Would not a neo-cameral monarchy leave us cold, as being nothing more than a bloodless business arrangement? Wouldn’t it fail to evoke our loyalty, our patriotic love? Would it not be incorrigibly – and horribly – profane?
The formalism of neo-cameral monarchy would not by itself gut its sacred & familiar aspects. To suppose that it might would be to fall into improper reduction. It would be to think that society is *nothing but* its legal form. All civilized societies are legally formalized. Their formalizations derive from the reality of their ordered life. The determination runs from the concrete facts of social life to the formal legal theory of its proper order.
Then formal law, economics, political science, and so forth are not the actual blood and guts of society, are not its actual life, and nor therefore are they the substance of its dynamism or its operations, but rather, merely, formalizations thereof, modes of analysis and heuristics of signification. There is no such thing as a merely formal society. There are rather only actual societies that have each a certain definite, malleable and dynamic character.
So to look to a formalist scheme of politics – or any other – as a source of the inherently familiar order of society, or a fortiori its sacred dimension, is to err categorially. To do so would be like looking to physical theory for physical facts.
We should not then think that a formalist scheme could somehow evacuate the sacred or the familiar from society.
Lordship, e.g., is inherently familiar and sacred, or it is something other than lordship. It is from the living actuality of lordship that the formal theory thereof derives. We employ theory to order our approach to fact, not as that approach. Theory is to be sure itself a fact, but of a different category than its material; as maps are material, but are not the matter they map.
A society legally ordered along such lines as have come to be called formalist or neo-cameralist then – a political order wherein the state was legally treated as a corporation owned by holders of fungible shares – would not by that fact alone suffer deformities of the familiar and sacred aspects of lordship, or any other sort of vitiation of the fullness of organic society. The Church, by a very close analogy, is not profaned by her canon law or her creeds. Where it is not idolized, the letter does not kill. Rather, these formalisms usefully encode the form of her life, so that it may be understood. So likewise with the legal and formal aspects of any society. A university owns its campus, but there is more to the university than that ownership and that campus. The bishop, diocese, dean and chapter own the cathedral and its close, but there is more to the cathedral than these.
Could the monarch of a formalist society then, who had his office *only* on account of the fact that he owned more shares of the state than anyone else (an extreme example, that would rarely come to pass in real life), be the Father of his people? Could he be their King? Could he be their High Priest?
Why not? How would this be different from the Emperor who had his office *only* on account of the acclamation of his legions, who had defeated those of his rivals? How would it be different from the President who had his office *only* on account of having won more votes than his competitors? How would it be different from the King who had his office *only* on the approbation of his barons to his succession to his father’s throne?