A while ago Agamben was invited to teach a seminar at NYU, but then canceled because he didn't agree with the new measures of being fingerprinted when entering the United States. Biopolitical tattooing, as he calls it. He wrote an explanation of his decision in Le Monde, encouraging European colleagues to follow his example, and stayed where he was. Agamben is practicing his idea of potentiality - having the power to do, or, as in this case, very well not to do something; and while refusal can be a political act in itself it seems that here it is incomplete. For what his decision inevitably entails is that he will never lecture in the United States again.
Not only is this result in nobody's interest (except the administration's, who should be delighted that their measures work so effectively in keeping, if not alleged terrorists, then at least dissenters and critical theorists under control and out of the country), but it does little to reinstate Agamben's potentiality either. He still doesn't get to do what he initially wanted, and should, do - lecture. This, he accepts as an unappealing necessity.
The more radical move would have been to do what he did, choose not to go and make his position clear, but then find a way of by-passing those restrictions. In this case for instance quite simply instead of being physically present and having to undergo the procedures holding a video-conference lecture. That way he still has a chance to articulate his concerns but furthermore uses available means' (in this case technology's) potential to assist radical, critical, creative activity. And crucially it is precisely this form of appearance (the ghostly appearance) that can allow Agamben to make, or rather perform, his statement and politics anew every single time he becomes quasi-present in a space in the US. In the way he chose to act he only got to make it once.
