|
May 4, 2004
The brief remarks at the end of the previous post were about thinking of Empire as imperial right in positive terms. With these remarks Hardt and Negri moved from The Constitution of Empire section of Chapter 1 of Empire to The Model of Imperial Authority section.
So how should we think of Empire positively? Hardt and Negri say that:
"The new paradigm is both system and hierarchy, centralized construction of norms and far-reaching production of legitimacy, spread out over world space. It is configured ab initio as a dynamic and flexible systemic structure that is articulated horizontally.... Some call this situation "governance without government" to indicate the structural logic, at times imperceptible but always and increasingly effective, that sweeps all actors within the order of the whole. The systemic totality has a dominant position in the global order, breaking resolutely with every previous dialectic and developing an integration of actors that seems linear and spontaneous. At the same time, however, the effectiveness of the consensus under a supreme authority of the ordering appears ever more clearly. All conflicts, all crises, and all dissensions effectively push forward the process of integration and by the same measure call for more central authority. Peace, equilibrium, and the cessation of conflict are the values toward which everything is directed."
However, it is not clear that all processes work towards integration. Why not resistance or disintegration as well? Why not a conflict of civilizations. Why not a conflict between different regions---say between the US and Japan---or between different kinds of capitalism? After the Asian Financial crisis it is not obvious that "all conflicts, all crises, and all dissensions effectively push forward the process of integration and by the same measure call for more central authority."
Should not conflict be built into the category of Empire?
Hardt and Negri go on to think of this 'governance without government' in machine terms, rather than the world spirit conception of Hegel. They say:
"The development of the global system (and of imperial right in the first place) seems to be the development of a machine that imposes procedures of continual contractualization that lead to systemic equilibria-a machine that creates a continuous call for authority. The machine seems to predetermine the exercise of authority and action across the entire social space. Every movement is fixed and can seek its own designated place only within the system itself, in the hierarchical relationship accorded to it. This preconstituted movement defines the reality of the process of the imperial constitutionalization of world order-the new paradigm."
What we have is a conception of world order as a unique mode of economic, political and cultural organization of governance without government. Why think in terms of the development of a machine?
Is this the influence of Deleuze and Guattari?
|
Gary,
I haven't commented in a while, but I wanted to let you know that your recent posts on Empire have been great and pushed the book to the top of my summer reading list.
Thanks,
chutney