Necropolitics is a sociopolitical theory of the use ofsocial and political power to dictate how some people may live and how some must die. The deployment of necropolitics creates whatAchille Mbembe callsdeathworlds, or "new and unique forms of social existence in which vast populations are subjected to living conditions that confer upon them the status of the living dead."[1] Mbembe, author ofOn the Postcolony, was the first scholar to explore the term in depth in his 2003 article,[2] and later, his 2019 book of the same name.[1] Mbembe identifiesracism as a prime driver of necropolitics, stating thatracialized people's lives aresystemically cheapened and habituated to loss.[1]
Necropolitics is often discussed as an extension ofbiopower, theFoucauldian term for the use of social and political power to control people's lives. Foucault first discusses the concepts of biopower andbiopolitics in his 1976 work,The Will to Knowledge:The History of Sexuality Volume I.[3] Foucault presents biopower as a mechanism for "protecting", but acknowledges that this protection often manifests itself as subjugation of non-normative populations.[3] The creation and maintenance of institutions that prioritize certain populations as more valuable is, according to Foucault, how population control has been normalized.[3]
Mbembe's concept of necropolitics acknowledges that contemporary state-sponsored death cannot be explained by the theories of biopower and biopolitics, stating that "under the conditions of necropower, the lines between resistance and suicide, sacrifice and redemption, martyrdom and freedom are blurred."[2]Jasbir Puar assumes that discussions of biopolitics and necropolitics must be intertwined, because "the latter makes its presence known at the limits and through the excess of the former; [while] the former masks the multiplicity of its relationships to death and killing in order to enable the proliferation of the latter."[4]
Mbembe was clear that necropolitics is more than simply a right to kill (Foucault'sdroit de glaive). While his view of necropolitics does include various forms ofpolitical violence such as the right to imposesocial orcivil death, and the right to enslave others, it is also about the right to expose other people (including a country's own citizens) to mortal danger and death.[2] Cultural theoristLauren Berlant calls this gradual and persistent process of eliminationslow death.[5][6] According to Berlant, only specific populations are "marked out for wearing out"[7] and the conditions of being worn out and dying are intimately linked with "the ordinary reproduction of [daily] life."[8]
Necropolitics is a theory of the walking dead, in which specific bodies are forced to remain in suspended states of being located somewhere between life and death. Mbembe provided a way of analyzing these "contemporary forms of subjugation of life to the power of death."[2] He utilized examples of slavery, apartheid, the colonization of Palestine and the figure of the suicide bomber to illustrate differing forms of necropower over the body (statist, racialized, astate of exception, urgency, martyrdom) and how this reduces people toprecarious life conditions.[2]
According toMarina Gržinić, necropolitics precisely defines the forms taken byneo-liberal global capitalist cuts in financial support for public health, social and education structures. To her, these extreme cuts present intensive neo-liberal procedures of ‘rationalization’ and ‘civilization’.[9]
Mbembe's understanding ofsovereignty, according to which the living are characterized as "free and equal men and women," informs how he expands the definition of necropolitics to include not only individuals experiencing death, but also experiencing social or political death.[2] An individual unable to set their own limitations due to social or political interference is then considered, by Mbembe, to not be truly alive, as they are no longer sovereign over their own body.[2] The ability for a state to subjugate populations so much so that they do not have the liberty of autonomy over their lives is an example of necropolitics. This creates zones of existence for theliving dead, those who no longer have sovereignty over their own body.[1] R. Guy Emerson writes that necropolitics exists beyond the limits of administrative or state power being imposed on bodies, but also becomes internalized, coming to control behaviors over fear of death or fear of exposure to death worlds.[10]
