Our discussion in class of Schmitt's ideas of the enemy left me wondering about what an enemy might be. Of course according to Schmitt global warming is not what he would consider an enemy, and neither is terrorism. So what is it that we fight these days? We do not fight for ideals and visions for the future, unless that includes economic gains and military might. We does not include individual goals or desires, it is that of the state. What makes me wonder is that apparently the people are supposed to be a part of that state. How is it that our collective points of view get distilled into something like the war on terrorism? Does human behavior constantly strive to find an enemy? Are we out of enemies? I do not think we are done being against each other's ideals, but governments in a global society have to take more difficult routs to get the population to do what it wants.
Many still do follow the government blindly, otherwise our global community would fall to pieces and require a new beginning. I think that most people did not really care enough about the political enemy unless it might injure them directly. In order to get people on the side of the government in terms of obtaining power and funding, there has to be an enemy. Terrorists are better than global warming, so it is best to target them. At least they exist! Who has created the problem of global warming and AIDS other than many years of drivers and sex addicts? The enemy has to be invoked because otherwise the only people left to blame for any problems we encounter are ourselves.
I think a better way to discuss the political is to say that governments and political parties gives up someone to complain about. If we are out of complaints and have come to terms with the previous aggressor, then a political party needs to supply a new motivating factor to drive on society. Before the more modern ages, it was enough to fight to stay alive against the elements of nature. Since we think we have dealt with nature (excepting of course our recent Katrina case) we must move onto the things that might "really kill us". Because global warming isn't killing us yet, there will be no move to stop it. Since AIDS isn't killing all of us yet, or at least political leaders or rich people as a whole, there will be no move to stop it. This list may include cancer, traffic congestion, steroids in baseball (yes this is important), children who want education who can not afford it, children who need to eat, children who waste their education on alcohol, rape, murder...etc. I think the position of the leaders consists of "its not killing me or my family, so why should I care?". As soon as some scandal is uncovered, when enough people are killed, then we step up to the plate.
The enemy is simply someone who managed to take enough of us out that we need to react because we fear for our own lives. This we is the political leadership. As soon as they are scared enough, or enthused enough by an opportunity, they take action. Nature isn't enough any more to scare us, now it is oil availability and people who blow themselves up at parties. Can anyone think of a time in recent history that politics acted for something other than economic gain or military might? I cant, please... help me think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
On the one hand, I think you're right - pretty much every war I can think of has been fought with at least the partial goals of economic gain or military might.
But I do think some wars are fought for ideals, at least political ones and at least for some of the participants, if not for every person in power.
I know it's not recent, but even though many lords in the crusades fought more for the Glory of Me than the Glory of God, some really were out there fighting for their beliefs. The U.S. Civil War wasn't really about slavery (an economic issue for most people anyway), but it WAS about states rights vs. federal rights. Even more recently, WWI was "the war to save democracy" - mostly propaganda, sure, but probably someone believed it, and I'm sure the individual soldiers were fighting more for lofty ideals than economics.
As we discussed in class, though, are those wars really fought for ideals, or is that how they are justified to the public and gain legitimacy? I think the war itself would be the political (ie, us against the subjects of the other belief--us against the Communists, etc.) but the justification would then be politics, since it's no longer friend-enemy but enemy ideology. Perhaps? Thoughts?
Post a Comment