Post on 15-Dec-2015
description
W Posted on January 18, 2014 By Léopold Lambert � 6 Comments
# THE FUNAMBULISTPAPERS 46 ///CHAMAYOU’SMANHUNTS: FROMTERRITORY TO SPACE?BY STUART ELDEN
Royal Air Force Nimrod XV230 named after the biblical
character of Nimrod
The fortysixth Funambulist Papers comes from one of the
most important current thinkers in political geography: Stuart
Elden who is the author of five books, as well as the editor of
THE FUNAMBULIST
The Funambulist is a research
platform written and edited by
Léopold Lambert.
Its name is inspired by a
wondering/wandering on the
line as architects' medium. A
line on the white page splits in
reality two milieus from one
another and organizes politically
the bodies in space. The act of
walking on the line (funambulist
means tightrope walker) is an
act of subversion of the
traditional role of the line/wall.
The Funambulist is also
accessible via Facebook and
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution
NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Search
Search … Go
ARCHIPELAGO
ABOUT ARCHIVE FUNAMBULIST BOOKS ARCHIPELAGO
The
FunambulistBodies, Design & Politics
seven others (see the photo) including the very useful Space,
Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography (Ashgate,
2007.). In the following text he interprets and critique the
notion of territory — he recently wrote a book entitled The
Birth of Territory (University of Chicago Press, 2013.) — in the
philosophicalhistorical work of Grégoire Chamayou, and more
specifically in the book Manhunts (Princeton University Press,
2012.). The reader is invited to also consult the two articles
dedicated to Chamayou on The Funambulist: “The Body as a
Terrain of Experiments: Medicine and Vile Bodies” and “The
Body of the Prey is the Battlefield.” The three books written by
Chamayou, Vile Bodies, Manhunts and Drone Theory are
indeed centered on the question of body and the “genealogy”
— to use Michel Foucault’s terminology — of the mechanisms
of power that surrounds it. Stuart’s text helps us to place this
body within a legal and physical territory where these
mechanisms operate.
The Funambulist Papers 46 ///Chamayou’s Manhunts: FromTerritory to Space?
by Stuart Elden
This brief article discusses Grégoire Chamayou’s Manhunts, a
powerful account of human inhumanity, the tracking down and
killing of other humans. As he says in his second paragraph:
“To write the history of manhunts is
to write one fragment of a long
history of violence on the part of the
dominant. It is also to write a history
of the technologies of predation
LATESTARCHIPELAGOPODCAST
ARCHIPELAGOOLIVIA SNAIJE /// Keep Your Eye on the Wall
36:17
Cookie policy
Follow theFunambulist via Email
Enter your email address to follow
this blog and receive notifications of
new posts by email.
Join 2,724 other followers
Enter your email address
� Follow
Follow “TheFunambulist”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Join 2,724 other followers
Enter your email address
Build a website with WordPress.com
Sign me up
indispensable for the establishment
and reproduction of relationships of
domination”.[1]
Chamayou is insistent that his focus is not on a metaphor, but
on “concrete historical phenomena in which human beings
were tracked down, captured, or killed in accord with the forms
of the hunt”.[2]
“The main problem has to do with the
fact that the hunter and the hunted do
not belong to different species. Since
the distinction between the predator
and his prey is not inscribed in
nature, the hunting relationship is
always susceptible to a reversal of
positions. Prey sometimes band
together to become hunters in their
turn. The history of a power is also
the history of the struggles to
overthrow it”.[3]
His examples are wideranging, from Ancient Greece to the
Bible, from exile to slavery to colonialism, and to zombies. The
book is strikingly illustrated and has plenty of powerful
examples. It proceeds in a nonsystematic manner, and is
suggestive rather than comprehensive in its cases and
references. Nonetheless it is a striking and original analysis.
Chamayou is inspired by some of Foucault’s claims, especially
Follow
The Funambulist onFacebook
The Funambulist
5,483 people like The Funambulist.
Like
WEAPONIZEDARCHITECTURE
The FunambulistPapers: Volume 1
The FunambulistPamphlets: Volume
the contrast Foucault draws between mechanisms of exile and
exclusion and incarceration and inclusion. As Chamayou
notes, Foucault describes this in History of Madness as ‘the
great confinement’, le grand renfermement,[4] but it also
figures in his contrasting analyses of medicine. In lectures
delivered in 1974 in Rio Foucault contrasts the exile of the
leper and the partitioning and quarantine of the plague town; a
comparison he would reuse in his Collège de France lecture
course The Abnormals and in the ‘Panopticism’ chapter of
Discipline and Punish.[5] However Chamayou also distances
himself from elements of Foucault’s work. One striking
example is when he suggests that Foucault’s notion of
pastoral power, the power of the shepherd over his flock,[6]
should be seen as working in opposition to another figure, the
hunter of men. If Abraham is the iconic figure of pastoral
power, Nimrod is the parallel for what he calls “cynegetic
power”.[7] Nimrod was Noah’s greatgrandson and acclaimed
as a mighty hunter. He was also, on some traditions, King of
Babylon and thus the ruler of Babel.
In Chamayou’s summary, Foucault’s pastoral power is
“exercised over a multiplicity in movement (a flock); it is
fundamentally beneficent (caring for the flock), and it
individualizes its subjects (knowing each member of the flock
individually)”. It is thus “a mobile, beneficent, and
individualising power”.[8] Chamayou suggests that “cynegetic
power is opposed term for term by this triple characterization”.
[9] Instead of leading the flock, the hunter follows to seize; it is
a territorial power, but one that fluctuates between the fixed
space of the city and the exterior, a power that is “not limited in
its predatory extent by any external boundary. It is exercised,
from a territory of accumulation, on the resources of an
indefinite exteriority”.[10] Chamayou therefore distinguishes
between territory, which he understands as fixed, bordered
and to an extent immobile, from a wider “space of capture”.
01: SPINOZA
The FunambulistPamphlets: Volume02: FOUCAULT
The FunambulistPamphlets: Volume03: DELEUZE
The FunambulistPamphlets: Volume04: LEGAL THEORY
The Funambulist
This leads him to the first contrast: “Thus, whereas pastoral
power guides and accompanies a multiplicity in movement,
cynegetic power extends itself, on the basis of a territory of
accumulation, over a space of capture”.[11]
Chamayou sees modern developments to have caused “a
rupture with respect to the old principle of territorial
sovereignty that maintains that everything is on the territory
belongs to the territory, given that residing on the territory no
longer suffices to be completely subject, de facto, to the law
that applies to it”.[12] But this “old principle of territorial
sovereignty” is not, actually, all that old. While elements of its
can be traced back through the history of political thought, the
bringing together of these different elements as a notion of
‘territorial sovereignty’ is really only as old as the seventeenth
century. The idea that the king was an emperor in his
kingdom, i.e. that he has no superior in temporal power, is late
medieval; but that the boundaries of that kingdom were known
and fixed is much later. Indeed, attempts to fix boundaries of
states was one of the major international projects of the first
half of the twentieth century; really only being enshrined in
legal order in the Charter of the United Nations in the principle
of territorial integrity. In a note Chamayou suggests that
“The medieval principle of territorial
sovereignty was expressed in the
formula quidquid est in territorio est
de territorio. This maxim meant that
the sovereign reigned over the whole
territory and over everything in it.
The principle was then interpreted
freely, making it the principle of
protecting refugees: ‘Qui est in
Pamphlets: Volume
05: OCCUPY WALL
STREET
The Funambulist
Pamphlets: Volume
06: PALESTINE
The Funambulist
Pamphlets: Volume
07: CRUEL DESIGNS
The Funambulist
Pamphlets: Volume
08: ARAKAWA + GINS
territorio est de territorio. The
foreigner being subject to the laws of
the country where he resides, he must
also enjoy the protection and
advantages of these same laws’. Ivan
Golovin, Esprit de l’économie politique
(Paris: Didot, 1843), p. 382. See also
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of
Totalitarianism, p. 280”.[13]
The reference is frustrating, because Golovin’s book ends on
p. 368 in the copy of the 1843 edition I’ve seen; but the
reference to Arendt certainly reinforces Chamayou’s point.
