thus, when it is conceived in immunitary terms, the origin of biopolitics dates back to the seventeenth century, which was, after all, Foucault’s own earliest dating. It is 6European Journal of Social Theory XX(X) nonetheless notable that, while Foucault did discuss Hobbes at length in ‘Society Must be Defended’, it was never as a prototype of biopolitical rationality but as a paradigm of juridico-philosophical discourse on sovereign power which biopolitical rationality eventually supplanted (Foucault, 2003, pp. 89–99). While Esposito identifies Hobbes as the originary figure in the history of biopolitics, he also issues a caveat that this ‘objective genesis of a theory’ (ibid., p. 47) cannot be confused with its ‘self-interpretation, which obviously occurs later’ (ibid.). The key figure in this self-interpretation is Hegel, who, without explicitly adopting the category of immunization, captured its logic in approaching the negative as the ‘motor of the positive, the fuel that allows it to function’ (ibid., p. 47). The twentieth century thought, from philosophical anthropology to psychoanalysis and beyond, persisted in this tendency, positing the negative as the productive impulse of history, politics and human existence more generally (ibid.). The twentieth century also introduces another threshold to the history of biopolitics. While modern immunitary categories of sovereignty, liberty and property were indeed characterized by the presupposition of the preservation of life, they also served as apparatuses of mediation between life and politics, precluding anything like a direct translation of (biological) life into politics. This latter translation took place under Nazism, which remains the only case of a ‘literal’ biopolitics, a politics reduced to biology and a biology reduced to politics (ibid.). While Foucault viewed Nazism as the entry of the archaic power of death into the modern biopolitical apparatus and Agamben viewed it as the illumination of the originary co-belonging of the two powers, Esposito approaches it in terms of ‘decomposed modernity’ (Esposito, 2008, p. 112), whereby immunitary apparatuses run wild and attack the very entity they were meant to protect. The final approach we consider in our overview of the debate is developed by Mika Ojakangas who argues that biopolitics ‘is as old as Western political thought itself: the politico-philosophical categories of classical thought, particularly those of Plato and Aristotle, were already biopolitical categories’ (Ojakangas, 2016, p. 6). While this statement clearly separates Ojakangas from Foucault’s thesis on the modernity of biopolitics, he also differs from the other two authors we have considered above. While Ojakangas’s account at first glance appears similar to Agamben’s in locating the origins of biopolitics in the antiquity, he takes issue with Agamben’s argument about the mode of biopolitical governance in ancient Greece, which Agamben famously theorized in terms of inclusive exclusion of bare life, whereby it functions as a negative foundation of political life. Instead, Ojakangas argues that bare, or at least natural life was ‘at the heart of politico-philosophical regulations in classical Greece’ (ibid., p. 17). The phenomena associated with natural life, that is, sexual conduct, pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing were not ‘inclusively excluded’ from the affairs of the polis but simply included in it. The difference from Esposito is even more pronounced, as, while Esposito clearly sees in Plato’s political thought a key philosophical precursor to biopolitics, he also insists on its key differences from modern biopolitics. For Esposito, Plato’s politics is aristocratic and not ethno-racial and is oriented towards the protection of community and not individual life (Esposito, 2008, pp. 53–54). As we have seen, it is specifically the immunitary orientation towards the negative protection of individual life that defines Prozorov 7 biopolitics for Esposito, hence it is Hobbes and not Plato that is its originary figure. Ojakangas begs to differ: the ethno-racial character of Nazi biopolitics did not exclude its explicitly aristocratic orientation, which, moreover, was addressed to the community and not the individual. If, as Esposito argued, Nazism was the extreme and paroxysmal pinnacle of biopolitics, then its blueprint was already prepared by Plato (Ojakangas, 2016, pp. 18–19). The double past: Chronological actuality and past potential This brief overview of the debate on the origins of biopolitics demonstrates that the question of dating biopolitics is far from simple, since it is involved in its very definition. From Foucault’s original articulation of the problematic onwards, biopolitics is never simply modern: it lets in and reinscribes archaic power (Foucault), is itself originally intertwined with this power (Agamben), delimits itself from this power by mediating institutions (Esposito) or is as such purely and simply ancient in origin (Ojakangas). While Foucault’s analysis of the emergence of biopolitical technologies in the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries is hardly disputed if frequently clarified and elaborated (see Collier, 2009; Vatter, 2014), in the studies of biopolitics after Foucault the concept acquires a longer provenance. Thus, without seeking to refute Foucault’s analyses of modern biopolitical technologies of government, Esposito can demonstrate how its orientation towards a negative protection of life is already present in Hobbes, while Agamben can argue that its orientation towards the inclusive exclusion of bare life was in fact prefigured in Aristotle’s concept of potentiality. Yet, it is immediately notable that these precursors to biopolitics turn out to be qualitatively different from what they prefigure, so much so that they might be more adequately discussed as the ‘pre-history’ of biopolitics. Indeed, one may claim that biopolitics goes back to Aristotle and Hobbes only if this ‘going back’ refers to something other than the transformations in the practices of government analysed by Foucault. Indeed, neither Agamben nor Esposito address any chronological events in or before Hobbes’s and Aristotle’s lifetimes that could be presented as evidence for the presence of biopolitics in actual practices of government during these periods. Instead, they base their argumentation almost entirely on philosophical discourse, which somehow anticipates the rationalities of government that would be developed much later. What is this other origin of biopolitics that is primarily philosophical? In order to understand the dual origin of biopolitics, we shall turn to Paolo Virno’s account of historical temporality. As a leading figure in contemporary Italian philosophy, Virno has been an important interlocutor of both Agamben and Esposito and, as we shall see below, has himself contributed to the debate on biopolitics and its origins. At this stage, let us first consider Virno’s approach to historical temporality as such. As Virno has argued in his D´ eja `vu and the End of History (2015a), every historical moment is dual, comprising both the actuality of chronological time (its calendar dating), in which it is located alongside other historical events, and the potentiality of the indefinite past, which accompanies every act insofar as it is negated by it. An act always occurs in time and can be situated chronologically in relation to other acts that precede or follow it. 8European Journal of Social Theory XX(X) Virno interprets biopolitics as conditioned by this transformation of historicity under capitalism: The far from mythological origin of that mechanism of knowledges and powers which Michel Foucault termed biopolitics should undoubtedly be sought within the mode of existence of labour-power. The practical importance which potential assumes qua potential within the capitalist mode of production, its inseparability from the immediate ‘bodily’ existence – this and only this is the foundation of the biopolitical perspective. (2015a, p. 165) It is not a matter of inferring biopolitics from the capitalist attempt to increase labour productivity by controlling the living bodies of the workers – a variant on the ‘repressive hypothesis’ that Foucault’s theory of biopolitics was advanced against (Foucault, 1990, pp. 17–49). Instead, life becomes the object of government because ‘it serves as the substratum for a faculty, labour-power, which has the autonomous significance of a usevalue. What is at issue here is not the productivity of actual labour, but the exchangeability of the potential to labour itself’ (Virno, 2015a, p. 166). Since labour-power is inseparable from living bodies, which are exempt from the exchange, these bodies become privileged objects of power and knowledge as life provides the ‘unit of measurement for the exchange itself’ (2015a, p. 168). Thus, life enters the centre stage of politics, when labour-power, the faculty for labour as such, enters the chronological present of production. In Virno’s account, biopolitics is dated chronologically in much the same way as Foucault dated it: the rise of industrial capitalism in the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century. The twist in his reading is that this was also the period, in which the past potential that usually accompanies the present actuality in an oblique manner itself entered the historical moment. While this potential is often given incarnation in the antedecents posited in the process of retrospection, in this singular historical moment that exhibits its own historicity potential comes to be exhibited in actuality as such, without any need for positing its precursors. There is therefore no need for retrospection in Virno’s analysis of biopolitics, but there is room for prefiguration. The tendency that Virno identifies in early industrial capitalism reaches its apex in the contemporary post-Fordist capitalism, the subject of Virno’s many insightful and incisive analyses (Virno, 2004, 2008). In post-Fordism, actual labour increasingly consists in the exhibition (more than the application) of the potential to labour, the real execution imitates the faculty’s mode of existence, rather than being