Empire (76 page)

ćrits philosophiques et politiques,

vol. 2, ed. Franc¸ois Matheron (Paris: Stock/IMEC, 1995), pp. 39–168;

subsequently cited in text.

2. See Baruch Spinoza,
Theologico-Political Treatise,
vol. 1 of
Chief Works,
trans. R. H. M. Elwes (New York: Dover, 1951).

2 . 1 T W O E U R O P E S , T W O M O D E R N I T I E S

1. Robert Musil,
The Man without Qualities,
trans. Sophie Wilkins (New York: Knopf, 1995), 2:1106.

2. Johannes Duns Scotus,
Opus Oxoniense,
Book IV, Distinctio XIII, Quaes-tio I, in
Opera Omnia,
vol. 8 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1969), p. 807.

3. Dante Alighieri,
De Monarchia,
ed. Louis Bertalot (Frankfurt: Friedrichs-dorf, 1918), Book I, chap. 4, p. 14.

4. Nicholas ofCusa, ‘‘Complementum theologicum,’’ in
Opera,
vol. 2

(Frankfurt: Minerva, 1962), chap. 2, fol. 93b (facsimile reproduction of

edition edited by Jacques Le Fevre [Paris: 1514]).

5. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,
Of Being and Unity,
trans. Victor Hamm (Milwaukee: Marquette Univesity Press, 1943), pp. 21–22.

6. Carolus Bovillus (Charles de Bovelles),
Il libro del sapiente,
ed. Eugenio Garin (Turin: Einaudi, 1987), chap. 22, p. 73.

7. Francis Bacon,
Works,
ed. James Spalding, Robert Ellis, and Donald Heath (London: Longman and Co., 1857), 1:129–130.

8. Galileo Galilei,
Opere
(Florence: G. Berbèra Editore, 1965), 7:128–129.

9. William ofOckham,
A Short Discourse on the Tyrannical Government,
trans.

John Kilcullen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), Book III,

chap. 16, p. 104. The translator renders the phrase ‘‘multitudo fidelium’’ as

‘‘congregation of the faithful.’’

10. See Marsilius ofPadua,
Defensor Pacis
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928).

430

N O T E S T O P A G E S 7 3 – 8 0

11. This revolutionary aspect ofthe origins ofmodernity can be read in its

clearest and most synthetic form in the work of Spinoza. See Antonio

Negri,
The Savage Anomaly,
trans. Michael Hardt (Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1991).

12. The various nineteenth- and twentieth-century philosophical frameworks

of negative thought, from Nietzsche to Heidegger and Adorno, are funda-

mentally right to foresee the end of modern metaphysics and to link

modernity and crisis. What these authors generally do not recognize,

however, is that there are two modernities at play here and that the crisis is a direct result oftheir conflict. For this reason they are unable to see the alternatives within modernity that extend beyond the limits ofmodern

metaphysics. On negative thought and crisis, see Massimo Cacciari,
Krisis:
saggio sulla crisis del pensiero negativo da Nietzsche a Wittgenstein
(Milan: Feltrinelli, 1976).

13. On these passages in European modernity, see Ernst Bloch,
The Principle
of Hope,
3 vols., trans. Neville Plaice, Stephen Plaice, and Paul Knight (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986); and (in a completely different

intellectual and hermeneutic context) Reinhart Koselleck,
Critique and

Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society
(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988).

14. Samir Amin,
Eurocentrism,
trans. Russell Moore (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1989), pp. 72–73.

15. Baruch Spinoza,
Ethics,
in
The Collected Works of Spinoza,
ed. Edwin Curley, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), Part IV,

Proposition 67, p. 584.

16. Ibid., Part V, Proposition 37, p. 613.

17. Our discussion draws on the work ofErnst Cassirer,
The Philosophy of the
Enlightenment,
trans. Fritz C. A. Koelln and James P. Pettegrove

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951); Max Horkheimer and

Theodor Adorno,
Dialectic of Enlightenment,
trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum, 1972); and Michel Foucault, ‘‘What Is Enlightenment?’’ in
Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth,
vol. 1 of
The Essential Works of
Foucault 1954–1984,
ed. Paul Rabinow (New York: New Press, 1997),

pp. 303–319.

