There's clearly a certain truth to Schmitt's friend vs. enemy distinction and the importance he assigns to it. This distinction is all over social science (and literature, etc.) in the form of the "other". Basically, what Schmitt seems to be describing is an advanced manifestation of the "other" conceptualization with a political application (Look at all those big words!). Schmitt limits the friend vs. enemy distinction entirely to "the political", saying that other manifestations of the other dynamic should be labeled differently in non-political situations.
So my criticism of this point-of-view is severalfold. First, Schmitt seems to have invented his own semantic system with regards to this distinction which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (maybe it has something to do with the translation, but I'm doubtful). As far as I'm concerned -- and Schmitt was unsuccessful in convincing me of the contrary -- one can conceive of anybody with similar interests as a "friend" and opposing ones as a "foe/enemy". These can be economic interests (somebody who wants to balance the budget a certain way could easily conceive of someone with a different take as an "enemy"), social ones, etc. I think Schmitt's point was that only in political circumstances does the enmity get advanced enough to describe the relationship between the two actors as a "friend vs. foe" one. But, I'm unconvinced of that. Again, it's a question of semantics, but I always have a hard time when an author makes up his own semantic system and expects me just to go along with it.
Additionally, I disagree with Schmitt's limitation of "the political" as extending only to situations in which the threat of war underlies all negotiations. Certainly this is true in the case of interaction between countries internationally, but Schmitt's definition requires us to disregard practically all intranational negotiations (except circumstances in which Civil War seems to be a potentiality). And these are the types of interactions that we generally conceive of as "politics" or "political" more than anything else. Even if you still hold that the representatives that we're referring to here represent states and populations with the means and, conceivably, the desire to go to war with one another if sufficiently agitated, I feel that you still have to take what we generally conceive of as "inter- and intra-organizational politics" into account. Having been a member of non-profit organizations and having watched how "politics" (or what I've always conceived of as politics) take root in daily interactions, I have a hard time discounting this side of the political altogether. But Schmitt requires that I do, because nowhere does the threat of physical violence and retaliation come into play.
So, my point is, Schmitt's definition is unnecessarily specific and limiting to an understanding of what really is "political"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
For clarification on your first point, 'one' cannot define the enemy whether it be for economic, moral, or any other reasons in a Schmittian context. By entering the social contract of a state, the individual relinquishes the ability to distinguish subjectively between public friend and enemy. While Schmitt acknowledges the existence of private friends and enemies, the extent of his writing is on the friend/enemy distinction in the public sphere, the only important sphere to him. In addition, in defining the enemy, the state must determine that there is a threat to the way of life within the state, as well as an existential threat to its citizens.
I'm fairly certain that someone who merely wants to balance the budget would not be classified as an enemy in any context. I would suggest re-reading the Concept of the Political with nation-states in mind rather than individuals, and perhaps you might grasp the material better a second time through.
Post a Comment