Fou )ie Kultivierung det \4arktes rementalitit des Neoliberalismus' Andy Warhol Diaries, New York rlitik, Hamburg

2oo7' P r5' at liety Must Be Defended" Lectures New MaceY' David Trans. : t975-ry76. ). 2+t. iaturday Disasters.Trace and Reference Andy Warhol, October liles' ed' lambridge,Mass 200l' PP 49-bb' and n, Homo Sacer.Sovereign Power Calif' iel Heller-Roazen, Stanford' for AndY uchloh, "AnniversarY Notes of Life' Varhol: Shadows+ Other Signs lhantal Crousel' Paris zoo8 csenblum, Saint Andrew, Newweek'7 to AIan R. Pratt, The Critical Response mouth 1997, P. Io' p 2r9' rd PatHackett,Popism,Ioc cit'' of eating was one of the preoccupations ncers, including StevePaxton' Judith in: StevenWatson' FacSchneemann", ' p. r37' lo )atHackett,Popism ,c cit,p rtl' ', Understanding Celebrity' London and 5. New York I995' iociety ofthe Spectacle, of spec rstionablevalue of the concept t o w a r da p r o b l e m a t i c cit orienlarion rthenticity", seealso Juliane Rebentisch' 56, June zoo7, PP rzzf' t !zurKunst Buchsteiner (eds ), Social Disease Lomas '79, Ostfildern I993-94 J o l i ei n t h e A m e r t c a n y on Angelina oir: "A Woman in ful1 JulY zooS Ioc cit ' pp " A Grammar of the Multitude, Dialectlc mer and Theodor W Adorno' York r99t ' t, trans.John Cumming, New only one ticket' lucky the draw can e sirl all have the : p"rize,and lf, mathematically' that he s vet so infinitesimal for each one the other's :st to write it off and rejoice in or hers' night just as well have been his ever is."

36 SeePat Hackett, "Introduction", in: Hackett (ed.), The Andy Warhol Diaries, New York 1989,p. 16. 37 StevenWatson, lactory Made, loc. cit., p. r3r. 38 Pat Hackett (ed.), The Andy Warhol Diaries, loc. cit, p. z7z. 39 Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, San Diego and New York ry79, p. 86. 4o Ibid.,p. r78.

prenatal diagnostics, and questions of ecological sustainability across contemporary forms of neoliberalism and post-Fordist or immaterial Iabor relations to aesthetic theory and artistic production. The term's indeterminacy rise in direct proportion seems to to its prominence. At the

same time, however, it seems to promise a sort

OU'EST-CE QUELA BIOPOLITIQUE? between on Theories of Biopotitics A conversotion ThomosLemkeond Morio Muhle.moderoted by Andr6 Bottmonn

of diagnostic accessto present-day realities. On which theoretical promises is its use based, and what are the critical implications of these debates over biopolitics, beyond the basic definition of the term as a politics concerned with life? Against the backdrop of your recent publications on the genesis of modern biopolitics and its potential for an analysis of contemporary society,I we have come together today to make an attempt to clarify this concept. I would therefore like to begin by asking you: what is the fundamental definition of "biopolitics" on which your books are based?

rHoMAsLEMKE: I take the concept of biopolitics from Michel Foucault, but I also draw on other Whot is biopotitics? As otten os this term qppeors totety- inctuding in this iournqt - it remoins uncleor whot exqctty it entoits, white some see it in the context of biotechnotogicoIprogress, AIDS preventionor ecologicol ogriculture, for others it stdnds for eugenics, comps ond rights deprivotions. There is cleorly o need for cloriticotion, The present conversotionthus took it upon itsetf to give o diotogic introduction into the geneologyof this term ond to discuss its criticol potentiol.In the following, philosopherMorio Muhle qnd politicol scientist Thomos Lemke- both ot whom hove recenlly pubtished relevont ond instructive books on the topic - debqtethe signiticonce,the influenceond the dnolyticol productivity of this neologism coined by Michel Foucoult in the 1970s. ANDRE RoTTMANN: The concept of "biopolitics" tously in a wide spectrum of thematic areas ranging from theories of racism, the field of has traditions and lines of reception such as the works of Giorgio Agamben and Michael Hardt/Antonio Negri. My aim is to sketch an "analytics of biopolitics" - most basically, an attempt to connect two central concepts: biopolitics and governmentality. This connection is suggested by Foucault's own work, primarily in the lectures he delivered at the Coildge de France In ry78 and ry79, but it remains a promise he did not fulfill. What I envision as an "analytics ofbiopolitics" is a productive fusion of three dimensions: productions of knowledge, processes of power, and forms of subiectivation. I would like to develop a concept of biopolitics that integrates these three dimensions, which is to say, that analyzes the interplay of scientific conceptions of life, social inequalities, forms of exclusion, strategies of authority, and, finally, t e c h n i q u e s o f s e lf - r e g u l a t i o n . in recent years come to be used almost ubiqui-

MUHLE: My work likewise setsout from a MAF|A concept of biopolitics as defined by Foucault in "The Will to Knowledge" as the power "to make live and let die." I think that Foucault,over the courseof his various analyses of biopolitics, has offered two different definitions. There is, on the one hand, the very narrowly conceived definition, one that relatesto the life ofthe population of the and no longer to that of the legal subjects the disciplinary sovereignregime of power or to individual. The aspectthat is to my mind far more important is the question of the modality of this relation, which is preciselya positive and not a repressive reiation to life. So in order to understandwhat constitutesthe specificityof biopolitics, we have to understandthe conceptionof life on which it is based.My claim is that biopolitics is defined by the fact that rather than merely relating to life, it takeson the way life itself functions; that it functions likelife in order to be better able to regulatelife. FoTTMANN: Drawing on the analyses ofthe French historian of scienceGeorges Canguilhem, you have emphasizedthree dynamisms of the biological conceptionoflife around r8oo that revolve around the question ofself-regulation, and you maintain that a formal analogy obtains between thesedynamisms and the conceptionof life in biopolitics, or more precisely,the biopolitical technologiesof power that result from this conceptionof life. To my mind, that raisesthe question ofthe historicization ofthis relation to life. According to Foucault,the "appropriation of within life by power" around r8oo represents, of the history of legal conceptions sovereignty, the "biological threshold of modernity"; elsewhere he mentions that the biopolitical conflicts intensify around r95o. To what extent is the modern conceptionoflife, as it is configured,

thus Canguilhem, around r8oo, still the one we with contemare dealing with in the engagement porary forms of biopolitics?What does biopolitics mean today, in distinction from the rgth or the early zoth century? The discussionof the conceptof life in my MUHLE: book is motivated by the fact that Foucaulthimself repeatedly speaksof life without ever offering a substantialconception of the term. Instead,the conceptof life in Foucaultis a correlateof practicesof power and knowledge. He thus shows that "life" is a product of constellations of power and knowledge and subiectto ongoing redefinition. His conceptof llfe ls underdetermined, and this fact must be recognizedas a deliberatestatement that calls for further analysis.The point is not that politics relatesto a specificlife, but that it relates to something that is aiways already produced by power and knowledge.That'swhy I think that the life sciences after r8oo are an interesting point ofdeparture, because they permanently redefine the conceptoflife. Canguilhem highlights preciseiythis dynamic principle, the oscillation and self-transcendence. between self-preservation He describesthe life oriented toward self-preservation as the "normal" Iife, but also as one that cannot be called "vital" in any demanding sense; constitutesthe normawhereasself-transcendence tivity of life. So in that senseI would say,coming back to what Thomas said, that the distinction between biopolitics and governmentality dissolvesagainstthis backdrop: biopolitics is not simply the relation of politics to life but indicates a particular way for power to function, one that we can spell out accordingto the normativity of the living being as describedby Canguilhem, and one that developsexplosivepower in Foucault's of governmentality. analyses

n, around r8oo,still the one we with contemr in the engagement I biopolitics? What doesbiopolitics distinction from the lgth or the lJy7 ussion of the concept of life in mY ed by the fact that Foucault himof life without ever offering speaks 'nception of the term. Instead,the of practiis a correlate in Foucault rd knowledge.He thus shows that Lctof consteliationsof power and . subjectto ongoing redefinition. Iife is underdetermined, and this cognized as a deliberate statement The point is not that rrther analysis. to a specificlife, but that it relates hat is alwaysalreadyproduced by That'swhy I think that the >wledge. an interestingPoint r8oo are ter redethey permanentlY )ecause highlights :t of life. Canguilhem lynamic principle, the oscillation and self-transcendence. 'reservation he Iife oriented toward self-presernormal" life, but also as one that ed "vital" in any demanding sense; constitutesthe norma:anscendence I would say,coming o in thatsense lhomassaid,that the distinction rlitics and governmentalitydisbiopolitics is not this backdrop: ation of politicsto life but indicates ay for power to function, one that rut accordingto the normativity of by Canguilhem, and rg asdescribed lopsexplosivepower in Foucault's ,vernmentality.

LEMKE: The parallelism between the genesis of biology and the notion of self-organizationand self-regulationwith respectto economicsis something Foucaultalreadylaid out in "The Order of Things." Liberalism, thus Foucault,provides a knowledge about market processes that lets go of the notion of artificial control and insteadbets on spontaneous natural processes of regulation resulting from the behavior of marketsand the interestsof the actorsthemselves. What is decisive is that biology doesnot simply constituteitself as a form ofknowledge; there are transfersofbiological knowledge into economicsand vice versa. This is a feature not only of the historical genesis of biology and economicsas scientificdisciplines, but also of the contemporary situation. As regards the conceptoflife, the representation oflife processes changes,for instance,by virtue ofnew connections betwetn information and communication technologieson the one hand and the socalled life sciences on the other hand. Ifthe body is conceived,as in genetics,as an informational system,this structuresthe perception and treatment also ofpolitical bodies.Recentdecades have seen a turn away from a naturalist conception of the body and toward the body as a fundamentally open sysremthat is capableofindefinite recombination and improvement. MUHLE: What I think is interesting to considerin Canguilhem againstthe backdrop ofbiopolitics is the question preciselyof this transfer,of how e.g. Iiberal economicscomesto be organized according to the model of processes of self-regulation in the life sciences. We can distinguish, with Canguilhem, a double conceptof life in modern biology; on the one hand there is organic life, and on the other hand, a creativeprocess,a form of self-transcendence that doesnot inscribe itself into the preservationofthe equilibrium ofan

organism. I think that biopolitics operates precisely with such a double conceptof life. Biopolitics

reducesself-transcendence to self-preservation, time and again reestablishinghomeostasis. It makesit its mission to rob self-transcendence of its capacityto truly transcend.Canguilhem speaks in this context of the distinction between normativity and normality. The normativity of the living being is reduced,time and again, to its normality. Regardingprocesses of subjectivation,the question then arisesof the creativeaspects of what can changelife in such a way as to exempt it from processes ofbiopolitical regulation. I wanted to ask you, Thomas, how you think this double conception oflife can be read againstthe backdrop of biopolitical or governmental processes on the one hand and processes of subiectivationon the other hand. LEMKE: Both are contained in nuce in the conceptof norm. The regulation of life processes requires a certain scientificknowledge, a statisticaiarsenal * the recording ofbirth and mortality rates, the measurementof incidence ratesof ilinesses, etc. This leads,on the one hand, to the determination ofa norm as average. On the other hand, the establishmentof such data always entails an interestin an intervention in theseprocesses. The intention is not merely to registerthem but to take targetedstepsto improve them - to bring mortality down, the birth rate up, to raisethe fertility of agricultural lands. The establishment ofa statisticalnorm servesthe intervention in theseprocesses with the aim of shaping them in accordance with a certain target.This is a central aspectof what is called biopolitics - the emergenceof a specificknowledge and of technologies in which this knowledge then takesshape.The aim is not mereiy to establisha putatively natural equilibrium; the intention is to shift the variables

i n a t c o r c l a n c t ' r ' ri,t h c e r t . r i n c l t ' 1 i n e dt a r g o t s : t h c d e t e r r r i n a t i o r ro f t h r a s i s s t a t r ' \ ( ' r \ c \ i \ a p r ( ) g r a n r t o \ \ i a r d t l r 0 t r a n s c t n d e D ( eo l t h i s s t a t e .

undcrtak('n io prorluce a <lisciplirrt'd and irrclir.r rlrraljzed sLrbject. RoTTMANI N r: r t h i \ r ( ) r l t e \ t , ; , O Uh a r t ' b o t l r ( l o s e 1 1 ,

