'Sovereignty and the Persistence of the Aesthetic' by Illan Wall and Daniel Matthews in (2024) Modern Law Review comments
British constitutional thought tends to understand sovereignty in legalistic terms, with the concept often equated with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. In the absence of a developed theory of popular sovereignty, sovereignty has become largely synonymous with this rule concerning the legislative competence of parliament. As Loughlin and Tierney have recently argued, this approach obscures the political dimensions of sovereignty which undergird the legal precept. They describe sovereignty as taking shape through the ongoing articulation of both legal and political relations. As Loughlin has argued elsewhere, sovereignty is best understood as having the form of a ‘double helix’ with the legal and the political running as anti-parallel strands. This article seeks to supplement this approach, arguing that instead of a doubled relation between law and politics, we should instead conceptualise a threefold process in which the legal, the political and the aesthetic are the essential elements which constitute sovereign forms.
The article has two aims. The first is to retrieve, and give prominence to, the aesthetic dimensions of sovereignty within the history of political modernity. In the next section, we introduce the nature of aesthetics – as both a matter of appearances and perceptions – and indicate some of the reasons why this aspect of civil order has often been elided. Following this (in the third section) we engage with some well-known articulations of sovereignty − from the Hobbesian imaging of sovereignty, to early-modern efforts to map sovereign territory; from Rousseau's evocation of national sentiment, to Burke's description of how ‘dignity’ and ‘majesty’ are essential to the claim to sovereignty − before we conclude by examining the habituated feelings and instincts which Bentham understood to be central to the reproduction of sovereign relations. Our reading of this history draws out how the aesthetic persists across these varied approaches, but also aims to give a sense of the diversity of functions the aesthetic fulfils vis-à-vis sovereignty. Our account is obviously incomplete, both in terms of personnel and the range of aesthetic qualities it surveys; we tend to emphasise, for instance, the visual and affective qualities more than the sonic or haptic dimensions of sense perception. Nonetheless, our aim is to give priority to the aesthetic within the tradition of writing on sovereignty, in contrast to dominant approaches within constitutional thought which have either ignored, downplayed or obscured these concerns.
Our second aim is more speculative. Whilst our reading of the history of political modernity suggests an important corrective, which draws out often underappreciated themes, it tells us nothing of how the aesthetic should be included in a theory of sovereignty. In a final, shorter, fourth section of the article we consider the different ways in which the aesthetic might be incorporated into constitutional theory, identifying three theses on the aesthetics of sovereignty: a totalisation thesis; an inadvertent or ‘weak’ inclusion; and finally, a ‘strong’ inclusion of the aesthetic, which we ultimately endorse. We conclude by suggesting that Loughlin's account of the double helix structure of sovereignty might be amended, contending that sovereignty takes the form of a triple helix in which law, politics and aesthetics are the strands which constitute the basic structure of the concept. Our aim here is speculative in that our approach opens the theorisation of sovereignty to new terrain, by insisting that the concept – particularly in the context of legal studies – needs to embrace not simply political but a range of aesthetic qualities and concerns if its meaning, implications and enduring importance are to be fully appreciated.
