Can you perform an exegesis on this text: Agamben’s investigation into bare life quietly reveals the active danger in discussions of a positive, sovereign, constituted subjectivity.[6] It always presents a mobile exception, a threshold or criteria of possession. These criteria, rather than simply being qualities of qualified life, are, in fact, what make it possible. The shadow of the camp haunts our modern quotidian life, the silhouette of the “Muselmann” haunts every “citizen.” Those murdered are not “bare life” manifest. It is the autarchy of the human being that pretends, with the eyes of a doe and the fangs of a wolf, to ask the question “is this a man?” It sets in motion the course of a disastrous history that can arrive at a “man who dies because a yes or a no” (Levi 2013, 1).

Absolutely. This passage is a dense and evocative meditation on Giorgio Agamben’s concept of bare life, sovereignty, and the ethical-political implications of subjectivity. Let’s unpack it line by line, tracing its philosophical architecture and rhetorical force.

🔍 Exegesis of the Passage

“Agamben’s investigation into bare life quietly reveals the active danger in discussions of a positive, sovereign, constituted subjectivity.”

This opening sentence critiques the liberal or humanist impulse to define subjectivity in positive terms—autonomous, rational, sovereign. Agamben’s work shows that such definitions are not neutral: they actively produce exclusion. The danger lies in the fact that every “constituted” subject implies a constituting power—a sovereign authority that decides who counts as human.

“It always presents a mobile exception, a threshold or criteria of possession.”

Here, the text introduces the idea that subjectivity is not a stable category but a threshold—a moving line that separates those who are included from those who are excluded. The “criteria of possession” (e.g., reason, speech, citizenship) are not inherent qualities but conditions imposed by power. They are what make “qualified life” possible, but also what render others as bare life.

“These criteria, rather than simply being qualities of qualified life, are, in fact, what make it possible.”

This line deepens the critique: the attributes we associate with full personhood (rights, dignity, recognition) are not natural—they are politically constructed. And their construction depends on the exclusion of those who lack them. Qualified life is parasitic on bare life.

“The shadow of the camp haunts our modern quotidian life, the silhouette of the ‘Muselmann’ haunts every ‘citizen.’”

This is the emotional and philosophical core of the passage. The “camp” (as in concentration camp) is not a historical anomaly—it is a biopolitical paradigm. The Muselmann, the figure in the camp who has lost all subjectivity, haunts the citizen because they are linked by structure. The citizen lives in suspended proximity to bare life; the Muselmann is its actualization.

“Those murdered are not ‘bare life’ manifest.”

This line clarifies a subtle point: bare life is not death. It is life stripped of political value—a life that can be killed but not sacrificed. The murdered are beyond this condition; they are no longer part of the biopolitical machinery. Bare life is a living exclusion, not a corpse.

“It is the autarchy of the human being that pretends, with the eyes of a doe and the fangs of a wolf, to ask the question ‘is this a man?’”

This is a devastating critique of the sovereign subject—the one who claims to define humanity. The metaphor (“eyes of a doe and fangs of a wolf”) suggests predatory innocence: the sovereign subject appears gentle but exercises violent power. The question “is this a man?” is not ethical—it is sovereign, a gesture of inclusion or exclusion.

“It sets in motion the course of a disastrous history that can arrive at a ‘man who dies because a yes or a no.’”

This final line, quoting Primo Levi, captures the horror of mundane sovereign power: a human life reduced to a binary decision, stripped of complexity, dignity, and agency. It is the endpoint of a system that governs life through recognition and exclusion.

Philosophical Implications

• Biopolitics: Life is governed not just by laws but by norms, thresholds, and exceptions.

• Subjectivity: The sovereign subject is not innocent—it is complicit in the production of bare life.

• Ethics: True ethics must resist the sovereign gesture of recognition and instead affirm beyond categories.