separated from it; the structural characteristics of the labour-power (latency, inseparability from the worker’s living body, etc.) infect the specific operations through which it is explicated. (Virno, 2015a, p. 186) Acts of labour appear to no longer negate the potentiality for labour or speech but rather to expose and imitate it in actions that no longer produce anything outside themselves and hence resemble performance arts (Virno, 2004, pp. 61–63), evaluated as to their virtuosity. Prozorov 15 Contemporary socioeconomic transformations thus provide an ‘after’ that promise to fill the lacunae in the chronological dating of biopolitics to early industrial capitalism. It is only from the perspective of today’s tendencies towards immaterial labour, precarious work and valorization of flexibility that the late eighteenth century industrial capitalism may appear as the origin of biopolitics, which, moreover, begins to appear as an inexorable tendency insofar as the entry of potential into actuality that was its origin has grown only more intense from this originary moment onwards. A detailed critique of Virno’s account of biopolitics is beyond the scope of this article. We would only like to make one corrective to Virno’s analysis that proceeds from his own account of the relation between potential and act. While Virno’s account of capitalism traces the entry of the meta-history of potential into history as such, his reading identifies potential almost exclusively with labour-power. This, in turn, permits him to reduce biopolitics to the rationality of government that serves to maintain the existence of the ‘substratum’ of the labour-power that is sold on the marketplace. Biopolitics thus becomes something like a superstructural addendum to capitalism that is both logically and temporally its consequence: only when labour-power rises to the forefront in the sphere of production, can life become a privileged object of government. How plausible is this identification of potential with labour-power? While it is evident that the potential for labour precedes and is negated in concrete acts of labour, the same can be said about any act whatsoever. The faculties of playing, running or dreaming similarly precede and are negated in concrete acts of playing, running and dreaming, yet we usually do not elevate any of these faculty to the status of a privileged or even primary faculty, whose appearance within history turns the respective period into a radical exception. In his lecture course The Punitive Society, which predates by a few years his development of the concept of biopolitics, Foucault explicitly rejected the Marxian idea of labour as ‘the concrete essence of man’: It is false to say, with certain famous post-Hegelians, that labour is man’s concrete existence [sic!]. The time and life of man are not labour by nature: they are pleasure, discontinuity, festivity, rest, need, moments, chance, violence and so on. Now, it is all this explosive energy that needs to be transformed into a continuous labour-power continually offered on the market. Life must be synthesized into labour-power, which involves the coercion of this system of sequestration. (Foucault, 2015, p. 232) While Foucault does not disagree with the Marxian analysis of the role of labourpower in the emergence of capitalism, he refuses to see in it the expression of anything like a concrete essence of humanity or, in Virno’s terminology, the meta-historical potential of the human condition. Labour-power is always already an effect of an organizing operation that transforms the ‘explosive energy’ of pleasure, festivity, violence – in short, life – into a continuous commodity that could be continually offered on the market. It is this organization that bio-power performs, which renders it indispensable for the development of capitalism. This divergence has important implications for the analysis of both biopolitics and capitalism. If labour-power no longer refers to past potential but to chronological actuality, then the capitalist period, when it does indeed come to the fore, no longer appears 16 European Journal of Social Theory XX(X) exceptional in the sense of making historicity itself appear in history. On the contrary, this epoch is neither more nor less historical than the ones preceding it. Virno’s somewhat excessive enthusiasm about the singularity of our present might therefore be tempered by Foucault’s well-known scepticism about grand declarations of new eras: [We] should have the modesty to say that, on the one hand, the time we live in is not the unique or fundamental or irruptive point in history where everything is completed and begun again. We must also have the modesty to say that, one the other hand, the time we live in is very interesting; it needs to be analyzed with the proviso that we do not allow ourselves the facile, rather theatrical declaration that this moment in which we exist is one of total perdition, in the abyss of darkness, or a total daybreak, etc. It is a time like any other, or rather, a time, which is never quite like any other. (Foucault, 1988, p. 36) While there is nothing exceptional about the epoch of capitalism, it nonetheless remains not ‘quite like any other’ period, precisely insofar as it is characterized by the organization of life into ‘continuous labour-power continually offered on the market’. Yet, contrary to Virno, this process unfolds in the realm of actuality without bringing the potential to appearance within it. The potential negated by this act of organization is instead nothing other than life itself in its indeterminate sense that Foucault sought to highlight with his series of ‘pleasure, discontinuity, festivity, rest, need, moments, chance, violence and so on’. Rather than serve as the consequence of capitalism in the political sphere, biopolitics now appears as its precondition: it is only when life as potential is negated that its ‘explosive energy’ becomes available for organization into labour-power. If, as we have argued, it is philosophy, constitutively characterized by the potential for elaboration, that is particularly well-suited for elaborating the potential coexisting with the chronological actuality of the organization of labour-power, it is hardly surprising that ‘philosophy of life’ in the broad sense encompassing Lebensphilosophie, vitalism, Nietzsche, Bergson and other authors and approaches would emerge in the aftermath of this process as the attempt to explicate the potential at once negated and affirmed in the capitalist organization of labour-power (see Lebovic, 2013; Tarizzo, 2017, chapter 2; Lemke, 2011, p. 9). Moreover, since philosophical discourse is characterized by the potential to elaborate the potential unrealized in the events it addresses, this elaboration is always accompanied by its own unrealized potential. Thus, the philosophy of life that emerged alongside biopolitical government filed the lacunae arising from its own unrealized potential by retrospectively tracing its own antecedents back to the very beginning of philosophy (see, e.g. Forti, 2006). Conversely, these lacunae are also filled through a prefiguration of the future, which we may observe in the discourses, akin to Virno’s own, that posit the capitalist organization of life into labour-power as the origin of the process of capture that is only revealing its full extent in our time, which is thereby posited as unlike any other (see, e.g. Hardt & Negri, 2000). In short, Virno’s theory of the temporality of historical events not only helps us understand what is at stake in the debate about the origin of biopolitics but also permits us to question his own account of its history that renders it an epiphenomenon of capitalism. By recasting labour-power in actual, chronological terms, we may instead Prozorov 17 approach biopolitics in a more Foucauldian manner, as an ‘indispensable element in the development of capitalism’ (Foucault, 1990, p. 141) that conditions it without being in any way reducible to it. The ‘entry of life into history’ (ibid.) as its negated potential was not a consequence of the capitalist organization of labour-power but the condition that made possible both this organization and the ‘aura of unresolved virtuality’ that continues to animate resistance to it. Conclusion The debate on the origins of biopolitics that we discussed at the beginning of the article may now be reconstructed in terms of the dual temporality of historical events. With respect to the chronological origin of biopolitical governance, the debate now appears rather asymmetrical, most observers in agreement about the dating of biopolitics to the late eighteenth early nineteenth century. Ojakangas’s argument alone stands apart from this consensus, yet only if his claims about the Antiquity are read as pertaining to actual governmental practices and not their philosophical antecedents. The discourse on the philosophical precursors of biopolitics is rather more diverse and lively, yet whether it actually constitutes a debate is somewhat doubtful. As we have seen, the discourse on antecedents does not pertain to the chronological dating of biopolitics but rather to the past potential that its historical emergence both negated and affirmed. The antecedents of biopolitics do not serve as its alternative chronological origins but rather function as means to fill the lacunae arising from the unrealized potential that accompanies its historical actuality. There can therefore be as many historical precursors to biopolitics as one wishes to identify, there being neither a need nor a possibility to adjudicate which one of them is more ‘originary’. Thus, we may expect this debate to go on, with new studies appearing that would find the origin of biopolitics in, for example, Malebranche, Leibnitz or Vico, but, audacious as these readings may be, they are highly unlikely to be truly path-breaking, since they proceed along the already well-trodden path of retrospection. These exercises in retrospection do not merely fill the lacunae in historical actuality, but also endow the precursors that incarnate past potential with an aura of virtuality, opening the possibility of new interpretations of traditional texts and familiar events. Besides embodying