Skip to content

The Throne Is Not Empty

March 15, 2012

Giorgio Agamben’s (SUP 2011) rediscovery of the theological notion of oikonomia as the frame to think about government and administration is sociologically suggestive in every aspect but one. The three main ideas of Agamben’s reconstruction of the theological genealogy of any political economy are that (a) the world is created by God as a perfectly ordered one, which (b) provides for anarchy in worldly matters to let people choose in freedom a behavior in compliance with creation, such that (c) any government has to provide for the means to attain and execute a power, which treasures arbitrariness to celebrate compliance. Angels in heaven and officials on earth make sure that human beings never loose sight of an order harnessing its own degrees of freedom.

Those three ideas are convincing even if we drop the further idea of the ’empty throne,’ or hetoimasia tou thronou, as interpreted by Agamben (2011, chap. 8). Agamben needs the idea of the empty throne to be able to develop a certain metaphysics of a sovereign rule, which is all the more glorious the more inactive and indeed evasive it is, such that any government actually administrating worldly matters both gains its interpretative leeway in any concrete situation and may at any moment be subjected to questions regarding the legitimation it is claiming.  This paper argues that we do not need metaphysics to set up the important distinction between rule (auctoritas) and government (potestas), as it got its canonical formulation by Adolphe Thiers (in a newspaper article tellingly titled “Du gouvernement par les chambres”, Le National, February 4, 1830): “Le roi n’administre pas, ne gouverne pas, il règne” (see also Agamben 2011, chap. 4). Instead we regard this metaphysics together with its theological backing by the distinction between God’s absolute power (potentia absoluta) and this very power bound by His previous decisions (power ordinata) as the both anticipatory and ideological formulations of a social calculus of power, which in fact does not need kings nor gods but just the other (sozius) to come into operation.

Again, we come up with a catject, which reads as follows:

From → Catjects, Form, Power

  1. I liked Arendts differentiation between power (which might translate into glory in your catject), strength and force (=fear?) – maybe it fits in nicely?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: