This article addresses the modern concept of sovereignty as a multivocal and conflictual semantic field, arguing for the necessity to trace its genealogy based on the structural tensions that haunt its logical framework – as well as its representations – rather than on a linear historiographic reconstruction. In particular, the scrutiny I propose aims to examine a series of exchanges that have been characterizing this concept since the beginning: the global and the European, the maritime and the territorial, the colony (...) and the state, the imperial and the proprietary. The problematic balance between ‘imperium’ and ‘dominium’ is indeed assumed here as the turning point of the rise of a sovereign power that appears to be originally rooted in the very production and governance of the global space, thus giving up all possible Eurocentric narratives of modernity. To illustrate my argument, I focus on the frontispieces to three of Thomas Hobbes’s most important books, that is, his translation of Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars, De Cive and Leviathan. A thorough analysis of these images enables us to understand how these lines of force traverse the very heart of modern European political concepts, along with the mirroring effects that constantly bounce their normative construction of subjectivity back and forth from the periphery to the centre and, ultimately, from the market to the state. (shrink)

This article addresses the modern concept of sovereignty as a multivocal and conflictual semantic field, arguing for the necessity to trace its genealogy based on the structural tensions that haunt its logical framework – as well as its representations – rather than on a linear historiographic reconstruction. In particular, the scrutiny I propose aims to examine a series of exchanges that have been characterizing this concept since the beginning: the global and the European, the maritime and the territorial, the colony (...) and the state, the imperial and the proprietary. The problematic balance between ‘imperium’ and ‘dominium’ is indeed assumed here as the turning point of the rise of a sovereign power that appears to be originally rooted in the very production and governance of the global space, thus giving up all possible Eurocentric narratives of modernity. To illustrate my argument, I focus on the frontispieces to three of Thomas Hobbes’s most important books, that is, his translation of Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars, De Cive and Leviathan. A thorough analysis of these images enables us to understand how these lines of force traverse the very heart of modern European political concepts, along with the mirroring effects that constantly bounce their normative construction of subjectivity back and forth from the periphery to the centre and, ultimately, from the market to the state. (shrink)

This article addresses the modern concept of sovereignty as a multivocal and conflictual semantic field, arguing for the necessity to trace its genealogy based on the structural tensions that haunt its logical framework – as well as its representations – rather than on a linear historiographic reconstruction. In particular, the scrutiny I propose aims to examine a series of exchanges that have been characterizing this concept since the beginning: the global and the European, the maritime and the territorial, the colony (...) and the state, the imperial and the proprietary. The problematic balance between ‘imperium’ and ‘dominium’ is indeed assumed here as the turning point of the rise of a sovereign power that appears to be originally rooted in the very production and governance of the global space, thus giving up all possible Eurocentric narratives of modernity. To illustrate my argument, I focus on the frontispieces to three of Thomas Hobbes’s most important books, that is, his translation of Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars, De Cive and Leviathan. A thorough analysis of these images enables us to understand how these lines of force traverse the very heart of modern European political concepts, along with the mirroring effects that constantly bounce their normative construction of subjectivity back and forth from the periphery to the centre and, ultimately, from the market to the state. (shrink)

La Historik de Reinhart Koselleck representa un importante intento filosófico —llevado a cabo siguiendo la estela de la hermenéutica clásica alemana— de formalizar las categorías trascendentales de la experiencia histórica del tiempo. El ensayo pone a prueba la hipótesis de Koselleck y pretende demostrar cómo éste, refiriéndose a Kant y de manera análoga a Foucault, extrae circularmente los criterios formales para su Historik a partir de la experiencia de aceleración y temporalización de la historia que caracteriza a la modernidad como (...) época. (shrink)

Il saggio affronta i concetti di «Stato» e di «Federalismo» all'interno dell'analisi di Reinhart Koselleck che traduce in prassi collettive le strutture della fatticità heideggeriana, radicando, con Schmitt, la concettualità giuridica sul concreto della sociologia. Analizzando alcune voci fondamentali dei _Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe_ (S_taat, Souveranität, Bund, Bündnis, Föderalismus, Bundesstaat_) viene ricostruito il modo in cui Koselleck formula una prognosi immediatamente politica in merito al processo di unificazione europea, evidenziando che il federalismo, lungi dall’essere solamente un reperto archeologico del passato, rappresenta una (...) risorsa per un ordine politico postnazionale. (shrink)

This book offers a radical new understanding of law, beyond the confines of its formalization by the state. The book takes off from the late work of Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault, for whom law and its institutions came to be liberated from an ideological perspective that had treated them as sterile instruments for the reproduction of domination. Engaging its continental history, it addresses the concept of law, not merely as a 'command', but as the result of a much more (...) complex legal operation aimed at dynamically stabilizing the social relations of a community. The book thus sidesteps the usual legal-political focus on those - from Hobbes to Schmitt - who have contributed to the categorical scheme of the modern state, and with it questions of political representation, sovereignty, the rigid distinction between public law and private law, and so on, as it pursues an alternative theoretical trajectory through Ravaisson, Tarde, and Hauriou. Politics, the book maintains, can be no longer be treated simply through the state form. And, relatedly, the law must be seen as a living law: a law that cannot be treated exclusively in formal terms, but must be taken as a grammar capable of articulating a politics of process, relationality, and innovation. Reconceived as such, law can then circumvent the aporias that arise when society is viewed as a private company, and the state seen as the bearer of the only possible means of formalizing its relationships. At the intersection of law and political theory, this book will speak to scholars and others with interests in both these areas, and especially those concerned with the limits of both conventional and critical approaches to law. (shrink)

The essay explores the exchange between Otto Brunner and Reinhart Koselleck about the use of historical sources in Begriffsgeschichte. Criticizing historicism in Brunner, who asserts the difference between ancient Europe and modernity starting from the idea of a strong epochalization of modern politics as linked to the short time of the State, Koselleck assumes the idea of transformation of political and juridical concepts insisting on their continuity between ancient and modern time. The comparison between the two historians questions the very (...) limits of Western modern political experience. (shrink)