The west's conceptualizations of the structure of the State and its exercise of power emphasize the importance of discussing sovereignty. A number of scholars have studied this concept and have argued for different perspectives regarding the exercise of power under the control and order of the State. The contributions of these authors during the emergence of the modern era were centered on new phenomena occurring within the normative political vision. First, there is the beginning of the nation-state, through which its political boundaries determine nationhood and draw attention to geopolitical objects (Schmitt, 1922 [2005]; Benjamin, 1999; Agamben, 1998). Secondly, there is the new form of politics characterized by the rise of democracies anchored by liberal constitutionalism. Due to these two aspects, discussions on sovereignty involve concepts such as politics, liberalism and violence, emphasizing both the logic of sovereignty (Schmitt,1922 [2005]) as well as the paradox of sovereignty (Agamben, 1998). While these discussions contributed significantly to the study of political geography and political science, among others, they were widely criticized for their Eurocentric approach.
The critique of sovereignty questions its exceptionality, power, and exercise of absolute terror. The sovereignty of critique as an example of non-western forms of sovereignty challenges the traditional definition and exercise of sovereignty. In what follows, I will discuss the theoretical approach taken in studies of sovereignty, showing the tensions between these two essential fields —sovereignty and critiques of sovereignty. The purpose of this essay is to examine the tensions, debates, and nuances of these forms of sovereignty, emphasizing the importance of this conversation within postcolonial discussions. This essay will consider theopolitical studies' contributions to an insightful debate about sovereignty for two principal reasons. On the one hand, theopolitical studies on sovereignty show the tension between the Church's intervention in the exercise of power (Schmitt, 1922 [2005]) and the revolts against the Church's political and symbolic influence and representation in the state (Benjamin, 1999). On the other hand, the study of theopolitics becomes crucial for understanding the effect of European colonialism in the Americas as a violent process of accumulation that set-out crucial understandings of power, labor, and life (McAllister & Napolitano, 2020). Thus, I want to argue that the Eurocentric debates on sovereignty (Schmitt, 1922 [2005]; Agamben, 1998), and violence (Benjamin, 1999) are all variations on a single theme. Nonetheless, there are many debates emerging controverting the traditional and hegemonic definition and studies of sovereignty, such as the Sovereignty of critique.
The following analysis will be organized into three parts. As a first step, I will provide a discussion of different scholars' views on sovereignty. This discussion will illuminate related fields such as violence and terror (Benjamin, 1999; Agamben, 1998). Secondly, I will discuss how the exercise of sovereignty over identities and the hiding of power creates new narratives and new forms of sovereignty. This section of the article will focus on concepts such as refusal (Simpson, 2014) and nested sovereignties (Postero & Fabricant, 2019; McAllister & Napolitano, 2020). Finally, I will offer some conclusions regarding how these two tensions are regularly confronted in countries where traditional geopolitical narratives are re-structured and updated, while new forms of sovereignty emerge, challenging traditional forms of sovereignty.
Comments