The Nation-State and Global Order provided a useful description of what sovereignty consists of and how it exerts itself. The discussion in class primarily focused on the nation-state as a general entity. After class I began thinking about how the nation-state exists within the United States' sovereignty. In a recent response to a classmate's blogpost, I discussed one aspect of U.S. sovereignty via the plenary power doctrine. In short, it seemed to me that there are certain aspects of U.S. sovereignty that are completely uncontested. There are official Supreme Court rulings that indicate that branches of the government have uncontested authority over issues such as immigration and tribal issues. This ability to exert power so effectively reminded me of the French philosopher/sociologist Michel Foucault. Primarily known for coining the term "biopower" which is essentially the ability of modern states to exert control over their populations via different mechanisms. In many of his books, most notably,The Foucault Reader, Foucault argues that the government has exerted control over areas of health, culture, family, and even religion. This expansive control of power has functionally forced people to become dependent on the government. He pushes his analysis further by arguing that the government's ability to sustain populations inversely allows them to mobilize populations to "defend the sovereign". While this logic may seem far fetched, his theory essentially states that when the role of the government is to protect life, and the stakes are life itself, various atrocities are functionally justified to protect the population. Examples of this extreme behavior has been shown in governments such as Rwanda and Bosnia where social-racism is rampant.
No comments:
Post a Comment