Abstract
This essay is an exercise in the form of eidetic analysis Husserl called “regressive inquiry (Rückfrage).” The matter with which we are concerned is the sense (Sinn) of the modern state and our aim is to unearth the buried origins of this sense, the sedimented evidences from which it emerged. To achieve this goal we must first explicate the matter at issue, rendering it distinct. This entails specifying the defining traits of the state as it is currently encountered as well as discerning the specific nature of its ideality. This in turn will permit us to ascertain the necessary historical conditions, the “historical apriori,” and the tradition of sense-formation that has enabled it to emerge.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Husserl’s most famous discussion of this method is developed in “Die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Geometrie als intentional-historisches Problem,” ed. Eugen Fink, Revue internationale de Philosophie 1 (1939): 207–225 (see esp. Fink’s important “Vorwort,” 203–206), rpt. in his Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie, ed. Walter Biemel, 2nd ed. Husserliana VI (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1962), 365–386; “The Origin of Geometry,” in The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. trans. David Carr (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1970). 353–378.
However, the method is also frequently discussed, typically though not always employing the terms Rückfrage, zurückfragen, or Rückbesinnung, in Husserl’s attempts to distinguish and relate the static and genetic methods of phenomenology: Formale und transzendentale Logik. Versuch einer Kritik der logischen Vernunft, ed. Paul Janssen, Husserliana XVII (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), 251–257; Formal and Transcendental Logic, trans. Dorion Cairns (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1978), 244250: “Statische und Genetische Phänomenologische Methode,” in Analysen zur Passiven Synthesis. Aus Vorlesungs-und Forschungsmanuskripten. 1918–1926, ed. Margot Fleischer, Husserliana XI (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966), 336–345; “Statische und Genetische Phänomenologie (Die Heimweh und das Verstehen der Tiere),” in Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Dritter Teil. 19291935, ed. Iso Kern, Husserliana XV (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973), 613–627 (see esp. 614–617).
For excellent accounts of the method of regressive inquiry as well as considerations of its centrality, especially for the relation of phenomenology to history, see Jacques Derrida, “Introduction” to Edmund Husserl, L’origine de la géométrie, trans, Jacques Derrida (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 1962), 3–171; Edmund Husserl ‘s Origin of Geometry: An Introduction, trans. John P. Leavey, Jr. (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 25–153; Karl-Heinz Lembeck, Gegenstand Geschichte. Geschichtswissenschaftetheorie in Husserls Phänomenologie (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 33–42, 43–78: and Anthony Steinbock, Home and Beyond: Generative Phenomenology after Husserl (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1995), 37–48,79–84.
Among the many discussions of this issue see “The End of Sovereignty? International Law and the State in the 1990s,” Harvard International Review 27 (1995): Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State,ed. John Dunn (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1995); State and Sovereignty: Is the State in Retreat,ed. G. A. Wood and Louis S. Leland, Jr. (Dunedin: University of Otago Press. 1997); and The State in a Changing World: World Development Report 1997 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), esp. Part One.
Hannah Arendt’s work most clearly embodies this approach. She tirelessly sought to uncover the formative experiences from which the basic concepts and conceptual frameworks of political thought arose. In particular. see her work on the concept of authority: “Authority in the Twentieth Century,” Review of Politics 18 (1956): 403–417; “What was Authority,” in Authority: Nomos I,ed. Carl J. Friedrich (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), 81–112; “What is Authority?,” in her Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (New York: Penguin. 1961), 91–141; and her On Revolution (New York: Penguin, 1963), chaps. 111 and V. See also the following unpublished manuscripts: “Breakdown of Authority (1953),” Arendt Papers, Library of Congress, Container 68; and “Authority in the Twentieth Century (1955),” Arendt Papers, Library of Congress, Container 61, esp. Section III.
For her own account of the phenomenological method she employed in these investigations see “Projektbeschreibung fur die Rockefeller Foundation, December, 1959,” in her Was ist Politik? Fragmente aus dem Nachlass,ed. Ursula Ludz (München: Piper, 1993), 200–201.
