The ”munus” (duty, obligation, gift) is a form of exchange that draws people together, in a “transitive act of giving,” which has nothing to do with the “stability of a possession and even less the acquisitive dynamic of something earned, but loss, subtraction, transfer.”<ref>Esposito, Roberto. 2010. Communitas: The Origin and Destiny of Community, trans. Timothy C. Campbell. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, p. 5.</ref> The ”munus” creates a duty and obligation that binds us together. It is a shared vulnerability and openness that divides us and brings us together in a form of mutuality. In ”Containing Community”, Greg Bird argues that alongside Jean-Luc Nancy and Giorgio Agamben, Esposito seeks to radically rethink community beyond the trappings of the “dispositif of the proper” and the property prejudice which shapes how community has been traditional conceived in the West. “Esposito’s political and ethical notion of ”communitas” unfolds in an ontology where being is no longer dominated by having. The first thing that must be accomplished is a traversal of ”Homo approprians” and its immunizing apparatuses. In ”Communitas”, this is accomplished by the ontological duty that forces open, exposes, and depropriates the subject. His ”communitas” divides and shares out [”condivisione” in Italian] subject in such a manner that they are obliged to five back to the ”munus”. The ”munus” must be shared”<ref>Bird, ”Containing Community”, p. 200.</ref>
The ”munus” (duty, obligation, gift) is a form of exchange that draws people together, in a “transitive act of giving,” which has nothing to do with the “stability of a possession and even less the acquisitive dynamic of something earned, but loss, subtraction, transfer.”<ref>Esposito, Roberto. 2010. Communitas: The Origin and Destiny of Community, trans. Timothy C. Campbell. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, p. 5.</ref> The ”munus” creates a duty and obligation that binds us together. It is a shared vulnerability and openness that divides us and brings us together in a form of mutuality. In ”Containing Community”, Greg Bird argues that alongside Jean-Luc Nancy and Giorgio Agamben, Esposito seeks to radically rethink community beyond the trappings of the “dispositif of the proper” and the property prejudice which shapes how community has been traditional conceived in the West. “Esposito’s political and ethical notion of ”communitas” unfolds in an ontology where being is no longer dominated by having. The first thing that must be accomplished is a traversal of ”Homo approprians” and its immunizing apparatuses. In ”Communitas”, this is accomplished by the ontological duty that forces open, exposes, and depropriates the subject. His ”communitas” divides and shares out [”condivisione” in Italian] subject in such a manner that they are obliged to five back to the ”munus”. The ”munus” must be shared”<ref>Bird, ”Containing Community”, p. 200.</ref>
”Immunitas: The Protection and Negation of Life” (2002, 2011) represents Esposito’s first full exploration of [[biopolitics]]. Drawing upon his previous study of the political-legal implications of immunity on community, Esposito turns his attention to the bio-medical relationship between human bodies and the social body. Just as a human body’s immune system is designed to protect it from deadly threats, such as viruses, the law is designed to protect and people from being exposed to the risk of conflict, and life threatening situations.<ref>Oliva, Rossella Bonito, and Timothy Campbell. “From the Immune Community to the Communitarian Immunity: On the Recent Reflections of Roberto Esposito.” Diacritics, vol. 36, no. 2, 2006, pp. 70–82.</ref> Life is protected by denying other life. Modern biopolitical societies and politics are increasingly defined by immunization mechanisms (anti-immigration policies, hyper-individualism, protection of private property, etc.). The more defensive a society becomes, with heightened fears of being infected by foreign elements, the more closed off they become.<ref>Cauwer, Stijn De and Kim Hendrickx. “Introduction: Immunity, Society, and the Arts.” Configurations, vol. 25 no. 3, 2017, p. 265-277. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/con.2017.0019.</ref> He warns that this self-defense mechanism at the core of biopolitical societies, contains an inherently negative, lethal principle, which could potentially lead to a mutation of the immunization mechanisms. Hyper-immunized societies can easily morph into self-destructive autoimmune societies, just as the Nazi regime ended by turning on itself.<ref>Deutscher, P. (2013). The Membrane and the Diaphragm: Derrida and Esposito on Immunity, Community, and Birth. Angelaki, 18(3), 49–68; also see “The Immunization Paradigm,” in ”Special Issue: Bios, Immunity, Life: The Thought of Roberto Esposito”, trans./edited by Timothy Campbell, ”Diacritics” – Volume 36, Number 2, Summer 2006, pp. 2–22 The Johns Hopkins University Press. Esposito returns to this theme in ‘’Common Immunity: Biopolitics in the Age of the Pandemic’’ (2023).</ref> ”Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy” (2004, 2008) represents a genealogical account of the history of biopolitical thought, including in the work of [[Michel Foucault]], from the perspective of the concept of immunity.<ref>Campbell, Timothy. Improper Life: Technology and Biopolitics from Heidegger to Agamben. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011; Levinson, Brett. “Biopolitics in Balance: Esposito’s Response to Foucault.” CR: The New Centennial Review, vol. 10, no. 2, 2010, pp. 239–61.