I would like to divide my thoughts here to two categories. The first category - looking at Schmitt's critiques of Liberalism and even an aside to Marxism. The second category - an examination of Schmitt's own argument and conception of the political.
One main observation that Schmitt lays down, in regards to the foundations upon which Liberalism stands upon, is that it ultimately has a mythical view of The State. Although seen as dispelling antiquated myths, in reality Liberalism has embraced a vision of The State that seems to find its origin in the old conception of divine mandate, as if the apparatus stands tall above, and dominates, the rest of the social forces. He demonstrates how that may be self-delusion by stating that as long as the state itself isn't a political entity, that is, one with a clear sense of goal predicated upon the friend/enemy distinction, it is more than anything a tool to be used by truly political powers within society. If a corporation can, in a sense, order the state to launch war on its behalf, or to avoid doing so when, overall, it would seem the wise thing to do from a strategic perspective, it becomes, in reality, the true sovereign. Of course, sovereignty would be typically relegated to the political group (with a clear friend/enemy distinction) that also has the brute force to threaten itself to sovereignty, or alternatively, to launch a violent assault to force its way. This conception of the political arena uncovers a lot of the myths that Liberalism stands upon, with its ascribing of unique, popular characteristics to the state as well as its myths of individual, distant, cultured, involvement in politics which is, more than anything, a process of depoliticization inherently prone to vulnerability from emerging, true political forces.
He also demonstrates how this individualism and a rational vision of society is incapable of truly becoming a political entity, because of the utter absurdity of the idea of sacrificing oneself for the perpetuation of the economy or for individualism, at least on a scale wider than varying individual decisions. I believe this one was, strangely enough, contradicted by the coronavirus crisis, in which we saw whole political camps saying clearly and loudly that they would sacrifice themselves for the well-being of this Moloch, The Economy. Still, I must admit that even this sentiment is uncommon and opposition to any effective measures against the pandemic seems to stem more frequently from sheer ignorance, rather than a self-sacrificial conviction in favor of the abstract idea of The Economy.
One final observation of Liberalism (and in this case, also Marxism) that I found interesting is the idea of universality as a political weapon, when it comes to its role in the political arena. I'll quote him for that:
"Humanity as such cannot wage war because it has no enemy, at least
not on this planet. The concept of humanity excludes the concept of the
enemy, because the enemy does not cease to be a human being—and hence
there is no specific differentiation in that concept. That wars are waged in
the name of humanity is not a contradiction of this simple truth; quite the
contrary, it has an especially intensive political meaning. When a state
fights its political enemy in the name of humanity, it is not a war for the
sake of humanity, but a war wherein a particular state seeks to usurp a
universal concept against its military opponent. At the expense of its
opponent, it tries to identify itself with humanity in the same way as one
can misuse peace, justice, progress, and civilization in order to claim these
as one's own and to deny the same to the enemy."
Now, in regards to his own positive claims, those that lay the foundation of a framework by which to understand politics, I believe there are a few holes in his arguments. First and foremost it essentializes human nature. Schmitt provides us with the story of the Fall of Man and Original Sin as the reason for this, supposedly inherent, antagonistic and violent nature of humanity but these, if one is not a Christian Believer, fall on deaf ears since they argue by invoking an event, or a cause, that can't be argued in any form other than pure belief. As someone who isn't a Christian myself, this therefore becomes a very unconvincing argument. And while there seems to be a noteworthy degree of lucidity in the way Schmitt analyzes politics, I am inclined to view this analysis as one bound by its context and society/culture (Weimar Germany) in which it was formulated. That is not to say it has no benefits, in regards to allowing us to understand politics in our day and age, I do not believe the conditions of society, nor of the way it organizes itself, altered to such a radical degree since to antiquate it but I would be very hesitant to lend it universal application in all times and contexts, I believe, if a theoretician would like to argue for something like this, he would have to demonstrate that radically different cultures would function similarly in accordance to these principles in order to convince me of its universal applicability.
Comments
Post a Comment