18. See Jacques Chevalier,
Pascal
(Paris: Plon, 1922), p. 265.

19. Rene´ Descartes, ‘‘Letter to Mersenne (15 April 1630),’’ in
Philosophical
Letters,
ed. Anthony Kenny (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), p. 11. For the original French version, see
Oeuvres complètes,
ed. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery (Paris: Vrin, 1969), 1:145.

20. See Antonio Negri,
Descartes politico o della ragionevole ideologia
(Milan: Feltrinelli, 1970).

N O T E S T O P A G E S 8 0 – 9 4

431

21. For a more recent example that continues along this transcendental line ofEuropean complacency, see Massimo Cacciari,
Geo-filosofia dell’Europa
(Milan: Adelphi, 1994).

22. See Arthur Schopenhauer,
The World as Will and Representation,
trans.

E. F. J. Payne, 2 vols. (New York: Dover, 1966).

23. Ibid., ‘‘Preface to the Second Edition,’’ p. xxi.

24. G. W. F. Hegel,
Elements of the Philosophy of Right,
trans. H. B. Nisbet, ed. Allen Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), §258

Addition, p. 279 (translation modified).

25. Thomas Hobbes,
The Elements of Law
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), Part II, Book 10, paragraph 8, p. 150.

26. Jean Bodin,
On Sovereignty: Four Chapters from the Six Books of the Commonwealth,
ed. and trans. Julian Franklin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 23 (from Book I, chap. 8).

27. Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
On the Social Contract,
in
The Collected Writings of
Rousseau,
vol. 4, ed. Roger Master and Christopher Kelly (Hanover, N.H.: University Press ofNew England, 1994), Book I, chap. 6, p. 138.

28. See Bodin,
On Sovereignty.

29. C. B. Macpherson,
The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962).

30. See ArifDirlik,
The Postcolonial Aura
(Boulder: Westview Press, 1997).

31. Adam Smith,
The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), Book IV, chap. ii, paragraph 9, p. 456.

32. Ibid., Book IV, Chapter ix, paragraph 51, p. 687.

33. Hegel,
Elements of the Philosophy of Right,
§261, p. 283.

34. See Michel Foucault, ‘‘La ‘gouvernementalite´,’ ’ in
Dits et ećrits
(Paris: Gallimard, 1994), 3:635–657.

35. See our discussion ofFoucault’s notion ofbiopower in Section 1.2.

36. See primarily Max Weber,
Economy and Society,
2 vols., trans. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1968).

37. Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra,
trans. Thomas Common (New York: Modern Library, 1967), chap. 35, ‘‘The Sublime Ones,’’

p. 111.

2 . 2 S O V E R E I G N T Y O F T H E N A T I O N - S T A T E

1. For an extensive analysis ofboth the common f

orm and the variants

throughout Europe, see Perry Anderson,
Lineages of the Absolutist State
(London: New Left Books, 1974).

2. See Ernst Kantorowicz,
The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political
Theology
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957); and his essay 432

N O T E S T O P A G E S 9 4 – 9 8

‘‘Christus-Fiscus,’’ in
Synopsis: Festgabe fu¨r Alfred Weber
(Heidelberg: Verlag Lambert Schneider, 1948), pp. 223–235. See also Marc Leopold

Bloch,
The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France,
trans. J. E. Anderson (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972).

3. For an analysis that links the economic transition from feudalism to capitalism to the development ofmodern European philosophy, see Franz

Borkenau,
Der U

¨ bergang vom feudalen zum bu¨rgerlichen Weltbild: Studien zur

Geschichte der Philosophie der Manufakturperiode
(Paris: Feĺix Alcan, 1934).

For an excellent discussion ofthe philosophical literature on this problem-

atic, see Alessandro Pandolfi,
Geneálogie et dialectique de la raison mercantiliste
(Paris: L’Harmattan, 1996).

4. See Pierangelo Schiera,
Dall’arte de governo alle scienze dello stato
(Milan, 1968).

5. See Benedict Anderson,
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin
and Spread of Nationalism
(London: Verso, 1983).

6. See E

´ tienne Balibar, ‘‘The Nation Form: History and Ideology,’’ in

E

´ tienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein,
Race, Nation, Class
(London: Verso, 1991), pp. 86–106. See also Slavoj Z

ˇ izěk, ‘‘Le reˆve du nationalisme

explique´ par le reˆve du mal radical,’’
Futur anteŕieur,
no. 14 (1992), pp. 59–82.

