“How could the power of public representation and misrepresentation shape the institutional forms differently than they are shaped now? ” is the question posed by Sedgwick and the one I will address in this essay. According to the paragraph under analysis, the power of popular imagination plays a crucial role in creating new institutional forms.
In the paragraph under consideration, the author refers to such concepts as direct action, self-reliance, readiness to act, and public opinion. The opposite values are ambiguity, pride, passive orientation, and ambivalence. According to Kant’s theory, the conditions of possibility are important for understanding the underlying processes and the inner working of the concepts. To provide an outlook on these conditions of the above-discussed concepts, it should be stressed that the formal power is often reluctant to introduce changes that would contradict their interests. To meet the demands of the masses, the government starts inventing new laws (by using the power of imagination) for people to have a feeling of control. In such a way, there is a certain asymmetry because the introduced laws do not apply to the government. The symmetry, however, is formed between authoritarian and anarchist power.
The author’s argument is represented through power relations, which means that all concepts are revealed by chance, through a logical sequence of ideas, definitions, and objects. In particular, the powerful concept is equated with other introduced concepts, including “power of imagination”, “power of definition”, etc. Importantly, addressing different concepts, the author does not personify powers but associates them with abstract notions, which is congruent with Foucault’s model of power.
Regarding the author’s argument, revolution is a powerful means for introducing constituent changes. There is a contradiction between the narrative frameworks introduced by power coalitions and the direct actions introduced by forces of order. Going beyond those frameworks reveals moral and ethical misconceptions. The government controlling people stays within the established power of imagination whereas people outside it attempt to fight social injustice.
The continuous struggle between the courts of public opinion (representing the anarchy) and the courts of law is unavoidable and essential to understanding how the institutional forms are shaped. According to Sedgwick’s theory, the pubic subconsciousness is insignificant for defining the direction and outcomes of this struggle. On the other hand, De Silva pointed out the importance of different social, cultural, and historical contexts affecting the given sources of authority. Therefore, any institutional form undergoes the influence of the power of public imagination and the socio-historical context. The moral-political struggle between a public opinion and the authorities is the condition of the possibility of the concepts of constituent power and institutional forms. Some complex aspects, underlying processes, and two-dimension relations need to be taken into account for addressing the question of how the public presentation and misrepresentation can affect the formation of institutional forms and what changes in these influential factors can lead to the changes in the constituent power and existing order.
While presenting narrative frameworks within which the authoritarian power governs, it is impossible to foresee the reactions of the anarchy to these powers, although the power of imagination has already been established. At the same time, anarchists cannot replace the power because their frameworks and outlooks significantly differ from the constituent power.