On page 21, Agamben brings up some tricky issues that I’m hoping to get some more clarity on, please! He delineates two opposing modes: inclusive exclusion (which serves to include what is excluded) versus exclusive inclusion (which i think one could infer serves to exclude what is included . . . ?)
Thankfully, Agamben offers a bit more elaboration on this, as well as the difference between an exception and an example; on the next page as he talks about how “belonging to a class can be shown only by an example—that is, outside of the class itself,” and the matter of non-belonging is demonstrated through location at the center of the said class, but in the form of an exception.
I’m a bit mixed up here, and I am wondering if you guys have any ideas about more concrete ways to explain this differentiation between example and exception—especially when he writes that they are ultimately indistinguishable. Thanks!
I can find it now, but its somewhere between pages 20-30 where he talks about the difference in membership and inclusion and I remember it helped me to better understand the idea of inclusive exclusion and exclusive inclusion. I thought of it along the lines of immigration and citizenship (and maybe I only thought of it this way because Agamben uses it as an example but it helped me clarify):
If you are a citizen of america, but do not gain any of the benefits (right to vote, welfare, etc) than you are a member but not included.
If you get all of the rights, but are not a citizen then you are included but not a member (maybe someone from Puerto Rico).
Maybe that will help you out, or maybe I just touched on something completely different. Either way I feel enlightened and thats all that matters. :)