Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Doctor Data

The latest data on the 15-month-old is in. Here is a little retrospective. See if you can spot the anomaly.

9 months......21 lbs. 9 oz.; 28 in.
12 months.....22 lbs. 5 oz.; 30.5 in.
15 months.....23 lbs. 14 oz.; 29.5 in.

That's right. She seems to have shrunk an inch over the last three months. Best explanation: squirminess reduces ability to hold still and reduced ability to hold still in turn reduces accuracy.

Saturday, May 14, 2005


Paul Krugman tells it like it is:
Let's consider the Bush tax cuts and the Bush benefit cuts as a package. Who gains? Who loses?

Suppose you're a full-time Wal-Mart employee, earning $17,000 a year. You probably didn't get any tax cut. But Mr. Bush says, generously, that he won't cut your Social Security benefits.

Suppose you're earning $60,000 a year. On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year. Not a very good deal.

Suppose, finally, that you're making $1 million a year. You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by about $9,400 per year. We have a winner!

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Swinging in Montreal

14 months swinging cropped

Aller et Retour

We are back from the regional AAR meeting (that's American Academy of Religion to you non-religionists out there). It was at McGill University in Montreal. The conference was good, and we enjoyed the francophone city and the good food. We were joined by a grandmother and aunt to attend to the little lady.

I'm almost done with painting the room in the house that we're no longer going to live in--long story. Note to self: never start taking wallpaper off unless it is absolutely necessary.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Protest in the State of Exception: Some Thoughts on the Biopolitics of Giorgio Agamben (2181 words)

In a Washington Post op-ed of January 12, 2005, Harold Meyerson summarized the likely legacy of George W. Bush’s presidency: he will be known as the “president of fabricated crises.” Meyerson explains, “To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office -- the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security -- he concocted crises where there were none.”

From the false pretenses for war and the techniques of extraordinary rendition employed to deny legal status and humane treatment to wartime detainees to the hype of an imminent crisis in the Social Security Trust Fund and the triumph of ideology over scientific fact—what is common to all these cases is the notion of the exception. No matter what the norms and the facts of our situation may be, it is always possible to arrogate the authority to declare a suspension of those norms and to simply deny the facts. That is, it is always possible to fabricate a crisis and declare a state of exception.

Near the end of Walter Benjamin’s life when many of his worst fears seemed to be on the verge of realization, he issued the following admonition: “The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of emergency’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a concept of history that accords with this fact.” [Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, translated by Harry Zohn (New York: Schoken Books, 1968), p. 257.] In the work of Giorgio Agamben from the past fifteen years or so, it is clear that Agamben has heard this call and is attempting to think through its implications for our time. His projected four-volume series Homo Sacer (i.e., “sacred man”) represents his most concerted effort on this subject and builds on some of his prior meditations from the early 1990s published in Means without End: Notes on Politics.

In those early writings, Agamben issues a stern warning of his own: “the spectacular-democratic world organization that is emerging actually runs the risk of being the worst tyranny that ever materialized in the history of humanity, against which resistance and dissent will be practically more and more difficult.” [Giorgio Agamben, Means without End: Notes on Politics (hereafter ME), translated by Vincenzo Binetti and Cesare Casarino (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), pp. 86-7.] This claim, though quite extreme, may seem less so in light of the reports regarding the August 2002 memo from White House legal counsel which “suggested that the president's commander-in-chief authorities meant that those acting at his direction would be immune from prosecution for torture. That memo drew on a January 2002 memo that suggested … that the president could suspend the application of international protections for detainees.”

In Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article “Outsourcing Torture,” she interviews John Yoo regarding his advisory role to the president on U.S. torture policy. She writes:

Yoo . . . argued that the Constitution granted the President plenary powers to override the U.N. Convention Against Torture when he is acting in the nation’s defense…. As Yoo saw it, Congress doesn’t have the power to “tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique.” He continued, “It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.”

When it is a "core" function of the Commander-in-Chief to abuse his powers, the state of exception has become the rule. Furthermore, even if this process is established by “fabricated crises” which purport to warrant emergency measures of various sorts, when the exercise of power has found ways to escape its own legitimation, this situation constitutes a real crisis in the legitimacy of the state-form itself.

Although the risk of tyranny has notable markers in recent history and is especially obvious in contemporary American politics, Agamben’s work as a whole offers a more extensive account—dare I say, a grand récit—of the pervasiveness of this nihilistic condition. For Agamben, this condition is named the state of exception, and it is not only becoming the rule as a “technique of government” but, as he writes in State of Exception, “it also lets its own nature as the constitutive paradigm of the juridical order come to light.” [Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception (hereafter SE), translated by Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2005), pp. 6-7.] A great deal of Agamben’s work deals with this problem of the constitutive paradigm of the juridical order and in particular with Carl Schmitt’s provocative account of sovereignty in his Political Theology. I will now spend some time trying to make that constitutive paradigm come to light.

Following Schmitt, Agamben agrees that the sovereign is the one who decides the exception. In the words, the sovereign is the one who gets to decide when the rules can be suspended. However, Agamben follows Schmitt even further in this logic of sovereignty. Having said this much about sovereignty, two possibilities emerge: either there was no sovereign before that decision to suspend the rules, or there was a sovereign before the decision. Schmitt argues that the first case would require a sovereignless norm, a norm that would have to be applicable to chaos. He finds this nonsensical. Thus, the truth must lie in the second option—that the sovereign preexists the decision to suspend the rules and also decides the norm itself. In other words, the sovereign establishes the condition of normality within which norms can be applied. Thus, the concept of sovereignty entails constituent power. In practice this constituent power is exerted every time a state of crisis prompts a government to absorb within its constitution the sovereign plenipotentiary powers that have been deemed necessary to deal with the emergency at hand. Agamben offers numerous examples of this phenomenon from ancient Rome to the Weimar Constitution to the emergency powers assumed by U.S. Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Bush. When a crisis lasts long enough, it tends to become the norm—a fact which has not escaped the notice of crisis theologians in the neo-orthodox tradition.

Agamben schematizes this process in Hobbesian terms. The transition from the state of nature to a state of law is instituted by the constituent power of the sovereign, and this sovereign power maintains its authority by retaining the right to suspend the state of law and thereby initiate a state of exception. This process leading from nature to law to exception, however, is too simple. By “state of nature,” we are to understand this anomic condition as one of absolute exposure to violence. Thus, it is from this unlimited danger of anomie that the nomos protects us, but a latent threat always resides in the state of law because of the permanent possibility of its own suspension in a time of crisis—whether real or fabricated. (See ME, pp. 5-6.) Thus, the threat of a state of exception is a threat of a return to a peculiar kind of state of nature—one that exists as a legal void within the juridical order and in fact founds the legitimacy of the political constitution.

This is a key point for Agamben—that there can be anomie structured within nomos such that each is constitutive of the other. As he puts it State of Exception,

There are not first life as a natural biological given and anomie as the state of nature, and then their implication in law through the state of exception. On the contrary, the very possibility of distinguishing life and law, anomie and nomos, coincides with their articulation in the biopolitical machine. (SE, p. 87.)
Agamben argues further in Homo Sacer that as the exception becomes the rule in political life, “the realm of bare life—which [in classical Aristotelian political theory] is . . . situated at the margins of the political order—gradually begins to coincide with the political realm, and exclusion and inclusion, outside and inside, bios and zoē, right and fact, enter into a zone of irreducible indistinction.” [Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (hereafter HS), translated by Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 9.] Once we have entered this zone of indistinction, we become caught in the biopolitical machine.

Agamben writes extensively on the issue of biopolitics, i.e., the relation of biological life and political power. Drawn from his reading of Aristotle's De Anima, the key concept is the distinction between the instinctual animal life of zoē and the politically engaged life of bios. Reading Aristotle against the grain, Agamben recognizes the dependence of bios (political life) on zoē (animal life) not only as its logical precondition but as a necessary exclusion. Political life is constituted and sustained by its exclusion of animal life from the political domain.

