Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

biopolitics, task for session #9: references to the right to maim

Pre-Session Task for Monday, December 11.

Topic: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Jasbir Puar’s “The Right to Maim”

Objective:

To enrich our discussion and deepen our understanding of Puar’s arguments in “The Right to Maim,” you are asked to bring an interdisciplinary theory, framework, or concept to class that can either contrast with, complement, or provide a fresh perspective on Puar’s ideas.

Instructions:

  1. Select a Framework/Theory/Concept:
    • Choose a theoretical framework, concept, or perspective from a discipline outside of Puar’s primary field. This could be from sociology, psychology, law, political science, history, gender studies, etc.
    • Ensure that your choice is relevant to the themes explored in the first three chapters of “The Right to Maim”; you can get inspired from the podcast episode on “The Right to Maim”with Bassam Sidiki. If you need a refresher, the podcast can be accessed here.
  2. Prepare a Short Presentation:
    • Prepare a brief (2–3 minutes) presentation (no slides needed) or discussion points on how your chosen framework contrasts with, complements, or adds a new dimension to Puar’s arguments. You may also already publish them in the blog here.
    • Consider questions like:
      • How does this framework challenge or support Puar’s views on state violence, debility, and capacity?
      • What new insights or perspectives does it bring to the themes discussed in the book?
      • Are there any points of contention or significant alignments between the two?
  3. Be Ready to Discuss:
    • Come prepared to share your findings and insights with the class.
    • Engage critically and constructively with your peers’ presentations, exploring how these diverse perspectives enhance our collective understanding of Puar’s work.

In preparation of 11.12.: Listen to the podcast episode on “The Right to Maim”with Bassam Sidiki on https://newbooksnetwork.com/the-right-to-maim and comment on it in the blog.


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Victoria Mummelthei (4. Dezember 2023). biopolitics, task for session #9: references to the right to maim. Keine Disziplin – No Discipline. Abgerufen am 7. März 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/13jp5


6 Antworten auf „biopolitics, task for session #9: references to the right to maim“

  1. The “Hands up don’t shoot” section in Puar’s book examines the systemic violence and oppression faced by marginalized communities, particularly African American community, and how their bodies are policed and controlled. Puar argues that this violence is not a deviation from the norm, but rather an inherent part of the structure of society. Hands up don’t shoot” section explores the concept of bodily vulnerability and the power dynamics surrounding it. The phrase “Hands up don’t shoot” originated from the protests against police brutality and racial injustice, particularly about the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. This section delves into how bodily vulnerability is weaponized and how it intersects with various forms of oppression.

    On the other hand, the cyclical theory of history posits that history repeats itself in a predictable pattern. It suggests that societal structures and power dynamics go through cycles of rise and fall, with periods of oppression followed by periods of resistance and change. These cycles can be influenced by various factors such as technological advancements, cultural shifts, and political ideologies.

    If we use the main concepts of cyclical theory in this section by examining historical cycles of oppression, resistance, and societal change, we can gain insights into the current struggles and movements highlighted in Puar’s work. Both section and theory explore the concept of power dynamics and oppression and highlight the impact of systemic structures on marginalized communities and the perpetuation of violence and discrimination. Yet, the book section focuses specifically on the experiences of disabled individuals and the intersectionality of disability and violence. On the other hand, the cyclical theory examines broader patterns in history and the recurrence of certain events or ideologies.

    Overall, these two perspectives offer valuable insights into the complex dynamics of power, violence, and resistance, highlighting the urgent need for transformative change and social justice.

  2. The Matrix of Domination by Patricia Hill Collins

    As sociologist Patricia Hill Collins is concerned with the intersectionality performance and more precisely on how this one is ruled by a matrix of domination. This analytical perspective on power distinguishes and informs us how the structural, disciplinary, hegemonic and interpersonal ambits of power (through which the matrix is organized) shape human action, in other words how organizes power, manage and legitimates oppression in society and last but not least how our personal consciousness perpetuates the subordination of others everyday life. The concept initially touches those showed at the very beginning, intersectionality (the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression and resistance, emphasizing solidarity movements like Ferguson-to-Gaza) and on the Chapter 2 related with racialized disability (how race intersects with disability, noting how racialized bodies are often more susceptible to debilitation due to systemic inequalities). In fact, is linked to many other topics on which Puar has shed light and used as a starting point for examples and situations in society. From my point of view, this concept corroborates the intersectionality that Puar makes and goes further by classifying it in four related ambits that are responsible for structuring power relations in society. Obviously it ratifies many theories described in the book and also goes into something more specific and gives the example of racial inequality and more specifically with the case of black women. Also implicit in this is the protagonism not only of state oppression, but also of other population groups that infer by provoking weakness, downplaying the importance and capacity of this group for being simply a “minority”. Questions for Discussion:
    -According to the classification made on the basis of the matrix of domination, how could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be exposed?
    -Could the dominance matrix be related to homonationalism in any way? In which domain of power would it fall?

