Historical Basis of Modern Sovereignty - Term Paper Example

American Empire 2005 Outline Historical basis of modern sovereignty 1. Machiavellian tradition 2. Polybius ideas 3. The vision of Tocqueville and Arendt 2. The concept of sovereignty 3. Phases of US constitution. 3.1. 1st phase 3.2. 2nd phase 3.3. 3rd stage 3.4. 4th stage. 4. IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY 4.1. Modern political theory 4.2. The dualism of inside and outside 4.3. Imperial Racism 4.4. The Triple Imperative of Empire 4.5. From Crisis to Corruption Description: In this paper we will trace the notion of sovereignty in the United States which will allow us to recognize its significant differences from the modern sovereignty. We will also discern the bases on which a new imperial sovereignty has been formed. In this paper we will trace the notion of sovereignty in the United States which will allow us to recognize its significant differences from the modern sovereignty. We will also determine the bases on which a new imperial sovereignty has been formed. The main idea of a new sovereignty is finding a language to mediate between the one and the multiple. The constitutional formation of limits and equilibrium, checks and bal­ances constitute a central power and maintain power in the hands of the multitude. That is why these can become the basis of the new sovereignty. The supporters of this idea developed or discovered new principals of modern politics. These principles include (i) the regular distribution of power into distinct depart­ments; (ii) the introduction of legislative balances and checks; (iii) the institution of courts composed of judges, holding their offices during good behavior; (iiii) the representation of the people in the legislature, by deputies of their own election. 1. Historical basis of modern sovereignty. 1.1. Machiavellian tradition Contemporary historians trace back the notion of political sovereignty to the Machiavellian tradition. In his works we find solid foundation for the republican sovereignty. Machiavelli introduced several principles that are acute in today political science. The first is the concept of power as a constituent power according to which the power is always republican. The second principle stated that the social base of the democratic sovereignty is always conflictual. His vision of an ancient Rome was agreed with his ideas. Machiavelli believed that the basis of stability of power is social conflict. 1.2. Polybius ideas The ideas of ancient Roman philosopher Polybius also influenced the creators of modern sovereignty. Polybius was the first in the history to express the idea of mixed powers. His vision of a perfect power was a combination of monarchic power, aristocratic power and democratic power. The philosopher believed that any disequilibria among these powers is the sign of corruption. 1.3. The vision of Tocqueville and Arendt Alexis de Tocqueville recognized the novelty of the new form of power. He also approved the union of various forms of power that became the basis of American democracy. Hannah Arendt, on the contrary, foretold a bright future to the American innovations. She believed that the conditions that were created in America guaranteed the room for freedom. Arendt emphasized the fixity of society foundation and the stability of its functioning. 2. The concept of sovereignty The concept of sovereignty has three distinct characteristics. They include: (i) the permanent feature of power; (ii) procedure of self-reflection; (iii) tendency toward an open, expansive project. The idea of the permanent feature of power is based on the notion of produc­tivity. The people mass that constitutes society is productive. U.S. sovereignty arises in the result of productive efforts of the nation. The second characteristic of the U.S. notion of sover­eignty is the procedure of self-reflection. In this process some internal limits arise. The internal limits may create certain obstacles that hinder the development and violate the order. To prevent this sovereign power must rely on the exercise of control. The third characteristic of this notion of sovereignty is its tendency toward an open, expansive project. The U.S. Con­stitution proved to be open to expansive movements. Time after time it tended to declare the democratic foundation of power. This led to the struggle between the principle of expansion and the forces of limitation and control. However, it this necessary to distinguish the two forms of expansion: democratic expansion and imperialist expansion. The main difference between the two is that the democratic expansion tends to include the new things it confronts with and not to exclude them. The democratic expansion brings with itself the new sovereignty. This new sovereignty does not annex or destroy the other powers it faces. On the contrary, the new sovereignty opens itself to them, including them in the network. The idea of sovereignty as an expansive power in networks is the link that connects the principle of a democratic republic to the idea of Empire. Empire is a universal republic, a network of powers and counter-powers. The basis of the development and expansion of Empire is the idea of peace which is understood as nature or great order. 3. Phases of US constitution. The realization of the imperial notion of sovereignty developed through the different phases of U.S. constitutional history. Each of these phases of U.S. constitutional history marks a step toward the realization of imperial sovereignty. U.S. constitutional history can be divided into four distinct phases, namely: 1st phase - from the Declara­tion of independence to the Civil War and Reconstruction; 2nd phase - the Progres­sive era, from the imperialist doctrine of Theodore Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilsons interna­tional reformism; 3rd phase - from the New Deal and the Second World War to the cold war; 4th phase – from social movements of the 1960s to the breakdown of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European bloc. 3.1. 1st phase In the first phase the Constitution of the state was seen as an open process, a collective self-making. At that time America was free of centralization and hierarchy typical of Europe. This allowed the development of the new perspective in the new United States. According to it the obstacles to human development are posed by nature, not history. Consequently individuals make decision and individuals bear responsibility. In the first phase a new principle of sovereignty was declared. This principle defined sovereignty as completely democratic within an open and continuous process of expansion. The idea of insufficiency is rejected in new concepts of America. In this first phase the constitutional progress did go into crisis which was the result of an internal contradiction. The thing was that in American lands not only an extensive expansion took place but an intensive expansion as well. The extensive expansion was in casting outside the Constitution Native Ameri­cans (who hindered the conquering of extensive territory). The intensive expansion was in posing African Americans within the Constitution. The crisis of American liberty was explained by the fact that the anti-colonial Constitution had to include the colonial element. And African Americans, the slaves at that time, became this colonial element. The interests of Native Americans were not taken into account as they did not influence American society. But the society depended greatly on the labor of slaves; hence the category of African American could not be neglected. That is why African Americans were included into the Constitution, but not on equal basis. The Constitution counted the slaves not as population but as a ratio according to which one slave equaled three-fifth of a free person. The situation changed only at the times of Abraham Lincoln. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment gave civil rights to African Americans and gifted them equality with other people. 3.2. 2nd phase The second phase of the development of American Constitution is characterized by the attempts to slide to the European model. This was also the period in which class struggle took the leading positions. Class struggle posed the problem of scarcity. The scarcity was in the injustice of the division of the goods of development along the lines of the social division of labor. At the same time, capitals great trusts began to organize new forms of financial power. This event was explosive in the United States as it put in danger the very possibility of a constitution in network. The great U.S. workers movement made it clear that mere talks about the constitution fairness were not leading to anything. It created the situation when the power could not focus on external issues, like conquering new lands and settling them with new people. The power had to take into account the problems that took place within the borders of the country and the problems that the already settled people had. The responses to this problem were diverse, contradictory, and conflicting. The two proposals for the further development of the Constitution were both worked out within the framework of U.S. progressivism. The first was put forward by Theodore Roosevelt and was based on traditional European-style imperialist principles. The second was proposed by Woodrow Wilson and adopted international ideas of peace. Both of these proposals were aimed to solve the same problem: the crisis of the social relationship. The second important element that the programs dealt with was the corruption of the Consti­tution through the creation of powerful trusts. To solve this problem both presidents adopted important antitrust legislation. The third point in common was the understanding of the necessity to calm class opposition. Both presidents recognized that within the bounds of the system it was impossible. Since an internal solution of any of the problems was impossi­ble, the American ideology had to be realized outside. Roosevelts solution to problems was to abandon the original features of the U.S. model. He instead suggested following goals and methods of Europe. Roosevelt also relied on the notion of "civiliza­tion" as sufficient reason for imperialist conquest and dominance. Wilsons solution to the problem took an entirely different path. His concept of world order resulted in creation of the League of Nations. Wilsons solution was based on the extension of the U.S. constitutional project. 3.3. 