As I read Judith Butler's article I got a little confused as she tried to explain the relationship between sovereignty and governmentality. But there is one quote in page 56 that I find the most confusing.
"But my point is that precisely because our historical situation is marked by governmentality, and this implies, to a certain degree, a loss of sovereignty, that loss is compensated through the resurgence of sovereignty within the field of governmentality."
What do you think Butler is trying to say here?
2 comments:
Yeah this quote on first read seems rather contradictory. It is difficult to fully understand it because the idea contained in the first part of the sentence (a loss of sovereignty accompanying governmentality) is not well-laid out in this piece and is taken as a truth that Foucault has already proven. (therefore we never truly understand what is being said)
But...
I think this is what is being said...
The first part of the quote about governmentality being the new historical situation (and that meaning a certain loss of sovereignty) is talking about how the fact that with the rise of bureaucracy and other forms of governance of the modern-state there has been less of the sovereign (i.e. the voting citizenry and their electives) involved in making decisions about how we are governed... instead it is people who are not elected who fulfill such and such a task in such and such an agency etc....
But, then the second part of the quote ... that that loss in sovereignty discussed in the first part is compensated by another kind of sovereignty re-surging in govern-mentality ... refers to the fact that despite this decrease in sovereignty in governmentality... there are situations like Guantanamo arising where people are excercizing sovereignty without being themselves elected sovereigns, by essentially suspending the juridical process etc... so despite the usual decline in sovereignty in this field of governmentality, there is a resurgence of those in this field suspending law and therefore asserting their sovereignty. [(It is important to keep in mind that this idea of sovereignty is based around the idea of the sovereign being able to "declare the state of exception" (schmitt's idea that Agamben picks up on)... this means that the sovereign decides when the law, rules in-place etc. do not apply.)]
I think that Butler is saying that governmentality results in the loss of sovereignty in the traditional sense (in providing legitimacy for rule of law and support of the representatives who claim state power) and allows for the emergence of this new kind of sovereignty (which is lawless and prerogatory power). I gather that this new sovereignty is not based on the inherent legitimacy in the actions certain institutions or leaders take because the actions are appropriate for the office of power held or they fit in the system of law. Instead, this new sovereignty is about the ability of certain institutions (military administration) and leaders (executive branch) to act outside of traditionally accepted (in other words, illegal) because of their position of power, in this case gained from the state of emergency.
Post a Comment