ABSTRACT

The classical theory of sovereignty describes sovereignty as absolute and undivided yet no early modern state could claim such features. Historical record instead suggests that sovereignty was always divided and contested. In this article I argue that Foucault offers a competing account of sovereignty that underlines such features and is thus more historically apt. While commentators typically assume that Foucault’s understanding of sovereignty is borrowed from the classical theory, I demonstrate instead that he offers a sui generis interpretation, which results from the application of his general strategic conception of power to sovereignty itself. In construing sovereignty through a “matrix” of civil war, Foucault thus deprives it of the absoluteness traditionally attributed to it. Instead, he views sovereignty as constituted by conflictual and mobile power relations, a precarious political technology that deploys violence to restore its authority. I also motivate Foucault’s contention that popular sovereignty remains fundamentally continuous with the absolutist sovereignty it succeeds, insofar as it masks and thereby perpetuates unequal power relations in conditions of social conflict. According to Foucault, sovereignty is not a fact of power but a contestory claim, a discourse whose mutability helps to explain its persistence today.

摘要

古典主权理论将主权描述为绝对的和不可分割的，但没有一个早期的现代国家可以声称拥有这样的特征。相反，历史记录表明，主权总是被分裂和争夺。在这篇文章中，我认为福柯提供了一种对主权的竞争性解释，强调了这些特征，因此在历史上更贴切。虽然评论家通常假设福柯对主权的理解是从古典理论中借来的，但我反而证明他提供了一个自成一格的解释，这是他将权力的一般战略概念应用于主权本身的结果。在通过内战的“矩阵”来解释主权时，福柯因此剥夺了传统上赋予它的绝对性。相反，他认为主权是由冲突和流动的权力关系构成的，这是一种不稳定的政治技术，可以通过暴力来恢复其权威。我也激发了福柯的论点，即人民主权与其成功的专制主权在根本上保持连续性，因为它掩盖了社会冲突条件下的不平等权力关系，从而使不平等的权力关系永久化。在福柯看来，主权不是权力的事实，而是一种有争议的主张，这种话语的可变性有助于解释其今天的持久性。