Frédéric Le Marcis discusses how the contemporary African prison system acts as an example of necropolitics.[11] Referring to the concept of living death as "stuckness", Le Marcis details life in prison as a state-sponsored creation of death; some examples he provides include malnourishment through a refusal to feed inmates, a lack of adequate healthcare, and the excusing of certain violent actions between inmates.[11]Racism, discussed by Foucault as an integral component of wielding biopower, is also present in Le Marcis' discussion of the necropolitical prison system, specifically regarding the ways in which murder and suicide are often overlooked among inmates.[11] Mbembe also contends that matters of homicide and suicide within state-governed institutions housing "less valuable" members of the necroeconomy are simply another example of social or political death.[2]
Ilana Feldman brings as an example the experience of Palestinian refugees in the situation of prolonged displacement. In her ethnographic work, a number of interviewees share how the combination of bad leadership, poor services in refugee camps and lack of international support resulted in a collective climate of hopelessness.[12]
Jasbir Puar coined the termqueer necropolitics to analyze thepost-9/11 queer outrage regardinggay bashing and simultaneous queer complicity withIslamophobia.[4] Puar utilizes the discussions of Mbembe to address the dismissal of racism within theLGBTQ+ community as a form of assimilation and distancing from the non-normative populations generally affected by necropolitics.[4] Puar's research centers specifically on the idea that, "the homosexual other is white, the racial other is straight," leaving no room for queer people of color, and ultimately accepting their fate as a non-valuable population destined for social, political, or literal death.[4] Puar's prime example of this lives within theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict, in which Israel, considered a haven for LGBTQ individuals, is then spared criticism from its Islamophobic violence against the Palestinian people, particularly queer Palestinians.[4]
Many scholars use Puar's queer necropolitics in conjunction withJudith Butler's concept of a grievable life.[13] Butler's discussion of theHIV/AIDS epidemic acts as a necessary extension of the queer necropolitical field, as it addresses specifically the shortcomings of Foucault's concept of biopower for non-normative, less societally valuable populations, those populations experiencing multiple intersections of Other-ness.[13] Butler connects the lives of queer individuals to that of, "war casualties that the United States inflicts," noting that one cannot publicly grieve these deaths because in order to do so, they must be deemed noteworthy by those who inflicted death upon them.[13] Butler claims that the obituary is a tool for normalizing the necropolitics of queer lives, as well as the lives of people of color.[13]
In "Trans Necropolitics: A Transnational Reflection on Violence, Death, and the Trans of Color Afterlife"Snorton and Haritaworn investigate the necropolitical nature of trans people of color's lives. As they make sense of "trans of color afterlife," Snorton and Haritaworn examine the ‘making dead’ of trans people of color, and especially trans women of color, as an intentionally violent political strategy. This reveals society's incredible failure to protect and care for trans people of color during their lives.[14]
In the academic articleNecropolitics and Trans Identities: Language Use as Structural Violence, authors Kinsey Stewart and Thomas Delgado argue that language can also harm the dead and that the use of language within medicolegal death investigation reflects and reinforces structural violence againsttransgender andgender diverse people.[15]
Khaled Al-Kassimi, author ofInternational Law, Necropolitics, and Arab Lives[16], has recently expanded the theoretical framework of necropolitics by engaging in an epistemic inquiry deconstructing the philosophical and theological reasons as to why Western modernity necessitates deploying "necropower" for onto-epistemic coherence.[17] In doing so, Al-Kassimi mentions that while racism is a material explanation to the exercise of necropolitics, it is the epistemic schism between both "spiritual Arabia" and "secular Europe" that demands the latter to "ban" the former from the juridical order and render them the "living-dead".[17] By navigating Latin-European scholastics in the 15th century, including the positivist juridical turn during and after the Enlightenment period emphasizing Reason over Revelation, Al-Kassimi concludes that, "Arab epistemology emphasiz[ing] the spiritual rather than simply the material"[17] requires "secular" Western modernity to demand the elevation of Arab subjects to the exception and rendering them through technologies of racism and essentialist narratives as "bare-life", "Muselmann", or the "living-dead"; that is, objects of sovereign necropower.[17]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)The phraseslow death refers to the physical wearing out of a population and the deterioration of people in that population that is very nearly a defining condition of their experience and historical existence.
