RATIONALITY AND SOCIAL IMAGINARY
IN THE DISCOURSE OF ORDER
Enrique E. Mari (1993)
Summary:
THE DEVICE OF POWER: DISCOURSE OF ORDER AND SOCIAL IMAGINARY
In our society, the distribution of power and its correlation with unequal hierarchies have been accompanied by mechanisms of
legitimation and complex rituals. A discourse of order is constructed that presents social outcomes as natural or divine, jus tifying
a necessary order "for the benefit of the world", although in reality it benefits privileged groups such as clans, tribes, victorious
peoples, communities, or privileged classes.
This discourse is inserted into practices such as ceremonies, hymns, distribution of ranks and prestige, funerary symbols and rituals
that connect the human being with the solemnity of the word, manipulating and consolidating power. The "discourse of order "
and the "social imaginary" come together in the "device of power", showing the complexity of the phenomenon of power, analyse d
from a classical perspective linked to sovereignty.
Thomas Hobbes developed the model of absolute power in his work "Leviathan", where the sovereign, through the social pact,
obtains an incontestable power to guarantee security and order, regulating laws and rights without being subject to the same
conventions as individuals. According to Hobbes, "sovereignty is an artificial soul that gives life and motion to the body." The
sovereign is the lawgiver, controls doctrines and opinions, and doles out rewards and punishments, exercising his authority without
question.
In the light of this unfairness, we understand the legal and political dilemma that arose a century after Hobbes, when in 179 3 the
National Convention had to judge the last king of the Ancient Regime, Louis XVI. His defender, Malesherbes, argued that, in order
to try Louis XVI, there had to be a prior applicable law, which did not exist. Saint-Just, on the other hand, maintained that the king
should be judged not as a citizen, but as an enemy, since his only fault was that he had been king.
Robespierre added that the trial was not an ordinary criminal process, but a public health measure: Louis had to die in order for
the homeland to live. This debate underlines the injustice of sovereign power and its emanation from law, emphasizing that the
sovereign acts outside the common law.
Hobbes addresses this question in "De Cive" and "Leviathan," where he argues that conventions without force are just empty
words. Force is the origin of republics, whether by conquest or by institution, where men submit to the sovereign out of fear. Force
is the constitutive element of power, but it needs to be articulated with the discourse of order and the social imaginary in order to
become effective power.
The discourse of order and the social imaginary reproduce force, transforming it into constant and socially transmissible power,
ensuring the cohesion of the group or society. This transformation makes power operational, maintaining its presence and effects
even in the absence of physical force.
Force, discourse of order and social imaginary vary in the way they are articulated, interacted, and grouped within the apparatus
of power, according to historical changes and economic, political, and ideological conjunctures. These relationships and
combinations depend on two main factors.
First, within the device, the discourse of order and the social imaginary are heterogeneous and fulfill distinct functions. The
discourse of order is the locus of reason, belonging to the theoretical and rational realm, handled by jurists, political and religious
philosophers. This discourse legitimizes power through legal norms that communicate and exercise force as coercion and social
control. The law, as a formal expression of force, generates the ideological operations that justify power.
Second, the social imaginary, through its ability to influence and shape the perception of social reality, transforms force i nto
effective and constant power. Force becomes power when it is integrated and articulated with the discourse of order and the s ocial
imaginary, thus ensuring the cohesion and continuity of the group or society.
In short, power is maintained and reproduced not only through force, but also through articulation with rational discourses a nd
social representations that legitimize and perpetuate its domination.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, The apparatus of power requires that the force and discourse of order be embedded in a structure that mobilizes extraordinar y
discourses. In the social imaginary, the natural terrain of theoretical and practical ideologies, it operates to unify effective symbols
adapted to social circumstances. This allows the institutions of power, such as the legal order, morality, and religion, to be
internalized in human subjectivity, orienting both the conscious and the unconscious towards a common purpose.
Beyond reason, the social imaginary appeals to emotions, wills, and desires, functioning in a heterogeneous and pragmatic way in
the social sphere. This space is filled with religious and profane rituals, symbols of power and discipline, and norms that regulate
and promote aggressive and submissive behaviors. These forms of desire knotted in power have a dogmatic function, controlling
the discipline of men and facilitating obedience through the art of power and juridical doctrine.
Prison administrators are well aware that ancient strategies of manipulating obedience to power through the social imaginar y
were present since the first Protestant models, such as the Rasphuis of Amsterdam, established in 1696. This system, which
dispensed with traditional physical methods such as galleys or mines, focused on interdictions populated by spiritual exhortations,
edifying readings, and meticulous time management. Its aim was to draw to moral good and to ward off evil by confronting the
individual with his own soul.
Instead of direct physical punishments, symbolic penal representations were employed that impacted all the senses and aroused
deep and honest affections. This facilitated the internalization of legal and moral norms through sets, posters, marches, and optical
effects that organized emotions and senses according to the dogmatic schemes of repetition. This symbolic framework did not
seek to establish a univocal correspondence between the components of the social imaginary and the legal order, but rather to
configure an expression of high rationality within the apparatus of power.
