Interpassivity and the Political Invention of the Brain: Connolly's Neuropolitics versus Libet's Veto-right

This paper argues that Robert Pfaller and Slavoj Žižek's formulations of the logic of interpassivity are useful to understand both the neurological turn (the ultimate trope of interpassivity is the brain itself, to which we outsource our very subjectivity) and the burgeoning area of "neuropolitics." More specifically William Connolly's Neuropolitics is read critically through an analysis of his recourse to the experiments of Benjamin Libet. I contend that Connolly's outsourcing of political analysis to the neurosciences all too readily assumes the unproblematic character and the neutrality of the neurosciences, thus his political analysis fails to realize its emancipatory objectives.