The modern world order has frequently been referred to as the Westphalian order, and has since been identified with the international order. This order, however, is now being challenged, and Post-Westphalian order appears to be emerging. The purpose of this paper is, first of all, to show that the world order in and of itself is severely contingent, and to discuss the possibilities and limits of public spheres in this world order.
In the first section, I examine the perspective of ‘Empire’, as conceptualized by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, as one possible interpretation of the Post-Westphalian order. The concept of ‘Empire’ is compared and contrasted with the Westphalian order with the aim of making clear the concept of the ‘Empire’. If we compare the Westphalian order with ‘Empire’, the former can be characterized as (1) a system comprised of territorially demarcated sovereign states, (2) nation states, (3) the denial of universalism, and (4) wars between sovereign states as the only legitimate form of violence within this order. On the other hand, ‘Empire’ can be characterized as (1) a decentralized and de-territorialized system, (2) formed by ‘multitude’, (3) universalism (the denial of particularism), and (4) endless ‘global civil wars’ (a chains of intervention and ‘terrorism’). It is interesting to note that the differentiation of international politics and domestic politics collapses in ‘Empire’. As a result, the existing patterns of political confrontation —such as between sovereign states or between state and civil society— become irrelevant.
In addition, from the viewpoint of ‘bio-power’ (in Michel Foucault's sense), Westphalian order can be characterized as (1) a disciplinary society and (2) governance through national integration, while ‘Empire’ can be defined as (1) society of control (the institutions of civil society are dissolved) and (2) governance without social integration.
In the second section, I discuss ‘Empire’ in terms of public spheres. First, I challenge the concept of public spheres and discuss the dialectical relationship between openness (
Öffentlichkeit, which is incommensurable) and commonality (
res publica, which is commensurable) in them. Second, I attempt to compare the structures of public spheres based on the Westphalian order with those of ‘Empire’ by focusing on the arena and the role of agency in each public sphere. Third, I scrutinize how each order deals with ‘the Political’, as conceptualized by Carl Schmitt, in its own public sphere. I also explain the dynamism of the generation and decline (collapse) of each public sphere, referring to some examples of anti-globalization movements and events after September 11.
In the third section, I analyze the possibilities and limits of each public sphere generated by each .order. In doing so, I criticize the
Weltinnenpolitik model (endorsed by Jürgen Habermas), and replace it with the agonistic model of public spheres (advocated by Chantal Mouffe) with some reservations.
In concluding, I propose a model of public spheres for the age in which we stand: that between ‘Empire’ and the Westphalian order.
抄録全体を表示