the potential of the present, retrospection thus grants potentiality to the past, enabling us to re-engage with both historical events and philosophical traditions in new ways. Readings of Plato and Aristotle, Hobbes and Spinoza, Hegel and Nietzsche from the perspective of biopolitics are therefore anachronistic not in the derogatory but in a formal or transcendental sense that characterizes historicity as such. From this perspective, the question of the origins of biopolitics is less a debate about correct dating than a conversation about the possibilities opened in the present by positing different precursors to biopolitics in the past. This exercise in retrospection combined with the attention to the futures prefigured by these originary moments renders the study of biopolitics a true history of the present, which, like every historical moment, is at once an end and a beginning. 18 European Journal of Social Theory XX(X) Declaration of conflicting interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article. Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iD Sergei Prozorov https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0731-0557 References Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press. Agamben, G. (2007). Infancy and history: On the destruction of experience. Verso. Agamben, G. (2009). The signature of all things: On method. Zone Books. Agamben, G. (2016). The use of bodies. Stanford University Press. Bartelson, J. (1995). A genealogy of sovereignty. Cambridge University Press. Collier, S. (2009). Topologies of power: Foucault’s analysis of political government beyond ‘governmentality’. Theory, Culture and Society,26(6), 78–108. Collier, S. (2011). Post-soviet social: Neoliberalism, social modernity, Biopolitics. Princeton University Press. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Second Edition. SAGE. Derrida, J. (2009). The beast and the sovereign, vol. 1: The seminars of Jacques Derrida. The University of Chicago Press. Esposito, R. (2008). Bios: Biopolitics and philosophy. University of Minnesota Press. Forti, S. (2006). The Biopolitics of souls: Racism, Nazism and Plato. Political Theory 34(1): 9–32. Foucault, M. (1988). Critical theory/intellectual history. In LD Kritzman (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Politics, philosophy, culture. interviews and other writings 1977 –1984. Routledge. Foucault, M. (1990). History of sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction. Penguin. Foucault, M. (2002). The order of things. Routledge. Foucault, M. (2003). ‘Society must be defended’: Lectures at the college de France 1975-1976. Picador. Foucault, M. (2015). The punitive society: Lectures at the college de France 1972-1973. Palgrave. Gratton, P. (2013). Spinoza and the Biopolitical roots of modernity. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities,18(3), 91–102. Han, V-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. Verso. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Harvard University Press. Hinsley, F. H. (1986). Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press. Lebovic, N. (2013). The philosophy of life and death: Ludvig Klages and the rise of a Nazi Biopolitics. Palgrave. Lemke, T. (2011). Biopolitics: An advanced introduction. New York University Press. Meloni, M. (2020). Porous bodies: Environmental biopower and the politics of life in ancient Rome. Theory, Culture and Society,38(3), 91–115. Prozorov 19 Mitchell, R. (2021). Infectious liberty: Biopolitics between romanticism and liberalism. Fordham University Press. Ojakangas, M. (2016). On the Greek origins of biopolitics: A Reinterpretation of the history of Biopower. Routledge. Passavant, P. A. (2007). The Contradictory State of Giorgio Agamben. Political Theory,35(2), 147–174. Schuller, K. (2018). The Biopolitics of feeling: Race, sex and science in the nineteenth Century. Duke University Press. Stiegler, B. (2008). Biopower, psychopower and the logic of the scapegoat. Ars Industrialis: http:// www.arsindustrialis.org/node/2924 Tarizzo, D. (2017). Life: A modern invention. The University of Minnesota Press. Vatter, M. (2014). The Republic of the living: Biopolitics and the Critique of civil society. Fordham University Press. Virno, P. (2004). A grammar of the multitude: For an analysis of contemporary forms of life. Semiotext(e). Virno, P. (2008). Multitude between innovation and negation. Semiotext(e). Virno, P. (2015a). D´ eja `vu and the end of history. Verso. Virno, P. (2015b). When the word becomes flesh: Language and human nature. Semiotext(e). Weheliye, A. (2014). Habeas viscous: Racializing assemblages, biopolitics, and black feminist theories of the human. Duke University Press. Author biography Sergei Prozorov is Professor of Political Science at the University of Jyva¨skyla¨. He is the author of nine books including Biopolitics after Truth (2021), Democratic Biopolitics (2019) and Agamben and Politics (2014). His research interests include continental political thought, theories of democracy and totalitarianism, biopolitics and governance. 20 European Journal of Social Theory XX(X)