MUHLE inrr J :u s t . r sc , o n r t r s c l l , t h i s i r a r s c t ' n c l r n c Ie () r 1s t a t c s . 1 l r da g a i n a l s Os c r v e sI l r e r e p r o r l r r c t i ( ) 1 that lrlr r a crrtain peilnallen(('. n s c e n c l tr'r t e a l r ( l r r o r r r r .Ili t ) ' a r c L E M K EY : es, tr'.r intt'rrt'lated. F o r -i r t s t a n c t ' t ,he itlta of l nornr.rl llrat alkrus one 1o s e r t r a l i t y s c r v ( ' sa s a y . r r c l s t i c k s e e r r l r e t h e r ( ) n es o \ \ n s e r u a l i t l d e r i a t c sl r o n r i t n ith this nornralit;. Wh.rt is or is irr accorclance oi this d e c i s i v ei n t l r i s c r > n t t ' r ti s t i r c t r a n s l a t i o r r e r P t ' r ' tk n o \ l t ' r l g ei n t o t h e c r e r ; d a 1 l i r t ' s a i r c l i n t c r r c l a t i o n s o 1 t b e s i r b j r c t s ,r v h o t l r c n d r a r v o r r i t lirr orirntation .urc1 .rcljLrs atc t : o r c 1 i n g l.1 R o T T M A NT N lr : t ' r ci s , 0 n t h e O n t ' h a n d ,t l r t r e l a l i o n o f b i o p o l i t i c s t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n a s a n r a s si r t l r r r t h s t a t i s t i c sm , o r t a l i t l r a t r s , r t c . , a n c lo n t l r t ' o t h t r l r ; L n c' l- a n d t l r t ' s e c d so 1 l h i s a r t ' a l r e a d l i n F o r r c a L r l tn 's r o c l e lo f c l i s c i p l i n . r r -p yo n t ' r thc rtla t i o n l o t h e i r c l i v i d r L a lb o d y , t l r t ' s i n g t r l a rs u b j e r t , n h i c l r , r a t h c r L h a n b t ' i n g o p p r r s s e d ,i s r r r g e ct lo H o r ' vr ' l r i L r l c l t u r n i t s e l f i r t t o a p r o r i r r c t i v cs t r b j e c t . tlrt' rtlationship bttn-een srrbjectivrtiort 1ou <1t'line polici ? and cit'ntograplric LEMKE F:o r L c a U ld t istinguishts tr|o cljnrtnsjons01' 1f t l r t ' r ' o l l e c : b i o p o l r t i c s .( ) n c i s t l r t ' ( r e a t i ( ) 1 o ic polic; t i l e b o d l ' , i l t h e s e r t s co f d t ' r t t o g r a p h a n c l p o q r u l a t i o nr e g r r l l t i o r r , . r n c it h e o t l r r r i s t l r t 1o d y . H o u , i s c ( ) l r sirl u t i ( ) r l o f ' t h e r l i s c r p l i r r c <b hunrarrbeing t h r p r o d u c t r r r r o 1 ' a< l i s c r p l i n t ' d acconrplisht'< ? lA n d l r o n ' i s t l r c c r e a t i o n o f a Tllo t\\'() p o p r r l ; i t i o r ta s b o d ; a c c o n r p l i s l t e d ? el c l , i n l a t t , c o n r p l t ' l ) r ( ) r (s s e sa r t r u s e p . r r . r b l a r r e n t , l r ) ' .T h t ' c o r s t j t r r t i o n o 1 1 h e p o p t r I . r t i o r r . r s. r l r r i r r gr o l l c r t i r r t 1 i : i n s e p a r a b l e {ionr thc tflorts

