「大疫」的發明 喬治·阿甘本（試譯：淺白）
當面對那些熱昏、非理性、全無基礎，卻又聲言是為了應對那「據稱」的冠狀病毒疫情，而急就施行的「緊急措施」時，我們或應先從國家研究委員會（CNR）發表的聲明開始着眼。它不僅明確釐清了「意大利並沒有SARS-CoV2疫情」，且更指出：「據當前基於數以萬計病例得來的數據可見，約八九成的患者會出現輕至中度的徵狀（情況近似流感），而10-15%或會引發肺炎；然則大多數的個案均不致有甚麼大礙。估計（最終）需要接受強化治療的患者只佔全體的約4%。」
若這是真實情況的話，那為何傳媒和當局還要這樣不遺餘力的散播恐慌，以致在現實裏真的被其觸發出一場切實的「例外狀態」（state of exception）：即在一整個地區之內，所有人的行動自由皆得被嚴重限制，而一切日常生活，亦不能不強遭懸擱、乃至停頓？
有兩個因素，或有助解釋這種不合比例的反應。首先，是它再次展示了政府愛用「例外狀態」來作為其常態行政範式的傾向。那即時獲政府批准的、「基於衛生和公眾安全原因」的立法法令，實際上是會對那些「至少存在一個檢測陽性、而傳播源頭不明的個案」的市政府地區，或那些「至少有一個不是從已知疫區返回的個案」的市政府地區，造成了一種切實的「軍事時期化」（militarization）。這種（對象）模糊而不確切的定義，將能容許上述的「例外狀態」迅速擴展至所有地區，事關類似的病例幾乎必然會在別處出現。現在且讓我們審視一下，該法令到底含有哪些對於我們原有自由的嚴重限制：
a) 禁止任何人離開該「涉及疫病」的城市或地區；
b) 禁止任何外人進入該「受疫病影響」的城市或地區；
c) 暫停一切在公眾或私人地方舉行的、任何性質的活動或計畫，以及任何形式的聚會——包括文化、康樂、體育和宗教性質的活動，包括一切原乃對公眾開放的室內空間；
d) 關閉各級幼兒園、托兒所和學校，並暫停一切除遙距學習以外的課堂出席、高等教育活動和專業課程；
e) 依照2004年1月22日（訂立）的第42號法令，關閉所有在〈文化及環境遺產法典〉第101條裏列明的博物館、文化機構和場所。一切容許免費進入這些地方的規定也同被懸擱；
f) 停止一切在意大利境內或境外的教育旅行；
g) 暫停所有公開考試程序，以及公營機構、人員的活動，在（盡可能）不損害基本公共服務的前提下；
h) 對與確診感染病例有過密切接觸的人士執行隔離政策，連帶主動、持續的監測。
據CNR說法，這波「疫情」實與每年影響我們的一般流感無太大分別，而當局對其反應之不合比例處，也可謂是相當猖然明白的了。這幾乎就像是因為恐怖主義（terrorism）已耗盡了它那可以成為採取「例外措施」的理由一樣——「大疫」的發明恰好提供了理想的借口，俾便它能延續、並擴張至任何限制以外。
至於第二個同等令人不安的因素，則是那在近年來已很明白散播在每個人良知上的「恐懼狀態」（state of fear）——而諷刺地，這也真的恰好形成了一種對於「集體恐慌」的實際需求，亦即是次「疫情」，彼作為一理想藉口，所可以又一次供予的。由是，在一種乖謬墮落的惡性循環中，本乃政府對自由強加的限制，將能以「人們對安全的渴欲」之名義被接受；而這種渴欲，卻也正是由那如今正在介入以滿足它的同一政府，所一手塑造的。
26/12/2022稿
The Invention of an Epidemic
By Giorgio Agamben
26/02/2020
Faced with the frenetic, irrational and entirely unfounded emergency measures adopted against an alleged epidemic of coronavirus, we should begin from the declaration issued by the National Research Council (CNR), which states not only that “there is no SARS-CoV2 epidemic in Italy”, but also that “the infection, according to the epidemiologic data available as of today and based on tens of thousands of cases, causes mild/moderate symptoms (a sort of influenza) in 80-90% of cases. In 10-15% of cases a pneumonia may develop, but one with a benign outcome in the large majority of cases. It has been estimated that only 4% of patients require intensive therapy”.
If this is the real situation, why do the media and the authorities do their utmost to spread a state of panic, thus provoking an authentic state of exception with serious limitations on movement and a suspension of daily life in entire regions?
Two factors can help explain such a disproportionate response. First and foremost, what is once again manifest is the tendency to use a state of exception as a normal paradigm for government. The legislative decree immediately approved by the government “for hygiene and public safety reasons” actually produces an authentic militarization “of the municipalities and areas with the presence of at least one person who tests positive and for whom the source of transmission is unknown, or in which there is at least one case that is not ascribable to a person who recently returned from an area already affected by the virus”. Such a vague and undetermined definition will make it possible to rapidly extend the state of exception to all regions, as it’s almost impossible that other such cases will not appear elsewhere. Let’s consider the serious limitations of freedom the decree contains:
a) a prohibition against any individuals leaving the affected municipality or area;
b) a prohibition against anyone from outside accessing the affected municipality or area;
c) the suspension of events or initiatives of any nature and of any form of gatherings in public or private places, including those of a cultural, recreational, sporting and religious nature, including enclosed spaces if they are open to the public;
d) the closure of kindergartens, childcare services and schools of all levels, as well as the attendance of school, higher education activities and professional courses, except for distance learning;
e) the closure to the public of museums and other cultural institutions and spaces as listed in article 101 of the code of cultural and landscape heritage, pursuant to Legislative Decree 22 January 2004, no. 42. All regulations on free access to those institutions and spaces are also suspended;
f) suspension of all educational trips both in Italy and abroad;
g) suspension of all public examination procedures and all activities of public offices, without prejudice to the provision of essential and public utility services;
h) the enforcement of quarantine measures and active surveillance of individuals who have had close contacts with confirmed cases of infection.
The disproportionate reaction to what according to the CNR is something not too different from the normal flus that affect us every year is quite blatant. It is almost as if with terrorism exhausted as a cause for exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic offered the ideal pretext for scaling them up beyond any limitation.
The other no less disturbing factor is the state of fear that in recent years has evidently spread among individual consciences and that translates into an authentic need for situations of collective panic for which the epidemic provides once again the ideal pretext. Therefore, in a perverse vicious circle, the limitations of freedom imposed by governments are accepted in the name of a desire for safety that was created by the same governments that are now intervening to satisfy it.
(Published in Italian on
Quodlibet, https://www.quodlibet.it/giorgio-agamben-l-invenzione-di-un-epidemia)
English translation from (https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/articles/coronavirus-and-philosophers/)
From (https://www.facebook.com/beinglibertarian/photos/a.247308808808495/1935235753349117/)
