{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","title":"Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","id":"2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","uuid":"2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","title":"Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics","normalized_title":"democracyandotherneoliberalfantasiescommunicativecapitalismandleftpolitics","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"isbns":[],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":229,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Democracy%20and%20Other%20Neoliberal%20Fantasies%20Communicative%20Capitalism%20and%20Left%20Politics","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/2619284f-c364-4de3-bdf4-82f768dbc1c5/search"},"page":{"printed_page":135,"pdf_page":145,"physical_index":145,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"7c136c235a09419e2944fcde97cd4926d4a0816a6d548ba75ec2ca05e51d7c55"},"chapter":"Comunicative Capitalism & Left Politics","content":"Butler's shift in focus to \"the human\" is ill-conceived. The religious, imperialist, and miltarist terms of the so-called war on terror (or, more specifically, indefinite detention) do not challenge the human status of either the enemy or the imprisoned (contra Butler, PL 89) . George W. Bush, Dick Cheney:, and their conservative supporters are explicit about their entitlement to take human life. Their self-understanding of their power is premised on precisely this entitlement: they are the ones who know which humans can be killed-they do not need to exclude some from the category. Additionally:, it may well be that the ethical command is toward not just the human but the inhuman, toward those that I cannot see as like m.e in any way, who remain monstrous to me, completely diferent, completely other. Thus <sup>Z</sup>izek, criticizing Butler for ignoring the status of the inhuman in Kant's ethics, argues that the inhuman marks \"a terrifying excess which, although it negates what we understand as 'humanity, is inherent to being human:'17 A, key exemplar of such an inhl!man, <sup>Z</sup>izek notes, is \"the terrifying figure of the Muselmann, the 'living dead' in the concentration camps:'<sup>1</sup>8\n\nButler's discussions of governmentality seem to back her into a corner. Resignification under conditions of governmentality is not simply a progressive, democratic, or liberating practice available to those unbound by law. It is also available to those in power, to those using law instrumentally, to those who have led the country into the horrifyng future of indefinite and preemptive war. Likewise, sovereign power, a power to efect a closure, to cut of£ to decide, operates both as law and lawlessly:, through law and through law's suspension. Perhaps Butler m.oves to ethics so as to escape this deadlock.\n\nA passage in Precarious Life suggests this might be the case. Butler describes participating in a discussion about the current situation of the humanities. She notes a confusion in the discussion, an uncertainty regarding whether pe ple were wilg to stand by their words, \"whether anyone really was willing to own a view\" (PL, 129 ) . She concedes that her work has tried to \"cut the tether\" of author to words, an efort linked to her critique of sovereign speech. She admits as well that it would be a \"paradox\" were she now to try to tether discourse to authors. To avoid this paradox, Butler ofers another move, \"a consideration of the structure of address itself\" (129) . As she explains:\n\nETHICS\n\n135","previous_page":134,"next_page":136}