Skip to content

4.2 The Subjugation of Bodies

In the section above, I explored how the concept of genocide is limited within international law, which only recognises mass killings and massacres. The absence of other forms of genocide from international legal definitions leads to the dismissal of claims despite similar underlying motives, namely the ethnic cleansing of peoples.

By examining genocide by attrition we can identify various manifestations of genocide. It is within this slow-moving genocide by attrition that I situate the concept of slow erasure, emphasising the significance of Indigenous identity, agency, and knowledge systems. Rather than positing a single agent or actor with explicit genocidal intent, I understand slow erasure as a structural logic embedded within the settler-colonial order. This logic is expressed through legal, military, bureaucratic, and cultural institutions that, over time, degrade and erase Indigenous presence. These processes are enacted on and through the Indigenous body, not necessarily by deliberate, individual motivations, but through a convergent apparatus of power that produces erasure as its effect.

As settler-colonialism targets Palestinians to erase the Indigenous identity, agency and episteme, this section will cover the relevant theoretical underpinnings that form the analytical base for the chapters (Chapters Five to Eight) and the methodological approach to the data (see Chapter Two) I use.

This section investigates the interwoven dynamics of biopolitics and body politics, beginning with Foucault’s foundational distinction between sovereign power and biopower. It examines how these concepts have evolved to account for more contemporary forms of control that target both populations and individuals, including through disciplinary practices and necropolitical violence. By focusing on Gordon’s (Gordon 2008)1 analysis of Israeli settler-colonialism, alongside perspectives from theorists such as Agamben (Agamben 1998)2, Mbembe (Mbembe 2003)3, and Bargu (Bargu 2019)4, this section highlights the ways in which state mechanisms, from legal frameworks to surveillance regimes, operate simultaneously to shape life and death, regulate identities, and curtail resistance. Ultimately, understanding how these forms of power work together sheds light on the profound implications for identity, knowledge, and grief in the context of settler-colonial domination.

4.2.1 Biopower and body politics

Michel Foucault began developing his concept of biopolitics in 1975 in his lectures at the Collège de France titled Society Must Be Defended (Foucault 2003)5. Throughout his work, Foucault further elaborated on the meaning of biopolitics. Lemke (Lemke 2011)6 identifies three ways in which Foucault employs the term: the rearticulation of sovereign power through a rupture in political thinking and practice, the central role of biopolitical mechanisms in the rise of racism, and the concept of biopolitics as a form of governance based on liberal social regulation and individual self-governance.

According to Foucault, sovereign power decides whether to take life or let live, while biopower has the capacity to foster life or allow it to perish (Foucault 2003)5. This distinction reveals two basic forms of power over life: the regulatory control of the population, understood as a biological and social entity rather than a purely political or legal entity, and the disciplining of the individual (Foucault 1980)7. Hannah Richter refers to the two bodies governed by biopolitics as “the population as the unit to which specific governmental techniques are directed and targeted, and the body of the individual subject as the unit where these productive governmental technologies take effect and become visible” (Richter 2018, 3)8. According to Foucault, the disciplining and control of a population are “two poles of development linked together by a whole intermediary cluster of relations” (Foucault 1980, 139)7.

Gordon (Gordon 2008)1 argues that the various mechanisms and practices of control employed in the Israeli occupation of Palestine can be understood through Foucault’s conceptual framework of power, specifically the disciplinary, biopolitical, and sovereign modes. He asserts that the disciplinary, biopolitical, and sovereign modes of power function simultaneously and are essential components of modern governance.

It is important to highlight that governance encompasses more than just state institutions and practices, extending to various mechanisms and processes such as disciplinary practices, surveillance, and various forms of social control. The distinct characteristics of each configuration determine the methods by which individuals and the population are managed. Gordon (Gordon 2008)1 notes that these configurations are not fixed and can be subject to modification, leading to changes in the relationship and emphasis among the different modes of power. As a result, the way society is governed and controlled can be altered (Gordon 2008, 14)1.

The way Gordon conceptualises power is particularly useful for my purpose since he combines a strong theoretical interest in Foucault’s concept of power and conducts a systematic analysis of the different forms of power in the setting of Israeli occupation.

Gordon (Gordon 2008)1 highlights several critical changes introduced by Israel, perhaps the most significant being the modification of the legal system. For example, Israel deployed its military to enforce law and order and dramatically expanded the operations of its General Security Services (GSS), also known as Shin Bet, in the occupied territories in an effort to suppress Palestinian resistance. These actions, along with other key institutions and practices, such as the permit regime and surveillance apparatuses, function as core technologies of control within the overlapping sovereign, disciplinary, and biopolitical modes Gordon describes.

Gordon (Gordon 2008)1 writes it is crucial to note that the infrastructure of control and the various apparatuses and practices that have emerged from it are governed by several modalities of control. By modality of control, he refers to the underlying principles that guide how these forms of control operate in the occupied territories. Two modalities worth mentioning at the outset are temporariness and arbitrariness, both of which have facilitated the management of the Palestinian population throughout Israel’s military rule.

Numerous administrative arrangements, legal orders, and policies were constantly modified to obscure the permanent nature of Israel’s control. Many controlling apparatuses and practices were also guided by an arbitrary logic that concealed the consistent nature of Israel’s military rule. Rights, such as freedom of movement, were transformed into privileges handed out in the form of permits, which can be revoked at any moment for a variety of known and unknown reasons. This is further discussed in Chapter Five, for instance, in the case of the Amer family, who refused to leave their house and ended up being squeezed between the wall and a settlement.

To fully comprehend the mechanics of the occupation, Gordon (Gordon 2008)1 asserts, one must examine, even briefly, the major systems and institutions that enabled all other forms of control to function, along with the underlying principles that guided their effective operation. Israel’s unique interpretation of international humanitarian law has had a significant impact on the occupation. Its insidious ingenuity lies in its effective distinction between the people and the land and in its selective approach to embracing the law without outright rejection (Gordon 2008)1.

This section elucidates how Foucault’s theories of biopolitics and power can be applied to understand the mechanisms of control and identity erasure in the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The combination of sovereign power, disciplinary measures, and biopolitical controls facilitates the systematic erosion of Palestinian identity and episteme described in the previous section. Gordon’s (Gordon 2008)1 analysis offers a comprehensive understanding of how the occupation gradually undermines and erases the cultural and social fabric of Palestinian life.

The control of life and death is intricately tied to the concepts of identity and knowledge, forming a critical aspect of biopolitical power. The following section explores how the regulation of existence, whether through the ability to allow or terminate life, serves as a fundamental mechanism for shaping and erasing identities and episteme.

References

  1. Gordon, Neve. 2008. Israel's Occupation. University of California Press. University of California Press. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  2. Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer - Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford University Press. ↩

  3. Mbembe, Achille. 2003. "Necropolitics." Translated by Libby Meintjes. Public Culture 15 (1): 11--40. ↩

  4. Bargu, Banu, ed. 2019. Turkeys Necropolitical Laboratory Democracy, Violence and Resistance. Edinburgh University Press. ↩

  5. Foucault, Michel. 2003. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the [Coll[è]{.nocase}ge]{.nocase} de France, 1975-76. Picador. ↩↩

  6. Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction. Translated by Eric Frederick Trump. New York University Press. ↩

  7. Foucault, Michel. 1980. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. Vintage Books. ↩↩

  8. Richter, Hannah. 2018. Biopolitical Governance: Race, Gender and Economy. Rowman\ & Littlefield. ↩