Анатомия власти (quaestio facti vs quaestio juris).

DOI:

Received:

Published:

Abstract: The subject of this research is associated with the criticism of the Giorgio Agamben’s book “Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Naked Life”.  The focal point of his study is the relation between “naked life” and “politics” reviewed from the historical, ontological, and juridical perspectives. The author insists that precisely this relation has formed the frameworks of the Western politics as a whole, and democracy as its part. Criticism is based on the uncertainty of the initial notions and the derived from such uncertainty weakness of conclusions, particularly the central core of the entire analytics – the notion of homo sacer and substantiated by it “exception”, through the prism of which, the reality of political life is being perceived. The attempts to limit the understanding of the circle of historical realities by examining their legal futures are justified in accordance with the methodological preferences of the author. However, such narrowness does not allow basing the legal realities upon the more reliable life foundation, which in many cases limit the realism of this research. As a result, the work of Giorgio Agamben demonstrates the shine and poverty of the “academic project”. Putting aside the quite significant factual errors, we should acknowledge the tenuity of the anthropological model, based on which the author gradually structures his concept. But limitations of “humanity” on one side, and of “body” (naked life) on the other, its political and sacral justification, does not allow to put the fairly stable gnoseological foundation under such justifications.