Political Aesthetics in Post-Democracy
Political Aesthetics refers to the ways in which visual, sensory, and artistic forms shape political perception, ideology, and power structures. It examines how aesthetics, through images, symbols, architecture, media, and artistic expression, affect political authority.
This concept is explored in the works of thinkers like Jacques Rancière, who argues that politics is fundamentally about who gets to be seen and heard. Philosopher Crispin Sartwell also emphasizes how political movements and figures use imagery to evoke emotional and ideological responses.
Introduction
Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt’s Empire (2000) redefines imperialism for the 21st century, arguing that sovereignty has become decentralized, operating through transnational networks of power rather than traditional states. This global order, what they call Empire, functions through economic control, cultural influence, and biopolitical regulation, rather than direct territorial rule.
In this post, we will:
- Examine Empire’s core arguments
- Connect them to post-democracy, where democratic institutions persist but real power has shifted elsewhere
- Explore how political aesthetics, particularly Crispin Sartwell’s 2024 insights, reveal the role of imagery and symbols in reinforcing or resisting Empire’s control. You can listen to him explaining his work in this video he posted on YouTube.
What exactly is Post-Democracy
Post-democracy is a political condition in which democratic institutions continue to exist, but real decision making power has shifted to elite networks, including corporations, lobbyists, and global financial institutions.
By connecting post-democracy to the concept of Empire, political aesthetics demonstrates how power is exercised not just through laws and institutions but through the control of perception.
Negri and Hardt argue that sovereignty no longer resides within countries but is dispersed across supranational organizations and global financial systems. Empire operates through:
- Transnational Governance: Institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO dictate policies that affect national economies.
- Biopolitical Control: Power is not just legal or military but extends into everyday life, through media and education.
- Capitalist Hegemony: Instead of colonial conquest, global capitalism enforces dominance by making economies interdependent and suppressing alternative systems.
This aligns with Colin Crouch’s concept of post-democracy (2004), which describes how democratic institutions remain in place, but decision-making is increasingly confined to corporate and elite circles. Elections happen, but real power is elsewhere. This coincides with Empire’s argument that political authority has shifted from national governments to transnational systems of control.
Political Aesthetics and Shaping of Perception
If Empire is sustained not just by laws and economies but by controlling perception, then aesthetics becomes a key battleground for power. Political aesthetics, as theorized by Jacques Rancière, suggests that politics is not just about institutions. It is about who gets to be seen and recognized as a political subject.
The Spectacle of Power
Negri and Hardt’s Empire thrives on the spectacle, a concept from Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle (1967). You can read Debord’s work for free here. The spectacle creates illusions of democracy, freedom, and participation while maintaining underlying structures of control. This can be seen in:
- Elections as media events: Political discourse is reduced to branding and spectacle rather than substantive debate.
- The aesthetics of security and surveillance: Cities (‘Who owns England?’ blog which demonstrates the rise of pseudo-public spaces), digital spaces, and even fashion (Balenciaga’s Spring 22 Clones show, entirely AI generated) reflect power structures designed for control.
- Corporate activism: Brands co-opt social justice movements, blurring the line between genuine political engagement and commercialized resistance. Examples are CSR projects and ESG targets for big companies.
Sartwell’s Political Aesthetics
Philosopher Crispin Sartwell (2024) argues that political aesthetics plays a central role in shaping ideology and public sentiment. In a recent essay, he examines how visual symbols create powerful emotional responses, reinforcing political identities and allegiances.
One example he discusses is the image of Donald Trump’s raised fist, which became a contested icon: to some, a symbol of defiance; to others, a sign of authoritarianism. This demonstrates that in a world governed by Empire, power is not just exercised through policies but through imagery that shapes collective consciousness (Sartwell, 2024).
Sartwell’s insights align with Empire’s argument that in a decentralized, networked world, control is often aesthetic before it is political. This explains why protest movements, hacktivism, and digital countercultures use memes, visual art, and disruptive media as strategies of resistance.
Resistance should also have Political Aesthetics
If Empire has no single center of power, resistance cannot take the form of traditional revolution. Instead, Negri and Hardt propose the concept of the multitude: a decentralized, cooperative force that can challenge Empire through:
- Networked activism: decentralized movements like WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and global protests use digital tools to expose and counteract power.
- Reclaiming public space: Occupy Wall Street, Extinction Rebellion, and Nuit Debout create counter-spectacles that disrupt the dominant narrative.
- Aesthetic resistance: street artists and documentary filmmakers use visual subversion to make power visible.
By understanding Empire through both political theory and political aesthetics, we can see that democracy today is not just about policies. It’s also very much about perception and branding.
Conclusion
We see that centralized power has, in fact, kept up with the decentralized times of this century’s network society. Negri and Hardt’s Empire remains a crucial framework for understanding post-democracy and the role of aesthetics in power dynamics. By integrating their ideas with Sartwell’s insights on political aesthetics, we see that:
- Post-democracy reveals how traditional political structures have become symbolic, while real power operates through global networks.
- Political aesthetics shows how control is exerted not just through policies, but through visual culture and symbols that shape public consciousness.
- Resistance must be decentralized, using digital tools, artistic interventions, and new forms of localized, independent political engagement.
The authors conclude that, in order to challenge Empire, the multitude must reclaim not just political power, but also the aesthetics of power. Democracy would look and feel very differently in the 21st century.
Concerns
From a moderate’s perspective, the concepts from Empire may read as conspiracist. While I do not have the tools necessary to determine if we are, in fact, living in a globalized network of power, I can use the same logic of Sartwell’s Political Aesthetics in judging Empire. The idea of this type of networked organization controlling policies and financial markets carries a certain Political Aesthetic in itself. It presumes that, ultimately, our economic and civic behaviour is pre-determined. However, if I look into the policy-making of entities such as the EU, it seems that their decisions are more reactive in nature, instead of being centrally planned in advance.