{"title":"大范围的死亡政治:流行病政治和全球获取差距的殖民性","authors":"Eric Otieno Sumba","doi":"10.1080/21624887.2021.1904354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This intervention advances a conceptualisation of privileged vs. delayed access to pharmaceutical products globally. Critiquing calls for equitable distribution of Covid-19 vaccines by the same Western leaders who pre-ordered millions of doses for exclusive use, I recast the global access gap as necropolitics at large: a generalised necropolitics not predicated on weapons and annihilation as Achille Mbembe proposes, but on negligence, acquiescence and utter disregard for the fatal implications of global inequality (i.e. uneven and inconsistent access to pharmaceutical products). The suffix ‘at large’ denotes the dispersal of necropolitics in space and time, emphasising that it is not pandemics that are necropolitical, but the global systems that govern them – and us. For Mbembe, Foucauldian biopower no longer accounts for contemporary forms of life’s subjugation to death’s power. He proposes the concept of necropolitics to examine the crisis of liberal democracy, war, terror and the prospect of repair. Mbembe’s necropolitics describe a structure of terror that proliferates by inverting life and death. Building on Foucault, he argues that sovereignty is presently exerted by controlling mortality, and that life has come to depend on the deployment of this power (Mbembe 2019, 60). Mbembe is concerned with the figures of sovereignty who instrumentalise human existence and destroy populations, figures who constitute the nomos of the present political space (Mbembe 2019, 68). In this view, late modern sovereignty relies on the power to create a group of people who, unceasingly confronted by death, live at life’s edge. It is a right to kill that recalls the lethal combination of colonial terror: biopower, a state of exception and a state of siege (Mbembe 2019). Mobilising the concept, Christopher J. Lee argues that the deployment of basic techniques of territorial state power to control Covid-19 constituted a reactionary necropolitics that laid bare the global unevenness of state capacity. For Lee, however, ‘the necropower dynamics of Covid-19 and other epidemics, whether Ebola or HIV, are of slow violence’ (Lee 2020), as the power over who may live and who must die is outsourced globally. Other scholars have similarly argued that the decline of the welfare state has reorganised sovereign state power towards the management of death (Robertson and Travaglia 2020). This intervention specifically turns to the longitudinal violence of the global access gap (‘the gap’) which has been salient in pandemic politics and defining for pharmaceutical markets since the late 20th century.","PeriodicalId":29930,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies on Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21624887.2021.1904354","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Necropolitics at large: pandemic politics and the coloniality of the global access gap\",\"authors\":\"Eric Otieno Sumba\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21624887.2021.1904354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This intervention advances a conceptualisation of privileged vs. delayed access to pharmaceutical products globally. Critiquing calls for equitable distribution of Covid-19 vaccines by the same Western leaders who pre-ordered millions of doses for exclusive use, I recast the global access gap as necropolitics at large: a generalised necropolitics not predicated on weapons and annihilation as Achille Mbembe proposes, but on negligence, acquiescence and utter disregard for the fatal implications of global inequality (i.e. uneven and inconsistent access to pharmaceutical products). The suffix ‘at large’ denotes the dispersal of necropolitics in space and time, emphasising that it is not pandemics that are necropolitical, but the global systems that govern them – and us. For Mbembe, Foucauldian biopower no longer accounts for contemporary forms of life’s subjugation to death’s power. He proposes the concept of necropolitics to examine the crisis of liberal democracy, war, terror and the prospect of repair. Mbembe’s necropolitics describe a structure of terror that proliferates by inverting life and death. Building on Foucault, he argues that sovereignty is presently exerted by controlling mortality, and that life has come to depend on the deployment of this power (Mbembe 2019, 60). Mbembe is concerned with the figures of sovereignty who instrumentalise human existence and destroy populations, figures who constitute the nomos of the present political space (Mbembe 2019, 68). In this view, late modern sovereignty relies on the power to create a group of people who, unceasingly confronted by death, live at life’s edge. It is a right to kill that recalls the lethal combination of colonial