</ref> Since immunitas is a “negative protection of life,” [[biopolitics]] is always at risk of turning into thanatopolitics. Contrary to the “negative biopolitics” of many interpreters of Foucault, including [[Giorgio Agamben]] who views biopolitical [[governmentality]] and [[biopower]] as domination and control over life, Esposito argues that we need to re-imagine biopolitics in an “affirmative” manner.<ref>Campbell, Timothy (2006). “Bios, Immunity, Life – The Thought of Roberto Esposito”. ”Diacritics”. 36 (2): 2–22.</ref> An affirmative model of biopolitics leads to a new politics ”of” life, not a politics ”over” life — where life’s potential can be fostered and alternative forms of existence can flourish.<ref>Lynch, Heather. (2019). “Esposito’s affirmative biopolitics in multispecies homes.” ”European Journal of Social Theory”, 22(3), 364-381.</ref> Affirmative biopolitics could give rise to a ”communitas” where life is affirmed against the grain of the negative, thanatopolitical, or [[necropolitics]],<ref>Bird, Greg, and Heather Lynch, (2019). “Introduction to the politics of life: A biopolitical mess.” ”European Journal of Social Theory”, 22(3), 301-316.</ref> regime of immunization.<ref>Esposito summarizes the relationship between communitas, immunitas, and biopolitics in a short essay: [https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2013.834666 “Community, Immunity, Biopolitics”], Angelaki, Volume 18, Number 3, 2013, pp. 83-90. The same themes are elaborated in a series of essays, published under the title ”Categories of the Impolitical”, Fordham University Press, New York, 2015.</ref>
”Immunitas: The Protection and Negation of Life” (2002, 2011) represents Esposito’s first full exploration of [[biopolitics]]. Drawing his previous study of the political-legal of immunity on community, Esposito turns his attention to the bio-medical relationship between human bodies and the social body. Just as a human body’s immune system is designed to protect it from deadly threats, such as viruses, the law is designed to protect and people from being exposed to the risk of conflict, and life threatening situations.<ref>Oliva, Rossella Bonito, and Timothy Campbell. “From the Immune Community to the Communitarian Immunity: On the Recent Reflections of Roberto Esposito.” Diacritics, vol. 36, no. 2, 2006, pp. 70–82.</ref> Life is protected by denying other life. Modern biopolitical societies and politics are increasingly defined by immunization mechanisms (anti-immigration policies, hyper-individualism, protection of private property, etc.). The more defensive a society becomes, with heightened fears of being infected by foreign elements, the more closed off they become.<ref>Cauwer, Stijn De and Kim Hendrickx. “Introduction: Immunity, Society, and the Arts.” Configurations, vol. 25 no. 3, 2017, p. 265-277. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/con.2017.0019.</ref> He warns that this self-defense mechanism at the core of biopolitical societies, contains an inherently negative, lethal principle, which could potentially lead to a mutation of the immunization mechanisms. Hyper-immunized societies can easily morph into self-destructive autoimmune societies, just as the Nazi regime ended by turning on itself.<ref>Deutscher, P. (2013). The Membrane and the Diaphragm: Derrida and Esposito on Immunity, Community, and Birth. Angelaki, 18(3), 49–68; also see “The Immunization Paradigm,” in ”Special Issue: Bios, Immunity, Life: The Thought of Roberto Esposito”, trans./edited by Timothy Campbell, ”Diacritics” – Volume 36, Number 2, Summer 2006, pp. 2–22 The Johns Hopkins University Press. Esposito returns to this theme in ‘’Common Immunity: Biopolitics in the Age of the Pandemic’’ (2023).</ref> ”Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy” (2004, 2008) represents a genealogical account of the history of biopolitical thought, including in the work of [[Michel Foucault]], from the perspective of the concept of immunity.<ref>Campbell, Timothy. Improper Life: Technology and Biopolitics from Heidegger to Agamben. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011; Levinson, Brett. “Biopolitics in Balance: Esposito’s Response to Foucault.” CR: The New Centennial Review, vol. 10, no. 2, 2010, pp. 239–61.</ref> Since immunitas is a “negative protection of life,” [[biopolitics]] is always at risk of turning into thanatopolitics. Contrary to the “negative biopolitics” of many interpreters of Foucault, including [[Giorgio Agamben]] who views biopolitical [[governmentality]] and [[biopower]] as domination and control over life, Esposito argues that we need to re-imagine biopolitics in an “affirmative” manner.<ref>Campbell, Timothy (2006). “Bios, Immunity, Life – The Thought of Roberto Esposito”. ”Diacritics”. 36 (2): 2–22.</ref> An affirmative model of biopolitics leads to a new politics ”of” life, not a politics ”over” life — where life’s potential can be fostered and alternative forms of existence can flourish.<ref>Lynch, Heather. (2019). “Esposito’s affirmative biopolitics in multispecies homes.” ”European Journal of Social Theory”, 22(3), 364-381.</ref> Affirmative biopolitics could give rise to a ”communitas” where life is affirmed against the grain of the negative, thanatopolitical, or [[necropolitics]],<ref>Bird, Greg, and Heather Lynch, (2019). “Introduction to the politics of life: A biopolitical mess.” ”European Journal of Social Theory”, 22(3), 301-316.</ref> regime of immunization.<ref>Esposito summarizes the relationship between communitas, immunitas, and biopolitics in a short essay: [https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2013.834666 “Community, Immunity, Biopolitics”], Angelaki, Volume 18, Number 3, 2013, pp. 83-90. The same themes are elaborated in a series of essays, published under the title ”Categories of the Impolitical”, Fordham University Press, New York, 2015.</ref>
