(Ir)religiosity

• Tweet
• Sharebar

• Tweet

Power and Postmodern Empire: Sovereignty and Invisibility

In their seminal and erudite work Empire, Hardt and Negri provide an exhaustive political and philosophical genealogy of the historical evolution of imperialism from the dawn of modernity to the current era of globalization.  Along with this new epoch comes a new(er) form of sovereignty. The collapse of colonial regimes in the twentieth century and the demise of the Soviet Union signify the triumph of the global capitalist market and with it a new network of power — a superstructure one might say — that transcends the modern nation-state.  This new conglomeration consists of various transnational corporations and organisms which together constitute Empire and function as the driving apparatus of the world market, the new neoliberal order of global capitalism.  With the rise of this superstructure, the sovereignty of the modern nation-state has declined but, as Hardt and Negri are quick to point out, this does not mean that sovereignty as such is in decline.¹ Rather, what is emerging is a new form of global, transcendental sovereignty based upon these supra-structures and entities.  Hardt and Negri name this new postmodern form of sovereignty Empire.² Whereas under the modern form of sovereignty nation-states could “go it alone,” so to speak, in their own imperial and hegemonic exploits, Empire, because of its supra-national structure, precludes a singular nation from doing so.  In other words, nations are no longer shielded and insulated from the global network; rather, their politics are determined, and their policies made subservient to, the economics of Empire.  As Kwok Pui-lan succinctly puts it, “the market is not now subjected to the control of individual nation-states, but is rather dictated by transnational economic powers defined by greed and corporate interests.”³ This is evident by the inability of singular states to regulate economic and cultural exchanges on a global scale as they once could under standard imperial and colonial structures.⁴ Thus, the various imperialisms of modernity have lost their grip and no longer hold.  What we are experiencing in the era of globalization is a passage from imperialism to Empire.⁵

Not only are the in/formal structures of Empire less visible than they were under modern imperialisms, the very notion of power — its usage, control, and employment — are invisible as well.⁶ Drawing upon Michel Foucault’s notion of biopower developed in his The History of Sexuality, Hardt and Negri argue that under the problematic of Empire power is less overt than before and its usage and demarcation express a certain degree of ambivalence.⁷ Whereas in modernity power and authority came “from above” to issue control, under Empire the mechanisms of command are much more immanent in society “distributed throughout the brains and bodies of the citizens” such that the “behaviors of social integration and exclusion [are]…increasingly interiorized within the [political] subjects themselves.”⁸ With the passage to Empire, biopower becomes intrinsic to the good life, “regulat[ing] social life from its interior” and “achiev[ing] an effective command over the entire life of the population only when it becomes an integral, vital function that every individual embraces and reactivates of his or her own accord.”⁹ Thus, while the biopower of Empire is more invisible than the brute force of the modern nation-state’s imperialisms, it is surely no less toxic or lethal.  In fact, biopower in Empire may be more toxic and more lethal precisely because of its invisibility.  Moreover, this power is buttressed and reinforced by the ideological apparatus of the state. We see this at work most effectively in mainstream media.  For instance, recently a Super Bowl advertisement sponsored by the conservative Christian think tank Focus on the Family featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother advocating a pro-life position sparked much controversy and many well-meaning liberals petitioned to have the commercial censored or removed before it aired.¹⁰ The irony here is that while these protestors were criticizing an overt form of advocacy — the kind most associated with modern imperialism — they were oblivious to the more covert forms of advocacy that, in their protest, they were tacitly supporting.  Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for advertising.  Are not all the commercials in some sense advocating for capitalist Empire?  From the Dodge Charger and Old Spice vignettes inferring a false and perverted since of masculinity, to the credit card promotions and the beer advertisements — most all of these advertisements lend at least minimal support to the status quo and promotion of the American Dream (read “the good life”).  As a recent column puts it, “to fail to recognize the intention and consequences of commercials pushing trucks and SUV’s is naïve.”¹¹ It is not so much naïve as it is normal.  This is precisely the function of biopower as Hardt and Negri see it: the tentacles of the superstructure have penetrated the fabric of the social and political subject to such an extent that to be happy and to pursue the good life means to freely offer oneself — one’s mind and body — in support to Empire without even realizing it, indeed to do so under the guise of entertainment and pursuit of the so-called good life (e.g., having a beer with friends and watching the Super Bowl).  Biopower, therefore, constitutes those manifestations of power which, under capitalist Empire, oversee “the production and reproduction of life itself,” expressing themselves as a form of covert ideological control that “extends throughout the depths of the consciousness and bodies of the population—and at the same time across the entirety of social relations.”¹² At this point one does not need to point out that the problematic of Empire presents all sorts of pressing theological issues, however, as we shall see below, the eschatological question is perhaps chief among them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Incarnational eschatology [1] (blakehuggins.com)
• Incarnational eschatology [2] (blakehuggins.com)
• Juan Luis Segundo and the liberation of theology (blakehuggins.com)

1. Hardt and Negri, Empire, xi. [↩]
2. Ibid., xii. [↩]
3. Kwok Pui-lan, “Liberation Theology in the Twenty-First Century,” Opting for the Margins: Postmodernity and Liberation in Christian Theology, ed. Joerg Rieger (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 73. [↩]
4. Hardt and Negri, Empire, xii. [↩]
5. There are many monikers one might use to describe this new world order — global transnational capitalism, neoliberal globalization, for instance — however I follow Hardt and Negri and choose to refer to it as simply Empire. [↩]
6. Cf. Joerg Rieger, Christ and Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times (Minneapolis, Minnesota:  Fortress Press, 2007), 5, 275. [↩]
7. For our purposes, it is worth noting that the notion of ambivalence within postmodern power structures is an important theme within postcolonial theory and subaltern studies.  Cf. Homi K. Bhabha’s foundational text, The Location of Culture (New York, New York: Routledge Press, 1994.  For a theological perspective, see Catherine Keller, Michael Nausner, and Mayra Rivera, Postcolonial Theologies: Divinity and Empire (Danvers, Massachusetts: Chalice Press, 2004). One should also take note of Hardt and Negri’s own critique of postmodern and postcolonial thought in Empire, 137-143.  Their evaluation parallels that of Fredric Jameson, David Harvey and other post-Marxists theorists who claim that postmodernity is, in the final analysis, simply the cultural logic of a “late capitalist” society. [↩]
8. Hardt and Negri, Empire, 23. [↩]
9. Ibid., 23-24. [↩]
10. This commercial can be viewed online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BIOTItUwvk (accessed 2/28/10).  It turns out that this form of advocacy was much less inflammatory than many expected.  I would argue that is far less explicit and perhaps even docile in comparison to those that buttress and reinforce the logic of capitalism. [↩]
11. Bill Littlefield, “Advocacy is in the Eye of the Beholder,” WBUR News, Feb. 4, 2010 http://www.wbur.org/2010/02/04/tebow-et-al/ (accessed 2/14/10). [↩]
12. Hardt and Negri, Empire, 24. [↩]