t ' n g a g e ctl l r t c o n c r ' p to f g o r e r n n r c n t a l i t i . I w o r r l d b t ' i n t c r c s t ( ' ( lj n h o r , r , y t t r r ' r O L r l d clcstribe tlrc relationship lrt'tnecn ntodcrn lortns oI g ( ) \ e r n n ) ( ' n Ia n d t t ' c h n i c l L r t 'o s1 'b i o p o l i t r t . r I s r | 1 r t ' gL r l a t i o n . MUHLE N : ( ) w t h c r t ' i s a l r v a y st h i s g a n r c o r , c r t h t ( l r r r s t i o r r o 1 h o r , , 't o c l i f - l f r c n t i a t e t l r ( ' \ ' a r 1 ( ) L r s l t ' g i m e s < i i p o u t r -i r t F o L r r l r r l t . hr nr; iitn, FoLtr l t r l t u s r s , p r x . e r n r r t n t a l i t ) 'a s a n c w n a n t t ' l o r b i o p o l i t r r s .\ V e r r i g h t s a ) t l l l t F o L r c . u r l h tj n r s e l l r t ' a c t e dt ( ) t l r e l i r ) i t . l t i o r o 1 b i o p o l i t i c s t ( ) t l l e u, l r i c h d i d n o t a l l o i r ' f b r lriologic.rlife proct,sst-s I ' r , , l , , grrr r r ,s r1 r ,, ,i .r r . l , lr,'rrr t l r , t 1 d 1 \ lr ,1,,11,,11 s p o k e a b o r r t .A u d f o r L c a L r Irtc s p ( ) n ( 1 ( 'p dr t t i s c l i t o t h i s t o n c c p t L r . rr l o n s t r . r i n t b ) i r r t r o d r r c r n ,tJh e ( ( ) n c e l ) t( ) l g o v c r n n l e n t a lr l l . M arises, LEMKE : ) r i c $ ' i s s i m i l a r ' .T l r e c l r r t ' s t i o n . r f i c r a l l , * h y l l o u c . r u l tr l r o p s t h e ( o n c e l ) t ( ) f l r i o p o l i t i ts a n d t l l c n \ \ o r k \ \ \ i t h g o \ c r n n r ( ' n t a l i t y a s h i s c c n t r . r lc ( ) n c e p t .I t h i n k t h e c o n i . c p to f ( ) n l ) a \ [ ] l ) \ L -o t1 lriopolititsashc rrses it corrrpriscs in l , sinte iir FoLrcaulL t l r c i s s u t ' sl r r u a : i n t e r e s t t ' < i t r r : I e r sp r i r r a r i l l t o b i o l o s i c a l o r I ) l l ) ' s i c i ll i f e . T l r e s h i l i t t x r a l c l t l r e c o u r ( ' l ) to l g ( ) \r r n l r c n t a l r l ) r c p r ( ' s ( ' D tt sl r c a t t e n r | t t o e x a n r i l l e t l r t ' n e x L r s l r r t u ' e e n [ ) r ( ) c e \ \ ( ' isi f t h t ' p o l i t i c s o l t l t e 1 r o d 1a ' ncl p o l i t i c a l o r - n r o r . r l r r r o d es o f c x i s t t ' n c c . T l r t c l L r e s t i o n t l r a t p r o p e l l c d h i s i r r t l u i r y w . r sh o w c e r t a i n ( \ l ) e r i e n c ( ' so { t l r L 'i r o d l c . r n b e r ( ) n r ca p o l i t i c a l o r js(i[)line n r o r a l l l f ( ) l l l c n r .I I o n d o l l r o c e s s ( ' o sf d b c l i r r n r s o f s i ' l l l g o l e rrrnrent, r()lnet() linkt'rl to l i s i r t ' sa n d t t ' c h n i < 1 r r to 's f t l r r ' b o d l t o p e r s o r t . ts prefercntt's? Horv js it tlrathcaltlr is oi sLrclr r t ' n t r a 1i n r p o r t a r r r t l \ \ ' h . r t d o e s t l r a t n r r a l ) f o r t h t

produce a disciPlined and indivict. his context,you haveboth closelY rncept of governmentalitY. I restedin how you would describe ip between modern forms of nd techniquesof biopolitical self-

conceptofillness? The connection between these two dimensions is something that developsout of the conceptof governmentality. MUHLE: The interesting questionis: where are the limits of bio-power? Is there a way to step outside of this power? I think there isn't, at ieast not if you read Foucault closely. There are no processes ofsub)ectivation that could escape the grasp of this power, no place beyond a power that is distinguished, after all, by its capillary and ubiquitous functioning. RoTTMANN: This brings us to the elaborationof Foucault's conceptionof biopolitics undertaken in the context of post-Operaism,especiallyby Hardt/Negri, but also by PaoloVirno. These theoristshave reframed the relation of politics to life in the much larger paradigm of "biopolitical production" or ofthe "social factory," under whose conditions the "spheresof the economic, the political, and the cultural" increasinglyintersectand encompass one another.To what extent do you think theseelaborationsofthe concepts of biopolitics and governmentality are consistent with Foucault's original conception? LEMKE: That is certainly an eiaboration,but it is neither the only possiblenor the most productive way of drawing on Foucault. What I believe is problematic is that, say,the writings of Hardt/ Negri postulatethe principle of immanence but then still arrive, time and again, at fundamental dualisms.On the one hand the "Empire," which is parasiticaland exploitative,and on the other hand the crowd or "Multitude," which represents biopolitical production, that is to say,which is creativeand innovative.With this opposition they seem to me to fail back behind the insights of Foucault,who had a more precisegrasp of the