Arendt is discussing the right of asylum being abolished.
“Its long and sacred history dates back
to the very beginnings of regulated
political life. Since ancient times it
has protected both the refugee and the
land of refuge from situations in
which people were forced to become
outlaws through circumstances
beyond their control. It was the only
modern remnant of the medieval
principle that quid quid est in
territorio est de territorio, for in all
other cases the modern state tended to
protect its citizens beyond its own
borders and to make sure, by means of
The Funambulist
Pamphlets: Volume
09: SCIENCE FICTION
The Funambulist
Pamphlets: Volume
10: LITERATURE
Blogroll
Aphelis
ARCHIPELAGO
Arena of Speculation
Awaking Lucid
BLDG BLOG
Bourbakisme
Cairobserver
Concrete Rules and Abstract
Machines
Critical Legal Thinking
Decolonizing Architecture
Deconcrete
Democracy Now
DPRBarcelona
reciprocal treaties, that they
remained subject to the laws of their
own country”.[14]
The principle does seem to suggest that whoever is within the
territory is subject to the territory, though the question of
whether those rights extend outside the territory—and,
necessarily today, into other territories—is of course open to
question. However, Arendt is wrong to date this to the
medieval period; and Chamayou is wrong to follow her. That
the principle is expressed in Latin does not make it medieval,
much less Roman. Indeed, the classical Roman thinkers very
rarely used the word territorium, which tended to apply to
agricultural lands surrounding a city; and those that did – land
surveyors and lawyers – saw the territorium as land of quite
small extent, part of the overall imperium, rather than defining
its spatial extent. There was certainly not the exclusive relation
between territory and sovereignty that we have today. Only in
the reappropriation of Roman law in the later part of the
fourteenth century did territorium and jurisdiction become tied
together; and this had little impact on political theory until
seventeenth century debates in the Holy Roman Empire about
the distinction between majesty and sovereignty. The best
discussion of the (modern) principle I have found is in
Jennings and Watts’s volume on peace in Oppenheim’s
International Law. There, they state that
According to the maxim quidquid est
in territorio est etiam de territorio, all
individuals and all property within
the territory of a state are under its
Geographical Imaginations
La Periferia Domestica
NDLR
NewTerritories
Progressive Geographies
Socks
South / South
Space and Politics
Subtopia
The Public Archive
The State
Threadbared
Tomorrow's Thoughts Today
TransitCity
Urbain Trop Urbain
Urban Lab Global Cities
Warscapes
Yeoldefinch
Archives (by date ofpublication)January 2015 (6)
December 2014 (12)
November 2014 (9)
October 2014 (6)
September 2014 (6)
August 2014 (9)
July 2014 (13)
June 2014 (7)
May 2014 (11)
dominion and sway, and foreign
individuals and property fall at once
under the territorial authority of a
state when they cross its frontiers.[15]
This comes in a discussion of “the territorial authority of a state
over everything within its territory…”;[16] suggesting that
sovereignty needs to be understood “as comprising the power
of a state to exercise supreme authority over all persons and
things within its territory, [thus] sovereignty involves territorial
authority (dominium, territorial sovereignty)”.[17] Yet while this
is certainly the case in the late modern period, earlier times did
not hold to these rigid, bounded definitions. I have discussed
these historical lineages at length in The Birth of Territory.[18]
The implications for Chamayou’s argument are not profound,
in that they do not invalidate his claim that something
significant is changing. But they do suggest that the situation
being unravelled was never as secure or longstanding as
might be implied.
The second and third contrast is easier to grasp: “pastoral
power is fundamentally beneficent, cynegetic power is
essentially predatory”;[19] and while pastoral power is
individualising, “cynegetic power, although it proceeds by
division, does so with a view to accumulation… Cynegetic
power accumulates; it does not individualise”.[20]The third,
though, becomes more complicated when we bring it into
relation with the first.
“What emerges with the story of
Nimrod is a forgotten continent of
Western political thought. If Foucault
April 2014 (6)
March 2014 (10)
February 2014 (10)
January 2014 (12)
December 2013 (11)
November 2013 (12)
October 2013 (9)
September 2013 (10)
August 2013 (10)
July 2013 (13)
June 2013 (15)
May 2013 (13)
April 2013 (12)
March 2013 (16)
February 2013 (7)
January 2013 (10)
December 2012 (8)
November 2012 (10)
October 2012 (9)
September 2012 (9)
August 2012 (8)
July 2012 (10)
June 2012 (16)
May 2012 (14)
April 2012 (14)
March 2012 (18)
February 2012 (20)
January 2012 (13)
December 2011 (18)
could say that beginning with the rise
of Hebrew, and then Christian,
pastoralism, politics has been largely
considered a matter of the sheepfold,
we can add that it was also, though in
accord with a parallel and opposed
genealogy, a matter of hunting”.[21]
Chamayou’s book provides a sketchmap of this “forgotten
continent”, a chart that others can use to explore more fully. In
that way it works like Giorgio Agamben’s writings,[22] or,
indeed, those of Foucault himself in the governmentality
lectures from which Chamayou takes the notion of pastoral
power.[23]
In a 2011 commentary for Radical Philosophy, Chamayou
connected the arguments he had made in that book with
contemporary politics in a much more explicit way.[24] He
suggests that the doctrine of the manhunt is a break with
previous ways of conventional warfare, “which rests on the
concept of fronts, linear battles, and facetoface opposition”.
[25] We might challenge that description of conventional
warfare, which is long outdated and has not accurately
described US military policy for several decades, but
Chamayou’s point is worth pursuing. Chamayou contrasts the
new developments with Clausewitz’s classic understandings
(he is a French translator of Clausewitz).[26] The point is that
in conventional war both sides want to achieve the same thing
—victory. In cynegetic war one side wants to locate, capture
and kill; the other to evade, to hide, to escape. The hunter
cannot respect sovereign boundaries, as these are “among
the greatest allies” of a fugitive.[27] Accordingly, “the hunter’s
November 2011 (19)
October 2011 (17)
September 2011 (19)
August 2011 (17)
July 2011 (22)
June 2011 (24)
May 2011 (17)
April 2011 (23)
March 2011 (27)
February 2011 (25)
January 2011 (27)
December 2010 (688)
April 2010 (1)
February 2010 (1)
August 2009 (1)
The FunambulistPapers01/ Danielle Willems /// Cinematic
Catalysts: Contempt + Casa
Malaparte
02/ Nikolaos Patsopoulos /// My dear
Francis…What kind of a phoenix willarise from these ashes?
03/ Martin Byrne /// Transcendent
Delusion or; The Dangerous FreeSpaces of Phillip K. Dick
04/ Fredrik Hellberg /// Thoughts on
MetaVirtual Solipsism
05/ Viktor Timofeev /// Learning from
Doom
06/ Ethel Baraona Pohl & César
Reyes /// Postpolitical Attitudes on
Immigration, Utopias and the Space
Between Us
07/ Biayna Bogosian /// unFOLDing
power has no regard for borders. It allows itself the right of
universal trespassing, in defiance of territorial integrity of
sovereign states”.[28] In a nod to Daniel HellerRoazen’s
genealogy of piracy, Chamayou suggests that to do this fully
would require a resuscitation of “the archaic category of
common enemies of humanity”.[29]Accordingly, much of the
‘war on terror’ is “more like a vast campaign of extrajudicial
executions: a strategy of targeted assassinations, of lethal
manhunts, which make up the ‘rogue’ and unilateral
counterpart to the manhunts carried out under the aegis of
international criminal justice”.[30]
Again, we might want to challenge the idea of conventional
war being about both sides achieving the same thing. In the
modern era, for example, some wars are fought to gain
territory, with the other side seeking to preserve it. Victory may
be the aim for both, but it might mean different things – gaining
versus not losing, accumulating versus preserving. But the
opposition between locating, capturing and killing and evading,
hiding, escaping may still be helpful. It is clear what the
analysis is leading towards. For Chamayou, “the drone is the
emblem of contemporary cynegetic war. It is the mechanical,
flying and robotic heir of the dog of war. It creates to perfection
the ideal of asymmetry: to be able to kill without being able to
be killed; to be able to see without being seen. To become
absolutely invulnerable while the other is placed in a state of
absolute vulnerability. ‘Predator’, ‘Global Hawk’, ‘Reaper’ –
birds of prey and angels of death, drones bear their names
well. Only death can kill without ever dying itself. Facing such
an enemy, there is no way out.[31] These arguments are
considerably developed in his 2013 study Théorie du drone.
[32] In that book, Chamayou provides a “genealogy of the
predator”[33] as part of his overall analysis. In general terms I
am most interested in the background to his study:
Azadi Tower: Reading Persian Folds
Through Deleuze
08 / Lucy FinchettMaddock ///
Entropy, Law and Funambulism
09/ Maryam Monalisa Gharavi ///
Becoming Fugitive: Carceral Space
and Rancierean Politics
10/ Eduardo McIntosh /// Bread and
Circus: Agorae vs Arenas
11/ Carla Leitão /// Pet Architecture:
Human’s Best Friend
12 / Oliviu LugojanGhenciu /// Motion
Architecture: Breakfast in a
Scramjet’s Combustion Chamber
13 / Raja Shehadeh /// A Visit to the
Old City of Hebron
14/ Morgan Ng /// The TextualSonic
Landscapes of Jacques Perret’s Des
Fortifications et Artifices
15 / Claire Jamieson /// The Possible
Worlds of Architecture
16 / Carl Douglas /// Off the Grid. Out
and Over
17/ Hiroko Nakatani /// Dissolving
Minds and Bodies
18/ Esther Cheung /// Twin
(Technology/Art Induced)
Architectural Daydreams
19/ Alexis Baghat /// Two Questions
for Seher Shah
20/ Daniel Fernández Pascual / The
ClearBlurry Line
21/ Linnéa Hussein /// Old Media’s
Ressurection
22/ Michael Badu /// The Mosque:
Religion, Politics & Architecture in the
21st Century
23/ Mariabruna Fabrizi & Fosco
Lucarelli /// Nothing to Hide
24/ Eve Bailey /// The
“I will begin with this question: where
does the drone come from? What is its
tactical and technological genealogy?
What are, following from this, its
fundamental characteristics?”[34]
But politically, this analysis is especially interesting in terms of
linking the argument made about political space and territory
in Manhunts.
Chamayou’s framework makes sense of some of the issues I
have been trying to think about in terms of territory, or more
specifically, the fracturing on the legal notion of territorial
integrity. Territorial integrity is mentioned by Chamayou when
he suggests the hunter has “no regard for borders”, and claims
“the right of universal trespassing, in defiance of territorial
integrity of sovereign states”.[35] What is interesting about
Chamayou’s use of the term here is that he detaches it from
changing the borders of states, changing the territory, but links
it to the temporary violation of those borders or territorial
sovereignty. Territorial integrity crucially comprises at least
these two, distinct, elements: that a state is sovereign within
its territory, within clearly demarcated borders – territorial
sovereignty; and that those borders, that territory, is fixed –
territorial preservation. These two elements have distinct
historical lineages, which come together in the twentieth
century. When territorial integrity is invoked today it is often
used simply to refer to territorial preservation. Tony Blair, for
example, frequently made an explicit point of invoking the
importance of preserving the territorial integrity of states he
was about to bomb or invade. He could only have meant this
in the sense of preserving the existing territorial settlement;
Groundbreaking Clarity of Ryan and
Trevor Oakes
25/ Roland Snooks /// Fibrous
Assemblages and Behavioral
Composites
26/ Ryan Pierson /// Méliès in
Stereopsis
27/ Matthew Clements /// Apian
Semantics
28/ Caroline Filice Smith /// Briefly on
Walking
29/ Andreas Philippopoulos
Mihalopoulos /// The Funambulist
Atmosphere
30/ Liduam Pong /// Open Stacks
31/ Greg Barton /// Femicide
Machine/Backyard
32/ Camille Lacadée /// Would Have
Been…an Inventory
33/ Nora Akawi /// Mapping Intervals:
Towards an Emancipated
Cartography
34/ Zayd Sifri /// Movement and
Solidarity
35/ Russel Hughes /// DIY Biopolitics:
The Deregulated Self
36/ Sadia Shirazi /// City, Space,
Power: Lahore’s Architecture of
In/Security
37/ Pedro Hernández /// Bodies at
Scene: Architecture as Friction
38/ Annick Labeca /// Natura Non
Facit Saltum: On the concept of
Adaptation
39/ Sébastien Bourbonnais ///
Membrane Attractors: Tension
between form and information in
digital architecture
40/ Andri Gerber /// MetaHistory, or
How to Teach History of Architecture
in the Era of New Media
hardly in the sense of respecting territorial sovereignty.
