GENEALOGY OF AUTHORITY AND THE PUZZLE OF SOVEREIGNTY (original) (raw)
Related papers
Power's Two Bodies: A Critique of Agamben's Theory of Sovereignty
Philosophy Today, 2024
This article seeks to problematize Agamben’s interpretation of sovereignty in light of the “archaeological method” he uses in his Homo Sacer project. In contrast to Agamben’s exposition, which treats biopolitics as the original and ontological paradigm of Western politics, the essay discusses how, historically, sovereign power has been conceived as a “double body”—transcendent and immanent, sacred and sacrificial, absolute and perpetual—from whose tension conceptual and political metamorphoses of sovereignty arise. The first attribute of sovereignty—absoluteness, on which Agamben has often focused—should be seen as an ordering and essentially modern function of its second “body”: the perpetuity of power. The article illustrates, then, how the retrospective projections through which the Italian philosopher constructs his ontological reading of sovereignty depend on some logical and epistemological lacunae that characterise his “archaeological method,” which is based, essentially, on an arbitrary use of historical analogies.
Arendtian Construal of the State and Sovereignty: An Extant Version Stance
The conception(s) of the State and Sovereignty is not new-fangled at any apposite construal outlook. However, this ought not to be deciphered to connote that an affinity to delve into their comprehension is futile. In this paper, there are a plethora of sub-themes that constitute these two themes of interest. Appertaining to the State, it is ordered by the constitutional structures which partake of proffering a delineating social identity as well as the legitimacy of the State action. Moreover, the society is construed to be the transitional sphere through which individuals can deliberate on varied issues as a sort of nourishment. State sovereignty is comprehended as vastly resounding along with invariant expressions. Varied schools' of thought such as the realists' interpret the State sovereignty from a pragmatist stance. It is in tandem with this deportment that the concern of whether sovereignty could suffer any brand of obliteration emerges. The interest of this exposition is to delve into the ambivalent nature of the State along with its co-reality, that is, sovereignty. The methodologies that were employed in the pursuit of possible rejoinder(s) to the foregoing problem were hermeneutic and critical approach. Arendtian proclivity to the State's and sovereignty viewpoints were interpreted and later on appraised with an avant-garde lens. It was realized that Arendt thought sovereignty besides autarchy to be the same in human endeavours by differentiating between an idea of rights and rights. Additionally, there ensues to be two sorts of sovereignty, to be precise, external along with internal sovereignties. The lingering enquiry at this juncture is the equipoise and nexus between internal and external sovereignty. Autocracy is by and largely vindicated as the need to surmount temporarily the weakness of dualistic or admixtured or functionally separated forms of government. The facilitation is in determining the institution of a legitimate actor entitled to all rights along with privileges of statehood in addition to defining the underpinning strictures of rightful State action. It is germane to accentuate that legitimacy ought to be silhouetted by the construal of power as the outright will's aptitude to bring into being as well as impose change on that which is in the correlation between the State and sovereignty.
Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 2020
The aim of this article is that of bringing the inextricably ontological and political enjeu of Agamben's work into light, through the investigation of the beginning of the Homo Sacer series and of the shift that such a beginning produces within the author's philosophical project. More precisely, through a comparison of the first two texts of the series, Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Homo Sacer I (1998) [1995], and State of Exception, Homo Sacer II, 1 (2005) [2003], we will show how, in many respects, the philosophical question raised by Agam-ben in the first volume proves to be problematic, although it finds its most precise formulation in the period of time which spans from the first volume to the second. Our hypothesis is that the punctual recovery of the main inquiries of Homo Sacer I within State of Exception and, in particular, the recovery of the strategic interpretation of the debate between Carl Schmitt and Walter Benjamin, coincides with a crucial in-depth analysis that allows Agamben to introduce the paradigms of inoperativity and use in the specific meaning that these terms have in the subsequent developments of the series, i.e., as key notions through which Agamben elaborates his philosophical rethinking of the nexus between ontology and politics.
