The Underlying Unity of the American People

IF 0.1 4区 社会学 0 PHILOSOPHY Telos Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3817/0322198159
D. Pan
{"title":"The Underlying Unity of the American People","authors":"D. Pan","doi":"10.3817/0322198159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Paul Kahn and Tim Luke base their claim that the United States is involved in a civil war on the implacability of the political differences between left and right that prevent any reconciliation. Arguing that the differences go beyond policy choices to questions of identity that are not subject to the compromises of party politics, they interpret recent examples of violence such as the January 6 Capitol riots as the rule rather than the exception. Yet in indicating that we are in an indefinite state of exception, they obscure the moment of decision that is part of the exception. Kahn notes that war is the opposite of the sovereign ability to decide. But a state of indecision is not in fact a state of war. It is just a lack of clear sovereignty that can last indefinitely until a sovereign emerges who is able to establish a decision. The state of war only results when two competing sovereigns emerge and both attempt to decide on a state of exception, that is to say, both are able to mobilize people to kill and die to establish their understanding of their identity.1 The United States is still very far away from this scenario. As Mark G. E. Kelly notes, the institutions of the United States are still functioning properly, and even if there is rhetoric on both sides that rejects election results, the outcomes of elections have been honored in practice and the mechanisms of government continue to function without problem. There is no immediate paralysis that would indicate a state of indecision, and there is not even the prospect of competing sovereigns who would both declare states of exception to begin a war.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telos","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0322198159","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Paul Kahn and Tim Luke base their claim that the United States is involved in a civil war on the implacability of the political differences between left and right that prevent any reconciliation. Arguing that the differences go beyond policy choices to questions of identity that are not subject to the compromises of party politics, they interpret recent examples of violence such as the January 6 Capitol riots as the rule rather than the exception. Yet in indicating that we are in an indefinite state of exception, they obscure the moment of decision that is part of the exception. Kahn notes that war is the opposite of the sovereign ability to decide. But a state of indecision is not in fact a state of war. It is just a lack of clear sovereignty that can last indefinitely until a sovereign emerges who is able to establish a decision. The state of war only results when two competing sovereigns emerge and both attempt to decide on a state of exception, that is to say, both are able to mobilize people to kill and die to establish their understanding of their identity.1 The United States is still very far away from this scenario. As Mark G. E. Kelly notes, the institutions of the United States are still functioning properly, and even if there is rhetoric on both sides that rejects election results, the outcomes of elections have been honored in practice and the mechanisms of government continue to function without problem. There is no immediate paralysis that would indicate a state of indecision, and there is not even the prospect of competing sovereigns who would both declare states of exception to begin a war.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国人民的基本团结
保罗·卡恩(Paul Kahn)和蒂姆·卢克(Tim Luke)声称,美国卷入了一场内战,原因是左翼和右翼之间不可调和的政治分歧阻碍了任何和解。他们认为,这种差异超越了政策选择,而是身份问题,不受政党政治妥协的影响。他们将最近发生的暴力事件(如1月6日国会大厦骚乱)解释为普遍现象,而不是例外。然而,在表明我们处于一种不确定的例外状态时,它们模糊了作为例外的一部分的决定时刻。卡恩指出,战争是主权决策能力的对立面。但优柔寡断的状态实际上并不是战争状态。它只是缺乏明确的主权,这种主权可以无限期地持续下去,直到出现一个能够制定决策的主权。战争状态只有在两个相互竞争的主权国家出现时才会产生,并且都试图决定一种例外状态,也就是说,双方都能够动员人民杀戮和死亡,以建立他们对自己身份的理解美国离这种情况还很遥远。正如马克·g·e·凯利(Mark G. E. Kelly)所指出的那样,美国的制度仍在正常运转,即使双方都在口头上反对选举结果,但选举结果在实践中得到了尊重,政府机制继续正常运转。目前还没有出现表明优柔寡断的立即瘫痪状态,甚至不可能出现主权国家相互竞争,双方都宣布进入例外状态以发动战争的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Telos
Telos Multiple-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
The Early Christian Origins of Secularization Nationality of Food: Cultural Politics on the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Food Museums Horizontality vs. Verticality: New Readings in the Understanding of Religion and the Organizing of Politics In Memoriam: Fred Siegel Islam and the Promotion of Human Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1