Two types of power: parental power and sovereign power—enforced by birth v. enforced by wrongdoing (Agamben, 88)
Power or rather authority is vested in the hierarchical archetypes of society. Yet despite their prominence they are enforced differently. Parental power is birth and sovereign power is wrongdoing. The basis of authority is nested in the type of authority needlessly dependent on the rules of the game.
Parental and sovereign authority are unique to the obligated. They are unconditional forms that demand submission. God may be included here as well but the state is the political equivalent. To some degree God is volitional depending on the religion. Nevertheless, authority of teachers or employers is measured by a conditional relationship. So long as a student is in the school or classroom the teacher has authority. It is dependent on location and/or genre. If the teacher is seen at the local hotdog stand down the street her authority is reduced and if the student is a former student from years back as well even visiting in her classroom has reduced authority since the relationship has changed. The casual conversation is indicative of changed roles. The same courtesy of old is not as relevant outside the typical model. The same can be said of an employer. The employee is only in submission while he works for the employer outside the office or even outside his job the boss deserves little.
The dependency on circumstance defines selective authority. Just as some people are experts in certain fields so too some people have power in certain situations. If the frame is constructed in the hierarchal function, then insofar as that frame exists do they have power. The classroom frame holds up in the classroom yet outside the classroom it doesn’t. Teachers become strangers on the street. They dress differently and buying store goods. They are human but the frame defines them by the relational aspect that being a teacher. The frame is powerful as it relativises relations into bunches. A prince may hold sway over his underlings. He speaks as he wishes while his father is away but once the king returns the prince is silent lest he be ridiculed by the king himself. The visor is the prime ridiculer in the name of the king. When the king is away the prince may boss the visor around as his royal blood towers over the lower status visor. When the king returns the visor’s voice for the king elevates his status beyond the prince. Though he may only speak out in the name of the king. Critiquing the prince is not from the visor’s own admission but the kings.
The hierarchy is everlasting. There is always someone over someone else. Even the president has to answer to someone. The tyrant answers to someone. It is all relative. Take the case of a CEO. An employee answers to another employee and it goes up the ladder to the CEO. The CEO answers to the board and the board to the investors. The investors to their board and their investors. It is an interconnected web where someone answers to someone else. It is a check with the balances. The same goes for teachers and principles. The spider web links one with another. Even if the board itself doesn’t technically have a boss it answers to the collective who have their own bosses. Their situations and feelings in the totality of life affects their judgement. The tyrant himself doesn’t really have a boss except to submit to his cabinet lest they rebel against him. A single individual is incapable of hoarding so much authority as long as those in his inner circle are handsomely compensated.
A parent doesn’t answer to anyone other than their spouse but this hierarchy is less vertical and more of a seesaw. There are some hierarchal relationships but the parental relationship is about rules and order while a spousal relationship is about opinionated primacy. It is not all about power and authority and even if it is about power, the spousal relationship doesn’t have the authority of a parent child endeavour. A parent is in charge like a king over a country the parent is the king of the home. Lest the child believe he can do as he wishes. Even with more liberalised notions of parental relationships there is a clear vertical distance between parent and child. The parent has near control over the child. In early antiquity control was absolute. Over the years authority has become more symbolic than legislative. Questions about how far does the state intrude in the parent’s duties is debated. What is the extent of parental culpability? Danger is usually the correct mark but it is a debatable mark? The symbolic forum need not derive from the legislative output. Legislation isn’t to cultivate that which is not but instil that which ought to be. The law isn’t to make sure children respect their parents but that reflects the aspirations of respecting one’s parent.
Reducing the horrid laws were to minimise the parental assault on children. Not to rid the authority of the parent but to delimit it to the legislative sphere. Respect need not be coordinated to the state punishing scale. The state need not be responsible for the parent’s respect. Instead that ought to be rendered to the household. The state rescinded its legislative authority on behalf of the parental link. The authority of the parent elevates in its mythos over its practical publication. The vested interest is more the power of the unsolicited enforcement over the state’s interjection. The state wouldn’t punish the child but the parent still could. There may be no order cementing the parental authority in the state death sentence but the solitary of parental capability remained. Parental power was the model of symbolic orchestration. One’s submission to parental rule from youth is the canister of deep devotion. The rebellious aura sets in absent legislation to experience but such freedom can never truly overpower the parent only reject them. The mature child lashes out to regain independence but can only succeed at the expense of abandoning the home. Parental authority is absolute in its intent but not so in its decision-making. It is a submissive yet respectful genre.