This approach is revealed to be crucial for the psychological reproduction of the economic infrastructure of a social formation. In
this ideological device, the function of the imaginary is to sculpt and mold attitudes toward the law, comparable to the spi ritual
exercises proposed by figures such as Ignatius of Loyola. It is a tangible and desirable game of the law that, through the fi gure of
penance and the acknowledgment of guilt, transforms the relationship of the individual with power from a simple repentance to
a total acceptance and adaptation to the imposed norms and values.
Thus, the methods used in places such as the Rasphuis in Amsterdam and other later models, such as the Walnut Street Jail,
opened in 1790, stand out for their flexibility and effectiveness in the moral and social re-education of prisoners. They use the
imaginary not only as a tool of control, but as a means for inner reform and the reaffirmation of the power structure through
discipline, penance, and moral acceptance.
In the context of the social imaginary, a practice that resembles the Aristotelian and Marxist category of praxis, focused on the
creation of connections between codes and the world, is observed. This praxis activates phantasms and human subjectivity with in
the social realm. The term "ghost" does not simply refer to products of an uncontrolled or traditional imagination but takes on the
Freudian sense of representing unconscious desires and conflicts.
In the social imaginary, the connection between desire and power is realized. Freud and his psychoanalytic theory have provid ed
significant insights into the phantasmatic life of the subject and its relatively structured organization. Works such as "The
Interpretation of Dreams" and "Formulations on the Two Principles of Psychic Functioning" are fundamental contributions to
understanding the various modalities of the psychoanalytic concept of the phantasm in psychic reality.
This connection between power and desire has also been addressed by political-legal theory, where figures such as Hobbes, in his
work "Leviathan", translate this psychic dynamic as a social need. Hobbes emphasizes the reciprocal influence between the social
and the psychic, arguing that man cannot live without desire, since power is the main object of this desire. This descending link
between power and desire, rooted in social conditions of possibility, ensures the reproduction of power through the imaginar y.
This articulation between desire and power, the subordination of power to desire in God to seek the impossible on earth, is a path
that explains why political and real power historically and habitually resorts to divine references or their secular substitu tes to
legitimize and guarantee itself. This domain of social power is a broad field explored by political and legal theory, concern ed with
constructing effective theoretical frameworks for how divine and secular institutions operate in society.
In short, the social imaginary is not only a sacred and profane aura of the law, but also the place where its ultimate references and
foundations are found.
Ideologies, both theoretically and practically, influence the legitimacy and stability of power in our society. In periods of calm and
social stability, these ideologies function almost invisibly, integrating naturally into our social environment and helping to maintain
2
Made by MatyBuda
IN THE DISCOURSE OF ORDER
Enrique E. Mari (1993)
Summary:
THE DEVICE OF POWER: DISCOURSE OF ORDER AND SOCIAL IMAGINARY
In our society, the distribution of power and its correlation with unequal hierarchies have been accompanied by mechanisms of
legitimation and complex rituals. A discourse of order is constructed that presents social outcomes as natural or divine, jus tifying
a necessary order "for the benefit of the world", although in reality it benefits privileged groups such as clans, tribes, victorious
peoples, communities, or privileged classes.
This discourse is inserted into practices such as ceremonies, hymns, distribution of ranks and prestige, funerary symbols and rituals
that connect the human being with the solemnity of the word, manipulating and consolidating power. The "discourse of order "
and the "social imaginary" come together in the "device of power", showing the complexity of the phenomenon of power, analyse d
from a classical perspective linked to sovereignty.
Thomas Hobbes developed the model of absolute power in his work "Leviathan", where the sovereign, through the social pact,
obtains an incontestable power to guarantee security and order, regulating laws and rights without being subject to the same
conventions as individuals. According to Hobbes, "sovereignty is an artificial soul that gives life and motion to the body." The
sovereign is the lawgiver, controls doctrines and opinions, and doles out rewards and punishments, exercising his authority without
question.
In the light of this unfairness, we understand the legal and political dilemma that arose a century after Hobbes, when in 179 3 the
National Convention had to judge the last king of the Ancient Regime, Louis XVI. His defender, Malesherbes, argued that, in order
to try Louis XVI, there had to be a prior applicable law, which did not exist. Saint-Just, on the other hand, maintained that the king
should be judged not as a citizen, but as an enemy, since his only fault was that he had been king.
Robespierre added that the trial was not an ordinary criminal process, but a public health measure: Louis had to die in order for
the homeland to live. This debate underlines the injustice of sovereign power and its emanation from law, emphasizing that the
sovereign acts outside the common law.
Hobbes addresses this question in "De Cive" and "Leviathan," where he argues that conventions without force are just empty
words. Force is the origin of republics, whether by conquest or by institution, where men submit to the sovereign out of fear. Force
is the constitutive element of power, but it needs to be articulated with the discourse of order and the social imaginary in order to
become effective power.
The discourse of order and the social imaginary reproduce force, transforming it into constant and socially transmissible power,
ensuring the cohesion of the group or society. This transformation makes power operational, maintaining its presence and effects
even in the absence of physical force.