To understand what this "exclusion" of bare life consists in, it will be necessary to see the true character of political power: namely, the power over life and death. This power, according to Benjamin whom Agamben follows closely here, is that of pure violence, and hence establishes the links of bare life to violence and violence to law.

A key point about this relation of violence and law requires clarification. There is something sacred which conditions all instances of sovereign power. This condition is exemplified by homo sacer ("sacred man")--a term borrowed from Foucault which Agamben expands to denote any figure, i.e., any body, who has been abandoned before the law.

Agamben argues that modern political theories have omitted this violent ground of all state power. While political theory often posits a contractual origin of state power, Agamben claims that all sovereignty originates from the “ban” or “abandonment,” by which he means the isolation and exclusion of bare life. In other words, politics is always from its origin biopolitics. Whereas in classical politics there were rights (natural, human, logical) at the foundation of political liberty, in Agamben's scheme there is the arbitrary decision of sovereign power. This is the logic of sovereignty; its true character appears from and within the state of exception, the hallmark of which is the power over life and death as was exemplified most fully by the Nazi death camps.

Thus, Agamben writes, “[t]here is no return from the camps to classical politics,” (HS, p. 188.) and furthermore since “[b]are life is a product of the machine” (SE, pp. 87-88.) there is also no return to nature. In other words, there is no easy way out of the bind that we are in, i.e., the pernicious form of nihilism rendered by modern metaphysics and technologism. If moderns like Habermas are calling for the reinstitution of respect for the Aristotelian distinction between the grown and the made in order to prevent the domination and mastery of the latter over the former, such Romantic defenses of the victimization of pure nature or bare life are hopeless. There is no return to that Garden in which there might be a harmonious oikos. Nor is there hope for some new body devised by biotechnology which might resolve the relation between zoē and bios; that is, once life inevitably becomes the “bare” life of the state, there is no return from the inexorable economics of biopolitics.

At this point, I would like to return to the Benjamin passage that got all of this started. After claiming that the state of exception is becoming the rule, he states that “it is our task to bring about the real [wirklich] state of exception, and this will improve our position in the struggle against fascism.” If there is a glimmer of hope in Agamben’s hermeneutic of political life, it is neither a return to nature nor to classical politics but through a “deactivation” of the use of law as when the Apostle Paul claims that “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4). The Law is not abolished or annulled but “deactivated” (katargein), thus confirmed—as the exception confirms the rule. Thus, Agamben points toward an eschatological condition in which, in accordance with Romans 3:31, we do not overthrow the law but uphold it in this “real state of exception” which can never be fully inscribed within the biopolitical machine.

One final suggestion. Given the Heideggerian diagnosis of the Western metaphysical tradition as based upon the nihilistic desire for mastery—mastery of being itself, of nature, and of the animal, Agamben tends to pose the problem of biopolitics in relation to the call for Heideggerian passivity and openness because anything else would recapitulate the nihilistic state of exception. We must “let the earth be,” experience being as such, recognize our boredom as an opening to our environing world which prevents us from becoming entirely captivated by it, etc. However, there are some obvious counterexamples to this account of sovereignty as deriving from crisis and leading to dictatorship. For example, there can be collective democratic actions which suspend the rules in order to create a state of exception. This is precisely what a labor movement accomplishes through a strike. In Jewish law, the jubilee represents a time when the socially dead are resurrected from debt-slavery. Finally, in terms of biological or bare life, Richard Dawkins and Keith Stanovich have written extensively on the distinct human capacity to “rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators,” i.e., the genes which would otherwise enslave us to biological determinism. All of these points would require further discussion than is possible here. Thus, I end with a question: can our model of eschatology reflect these more active and rebellious moments in human experience without succumbing to the nihilistic logic of sovereignty?

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Does the Old Testament Prohibit Homosexuality?