The state demands obedience from its subjects. Similarly, a citizen can avoid the legislative restrictions by moving to a different country. The authority can never be breeched but it can be nullified. In the same vein, an employee can absolve the obligations of the job. Yet while that contract ends the relationship the same cannot be said of a citizen or a child. To some degree a citizen can move to a different country and thus he has absolved of his native home but such abandonment is never fully erased. Yet the state lies in the citizen’s debt to the state. He may switch states and then he will be under a newfound contract One with new rules that impinge his life. The state is a macro level employer. The state is itself a rehabilitation of the master reincarnated into a national authority. It was the king, emperor now politician. Authority of the state is relative to each state. The state is one of many absolute authorities. Within their given range they can employ a wide range of ability. The same goes for a parent of his child and now another’s. The state’s vitality is within its borders to those who are bred into it. The rules are embedded non-negotiable and obligated. The state is the environmental cocoon that demands much from the citizen. An authority that surrounds his every move.
The state is the combined father-employer. The state is a bargained group but it is also a fated construction. Born into the state obligates not only the legal components but the non-legal inspirational facilitation. A prison so long as the citizen remains a part of the system. The modern period is the mature child able to travel freely. To rebel and question his native homeland. To look abroad for new options. The liberation of newfound chaos. The mature child is open to new ideas, choosing his destiny as he sees fit. If the state is distasteful he can travel abroad accept a new citizenship similar to a new job. Jobless life is the Sahara. There are areas of no man’s land. The grown up can choose to heed or not but he cannot overpower the state. The state will demand and he can walk out and run away from home but he will come upon a new territory with new rules. The absolute power of the state demands what the parental obligations require. There is only so much that can be trifled. The state is a compressive force that can control the fate of the individual that the job cannot.
An employer can fire an employee but the citizen cannot fire anyone. The state is required to care for the citizen in all areas. Even incarceration is a state’s duty. The basis of homeostasis is a familial obligation. The state covers the citizen’s needs so as long as they are in her jurisdiction. The state is fused with the citizen. Birthed on soil is an obligation till death. A fundamental metaphysical link that demands but concerns. The state or the parent may not follow through on their care but it is imposed on them to do so. As the protector they are to guide their children. The entire premise of authority rests on faith for guidance. Authority at work is mechanic but for the state it is ethical. Laws exist for stability insofar as stability is a moral ladder for excellence. The state like the parent runs after his child when he leaves and when is unwell. Even when he abandons the state searches for her child to return. She is far gone but awaits her return. There are demands and at times exceedingly transactional but there is a parental component ideally at least. The state is the collective people. Politicians are the representation of the people. To guide the next generation. It isn’t solely to tax but to raise.
The state is not only a social parent but the adopted parents of the citizen. The entire creation of child agencies is for the government to protect the children when parents cannot. Not even non-profit organisations but the governmental extensions. Social services can overrun the familial homeland. The child is the state’s insomuch as he is the parents. The parents take priority but once they act nefariously, they may be relieved of their parental duties. While dangerous conditions whether violence or poverty may be invoked to salvage the child such democratic abstinence is unique. Many states invade the social fabric of one’s lifestyle. The child is of the state’s and therefore is under the state’s thumb. Whether that be a draft or schooling. The basic necessities or the state’s decisions characterise the nature of the child to the state. In the western world, parenting takes precedence. Biology and stability defeat nationalistic paradigms. Yet this is not the case in less democratically inclined areas. Yet the more federal power, the more parental power the government has. Take the case of underage drinking. Each government defines the age permitted despite inconsistencies whether a parent believes their child is old enough to drink is irrelevant. Even in the confines of the home the government intervenes.
Nationalism brings the children so close to the state. Patriotic impulses sway the child from their mainstream calmness. Propelling jargon towards the youth. They are inspired. The second parent is overwhelming the first. Yet the child tends to disobey both parents. The child drinks and speeds. He fails to take proper precautions and pushes the envelope over the line. The state has its own form of timeout. It locks the “child” away from society. The parents act in the country’s best interest. The nation is called the fatherland or the motherland. Nationalism puts a face on the nation’s bulky mountain range. Yet the state is an employer. It may be the supreme authority but doesn’t always act charitably. It doesn’t always demonstrate love. It is a mechanical parent. One that keeps the child at arm’s length. Punishing the child severely for wrongdoing. The child cannot escape, they move to a new adopted parents. The bond is as strong as the emotional link between state and citizen. The state can act earnestly or devilishly. Either act as a parent or an enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment