I'm interested in the (more + less than) ones da Silva refers to as the NO-BODIES, 'whose existence spreads beyond the juridical borders of any given state and the ethical borders of every nation.' They are the ones whom the state can put to death in the interest of its self-preservation without any explanation; the ones whom the sovereign can dispose of or dispense with or disperse or disburse, again, in the interest of self-preservation and self-determination. They are the ones who are in passage, not just form this world to the next but from world to earth, world to ground and underground; world or water or underwater. Da Silva charts the trajectory of their externally imposed determination as non-self-determining, as there for and under the dominion of a masterful subject whose capacity for reason and reflection allows him not only to suppress or subordinate his own impulses and appetites but also obligates him to control those who are supposed to have no such capacity. That masterful subject is privileged and obligated to control all that shows up for him in the world of things. On the other hand, things are without impetus and have no internal volition. They are affectable. The paradox is that the affectable ones must immediately be considered dangerous in their supposed total lack of armature precisely because the condition of affectability is contagious given the irreducible desirability of affectability's indiscreet non-being. This is to say that affectability, which is the essence of social life, is the condition of possibility of desire, as such.
Fred Moten: History Does Not Repeat Itself, but It Does Rhyme