The genealogical work of Michel Foucault is the best example of such an approach as it carefully traces the lineages and developments of various sorts of political procedures and practices. See especially his work on the configurations of power/knowledge he called “bio-power” and “governmentality”: La volonté de savoir (Paris: Gallimard, 1976), 177–191; The History of Sexuality: Volume I: An Introduction,trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1978). 135–145; “La `gouvernementalité,”’ in his Dits et écrits 1954–1988; 111: 1976–1979,ed. Daniel Defert and François Ewald (Paris: Gallimard, 1994), 635–657; “Governmentality,” rev. trans. Colin Cordon in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality,ed. Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), 87–104; “Omnes et Singulatim: vers une critique de la raison politique,” in Dits et écrits IV,134–161; “Omnes et Singulatim: Towards a Criticism of Political Reason,” trans. P. E. Dauzat in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values: 1981 Volume II,ed. Sterling McMurrin (Salt
Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1981), 223–254, rpt. as “Politics and Reason,” in his Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings: 1977–1984, ed. Lawrence D. Kritzman (New York: Routledge, 1988), 57–85; “La technologie politique des individus,” Dits et écrits 111,813–826: “The Political Technology of Individuals,” trans. P. E. Dauzat in Technologies of the Self’ A Seminar with Michel Foucault, ed. Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton ( Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988 ), 145–162.
See also the following lecture course summaries (1975–1979): “11 faut défendre la société,” Dits et écrits III, 124–130; “Society Must Be Defended,” in his Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, trans. Robert Hurleyl., ed. Paul Rabinow (New York: The New Press, 1997), 59–65; “Sécurité, territoire et population,” Dits et écrits III, 719–723; “Security, Territory, Population,” Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, 67–71; “Naissance de la biopolitique.” Dits et écrits III, 818–825; “The Birth of Biopolitics,” Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, 74–79. And finally, see the lecture course. “Il faut défendre la société”: Cours au Collège de France (1975–1976) ( Paris: Gallimard. 1997 ).
For an examination of the concept of order to which the present analyses are indebted, see Bernhard Waldenfels, Order in the Twilight,trans. David J. Parent (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1996), esp. chaps. 1 and 2.
For an excellent account of the central elements of the modern account of legitimacy, see David Beetham, The Legitimation of Power ( Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. 1991 ).
On this point see Pierre Bourdieu, “Esprits d’État. Genèse et structure du champ bureaucratique,” in his Raisons pratique: Sur la théorie de !’action (Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1994), 127–128; “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field,” trans. Loïc Wacquant and Samar Farage in Practical Sense: On the Theory of Action ( Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998 ), 55–56.
Weber’s seminal analyses remain wedded to such an intellectualist assumption insofar as they consider the various forms of legitimate domination that they distinguish—rational, traditional, and charismatic—to be founded upon a “minimum of voluntary compliance, that is an interest (based on ulterior motives or genuine acceptance) in obedience” (Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, trans. Ephraim Fischoff. [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978 ], 212 ).
Cf. Edmund Husserl, Erfahrung und Urteil. Untersuchungen zur Genealogie der Logik,ed. Ludwig Landgrebe, 6`h ed. (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1985), 317–325 (esp. 320–321); Experience and Judgment: Investigations in a Genealogy of Logic,trans. James S. Churchill and Karl Ameriks (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1973), 264–269 (esp. 266–267).
For an excellent discussion of this distinction and its importance for Husserl’s general project see Jacques Derrida, “Introduction” to Edmund Husserl, L’origine de la géométrie,62–64; Edmund Husserl ‘s Origin of Geometry: An Introduction,71–72.
Amongst the vast literature on this topic see the following: Hanns Hubert Hofmann, ed. Die Enstehung des modernen souveränen Staates (Köln: Kiepenheuer and Witsch, 1967); Joseph R. Strayer, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1970); Charles Tilly, ed. The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975); Gianfranco Poggi, The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1978); and his The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990); Michael Mann, States, War and Capitalism: Studies in Political Sociology (New York: Blackwell, 1988); Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990–1992 (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990); Hendrik Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); and Thomas Ertmann. Birth of the Leviathan: Building Modern States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Cf. Michel Foucault. La volonté de savoir,177–191; The History of Sexuality: Volume 1,135–145.
The unity at issue here is that of a whole composed of essential moments, rather than that of a merelogical sum. A more comprehensive investigation would need to address this quite important point. For the classical discussion of this matter see the Third Investigation of Husserl’s Logische Untersuchungen and the important critique offered by Aron Gurwitsch, “Phenomenology of Thematics and of the Pure Ego: Studies of the Relation between Gestalt Theory’ and Phenomenology,” in his Studies in Phenomenology and Psychology (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1966), 175–285, esp. 250–265.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thompson, K. (2000). Towards a Genealogy of Modern Sovereignty. In: Thompson, K., Embree, L. (eds) Phenomenology of the Political. Contributions to Phenomenology, vol 38. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2606-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2606-1_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5396-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2606-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive