| Abstrakt: |
That is not, however, the way that Schmitt dealt with sovereignty in his writings.[4] When, for example, De Boever speaks of wanting to rebuild sovereignty founded on vulnerability, a reader might expect that he would suggest some practical institutional changes that could contribute to such a rebuilding. While De Boever is reluctant to speak directly of specific political changes that might contribute to an affirmative politics of sovereignty, he also avoids an account of the source of the norms and standards he presupposes when referring to the contrast between good and obnoxious, between practical and phantasmic concepts of sovereignty. Assuming vulnerability as the foundation of sovereignty does two things simultaneously, De Boever suggests: it allows us "to I mediate i between sovereignty and biopolitics and to intervene in their relation" (xvii).[3] More precisely, "vulnerability becomes the condition for the affirmative politics of sovereignty that I intend to lay out" (xvii). De Boever's Take on Vulnerability as the Foundation of Sovereignty In I Being Vulnerable i , De Boever wants to consider a different hypothesis, namely, the idea of monistic continuity, in which sovereignty and biopolitics are seen as two positions in a monism. [Extracted from the article] |
