Thomas Hobbes and Contemporary Italian
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
153 153 2020 VAPPU HELMISAARIVAPPU Vappu Helmisaari THOMAS HOBBES AND THOMAS HOBBES AND CONTEMPORARY ITALIAN THINKERS ITALIAN HOBBES CONTEMPORARY AND THOMAS CONTEMPORARY ITALIAN THINKERS Permanent War in Giorgio Agamben, Roberto Esposito and Antonio Negri y of Social Sciences acult tions of the F Publica Faculty of Social Sciences University of Helsinki Finland THOMAS HOBBES AND CONTEMPORARY ITALIAN THINKERS: PERMANENT WAR IN GIORGIO AGAMBEN, ROBERTO ESPOSITO AND ANTONIO NEGRI Vappu Helmisaari ACADEMIC DISSERTATION Doctoral dissertation, to be presented for public discussion with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki, in Metsätalo, hall number 1, on the 30th of October, 2020 at 12 o’clock. Helsinki, 2020 A publication of the Faculty of Social Sciences (2020), Political Science Print: Unigrafia, Helsinki 2020 Cover picture: Ilmari Hakala, Sopiva Design Layout: Tanja Konttinen Publications of the Faculty of Social Sciences 153 (2020) Political Science Doctoral Programme in Political, Societal and Regional Change University of Helsinki ISBN 978-951-51-3459-2 (pbk.) ISBN 978-951-51-3460-8 (PDF) ISSN 2343-273X (pbk.) ISSN 2343-2748 (web) © Vappu Helmisaari Distribution and sales: Unigrafia, Helsinki http://shop.unigrafia.fi [email protected] Supervisors: S.M. Amadae, Sari Roman-Lagerspetz, Sergei Prozorov Pre-examiners: Paul-Erik Korvela, Gabriella Slomp Opponent: Sonja Lavaert The Faculty of Social sciences uses the Urkund system (plagiarism recognition) to examine all doctoral dissertations. Abstract The thesis examines how Thomas Hobbes’s (1588–1679) political thinking is present in three Italian philosophers’ work: Giorgio Agamben (born 1942), Roberto Esposito (born 1950) and Antonio Negri (born 1933). In this sense, it is a reception study of Hobbes’s work in contemporary Italy, more specifically among the Italian biopolitical school. The thesis is in the field of political theory. Quentin Skinner’s work on Hobbes is briefly pre- sented to add a point of comparison to the Italians’ view on Hobbes and to their methodology. The focus of the study is on the Italians’ and Hobbes’s differences in regard to war. The three Italians see war as contrary to how Hobbes saw it: for Hobbes, the sovereign was the one who ended the state of nature which is a state of war, and for the Italians, the sovereign order means a state of war, although this is not always visible. The perspective and method of this enterprise is to look for references of Thomas Hobbes, and more largely, of Hobbesian themes in the writings of Agamben, Esposito and Negri, and to see how they relate to the question of war. Agamben and Negri believe we live in a permanent state of civil war – a civil war, because we live in a world which has no outside. Esposito criticizes Hobbes’s use of the state of nature as an artificial threat to keep the people in a state of fear. All these three Italians come to a different conclusion from Hobbes about the nature of war, as they claim that war does not end by hand- ing power over to the sovereign, but that sovereignty is the prerequisite for waging war in different forms. The three philosophers present alternatives to the sovereignty-based organization of politics. For Agamben, one solution is withdrawal from activity, “inoperativity”. For Esposito, the solution is a community based on non-reciprocal gifts, which he claims is the opposite of Hobbes’s state, based on contract. He wants to enable new spaces of the common and sees hope in recent theoretical discussions on the common good. Negri differs from the two others since he, together with Michael Hardt, explores sovereignty, which is extended to the global level instead of nation-states. However, Hardt and Negri also outline a Multitude which fights the global sovereignty of Empire and rules itself autonomously. All three Italians have an idea of a community that is different from the state sovereignty of nation-states. 3 Tiivistelmä Väitöskirjassa tutkitaan, miten Thomas Hobbesin (1588–1679) poliittinen ajattelu on läsnä kolmen italialaisen filosofin teoksissa: Giorgio Agam- benin (s. 1942), Roberto Espositon (s. 1950) ja Antonio Negrin (s. 1933). Tässä mielessä kyse on vastaanottotutkimuksesta, jossa käsitellään sitä, miten Hobbesin teoria nähdään nyky-Italiassa ja etenkin italialaisessa biopoliittisessa koulukunnassa. Väitöskirja kuuluu politiikan teorian alaan. Quentin Skinnerin Hobbes-tutkimuksia käsitellään työssä lyhyesti vertai- lukohdan saamiseksi italialaisten Hobbes-näkemykselle ja metodologialle. Tutkimus keskittyy italialaisten ja Hobbesin eroihin suhteessa sotaan. Kolme italialaisajattelijaa näkevät sodan täysin päinvastoin kuin Hobbes: Hobbesille suvereeni oli se, joka lopettaa luonnontilan, joka on sotatila, kun taas italialaisille suvereeni järjestys merkitsee sotatilaa, joka ei kuiten- kaan aina ole näkyvissä. Tutkimuksen näkökulmana ja metodina on käydä läpi Agambenin, Espositon ja Negrin teksteissä olevia mainintoja Thomas Hobbesista ja laajemmin hobbesilaisista teemoista ja selvittää, miten ne liittyvät kysymykseen sodasta. Agamben ja Negri ajattelevat, että elämme jatkuvassa sotatilassa – tarkem- min sanoen sisällissodassa, koska elämme maailmassa, jolla ei ole ulkopuolta. Esposito kritisoi tapaa, jolla Hobbes käyttää luonnontilaa keinotekoisena pelotteena, jolla ihmiset pidetään pelon vallassa. Kaikki kolme italialaista päätyvät Hobbesin kanssa erilaiseen johtopäätökseen sotatilasta väittäessään, että sota ei pääty luovuttamalla valta suvereenille, vaan että suvereniteetti on edellytys sodankäynnin eri muodoille. Kolme filosofia esittävät vaihtoehtoja suvereenisuuteen perustuvalle politiikan järjestämisen tavalle. Agambenille eräs ratkaisu on toiminnasta vetäytyminen, ”inoperatiivisuus”. Espositon ratkaisu on ei-vastavuoroisille lahjoille perustuva yhteisö, jonka hän esittää olevan vastakkainen hobbesilaiselle sopimusvaltiolle. Hän haluaa mahdol- listaa uusia yhteisen tiloja ja löytää toivoa viimeaikaisista yhteistä hyvää käsittelevistä teoreettisista keskusteluista. Negri eroaa kahdesta muusta, koska hän (yhdessä Michael Hardtin kanssa) tarkastelee kansallisvaltioiden sijaan globaalisti hallitsevaa suvereniteettia. Hardt ja Negri luonnostelevat kuitenkin myös multitudoa, väkeä, joka taistelee Imperiumin globaalia suve- reniteettia vastaan ja hallitsee itseään autonomisesti. Kaikilla kolmella italia- laisella esiintyy ajatus yhteisöstä, joka on erilainen kuin kansallisvaltioiden suvereniteetti. 4 Contents Abstract 3 Tiivistelmä 4 Acknowledgements 9 1. Introduction 11 1.1 Argument 11 1.2 Using Texts as Research Material 12 1.3 Quentin Skinner’s Anti-anachronistic Methodology and the Rhetorical Hobbes 14 1.4 The Italian Context and the Specificity of Italian Thought 20 1.5 Why the three Italians? 