{"title":"美国人民的基本团结","authors":"D. Pan","doi":"10.3817/0322198159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Paul Kahn and Tim Luke base their claim that the United States is involved in a civil war on the implacability of the political differences between left and right that prevent any reconciliation. Arguing that the differences go beyond policy choices to questions of identity that are not subject to the compromises of party politics, they interpret recent examples of violence such as the January 6 Capitol riots as the rule rather than the exception. Yet in indicating that we are in an indefinite state of exception, they obscure the moment of decision that is part of the exception. Kahn notes that war is the opposite of the sovereign ability to decide. But a state of indecision is not in fact a state of war. It is just a lack of clear sovereignty that can last indefinitely until a sovereign emerges who is able to establish a decision. The state of war only results when two competing sovereigns emerge and both attempt to decide on a state of exception, that is to say, both are able to mobilize people to kill and die to establish their understanding of their identity.1 The United States is still very far away from this scenario. As Mark G. E. Kelly notes, the institutions of the United States are still functioning properly, and even if there is rhetoric on both sides that rejects election results, the outcomes of elections have been honored in practice and the mechanisms of government continue to function without problem. There is no immediate paralysis that would indicate a state of indecision, and there is not even the prospect of competing sovereigns who would both declare states of exception to begin a war.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"61 1","pages":"159 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Underlying Unity of the American People\",\"authors\":\"D. Pan\",\"doi\":\"10.3817/0322198159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Paul Kahn and Tim Luke base their claim that the United States is involved in a civil war on the implacability of the political differences between left and right that prevent any reconciliation. Arguing that the differences go beyond policy choices to questions of identity that are not subject to the compromises of party politics, they interpret recent examples of violence such as the January 6 Capitol riots as the rule rather than the exception. Yet in indicating that we are in an indefinite state of exception, they obscure the moment of decision that is part of the exception. Kahn notes that war is the opposite of the sovereign ability to decide. But a state of indecision is not in fact a state of war. It is just a lack of clear sovereignty that can last indefinitely until a sovereign emerges who is able to establish a decision. The state of war only results when two competing sovereigns emerge and both attempt to decide on a state of exception, that is to say, both are able to mobilize people to kill and die to establish their understanding of their identity.1 The United States is still very far away from this scenario. As Mark G. E. Kelly notes, the institutions of the United States are still functioning properly, and even if there is rhetoric on both sides that rejects election results, the outcomes of elections have been honored in practice and the mechanisms of government continue to function without problem. There is no immediate paralysis that would indicate a state of indecision, and there is not even the prospect of competing sovereigns who would both declare states of exception to begin a war.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Telos\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"159 - 161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Telos\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3817/0322198159\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telos","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0322198159","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
保罗·卡恩(Paul Kahn)和蒂姆·卢克(Tim Luke)声称,美国卷入了一场内战,原因是左翼和右翼之间不可调和的政治分歧阻碍了任何和解。他们认为,这种差异超越了政策选择,而是身份问题,不受政党政治妥协的影响。他们将最近发生的暴力事件(如1月6日国会大厦骚乱)解释为普遍现象,而不是例外。然而,在表明我们处于一种不确定的例外状态时,它们模糊了作为例外的一部分的决定时刻。卡恩指出,战争是主权决策能力的对立面。但优柔寡断的状态实际上并不是战争状态。它只是缺乏明确的主权,这种主权可以无限期地持续下去,直到出现一个能够制定决策的主权。战争状态只有在两个相互竞争的主权国家出现时才会产生,并且都试图决定一种例外状态,也就是说,双方都能够动员人民杀戮和死亡,以建立他们对自己身份的理解美国离这种情况还很遥远。正如马克·g·e·凯利(Mark G. E. Kelly)所指出的那样,美国的制度仍在正常运转,即使双方都在口头上反对选举结果,但选举结果在实践中得到了尊重,政府机制继续正常运转。目前还没有出现表明优柔寡断的立即瘫痪状态,甚至不可能出现主权国家相互竞争,双方都宣布进入例外状态以发动战争的情况。
Paul Kahn and Tim Luke base their claim that the United States is involved in a civil war on the implacability of the political differences between left and right that prevent any reconciliation. Arguing that the differences go beyond policy choices to questions of identity that are not subject to the compromises of party politics, they interpret recent examples of violence such as the January 6 Capitol riots as the rule rather than the exception. Yet in indicating that we are in an indefinite state of exception, they obscure the moment of decision that is part of the exception. Kahn notes that war is the opposite of the sovereign ability to decide. But a state of indecision is not in fact a state of war. It is just a lack of clear sovereignty that can last indefinitely until a sovereign emerges who is able to establish a decision. The state of war only results when two competing sovereigns emerge and both attempt to decide on a state of exception, that is to say, both are able to mobilize people to kill and die to establish their understanding of their identity.1 The United States is still very far away from this scenario. As Mark G. E. Kelly notes, the institutions of the United States are still functioning properly, and even if there is rhetoric on both sides that rejects election results, the outcomes of elections have been honored in practice and the mechanisms of government continue to function without problem. There is no immediate paralysis that would indicate a state of indecision, and there is not even the prospect of competing sovereigns who would both declare states of exception to begin a war.