Sovereignty

by Rev Alberta

Sovereignty is something that is supposed to represent the inherent rights of  self-governance. A concept which has been subject to change long before we gave it name and tried to define it. That very change is founded on the influence we have had on the concept, pushing in both negative and positive directions. While standing at the core of other concepts like freedom, culture, and politics, sovereignty gains this agency which ultimately makes it such a malleable term and subject to influence. Considering its evolution across the past, present, and future sovereignty can be examined across these layers, revealing its core values while exposing the parts of sovereignty which have been manipulated to support alternative motives.

Origin of Sovereignty

Sovereignty existed prior to when we captured it within a concept or defined it as a word. Before we claimed sovereignty there was an idea of the right to self-govern, each person was free and able to exist under their rule and they were entitled to that. Then came the development of culture, not exactly restricting our freedoms but placing concepts like social normalities over it and limiting what we could and could not do. Following that came cultures that were separate from each other, each characteristic of unique rules that existed amongst their people that guided and governed their behavior to some degree. Each of these cultures have an inherent right to exist, have a right to act, and have a right to express themselves however they feel appropriate. Regardless of culture people have the right and ability to do whatever they want, yet it is still always restricted by some higher power whether it be something like religion, culture, or simply power. All of this isn’t necessarily true but it gets to the point reflecting that there is a universal right to exist amongst all people, and it varies from the individual to a whole culture. This universal law was compromised by the colonizer and likely many other people before, but never to the degree of the colonizer. It wasn’t until colonizers took this sovereign right of freedom and used it to justify their actions against native peoples that sovereignty was truly manipulated.

Starting with how the colonizer used sovereign rights as a fuel towards the imperialistic conquest of the world is the best way to understand how exactly sovereign rights were misused. One thing most people can agree on is that sovereignty in all fields is representative of the right to self-govern. Not only did the colonizer believe they had the right to take away other cultures' right to self-govern they also took away people's right to exist, deeming their own lives somehow more worthy of existence than the colonized. The idea that you have the right to kill someone, or even enslave someone does not fall within the rights we as people are entitled to by sovereignty. Even thinking of sovereignty in the light of it being private property reflects how this inadequately represents sovereignty. Taking from John Locke, a famous English philosopher, we can consider the generalized statement that sovereign property has power (Gencer). It is through being private and separate from other property that it gains somewhat a degree of its power(Gencer). Relating this type of sovereignty back to the previous convection there is a reflection between people and property; a right to exist separately that is granted through power. This is just one example of sovereignty in the past, taking other viewpoints of sovereignty from the past will not only show the history of the word but also why sovereignty today is flawed.

Sovereignty in the past was primarily viewed as a political term, being found in concepts like political sovereignty, sovereign people, and sovereign land. All these concepts of sovereignty are the roots of what we see sovereignty as today. First, going back to sovereignty in Medieval Europe and how it could be thought of as a “role of communal responsibilities” shows a core foundation of sovereignty (Wennerlind). Groups more or less similar to unions today would be formed under what was called a merchant house, and this group would be “economically and financially integrated beyond the same liability pool”, leading to more cohesive economics (Wennerlind). This idea of sovereignty can be better interpreted when we understand how Medieval people perceived merchant houses. The most important opinion to be considered is that it was a privilege to be part of a collective group that shared responsibility regardless of the fact this brought more responsibility into one’s lives (Wennerlind). Sovereignty here in the bigger picture shows a brighter side of sovereignty while exposing a little of the darker side, that being sovereignty in this example allowed societies to run more smoothly economically and socially but at the cost of creating a majority. Having this house of merchants privileged one group, bringing people together with the intention of embetterment, but also it disadvantaged the other who wasn’t associated with larger groups like this one. This being the first case of sovereignty starting to become intertwined with power and political agency.

