Advertisement

Continental Philosophy Review

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 323–343 | Cite as

Collective self-legislation as an Actus Impurus: a response to Heidegger’s critique of European nihilism

  • Hans Lindahl
Article

Abstract

Heidegger’s critique of European nihilism seeks to expose self-legislation as the governing principle of central manifestations of modernity such as science, technology, and the interpretation of art as aesthetics. Need we accept the conclusion that modern constitutional democracies are intrinsically nihilistic, insofar as they give political and legal form to the principle of collective self-legislation? An answer to this question turns on the concept of power implied in constituent and constituted power. A confrontation of the genealogies of modern subjectivity proposed by Heidegger and Blumenberg suggests that there is indeed a metaphysical core to the concept of constituent power developed by various political theorists, including Schmitt and Habermas. By contrast, closer consideration of the paradoxical relation between constituent and constituted power illuminates the ambiguity of collective self-legislation, which means both enactment of a legal order by a collective self and the enactment of a collective self by a legal order. To the extent that constitutional democracies are a way of preserving rather than dissolving this ambiguity, they imply an interpretation of power and human finitude that parries the charge of nihilism.

Keywords

Nihilism Political theology Collective self-legislation Constituent and constituted power 

References

  1. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. 1973. The origin of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, Hannah. 1990. Philosophy and politics. Social Research 57: 73–103.Google Scholar
  4. Arendt, Hannah. 1994. Essays in understanding. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  5. Arendt, Hannah. 2003. Responsibility and judgment. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  6. Blumenberg, Hans. 1983. Self-preservation and inertia: On the constitution of modern rationality. In Contemporary German philosophy, vol. 2, ed. D.E. Christensen, 209–256. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blumenberg, Hans. 1986. The legitimacy of the Modern Age. (trans: Robert M. Wallace). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Habermas, Jürgen. 1975. Legitimation crisis. (trans: Thomas McCarthy). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, Jürgen. 1997. Kant’s idea of perpetual peace with the benefit of two hundred years’ hindsight. In Perpetual peace: Essays on Kant’s cosmopolitan ideal, ed. J. Bohmann and M. Lutz-Bachmann, 113–154. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Heidegger, Martin. 1961. Nietzsche. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
  11. Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and time. (trans: John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Heidegger, Martin. 1982. Nihilism: Nietzsche, vol. IV. (trans: Joan Stambaugh, David Farrel Krell, and Frank Capuzzi). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  13. Heidegger, Martin. 1985. Nietzsche: Der Wille zur Macht als Kunst. Gesamtausgabe, vol. 43. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  14. Heidegger, Martin. 1989. Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis). Gesamtausgabe, vol. 65. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  15. Heidegger, Martin. 2002. Off the beaten path. (trans: Julian Young). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hobbes, Thomas. 1991. Man and citizen. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. Husserl, Edmund. 1973. Experience and judgment. (trans: James S. Churchill and Karl Ameriks). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kant, Immanuel. 1976. What is orientation in thinking? In Critique of practical reason and other writings in moral philosophy, ed. Lewis White Beck, 293–305. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. (trans: H.J. Paton). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kelsen, Hans. 1981. Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie. Aalen: Scientia Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Lefort, Claude. 1988. Democracy and political theory. (trans: David Macey). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lindahl, Hans. 2007. Constituent power and reflexive identity: Towards an ontology of collective selfhood. In The paradox of constituent power: Constituent power and constitutional form, ed. Martin Loughlin and Neil Walker, 9–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1990. Twilight of the idols and the anti-christ. (trans: R.J. Hollingdale). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Pettit, Philip. 2001. A theory of freedom. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  25. Schmitt, Carl. 1985. Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. (trans: George Schwab). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schmitt, Carl. 1985. The crisis of parliamentary democracy. (trans: Ellen Kennedy). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schmitt, Carl. 1993. Verfassungslehre. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  28. Van Roermund, Bert. 1997. Law, narrative and reality: An essay in intercepting politics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Van Roermund, Bert. 2003. First-person plural legislature: Political reflexivity and representation. Philosophical Explorations 6: 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waldenfels, Bernhard. 2006a. Inside and outside the order: Legal orders in the perspective of a phenomenology of the alien. Ethical Perspectives 3: 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waldenfels, Bernhard. 2006b. Schattenrisse der Moral. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations