Tej Amin
Daniel Nichanian
Antipolitics
16 February 2015
Carl Schmitt, the Political and War
Discuss this passage by writing a paper on Carl Schmitt. In particular, consider the relationship between the political and war, taking into account Schmitt’s point that the former cannot just be equated with the latter. Controversial, obscure, ambiguities Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political seeks to defend politics from those who seek to abolish politics, namely liberalists. Schmitt argues that “A world in which the possibility of war is utterly eliminated, a completely pacified globe, would be a world without the distinction of friend and enemy and hence a world without politics.” (Schmitt 35). According to Schmitt, the distinction between …show more content…
Schmitt argues that a definition of the political can only be obtained through understanding and defining political categories. “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. This provides a definition in the sense of a criterion” (Schmitt 26). Schmitt elaborates that this distinction is public and not private. For a political phenomenon, there must be groups that experience enmity. Individuals who experience personal enmity do so on the basis of personal feelings or moral judgments. By contrast, public enmity involves one group experiencing a threat to its existence in the face of another group. Schmitt argues that the friend/enemy distinction necessitates the potential for violence and group conflict (Schmitt 26-28). However, this does not mean that war or violence should be a goal. “War follows from enmity. War is the existential negation of the enemy. It is the most extreme consequence of enmity. It does not have to be common, normal, something ideal, or desirable. But is must nevertheless remain a real possibility” (Schmitt 33). This concept of the political is interesting in that it excludes many contemporary views of politics. Ordinary domestic politics that involve tensions between politicians and divisions along party lines do not generally constitute enmity. In Schmitt’s view, as long as …show more content…
In the creation of a homogenous state, there must be a clear distinction of friend and enemy with the possibility of war and violence. When the threat of war subsides, so too does Schmitt’s concept of the political. Schmitt seeks to explain the necessity of war by arguing that war is a tool that must be used if political existence is threatened. “The justification of war does not reside in its being fought for ideals or norms of justice, but in its being fought against a real enemy. All confusions of this category of friend and enemy can be explained as a result of blendings of some sort of abstractions or norms” (Schmitt 49-50). Schmitt suggests that self-preservation is thus the main motivation for war. However, the idea of self-preservation seems to be complicated by Schmitt’s notion of community. Schmitt believes that sovereign power necessitates the elimination of any views that are not in line with the friend/enemy distinction. Schmitt sees homogeneity as an essential characteristic for community and grants the sovereign the power to achieve this by any means. The idea of purging minority opinions in the name of self-preservation seems counter-intuitive and particularly controversial to many in today’s world. Disregarding the notion of rights, dissenting opinions are often valuable in the preservation of the state.