I don't "buy" it..(of course, no pun about economic liberalism intended in the slightest)

In section 8, Schmitt discusses the threat that economic liberalism poses to the concept of the political. “For the purpose of protecting individual freedom and private property, liberalism provides a series of methods for hindering and controlling the state’s and government’s power. It makes of the state a compromise and of its institutions a ventilating system and, moreover, balances monarchy against democracy and vice versa” (70). Furthermore, he states that “no consistent individualism can entrust to someone other than to the individual himself the right to dispose of the physical life of the individual” (71).

I realize that Schmitt grew up in a period and in a country where harsh state control was the norm and that the repression was seen as necessary for the greater good, but I question his assumption that the perpetuation of “the political” is better when given the choice between that and a liberal world. At least in the liberal world, one has free choice and is not expected to offer his life to the “higher purpose” of the state. What is wrong with decrying repression and lack of freedom? According to Schmitt, this leads to a “system of demilitarized and depoliticized concepts” (71) which he implies is negative. My question is this: perhaps I’m not understanding the point he’s trying to make, and if so, please comment, but, aside from making the concept of the political (and therefore a whole treatise on its meaning) completely irrelevant, what is wrong with such a demilitarized, depoliticized world? Perhaps it’s that we would then not be able to differentiate friends and enemies? Why does someone have to fit into one or the other—why can’t someone be part friend and part enemy? That seems to fit more closely with what I’ve learned of human nature—people are rarely ever completely for you or completely against you and are more interested in how their feelings about you will affect them. Please comment if you have thoughts because I think perhaps I’m not understanding Schmitt (I’m on migraine medicine and a bit tripped out, admittedly).

Schmitt mentions that “instead of a clear distinction between the two different states, that of war and that of peace, there appears the dynamic of perpetual competition and perpetual discussion. The state turns into society…the self-understood will to repel the enemy in a given battle situation turns into a rationally constructed social ideal or program. … At the intellectual pole, government and power turns into propaganda and mass manipulation, and at the economic pole, control” (72). Given what has come out as of late about the Bush administration’s lies concerning Iraq on the one hand and the northern hegemony in organizations such as the WTO, IMF, etc., this certainly seems to be the case in our society today. Perhaps it comes down to whether ambiguity about who actually is the enemy is necessarily a bad thing. I would say that since WWII, a clear cut, easily identifiable enemy (“Communism”, our biggest enemy for a long time, was not even a physical being) has been increasingly absent from our world. Since it’s the world we’re living in, I guess I fail to see why the world which Schmitt advocates is an improvement.

The enemy other

I confess I'm not all the way through Schmitt yet, but so far I'm finding him pretty interesting. When he is first introducing his theory of an "ultimate distinction" between friend and emeny, he writes:

The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. (p27)

I think it's interesting that Schmitt doesn't say that the enemy should be portrayed as the "other" but rather, it is in his nature that he is the enemy. I'm sure he didn't write with science fiction in mind, but it relates strongly to books like Ender's Game or movies like Starship Troopers where the very nature of aliens make them the enemy.

However, even in Ender's game, the line between friend and enemy isn't so easy. Even though the aliens are about as different as you can get, Ender and the queen find a commonality, and become not enemies, but friends. Even though Schmitt states that enemies are not necessarily at war, but rather that conflicts are possible, in my opinion the very nature of the relationship between humans and the buggers changes with the Speaker for the Dead's story of the bugger queen.

Additionally, Schmitt's idea that all relationships of states with other entities can be simplified to "friend" or "enemy" is overly simplistic. Conflict with any nation is possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem; then, is every nation an enemy?

The political in Ender's game

The clarity and simplicity of Schmitt's antithesis of "friend" and "enemy" being the basis of politics was really striking. Although his logic took a lot of twists and turns and, on this point at least, I never felt like it completely and fully established its own truth, it is still obviously a very useful way to conceive of political struggles. The division between the self and the other is clearly present in practically every part of the political spectrum.

I also found it very interesting to consider the struggles in Ender's Game in light of this conceptualization. Ender does assume a very political role for much of the book, particularly during the latter half or so of his training at Battle School. He acts in order to inspire respect, to garner allegiance, to fulfill everyone's expectations of him as the "chosen child", the "destined savior" of the human race or whatever it is. It's easy to see in Ender's relationship with other characters the division between friend and enemy (though the role of enemy is often imposed upon him by others, whereas Ender would have been content to remain politically "neutral"). Nonetheless, when the role of enemy is cast on you, you must assume it and reverse its definition back upon its imposer, who then becomes enemy from your perspective -- because, as Schmitt mentions, not to accept this antithesis and play by its rules is to ignore the underlying root of political dispute -- the threat of war.

And Ender uses this threat of war; he understands its significance and its political usefulness (and necessity). (I'm talking about on an inter-personal level, of course, not about the war he [inadvertently] wages on the buggers). Ender's calculating nature when it comes to combat, his ability to make preemptive strikes in order to prevent further problems in the future, is a very political asset. So is the more pacifistic way he creates allegiances among the members of his army, manipulates and uses their abilities and resources, etc.

There are also obvious themes of the political which tie into Schmitt's ideas in the subplot of Demosthenes and Locke, buttt.... they're not quite as interesting so I won't get into them here.

Encounters with the other

(Sorry this is late, guys – my internet wasn't really working, so I actually wrote this last night....)

In Ender’s Game, there’s a huge gap of understanding between the humans and the buggers. Both species fail to understand the intentions of the other, not just because they don’t try, but because their intentions are (literally) alien to each other.

In class, a comparison was made between the human/bugger encounter and the European/Native American encounter. I think this was a particularly apt metaphor, for a number of reasons.

For one thing, there’s communication. When the first explorers (and conquistadors) set foot in the New World and met the indigenous people, not only were they unable to communicate with the natives, but sometimes did not even recognize their speech as language. The same problem occurs between the buggers and the humans – not only can they not communicate, but they can’t even recognize each other’s communication as existing.

Another similarity is that Native Americans and European explorers couldn’t understand each others’ motivations. Native Americans could not understand the idea of personal property and ownership of land; Europeans could not understand Native American tribal organization and group possession of land. Similarly, whereas the buggers could not understand that each human was an independent being, humans didn’t understand the biological connection shared by buggers.

Contact with aliens is something we’ve only been able to speculate about, but I do think it's likely that the contact would result in conflict, just as most human contact with an "other" has throughout history.

Schmitt: Friends and Foe

It is an interesting idea that Carl Schmitt presents in determining how political groups have both friends and enemies. The state, as a political entity, is separate from humanity. Schmitt argues that "humanity as such cannot wage war because it has no enemy, at least not on this planet" (54). Instead he argues that wars waged for the sake of humanity are not really for humanity but instead for political powers. Though he doesn't really touch too much more on this throughout the rest of his book, I find it interesting that no human can be the enemy of another human. I had always assumed that human beings were primarily enemies of other human beings, and animals or even alien species that we have not yet discovered could not really be our enemies. They would instead be a threat, or a dangerous animal that we need to take precautions against. Instead here Schmitt argues that an enemy must be made inhuman in order to fight against them. This idea makes sense for large scale battles and wars, but in the case of the individual, I'm not sure that humanity cannot wage war upon itself.

Looking back at Ender's game in the battle school, the children fought against each other knowing full well that they were all a part of humanity. Even Peter Wiggen was a member of the human race even though his ideas and actions were twisted. Ender found it perfectly possible to fight against members of the children's army, granted it was not a real war. His relationship with the other members of the battle school was constant strife. The fights that took place between any of the human characters in the book was a struggle of human against human. When he kills the buggers, Ender thinks he is playing a game to beat out his teachers and Graff. Even in Dune Paul fights against the emperor as his enemy who is also a human. I would say that it is definitely possible for humanity to wage a war against itself, and that self can be an enemy. You do not need a foreign species to make up an enemy.

When are children no longer children?

I would like to continue this theme that Anne and Russ were discussing earlier and expand upon that. When we talk about children, we think of age or a lack of mental or social development. For the children who went to battle school, they were young, very young in fact, but their minds were beyond the normal thinking level for someone their age. We assume, in modern society, that children should have time to be innocent and to enjoy their childhoods. However, in many areas around the world there are peoples and places that have no time for children. Children have to become adults quickly. I started thinking about this last night when I went to see the new film of Marie Antoinette. She was given away in marriage at age 14 and expected to produce an heir to the thrown of France within the following year. Granted, 14 is older than any of the children we experience in Ender's Game, but it proves the fact that the concept that children should remain innocent is a recent idea. While it is nice to think that we might have created a world in which our children and future generations might thrive, where they would not have to worry about working toward sustaining their families till a little later, this is not always the case.

I also do not think that war is the reason children have to grow up quickly. I think war makes growing up a sudden process, where a person becomes an adult or perishes from a lack of ability to survive. But for Ender and his friends, they become adults quickly without experiencing the harsh realities of war. While there is a general threat of attack from the Buggers, Ender grows up because he has a mind that is capable of understanding his situation in perspective to others. In the opening chapters, when Ender is surrounded by a group of bullies, Ender knows instinctively how to stop his opponents. This is a survival tactic, not someone who has lived through the devastation of war and been torn apart by it.

Children are only children because they are shielded away from how adults view their present situations. Responsibilities, even something as simple as chores, force children to grow up. This is why child geniuses exist amongst us. Because of their aptitude they are taught as an adult would be instructed and therefor learn extraordinarily quickly. If all children were forced into rigorous instruction at very young ages they too would likely come to have brilliant minds, if not quite as amazing as the prodigies. Age is not what defines children, it is responsibility and survivability that determine maturation into an adult.

...more groupthink

When I was on looking at comments, I saw that my post from before somehow got messed up and did not post about half of what I wrote. My fault for not looking to make sure earlier.

Anyway, I will recreate what I remember saying..
THe theme of groupthink versus individual flexibility to adapt to the situation is a salient theme in both works. Since this was written during the Cold War, the obvious parallel is that Communism will falter because the individual's abilities reign supreme over the collective group abilities. The communal nature of the enemies is similiar (although not identical) to the Borg, where knowledge was all collective and centralized. The ability to think independently and reason is part of what differentiates us from animals (although I realize that computers challenge the reasoning aspect of this).

However, my mom actually had an interesting interpretation of this. She interpreted it as a lesson about micro-management, and how an organization will run much more efficiently if individual employees are allowed the flexibility to make decisions themselves without having it approved by a chain of command. This relates to much of what Thomas Friedman says in "The World Is Flat". The old heirarchical structures of corporations are breaking down because in part, they are not as efficient or productive as a more streamlined, level organizational structure. I work for Homeland Security, and the heirarchy is just ridiculous--it is so hard to get anything done, especially if you're young. For Card to have seen the falability in something like this well ahead of his time is very acute.