Agamben and Marx: Sovereignty, Governmentality, Economy

This essay reconsiders Marx’ prehistory of capital through the lens of the work of Giorgio Agamben, who in the wake of Foucault has proposed a bio-political theory of sovereignty that breaks down the analytical separation between sovereignty and governmentality that Foucault in his work tries to maintain. Although Agamben mentions Marx only once in his study of sovereign power, I argue that his study nevertheless contributes to our understanding of the capitalist relation as not only a governmental but also a sovereign power relation. In the first part of this essay, I show through a philological commentary on Marx’ use of the adjective ‘vogelfrei’—translated as free, rightless, without protection, outlawed—to characterise the proletariat, that the Marxian proletariat is a figure of what Agamben in his study of sovereign power calls bare life. In the second part of the essay, I show that this sovereign dimension of the capitalist relation is also substantiated by Marx’ analysis of the logic of the capitalist relation as that of the exception. After Carl Schmitt, who wrote that ‘sovereign is who decides on the state of exception’, Agamben has argued that the logic of the exception is the logic of sovereign power. Reconsidered through the lens of Agamben’s argument, Marx’ account of the prehistory of capital reveals that there is a sovereign logic of the exception at work in the capitalist relation. In the final part of the essay, I start from Agamben’s single reference to Marx in his study of sovereign power to discuss the importance of my conclusions for Agamben’s political message.     

When is a Reminder Enough? Text Message Voter Mobilization in a European Context

Sending text messages reminding people to vote has only been examined as a mobilization tool in three studies, two of them done in the United States. The results from these studies are mixed. We investigate this tool’s effectiveness using a field experiment in a different context, municipal elections in Norway. We find strong mobilization effects among groups traditionally low in participation (immigrants and youth voters). Young native Norwegians show an intent-to-treat (ITT) effect of 4.58% points, foreign nationals who have recently established Norwegian residency show an ITT effect of 2.93% points, and among immigrants who have lived in Norway for 7 years or more the treatment effect is 2.7% points. Even among native Norwegian voters over 30, with a baseline turnout of 73%, text messages generate a 0.96% points increase in turnout.

     

The 22 July Terrorist Attacks in Norway: Impact on Public Attitudes towards Counterterrorist Authorities

Did the terrorist attacks in Norway affect citizens’ attitudes to security‐related institutions and policies? To answer this question this study pools two cross‐sectional surveys, collected shortly before and after the 2011 terrorist attacks, to determine the attacks’ effects on people's attitudes. One important finding is that general support for the institutions responsible for security increased slightly, whereas specific support for government agencies capability to prevent and cope with crises decreased markedly. A second important finding concerns the potential for politicisation of crises: On issues of security, the distance between right‐wing voters and other party voters increased after the attack. Irrespective of party attachment, Norwegians have become less satisfied with governmental policies on security‐related issues, but dissatisfaction has increased significantly more among right‐wing than among left‐wing voters. Thus, even in a country where politicians responded to the crisis with an appeal to togetherness and common values, citizens’ attitudes on security policies were politicised.     

The G8 1/2: the EU's contested and ambiguous actorness in the G8

This article analyses the degree of European Union (EU) actorness within the Group of Eight (G8). Drawing on the work of Jupille and Caporaso, actorness is probed along the criteria of recognition, authority, cohesion and autonomy. We argue that the vague, flexible and informal nature of the G8 has contributed to rather nuanced and ambiguous degrees of actorness. When assessing the above criteria, overall the EU's actorness remains questionable. As for recognition, while the EU is treated as an equal by other G8 delegations, actual membership remains disputed, and third parties such as the media remain reluctant to accept EU representation as equal. Authority in terms of legal competence tends to be of lesser importance in the G8, given the informal nature of this institution. Informally, the Commission has managed to enhance its authority when it can provide substantial expertise. Cohesion has proven perhaps the most limited aspect of EU actorness. Although value cohesion is substantial, there are no formal mechanisms that tie the European participants together. Commission autonomy in the G8 is considerable in terms of its own separate institutional apparatus, as well as formal performance and compliance scores that differ from those of the European G8 members. However, ultimately the Commission's freedom of action usually remains subject to the control of its principals. Yet, EU actorness tends to differ per context as our tentative analysis of the factors conducive to autonomy indicates.