3rd stage The third phase of the U.S. Constitution started as early as the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the period when its threat echoed across the United States and throughout the world. Those first decades after the October Revolution planted the roots of the cold war. The New Deal legislation itself might be taken as a response to the threat made up by the Soviet Union. The United States faced the urge to soothe class antagonism. As the result of this urge the anticommunism became the overriding imperative. During this phase, and through­out the course of the twentieth century, it was obvious that the United States was the author of direct and cruel imperialist projects. These projects were to be realized both domestically and abroad. Historians believe that the figure of the U.S. government as the world cop stretches back to the Soviet revolution, and maybe even earlier. Perhaps the root of these imperialist practices should be traced back to the very origins of the country, namely to black slavery and the wars against the Native Americans. Earlier we considered black slavery as a constitutional problem and stated that it was solved with the acceptance of the fourteenth amendment. But exploitation of black labor continued even after the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. And this exploitation of black labor is an internal example of the imperialist tendency that took place in U.S. history. An external example of the imperialist tendency can be seen in the history of the Monroe Doctrine and the U.S. efforts to exercise control over the Americas. The doctrine, announced by President James Monroe in 1823, was presented first and foremost as a defensive measure against European colonialism. And it was the United States that took the role of protector of all the nations of the Americans against European aggression. During the cold war the uncertainty of the States between protector and dominator became more intense. Protecting countries across the entire world from communism became indistinguishable from dominating and exploiting them with imperialist techniques. The U.S. involvement in Vietnam is the summit of this tendency. From one perspective, the war in Vietnam fit into a global political strategy to defend the "free world" against communism. The war, however, was nothing more than continuation of European imperialism. From the perspective of the Unite States, however, Vietnam War was the final moment of the imperialist tendency and thus a point of passage to a new phase of the Constitution. 3.4. 4th stage. The cold war waged by the United States did not defeat the socialist enemy, and perhaps that was never really its primary goal. The Soviet Union collapsed under the burden of its own internal contradictions. The cold war at the most produced some of the conditions of isolation that multiplied those contradictions. By the end of cold war America prepared a new type of hegemonic initiative. This imperial project, a global project of network power, defines the fourth phase of U.S. constitutional history. After the Cold War the power of an international police "fell" on the shoulders of the United States. The Gulf War was the first time the United States could exercise this power in its full form. All the wars that the country and its allies hold were just operations of repression. These wars had nothing to do with the objectives, the regional interests, and the political ideologies involved. The importance of the Gulf War lies in fact that from now on the United States became the only power able to manage international justice in the name of global right. In order to get the rights the US developed the production of international juridical norms that raise up its power. Here the constitutional process that had originated with Wilson emerges again. Between the First and Second World a series of international organizations was built. They were aimed to produce the surplus of normativity and efficacy. This surples was given an expansive basis when the United Nations were founded. With the end of the cold war the United States was called to serve the role of guaranteeing and adding juridical efficacy in the process of formation of a new right. Today the international organizations (the United Nations, the international monetary organizations, and even the humanitarian organizations) ask the United States to assume the central role in a new world order. In all the regional conflicts of the late twentieth century, from Haiti to the Persian Gulf and Somalia to Bosnia, the United States is called to intervene mili­tarily. Even if it were reluctant, the U.S. military would have to answer the call in the name of peace and order. There are many reasons for the United States privileged position in the new global constitution of imperial authority. In part it is explained by the role of the United States as a central figure in the newly unified world order. The United States is also privileged by the imperial tendency of its own Constitution. We should underline once again that this Constitution is imperial and not imperialist. It is imperial because the U.S. constitu­tional project is constructed on the model of rethinking of the outside world and building of new relations between the nations. 4. IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY 4.1. Modern political theory The notion of borders that serve as the viewpoint for the critique of the system of power gave birth to the critical tradition of modern political theory. Modern republicanism has long been characterized by a combination of realistic foundations and Utopian initiatives. Repub­lican projects are always solidly entrenched within the dominant histori­cal process. They seek to transform the realm of politics. This new realm creates an outside, a new space of liberation. The three highest examples of this critical tradition of modern political theory are Machiavelli, Spinoza, and Marx. Their thought is always grounded within the real processes of the constitution of modern sovereignty. They always attempt to make the contradictions explode and open the space for an alternative society. The concepts offered by Machiavelli, Spinoza, and Marx contain real transformative power. This power can confront reality and go beyond the given conditions of existence. The force of these con­cepts consists primarily in their positioning as significant demands. 4.2. The dualism of the notions of inside and outside The notions of inside and outside are set up differently in a variety of modern sciences. The notions of inside and outside are general and foundational characteristic of modern political thought. In the passage from imperialism to Empire the distinction between inside (meaning the country itself) and outside (meaning the other countries) becomes less distinct. This renewal is particularly apparent when viewed in terms of the notion of sovereignty. This is because modern sovereignty is gener­ally considered as the territory of the country and its relation to outside world. Early modern social theorists examined the civil order only as a limited space within the country. They opposed the civil order to the order of nature. On the basis of this opposition they separated the civil order from the nature. The notions of inside and outside are present as well in the modern psychology. The theorists of modern psychology understood drives, passions, instincts, and the unconscious as an outside within the human mind. Consequently they understood consciousness as an inside of the human mind. They believed the unconsciousness to be natural and uncivilized; consciousness, on the contrary is understood as the civil order. According to them the sovereignty of the Self rests on a relation between the natural order of drives and the civil order of consciousness. They all came to a conclusion that the process of modernization is the civilization of nature order and instincts. In the contemporary world the nature is civilized. That is why our society does not have to undergo the process of modernization. Because of this we call our society postmodern. In postmodern society the vision of inside and outside has changed drastically. The tendencies in the political theory of today lie in erasing of the border between the notions of inside and outside. In the political theory under inside we used to understand something private and under outside we used to understand something public. In the postmodern world the public spaces are increasingly privatized. Today public space has been privatized to such an extent that it no longer makes sense to differentiate between private and public spaces, between inside and outside. Speaking about military craft the notions of inside and outside was important as well. Here under inside we understood the territory of the country, its inner space; consequently under outside we understood all the other countries in world. In the history of mankind one country fought against the other. The process of globalization, which now takes place in the modern world, expands the sovereign power throughout the world. Sovereignty will progressively envelop the entire globe as its proper domain. Hence there will be no-one to fight with. The end of the old world means the end of wars; the modern sovereignty means the reign of peace. The analogues process is observed in modern economy. The capitalist market blurs any division between inside (the domestic economy) and outside (the economies of other countries). The globalization of the world market changes the situation. There is no longer outside to the world market: the entire globe is its domain. This gives us an opportunity to use the form of the world market as a model for understanding imperial sovereignty. The space of imperial sovereignty is smooth. It is free of any divisions. In this smooth space of Empire, there is no place of power—it is both everywhere and nowhere. Empire is a non-place. 4.3. Imperial Racism The passage from modern sovereignty to imperial sovereignty resulted in the shifting configurations of racism in our societies. Today it is extremely difficult to identify the general lines of racism. In fact, politicians, the media, and even historians continually tell us that racism has steadily receded in modern societies. It is true that certain specific traditional practices of racism have undoubtedly declined. However, it is clear that racism has not receded but actually progressed in the contemporary world, both in extent and in intensity. It appears to have declined only because its form and strategies have changed. To see the modern racism we just need to research the strategies and techniques of racism in todays imperial society. Many analysts describe modern racism as a shift from a racist theory based on biology to one based on culture. The dominant modern racist theory and the associated practices of segregation are focused on crucial biological differences among races. Behind the differences in skin color stand blood and genes as the real substance of racial difference. Subordinated peoples are thus conceived as other than human, as a different order of being. These modem racist theories grounded in biology tend toward an ontological difference—a necessary, eternal, and immutable rift in the order of being. With the passage to Empire, however, biological differences have been replaced by sociological and cultural signifiers as the key representation of racial hatred and fear. It