Isabell lorey biography samples

European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies. Retrieved October 29, BAK, basis voor actuele kunst.

Isabell lorey biography samples: Isabell Lorey is a

Sources [ edit ]. External links [ edit ]. Authority control databases. Germany United States Netherlands Poland. Toggle the table of contents. Judith ButlerMichel Foucault. In Isabell Lorey habilitated at the University of Vienna isabell lorey biography samples a study on society formation and the consolidation of rule, which was published by Diaphanes in as Figuren des Immunen.

In it Lorey deals with the insecurity that is spreading through society, social uncertainty in the neo-liberal context, the associated gender politics but also the possibilities for change. Lorey has served long stints as assistant and visiting professor at Berlin University of the Arts and Humboldt University of Berlin, as well as teaching at the universities of Basel, Vienna and Kassel.

Lorey returned to Cologne, where she worked back in as an editor of the journal Texte zur Kunst, as professor of queer studies in the arts and sciences. Teaching Staff Deutsch English. Simple language Sign language. Konstanz, pp. Artistic Critique. Worlds of Capitalism. Max Miller. London, New York, pp. Leben im neuen Wohlfahrtsstaat. Paris Aspekte kritischer Gesellschaftstheorie.

Robert Hurley. New York. Dreyfus; Paul Rabinow. Chicago, pp. Die Geburt der Biopolitik. French Original: Naissance de la biopolitiqueParis In: Stuart Hall ed. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London, pp. In: MalmoeNo. In: Grundrisse. A New Edition, Corrected. In Ten Volumes. Die biopolitisch gouvernementale Moderne, Foucault und Agamben.

Critical Studies on Gender an Racism. Geschlechterkonstruktionen in der sozialen Praxis. Eine Introspektion aus dem Alltag von Projektlinken. In: arranca! Ein sozialwissenschaftliches Konzept im Anschluss an Foucault. It refers to an imagination of the designated subjects: that of their own autonomous production and of fashioning their selves.

But at the same time it is about the fact that these ways of subjectivation are instruments of governing, thus functional effects of biopolitical govermental societies of occidental modernity. Instead, we are speaking of the practice of traveling across a variety of things: theory production, design, political and cultural self-organization, forms of collaboration, paid and unpaid jobs, informal and formal economies, temporary alliances, project related working and living.

See Foucault a, f. On biopolitical governmentality as a socio-theoretical concept, see Lorey a. Particularly when reproduction technologies along with hygiene and health are attributed a central biopolitical productivity of gendered and raced bodies, then for the bourgeoisie the introduction of these practices of subjectivation must be positioned at the beginning of the modern era, at the end of the eighteenth century, at the latest.

Generally, the text focuses solely on these force lines of bourgeois subjectivation. It is not aiming at a comprehensive look at the problem of ways of subject constitution. The virtuosos I refer to in what follows are by no means restricted to the artistic field. They can include academics or media representatives, for example. They are engaged in extremely diverse, unequally paid project activities and fee-paying jobs, and consider themselves entirely critical of society.

Yet those cultural producers to whom I refer here start from the assumption that they have chosen their living and working conditions themselves, precisely to ensure that they develop the essence of their being to the maximum in a relatively free and autonomous manner. In the case of such virtuosos, I refer to self-precarization. The interpellation to self-precarization belongs to an elementary governing technique of modern societies and is not an entirely new neo-liberal or post-Fordist phenomenon.

Inseparable from this self-conduct are ideas of actuality. Thus, for example, we still believe that the effect of power relations is the very essence of ourselves, our truth, our own actual core. This normalizing self-regulation is based on an imagined coherence, unity and wholeness, which can be traced back to the construction of a male, white, bourgeois subject.

Coherence, once again, is one of the prerequisites for the modern, sovereign subject. Basically, governmental self-regulation, this sovereignty at the subject level, takes place in an apparent paradox since this modern self-regulation means both subjugation and empowerment. Only in this ambivalent structure of subjectivation that — in all its diversity in the individual — was fundamental both in private as well as in the public sphere, both in the family and in the factory or in politics, only in this paradoxical subjectivation does the governability of the modern subject occur.

Isabell lorey biography samples: Isabell Lorey. In the course

In liberalism, this normalized sovereign male-white subjectivation needed the construction of the abnormal and deviant Other, i. In neo-liberalism, the function of the precarious worker now shifts towards the centre of society and becomes normalized. Thus the function of bourgeois freedom can also be transformed: away from the separation of precarious others and towards the subjectivizing function in normalized precarization.

Current living and working conditions refer not least to a genealogy of the social movements since the sixties. The thoroughly dissident practices of alternative ways of life, the desires for different bodies and self-relations in feminist, ecological, radical-left contexts constantly sought to distinguish themselves from normal working conditions and their associated constraints, disciplinary measures and controls.

Isabell lorey biography samples: Governmentality and Self-Precarization. On the normalization

The conscious, voluntary acceptance of precarious employment conditions was also generally the expression of a need to overcome the modern, patriarchal division in reproduction and wage labour. In recent years, however, it is precisely these alternative living and working conditions that have become increasingly economically utilizable because they favour the flexibilization demanded by the labour market.

Thus the practices and discourses of social movements in the past thirty or forty years were not only dissident and directed against normalization, but were also simultaneously part of the transformation towards a neo-liberal form of governmentality. On the level of subjectivation, it is increasingly clear that at present alternative living and working conditions have by and large not freed themselves from the structure of a traditional, bourgeois-white-male mode of subjectivation.

The ambivalence between a specific bourgeois idea of freedom on the one hand, and self- regulation and subjugation on the other is far from removed. The present virtuosos of this ambivalence may be further described within a few parameters: they pursue temporary jobs, make their living on projects and from contract work from several clients simultaneously and from consecutive clients, mostly without any sick pay, paid holiday leave or unemployment compensation, without protection against wrongful dismissal — basically with minimal social protection or none whatsoever.