The Mystery of Power in the Philosophy of Giorgio Agamben
2018
Abstract: This paper examines the so-called post-Foucauldian genealogy of power undertaken by Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben. Agamben’s basic interest is why and in which ways power assumed the form of economy, which, according to Foucault’s genealogical research, means the “government of men”. For Foucault, the origin of managerial-administrative power is the paradigm of a pastorate, in which the main objective is to subjugate, control and govern the soul of every human being. For Agamben the time horizon determined by Foucault is not sufficient. Therefore, he tries to develop further the theory of bio-power and bio-politics through the paradigm of economic theology, using a wide range of materials from early medieval period to 20th century theology. Using archeological and genealogical methods, this investigation aims to show the process of a paradigm shift from political theology to economic theology within the context of power relations. Moreover, it tries to verify whether Agamben’s assumption is correct, or it is not credible. By analyzing certain concepts such as divine anarchy and co-lateral effect, I intend to pose the question whether Christian economy, as action and administration, is an archetype of modern form of power or not.
Arendtian Perspective of the State and Sovereignty Nexus: A Contemporary Interpretation
The political-legal precepts of the State and sovereignty have occupied a center stage in the realm of political theory. The State as an organized political community under a solitary system of government is construed to be concomitant with sovereignty in its modus operandi. In the discourse of this nature, the facet of concern graduates into being that which underpins these actualities. It could be enunciated that the State and sovereignty are two incomplete dashes of realism which are ever ready to receive the other for either to be complete for apropos functioning. The subject of concern of this exposition is what is it that institutes the ostensible efficacy or efficacy per excellence in the functioning of these two co-realities? The approach utilized in the pursuit of conceivable panacea to this quandary was critical phenomenology coupled as well as guided by a hermeneutic propensity. Upon the employment of the previous methodology, the sequel was that power, precisely, the ascendency of the subjects delineates the symmetry between the State along with sovereignty. Furthermore, it is this sway of the led that is liable to the linkage that subsists between these co-realities. The caveat, as well as the mode forward in maintaining this brand of rapport, is via the apposite conscientization of the citizenry in matters appertaining to the legal aspects as a sort of appropriate empowerment.
The New Centennial Review, 2012
Authority is or presupposes some specific type of power. The mark of this particularity, the one that everyone will spontaneously agree to identify as such, is the index of recognition that accompanies authority, and makes of its power a legitimate one. 1 It is commonly understood that with this is linked the genesis, the status, and the regime of authority with the liberty of the subjects who attribute authority to a certain bearer. Th is way, the power of the authority is distinguished from every other form or type that involves violent coercion, which gravely restricts or suppresses the liberty of those who are subject to it. Otherwise said, authority is not only constituted as such on the basis of sheer imposition: there must be reasons to lend this quality to a person; the liberty of those who lend it reveals itself eventually if these reasons-which may be of very diverse nature (needs, aptitudes, competences, responsibilities, delegations, traditions, and so on)-are no more available, by virtue of which the recognition may be withdrawn, with the consequent collapse of the corresponding legitimacy index.
Agamben - (im)potentiality of law and politics
AAgamben - (im)potentiality of law and politics , 2019
Placed between constituting and constituted power, homo sacer reveals the state of exception, which through sovereign ban, is kept both inside and outside the law. Agamben's latest political and legal philosophy is based upon this concept. As the victim of sovereignty, homo sacer unfolds the paradox of sovereign power, criticizing its fundaments and showing the emptiness of law. However, for potentiality which is at the centre of Agamben's argument, we need to look not only outside sovereignty and sovereign power, but also outside homo sacer. This article aims to examine such space, arguing that through absolute potentiality, the fulfilment of law is possible with the content to be focused on reaching conditions of justice and happy life. Keywords: Homo sacer. Potentiality. State of exception. Happy life.
The Surreptitious Defiance of Giorgio Agamben
2015
Many critics blamed Giorgio Agamben of an ahistoricism inherent to his thought. Recently, such accusations have been put forward by Alberto Toscano, who formulated them referring to Hans Blumenberg’s refusal of the secularisation thesis and his theory of epochal shifts. According to Toscano, due to the acceptance of the Schmittian notion of secularisation, based on a historical substantialism, Agamben is not only unfaithful to the Foucaultian methodology which he declaratively assumes, but he also tends to acknowledge the domination of theological notions as a source of the whole Western philosophical tradition and political institutions up until now. I’m going to demonstrate that even somewhat superficial claims made by Agamben about secularisation find their compensation in his double effort. Firstly, even if he concedes the gravity of the theological legacy, at the same time he rebuts the primacy of religion as an indispensable grounding of ethics and politics. What is more, through his meticulous and condense studies on Christian theology he placed himself at the position of the most incisive contemporary critic of the Catholic church and any theological-political hybrids established on the abuse of power.