Gil Anidjar: Because I’m trained as a lit­er­ary crit­ic, one of the first things that of course I had to do was to to go to the OED and check on the ety­mol­o­gy, usage, of the word dis­pos­able.” Now, as is com­plete­ly obvi­ous, to dis­pose is to pose/dispose, that par­tic­u­lar com­bi­na­tion: pos­ing, repos­ing, etc., it goes back all the way to Latin. There’s a famous proverb, Man pro­pos­es, or pur­pos­es, and God dispos­es.” So that the term in itself is obvi­ous­ly quite old and it has a his­to­ry that is found in all the Latin lan­guages.

But in usages of dis­pose, dis­po­si­tion, dis­pos­ing, there is always a ques­tion of putting in order, and putting things in their place. Which also means of course hav­ing the pow­er to do so. There is one minor— I’m not going to go into the details of the OED entry, but any­one can look at that. There is a moment where dis­pos­ing does mean to get rid of. But this is not by any means one of the main usages. And the adjec­tive dis­pos­able…” The adjec­tive dis­pos­able is actu­al­ly dat­ed by the OED to 1943.

And I thought there was a cer­tain irony giv­en the con­text of what we’re talk­ing about, name­ly dis­pos­able lives, there was a cer­tain irony to the fact that Raphael Lemkin came up with the term geno­cide” in 1943; it was pub­lished in 1944. And the first usage that the OED lists is I believe dis­pos­able dia­pers,” some­thing which has an inter­est­ing kind of prox­im­i­ty between the liv­ing thing and the non‐living thing, yes? Diapers. They imme­di­ate­ly evoke care, right.

So the thing about the dis­pos­able, though, is that it seems, as in the expres­sion dis­pos­able lives…” As I was think­ing about what I was going to talk about when you asked me to par­tic­i­pate, my first impulse was to go bib­li­o­graph­ic. And to think about ways in which the empha­sis on lives… I mean, it’s one thing to ask why dis­pos­able? But then the sec­ond thing is why lives? How about objects? I’ll get to this in a moment, but my first bib­li­o­graph­ic impulse was to actu­al­ly won­der about the peo­ple who have been talk­ing to us about the means, the kind of instruments—whether they are polit­i­cal instru­ments; legal instru­ments; tech­no­log­i­cal instru­ments; eco­nom­ic instru­ments, obviously—that have made it pos­si­ble to speak of dis­pos­abil­i­ty. And for now, stay­ing with the ques­tion of dis­pos­able lives.

And so the peo­ple I thought about was the jour­nal­ist Nick Turse, who actu­al­ly writes about drones—we were talk­ing ear­li­er about drones. Who writes about what he calls The Complex,” and the mul­ti­plic­i­ty of ways in which American cul­ture (if the term is appro­pri­ate) is suf­fused with mil­i­tary economic…not think­ing, but actually…activity, right. So one of the strik­ing exam­ples is that the movie Iron Man has a bud­get that is cov­ered by some­thing like 50% by the US Air Force. It’s real­ly some­thing quite extra­or­di­nary, yes, that the— Or Starbucks. Starbucks (we’ll talk about Starbucks in a lit­tle while) has three, not one, but three lit­tle shops on Guantanamo Bay. So that you can order a vanil­la soy lat­te with or with­out sweet­en­er at any cor­ner, appar­ent­ly, of the base.

So, Turse talks about that. Mary Kaldor tells us about the new wars,” and I think that’s some­thing that we need to take into account. Eyal Weizman, The Least of All Possible Evils explains in fact very much how dis­pos­able lives are pro­duced by way of tech­nol­o­gy, of cal­cu­la­tion, that makes it pos­si­ble to dis­miss a cer­tain num­ber of death. I love the part where he talks about this guy who was work­ing for the Pentagon and then ends up work­ing for Human Rights Watch and was in charge of plan­ning the bomb­ing oper­a­tions that were meant to kill Saddam Hussein. And appar­ent­ly the num­ber that they had come up with as far as civil­ian casu­al­ty for every attempt to kill Saddam Hussein was twenty‐nine. Don’t know why twenty‐nine but that was the num­ber.

If I remem­ber cor­rect­ly there were sev­en attempts to actu­al­ly bomb Saddam Hussein him­self, and appar­ent­ly every time they killed just around twenty‐nine peo­ple. So by the time this guy was work­ing for Human Rights Watch, he goes and actu­al­ly assess­es the dam­age and real­izes that every carefully‐planned oper­a­tion where­by a cer­tain num­ber of casu­al­ty is per­mis­si­ble of course gets pro­lif­er­at­ed by virtue of polit­i­cal deci­sions. And then you have sev­en times twenty‐nine peo­ple who died, and Saddam Hussein escaped with no prob­lem.

The oth­er bib­li­o­graph­ic reference—again, I’m not sure this is the most inter­est­ing way of get­ting to the top­ic although these are inter­est­ing books that I’m try­ing to men­tion, is Joseph Masco on The Nuclear Borderlands, who men­tions some­thing which again by way of kind of inter­est­ing trivia…and ter­ri­fy­ing triv­ia, is the fact that the United States is actu­al­ly the most nuclear‐bombed‐out coun­try in the world. There were 940, I believe, bombs that were explod­ed on the con­ti­nen­tal United States, by way of test­ing. But as you know, when an atom­ic bomb explodes the test is not so much a test, it’s already the whole thing.

And so the ques­tion of how much radi­a­tion was pro­duced, how much dam­age was done, how many peo­ple were hurt, how much envi­ron­ment was dam­aged, all this is part of dis­pos­abil­i­ty. Which just to reit­er­ate is one of the ways in which I would want to inter­ro­gate the empha­sis on lives, right. Because dis­pos­abil­i­ty is some­thing that actu­al­ly impli­cates, by way of a kind of net­work of destruc­tion, impli­cates some­thing more.

And then I was think­ing of course of Sven Lindqvist on the his­to­ry of bomb­ing and the kind of legal instru­ments that were pro­duced in order to make it pos­si­ble to real­ly anni­hi­late all kinds of pop­u­la­tions, like the inven­tion of air bomb­ing as a prac­tice that gets reg­u­lat­ed by inter­na­tion­al law but of course nev­er for­bid­den. And the lim­i­ta­tion of course is always a kind of ludi­crous ploy that makes it pos­si­ble for those who have the tech­nol­o­gy to of course use it and abuse it, if the dis­tinc­tion even make sense in this con­text.

And of course, Zygmunt Bauman’s work on wast­ed lives, on moder­ni­ty and the Holocaust, is some­thing that I kept think­ing about.

But for some rea­son this morn­ing a friend of mine remind­ed me of Hannah Arendt on world­less­ness. And I thought that I would just read a few sen­tences. Because she actu­al­ly, when she describes world­less­ness in The Origins of Totalitarianism, she points to some­thing that is very inter­est­ing. The basic point is that peo­ple have to be made super­flu­ous in order for them to be then vul­ner­a­ble to elim­i­na­tion.

But the way in which they are made super­flu­ous she says, is not nec­es­sar­i­ly new. So she talks about the loss of home. The loss of the entire social tex­ture into which they are born. The loss of a dis­tinct place in the world. But the loss of home, she says, is not unprece­dent­ed. She says it’s far from unprece­dent­ed in the long mem­o­ry of his­to­ry, where forced migra­tion of indi­vid­u­als, whole groups of peo­ple were every­day occur­rences. She says what is unprecedented—and I’m read­ing ver­ba­tim, What is unprece­dent­ed is not the loss of a home but the impos­si­bil­i­ty of find­ing a new one.”

So it’s not so much the loss of a world. It’s the fact that the loss of a world is absolute, right. So world­less­ness is not sim­ply the destruc­tion of your world, it’s the destruc­tion of the world. The world is no longer hab­it­able. That is what world­less­ness means, and that is what Arendt insists is actu­al­ly new.

She also says that the new refugees—again, refugee being in fact a new term for an old phe­nom­e­non. New refugees were per­se­cut­ed not because of what they had done or thought, but because of what they unchange­ably were…” And here all of us think about race, but she actu­al­ly makes a point of say­ing this is not just about race. “…because of what they unchange­ably were born into. The wrong kind of race, or the wrong kind of class, or the wrong kind of gov­ern­ment.”

Now, with the cur­rent state of the world, I think it is clear that based on where you grew up and where the gov­ern­ment of the state you hap­pen to be in is based on its role in the geopo­lit­i­cal game, then clear­ly you are doomed to a world­less­ness that is par­tic­u­lar­ly acute. And I think that we don’t want to flat­ten— You and I were talk­ing ear­li­er about this flat­ten­ing. I think that one of the ways not to flat­ten world­less­ness, or dis­pos­abil­i­ty, is to rec­og­nize the dif­fer­ent ways in which although one may suf­fer, one is not nec­es­sar­i­ly sort of com­plete­ly robbed and deprived of any world, right. One can think of some­where else to go. As we know, even the peo­ple who man­age to escape say, Afghanistan, are not exact­ly going to the land of milk and hon­ey, if I may be for­giv­en that par­tic­u­lar ref­er­ence.

And then, and this is where I think—is an Arendtian moment where I think I would want to part with the issue of dis­pos­able lives. I mean, while main­tain­ing it as a per­spec­tive. This is what he says: The more the num­ber…” I for­got to men­tion that the whole con­ver­sa­tion here is in the con­text of human rights, of course, right. Which is pre­cise­ly what human rights pro­duce. People who are in fact com­plete­ly aban­doned, yes, in Agamben’s term. The more the num­ber of right­less peo­ple increased, the greater became the temp­ta­tion to pay less atten­tion to the deeds of the per­se­cut­ing gov­ern­ments than to the sta­tus of the per­se­cut­ed.”

And I think this is real­ly the dan­ger in which we find our­selves. I mean, we’ve heard zil­lions of times that we are in a peri­od of vic­ti­mol­o­gy, right. That vic­ti­mol­o­gy is the dom­i­nant dis­course. I think it takes many many forms. And I think that we have to remem­ber that one of the ways again, not to flat­ten the sit­u­a­tion, is not to think sim­ply of the ways in which peo­ple are made vul­ner­a­ble. Not the ways in which all of our lives are by now disposable—and again I’ll say a word about the role of the econ­o­my here in this. But I do think that there are dif­fer­ent means that are deployed in dif­fer­ent places, and that leave a dif­fer­ent set of options, or rather no option at all. And these demands—and I think that’s what Arendt is telling us here—these demands that we actu­al­ly pay atten­tion to the gov­ern­ments, right, to sov­er­eign­ty, or to what­ev­er has replaced it, of failed to replace it, but nonethe­less is still able to exer­cise a fun­da­men­tal­ly asym­met­ric form of pop­u­la­tion management—disposability of course already being implied in that very phrase.

So, one of the things I want­ed to put Arendt in con­tact with, and in the con­text of human rights I don’t think it’s a stretch, and obvi­ous­ly oth­er peo­ple have done this before me, is of course Marx on the com­mod­i­ty. The fact that the com­mod­i­ty appears pre­cise­ly as word­less. It’s pre­cise­ly because we don’t have access, or we seem not to have access, or we are locked in rela­tion to the com­mod­i­ty, that we for­get that it is in a rela­tion to us already. A rela­tion that goes beyond by far the par­tic­u­lar pur­chase that we have made, or the par­tic­u­lar role that we may have played in the cir­cuit.

So, if we think of the role of the com­mod­i­ty, which of course is the first tech­ni­cal­ly dis­pos­able thing, yes? It was the dia­per and then it moves on to pret­ty much any­thing. And if we con­nect the dis­pos­abil­i­ty of the com­mod­i­ty with com­mod­i­ty fetishism, name­ly with the invis­i­bil­i­ty of social rela­tions that are in the com­mod­i­ty, then we may think of dis­pos­abil­i­ty as a gen­er­al sit­u­a­tion which, as Arendt describes, requires that we pay atten­tion to those whose world has been com­plete­ly anni­hi­lat­ed. And not only that, but to those who have the pow­er to com­plete­ly deprive some­one and some­thing of world. The point being that it’s the pos­si­bil­i­ty for no world to be avail­able that is new.

One of the issues of course in dis­pos­abil­i­ty is planned obso­les­cence. It’s also the fact that we are able to relate by law, yes, by law, to that which we con­sume as some­thing entire­ly dif­fer­ent than what it is. Let me begin with this. This is a bot­tle that… Well, the line here says very clear­ly help­ing chil­dren get clean water.” You buy a bot­tle of water. That in itself helps chil­dren get clean water. This is a human­i­tar­i­an bot­tle. Žižek of course has spo­ken at length about this human­i­tar­i­an con­sumerism. But I do think that what’s impor­tant is the way in which it effaces the col­o­niza­tion of springs by Coca‐Cola and Pepsi Cola and what­ev­er oth­er com­pa­nies.

But I would want to also take into account this won­der­ful, again, piece of infor­ma­tion I learned when I watched Super Size Me back a few years ago, that McDonald’s doesn’t sell food, right. McDonald’s doesn’t claim to sell food. There is no nutri­tion­al val­ue that is in fact part of the social con­tract that McDonald’s has with its cus­tomers. That is an extra­or­di­nary thing. That is the dis­pos­abil­i­ty of what­ev­er is in the McDonald’s [prod­uct]. But also—and we could talk about genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered pota­toes, etc. But also the fact that what is called food” is not food. What we call and con­sume as food is not food. That is one of the ways in which we are made world­less.

