Empire (55 page)

that the actions ofindividual heroes (in the style ofPlutarch’s heroes)

were no longer able even to touch the new sovereignty ofthe

principality. A new type ofresistance would have to be found that

would be adequate to the new dimensions ofsovereignty. Today,

too, we can see that the traditional forms of resistance, such as

the institutional workers’ organizations that developed through the

major part ofthe nineteenth and twentieth centuries, have begun

to lose their power. Once again a new type ofresistance has to

be invented.

Finally, the decline ofthe traditional spheres ofpolitics and

resistance is complemented by the transformation of the democratic

state such that its functions have been integrated into mechanisms

ofcommand on the global level ofthe transnational corporations.

The national democratic model ofstate-managed exploitation func-

tioned in the dominant capitalist countries so long as it was able

to regulate the growing conflictuality in a dynamic fashion—so

long, in other words, as it was able to keep alive the potential of

the development and the utopia ofstate planning, so long, above

all, as the class struggle in the individual countries determined a

sort ofdualism ofpower over which the unitary state structures

could situate themselves. To the extent that these conditions have

disappeared, in both real and ideological terms, the national demo-

cratic capitalist state has self-destructed. The unity of single govern-

ments has been disarticulated and invested in a series ofseparate

bodies (banks, international organisms ofplanning, and so forth, in

addition to the traditional separate bodies), which all increasingly

refer for legitimacy to the transnational level of power.

The recognition ofthe rise ofthe transnational corporations

above and beyond the constitutional command ofthe nation-states

M I X E D C O N S T I T U T I O N

309

should not, however, lead us to think that constitutional mechanisms

and controls as such have declined, that transnational corporations,

relatively free of nation-states, tend to compete freely and manage

themselves. Instead, the constitutional functions have been displaced

to another level. Once we recognize the decline ofthe traditional

national constitutional system, we have to explore how power is

constitutionalized on a supranational level—in other words, how

the constitution ofEmpire begins to form.

ThePyramid of Global Constitution

At first glance and on a level ofpurely empirical observation, the

new world constitutional framework appears as a disorderly and

even chaotic set ofcontrols and representative organizations. These

global constitutional elements are distributed in a wide spectrum

ofbodies (in nation-states, in associations ofnation-states, and in

international organizations ofall kinds); they are divided by function

and content (such as political, monetary, health, and educational

organisms); and they are traversed by a variety ofproductive activi-

ties. Ifwe look closely, however, this disorderly set does nonetheless

contain some points ofreference. More than ordering elements,

these are rather matrixes that delimit relatively coherent horizons

in the disorder ofglobal juridical and political life. When we analyze

the configurations ofglobal power in its various bodies and organiza-

tions, we can recognize a pyramidal structure that is composed of

three progressively broader tiers, each ofwhich contains several

levels.

At the narrow pinnacle ofthe pyramid there is one superpower,

the United States, that holds hegemony over the global use of

force—a superpower that can act alone but prefers to act in collabo-

ration with others under the umbrella ofthe United Nations. This

singular status was posed definitively with the end ofthe cold war

and first confirmed in the GulfWar. On a second level, still within

this first tier, as the pyramid broadens slightly, a group ofnation-

states control the primary global monetary instruments and thus

have the ability to regulate international exchanges. These nation-

states are bound together in a series oforganisms—the G7, the

310

P A S S A G E S O F P R O D U C T I O N

Paris and London Clubs, Davos, and so forth. Finally, on a third

level ofthis first tier a heterogeneous set ofassociations (including

more or less the same powers that exercise hegemony on the military

and monetary levels) deploy cultural and biopolitical power on a

global level.

Below the first and highest tier ofunified global command

there is a second tier in which command is distributed broadly across

the world, emphasizing not so much unification as articulation.

This tier is structured primarily by the networks that transnational

capitalist corporations have extended throughout the world mar-

ket—networks ofcapital flows, technology flows, population flows,

and the like. These productive organizations that form and supply

the markets extend transversally under the umbrella and guarantee

ofthe central power that constitutes the first tier ofglobal power.

Ifwe were to take up the old Enlightenment notion ofthe construc-

tion of the senses by passing a rose in front of the face of the statue,

we could say that the transnational corporations bring the rigid

structure of the central power to life. In effect, through the global

distribution ofcapitals, technologies, goods, and populations, the

transnational corporations construct vast networks ofcommunica-

tion and provide the satisfaction of needs. The single and univocal

pinnacle ofworld command is thus articulated by the transnational

corporations and the organization ofmarkets. The world market

both homogenizes and differentiates territories, rewriting the geog-

raphy ofthe globe. Still on the second tier, on a level that is often

subordinated to the power ofthe transnational corporations, reside

the general set ofsovereign nation-states that now consist essentially

in local, territorialized organizations. The nation-states serve various

functions: political mediation with respect to the global hegemonic

powers, bargaining with respect to the transnational corporations,

and redistribution ofincome according to biopolitical needs within

their own limited territories. Nation-states are filters ofthe flow

ofglobal circulation and regulators ofthe articulation ofglobal

command; in other words, they capture and distribute the flows of

wealth to and from the global power, and they discipline their own

populations as much as this is still possible.

