Nomos Beyond the Earth Josh Entsminger Abstract The 21st century citizen is built off a postmodern subject caught in economic, social, legal, and political systems which are no longer bound to the state but have become ‘global’ in scope. In this paper, I will argue that the conditions of citizenship surrounding the postmodern subject have by nature of their global scope become intrinsically intertwined with the global scope of the terrorist in so far as the terrorist represents a subjectivity, which may envelope and qualify a subject, which by nature of its violent possibility brings forth the constitution of the international legal and political order in terms of global governance. Specifically, this paper argues that, following lines of thought from Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault, the current international order has radically shifted since World War II in an international legal referent shift from territory to humanity which delegitimizes war but absolutely legitimated ‘humanitarian intervention’ which in turn transformed the nature of political violence in its production of new subjectivities to which the international order now refers. The most important of these subjectivities as they come to define citizenship are (potential) victim and (potential) terrorist and their diffusion brings into question not only the form of citizenship but also the nature and constitution of space and life. In order to evaluate the question of life and subjectivity production the paper will purse the notion of convergence of extended neoliberal capitalism and anatamo- and biopolitical reasoning into the formation of what may be called the bionomy, being the form of capture, administration, and management of life and subjectivities and their appropriation, distribution, and exploitation on a global scale when land appropriation is illegal. This paper hopes to critically engage with the constitution of citizenship in an age where the legitimacy of life is a serious question. Key Words: Citizen, nomos, Schmitt, Foucault, terrorism ***** “The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there—there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—this suspicion of their not being inhuman.” -Marlowe, Heart of Darkness 1. Introduction 2Nomos Beyond the Earth __________________________________________________________________ There is no transformation of the world which does not implicate a transformation of the subjects which produce that world and are produced by it. Just as well, there is no transformation of subjects which does not implicate a movement of the relations by which the subjects are made, by which they make each other, by which they risk their unmaking, and by which they come to produce the reality by which they lay claim to the world they deem to be so.1 Politics can perhaps be taken as the contestation of these realities, and in turn of the worlds which we say are and which we desire and hope to be so, on the terms of certain strategies and designations of relations for which power is immanent and modification, making, and capacitation are inherent. Politics, and political discourse, is a structural exercise and the realities it confers are not the problem merely of subjects but of subjects in so far as they incur a capacity and relations by which they are designated and designate themselves as citizens. The citizen of the 21st century is built off a postmodern subject not only implicated in systems far beyond what they often confer to be their ‘situation,’ but, and in direct contrast to a modern subject, has a conscious apprehension, and hence an almost implicit uncertainty, of the actuality of their situation and their capacity as such. The designation of a subject as postmodern denotes that the way in which the subject is constructed and the lines along which it is made functional are an effect of postmodern uncertainty of viable production (work, voting, defense…) and violent, or damaging, potential. In turn, the citizen is always encoded along the lines of its subjectivities, or the ‘selfhood’ of a subject and the identities it designates as well as the identities produced by its actions, for instance citizen, terrorist, hipster, by which its productive capabilities and violent potential can be monitored, managed, modulated, and if necessary, intervened on. For the citizen can be termed a base subjectivity for a given subject and designates in turn a specific capacity for political, economic, and social action produced and modulated by merit of its ‘embeddedness’ and especially its dis-embeddedness and ‘integration’ in such systems linked both to and beyond the nation-state; however, and more importantly, the citizen as conferring a specific capacity is also regulated by the rights and responsibilities given to that citizen, which are in short the terms by which the citizen may be violated.2 All subjectivities are regimes of codification conferring modes of engagement and this codification implies an assemblage of apparatuses concerned with managing the subject by its subjectivities and potential actions along the spectrum conferred by that subjectivity. Post 9/11, and to an extent post World War II, has seen the transformation of not only the mode of war but the relations, subjectivities, actions, and order insinuated by it. In order to understand the conditions of the citizen and their situation one must understand the conditions of their modification and regulation which in the 21st century necessitates the notion of the order of the earth, or the Nomos, and the power-relations, subjectivities, and terms of reference and 3 Josh Entsminger __________________________________________________________________ legitimation by which it is constituted which can perhaps best be seen by looking to the subjectivities of terrorism and victim by merit of their extreme situational overcoding and their conferred implication of the transformation of the referent of intervention, war, and order from territory to humanity. 