contradictionsinherent in biopolitical production. RoTTMANN: Your criticism concernsprimarily the opposition of Empire and Multitude. But would you in principle agreewith the diagnosisof an expansionof the biopolitical regime in the course of which forms of self-regulation have increasingly become a paradigm of value creation?Or would you say that we would need a different description of this economization on the basisof considerations regarding biopolitics? leuxe: Well. I should sav first that I sharea number of insights that form the point of departure of Hardt/Negri's considerations, such as their observationthat modern lines of distinction between nature and culture or between reproduction and production are being torn down. But I think it is important to note how, against the backdrop of this increasingprecariousness of borders, new borders are continually being created.As I see it, Hardt/Negri - and not only they - place the accentprimarily on the processes of removal of borders and the opportunities they believe this creates, and too little on the dangersand uncertainties that subsequently arise.They do not pay enough attention to the dynamism of destabilization and restabilization. RoTTMANN: But is not their analysisof contemporary configurations of the biopolitical correct with regard to the fact that, under the economic primacy of self-regulation and self-exploitation, communicative and cognitive capacitiesbecome productiveforces? Especially with respectto the art world, as a field of immaterial work where the subiect must market itself, where the "entrepreneurial self" (Ulrich Brockling) must put its entire life at the service of production, this diagnosiswouid seem to yield productive categoriesof description.

rere is alwaysthis game over the rw to differentiate the various wer in Foucault.In mY view, Fou'ernmentality as a new name for /e might saythat Foucault himself Iimitation of bioPolitics to the which did not allow for : processes, rom biology into economics we iust And FoucaultresPondedPreciselY by introducing the ptualconstraint lvernmentality. arises, The question ew is similar. , Foucaultdrops the concept of rd then works with governmentartral concept.I think the concept of ; he usesit comprisesonly a subset of was interestedin, since in Foucault rarily to biologicai or physical life. i'ard the conceptof governmentato examine the nexus ts the attemPt rcesses of the politics of the body and noral modesofexistence.The queopelledhis inquiry was how certain of the body can becomea political or of disciPline :m. How do processes linked to forms of self-government, rf the body to personalwishes and ' How is it that health is of such rrtance?What does that mean for the

(:J f c o L l r s ci t i s p o s s i l l l e t o c o n c e i \ r et h i s MUHLE der.elopmcnt in ternrs of biopolitlcs insofar as thc s r - r b j c c tb , y v i r t u e o f i t s s e l f r e g r - L l a t i o nr,n s c r i b c s itself more and rnorc into p()\\rer even r,r-hile bclicvrng that it is fl'ee,artistic, and crcaiivc. Sren i n t h r s p e r s p e c t i r c , i t t h r . r sf i r s t e r st h e e x p a n s i o n of the reactr of polr.er. At thc samc tirne, I anr not certarn rvhether this in thc end, rather obvious selflinscription into pou.er is the most interesting a s p c c t o 1 ' t h e e n g a g e r n e n tr v r t h b i o p o l i t r c s .

notion of the life as a rr'ork c.r{'art? -rcsistant LEMKE T : h e d e c i s i v e c l L l c s t i o ni s t h e o n e r e g a r d i r t g t h e c c . r n c c po t f fieedonr. Which restrictiorts arr l11( t i l . t r i l r r Ji t t t l t i s . l r c i 1o i l ( , | l , ' l r r r a t i ri t ) t , , t t r v o h a v c s p o k e n o f ? T c i r ' v h a te x t e n t d o c s i t a b i d e t o r v h i c h i t r e r - n a i n so b l i b). certaur reqLrircrDcDts gcd and by r,irtue of r'r'hichit is, in thc cnd, still a rather \,ery linrited idea of creativity and lreedorll

M U H L E :O [ t , , | l t \ c .