The textual pros and cons of the Old Testament prohibition of homosexuality

The word homosexual does not appear in the Bible, nor in any extant text or manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syrian, or Aramaic. In fact, none of these languages ever contained a word equivalent to the English “homosexual,” nor did any language prior to the late 19th century when the word was invented. It does not occur in any English translation of the Bible (not in the King James version, for example) until the Revised Standard Version of 1946.

1. Genesis 1-2 The Creation Story

: The Genesis story is about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

: Heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality, but it does not follow that it is the only form of appropriate sexuality.

: The Genesis story reflects the cultural assumptions of the world in which it was written: woman, for example, was subordinate to man. Modern society rejects that cultural assumption, so why not others?

: Because the story does not mention same-sex relations, it cannot be inferred that they are wrong. It does not refer to friendship, but we would not infer that friendship is wrong.
2. Genesis 19:1-9 Sodom and Gomorrah, with parallel passages of Judges 19 and Ezekiel 16:46-56 (also see Matthew 10 and Luke 10)

: The men of Sodom ask to “know” the visiting men (angels), meaning that they want to engage in homosexual intercourse with them. The city is then destroyed for its wickedness. Thus, homosexuality is wicked (and homosexuals should be destroyed).

: The plan to destroy the city for wickedness (of what kind, we are not told) was formed by Yahweh before the angels visit the town. It is destroyed as planned, not because of this request of the men of Sodom.

: The verb “to know” may not refer to carnal knowledge, but merely cognitive knowledge—to know whether these angels are indeed angels of death who have come to destroy the city as was God’s plan. Of the 943 times the verb is used in the Old Testament, only ten of those refer to carnal knowledge.

: The closest term for homosexuality prior to the nineteenth century was the Latin sodomita which derives from this story about Sodom, but its meanings have varied throughout history. Historian John Boswell reports that sodomy "has connoted in various times and places everything from ordinary heterosexual intercourse in an atypical position to oral sexual contact with animals. At some points in history it has referred almost exclusively to male homosexuality and at other times almost exclusively to heterosexual excess." In the King James version, when the term sodomite is used, it always refers to male prostitutes associated with places of worship who are condemned not for same-sex relations but worship of alien gods.

: Of the multiple references to this story elsewhere in the OT and NT, no text claims that homosexuality, as the term is used now, constituted the crime committed in Sodom and Gomorrah. In Ezekiel 16:48-49, Sodom’s sins are described as pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, and not aiding the poor and needy. In Isaiah 1:1-11, we are told that Sodom’s sins are vain sacrifices and general iniquity. Jeremiah 23:14 cites adultery and lies. The apocryphal book Sirach cites arrogance (16:8), and another apocryphal book, Wisdom of Solomon, notes wickedness and inhospitality (10:6-8; 19:13-14). In Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12, Jesus is under the impression that Sodom was destroyed because it was a place lacking hospitality. Jude 1:6-7 (interpreted through the commentary in the pseudepigraphal book, the Testament of Naphtali) cites the desire for unnatural mingling of humans and angels.

: In sum, nowhere in the Old Testament or New Testament is the sin of Sodom, which caused its destruction, equated with homosexuals or homosexuality.
3. Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

: These statements are clear condemnations of homosexuality.

: These statements are clear, but their context and application are not. They are part of the Holiness Code which is designed to provide a standard of moral behavior that will distinguish the Jews from the Canaanites. The price for the promised land is this code of conduct. The sentence for violations is death: death for adultery; death for incest; death for children who curse their parents. Thus, these rules were designed for the purpose of nation building. Other rules included keeping the Sabbath, showing hospitality, forbidding the inbreeding of cattle or the sowing of fields with two kinds of seeds, forbidding the use of garments made of two kinds of material. Fruit trees may not be harvested until the fifth year, and kosher laws must be kept. Round haircuts are forbidden, as are tattoos or consultations with mediums or wizards. A man may not have sexual relations with his wife while she menstruates. Such actions are condemned because they defy purity and weaken the cultural identification of the children of Israel. Thus, we can understand the context: cultural identity, protection, and procreation. In this context, homosexuality is a risk to all three. It resembles the identity of the Canaanites; it threatens their unity as a group and thus their protection from enemies; and it negates the procreation which the new nation desperately needed. Is this context the same as our context? Not at all.

