Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
of Identity
Tezozomoc
3/31/2011
Sovereignty
Sovereignty 1
James J. Sheehan, in his 2005 Presidential Address to the
Sovereignty
Sovereignty 2
The concept of sovereignty has to do with the relationship of
Political Theology
In his Political Theology (1922), Carl Schmitt
Theory of Sovereignty
Schmitt's theory of sovereignty can be read as the response to
Walter Benjamin
Benjamin reformulates the opposition in order to turn
Dick Pels
Dominion
sovereignty:
Feudal Sovereignty
No one within the feudal compass could claim to exercise the concentrated,
pointlike sovereignty which became a familiar conception only at a later period;
no one could claim to own the land in the typically Roman sense of holding
property as an absolute and exclusive privilege against all the world. Everyone,
from the king down to the meanest peasant, exercised a portion of dominion
over it, without anyone holding it in full severalty, i.e. as a walled-in area
forbidden to all others.
But since the legists of Renaissance Bologna first rebuilt the edifice of Roman
law, and reanimated the typically Antique distinction between dominium and
imperium, property and sovereignty were characteristically relegated to discrete
realms of factuality and seen as governed by essentially dissimilar principles.
With amazing regularity and concord, political thinkers came to repeat Senecas
maxim that to kings belonged authority over all, to private persons, property.
Bartolus, Du Moulin, Bodin, Grotius, and numerous others reappropriated this
motto. Francis Bacon recognized a true and received division of law into ius
publicum and ius privatum, the one being the sinews of property, and the other
of government (cit. Lawson 1958:90).
Dynamics of Property/Power
Meaning Shifts
Historically, Young argues, group-based oppression and conflict has been most
extreme when it is grounded in a conception of difference as otherness and
exclusion. This, in turn, presupposes a "logic of identity" according to which
groups natures are defined as essential and/or substantial. For example, men
and women have been stereotyped as rational or emotional, public or private,
and one group makes use of these essential or substantive differences to
subjugate the other group. The obvious problem with the logic of identity is that
whatever group tends to dominate, to have the most privilege and power, will
represent themselves as active human subjects and represent everyone else as
"others," not up to the level of the original, until and unless they find a way to
conform to the definition of the individual or the citizen established by the
dominant group. The long, sad history of colonialism and racism attest to this
disparity and conformism. The "others," those who have been colonized or
enslaved, have found themselves judged "lacking" in relation to the dominant
group: "The privileged and dominating group defines its own positive worth by
negatively valuing the Others and projecting onto them as an essence or nature
the attributes of evil, filth, bodily matter; these oppositions legitimate the
dehumanized use of the despised group as sweat labor and domestic servants,
while the dominant group reserves for itself the leisure, refined surroundings,
and high culture that mark civilization."
The Norm
In western nations, the white bourgeois male is taken to be the
norm and model for the female and for all minorities; against this
standard all other humans are considered lacking and deficient.
Additionally, within this schema, mind is given priority over
body, reason over emotion, activity over passivity. In each
case the valued member of the pair is valued absolutely. Thus,
any variation or contextual valuation of differences is denied or
repressed. Any attributes of specific groups that do not fit into
the schema of genus, species, and differences must be either
assimilated to one of the accepted categories (as inferior
copies) or denied and suppressed.
Aristotle
Aristotle's conceptualization does not simply create
Regimes of Signs
Gilles Deleuze (IPA: [il dlz]), (January 18, 1925 November 4, 1995) was a French philosopher of the late 20th century.
From the early 1960s until his death, Deleuze wrote many influential works on philosophy, literature, film, and fine art.
http://www.trinity.edu/org/tricksters/trixway/current/Vol%204/Vol4_1/Semetsky.pdf
For Deleuze, the theory of signs is meaningless without the relation between signs and the
corresponding apprenticeship in practice. Reading Proust from the perspective of triadic
semiotics, Deleuze notices the dynamic character of signs, that is, their having an
increasingly intimate (Deleuze 2000: 88) relation with their enfolded and involuted
meanings so that truth becomes contingent and subordinate to interpretation. Meanings are
not given but depends on signs entering into the surface organization which ensures the
resonance of two series (Deleuze 1990: 104), the latter converging on a paradoxical
differentiator, which becomes both word and object at once (Deleuze 1990: 51).