    Hill Collins, P. (1991). Black feminist thought : knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment / Patricia Hill Collins. (Reprint.). Routledge.

    Hill Collins, P. (2006). Patricia Hill Collins: Intersecting Oppressions.

  3. Fear of Death and State’s implication of Biopolitics

    In the Israeli-Palestinian case analysed by Puar, the Israeli threats on life or practices of control over life that Israel imposed on the Palestinian people were quite striking. Puar’s intersectional analyses enabled us to address the issue through gender, debility and disability. I will look at biopolitics through Agambenin’s critiques in the corona period and investigate their validity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. States often use biopolitics or bodily restraints against minorities or groups they oppose. Such as police brutality in the USA and the Turkish state’s treatment of the Kurdish people. The biopolitical control proposed by Agamben which relies on Foucault suggests different layer biopolitics to sustain sovereignty. Agamben suggests that the new legislation occurred as a result of COVID19 is to control of people’s bodies with their fear of dying. By this I mean the restriction of people’s mobilisation through the fear of dying, increase political polarisation and even the creation of enemies/other. According to Agamben’s claim, states had previously fortified themselves with the possibility of a terrorist attack, but during the corona period they also fortified themselves with the fear of dying from the disease. In other words, states use people’s fear of dying to increase their power and protect their sovereignty. In addition, Puar’s intersectionality in the field of gender, queers and people with disabilities is also paralleled during the Covid-19 crisis. Working women suffered more from Covid-19 than men. Women’s domestic labour was ignored. The working environment that emancipated them was taken away from them and they were condemned to work at home without any compensation. In addition, domestic violence increased. Queer youth who lived partially free in their own living spaces at university were subjected to identity pressures when they returned to their family homes. People with disabilities were denied access to health services. From this point of view, the need for an intersectional research on the identities most harmed by the biopolitical sanctions of the states has been put forward again. In order to understand how the non-existent fear of terrorism leads to biopolitical practices, it is possible to analyse the biopolitical sanctions imposed by the Turkish state on the Kurdish population such as curfew restrictions. I think that states feed on the fear of dying in order to legitimise the massacres they have committed and will commit in society. The state scares its population to death in order to gain their support for its own anti-humanitarian actions. In the Corona period, when we were all under surveillance by the state, when we were restricted from going out or when the right to protest was abolished, it was enough for the state to put the possibility of death in front of us in order not to be opposed. Likewise, for years the Turkish state has been legitimising the massive massacres in Kurdish provinces with the fear of terrorism or suicide bombers. My suggestion is that in order to create a situation of massacre without any limits, where even the not to kill policy, which Puar repeats in her book, can be adopted, states resort to biopolitics again in order to strengthen sovereignty and create a threatening environment to accomplish their agenda.

  4. As part of this High Theory podcast’s episode, Bassam Sidiki PhD Candidate in English at the University of Michigan, gives a succinct, concise and comprehensive overview of Jasbir Puar’s The Right to Maim. Through a series of questions raised by the moderator, Sidiki provides an input of the issues presented in the book, providing relevant details according to him. Firstly, he introduces the duality between disable and non disable, framed in a pre-existing continuum of ability to capacity. Then he brings forth the Palestine’s situation, in which he comments that control is based on the power to decide whether to let die or kill, the ability to weaken. Here he introduces Focault and his idea of person/organism who is placed at the apex of that hierarchical chain, is the one who has the right to maim. Furthermore, he mentions global capitalism and weakness here is a kind of implicit norm in which certain bodies (workers on a daily basis) are dare and exposed to be maimed. Following this, the most useful function of this work is displayed and it is about the lack of intersectional analysis of how disability partially is part of racism and thus it is used as a critique of hegemonic disability studies. Therefore “The Right to Maim” when pointed US examples, echoes again the explanation of a specific kind of biopolitical strategy and the resonance between debility and minority. These minorities are attacked and not necessarily being killed but they are in slow death as he quoted Lauren Berlant, “the health is slowly being debilitated”.

