Write 8 pages with APA style on Analyse Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction. In fact, he is righteously considered as Niccolo Machiavelli of the present days for the absence of the sentimental moralizing, and humanistic rhetoric. Political Theology and Friend/Enemy Distinction Considering the bases of the political theology, originated by Carl Schmitt, it should be emphasized that in describing the legislative problems, the clear and realistic image of the political and social processes should be given in the first turn. Hence, utopist considerations, as well as a priori imperatives and dogmas should be abandoned. However, the distinction of the enemy and friend concepts should be started from the Schmitt’s studies of the critical situations in politics. Therefore, the key consideration, needed to realize the enemy/friend concept, could be found in the “The Concept of the Political” work (Schmitt, 1996). Hence, Schmitt emphasizes that the people can only exist only if it forms the independent political community, and only if it juxtaposes itself with the other political communities, thus, preserving its own understanding of the specificity. However, this viewpoint does not fit the humanistic demagogy, common for Marxist and liberal-democratic concepts, the world history shows that this is the actual image of the political sphere, though, utopist, post-enlightenment consciousness of most politicians and political researches can not realize it. In reality, the enemy-friend opposition exists in any political regimes and within any peoples. Otherwise, the nations and States would not be able to preserve their own image. In general, this concept can be supported by the following premise: The equation state = politics becomes erroneous and deceptive as exactly the moment when state and society penetrate each other. What had been up to that point affairs of state become thereby social matters, and, vice versa, what had been purely social matters become affairs of state – as must necessarily occur in a democratically organized unit. Heretofore ostensibly neutral domains – religion, culture, education, the economy – then cease to be neutral in the sense that they do not pertain to state and to politics. (Schmitt, 1996, p. 22) Considering the split of the neutral domains from the state and politics looks as unnatural, and even artificial, Schmitt emphasizes that the identity of the state and nation is defined through the depoliticalization. Therefore, these neutral domains, being the anti thesis of the political, define the key frame for the national identity, and further friend/enemy distinction. Therefore, by analyzing the assertion of the anti-humanistic nature of such a distinction of the friends and enemies, Carl Schmitt emphasizes that in case one dares to speak on behalf on the whole humankind and abstract humanity, this means that one claims to deprive one’s possible opponents of the human features, and placing these opponents beyond the frames of humanity and law. (Schmitt, 1996) In the light of this statement, such an assertion means that defining peace and the frames of the humanistic political measures can be regarded as a claim for the most dreadful war.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *