I'm thinking about doing my PhD on understanding sovereignty within Western Thought, something that is closely tied in with both history and philosophy and, as such, I'm currently working on my thesis proposal. My main assumption is that 'History is to States what Character is to Human Beings.' As such, here is my question:
Do you think there is an 'in-between' between essentialism and social constructivism? If one is to make the case for a continuity in western civilization (a result of historical continuity on the notion of Western Sovereignty), does this inherently assume essentialism, or can you assume an essence of something socially constructed?
I know this is a huge debate in other academic fields (modernism vs post-modernism), but I am really curious as to hear your thoughts.
Thank you!
Hi there, I approved this comment but it appears that you're shadowbanned on the site -- you might want to contact the Reddit admins about that. Thanks!
Sovereignty is something I've given some serious thought over the years. First, could you define this continuity? Frankly, I'm not sure I see a continuity in conceptions of sovereignty in the West from a legal-theoretical standpoint. I actually think that you see a significant break with the end of the Middle Ages.