Conversaciones con Pelayo: A propósito de si biopolítica es un oxímoron

Abstract

Recently in a locality of western Argentina the forensic anthropology team delivered, to the sister of a missing detainee during the last dictatorship, the mortal rests of whom had been looked for during 40 years. This fact, particularly unique, contrasts with recent statesments of the chief in command of the military board, that governed the country, who insured he did not know well how many missing people were from that long process that took place between 1976 and 1982, wich even includes the pre-coup d’état from 1973. It is also unique because as it is wellknown along the western world, at least, dictator Videla asserted that “missing people are not, do not exist, nor alive neither dead”. 147 Agosto 2017 mediante The reappearance of Juan Carreras, kidnapped, clandestinely imprisoned, tortured, murdered and thrown to a enormous common ditch, encourages once again the question of how life has been the object of brutal death under a regime of government wich maximized the biopolitics principle of making die and let live as plans arbitrated according to a salvific mandate of the destinies of the Argentina nation. It also puts forward the question of the relationship between life and politics under the paradox of soberanity, that in terms of Agamben, it precisely consists in the power of deciding who command and who obey. At the same time, the questioning influences in an unsolved debate with other philosophical grammars, that is to say, whether biopolitics category is an oxymoron, taking into account that that figure is derived from the crosslinking of two terms, appearently opposed, but they produce a powerful rethoric effect which supposedly hides its conceptual inconsistency.  Encoding the biopolitical category under the order of a simply rethoric resource wipes out its theoretical prolificness wich allows to rebuild the purposes of the democratic tradition, biginning from the inrush of life in the politics chore. That shortening ejects from the discusion the undergrounding of the above mentioned assignment, produced in the West by means of the substantialization of the right as locus of enunciation and simultaneously of covering up of both figures. The article intends to open the discusion with the implications of the already mentioned reduction.