And although influenced by these rich discourses, Agamben at this point breaks from the role of hermeneutician and seeks to set up a fresh ontological foundation for thinking through what is at issue with apparatuses in modern societies.
9) With regard to apparatuses, here too Agamben differs from Foucault in allowing apparatuses to comprise a range of devices, practices, and institutions that is considerably broader than what Foucualt would have included under that rubric.
And given that any particular living being encounters and is captured by multiple apparatuses in its lifetime, living beings can be viewed as going through multiple processes of subjectification.
But what happens (as Agamben argues is the case today) when the apparatuses with which substances interact become ever more pervasive, granting ever fewer opportunities for glimpsing the gap between being and action?
It would probably not be wrong to define the extreme phase of capitalist development in which we live as a massive accumulation and proliferation of apparatuses.
The two dominant critical responses to the ubiquity of control and technology--destruction of apparatuses on the one hand, and their correct use on the other--strike Agamben as equally implausible.
This double concern with humanization and the happy life is ultimately what leads Agamben to suggest that the proper response to the ubiquity of apparatuses in modern times is not destruction but profanation.
would be an ineffective strategy if our aim is return apparatuses to common use.
Except in rare instances, the dominant systems of mobility tend to reassert themselves in those spaces, and most people go back to living their lives in, through, and at the edges of the standard apparatuses of control and networks of power.