Yet, semiotics cannot be reduced to just linguistic signs. There are extra-linguistic semiotic
categories too, such as memories, images, or immaterial artistic signs, which are
apprehended in terms of neither objective nor subjective criteria but learned in practice in
terms of immanent problematic instances and their practical effects. Analogously, a formal
abstract machine exceeds its application to (Chomskian) philosophy of language; instead
semiotics is applied to psychological, biological, social, technological, aesthetic, and
incorporeal codings (Guattari 1995). Semiotically, discursive and non-discursiive formations
are connected by virtue of transversal communication, transversality being a concept that
encompasses psychic, social, and even ontological dimensions. As a semiotic category,
transversality exceeds verbal communication and applies to diverse regimes of signs;
--Inna Semetsky, Ph.D.,
http://www.trinity.edu/org/tricksters/trixway/current/Vol%204/Vol4_1/Semetsky.pdf
The Dutch lone thinker and optician Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677) is most known for his
metaphysical doctrine of monism - one substance, God or Nature. Immanence instead of
transcendence. "There is only one substance which can be understood to depend on no
other thing whatsoever, namely God" he claimed. The substance is expressed or actualised
in two attributes, Extension and Thought, of which there are infinitely more, but unknown to
human senses. The two attributes are within substance/God/nature, but need a third kind
existence to "enter" the world, i.e. modi, infinite and finite modes which as the attributes all
are immanently within substance, or God, or as we might prefer to call all that exists, Nature.
There is nothing outside Nature. No goal, no finalism, no teleology. No external
transcendent Creator, but a participating infinite existence that exists on one plane of
immanence. This concept of God is not personal, but abstract and more like a principle of
explanation. One does not need another relation to God than the intellectual love,scientia
intuitiva, which may lead to the state of beatitudo (an individual salvation, which is supported
by a commonwealth though but in the end apolitical, see Smith, p. 388).
Since all is in God as substance, political matters are also a part of God. All pieces hang
together. Laws of nature and laws of the mind are the same . "The only philsopher of the
day who succeded in providing a coherent theory of nature, of human passion and desire,
or reason and of legal and moral norms is Spinoza", Harris states (in Deugd ed. 1984 p. 64),
his 16- 17th century forerunners in political theory Grotius, Pufendorf and Hobbes were all
limited in some ways.
-- Jan Sjunnesson, POWER AND DESIRE IN THE POLITICAL ONTOLOGY OF SPINOZA
AND DELEUZE/GUATTARi, Dept of philosophy, Uppsala Univ, Sweden, May 1998
Conatus
Passions
Power has two equal sides, the power to exist
Rights
If we grant men their necessary passions, we may build
Right as Power
Spinoza starts his theory of right from a state
Government or governmentality
the totality of practices, by which one can
Power as Sovereignty
Power Relations
Power relations produce responses, or instigate reactions, which
are relational and thus internal to them, not least because the
operation of power presupposes free subjects faced with several
possible ways of behaving or comporting themselves. To speak of
the productivity of power relations also allows one to conceive of
power outside of binary oppositions or, at the very least, as
simultaneously negative and positive: power relations may inhibit
the possibility of some actions and increase the possibility of
others.
The productivity of power relations are tied to their propensity to
Power Relations
techniques of power are invented to meet the demands of
Power Relations
What I wanted to show [in The History of Sexuality] is how power
The Individual
The individual at the heart of Western humanist thought (whether
Knowledge
Man/woman, the self-conscious, reflective and creative author of
Ideology
Theories of ideology are completely oblivious to the presence of
Logic of Difference
Iris Marion Young (2 January 1949 - 1 August 2006) was