No abstract

No abstract

The article argues that by the 17th century, despite the increased intellectual exchanges of the time, two different kind of individualism were developing across the Channelone labeled here as 'centripetal', the other one as 'centrifugal'. On the French side, one witnesses a focus on forum internum, as the only site of uniqueness and authenticity. On the British side, the emphasis switched to forum externum and the equality of wills. The article explores the consequences of these different self-apprehensions of the individual in terms of different understandings of political representation. I claim that, despite today's general consensus, representing 'the people' was not naturally assimilated with an ascending theory of representation. 'The people', understood as a whole, was apprehended in France as still higher than its representatives -kings, Estates, or Parlements. The idea of individuals willingly delegating their rights and/or authority to a representative remained for more than a century a peculiar British development. The consequences of this ascending understanding of representation are to be seriously reevaluated.

Inspired by the late medieval doctrine of the King’s Two Bodies, the idea of the People’s Two Bodies has been so far used lightly by scholars, mostly to point out a supposed contradiction in our shared assumptions about “the people.” The essay argues that the People’s Two Bodies paradigm is more than a mere linguistic artifice, proving useful for dealing with the pitfalls of elitism and populism while taking advantage of both approaches. It shows that the dual understanding of “the people,” both as a multitude and as a corporate whole, enjoys actually a long pedigree in the history of political thought. As such, the paradigm of the People’s Two Bodies helps address some of the major theoretical and practical challenges that liberal democracies are facing today.

No abstract