Force, discourse of order and social imaginary vary in the way they are articulated, interacted, and grouped within the apparatus
of power, according to historical changes and economic, political, and ideological conjunctures. These relationships and
combinations depend on two main factors.
First, within the device, the discourse of order and the social imaginary are heterogeneous and fulfill distinct functions. The
discourse of order is the locus of reason, belonging to the theoretical and rational realm, handled by jurists, political and religious
philosophers. This discourse legitimizes power through legal norms that communicate and exercise force as coercion and social
control. The law, as a formal expression of force, generates the ideological operations that justify power.
Second, the social imaginary, through its ability to influence and shape the perception of social reality, transforms force i nto
effective and constant power. Force becomes power when it is integrated and articulated with the discourse of order and the s ocial
imaginary, thus ensuring the cohesion and continuity of the group or society.
In short, power is maintained and reproduced not only through force, but also through articulation with rational discourses a nd
social representations that legitimize and perpetuate its domination.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, The apparatus of power requires that the force and discourse of order be embedded in a structure that mobilizes extraordinar y
discourses. In the social imaginary, the natural terrain of theoretical and practical ideologies, it operates to unify effective symbols
adapted to social circumstances. This allows the institutions of power, such as the legal order, morality, and religion, to be
internalized in human subjectivity, orienting both the conscious and the unconscious towards a common purpose.
Beyond reason, the social imaginary appeals to emotions, wills, and desires, functioning in a heterogeneous and pragmatic way in
the social sphere. This space is filled with religious and profane rituals, symbols of power and discipline, and norms that regulate
and promote aggressive and submissive behaviors. These forms of desire knotted in power have a dogmatic function, controlling
the discipline of men and facilitating obedience through the art of power and juridical doctrine.
Prison administrators are well aware that ancient strategies of manipulating obedience to power through the social imaginar y
were present since the first Protestant models, such as the Rasphuis of Amsterdam, established in 1696. This system, which
dispensed with traditional physical methods such as galleys or mines, focused on interdictions populated by spiritual exhortations,
edifying readings, and meticulous time management. Its aim was to draw to moral good and to ward off evil by confronting the
individual with his own soul.
Instead of direct physical punishments, symbolic penal representations were employed that impacted all the senses and aroused
deep and honest affections. This facilitated the internalization of legal and moral norms through sets, posters, marches, and optical
effects that organized emotions and senses according to the dogmatic schemes of repetition. This symbolic framework did not
seek to establish a univocal correspondence between the components of the social imaginary and the legal order, but rather to
configure an expression of high rationality within the apparatus of power.
This approach is revealed to be crucial for the psychological reproduction of the economic infrastructure of a social formation. In
this ideological device, the function of the imaginary is to sculpt and mold attitudes toward the law, comparable to the spi ritual
exercises proposed by figures such as Ignatius of Loyola. It is a tangible and desirable game of the law that, through the fi gure of
penance and the acknowledgment of guilt, transforms the relationship of the individual with power from a simple repentance to
a total acceptance and adaptation to the imposed norms and values.
Thus, the methods used in places such as the Rasphuis in Amsterdam and other later models, such as the Walnut Street Jail,
opened in 1790, stand out for their flexibility and effectiveness in the moral and social re-education of prisoners. They use the
imaginary not only as a tool of control, but as a means for inner reform and the reaffirmation of the power structure through
discipline, penance, and moral acceptance.
In the context of the social imaginary, a practice that resembles the Aristotelian and Marxist category of praxis, focused on the
creation of connections between codes and the world, is observed. This praxis activates phantasms and human subjectivity with in
the social realm. The term "ghost" does not simply refer to products of an uncontrolled or traditional imagination but takes on the
Freudian sense of representing unconscious desires and conflicts.
In the social imaginary, the connection between desire and power is realized. Freud and his psychoanalytic theory have provid ed
significant insights into the phantasmatic life of the subject and its relatively structured organization. Works such as "The
Interpretation of Dreams" and "Formulations on the Two Principles of Psychic Functioning" are fundamental contributions to
understanding the various modalities of the psychoanalytic concept of the phantasm in psychic reality.
This connection between power and desire has also been addressed by political-legal theory, where figures such as Hobbes, in his
work "Leviathan", translate this psychic dynamic as a social need. Hobbes emphasizes the reciprocal influence between the social
and the psychic, arguing that man cannot live without desire, since power is the main object of this desire. This descending link
between power and desire, rooted in social conditions of possibility, ensures the reproduction of power through the imaginar y.
This articulation between desire and power, the subordination of power to desire in God to seek the impossible on earth, is a path
that explains why political and real power historically and habitually resorts to divine references or their secular substitu tes to
legitimize and guarantee itself. This domain of social power is a broad field explored by political and legal theory, concern ed with
constructing effective theoretical frameworks for how divine and secular institutions operate in society.
In short, the social imaginary is not only a sacred and profane aura of the law, but also the place where its ultimate references and
foundations are found.
Ideologies, both theoretically and practically, influence the legitimacy and stability of power in our society. In periods of calm and
social stability, these ideologies function almost invisibly, integrating naturally into our social environment and helping to maintain
2
Made by MatyBuda