terror: biopower, a state of exception and a state of siege (Mbembe 2019). Mobilising the concept, Christopher J. Lee argues that the deployment of basic techniques of territorial state power to control Covid-19 constituted a reactionary necropolitics that laid bare the global unevenness of state capacity. For Lee, however, ‘the necropower dynamics of Covid-19 and other epidemics, whether Ebola or HIV, are of slow violence’ (Lee 2020), as the power over who may live and who must die is outsourced globally. Other scholars have similarly argued that the decline of the welfare state has reorganised sovereign state power towards the management of death (Robertson and Travaglia 2020). This intervention specifically turns to the longitudinal violence of the global access gap (‘the gap’) which has been salient in pandemic politics and defining for pharmaceutical markets since the late 20th century.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Studies on Security\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21624887.2021.1904354\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Studies on Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2021.1904354\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies on Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2021.1904354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
摘要
这一干预措施在全球范围内推进了特权与延迟获得药品的概念。我批评了那些预定了数百万剂疫苗专门使用的西方领导人要求公平分配Covid-19疫苗的呼吁,并将全球获取差距重新定义为大范围的死亡政治:一种广义的死亡政治,不是像阿基利·姆本贝(Achille Mbembe)提出的那样以武器和毁灭为基础,而是以疏忽、默许和完全无视全球不平等的致命影响(即获取药品的不平衡和不一致)为基础。后缀“at large”表示死亡政治在空间和时间上的扩散,强调不是流行病是死亡政治,而是控制它们——以及我们——的全球系统。对Mbembe来说,福柯式的生命力量不再解释当代形式的生命屈服于死亡的力量。他提出了死亡政治的概念来审视自由民主的危机、战争、恐怖和修复的前景。Mbembe的死亡政治描述了一种通过颠倒生死而扩散的恐怖结构。在福柯的基础上,他认为主权目前是通过控制死亡率来行使的,生命已经取决于这种权力的部署(Mbembe 2019, 60)。Mbembe关注的是将人类生存工具化并摧毁人口的主权人物,这些人物构成了当前政治空间的nomos (Mbembe 2019, 68)。在这种观点下,近代晚期的主权依赖于创造一群不断面对死亡、生活在生命边缘的人的权力。这种杀戮权让人想起殖民恐怖的致命组合:生物权力、例外状态和围困状态(Mbembe 2019)。利用这一概念,克里斯托弗·j·李(Christopher J. Lee)认为,利用领土国家权力的基本技术来控制Covid-19,构成了一种反动的死亡政治,暴露了全球国家能力的不均衡。然而,对于Lee来说,“Covid-19和其他流行病,无论是埃博拉病毒还是艾滋病毒,都是缓慢的暴力”(Lee 2020),因为决定谁能活谁必须死的权力被外包给全球。其他学者也同样认为,福利国家的衰落已经重组了主权国家的权力,以管理死亡(Robertson and Travaglia 2020)。这一干预措施具体涉及全球获取差距(“差距”)的纵向暴力,这一差距自20世纪末以来一直是流行病政治和决定制药市场的突出问题。
Necropolitics at large: pandemic politics and the coloniality of the global access gap
This intervention advances a conceptualisation of privileged vs. delayed access to pharmaceutical products globally. Critiquing calls for equitable distribution of Covid-19 vaccines by the same Western leaders who pre-ordered millions of doses for exclusive use, I recast the global access gap as necropolitics at large: a generalised necropolitics not predicated on weapons and annihilation as Achille Mbembe proposes, but on negligence, acquiescence and utter disregard for the fatal implications of global inequality (i.e. uneven and inconsistent access to pharmaceutical products). The suffix ‘at large’ denotes the dispersal of necropolitics in space and time, emphasising that it is not pandemics that are necropolitical, but the global systems that govern them – and us. For Mbembe, Foucauldian biopower no longer accounts for contemporary forms of life’s subjugation to death’s power. He proposes the concept of necropolitics to examine the crisis of liberal democracy, war, terror and the prospect of repair. Mbembe’s necropolitics describe a structure of terror that proliferates by inverting life and death. Building on Foucault, he argues that sovereignty is presently exerted by controlling mortality, and that life has come to depend on the deployment of this power (Mbembe 2019, 60). Mbembe is concerned with the figures of sovereignty who instrumentalise human existence and destroy populations, figures who constitute the nomos of the present political space (Mbembe 2019, 68). In this view, late modern sovereignty relies on the power to create a group of people who, unceasingly confronted by death, live at life’s edge. It is a right to kill that recalls the lethal combination of colonial terror: biopower, a state of exception and a state of siege (Mbembe 2019). Mobilising the concept, Christopher J. Lee argues that the deployment of basic techniques of territorial state power to control Covid-19 constituted a reactionary necropolitics that laid bare the global unevenness of state capacity. For Lee, however, ‘the necropower dynamics of Covid-19 and other epidemics, whether Ebola or HIV, are of slow violence’ (Lee 2020), as the power over who may live and who must die is outsourced globally. Other scholars have similarly argued that the decline of the welfare state has reorganised sovereign state power towards the management of death (Robertson and Travaglia 2020). This intervention specifically turns to the longitudinal violence of the global access gap (‘the gap’) which has been salient in pandemic politics and defining for pharmaceutical markets since the late 20th century.