2. The Life of Power The life of subject, of a body, does not belong to them; rather, life is very the situation of the body to which the subject belongs. This situation can perhaps be titled the capacity-milieu of a subject. The capacity denotes the capabilities of a body and potential that it has in a given environment. In contrast, the milieu registers the capacities of other bodies and their potentials as producing a system and defining a specific network of relations per that environment which modulates the capacity of that body and which that capacity comes to modify. For Foucault, ‘The milieu is a certain number of combined, overall effects bearing on all who live in it. It is an element in which a circular link is produced between effects and causes, since an effect from one point of view will be a cause from another.3’ Capacity and life confer the actionable potential of any given body and the ways in which it is restricted and managed; as much as a citizen can engage in political discourse the way they engage and are engaged are encoded into the discourse itself. The integration into such systems and the capacity-milieu one becomes an extension of comes to confer the trajectories, choices and paths, which one can not only make but deem wise or be forced to take. The trajectories, combined with the capacity-milieu come to provide the basis for life as register of the capability for a body to act and the terms by which a body may be fostered or transgressed and how each may be recognized and codified in turn. This is subjectivity production, the potential and capability for a body on the lines of its viable production and violent possibility turned into systemic codification and thus an inscribed expectation, a virtuality given in what the body is expected to do yet still differentiated on the basis of its specific codification. Also registered is the specific subjectivity the subject gives to themselves by the acts, trajectories, and identities they pursue as a function of their milieu, which in turn may be denoted as their method. A capacity is always coupled to a milieu which is always moulding the trajectories which is always actionable on the basis of methods or strategy to be used. Power is immanent only because it is actuated not simply be the individual exercising power but the milieu in which such exercises are capable of being done. Without a milieu there is no power, and there is always a milieu if the body is open, and it is precisely on the terms of the body being vulnerable, open, and its action being modifiable that power matters. 4Nomos Beyond the Earth __________________________________________________________________ Power modifies actions and capacity but furthermore, everybody is a liminal site, relay, or mechanism of power as they produce themselves as subjects.4 As they make themselves as subjects they incur a specific capacity which makes the mas viable for power as it posits them as a potential site of resistance. 5 As of such, in terms of power there is no body which is not part of or capable of actuating a multiplicity; a body is always multiple in terms of its relations and extensions by which the capacity-milieu exists and develops and by which people operating systems of power are interested in that body. As much as a body, as a subject, as a citizen can be a mechanism of power they can also disrupt it and the degree of effect of this disruption in both trajectories and the capacity so determined is not localized to society, nor to the state metastasised to the bodies producing the illusion of said society, but are in fact conferred to a series of processes which take the nation-state and it semiincorporated society as its means and their global integration as its ends. 3. The Power of Life The 19th century, for Schmitt and Foucault, saw the manifest transformation of the terms of international order and constitutive power relations. The transformation of power relations was registered in two respects. The first is what Foucault termed anatamo-power. Anatamo-power confers the effect of the body which modulates themselves as given by the politics, or strategy of power, concerning the techniques, methods, and modes of intervention oriented around the physicality of the body and its production under a specific norm and apparatuses of normalization into a functional, and usually docile, subject.6 This power is concerned with the production of regimes of normalization which deal with the body directly as well as supplying specific procedures and techniques on the basis of the subjectivity the subject initiates.7 Anatamo-power deals with the capacity directly and deploys a specific milieu to develop and mould the trajectory of a given body. Anatamo-power gives normalized functioning to the capacities of the body.8 The second respect is termed biopower, and it concerns the power to foster life or disallow it to the point of death, to make live or let die, and in turn is demonstrative of certain norms which give how the body is invested and how it may or may not be violated as a body.9 Bio-politics is the strategy of power concerning this body-as-species in relation with a population concerning calculable statistics centring on birth and mortality and everything affecting them.10 What was incurred by such a power was the ‘distributing the living in the domain of value and utility.’11 The right to foster life or disallow it to the point of death was given from what Foucault determined