Mika Ojakangas “On the Pauline Roots of Biopolitics”
Ojakangas, Mika 2010. On the Pauline Roots of Biopolitics: Apostle Paul in Company with Foucault and Agamben. Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, 11(1): 92-110.
Pauline theology seems to be the origin of two significant tendencies in modern biopolitical societies: 1) profanation and instrumentalization of the law and 2) the demand of the liberation of bare life and its affirmation as the highest value. (92)
[…] the primary concern of both the Judeo-Christian pastoral power and biopower is the life of the herd/population. The aim of this power is to promote life: “Pastoral power is a power of care,” the shepherd being someone who provides subsistence to the flock by taking care of each one’s particular needs. Likewise, the role of biopower is to “ensure, sustain, and improve” life, not only of the population in general but of each individual in particular. (93)
According to Foucault, the shepherd constantly watches over his flock, but in the Pauline ecclesia there is no such shepherd. Rather, everybody is everybody else’s shepherd: “Encourage one another and build up each other” (I Thess. 5:11). Control is horizontal as well: “My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1). Does this egalitarian or “democratic” care then mean that Pauline theology would offer a point of resistance againstpastoral power and thereby, against biopolitical governmentality, as John Milbank suggests in his recent article entitled “Paul Against Biopolitics”? This does not necessarily follow and in the next section I shall explain why. (95)
[…] within the biopolitical order the law becomes a mere tool. It has only instrumental significance. Yet it is precisely this theme that links Pauline theology to the modern biopolitical constellation depicted by Foucault. With Paul, both the Mosaic and natural law are reduced to mere tactics the aim of which is to arrange things in such a way that such and such ends may be achieved. (96)
The law, both the Mosaic and the law written in the heart, awakens the sense of guilt: “The law brings wrath” (Rom. 4:15); “through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). The end of law means, consequently, the end of the knowledge of sinand guilt. Therefore, neither the Mosaic nor natural law can be in force when we live in Christ. Christ has discharged us from the law and with it from its logic of debt through redemption, literally by ransoming (dia tês apolutrôseôs), which is in him (Rom. 3:24). When Paul criticizes the law, whichis a curse and a power of sin, he means the whole law—including the law of the heart. (97)
Agamben holds that the Pauline critique of the law includes a double operation of sorts. According to him, Paul first “renders inoperative” the law through the act of katargêsis in which the law becomes unobservable. This amounts, in Agamben’s view, to what he calls the (sovereign) state of exception in which the law is in force without signification, as he explains elsewhere. Yet Paul does not stop here. Agamben maintains that the katargêsis of the law is merely the condition of possibility for the authentic and, in fact, only possible relationship between human life and the law after the resurrection of Christ (in the “messianic time,” as Agamben puts it). This relationship is characterized by the free use of the law. By “rendering the word of law inoperative,” Agamben writes, Paul makes the law “freely available for use.” (98)
The Pauline Aufhebung of the law rendered inoperative in the “messianic time” means that the law also becomes an object of free use: “It is obvious that for Paul grace” (grace is, for Agamben, one of the Pauline figures of absolute katargêsis) “cannot constitute a separate realm that is alongside that of obligation and law. Rather, grace entails nothing more than the ability to use the sphere of social determinations and services in its totality.” (99; Agamben, „The Time that Remains”)
Indeed, given the fact that the law means, for Paul, not only the Mosaic Law, but also tradition and natural law— freedom from the law signifies absolute freedom. For a person liberated by Christ from the law, “everything is permitted (exesti)” (1 Cor. 6:12). On the other hand, as Paul immediately adds, “everything is not useful (symphoros).” For the one who lives in Christ, everything is permitted but not useful— to the extent that all other determinations and measures are cancelled in the operation of katargêsis, it is precisely usefulness itself that becomes the ultimate measure of mundane life. (100)
Even though Paul writes once in the Romans that the law is holy (hagios), it is nevertheless the holiness of the law, I argue, that Paul wants to render inoperative by the katargêsis. Why? Because: if the law is sacred, it is out of reach and untouchable. It cannot be used but merely worshipped and obeyed. Hence, by rendering the sacred law inoperative, Paul operationalizes it, restoring it to profane use. (100)
Thus, even though I fully agree with Agamben that the aim of Paul’s critique of the law is to make law freely usable, I do not subscribe to Agamben’s view that the Pauline messianism surpasses the biopolitical constellation of late modernity. In my opinion, on the contrary, by rendering the law and the worldly conditions inoperative as a whole, and thus making them freely available for use, Paul inadvertently gives a perfectarticulation to what both Milbank and Badiou call contemporary “nihilism” (utilitarianism, instrumentality, biopolitics, and so on). (101-102)
