Conceptions of Authority and Power in Contemporary Algeria

Humans do not live directly in a world of things or objects, or in other words, in a physical world; rather, they primarily live in a world of representations. These representations are of two types: the first consists of sensations that manifest within the self. These sensations are individual and can only be communicated after a process of elaboration, which presupposes the mediation of language. The second type refers to what we sometimes call Culture or the Symbolic, which includes natural language, institutions, and collective ideals. There is no common measure between these two types: the first belongs to what Lacanian psychoanalysis calls the “Imaginary,” while the second (collective representations) falls under the “Symbolic” register and is independent of what an individual feels or believes.

These collective representations are essential; it is through them that we relate to the world of objects and to others. Political, legal, and theological concepts are part of these representations, and without them, no social life is conceivable. It is an illusion to believe that we live in a material world onto which collective representations are superimposed, because the physical world exists only when organized by the symbolic world and mediated through language. Humans live in a world they have created themselves, not in a purely natural world.

The Specificity of the Algerian ModelWe must assume the existence of an Algerian mode of organizing life, derived from Islamic traditions and a Berber heritage, with cultural influences primarily from the Ottoman and French periods, all merged under a nationalist framework. It is interesting to note that Algerian centralism formally borrows from French centralism to the point of caricature, but without its “democratic” background. Since the symbolic world is primary and not merely a cover for the physical world, our project aims to investigate conceptions of authority and power in Algeria in their specificity.

Conceptions of AuthorityIn contemporary societies, there are two conceptions of authority:

The “Vertical” (Traditional) Conception: In this model, authority does not require the consent of the governed and can be taken by force, being considered merely a fact and the product of a balance of forces. In this model, the holder of power does not accept discussion of his decisions, and the “leader” appears as the one best able to know the interests of all. The state appears as an external entity to society, often oppressive and predatory. The opponent is framed as a “sabotage,” “spy,” or “traitor”—in all cases, the enemy.The “Modern” (Horizontal) Conception: This model sees authority as emanating from the totality of the political body, with those who exercise it being merely representatives of that body. Governance must conform to reason through organized deliberation, typically mediated by a parliament.

Algeria operates under the first (vertical) system and is largely unaware of the second model; the presence of elections and assemblies does not change this reality.

Research HypothesesThe study seeks to support two general hypotheses:

Hypothesis One: The dominance of the vertical model is explained by the influence of the Islamic model (which is based on the opposition between the knowledgeable “jurist of the law” and the general faithful, dominated by ignorance and passion) and the weight of the family model, in which the father holds “natural” authority.Hypothesis Two: It is linked to the history and anthropology of Algerian society, especially the importance of kinship and tribal ties, and the foundational impact of the war of independence, in which the nation and society were organized like an “army” to be mobilized and led, with development framed as a “struggle” or “battle.”

The research emphasizes that the Algerian case cannot be explained solely by the Islamic model; there is a specific anthropological context (the weight of kinship and the patrimonial nature of power) and a unique history characterized by the destruction of the local social system and its replacement with an institutional system shaped by a militarized model.

MethodologyThe study will employ diverse methods, including philology, history of ideas, sociology, and anthropology. It will rely on the analysis of ancient and contemporary sources and field investigations, with a comparative approach.

[1] Social sciences err when assuming that any change in material conditions automatically changes the symbolic world; there is no symbolic world attached to a material world in a fixed way.[2] Hence the difficulty of respecting the constitution when one exists.[3] Refers to the “friend-enemy” distinction, which, according to Carl Schmitt (The Concept of the Political), is the criterion of the political.