M I X E D C O N S T I T U T I O N

311

The third and broadest tier ofthe pyramid, finally, consists of

groups that represent popular interests in the global power arrange-

ment. The multitude cannot be incorporated directly into the struc-

tures ofglobal power but must be filtered through mechanisms of

representation. Which groups and organizations fulfill the contesta-

tory and/or legitimating function of popular representation in the

global power structures? Who represents the People in the global

constitution? Or, more important, what forces and processes trans-

form the multitude into a People that can then be represented in

the global constitution? In many instances nation-states are cast in

this role, particularly the collective ofsubordinated or minor states.

Within the United Nations General Assembly, for example, collec-

tions ofsubordinate nation-states, the majority numerically but the

minority in terms ofpower, function as an at least symbolic con-

straint on and legitimation ofthe major powers. In this sense the

entire world is conceived as being represented on the floor ofthe

U.N. General Assembly and in other global forums. Here, since

the nation-states themselves are presented (both in the more or less

democratic countries and in the authoritarian regimes) as represent-

ing the will oftheir People, the representation ofnation-states on

a global scale can only lay claim to the popular will at two removes,

through two levels ofrepresentation: the nation-state representing

the People representing the multitude.

Nation-states, however, are certainly not the only organiza-

tions that construct and represent the People in the new global

arrangement. Also on this third tier ofthe pyramid, the global

People is represented more clearly and directly not by governmental

bodies but by a variety oforganizations that are at least relatively

independent ofnation-states and capital. These organizations are

often understood as functioning as the structures of a global civil

society, channeling the needs and desires ofthe multitude into

forms that can be represented within the functioning of the global

power structures. In this new global form we can still recognize

instances ofthe traditional components ofcivil society, such as the

media and religious institutions. The media have long positioned

themselves as the voice or even the conscience ofthe People in

312

P A S S A G E S O F P R O D U C T I O N

opposition to the power ofstates and the private interests ofcapital.

They are cast as a further check and balance on governmental

action, providing an objective and independent view ofall the

People want or need to know. It has long been clear, however,

that the media are in fact often not very independent from capital

on the one hand and states on the other.7 Religious organizations are

an even more long-standing sector ofnon-governmental institutions

that represent the People. The rise ofreligious fundamentalisms

(both Islamic and Christian) insofar as they represent the People

against the state should perhaps be understood as components of

this new global civil society—but when such religious organizations

stand against the state, they often tend to become the state them-

selves.

The newest and perhaps most important forces in the global

civil society go under the name ofnon-governmental organizations

(NGOs). The term NGO has not been given a very rigorous

definition, but we would define it as any organization that purports

to represent the People and operate in its interest, separate from

(and often against) the structures of the state. Many in fact regard

NGOs as synonymous with ‘‘people’s organizations’’ because the

People’s interest is defined in distinction from state interest.8 These

organizations operate at local, national, and supranational levels. The

term NGO thus groups together an enormous and heterogeneous set

oforganizations: in the early 1990s there were reported to be

more than eighteen thousand NGOs worldwide. Some ofthese

organizations fulfill something like the traditional syndicalist func-

tion oftrade unions (such as the Self-Employed Women’s Associa-

tion ofAhmedabad, India); others continue the missionary vocation

ofreligious sects (such as Catholic ReliefServices); and still others

seek to represent populations that are not represented by nation-

states (such as the World Council ofIndigenous Peoples). It would

be futile to try to characterize the functioning of this vast and

heterogeneous set oforganizations under one single definition.9

Some critics assert that NGOs, since they are outside and often

in conflict with state power, are compatible with and serve the

M I X E D C O N S T I T U T I O N

313

neoliberal project ofglobal capital. While global capital attacks the

powers ofthe nation-state f

rom above, they argue, the NGOs

function as a ‘‘parallel strategy ‘from below’ ’ and present the ‘‘com-

munity face’’ of neoliberalism.10 It may indeed be true that the

activities ofmany NGOs serve to further the neoliberal project of

global capital, but we should be careful to point out that this cannot

adequately define the activities ofall NGOs categorically. The fact

ofbeing non-governmental or even opposed to the powers of

nation-states does not in itselfline these organizations up with the

interests ofcapital. There are many ways to be outside and opposed

to the state, ofwhich the neoliberal project is only one.

For our argument, and in the context ofEmpire, we are most

interested in a subset ofNGOs that strive to represent the least

among us, those who cannot represent themselves. These NGOs,

which are sometimes characterized broadly as humanitarian organi-

zations, are in fact the ones that have come to be among the most

powerful and prominent in the contemporary global order. Their

mandate is not really to further the particular interests of any limited

group but rather to represent directly global and universal human

interests. Human rights organizations (such as Amnesty International

and Americas Watch), peace groups (such as Witness ofPeace and

Shanti Sena), and the medical and famine relief agencies (such as

Oxfam and Me´decins sans frontières) all defend human life against

torture, starvation, massacre, imprisonment, and political assassina-