Loving Sovereignty: Political Mysticism, Şeyh Galib, and Giorgio Agamben
Comparative Literature Studies February 16, 2021 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.5325/complitstudies.58.1.0001 via Semantic Scholar
Summary
Ottoman sultans used mystical poetry to strengthen their authority by portraying themselves as beloved figures whose power subjects willingly accept. Analyzing Şeyh Galib's 18th-century verse, the article shows how the metaphor of the beloved sovereign turns political submission into an act of love, making obedience seem voluntary. Drawing on Giorgio Agamben's concept of potentiality, the author argues that love can entrench sovereignty rather than resist it, because the sovereign exploits vulnerability to consolidate power. This challenges the idea that love inherently opposes political authority.
Study at a glance
| Design | historical analysis |
|---|---|
| Population | Ottoman imperial sovereignty and mystical poetry |
| Key finding | In Şeyh Galib's poetry, the metaphor of the beloved sovereign transforms political submission into voluntary love, revealing how mysticism can consolidate rather than resist imperial power. |
Abstract
abstract:Centering on the poetry of Şeyh Galib (1757–1799), this article considers Ottoman imperial sovereignty in tandem with the discourse of mysticism that underpinned it. A key rhetorical device that enables the abstraction of the politics of empire in this discourse is the metaphor of the beloved sovereign. In the mystical writing of Galib, this metaphor gives a spiritual edge to the authority of the sultan and expands the reach of his power beyond its physical limits. The metaphor of the beloved sovereign neutralizes sovereignty as it turns submission into an act of love, a voluntary abandonment of political agency. To elucidate this obscured dimension of power in Galib’s mysticism, I draw on Giorgio Agamben’s notion of “potentiality.” Proposing that one must pay heed to potentiality in order to dig into “the ontological root of every political power,” Agamben considers “love” the proper medium of a potential resistance to sovereignty. Galib’s poetry, on the other hand, illuminates that which is not addressed in this analogy: love can occasion a commitment to sovereignty that forces itself upon the subject as an “ontological” condition, in the way Agamben terms it. I suggest that the metaphor of the beloved sovereign in Galib’s poetry cautions against the sovereign’s own “potential” to claim vulnerability and exploit love to consolidate its power.