Comments on some recent Commentary about NIO

I think that to solve this problem we will have to accept Andrew Willard Jones's critique of the concept of "sovereignty" (it's not really "his" critique, of course, but an old one). Sovereignty by definition negates itself by ensuring that all power must flow through it, and therefore must try to displace other power agents by "informing" the sovereign. "Rule" or "governance" will be better concepts because they can account for the singularity of authority, recognized by other authorities singular in their own sphere. Maybe the notion of "deputizing," which is as far as I know vestigial now but was once very real, exemplifies the idea: others beside the king or government can punish transgressions; indeed, it's even better if transgressions are dealt with closer to the source, but everyone should nevertheless "touch base" with the ruler in doing so.

While this points to a theoretical solution, in practice I find it very hard at this moment to stop using the concept of "sovereignty," because it's the only way of distinguishing between phenomena like "globalization" and other subversions exercised from above and below, on the one hand, and what would count as an approximation toward "proper rule" on the other hand. It's the only way of being at all intelligible in discussing contemporary politics. Maybe we have to accept it as a provisional or transitional concept, or consider it "under erasure" as Derrida used to do with metaphysical concepts like "Being." For now, we have to use them, but we should know that we only use them because we have to.