Of course, the McBurger, or what­ev­er it’s called, is in itself world­less as well. But we are sur­round­ed, in oth­er words, by dis­pos­abil­i­ty. We our­selves have become world­less as a result of some­thing that I think is not just a com­mod­i­ty, not just cap­i­tal­ism, but real­ly extends to a gen­er­al way of think­ing.

So Joseph Masco, who actu­al­ly writes on the bomb, also wrote about the impor­tance of the notion of side‐effect when think­ing about med­ica­tion. The fact that you can be pre­scribed a pure piece of poi­son, yes. It’s poi­son. But that which is poi­son is called a side‐effect. Because it may also have a ben­e­fi­cial moment, right. Just, by the way, as this water is per­fect­ly refresh­ing and hydrat­ing at the very same moment as it is enveloped in the plas­tic that will not dis­ap­pear for God knows how many hun­dreds of years.

So the very fact of this pre­sumed ambiva­lence, Yes, but look, the tech­nol­o­gy is also giv­ing us good things,” is part of the side‐effect log­ic. The fact that there’s a good thing. There are hos­pi­tals for the bombs that have maimed you. There are hos­pi­tals for the mines that we have plant­ed in your ter­ri­to­ry. Of course, as Eyal Weizman explains, col­lat­er­al dam­age is part of this log­ic where­by again, dis­pos­abil­i­ty is relat­ed to a log­ic where­by the good thing, right— You can now car­ry your bot­tle of water, you can get hydrat­ed no mat­ter where you are. The advan­tage becomes the means of mak­ing invis­i­ble that which is fun­da­men­tal­ly destruc­tive of world, and makes that world the only world.

And this is where I think it’s impor­tant. Whether or not we have access to water as a health expan­sion, right. We are now more con­scious of our health, and there­fore we have water in bot­tles, and there­fore we are less like­ly to die of dehy­dra­tion. But of course the dam­age that is done is that there is no oth­er world to which we can go. So it’s tech­ni­cal­ly world­less­ness as Arendt means it. Namely there is no oth­er world to go. So that which we have achieved by hydrat­ing our­selves is not worth the price because it destroys any pos­si­bil­i­ty of a world where we could run away to.

What I want to end on, though, is that the empha­sis on lives in dis­pos­able lives” runs the risk of one, con­tin­u­ing, in how­ev­er sophis­ti­cat­ed a way, on the cur­rent vic­ti­mol­o­gy. And on fail­ing in the way Arendt tells us. Namely that we have to rec­og­nize that there are those, and they may or may not be name­able as such, but I believe if we actu­al­ly adopt as a def­i­n­i­tion for sov­er­eign­ty, those who have the abil­i­ty to make world dis­ap­pear, then we are not done with sov­er­eign­ty. And we must look at it as some­thing that is oth­er­wise than van­ish­ing. As some­thing that con­tin­ues to in fact make the world dis­ap­pear, in such a way that is not com­pa­ra­ble to what used to hap­pen when exter­mi­na­tion, which appar­ent­ly is a favorite human prac­tice, just like mur­der is a favorite human prac­tice except it so hap­pens that not every­body is actu­al­ly a mur­der­er, yes? Not every­body is a geno­ci­dal mani­ac. As you know in Europe, not every­body is even a geno­ci­dal nation. Only the Germans and the Serbs, for some rea­son, are. The oth­ers, appar­ent­ly, are not.

So aside from the dis­tri­b­u­tion of geno­ci­dal respon­si­bil­i­ty, I think there’s also a dis­tri­b­u­tion of geno­ci­dal agency. Those who have, and have exer­cised the pow­er, to erad­i­cate the old, to erad­i­cate the world for oth­ers. Sometimes for them­selves but I’m sor­ry if I don’t feel as much com­pas­sion in this par­tic­u­lar case. Those who are able to destroy world, these are the ones we need to pay atten­tion to. Not those whose world has dis­ap­peared, and is dis­ap­pear­ing.

I’m not say­ing, of course, that we shouldn’t con­cern our­selves with sub­jec­tiv­i­ties of the oppressed. But we have to rec­og­nize the way in which a kind of sov­er­eign­ty of world anni­hi­la­tion is very much at work, is very much sur­round­ing us. And one of the ways in which it oper­ates is pre­cise­ly by mak­ing the world dis­ap­pear. Which means also mak­ing itself invis­i­ble.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.