The sovereign is an idea that really hasn't been covered up to this point in our adventure through postmodernism; the original source of power, I feel, has been neglected for the end product of that power, namely structures and institutions within society that have come to manipulate it for their own ends and purposes. These institutions and structures I speak of are things such as the media, MNCs, and political institutions, yet none of these things are sovereign in and of themselves; they all derive their power from something else whether it be money or some idea of power. I want to focus on our sovereign, the Constitution, which I think is either a shining of "the paradox of sovereignty" or one of the few objects that is sovereign, yet lies outside the paradox. "The paradox of sovereignty consists in the fact the sovereign is, at the same time, outside and inside the juridical order." (1) However, in the Constitution's situation, it is the juridical order and it isn't living. Everything our government has the power to do is derived from the Constitution, therefore making it the original sovereign, yet unable to act in and of itself. It is definitely outside the juridical order, yet it really isn't "inside" it as it is the jurdicial order. I thought this might pose an interesting counter argument to Agmben's understanding of the classical sovereign, such as a king or what have you.
The Constitution as Sovereign
By Bumpkins13 - Posted on 25 November 2007 - 11:02am.