A more generalized example of how sovereignty started to be associated with power and political agency starts with the introduction of Dynasties. Hegel and Marx, two well respected German philosophers, saw Dynasty as the “ultimate bound to globalization of capitalist colonial infrastructures of continued sovereignty, violence, and exploitation” (Banerjee). An interesting take to consider especially when Banerjee states that Dynasties were started in non-european territories as an act to resist colonial aggression. We can take Dynasty in both of these lights and tie it to sovereignty through property and lineage. Dynasty in the light of Hegel and Marx’s perspectives stems from the connections between patriarchy and dynasty. Patriarchy within the dynasty is embodied in the form of hereditary succession, which in Hegel’s opinion is how the sovereign state is maintained (Banerjee). Hegel saw hereditary succession as a natural way of maintaining sovereignty, and if the power of the monarch was to break outside of the lineage it would then lose that natural sovereignty (Banerjee). Within this example we have to understand the power dynamic between whatever family with hereditary succession. Dynasties' sovereignty was embodied by sovereign property, which is in turn representative of the power transfer between generations through the transfer of private property. We can see how this is flawed through Marx’s critique exposing the negative consequences of this patriarchal way of maintaining sovereignty(Banerjee). Birth and patrilineal succession is anchored in perpetuated inequality, Marx makes it clear that patrilineal succession has the biggest influence on what drives the separation between the non-land owning class and the land owning class. This level of sovereignty shows how the word is rooted in power, as well as shows how this power supports the patriarchy and further creates a division between classes. This is also seen in the case of the 1889 Japanese Meiji constitution where Ito Hirobumi, the first prime minister of Japan, projects in the constitution the concept of an eternal dynasty(Banerjee). An example further reinforcing patriarchal sovereignty through the division of classes through “sovereign property” and permanence of hereditary succession. Further revealing that sovereignty has been a patriarchal word for a long time, as well as rooted in the agency of power throughout many systems. 

Contrary to patriarchal sovereignty there is a good example from Alfred Lyall’s asiaitc study of Rajputana and tribal families that exemplifies a different type of sovereignty. This example counters what we saw with dynasties and the transfer of power, rather than being held to one family it is open to every family within the tribe (Banerjee). Logically we can see how this gets rid of the promotion of class separation within society, also leading to a better leader due to the fact that the most equipped to do the job is elected by the people. The agency of power also changes in this dynamic, giving each individual member of this group equal access to the power. Explaining why we don’t see a promotion of class separation in this example and secondly that even with a division of power sovereignty in this case is rooted in power.

Having a diverse background on sovereignty and the various cultures that uniquely define it allow for a better understanding of sovereignty in Native American cultures. Sovereignty is a word that without a doubt is prevalent in Native American and Indigenous Studies (NAIS). The question to be asked is, what does it mean within this field? A hard question to answer, especially considering that several authors and critics define sovereignty in almost a paradoxical self-reflective style. I believe that some of the best input that comes about regarding this term is from Joanne Barker. One of the biggest things she touches on is how generalizable or diverse this term is, which is why the previous parts of this paper sovereignty was considered from several different perspectives as a method of reinforcing that larger theme of sovereignty being malleable. Taking the eastern origin of sovereignty allows for a better opportunity to understand sovereignty in a more western and modern context.

Sovereignty in a western and modern sense is best represented by terms like indigenous sovereignty, tribal sovereignty, and political sovereignty. Even each of these terms can be broken down further into a vast variety of types of sovereignty, only further showing how malleable this term is. Taking from Joanne Barker she defines sovereignty as “the terms of our social relations and conditions with one another” (Barker, 211). Then taking from Jones who defines sovereignty almost as a relationship with each other like barker puts it, but yet also being defined by the relationship with the United States in a federal and political sense (Jones). Drawing from Hobbes, Locke, and Tocqueville Jones states how Native Americans are forced to “frame their sovereignty according to western concepts” (Jones, 22). Which hints at a huge part of western sovereignty, being the effect that colonization had on the power dynamics represented by this term. Colonization is so deeply rooted within sovereignty that it can be traced back to European colonialism. Trying to define sovereignty without colonialism would be to forget the most impactful parts of indigenous history. Comparing Jones critique of Hobbes, Locke, and Tocquevill with Barkers concepts of what sovereignty has come to be reinforces that the term is constantly evolving but is also deeply rooted within several histories.

Modern and Western Sovereignty

Modern sovereignty and western sovereignty are relatively synonymous in this conversation regarding the nature of the word. Consequentially this also means that western values have to be deeply rooted in the word. This is true primarily because of the effects that colonialism had on the word which were touched upon in the previous section. Effects which manifest themselves today in how we view sovereignty through several ways, most prominent being the relationship between tribes and the United States. Focusing on tribal sovereignty and the power dynamic between tribes and the United States will go to show what modern sovereignty is; a fight for control of power.