lll, rc i- J t]il|lrdti\r

J\lrrr I lo

L E M K EI:t r n i g h t b c u s c l i r l i n t h i s c o n t e x t t ( ) g ( ) b a c k t o F o l r c a u l t ' sc c ) n c e p to f t h e a r t o { l i v i n g . I tLrnk that the idca ol trarsfbrnring life, trans frrrrning onc s o\vll existence into a w()rk (l1 a-rl insofar as it rejects the notion o1' is prc.rdnctive detenrining natural larvs or au objective eccr n o m i c l o g i c . I f t h i s r c a d i n g s u g g e s t : jt h a t \ \ . e a r e , br p c r l D a n e n t l ) r c a l l e d u p o n t O d e c o d c o r - t r s c l v e s1 instance as biological bcings or as entrepreneurial -rrrIlrr r \ i \ l r r r r r ' . t l r r r ( ) r r r r | t( , 1t l t ea r t , , l l i r i t r H sizesinstead the need and frccdorr to develop a r t i f i c i a l c o n c e p t i o n s o f o r . r rr e l a t i o n s t ( ) o u r s e l v e s and our socral relatjons. That is, to Dror'caway fionr the notion of an alltheltic scll and tolr.arcl the idea ol an acstbetics r e l f - r v h i c h s h o r . r i dn o t b c rrisunderstood as an arbitrary cntcrprise designed a c c o r d i n g t o j n d i r . i d u a l p r e f i r e n c e s b r L ti n s t c a d c c . r n c c i r . ea cs l a collective Prolect that prrsLlpposes
, , ) lri , i . ( .rl l . , . 1 \ , ( dllC l), lll( :,1 ,-,,. f. t J l I T A l l \ l ( , l l l , l ll r ) l l \ .

thc lbnr of'creatir-it) u.e spoke o{ carlier, and this aspectrenders it opcn to the grasp of porrer. We l i v e f r e e l y a n c l r e a l i z e o L u s e h , c s ,e t c . S t i l l , rnr-rst t h e q n e s t i c x rr e r n a i l s i n t c r c s t i n g h o r v p r o c e s s e s o f s u b j e c L i v a t i o nc a n b e r e a d a s r e s i s t a r ) tp r a c t i c c s , and r,vhethcr they can be so read at all. BrLt lr'hat $c cannot do is hold on to the notion that these resistarlces can bc positioned outside of constella tions of pou.er. The last tu.o volurncs of Foucault's "History of St-xualit1"'are often read as inplying t h a t F o r L c a u l td i d a f t e r a l l f r n d h i s w a ) t o t h c a u t o l l o l n o u s s u b l e c t . I b e l i e v e , h o u - e r . e r ,t h a t \ \ r e nrust take For.rcauit's d i c t r - r r ns r : r i o r . r s l y that there is n o p l a c e b t ' y o D d p o \ \ . e r : s t r a t e g i e so f s r L b l e c t i v a tion can erist only in a crrtical cugagernentr'r.ith polr.er and n()t at a po\\.er free" place. F: o u c a r r l td e v c l o p c d h i s c o n c e p t i o r ] o f RoTTMANN o f t h e o r i e s o l l i b e r a l i s n r . H a s t l r e c r . r r r c n tl i n a n c i a l

g ( ) \ r r r r t r n r a l i l \ n o l l c J \ ti t r r r r t t i t l l r r l g J P r r l r r ' i l 1 crisis r ' v l r j c h ,a s g c ) v e r n n r e ] l t sg r L a r a n t e cl o a n s

RoTTMANN H:o u , c a n t h i s i c l c a o f a n " a e s t h e t i c sr > f t h c s c l { " i n F o u c a u l t b e t h o r L g h ti n c o n j l t r c t i o r t r v i t h t h e p r o c e s s c so i s u b j c c t i r - a t i o n ,p r o c e s s e s rvhose dynanrisrn lvlaria describcd once again she emphasizcd that tbe sr.rbject lust nou- r,r-hen (rt'ati\it1 a r l Jf r - - d , ' r r r l ) r r ! i \ r l \ i t t i t r n o t i " t t{ ' l r n s c r i b e s i t s c l f ' c r - e r f i r r t h e r i n t o t h e c a l c u l t L so i bio-pou-er? Wtrere does the bordcr lLrn betrveen this nrodcl ol confirnring subjectir.atftn and the

and intervelrc irr otLrcr \\ia]rs, can also be interprc and is in tccl as a crisis of market selilrr:gr-rlatron rr l a l l \ L a \ c h c i r r ! , j t t L c r o r c t ra , l: a ( r i . i r , , f r t c , , l i h r idr:olog1, changed the grasp politics has on ljfe? Is the financial crisis, seen in tiris perspective, also a crisis of the bioprolitical? MUHLE O : n e n ' r i g l r ts a y , o n t h c o n c h a n d , t l r a t

