Zoe, bios and subjectivation?

There is a great deal about the underlying implications of Agemben's argument that resonated as a slightly different take on Butler's same dilemma. Where Agemben argues for the collapse of zoe and bios such that our once natural and pure 'bare life' is politicized in a way that the two experiences may no longer be had without the other, Butler seems to be implicitly positing a similar case for pre-subjectivity. It seems that Agemben is using 'politics' in a more traditional sense, with regard to citizenship and legality, where Butler's sense of political subjugation of the 'subject' occurs, as we saw, also through a less explicitly state-sanction oppression of the psyche.

It's a little late for blog discussion (though feel free to respond if so inclined) but I'd be interested in bringing our conversation about the possibility of pre-subjectivity into the context of Agemben; what is the experience of the psyche in the death of natural life in the oikos? What might Butler have to say about the collapse of bios into zoe? It seems that she would argue that this incidence of their collision is an expression of subjectivation - the site of which the psyche is stripped of any leave from the political ideological moment. Then...and perhaps most of all, can we really imagine a the two as so explicitly separate as Agemben would have us believe once existed?

Agreed--other things that I thought of with regard to Agamben's intersections with our other authors were Althusser and his interpellating-hailing moment, and so by extension, with pre-subjectivity and Butler. The way in which politics has "compromised" zoe by making it dependent on bios (and perhaps vice versa?) fits into larger trends (meta-narratives? hah!) we've examined, generally: the ways in which state power, Capitalism, and over-arching mechanisms of power of all stripes re-wire our minds and bodies by assimilating us into the circuit.

Also how about nation state:zoe::oedipal theories:rhizomatic being? Is that too harsh a reading of zoe's politicization?

Yeah, there did seem to be glimmers of D&G in the Agamben reading. Mostly I'm thinking of all the liminal creatures that Agamben points to as inhabiting bare life, between nature/culture, zoe/bios, etc. In the way that D&G point to deterritorializations of individuals, partial objects, etc., Agamben calls for the collapse of bios into zoe, so we can't divide one from the other. How can we create a map between bios and zoe so we can't think of one without the other?