Comparing tribal sovereignty with “American sovereignty” the first blatant characteristic to notice is the severe power balance imbalance. Native people have been fighting to regain their power and their tribal sovereignty but it is challenged by an attempt from the U.S. to keep tribal sovereignty in place where it can be checked and maintained. Sovereignty in the modern sense has become too wrapped and suffocated in the idea of power while forgetting the importance it plays in culture. But that is the very point, if tribes are too busy fighting for what is considered tribal sovereignty they will lose focus on their culture. Resulting in losing the very thing that gives essence to our sovereignty. György Tóth’s paper ‘Red Nations’ exemplifies this idea, focusing around how the U.S. handled tribes' requests for complete sovereignty. Focusing on the aftermath of the siege of Wounded Knee, Tóth bring up the request for complete tribal sovereignty from the Red-Man party asking for  “full decolonisation of American Indian reservations into an independent country called ‘Greater Ameridia Patria’–‘[a]n Indian people and government ruled by the doctrine of socialism as practiced by our ancestry” (Tóth, 199). This paper brings up this example because it shows the most extreme example of a request for freedom, ultimately asking for their sovereignty back. A request which will likely never be meant even though sovereignty is the right to self-govern, asking of such seems improbable in the light of the majority. Tóth shows Native American Sovereignty Movement across its essence and the results that it produced, in the end gaining more tribal sovereignty but not autonomy. An important conclusion that can be made comes from analyzing how the American government responds. The best example being the 1956 Indian Relocation Act, which at first glance intends to be an attempt to give jobs to Natives who are willing to relocate to suburban areas but at second glance becomes an attempt to acculturate Native people (Tóth). Another author that reflects this concept of trying to dissolute sovereignty and such is Cynthia Benally, who writes about the Arizona education system and its relationship with Native American sovereignty. The most relevant conclusion that can be drawn from this case study is the prevalence of stereotypes that harm and suppress native american culture within the education system (Bernally). Policies have attempted to be implemented within this education system to support Native and Tribal sovereignty but have failed, reinforcing the idea of the American government trying to suppress native culture (Bernally). Meg Devlin O’Sullivan is another author who brings to the table a way that sovereignty is being minimized by the American government through the childcare system. In the words of O’Sullivan Native sovereignty “Suffered through interracial adoptions”, which again had the intention to dissolute the culture (O’Sullivan, 26). This example shows yet again a time when the American government completely ignored the sovereign right of Native people (O’Sullivan). It wasn’t until “President Jimmy Carter signed Public Law 95-608: the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978” that this was changed eliminating the “discrimination that has prevented Indian parents from qualifying as foster or adoptive families, and providing Indian communities with comprehensive child-welfare and family service programs” (O’Sullivan, 31). All these examples go to show how complex sovereignty is in a modern context, and as complex as it is now, it is only getting more complex.

Sovereignty has a nature that is so malleable, yet also at the same time deeply rooted within agency and power. Tribal sovereignty has been too occupied with this idea of agency and power that was lost long ago, but unfortunately in the name of its survival Tribal sovereignty is forced to choose between this fight for power which ultimately defines its existence or the culture that defines its people. One can only hope the future of sovereignty is one that transcends power and agency and begins to focus on what matters; the culture and people.

Works Cited

Barker, Joanne. “Sovereignty.” Keywords for Gender and Sexuality Studies, edited by the Keywords Feminist Editorial Collective et al., vol. 13, NYU Press, 2021, pp. 211–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2tr51hm.63. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.

Banerjee, Milinda. “How ‘Dynasty’ Became a Modern Global Concept: Intellectual Histories of Sovereignty and Property.” Global Intellectual History, vol. 7, no. 3, July 2020, pp. 421–52, https://doi.org/10.1080/23801883.2020.1796232. Accessed 23 Feb. 2024.

Benally, Cynthia. “‘You Need to Go beyond Creating a Policy’: Opportunities for Zones of Sovereignty in Native American History Instruction Policies in Arizona.” Journal of American Indian Education, vol. 58, no. 3, Sept. 2019, pp. 11–33, https://doi.org/10.1353/jaie.2019.a798564. Accessed 23 Feb. 2024.

Gencer, Bedri. “Sovereignty and the Separation of Powers in John Locke.” The European Legacy, vol. 15, no. 3, June 2010, pp. 323–39, https://doi.org/10.1080/10848771003783611. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.

György Tóth (2020) ‘Red’ nations: Marxists and the Native American sovereignty movement of the late Cold War, Cold War History, 20:2, 197-221,   DOI:10.1080/14682745.2019.1645126

O’Sullivan, Meg Devlin. “‘More Destruction to These Family Ties.’” Journal of Family History, vol. 41, no. 1, Nov. 2015, pp. 19–38, https://doi.org/10.1177/0363199015617476. Accessed 23 Feb. 2024.

Jones, B. B. (2011). The paradox of indigenous sovereignty and American democracy:  Discourse of exclusion in Navajo water rights. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Wennerlind, Carl. “The Economic History of Sovereignty: Communal Responsibility, the Extended Family, and the Firm.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 165, no. 1, 2009, p. 118, https://doi.org/10.1628/093245609787369624. Accessed 23 Feb. 2024.