7. The relevant essays by Luxemburg are collected in Rosa Luxemburg,

The National Question,
ed. Horace Davis (New York: Monthly Review

Press, 1976). For a careful summary of Luxemburg’s positions, see Joan

Cocks, ‘‘From Politics to Paralysis: Critical Intellectuals Answer the Na-

tional Question,’’
Political Theory,
24, no. 3 (August 1996), 518–537.

Lenin was highly critical ofLuxemburg’s position primarily because she

failed to recognize the ‘‘progressive’’ character of the nationalism (even

the bourgeois nationalism) ofsubordinated countries. Lenin thus affirms

the right to national self-determination, which is really the right to secession for all. See V. I. Lenin,
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination
(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1951), pp. 9–64.

8. Jean Bodin,
Six Books of the Commonwealth,
trans. M. J. Tooley (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), Book VI, chap. 6, p. 212 (translation modified).

9. For excellent interpretations ofBodin’s work that situate it solidly in the dynamics ofsixteenth-century Europe, see Julian H. Franklin,
Jean Bodin
and the Rise of Absolutist Theory
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973); and Geŕard Mairet,
Dieu mortel: essai de non-philosophie de l’E

´ tat

(Paris: PUF, 1987). For a more general view that traces the development

ofthe notion ofsovereignty in the long history ofEuropean political

thought, see Geŕard Mairet,
Le principe de souverainete´
(Paris: Gallimard, 1997).

N O T E S T O P A G E S 9 9 – 1 0 3

433

10. See Friedrich Meinecke,
Die Idee der Staatsra¨son in der neueren Geschichte
(Munich: Oldenbourg, 1924). See also the articles gathered by Wilhelm

Dilthey in
Weltanschauung und Analyse des Menschen seit Renaissance und
Reformation,
vol. 2 of
Gesammelte Schriften
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1914).

11. With the notable exception ofthe work by Otto von Gierke,
The Development of Political Theory,
trans. Bernard Freyd (New York: Norton, 1939).

12. See Friedrich Meinecke,
Historicism: The Rise of a New Historical Outlook,
trans. J. E. Anderson (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972).

13. To recognize the seeds ofHegel’s idealism in Vico, see Benedetto Croce,
The Philosophy of Giambattista Vico,
trans. R. G. Collingwood (New York: Russell and Russell, 1964); along with Hayden White, ‘‘What Is Living

and What Is Dead in Croce’s Criticism ofVico,’’ in Giorgio Tagliacozzo,

ed.,
Giambattista Vico: An International Symposium
(Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), pp. 379–389. White emphasizes how Croce

translated Vico’s work into idealist terms, making Vico’s philsophy of

history into a philosophy ofspirit.

14. See Giambattista Vico,
De Universi Juris principio et fine uno,
in
Opere
giuridiche
(Florence: Sansoni, 1974), pp. 17–343; and Johann Gottfried Herder,
Reflections on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind,
trans. Frank Manuel (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1968).

15. Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès, in a rather different context, declares the absolute priority ofthe nation explicitly: ‘‘The nation exists prior to every-

thing, it is the origin ofeverything.’’ See
Qu’est-ce que le Tiers E

´ tat?

(Geneva: Droz, 1970), p. 180.

16. On the work ofSieyès and the developments ofthe French Revolution,

see Antonio Negri,
Il potere costituente: saggio sulle alternative del moderno
(Milan: Sugarco, 1992), chap. 5, pp. 223–286.

17. For an excellent analysis ofthe distinction between the multitude and

the people, see Paolo Virno, ‘‘Virtuosity and Revolution: The Political

Theory ofExodus,’’ in Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt, eds.,
Radical

Thought in Italy
(Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1996), pp. 189–210.

18. Thomas Hobbes,
De Cive
(New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1949), Chapter XII, section 8, p. 135.

19. See E

´ tienne Balibar, ‘‘Racism and Nationalism,’’ in E´tienne Balibar

and Immanuel Wallerstein,
Race, Nation, Class
(London: Verso, 1991), pp. 37–67. We will return to the question ofthe nation in the colonial

context in the next chapter.

20. See, for example, Robert Young,
Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory,
Culture, and Race
(London: Routledge, 1995).

434

N O T E S T O P A G E S 1 0 4 – 1 0 8

21. See Sieyès,
Qu’est-ce que le Tiers E

´ tat.