: Homosexuality, according to Leviticus, is ritually impure, not intrinsically wrong. When the term abomination is used, it frequently refers to ritual impurity, and that refers to whatever the Gentiles do. Homosexuality, like round haircuts, is an abomination because Gentiles are known for it, not because it is intrinsically wrong.

: Paul says he is no longer bound by these rules of the Holiness Code. Both Jesus and Paul are concerned not with ritual purity of which Leviticus speaks, but the purity of heart. For Christians, it is central to the faith that the law cannot provide salvation; only Christ as God’s gift of grace does so.

: Christians typically ignore most of the Holiness Code and regard its precepts as irrelevant to the New Testament understanding of purity of heart, and yet many cite the Leviticus prohibitions against homosexuality. Is this selective attention and observance anything more than a prejudice, similar to the prejudice that justified slavery for many Christians in the 19th century?

Gay-bashing on TV

Remember when the United Church of Christ was told they could not advertise on television? Here is a refresher:
According to a written explanation from CBS, the United Church of Christ is being denied network access because its ad implies acceptance of gay and lesbian couples -- among other minority constituencies -- and is, therefore, too "controversial."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."
Judge the UCC ad for yourself here. (It shockingly portrays a church that actually accepts all people.)

Now the NYTimes reports that the conservative hate-group called Focus on the Family founded by radical cleric James Dobson will be running commercials on ABC, and there is apparently no concern that this will be too "controversial."

Sunday, May 01, 2005


Kevin Drum makes the following observation about privacy:
There are two different senses in which people talk about "privacy" these days:
  • Privacy in the traditional Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas sense. That is, the right to be left alone to do what we want with our own bodies, as well as the right to be left alone to do what we want in our own bedrooms. Liberals are already comfortable with advocating privacy in this sense, but we do a lousy job of selling it as a general principle. Instead, we mostly approach it as a grab bag of specific issues like abortion rights, gay rights, the right to read and watch what we want, and so forth. As an overarching concept to sell to the masses, we don't do so well.

  • Then there's privacy in the sense of being free from surveillance. This is a newer concern, and revolves around corporate databases of personal information, identity theft, computer spyware, access to medical records, and government programs like Total Information Awareness and no-fly lists. This is a newer concern, and so far it's up for grabs by either party.

Liberals would be wise to start making these issues their own. The case for privacy definition #1 is obvious, since it's the cornerstone of several existing liberal hot buttons already. The case for privacy definition #2 is less obvious, but is more likely to be embraced by liberals than conservatives since it inherently embraces both corporate regulation as well as restrictions on the police power of the government.

This issue does indeed have the makings of a perfect wedge issue because there would be plenty of conservative support for individual privacy as protection from the invasions of #2. How likely any movement based on this idea would be to succeed, however, is difficult to say.

Consider something Giorgio Agamben wrote in the mid 1990s: “the spectacular-democratic world organization that is emerging actually runs the risk of being the worst tyranny that ever materialized in the history of humanity, against which resistance and dissent will be practically more and more difficult.” This claim seems less extreme in light of the reports regarding the August 2002 memo from White House counsel which “suggested that the president's commander-in-chief authorities meant that those acting at his direction would be immune from prosecution for torture. That memo drew on a January 2002 memo that suggested, over the opposition of the State Department's legal adviser, that the president could suspend the application of international protections for detainees.” Although the risk of tyranny has notable markers in recent history and is especially obvious in contemporary American politics, Agamben’s work as a whole offers a more extensive account—dare I say, a grand récit—of the pervasiveness of this nihilistic condition in which we find ourselves.

If we are indeed witnessing the crisis of the state-form, then the battle for privacy will be more than political. It will have to be revolutionary.

Who Wants to Leave Western Pennsylvania?

Or, Who wants to live closer to her grandparents?

who wants ice cream

We'll be moving soon.