Political consumerism is consumer choice beyond self-interest. Allegedly blurring the public–private threshold and overcoming the limits of traditional politics, it epitomizes in many respects late modern governance. Reflecting on the meaning and scope of consumer political agency, scholarship has engaged with the governmentality perspective. Important studies have ensued, together with irresolvable disputes and a neglect of the relationship that consumers establish with their objects of concern. To address this question, and drawing on the philosophical contributions of Roberto Esposito, the article (...) elaborates on the notion of immunization. Being immune means having nothing in common with others, no obligations towards them. This analytical register may significantly broaden our understanding of current changes in political agency. A review of three main issues (responsibility-taking, downshifting, and the public) shows that the paradox of political consumerism – like other forms of governance that replace political obligations with private autonomies – is that it endeavours to (re)establish or strengthen the communal ties while at the same time using immunization as its fundamental resource. (shrink)

Dada la abundante literatura no sólo filosófica, sino también la proveniente de otras disciplinas como la sociología, las ciencias políticas, la medicina, la educación, entre otras que abordan el fenómeno de la biopolítica, este artículo realiza una visión de conjunto por algunas “recepciones” acerca de dicho problema: los Governmentality Studies y algunos filósofos analíticos; el escenario francés y el despegue de la biopolítica en España; la biopolítica negativa y afirmativa; los registros de la biotecnología y la bioética y, por último, (...) la recepción en América latina. Este itinerario, sin pretender ser exhaustivo, permite determinar el carácter transdisciplinario, variopinto, pero también empírico de la “biopolítica”. Asimismo, deja abierta la discusión al hecho de que usualmente se la concibe erróneamente como si se tratara de una esencia o sustancia. (shrink)

Today, the improper is not only a philosophical issue; it is also a political question. In particular, striving to abandon the improper is central to the contemporary political agenda in many Western countries. Given the risks of a political agenda abandoning the improper in a proper way and realizing a “closed community,” contemporary philosophers such as Roberto Esposito and Jean-Luc Nancy have thought about the relationship between the proper and improper. It is remarkable that Martin Heidegger is an exemplary figure (...) in the analyses of both philosophers. I will analyze Heidegger's line of thought on this issue and how Esposito and Nancy have responded to it. Both Esposito and Nancy state that it is “impossible to abandon the improper in a proper way” in their writings on community. Every proper existence is always marked by impropriety, Nancy and Esposito argue; there is no “original” or “proper” commonality that would liberate us from all things improper. Even before one can appropriate one's property, it is already traversed by the improper. The question “how not to abandon properly the improper?” is in fact one of the imperatives behind their arguments: if indeed the proper is always already, in one way or another, related to or contaminated by the improper, it is indeed an illusion to think we can simply leave the improper behind. (shrink)