    In conclusion, the book helps to understand the logic of power and also to break the stereotype created around Middle Eastern countries, thinking that death there is a collateral damage and is clearly intentional.

  5. Complementing Framework – Intersectionality by Kimberlé Crenshaw

    1. Overview of Intersectionality:
    Definition: Coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, Intersectionality is a framework for understanding how aspects of a person’s social and political identities (gender, race, class, sexuality, ability, etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination and privilege.
    Focus on Overlapping Identities: Intersectionality emphasizes that the various aspects of identity are not isolated but interwoven, and these intersections contribute to unique experiences of oppression and privilege.

    2. Core Concepts of Crenshaw’s Intersectionality:
    Beyond Single-Axis Analysis: Crenshaw critiqued traditional feminist and anti-racist discourses for their single-axis focus, advocating for an approach that considers multiple, intersecting oppressions.
    Invisibility in Dominant Narratives: Intersectionality sheds light on how certain groups (e.g., women of color) are often marginalized within both anti-racist and feminist movements.

    3. Complement to Puar:
    Amplifying Marginalized Voices: Similar to Puar’s focus on debility and the biopolitics of disability, Intersectionality provides a lens to understand how intersecting identities can influence the way individuals experience state power and violence.
    Enhancing Puar’s Analysis: Intersectionality complements Puar by adding depth to the understanding of how debility is experienced differently by individuals with intersecting marginalized identities, such as race, gender, and disability.
    Exploring Complex Dynamics: It aids in exploring the complex dynamics of how systemic forces like racism, patriarchy, and ableism intersect in the lives of those debilitated by state policies and actions.

    4. Implications for Understanding Debility and Intersectionality:
    Synergy with Puar’s Themes: Intersectionality and Puar’s work together broaden the analysis of how different forms of state-inflicted violence affect diverse populations.
    Reflective Questions for Discussion:
    – How does Intersectionality deepen our understanding of the forms of debility and capacity discussed by Puar?
    – In what ways can Intersectionality help us better grasp the nuances in Puar’s analysis of state power and marginalized identities?

  6. Contrasting Theory: Amartya Sen’s Capabilities Approach

    1. Overview of Sen’s Capabilities Approach:
    Definition: Sen’s Capabilities Approach is centered on evaluating individual well-being and social arrangements based on what people are able to be and do – their capabilities.
    Focus Areas: It emphasizes assessing a person’s freedom to pursue different combinations of functioning (like being healthy, being educated, etc.) and their ability to achieve valuable states of being.

    2. Core Principles:
    Agency and Choice: Central to Sen’s approach is the idea that individuals should have the freedom to choose the kind of life they value.
    Beyond Material Wealth: Unlike traditional economic theories that focus on income or wealth, Sen’s approach values the quality of life and opportunities available to individuals.

    3. Contrast with Puar:
    Focus on Debility vs. Capabilities: While Puar’s analysis in “The Right to Maim” focuses on the deliberate production of debility and bodily harm as a form of control by the state, Sen’s approach is fundamentally different. It looks at enhancing capabilities and positive freedoms.
    State’s Role: Sen’s approach implies a role of the state in enhancing capabilities and ensuring a minimum level of freedom for its citizens. This contrasts with Puar’s examination of how states may actively impair and debilitate certain populations.
    Emphasis on Empowerment vs. Disempowerment: Sen’s theory is more about empowering individuals and providing them with choices, whereas Puar discusses how certain populations are systematically weakened or disadvantaged.

    4. Implications for Understanding State Power and Individual Agency:
    Different Perspectives on Power: Puar and Sen offer diverging views on state power. Sen’s focus on positive state actions for capability enhancement contrasts with Puar’s critique of state-inflicted violence and debility.
    Reflective Questions for Discussion:
    – How might Sen’s Capabilities Approach critique the forms of debility discussed by Puar?
    – In what ways can these two theories provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between individuals and state power?

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.