As we have seen, Foucault posits life at the core of both pastoral power and biopolitics. So does Paul in his epistles. For him, Christ himself is zôêand zôêis Christ: “For to me to live is Christ” (emoi gar to zên christos) (Philip. 1:21). We could cite dozens of passages, but that is unnecessary as the fact is well established, and it suffices for one to read certain passages in Romans (2:7, 5:10, 5:21-22, 6:5, 6:22-23) to become convinced of it. Foucault also argues that biopower is characterized by a certain “disqualification of death.” What else is Paul’s Christ but a figure of such disqualification? Indeed, christos-zôê signifies, for Paul, an absolute disqualification of death: “The last enemy to be destroyed (katargeô) is death” (1 Cor. 15:26). With Christ, life is without death. It is eternal (zôê aiônios). (102)
Through the law, God takes life, whereas through grace, he lets live. He does not take care of life like a shepherd but judges it like the sovereign. The same applies to Christ: “It is the Lord (kyrios) who judges (anakrinô) me” (1 Cor. 4:4). For Paul, in other words, both God and Christ, Father and Son, are lords, sovereigns, and judges—not shepherds. (102)
In his [Agamben’s] view both the juridico-institutional and biopolitical forms of power have a common (although hidden) foundation in the notion of bare life: “The production of bare life is the originary activity ofsovereignty.” What then is bare life? In Agamben’s definition, bare life is characterized solely by the fact that it can be killed. Bare life is thus a sort of un-dead life that has no other form or content than being “exposed to death.” (104)
Moreover, Paul also urges his addressees to become lowly and “despicable:” “Let you become lowly together” (tois tapeinois synapagomenoi) (Rom. 12:16); thus, suggesting that instead of pursuing the good form of life (eu zên), those who live in Christ should now abandon it andbecome humble slaves, representatives of the mere zôê exposed to the continuous threat of death: “The messianic life,” as Agamben calls the lifeof the Pauline person living in Christ, means the “revocation of every bios.” (105)
Although Paul identifies flesh with vice and sin, the most fundamental characteristic of the flesh is that it entails death. Indeed, for Paul, flesh meansdeath, whereas spirit meanslife: “To set the mind (phronêma) on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life” (Rom. 8:6). Whereas Aristotle and the Greeks thought that vices (the Pauline works of the flesh) entail shame, while virtues (the Pauline fruit of the spirit) entail glory and good reputation, Paul maintains instead that they entail life and death: zôê and thanatos. (105)
Indeed, the Pauline christos appears to occupy a place on both sides of biopolitical rationality: first as a sovereign judge of zôê, then as a liberator of zôê. The first figure is the son of a wrathful father-God (and more conventionally, the father-God himself) who confines his subjects within the law (“before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law” Gal. 3:23) that has no other function than to discloseone’s guilt and to subject one to what Agamben calls the “sovereign ban.” The second figure is the son of the redeemer-God whose grace redeems us from thelaw and hence, from death: “[All] are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). Thus, this second figure (kyrios christos as the son of the redeemer-God) renders, as it were, inoperative the first figure, rendering simultaneously inoperative the sovereign biopolitics in order that a new form of biopolitics (democratic and revolutionary) could emerge—a biopolitics that vindicates and liberates the zôê of the entire humankind from under the yoke of law and death, transforming the law to a mere instrument and abolishing death. (Is it not precisely through a successful sovereign biopoliticaloperation, the slaying of Christ, that this biopolitical liberation of zôê became possible in the first place? God is the subject of violence through the sacred law and the subject of liberation through Christ, but is He not the latter because He is the former?) (106)
In sum, if my analysis is correct, both the modern techno-instrumental view of the law and the world and the revolutionary (democratic) biopolitics find their common home in the Pauline epistles. Contrary to Agamben, who in Homo Sacer argues that this revolutionary biopolitics is the other side of the contemporary biopolitical constellation, however, I would like to emphasize that distinguishing these even as two sides of the samecoin is increasingly difficult today, if not entirely impossible. Contemporary biotechnology, for instance, is not only a paradigmatic case of techno-instrumental biopower (taking care of each and everyone, not like a good shepherd, but rather on the basis of a cost-benefit calculus developed for the sake of the bare life of the late modern democratic sovereign: the taxpayer), but also a revolutionary endeavor to redeem life, not only from the moral law (Milbank’s ius naturale) but also from death—its most fanciful dream still being the same as it was for Paul: the ultimate eradication (katargeô) of death. (109)