Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T10:24:29.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governance, Sovereignty and Profane Hope in a Globalised Catastrophe-World

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Francisco Naishtat
Francisco Naishtat*
Affiliation:
University of Buenos Aires/CONICET
*
Francisco Naishtat, Centro de Investigaciones Filosoficas, University of Buenos Aires, Miñones 2073, Buenos Aires C1428ATE, Argentina Email: fnaishtat@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This is a paper in political philosophy. It starts by an analysis of Walter Benjamin’s notion of ‘‘baroque sovereignty’’ as an implicit transformation of Schimitt’s categories of sovereignty, decision and state of exception. It then discusses whether the dynamic between these concepts, as emanating from Benjamin’s work, is fit to make diagnosis of our own current condition, marked by fragilised sovereignties, by global-intensive governance apparatuses and by a horizon-less cata-strophe-world in which, paradoxically, the vision of the world diminishes in proportion as its technological visibility becomes ever greater through the simultaneous and instantaneous availability of images. To this effect, it discusses different theses in contemporary political reflection, and takes these concepts onto a concrete political and social situation, i.e. contemporary Argentina.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 57 , Issue 4: Philosophical Reflections Across Cultures , November 2010 , pp. 46 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agamben, G (1995) Homo Sacer 1: Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Agamben, G (2003a) “Gigantomachia intorno a su vuoto” in id., Stato di eccezione, pp. 68–83. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
Agamben, G (2003b) “Forza-di-legge” in id., Stato di eccezione, pp. 44–54. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
Arendt, H (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Augustine, (2005) The City of God, ed. Walsh, P G. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Balibar, E (2010) La proposition de l’égaliberté. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, W (1978) “Zur Kritik der Gewalt”, in Gesammelte Schriften Band II.1, pp. 179–202. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W (1978a) “Ursprung des deutschen Trauerspiels”, in Gesammelte Schriften Band I.1, pp. 20–409. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W (1978b) “Über den Begriff der Geschichte”, in Gesammelte Schriften Band I.2, pp. 693–704. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W (1978c) “Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften”, in Gesammelte Schriften Band I.1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W (1978d) “Theologisch-Politisches Fragment”, in Gesammelte Schriften Band II.1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W (1982) “Das Passagen-Werk”, in Gesammelte Schriften Band V. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W (1997) Gesammelte Briefe 1925–1930 Band III. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W (2000) “Les Affinités électives de Goethe”, in Œuvres, I, pp. 275–395. Paris: Folio.Google Scholar
Bloch, E (1959) Das Prinzip Hoffnung, 1. Band. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bredekamp, H (1999) “Walter Benjamin to Carl Schmitt, via Thomas Hobbes”, Critical Inquiry, 25(2): 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, T (2007) “Climate change and the Humanities”, Seminar at the University of Tokyo Center for Philosophy. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Derrida, J (1995) Force de loi. Paris: Galilée.Google Scholar
Faulkner, W (1960) Requiem for a Nun. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, M (2001) “Qu’est-ce que les Lumières?” in Dits et écrits II, 1976–1988, pp. 1381–1396. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, M (2004) Sécurité, Territoire et Population. Cours au Collège de France 1977–1978. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M (2006) Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jonas, H (1990) Le principe de responsabilité. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Kant, I (2007) Critique of Judgement. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirchner, C (2007) “Cristina Kirchner en el II Congreso de Filosofía”, Clarín, 12 July; edant.clarin.com/diario/2007/07/12/um/m-01455754.htmGoogle Scholar
Laclau, E, Balibar, E (2010) “Entretien”, Rue Descartes 67: 787–101.Google Scholar
Naishtat, F (2008) “Walter Benjamin: Teología y teología políitica. Una dialéctica herética”, in Actas de las VII Jornadas de Investigación en Filosofía. La Plata: Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación.Google Scholar
Negri, A, Hardt, M (2004) Multitude. Paris: 10/18.Google Scholar
Palmier, J-M (2006) Walter Benjamin. Le Chiffonnier, l’Ange et le Petit Bossu. Paris: Klingsieck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rancière, J (1995) La Mésentente. Politique et philosophie. Paris: Galilée.Google Scholar
Rancière, J (1998) Aux bords du politique. Paris: Folio.Google Scholar
Reyes Mate, M (2001) “Globalización y política”, www.mondialisations.orgGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Carl (1985) Political Theology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, E (2002) Problemas. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
Virno, P (2003) Gramática de la multitud. Buenos Aires: Colihue.Google Scholar
Weber, M (1968) “Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis”, in id., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, pp. 146–214. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Weber, S (1992) “Taking Exception to Decision: Walter Benjamin and Carl Schmitt”, Diacritics, 22(3/4): 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H (1973) Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar