Yes, we can say that Agamben’s concept of potentiality, which emphasizes the ability “not-to” actualize, suggests a vision of power that is humble and aligned with a first-do-no-harm principle. However, this idea must be unpacked carefully in the context of his broader critique of sovereignty, biopolitics, and modern governance.
1. Agamben’s Potentiality: The Power Not to Act
Agamben, drawing from Aristotle and Heidegger, develops a theory of potentiality in which true power lies not in its actualization but in its capacity to withhold itself.
This is opposed to the typical view of power as something that must always act, control, intervene, and legislate.
Instead, Agamben suggests that real freedom lies in the ability to retain potentiality without being forced into actualization - in other words, the ability not to do something is just as significant as the ability to do it.
This aligns with a humble power that resists the drive to dominate, intervene, or impose itself.
2. First, Do No Harm and the Suspension of Power
The Hippocratic Oath’s principle of First, do no harm (primum non nocere) suggests that power should operate with restraint and ethical caution, ensuring that its interventions do not create unintended suffering.
Agamben’s destituent power - a concept he develops in later works - uggests that power should be deactivated rather than exercised, which closely aligns with non-intervention and non-coercion.
Instead of trying to construct or impose new sovereign structures, Agamben argues for a politics that renders the mechanisms of control inoperative - a form of gentle negation rather than aggressive assertion.
This suggests a political ethic of restraint: power should refrain from acting unless absolutely necessary.
3. Critique of Sovereign Power as Hyper-Interventionism
Modern governance, according to Agamben, is obsessed with controlling, regulating, and managing life (biopolitics).
The state of exception - where sovereign power suspends normal - demonstrates how power constantly seeks to intervene, often in violent and unnecessary ways.
Agamben’s emphasis on inoperativity (inoperosit) suggests a different kind of power - one that does not rush to intervene, dominate, or decide, but instead “lets be”.
This opposes the modern state’s tendency to intervene excessively, often causing harm in the name of governance.
4. Power as Humility and Ethical Withdrawal
In The Open: Man and Animal, Agamben argues that Western political thought has always been obsessed with defining and controlling life.
He suggests that true ethical and political maturity comes from withdrawing from this compulsion - from allowing life to exist without excessive intervention.
This could be interpreted as a politics of humility, where power acknowledges its own limitations and refuses to act when action would only reinforce violence, oppression, or exclusion.
A humble power would mean allowing people and communities to exist without coercive governance or regulation.
5. Potentiality as a Model for Ethical Leadership
If leadership and governance embraced Agamben’s concept of potentiality, it would mean:
1. Not always feeling the need to decide, regulate, or intervene.
2. Leaving space for possibilities rather than foreclosing them.
3. Recognizing that sometimes, inaction is more ethical than action.
This contrasts sharply with the modern obsession with constant productivity, decision-making, and intervention - whether in politics, medicine, technology, or economics.
A leader who follows Agamben’s First-do-no-harm principle would practice restraint, ethical patience, and an awareness of the dangers of excessive action.
6. The Political Implications of “Not-To”
Agamben’s destituent power is different from both revolution (which seeks to replace one form of power with another) and resistance (which still operates within the logic of power).
Instead, he calls for a form of politics that neutralizes power rather than exercising it.
This is closely aligned with the idea of First, do no harm, because it recognizes that most political and legal interventions, historically, have created new forms of violence rather than resolving injustice.
Instead of seizing power, a truly ethical politics would deactivate it, allowing life to exist in freedom.
Conclusion: Agamben’s Not-To as Ethical Restraint
Yes, Agamben’s philosophy can be interpreted as an argument for a humble form of power that prioritizes First, do no harm:
Power should resist the compulsion to always act.
Potentiality should remain open, rather than forcing actualization.
The best governance is often the one that refrains from intervention.
True political transformation comes from neutralizing oppressive systems, not replacing them with new ones.
Thus, Agamben’s vision challenges the modern hyper-interventionist state and suggests that the most ethical form of power is the one that refuses to dominate, letting things be rather than forcing them into being.