of the life as a work of art? sive question is the one regarding ieedom. Which restrictions are s specific concept of creativity you n of? To what extent does it abide irements to which it remains obliue of which it is, ln the end, still a ited idea of creativity and freedom? se, there is a normative asPect to ativity we spoke of earlier, and this it open to the grasP of Power. We r and realize ourselves, etc. Still, :mains interesting how Processes r n c a n b e r e a d a s r e s i s t a n tp r a c t i c e s , rey can be so read at all. But what .s hold on to the notion that these Lbe positioned outside of constella:. The last two volumes of Foucault's :uality" are often read as imPlYing lid after all find his way to the ubject. I believe, however, that we cault's dictum seriously that there is nd power: strategies of subjectivaoniy in a critical engagement with t at a "power-free" Place. rcault developed his conception of lity not least in a critical engagement liberalism. Has the current financial r, as governments guarantee loans : in other ways, can also be interPreof market self-regulation and is in g interpreted as a crisis of neoliberal ranged the grasp politics has on life? al crisis,seenin this PersPective, ,f the biopolitical? iight say,on the one hand, that

the self-regulating system of neoliberalism has collapsed to the extent that it is dependent on assistance lrom the state. On the other hand, we would have to say with Foucault that there are always movements of exchange and different modalities of power that intersect and, of course, also support each other or play into one another's hands. LEMKE: The question is whether the financial crisis should be described as a crisis of self-regulation. There has been a shift for years away from more far-reaching neoliberal concepts that primarily emphasize deregulation and denationalization and toward the idea that siglriflcantly more state intervention into markets is necessary, for instance in the Social Democratic idea of an activating wellare state. In this sense, the nationalization ofindividual banks and new regulatory proposals do not mark a clear break. More interesting in this context are concepts such as those presented by the OECD and the EU where the key word is "knowledge-based bio-economy," concepts that combine sustainable economic development with promotion environmental of biotech development and policy. These concepts frame an of life processes

DAVID JOSELIT PROFILE

It is o long-stonding proctice in economics to develop profiles ond use them to generote products ond creote odvertising c q m p o i g n su s i n g t h e d o t o c o l l e c t e do n d the consumer types derived trom them. With the boom of "reolity shows" ond the populority of digitot forums such os Focebook or Myspoce, the tormot of the profite hos now left the redtm ot clondestinety-octingcopitol ond detinitivety goined entry into torms of entertoinm e n to n d c o m m u n i c o t i o n . But whot octuolly mokes o protile like those in Focebook, i . e .t h e m e d i o ls t o g i n g o f o n e ' s o w n i d e n t i t y , so ottroctive? Why do thousonds of peopte subiect themselves to the selection ond molding processes of c o s t i n g s h o w s l i k e " A m e r i c o nl d o t " ? A n d w h y d o m i l t i ons of viewers wotch with such greot foscinotion? We are all profiles patterns of data extracted

understanding of bioeconomics in which the use, control, and optimizatlon of the future. A biopolitically is envisioned as the economically relevant area informed social critique must analyze such programs, which combine challenges to environmental policy and changes in capitalist production with processes of population reguiation and self-government. This is where I think there is a critical potential that has so far remained largely untapped. (Translation: GerritJackson)
N()te r Thomas Lemke, Biopolitik zur Einfiihrung, Hanrburg zooT Maria Muhle: Eine Genealogieder Biopolirik. Zrrnr BegrifT dcs Lebensbei Foucault uld Canguilhem, Biclefeld zoo8.

from countless unconscious acts of consumption. This is not the unconscious ofFreud or Lacan, but that of Claritas PRIZM, a product of Nielsen,' the c o m p a n y m a d e f a m o u s l o r r n e a s u r i n gt e l e v l sion audiences. Claritas PRIZM has identihed "65 demographically and behavioraily distinct types

or segments" among American households. Tliese i n c l u d e : " Y o u n g D i g e r a t i" , " K i d s a n d C u i - d e - S a t s " and "Heartlanders". According to the company's p r o m o t i o r r a l l i t e r a t u r e ." Y , ) u n g D i g c r a L i " ,f o r instance, are "the nation's tech savvy singles and couples living in fashionable neighborhoods on