to be the old sovereign right of the sword, the power to take life or let live, in the sense of execution or in sending the citizens to power and exposing them to death directly.1213 5 Josh Entsminger __________________________________________________________________ This new power does not replace the old power but instead saturates it14; the body under biopolitics is specified on the terms of subjectivity only on its valorization in terms of viable production and potential violence conferring what technique by which the population may be intervened on in order to alter gross statistics.1516 Just as well, these two powers are directed at very different points of intervention originally but are now developed more and more in terms of the intervention on specific multiplicities and the capacity to individuate the multiplicity and relate the multiplicity and its constitutive individuals back to a population, and the population, multiplicities, and individuals to the notion of humanity from which they take their legitimate standing.17 The 19th century witnessed the end of what Carl Schmitt termed the Nomos of the Earth. A concrete international order centred around Europe and developed on the terms of limiting war, or its ability to develop into wars of annihilation on the basis of managing war on terms of just enemies instead of just wars, between European states while simultaneously constituting specific border lines beyond which the juridical order present in Europe is said to be absent. 18 For Schmitt, every nomos needs an outside, a place beyond certain lines, in which war can be had, but even more so, in which land-appropriation can occur. 19 Nomos is thus the appropriation of its referent object, and its subsequent measure, distribution, and production resulting from the appropriation. This in turn leads to order and orientation and the dialectical emergence of law from them.20 The conditions of order specify the object which such nomothetic order will derive its source and each constitutive nomos operates in a different manner on these processes but always in the same order – appropriation, then distribution, then production. 21 With the 20th century came the primacy of economics over politics in the manifest destiny of liberalism.22 Liberalism, in its deployment towards universalism, however, embodies an internal contradiction and inherent conflict towards any land based order.23 For liberalism in wanting to universalize itself through capitalism necessitates an outside to exploit but cannot have an outside if it wishes to universalize itself in space.24 This is to a great extent what would come to end the utter spatial reference of the international order. This began the end of war and the birth of global policing, but as well with the quick proliferation of the atomic bomb there followed another transformation of the world.25 With the atomic bomb came the end of defense and the beginning of security, it was no longer to defend the wall but to secure the open spaces, the street.26 With a nuclear weapon there is absolute destruction and no possibility for discriminatory conflicts between combatants and civilians – the atomic bomb insured anxiety the formation of the potentiality of everyone as a casualty of war, whereas terrorism provided uncertainty in the actuality/potentiality of the combatants of a war.2728 6Nomos Beyond the Earth __________________________________________________________________ This was the emergence of the age of anxiety, an age of potentiality but not virtuality, and all subjects were potentially victims of the political will of the men at the button, but were not virtually without life because of it. With Nuremberg came one of the most important juridical points, the criminalization of the opponent for the ‘crime against humanity and as well the crime of aggressive war.29 With the UN came the non-proliferation treaties and the global declaration of human rights and the solidification of the problem of humanity.30 In context of the results of Nuremberg and the UN, and the expansion of the economy which at this time could be called denationalized and globalizing came the emergence of nomos beyond the earth in the formalization of the bionomy, the denationalized and globalized administration and regulation of life in its subjectivities as relating to the expanding liberal order and its organizing under institutions of global governance and institution in states and societies per cultural orientation in reference to the ‘greater’ neoliberal usages of democracy and capitalism, which are dealt with coterminous. The bionomy takes/captures humanity. The bionomy is the point of organization of life [as labor, as capital, as commodity, as legitimacy] for a transnational economic, political, and social system of constituent relations which provided the ordering principle between ideo-economically divided countries and functioned in the appropriation of life when land appropriation was criminalized and it transformed into the constitutive lines of international order in the determination, valorization, and codification of the subjectivities, the subjects to which they refer, and the norms and normals by which the subjects are managed, regulated, and potentially intervened on along the lines of a convergent relation among anatamo- and biopolitical reasoning, strategies, and techniques of power.31 In political alignments, the life of said country entered into new global subjectivities which in turn determined the biopolitical apparatuses methods of approaching the strengthening of the bionomy.32 The subjectivity delineations were defined according to their relation to the expanding market system and were treated accordingly in the identification of the subjects, given in series, and the methods of dealing with them according to their often economically determinate value, the citizen is here as much a national phenomenon as an integral function of global governance in terms of humanity.33 To control humanity is to control the ways in which one may distinctly claim inhumanity, and this distinction is the penultimate display of the suspension of life as a legitimate distinction given to the body and its life is instead turned into a valorized object whose very existence becomes a danger to the order constituting it as such. The bionomy demarcates humanity, and in so doing constitutes a concrete order of the world on the basis of the configuration of the capacity of each citizen by the milieu in which they are born into and in which they life is constituted by the necessities of their situation.34 At the most intimate level with the 7 Josh Entsminger __________________________________________________________________ citizen, the bionomy deals specifically with the management and modification of the capacity-milieu of each citizen on the grounds of their constitutive codification by the norms of the systems to which the bionomy is made function. Every society is to a degree bionomic but is not totalized. Biopower is no longer constituted simply on national lines; rather each nation and society is now captured and incorporated into a more global enterprise of valorization and codification, for bio and antamo-politics as conditions of power relations concern not only management and regulation but also the term of intervention and what the intervention requires, which is deployed around regimes of normalization. This regime is produced by the norm constituted on the basis of humanity and the distinction of inhumanity outside of the terms of the abnormal criminal or enemy. The terrorist is not the abnormal; the terrorist is not truly codifiable into the norm beyond its absolute placement of the limits of the abnormal in terms of enemy and criminal. Instead the terrorist is an over-coding of all other subjectivities in its situation as an enemy of humanity. ‘Terrorists are outside the law.’35 Just as well, the denotation of the victim confers an over-coding of other distinctions and gives the imperative for intervention on the grounds of the subjectivities valorization of the bodies to which this life is given. Terrorist and victim reveal the constitutive nature of the international order as posited not only as an abstract order of law and subjectivity but also of the concrete localizations of certain regulation of violent means in terms of who to kill and who to save, as well as the terrorist and victim by their territorial positioning also give tell to the conditions and concrete relations producing them.36 Both terrorist and victim are ciphers for the order deploying it and for the international order legitimating or deeming illegitimate its usage or any interventions done on its behalf. Naming is the true constitutive act of appropriation in the bionomy. 3. Conclusion In return to the initial concern, the life of a citizen does not belong to the citizen alone, but rather is a function of the capacity-milieu which is developed, invested, modified, administrated, and intervened on by merit of the citizen, subject, body’s subjectivity and its subsequent valorization and codification on the terms set by the bionomic norm and its investiture of that subject, notably on the lines of terrorism and victim.37 In order to understand the situation of the citizen one must look to their capacity and the people operating the systems by which that capacity is modified. For as citizens, there must be a conscious apprehension of the powerrelations constituting them and which mediate the ways in which they may constitute themselves; otherwise, the citizen is nothing more than flotsam on the edge of a maelstrom picking up speed. 8Nomos Beyond the Earth __________________________________________________________________ Notes 1 Christian Matheis, On Discourse and Relations: Ambiguities of Relation and the Implication for Methodology and Disciplinarity (Unpublished, December 2011), 23. 2 Ibid 3 Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population (New York: Picador, 2007), 21 4 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: Volume I. (New York: Random House, 1990), 95 5 Ibid 6 Ibid, 139 7 This is to treat an adult different from a child on the basis of the childs production into an adult, or of the criminal being punished. 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 10 Ibid 11 Ibid, 144 12 Death, here, is precisely what biopolitics concerns but not as a specific non-value of life. Rather, death is the point at which power cannot effectuate; a dead body, apart from the symbolic power of death, or other physical tasks, is uninteresting to power-relations. Death is precisely what makes power relevant in terms of the investment and fostering of life. 13 Ibid,135 14 Ibid, 139 ‘…anatomical and biological, individualizing and specifying, directed towards the performances of the body, with attention to the process of life—characterized a power who highest function was perhaps no longer to kill, but to invest life through and through.’ 15 These powers give tell of the productive function of power, or the positive function of power in relation with the negative function of power conferred as repression, violence, torture, and rights to kill. 16 Ibid 17 A population is itself a multiplicity, and the most important multiplicity which asserts the normal and the norms by which anatamo- and bio-politics function is on the terms of population to state, but more so, of multiplicity, individual, or population to humanity. 18 Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth. (New York: Telos Press Publishing, 2003), 33 19 Ibid, 30 20 Ibid, 326 21 Ibid, 351To understand the shift of the nomos, one must look to the etymological formation of nomos as given by Carl Schmitt Nomos is a nomen actionis, an action and process, for the verb nemein. Nemein’s primary meaning is ‘to take,’ ‘to appropriate.’ Its second meaning is teilen, to divide or distribute. Which means nomos is also the action and process of division and distribution. ‘Abstractly speaking, nomos is law and property, or the part of share of the goods. The third meaning is weiden meaning to pasture, to produce, to manage, or to exploit. It is usually associated with the productive work that normally occurs with ownership. 22 Ibid, 258 23 Economics itself takes its power from the meaning of nomos/nomothetic derivative in nomy; where the oikos, the household, becomes the object and material of administration and management in being the eco-nomy or the oeco-nomy. 24 Slavoj Zizek, The Violence of Liberal Democracy (Assemblage, 1993), 92 25 This situation of expanding liberal capitalism in its confrontation with communism was configured in relation to the proliferation of atomic weapons. 26 The atomic bomb consolidated power into a bipolar relation between ideo-economic constituents of the “communistic” USSR backed system and the “liberal capitalist” United States backed system, there was a constituted divide of space but not of land in its relation to life but in life’s ideological construction of the value of space and the spaces delimitation from land 27 The atomic bomb transformed the world into a singular battlefield, a singular politicized space. Atomic weapons negate the function of enmity in war 28 Terrorism permeates a population not only in its effects of anxiety and fear but of the fact that as a terrorism is rhetorically given as capable of being anywhere the notion of biopolitics also gives the notion that such positive interventions of power may in turn be protecting terrorists. 29 Danilo Zolo. Victors' justice: from Nuremberg to Baghdad. (London: Verso, 2009), 46 30 The core referent of the juridical apparatus in terms of war and terror was life itself, it was humanity. War was now no longer a legitimate tool of national politics, but as a tool of multilateral political intervention, it was legitimate. 31 It functioned under political absence and economic presence, where economic configuration marked political alignment 32 Marked especially by demarcation of the criminal and the capitalist as it were for the liberal order, 33 As such the order of the 20th century was not simply a spatial demarcation of east and west but a more diffuse formation of subject-species delineations in an expanding global bionomy in a world of atomic bombs, criminalized war, and the law of humanity 34 The lines of appropriation post world war II do not take their basis in the form of taking of land, but instead the taking and naming of life under the lines of humanity. 35 Carl Schmitt, Theory of the Partisan. (New York: Telos, 2007), xix 36 Yet the existence of the terrorist subjectivity in its diffusion and the legitimacy of intervention and the ability to recognize or not recognize the legitimacy of sovereign authority on basis of terrorist ties or crimes against humanity marks a move from more than a nomos of humanity which exists on the earth, but a nomos beyond the earth where life as a subjectivity itself is no longer legitimate by land but by the abstracted power of waning sovereign states whose existence in space is slowly being eroded by the globalization of the bionomy and denationalization of the economy which both ensue from processes of the state and within the state and have become exteriorized as larger processes. 37 To deal with and understand the limits of actionable capacity one must understand the points at which the citizen’s life is an overcoding function, being as victim or terrorist and how each are inscribed and made into potentialities given to each subject by merit of conditional anticipation of acts and situations to which the subjectivities refer and derive from. Bibliography Carl Schmitt, Matthew Hannah. "Spatiality, sovereignty and Carl Schmitt: geographies of the Nomos.Grobraum versus universalism: The international legal struggle over the Monroe Doctrine." In Spatiality, sovereignty and Carl Schmitt: geographies of the Nomos, by Stephen Legg, 47-53. London: Routledge, 2011. Foucault, Michel. Security, Territory, Population. New York: Picador, 2007. —. Society must be Defended. New York: Picador, 2003. —. The History of Sexuality: Volume I. New York: Random House, 1990. Hussain, Nasser. "Air Power." In Spatiality, sovereignty and Carl Schmitt: geographies of the Nomos, by Stephen Legg. London: Routledge, 2011. Matheis, Christian. ""On Discourse and Relations: Ambiguities of Relation and the Implications for Methodology and Disciplinarity" (unpublished manuscript, December, 2011)." Microsoft Word file, n.d. Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005. —. The Nomos of the Earth. New York: Telos Press Publishing, 2003. —. Theory of the Partisan. New York: Telos, 2007. Vaughan-Williams, Nick. "The border." In Spatiality, sovereignty and Carl Schmitt: geographies of the Nomos, by Stephen Legg, 284-290. London: Routledge, 2011. Zarmanian, Thalin. "Ordnung und Otrung/ order and localization." In Spatiality, sovereignty and Carl Schmitt: geographies of the Nomos, by Stephen Legg, 291-297. London: Routledge, 2011. Zizek, Slavoj. "The Violence of Liberal Democracy." Assemblage, 1993: 92-93. Zolo, Danilo. Victors' justice: from Nuremberg to Baghdad. London: Verso, 2009. Josh Entsminger is a Student at Virginia Polytechnic and State University.