Agamben 's Boredom - Forum Nepantla

by M.T.

The witness`s refusal to confess when the situation demands it could be considered a form of perversity. At least from a moral point of view, if not out of psychophysiological considerations. However, to what extent can each of us consider themselves witnesses of truth – a stance which Giorgio Agamben and his apostles seem to be taking – is something that will probably be decided on The Last Judgment. For the moment, the open circle of testifiers has to settle with partial truths, with news and ideas gathered through the imperfect method of dialectics. Under these conditions, Agamben`s labeling of medicine as “victorious faith” requires a more attentive analysis and a more nuanced discussion. In the context of the current pandemic, the Italian philosopher blames the medical science of foul play and of having acquired, through mischievous means, the power over certain life aspects that would normally pertain to other domains. By comparing it to Christianity and Capitalism, as systems of belief (although “ideologies” would probably be a more appropriate term), the philosopher from Rome draws our attention to the rights and liberties we have sacrificed on the profane altar of a cult disguised as science.Because even the less illuminated souls of non-philosophers are entitled to the presumption of innocence and in order to avoid chicanery, we shall refrain from questioning Agamben`s hypothesis, only briefly mentioning its evident refutabilaty. Out of consideration for the play of reason, we shall accept Agamben`s category of “religions” and we will agree that nowadays medicine could be seen as a religion or a cult. Still, the second part of his idea – the implied and disquieting subtitle according to which this new cult has lately gained the upper hand – is just an empty warning. If there has indeed been a fight and its winners were decided, then it were an honorable one and Agamben has to renounce the title of impartial moderator – a virtue cherished by any unbiased philosopher.

1. First of all, isn`t the separation between dogma and the cultic practice inherent in any domain? The believer may worship the Cross without proceeding to scriptural exegesis and often the Christian life is just a gray area for the appositeness of black and white dogmas. If we are to impeach virology, then we must do the same to ancient philosophy which is situated at the border of classical languages studies, and hermeneutics. What Agamben disregards is the long way from the virologist`s lab to the patient`s bed – a long list of specialists like the epidemiologist, the infectious disease doctor, the lawyer, the emergency physician, the nurse etc. Virology deals with medical practice no more than the theologian deals with the seats arrangement in the church. As for the “exaggerated dualistic opposition”, of which medicine is guilty as well, Agamben wrongly identifies the beneficent principle with recovery, and it is wrong because nowhere in the medical dogma is the process more important than the outcome – that of health. That being said…

2. What`s new to this medical dogma is the dissolution of any time frame, Agamben maintains. But Humanity has seen other epidemics and it has survived them all. I fail to see in which news report has it ever been said that COVID19 is here to stay forever. It will pass, like others before! This aspect invoked by Agamben is not only wrong, but utterly false and unasked-for. Only two months have passed, and some see salvation as already in sight. But it may be that the subjective time is hypersensitive to the imperceptible variations of the relative one and has lost sense of its Newtonian flow. Even so, it is this kind of flow that still governs the destiny of all life-forms, be they fully deserving ones, like humans, or barely tolerated, like viruses. We didn`t set out to burn books or throw accusations of spreading fake news, but an alarming rhetoric could be an early sign of paranoid pathology.

3. We should be grateful that at least “the collusion between religion and profane power” is not thrown on the back of the new cult, as Agamben admits that this modus operandi has successfully been used by previous ideologies. Exactly how it became a “cultic practice and not a rational scientific demand” is vague, because all that Giorgio Agamben proves during his battle with the dragon is that he doesn`t know much about the beast he is confronting. Cardiovascular diseases are not contagious, as he asserts. In its magnanimity, the medical dogma allows each individual`s free will to decide upon their body and uses the red line it has with the profane power only when there`s an urgent need. We need only mention public spaces in which smoking is not allowed and the taxes imposed by some states on alcohol and sugar, to see what an invalid claim this is. Yes, it is true that the medical religion uses legal norms to promote its ruling principle, but there is nothing new in this, and medicine is definitely not the frontrunner when it comes to such practices. And if we are to push the analogy even further and remind the Church its forgotten principles and practices, we should add to the embracing of lepers the long-forgotten festum fatuorum, exhorting the clergymen to descend among the parishioners and to consider, at least for one day, the disingenuous prayer of an unbeliever who is confined to a hospital bed due to an oxygen mask. As for capitalism and its presumed “losses of productivity”, the philosopher is not guilty but only troubled by a mild perception disorder. The silent winner as always, capitalism once again sought to end the battle in its advantage – what was lost through tourism and old industries was fully recovered by developing its newer assets: information technology, digital industry and bioengineering. During the last collision between the Christian god and the doctors and philosophers of the last century, capitalism easily replaced the coachmen with chauffeurs; now it replaces engineers with programmers. There is no need to reprieve it. Perhaps we should remind those who are interested in the subject that they should focus their attacks not on the medical, but on the capitalist clergy. If anything, there should be a Christian-Medical alliance in the hopes of defeating the religion of money.

4. The state of exception is perceived as so only by the infidels of the medical religion. Those from within the cult know that the current events are only a part of the natural world, just as on the bedside of the sick the doctor is the one proclaiming calmness, because they accept the possible death as part of life. Precisely for their capacity to see the bigger picture during a crisis, the doctor is the one we call upon to evaluate all possible outcomes. But evaluation of possibilities does not mean the power of decision. While waiting for the eschaton, the Christian knows that it is God`s Word, and not their own, that which will be decisive. And so, the Christian adopts a healthy quietness when confronted with what is inaccessible to them. This “world that feels as though it is at the end and yet is not in a position, like the Hippocratic doctor, to decide whether it will survive or it will die” now has the opportunity to remember its own narrowness and to put a halt on its juvenile sedition. By conjoining “together the perpetual crisis of capitalism with the Christian idea of an end time” the medical religion brings back on the front page a few spiritual practices that the modern person seems to have forgotten – the joy of simple things, the search for freedom on the inside and not outside of our souls. If the World did find a new religion during times of suffering, the medical religion was just what it needed.

5. The best part about the new religion is that it does not offer only one redemption and salvation, but many. The Evil God, the virus, can be triumphed over countless times, keeping us in a constant state of love and gratitude for the Good God – Health. Unlike the Christian God, who offered us knowledge but at the same time denied us eternity, using it as existential lure, Health is the beneficent god who not only promises itself, but offers itself to us in practice. The religion of science won the race with Christianity and capitalism because it is indifferent to our limited capacity of believing or disbelieving in its God.

Philosophers must indeed enter into conflict with religion, but for the sake of justice and truth, not for the enchantment of the battle itself. Unfortunately, regardless of the era we`re in, philosophers are still humans, as necessary and frail as always. Our duty, the duty of those ignorant scoundrels who deal with their salvation and redemption, is to gently nag them and to notify them when their hostility is misplaced. History thought us, even through great deniers such as Spinoza, that philosophy found its place in the world only in so far as it was willing to regard inoffensively the dominant religion (to encourage analysis and dialogue, instead of carping disguised as critique); that raising sincere questions has been more valuable than proclaiming verdicts and that, ultimately, a breath of fresh air is the only redemption we may hope for.