Carl Schmitt: Friend and Enemy Distinction - Essay Example

? Friend/Enemy Distinction. Carl Schmitt Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts Outline Introduction 2. Political Theology and Friend/Enemy Distinction 3. Schmitt’s Remarks on War and Geopolitics 4. Conclusion Introduction Distinguishing an enemy from a friend may be regarded as the basic instinct of the human nature that is intended to accompany the self-preservation instinct. However, with the appearing of the Government Institute, the distinction of the enemy from a friend became the task of the State leaders.Carl Schmitt is regarded as the prominent jurist and the contemporary legislative system originator. As the author of the “Concept of the Political” as well as “Political Theology” works, he is regarded as the key theorist for defining the definition of an enemy within the frames of the political realism concept. 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. Hence, the most dreadful consequences are achieved by imposing the universalization of the utopist concepts of the homogenous humankind, and depriving nations of their historical and cultural differences. (Cristi, 1998) These considerations are regarded as the basic theoretical concepts for Schmitt’s “total war” and “limiting war”. The former is the consequence of the universal utopist ideology that denies the natural cultural, historical, and national differences of the peoples. Such a war is fraught with the extinction of the entire humankind. Extremist humanism is the direct path to such a war. (Schmitt, 1996) The war of limits is inevitable, since the differences among peoples and cultures are ineradicable. This type of war is regarded as a lesser evil, since only professional soldiers could be involved in it, and the military actions could be regulated by the certain rules. In general, the war of the limits can be regarded as the lesser evil, and theoretic acknowledgement of its inevitability preserves the nations from the total war. Therefore, considering such an angle of theorizing the conflict types, the approach towards enemy/friend distinction concept is based on the premise of the political being. Hence, Julien Freund, Schmitt’s successor, considered that the enemy/friend concept gives the existential dimension to the political sphere of any State, since presuming the theoretical war possibility, the choice between friend and enemy becomes of a vital importance. Furthermore, lawyers and politicians, who reason within the terms of “Enemy” and “Friend” with the clear meaning awareness of this choice, operate the very existential categories, and such an operation makes their decisions more real, responsible, and gravity, while all the humanistic and utopist abstractions are deprived of these features. Generally speaking, the friend-enemy concept is the political necessity, which is crucial for the existence of the politically mature and valid society, and this concept has to be accepted coldly, otherwise everyone will become an enemy, while no one will be a friend. This premise is righteously regarded as a political and historical imperative. Schmitt’s Remarks on War and Geopolitics Considering the political inevitability of the friend/enemy distinction concept, it should be stated that Schmitt paid special attention to the opportunity of the negative historical outcome in the case the unrealistic doctrines of the radical-humanists, universalists prevail. Since these doctrines have the “universal values” in the basis, this can lead to the creation of the mechanicistic utopia, while this can cause the total war. Therefore, the logic of the global relations totalitarianization on the strategic, military, and diplomatic levels is based on the following key moments. Starting from a certain historical point, from the French Revolution age, and from the moment of the US independence, the ultimate alienation of the historical, legislative, national and geopolitical norms can be observed. These norms, in their turn, provided the organic homogeneity and harmony on the Continent. Furthermore, the individual rights concept originated which extruded the concept of the people’s rights, and State’s rights, and can be regarded as an artificial and quantitative concept. Such a distinction of an individual, and fission of the people’s rights doctrine meant the dissolution of the law, and transforming it into the utopist egalitarian chimera, that contradicts the organic laws of the people, State, regimes, territories, and unions’ history. (Schmitt, 2005) Considering the general principles of the national law and sovereignty, the following statement should be taken into account: All law is “situational law”. The sovereign produces and guarantees the situation in its totality. He has the monopoly over this last decision. Therein resides the essence of the state’s sovereignty, which must be juristically defined correctly, not as the monopoly to coerce or to rule, but as a monopoly to decide. The exception reveals most clearly the essence of the state’s authority. The decision parts here from the legal norm, and authority proves that to produce law in need not be based on law. (Schmitt, 1996, p. 13) Hence, the Sovereign can be regarded as a guarantor of the legislative system within a state. Nevertheless, since the law is not split into the atomic structure of the “individual