SoLiXG:Ethnos-Demos-Xenos: Difference between revisions
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Ethnos, Demos, Xenos == | == Ethnos, Demos, Xenos == | ||
Modern conceptions of popular sovereignty understand the decision-making power of a state as being founded upon the will of the people. If »the people« are the constituting subjects of sovereignty, the question that arises is: What and Who are »the people«? In the long tradition of thinking about the subjects of sovereignty, a foundational opposition has emerged. On one hand, membership to a sovereign collective can be assured through genealogy, in this case meaning kinship or inherited tradition. On the other, membership can be governed by the relationship of individuals to public administration and law, linked to the territory of a state. | |||
Philosopher Etienne Balibar summarizes these two understandings of »the people« as »*ethnos*, the 'people' as an imagined community of membership and filiation, and *demos*, the 'people' as the collective subject of representation, decision making, and rights.«(1). Such an opposition should not suggest that these conceptions are mutually exclusive. Instead, definitions of »the people« oscillate between these two notions. This oscillation is revealed, for example, when the slogans of protesters in the GDR, "We are the people", became reappropriated after reunification and turned int "We are a people" - shifting a demotic understanding of the people into an ethnic one (2). This doubling is also visible in the anxieties about citizenship in Germany, where conservative politicians have made attempts to delineate belonging not along legal status, but along the names of individuals. The idea of the demos is haunted by the figure of ethnos. | |||
These terms, while not all-encompassing, are useful in describing the *logics* of belonging - be it through legal rule or through cultural kinship - and as a result also the logics of exclusion, subjugation or exploitation. As state power is reconfigured in terms of »Digital Sovereignty«, and as the categories of territory and population shift on the basis of new planetary infrastructures (3), it is our task to investigate if and how these notions of sovereign subjects change. | |||
*** | |||
(1) Balibar, Étienne. 2004. _We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship_. Princeton: Univ. Press, p. 21. | |||
(2) Balibar, Etienne. 2014. “Demos/Ethnos/Laos.” in _Dictionary of untranslatables: a philosophical lexicon_, edited by B. Cassin, S. Rendall, and E. S. Apter. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 201. | |||
(3) Bratton, Benjamin H. 2015. _The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty_. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Second definition | Second definition | ||
Revision as of 13:56, 29 August 2023
Ethnos, Demos, Xenos
Modern conceptions of popular sovereignty understand the decision-making power of a state as being founded upon the will of the people. If »the people« are the constituting subjects of sovereignty, the question that arises is: What and Who are »the people«? In the long tradition of thinking about the subjects of sovereignty, a foundational opposition has emerged. On one hand, membership to a sovereign collective can be assured through genealogy, in this case meaning kinship or inherited tradition. On the other, membership can be governed by the relationship of individuals to public administration and law, linked to the territory of a state.
Philosopher Etienne Balibar summarizes these two understandings of »the people« as »*ethnos*, the 'people' as an imagined community of membership and filiation, and *demos*, the 'people' as the collective subject of representation, decision making, and rights.«(1). Such an opposition should not suggest that these conceptions are mutually exclusive. Instead, definitions of »the people« oscillate between these two notions. This oscillation is revealed, for example, when the slogans of protesters in the GDR, "We are the people", became reappropriated after reunification and turned int "We are a people" - shifting a demotic understanding of the people into an ethnic one (2). This doubling is also visible in the anxieties about citizenship in Germany, where conservative politicians have made attempts to delineate belonging not along legal status, but along the names of individuals. The idea of the demos is haunted by the figure of ethnos.
These terms, while not all-encompassing, are useful in describing the *logics* of belonging - be it through legal rule or through cultural kinship - and as a result also the logics of exclusion, subjugation or exploitation. As state power is reconfigured in terms of »Digital Sovereignty«, and as the categories of territory and population shift on the basis of new planetary infrastructures (3), it is our task to investigate if and how these notions of sovereign subjects change.
(1) Balibar, Étienne. 2004. _We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship_. Princeton: Univ. Press, p. 21. (2) Balibar, Etienne. 2014. “Demos/Ethnos/Laos.” in _Dictionary of untranslatables: a philosophical lexicon_, edited by B. Cassin, S. Rendall, and E. S. Apter. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 201. (3) Bratton, Benjamin H. 2015. _The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty_. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Second definition