This is part of a wider pattern, in that today, there is a
concerted attempt by dominant states and the United Nations
to preserve existing territorial settlements as much as possible
– the breakup of empires along lines of existing borders, such
as the application of the principle of uti possidetis in the
African continent; the fracturing of Yugoslavia and the USSR
along the lines, broadly, of their constituent republics; and so
on. South Sudan and Kosovo are the two most recent
exceptions, but they are in a short list of breaks from the
general principle since the end of the Second World War. The
occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, long after the Taliban or
Saddam Hussein were deposed, were, at least in part, to try to
prevent a fracturing of the territory of these states. Yet, at the
same time, and often in the very same places, the sovereignty
of states within their borders has come increasingly under
pressure. This can be for treatment of civilian populations,
pursuit of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ or harbouring terrorist
groups. The extension of the arguments made for the first—
socalled humanitarian intervention—to the second and third
characterised the USled ‘war on terror’, even though other
dominant states have appropriated the logic and language. I
tried to make sense of these questions in my 2009 book Terror
and Territory,[36] and to trace the historical lineages in The
Birth of Territory. Chamayou’s argument – along with that of
Derek Gregory in his forthcoming The Everywhere War –
helps to make sense of how the US claims this right to
intervene, by force, drone or ‘humanitarian intervention’ in
places all over the world, while at the same time trying to
preserve existing territorial settlements, and, of course, rigidly
reinforcing its own borders and territorial sovereignty.
Notes
41/ Nick Axel /// What IS the
problem?
42/ Philippe Theophanidis /// Caught
in the Cloud: The Biopolitics of Tear
Gas Warfare
43/ Dan Mellamphy /// AV
(Anthropocosmogonic
Vastupurushamanism)
44/ Sarah Choukah /// Of Associated
Milieus
45/ Nandita Biswas Mellamphy ///
Ghost in the Shell Game
46/ Stuart Elden /// Chamayou's
Manhunts: From Territory to Space
47/ Gastón Gordillo /// Nazi
Architecture as Affective Weapon
48/ Adrienne Hart /// A Sensing Body
| A Networked Mind
49/ Joanne Pouzenc /// The Act of
Waiting
50/ Elena Loizidou /// Dreams of
FlyingFlying Bodies
51/ Erin Manning /// Dress Becomes
Body: Fashioning the Force of Form
52/ Tings Chak /// Racialized
Geographies and the Fear of Ships
53/ Alan Prohm /// Building Body:
Two Treatments on Landing Site
54/ Hanna Baumann /// Bodies on the
Line
55/ Sofia Lemos /// The Norm,
Measure of All Things
56/ Ina Karkani /// Framing the Weird
Body in Contemporary European
Cinema
InterviewsBryan Finoki
Madeline Gins [Part 1]
Madeline Gins [Part 2]
1. Grégoire Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme: Histoire et
philosophie du pouvoir cynégétique, Paris: La fabrique
éditions, 2010, p. 7; Manhunts: A Philosophical History,
translated by Steven Rendell, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2012, p. 1. On Manhunts, see also Jean Bérard,
“Predatory Power”, translated by Arthur Goldhammer, Books
and Ideas, 3 June 2011; and on Chamayou’s work generally
Kieran Aarons, “Cartographies of Capture”, Theory & Event,
Vol 16 No 2, 2013.
2. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 7; Manhunts, p. 1.
3. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 9; Manhunts, p. 3.
4. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, pp. 1167; Manhunts,
p. 80. See Michel Foucault, History of Madness, translated by
Jonathan Murphy and Jean Khalfa, London: Routledge, 2006.
5. Michel Foucault, “The Birth of Social Medicine”, in Power:
Essential Work Volume 3, edited by James D. Faubion,
London: Penguin, 2001, pp. 13456; Abnormal: Lectures at the
Collège de France 197475, translated by Graham Burchell,
New York: Picador, 2003, Michel Foucault, Discipline and
Punish: The Birth of the Prison, translated by Alan Sheridan,
London: Penguin, 1979.
6. See Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population:
Lectures at the Collège de France 197778, translated by
Graham Burchell, London: Palgrave, 2009.
7. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, pp. 245; Manhunts,
pp. 1415.
8. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 256; Manhunts, p.
15.
9. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 26; Manhunts, p. 15.
MarcAntoine Mathieu
Peter Cook
R&Sie(n)
Raja Shehadeh
Wes Jones
Yona Friedman
Yona Friedman (translated in
English)
Simondon WeekEpisode 1: For an Allagmatic
Architecture: Introduction to the Work
of Gilbert Simondon
Episode 2: The Citizen
Crafts(wo)man: Simondon After Marx
& Spinoza
Episode 3: Topological Life: The
World Can’t Be Fathomed in Plans
and Sections
Episode 4: Nature Does Make
Jumps: The Simondonian Definition
of Life after Spinoza and Darwin
Episode 5: Of Associated Milieus by
Sarah Choukah
Episode 6: Transindividuation and
Contagion of the Crowds After
Tarde’s Sociology
Episode 7: The Individuation of
Bodying: Simondon as Read by Erin
Manning
Spinoza WeekEpisode 1: The Marxian Reading of
Capitalism through a Spinozist
Conceptology
Episode 2: Spinozist Determinism or
how Caesar could have not not
crossed the Rubicon
Episode 3: Power (Potentia) vs.
Power (Potestas): The Story of a
Joyful Typhoon
Episode 4: The World of Affects or
10. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 27; Manhunts, pp.
1516.
11. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 27; Manhunts, p.
16.
12. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 198; Manhunts, p.
138.
13. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 242 n. 330;
Manhunts, pp. 1801 n. 13.
14. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, San Diego:
Harvest, 1968, p. 280.
15. Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts (eds.),
Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol. 1 Peace. Introduction and
Part 1, London: Longman, 9th edition, 1996, p. 384.
16. Jennings and Watts (eds.), Oppenheim’s International Law,
Vol I, p. 384.
17. Jennings and Watts (eds.), Oppenheim’s International Law,
Vol I, p. 382.
18. Stuart Elden, The Birth of Territory, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2013.
19. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, p. 28; Manhunts, p.
16.
20. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, pp. 289; Manhunts, p.
17.
21. Chamayou, Les chasses à l’homme, pp. 301; Manhunts, p.
18.
22. Such as Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power
and Bare Life, translated by Daniel HellerRoazen, Stanford:
why Adam got Poisonned by the
Apple
Episode 5: The Spinozist “Scream”:
What can a Body do?
Episode 6: Applied Spinozism: The
Body in Kurosawa’s Cinema
Episode 7: Applied Spinozism:
Architectures of the Sky vs.
Architectures of the Earth
Foucault WeekEpisode 1: Michel Foucault’s
Architectural Underestimation
Episode 2: Do not Become
Enamored of Power
Episode 3: “Mon Corps, Topie
Impitoyable”
Episode 4: The Cartography of Power
Episode 5: The Political Technology
of the Body
Episode 6: Architecture and
Discipline: The Hospital
Episode 7: Questioning the
Heterotopology
SYNTHESIS: Foucault and
Architecture: The Encounter that
Never Was
Deleuze WeekEpisode 1: Composition of an Archive
Episode 2: Abécédaire
Episode 3: What is it to be “from the
left”
Episode 4: The Ritournelle (refrain)
as a Territorial Song invoking the
Power of the Cosmos
Episode 5: The Body as a Desiring
Machine
Episode 6: The Minor Literature
Episode 7: What remains from
Francis Bacon
Stanford University Press, 1998; The Kingdom and the Glory:
For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and Government,
translated by Lorezo Chiesa and Matteo Mandarini, Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2011.
23. This is one of the ways I’ve engaged with Foucault’s
governmentality lectures, suggesting that while what Foucault
says explicitly on territory is misleading, he is nonetheless
extremely helpful in thinking about territory. See Stuart Elden,
“How should we do the history of territory?” Territory, Politics,
Governance, Vol 1 No 1, 2013, pp. 520; and
“Governmentality, Calculation, Territory”, Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, Vol 25 No 3, 2007, pp. 562
80.
24. Grégoire Chamayou, “The Manhunt Doctrine”, translated
by Shane Lillis, Radical Philosophy, No 169, 2011, pp. 26.
25. Chamayou, “The Manhunt Doctrine”, p. 2.
26. Carl von Clausewitz, Principes fondamentaux de stratégie
militaire, translated by Grégoire Chamayou, Paris: Mille et une
nuits, 2006. He has also translated some of Marx’s historical
writings.
27. Chamayou, “The Manhunt Doctrine”, p. 3, citing Steven
Marks, Thomas Meer and Matthew Nilson, Manhunting: A
Methodology for Finding Persons of National Interest, thesis,
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA, June 2005, p. 28.
28. Chamayou, “The Manhunt Doctrine”, p. 3.
29. Chamayou, “The Manhunt Doctrine”, p. 3; Daniel Heller
Roazen, The Enemy of All: Piracy and the Law of Nations,
Zone Books, New York, 2009.
30. Chamayou, “The Manhunt Doctrine”, p. 3.
← # TOPIE IMPITOYABLE /// Gender, Sexuality and Race’s Performativity in
Paris Is Burning
# TOPIE IMPITOYABLE /// Beatriz Preciado and the Biopolitical Strike of
the Uterus →
31. Chamayou, “The Manhunt Doctrine”, p. 4.
32. Chamayou, Théorie du drone, Paris: La fabrique éditions,
2013. On Théorie du drone, it is well worth reading Derek
Gregory’s excellent series of posts at his blog
geographicalimaginations.com
33. Chamayou, Théorie du drone, p. 41.
34. Chamayou, Théorie du drone, p. 29.
35. Chamayou, “The Manhunt Doctrine”, p. 3.
36. Stuart Elden, Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of
Sovereignty, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
2009.
Share this:
Facebook 30 Twitter 19 Email Print
Ì Category: Books, Essays, Foucault, History, Law, Philosophy, Politics, The
Funambulist Papers
6 Comments on “# THE
FUNAMBULIST PAPERS 46 ///
Chamayou’s Manhunts: From
Territory to Space? by
� � ; v
Like
4 bloggers like this.
9
The Funambulist
Blog at WordPress.com. · The Adventure Theme. ¬ «
Stuart Elden”
David Grondin
January 18, 2014
Reblogged this on Militainment and the
National Security State and commented:
This is an astute analysis of Stuart Elden on Grégoire
Chamayou’s work.
Pingback: Funambulist paper 46 – Grégoire Chamayou’s
Manhunts: From Territory to Space? – by Stuart Elden |
Progressive Geographies
Pingback: Two reflections on Chamayou’s Manhunts |
Progressive Geographies
Pingback: Monday Linkage – MLK Day Edition » Duck of
Minerva
Pingback: Foucault’s Last Decade – eighth update |
Progressive Geographies
Pingback: Talking about Publishing, Urban Territory, and lots
else | Progressive Geographies