rights” concept, the total war is impossible, and, as a consequence, the image of an enemy is distinguished easily. Moreover, as the concept of the political is closely associated with the geopolitical image of the world (through the definition of the neutral domains), the general principle of the power is regarded as the necessary premise for the preservation of the power balance in the world, and avoiding the total war, inevitable for the democratic world concept. The organic imperial-federative principles were substituted with the artificial and opposing concepts of the Etat-Nation, and start of the total internationalism. Empires that could preserve the remains of the traditional organic structures started ruining under the effect of the internal and external factors. Considering the notes concerning the issues of friend/enemy distinction, the geopolitical aspects of the political theology should be reviewed. Therefore, Carl Schmitt has touched upon the geopolitical aspect of the social issues. The concept of the Big Space (Grossraum) is regarded as the key one. The essence of this concept lies in the bordering of the geographic regions, considering the multiplicity of the political self-esteem of the certain people and States, hence, the harmonic and non-contradictory generalization can be achieved within the Large Geopolitical Union. This consideration was based on Schmitt’s reasoning of the Monroe Doctrine, which presupposes the economic and strategic integration of the American States within the natural boundaries of the American continent. Since Eurasia is represented with the larger number of the States and cultures, Schmitt presumed that several large geopolitical formations would be the correct decision, while each formation should be regulated with the flexible super-governmental principle, analogous to the Jus Publicum Europeum, or the Holy Union, offered to Europe by the Russian Emperor Alexander I. In accordance with the researches by Carl Schmitt, the Grossraum, arranged into the flexible structure of the imperial-federal type, should compensate the multiplicity of the national, ethnic, and governmental expression of the will. Therefore, it will be regarded as the unprejudiced arbiter in the possible conflicts – “limited wars”. Therefore, the image of a friend or an enemy acquires the super-governmental nature. This can be explained by the Schmitt’s researches of the political formations on the continents, and appearing of the macro-formations, as well as further logic of the empire growth. Therefore, while the actual image of the possible enemy is closely associated with the political or economic interests, and based on the cultural, ethnic, or historical differences, the super-governmental formations, based on dictatorship, will be able to unite the people against the common enemy, while the geopolitical concepts become the key factors in the friend/enemy distinction process. The concepts, described in the “Political Theology” research are mainly associated with the human behavior and behavior control. However, this behavior is regulated through the system of motives and definitions: The political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. This provides a definition on the sense of a criterion and not as an exhaustive definition or one indicative of substantial content. As it is not derived from the other criteria, the antithesis of friend and enemy corresponds to the independent criteria of other antithesis: good and evil, beautiful and ugly, and so on. If the antithesis of good and evil is not identical with that of beautiful and ugly, and can not be reduced to the others, then the antithesis of friend and enemy must less be confused with or mistaken for the others. (Schmitt, 1996, p. 26) Therefore, considering the key concept of the friend/enemy thesis and antithesis system, the actual distinction can be found within the general aspects of an enemy’s image. Therefore, the enemy should not represent the evil, since the enemy can be an ally, as well, however, in accordance with the key distinction concept an enemy is just someone different and strange. Conclusion Considering the key principles of the XX century Machiavellistic considerations, generated by Carl Schmitt, it should be emphasized that the friend/enemy distinction concept is mainly associated with the territorial, cultural, historical, ethnic belonging of the friend or an enemy. Considering the distinction principles, Carl Schmitt emphasizes that humanistic and liberal concepts are not suitable for the clear distinction, since these are meant to declare friends and enemies on behalf of the entire humankind, while this, in its turn, can lead to the situation, when everyone is an enemy, and no one is a friend. On the other hand, super-governmental structures can unite several ethnic/historical/national groups, and define the precise enemy image, thus, avoiding the total war. Reference List Cristi, Renato. 1998 Carl Schmitt and Authoritarian Liberalism: Strong State, Free Economy. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales Press. Schmitt, Carl. 2005. Political Theology, Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, George Schwab (trans.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schmitt, Carl. 1996. The Concept of the Political. trans. George Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Read More