is necessary to note that imperial racist theory in itself is a theory of segregation, not a theory of hierarchy. Whereas modern racist theory poses a hierarchy among the races as the fundamental condition that makes segregation necessary, imperial theory has nothing to say about the superiority or inferiority of different races or ethnic groups in principle. The notions of inside and outside have important implications for the social production of prejudice. The institutional analyses proposed by modem social theory says that prejudice is not pre-given and original. It states that prejudice is formed in the field of social forces. Modern social theory says that prejudice is based on the functioning of major social institutions, such as the prison, the family, the factory, and the school. Two aspects of this production process should be highlighted. First, prejudice is a constant social process of generation. Second, the institutions provide a place (the home, the chapel, the classroom, the shop floor) where the prejudice takes place. Nevertheless, within any institution the individual is protected from the forces of the other institutions. 4.4. The Triple Imperative of Empire The general apparatus of imperial command actually consists of three distinct moments: one inclusive, another differential, and third managerial. The first aspect is the noble, liberal face of Empire. All are welcome within its boundaries, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth. At this moment Empire is blind to differences; it is absolutely indifferent in its acceptance. In this first moment, then, the Empire is a machine for universal integration, an open mouth with infinite appetite, inviting all to come peacefully within its domain. The second, differential, moment of imperial control involves the affirmation of differences accepted within the imperial realm. From the juridical perspective differences must be set aside at this moment. But, at the same time, from the cultural perspective differences are celebrated. Since these differences are considered now to be cultural they are thought not to intrude into the central band of commonality of Empire. They are non-conflictual differences, the kind of differences that might be set aside when necessary. These differences are imagined to be "cultural" rather than "political". This is necessary to convince everybody that they will not lead to uncon­trollable conflicts. On the contrary, the differences will function as a force of peaceful regional identification. The differential moment of imperial control must be followed by the management and hierarchization of these differences. Multiple ethnic divisions among the workers function as an element of control in the labor process. The transnational corporation ad­dresses with different methods and degrees of exploitation and repression each of the ethnic groups of workers—variously of Euro­pean and African descent and from different Amerindian groups. The reemergence of ethnic and national differences at the end of the twentieth century, not only in Europe but also in Africa, Asia, and the Americas, presented Empire with an even more complex equation. This equation does not have a unique solution. But it is not a problem for the Empire, as contingency, mobility, and flexibility are Empires real power. The imperial "solution" will not be to negate or attenuate these differences, but rather to arrange them in an effective apparatus of command. "Divide and conquer" is thus not really the correct formulation of imperial strategy. More often than not, the Empire does not create division but rather recognizes existing or potential differences, celebrates them, and manages them within a general economy of command. The triple imperative of the Empire is incorporate, differentiate, manage. 4.5. From Crisis to Corruption Earlier we defined a notion of modern sovereignty as crisis. The crisis is a continual conflict be­tween the plane of immanent forces of the desire and cooperation of the multitude and, the transcendent authority that seeks to contain these forces and impose an order on them. Imperial sovereignty, in contrast, is organized not around one central conflict but rather through a flexible network of micro-conflicts. The contradictions of imperial society are elusive, flourishing, and non-localizable: the contradictions are everywhere. Hence a better definition of the crisis in imperial society is omni-crisis, or corruption. The corruption is then a de-generation - a reverse process of generation and composition. So the imperial sovereignty can be defined by corruption. This means, on the one hand, that Empire is impure or hybrid and, on the other, that imperial rule functions by breaking down. But breaking down of imperial rules does not mean heading of the Empire to ruin. The crisis of modern sovereignty is not temporary or exceptional, but rather the norm of modernity. In a similar way, corruption is not an aberration of imperial sovereignty but its very essence. The imperial economy, for example, functions precisely through corruption, and it cannot function otherwise. That is why corruption is not an accident but rather a necessity. We have thus arrived at a series of distinctions that conceptually mark the passage from modern to imperial sovereignty: from the people to the multitude, from dialectical opposition to the manage­ment of hybridities, from the place of modern sovereignty to the non-place of Empire, from crisis to corruption. Read More