TWO FACES of AUTHORITY the Leader's Tragic Quest

Department of Law TWO FACES OF AUTHORITY The leader’s tragic quest Thieu Besselink Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Florence, December 2008 Besselink, Thieu (2009), Two Faces of Authority: The leader's tragic quest European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/44263 European University Institute Department of Law TWO FACES OF AUTHORITY The leader’s tragic quest Thieu Besselink Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Florence, December 2008 Examining Board: Prof. Neil Walker, (supervisor), University of Edinburgh Prof. Richard Sennett, (external supervisor), New York University Prof. Rodney Barker, London School of Economics and Political Science Prof. Peter Mair, European University Institute © 2008, Thieu Besselink No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author Besselink, Thieu (2009), Two Faces of Authority: The leader's tragic quest European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/44263 ABSTRACT This thesis observes how modern leaders of Western society publicly engage in an unrewarding quest for a durably authoritative identity and it asks why rulers are so troubled in cultivating a credible role of authority. The author argues that modern authority itself has disintegrated with the change of its understanding and the diffusion of fixed authoritative roles and that this is accompanied by an identity crisis. He asks how modern rulers respond to the disintegration of a fixed, shared social reality in late modernity, and to the fact that our main legitimating mythologies - such as that of (political) representation, which once ordered the allocation of authority - no longer provide the reassurance and belief in ruler’s authority. To understand the nature of authority and its disintegration, the author explores rulers’ consciousness by categorising their responses in two archetypical models of authority, inspired by Machiavelli’s Prince and Shakespeare’s tragic hero. They represent the authority-effects of fear and reassurance and the two modern modes of authority cultivation: increasing social distance and decreasing social distance The thesis argues that modern authority is tragic because the logic by which the dominant archetypical roles try to authorise themselves is self defeating. It illustrates this with a history of authority which describes the characteristically modern drive for the exposure, immanence, and transparency of authority, informed by a desire for emancipation and mastery, and how it is paralleled by a degradation of authority and these typically modern archetypes that continue to determine Western culture. Reintegration of authority would require a more dimensional understanding of the concept. The author trances the four major roots of authority (authorship, authorisation, authenticity, and augmentation), and suggest they represent the subjective, objective, individual, and collective dimensions of authority which together form a whole system of meaning and creation. Besselink, Thieu (2009), Two Faces of Authority: The leader's tragic quest European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/44263 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This thesis would never have been written without the love, encouragement, and effort of my friends, my mentors, colleagues, and family. I have tested the patience of friend and mentor prof. Neil Walker with the ambition to integrate disciplines and styles, only a brilliant mind like his and the care of an involved fellow on the journey could keep me on the path. I want to thank him for his generosity and participation. It was when I was about to finish my Masters at the London School of Economic that prof. Richard Sennett suggested to me that I write a PhD. His care, encouragement, and capacity to share complex knowledge in deceptively simple words, have not only inspired this thesis at its core, but have helped me tremendously to grow as a person. I want to thank him for his time, belief, and enthusiasm, of which I have made irregular and impudent use. I want to express my gratitude to prof. Giuliano Amato for his faith, his kindness, and for sharing his insights into European leadership. Furthermore I owe prof. Peter Mair, prof. Rodney Barker, prof. Yves Mény, prof. Martin van Gelderen and the fellows and researchers who participated in the symposium ‘The Politics of Legitimation’, my gratitude for their contributions, feedback, and fruitful discussion. I thank my friend Rory Brown for his spirit, our many late night conversations, his profound, ruthless, and warm comments, support in writing, and dearest friendship. I owe Ben and Olga for giving me the possibility to write, for their faith and their indispensable support. The writing of this thesis was a journey that taught me at least as much about myself as it taught me about authority. And I want to thank the European University Institute for setting the scenery for this journey. The EUI has not only been a generous host, but also a source of inspiration. I want to thank its kind and considerate staff and the Law Department for their true care, and for allowing me to pursue a less traditional thesis. Finally, the enchanting beauty and stimulating history of Fiesole’s hills and the city of Florence never stopped motivating me. They are home of the renaissance and Machiavelli, to whom I feel so indebted. 3 Besselink, Thieu (2009), Two Faces of Authority: The leader's tragic quest European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/44263 CONTENTS PROLOGUE.............................................................................................................................................5 PART I. WHO IS THE MODERN RULER? ........................................................................................25 1. WHY HIS AUTHORITY IS AMBIGUOUS .................................................................................28 1.1 LEGITIMACY DOES NOT EXIST .................................................................................................40 1.2 AUTHORITY IS DESTRUCTIVE, IMAGINATIVE & HEALING.........................................................57 1.3 BREAKDOWN OF AUTHORITY IS A CRISIS OF IDENTITY...........................................................74 2 WHO IS THE NEW PRINCE? ....................................................................................................80 2.1 THE RULER AS ACTOR IN THE DRAMA OF AUTHORITY............................................................94 2.2 RULERS ESTABLISH AUTHORITY TO THEMSELVES ................................................................102 3 WHO IS THE TRAGIC HERO OF MODERNITY? ....................................................................115 3.1 TRAGEDY OF THE MODERN HERO IS UNBEARABLY LIGHT....................................................118 3.2 THE TWO FACES OF AUTHORITY ...........................................................................................124 PART II. HOW AUTHORITY WAS EXPOSED .............................................................................131 4 AUTHORITY IS A MYTH........................................................................................................140 4.1 METAMORPHOSIS OF A MYTH...............................................................................................147 4.2 THE BIRTH OF REPRESENTATION ...........................................................................................153 5 THE FORCES OF EXPOSURE.................................................................................................157 5.1 MODERNITY IS EMANCIPATION AND MASTERY....................................................................161 5.2 OPENNESS AND OPACITY ......................................................................................................178 5.3 INTIMATE AUTHENTICITY & IMMANENT AUTHORITY ...........................................................182 6 THE CULTURE OF TRANSPARENCY ....................................................................................194 6.1 CRISIS .....................................................................................................................................196 PART III. ALL TOO HUMAN: FEAR & DESIRE.............................................................................202 7 INCREASING SOCIAL DISTANCE .........................................................................................210 7.1 AWE AND NECESSITY .............................................................................................................214 7.2 TRANSPARENCY AS SEDUCTION BY SIMPLICITY ...................................................................226 8 REDUCING SOCIAL DISTANCE ............................................................................................233 8.1 THE QUEST FOR AUTHORITY..................................................................................................239 8.2 THE TRAGEDY OF INTIMACY..................................................................................................249 8.3 THE EXPOSED ANTI HERO ......................................................................................................255 8.4 CLOSER TO THE CITIZEN ........................................................................................................260 9 AUTHORITY THAT DEFIES WITH CONSIDERATION ..........................................................283 EPILOGUE...........................................................................................................................................288

Load more