Thread by @levidmorrow

Sovereignty Divine or Sovereignty Serpentine?
More on Rav Soloveitchik's Political Theology

🧵
1/

Rav Soloveitchik broadly sees human sovereignty as a necessarily evil, granted conditional legitimacy under certain specifications. But I want to talk about the moment before that, when he discusses why human sovereignty is fundamentally illegitimate.
2/

In framing human sovereignty as fundamentally illegitimate, Rav Soloveitchik makes two differing, and I think actually contradictory arguments:
1. Sovereignty is divine.
2. Sovereignty is serpentine.

3/

"Sovereignty is divine" means that power really only belongs to God. Only God can legitimately impose laws upon others and decide for them. If humans claim sovereignty, this is an act of hubris and usurpation—which is to say, a sin.
4/

Here's one example of this idea:

https://twitter.com/levidmorrow/status/1434236988912246789?s=20

5/

(Only under certain conditions does God permit humans to legitimately "borrow" the divine sovereignty, but that is for a different thread.)
6/

"Sovereignty is serpentine" means that sovereignty is inherently sinful, that the attempt to dominate another, to impose law and force decisions is always bad. It's not associated with God, but with the satanic figure of the snake in Eden.
7/

This is most evident in "The Emergence of Ethical Man" (EEM):

https://twitter.com/levidmorrow/status/1470877980255731712?s=20

but also in "Vision and Leadership," as in these lines:
8/

So which is it? Are human sovereigns pretending to the divine throne, or are they playing the part of the snake? Is ruling always bad, or can it be divinely legitimated under certain circumstances?
9/

In terms of Rav Soloveitchik's broader thought, he develops both trains of thought, though primarily the latter (again, for a different thread). But on a conceptual level, there is distinct tension here, perhaps even outright contradiction. Can it be resolved?
10/

I can think of a resolution drawing on EEM, though it's definitely forced. EEM sees domination and power as emerging from the "serpentine personality," but not simply remaining there. After the sin, domination becomes pervasive, warping even the divine-humane relationship.
11/

The divine-human relationship was once immanent, natural, friendly, etc. There was no imposition of law. Only when humanity sins does divine Law become imposed. So, in this model, divine sovereignty is a secondary derivative of serpentine sovereignty.
12/

Unsurprisingly, in this model, both forms of sovereignty are meant to disappear. The eschatological, covenantal, *theopolitical* community has no sovereign, only the divine "comrade-king" and the natural moral law.
13/

But as I said, this is forced. In EEM, sovereignty is not divine, and elsewhere Rav Soloveitchik clearly says it is. So the contradiction persist, just one of many in his thought.
14/

At most, it is resolved on the practical level. When he raises the issue of practical necessity and whether there can ever be a legitimate human sovereignty, he most often frames it in terms of sovereignty divine, rather than serpentine.
15/

The issue of legitimacy thus becomes about how to appropriate or borrow domination from God, without abusing it—without unwittingly turning into the Snake.
16/

@threadreaderapp unroll please