22 1.6 The Hobbesian View of Man 24 1.7 The Hobbesian View of Society, the State and War 25 1.8 Hobbes’s Use of Metaphors 26 2. Giorgio Agamben and Thomas Hobbes: Towards and away from a Permanent State of Exception 29 Abstract 29 2.1 Commentaries on Agamben and Hobbes 32 2.1.1 Newman 32 2.1.2 De la Durantaye 34 2.1.3 Mills 36 2.1.4 Ugilt 37 2.1.5 Prozorov 39 2.1.6 Rasch 44 2.1.7 Whyte 44 2.1.8 Mabon 45 2.1.9 Overview of Literature on Agamben 46 2.2 Two Interpretations on the Frontispiece of Leviathan 48 2.2.1 The Meaning of Metaphors in Political Science: The Case of Leviathan 48 2.2.2 Skinner: The Interplay between Obedience and Protection Visualized 49 2.2.3 The Unrepresentable Multitude 51 4 2.3 Hobbes’s State of Nature and the Eschatology of Leviathan 53 2.3.1 Agamben on Civil War and Violence 54 2.3.2 The Eschatology of Leviathan 55 2.4 Sovereignty, Violence, and Exception in the Thought of Hobbes, Schmitt and Agamben 56 2.4.1 The Sovereign Ends the State of Nature 56 2.4.2 Carl Schmitt and Hobbes’s Failed Monster, Leviathan 57 2.4.3 Violence and Decision in Schmitt 59 2.4.4 Agamben’s State of Exception 61 2.4.5 Homo Sacer and Violence 65 2.5 Conclusion 66 2.5.1 Schmitt and Agamben 66 2.5.2 Hobbes and Agamben 66 3. Roberto Esposito and the Escape from the Hobbesian State 69 Abstract 69 3.1 Commentaries on Roberto Esposito’s work 70 3.1.1 Ailio 71 3.1.2 Ulbricht 72 3.1.3 Langford 73 3.1.4 Tierney 74 3.1.5 Serafini 75 3.1.6 Bird 76 3.1.7 Prozorov 76 3.1.8 de Bloois 77 3.1.9 Overview of Literature on Esposito 78 3.2 Esposito and Italian Thought: Esposito and Hobbes 79 3.3 The Role of Fear in the Hobbesian State and its Criticism by Esposito 82 3.4 The End of Violence in the Hobbesian State Concept 90 3.4.1 Against the Body Metaphor 92 3.4.2 Power, Life, Representation and Hobbes 95 3.4.3 Immunity: the Hobbesian Vaccine 96 3.4.4 Hobbes’s Personalism and Esposito’s Criticism of the Concept of the Person 98 3.4.5 An Alternative to Immunization 103 3.5 Conclusion 104 4. Antonio Negri, Global Civil War and Hobbes 107 Abstract 107 4.1 Commentaries on and Critique towards Negri (and Hardt & Negri) 109 4.1.1 Boron 111 4.1.2 Rustin 114 4.1.3 Aronowitz 115 4.1.4 Tilly 116 4.1.5 Arrighi 116 4.1.6 Seth 117 4.1.7 Panitch & Gindin 117 4.1.8 Meiksins Wood 118 4.1.9 Bull 119 4.1.10 Brennan 120 4.1.11 Callinicos 120 4.1.12 Jakonen 121 4.1.13 Prozorov 121 4.1.14 Dyer-Witheford 122 4.1.15 An Overview of Literature on Negri 123 4.2 A Transfer of Sovereignty from the Nation-State to an Imperial Sovereignty 124 4.3 People vs. the Multitude Antonio Negri’s Antagonism with Thomas Hobbes 127 4.3.1 The Definition of the Multitude 131 4.3.2 A Reversal of Hobbes’s Concepts in Hardt & Negri 137 4.3.3 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, and the Question of War and the Constitution in Hobbes 138 4.4 Conclusion 144 5. Concluding Chapter 147 5.1 Hobbes in the Italian Theory of Biopolitics 147 5.2 Hobbes’s, Agamben’s, Esposito’s and Negri’s Ideas about War and Sovereignty 150 5.3 Mutual Commentaries between Agamben, Esposito and Negri 153 5.4 The Alternatives to Sovereign, State-centred Power 156 Bibliography 158 Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor, Professor Sergei Prozorov for helping me narrow down what was initially a very vague interest in Hobbes on the one hand, and in continental political philosophy on the other.